81artmonk Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 97% of stories about the Raiders are negative13% of stories about the Titans are negative "Balanced" doesn't equal reality. I guess we could use that same arguement about McCain and his campaign talking about Ayers and Acorn, when people thought he was beating a dead horse. balanced doesn't equal reality right?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I probably agree with you, AMF. It sounds like that reporter (was it the same guy and one interview?) let his bias control his interview somewhat. I think both should be called out if both are guilty for the same issue. Burgold, they was separate interviews with tow different reporters from All Thing Considered. I was stuck in traffic and couldn't believe the opening the Obama official had made -- then actually laughed out load when the reporter let it slide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 So, anyone know what these %'s looked like in 2004 or 2000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 So, anyone know what these %'s looked like in 2004 or 2000? great question!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 That comment shows you posted based on your feelings and not on the data. With all due respect, that comment shows that you didn't read my comment closely enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 97% of stories about the Raiders are negative13% of stories about the Titans are negative "Balanced" doesn't equal reality. What an excellent post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Numbers are numbers and like them or not they are what they are. So, to take your argument to an absurd and offensive extreme... In WWII, there should have been an equal number of anti-Axis and pro-Axis news stories? Anything else would show bias? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Burgold, they was separate interviews with tow different reporters from All Thing Considered. I was stuck in traffic and couldn't believe the opening the Obama official had made -- then actually laughed out load when the reporter let it slide. Gotcha. It'd be much worse if it were the same interview (although, I would have wondered if a producer was pointing at the clock forcing a quicker wrap up). I know a couple of people from All Things Considered, although not very well. It's possible in the flow of the conversation it did not even occur to him or her and that probably does speak to bias. However, if you are going to criticize along one road, you really ought to call the other out when they do similar things. In their defense, there have been times after an interview when listening back at the tape that I became very mad at myself because I missed an obvious follow-up. Luckily, my work is canned so I can often correct afterwards. You probably write too as an editor, but even if you don't... it's sort of like that moment when you review an argument at the end of the day and you realize all the great things you should have said. I remember at least one terrible miss that happened because they gave me the opening while I was scanning my notes on where to go next and it didn't even register what they said. Still, it sounds like a bad gaffe on their part and may very well be due to innocent or malign bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 What an excellent post. Except that it doesn't at all explain the disparity between outlets. Aren't they all covering the same news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Give it up. The left wing minions here (and everywhere really) already know that the media is biased. But they wont, and cant, admit it. Otherwise their house of cards starts to fall. I have already noted that you often allow for reality to enter your comments. It's (just) one reason I like you. The times you choose not to are your deliberate choice, and on that note I do see a lot of lefties in here and in the real world (:Dx2) aknowledge a more liberal bias in much of the mainstream media. I think the degree of bias, and who they're arguing with at any given moment affects the degree of their admission. I think it's obvious where biases lay. I look for what quality reporting and useful information is provided in addtion to the bias, and just how severe the degree of the bias distorts things and departs from a well-rounded perspective. MSNBC was way to the left, Fox to the right, though Fox had more monets of the "good stuff" I mention then MSNBC. Now, and certainly not scientifcally, I find CBS more left, and ABC sort of confused. PBS leans left, but has a lot of that "good stuff" too and will cover the "opposite" POV frequently, as will even the main big three networks at different times. I won't even get into the web or magazines for this discussion. I guess, left bias and all, it's still CNN (Just my opinion) that I think does the best overall job of everything news-wise, but I find it most useful to play it and Fox off of each other as well as pursuing many other sources. Overall, no question about the left lean to me. I don't find it a serious problem to our poltical election process, however. I actually think it's almost a faux issue the way it's over-dramatized and beat to death to serve agendas. The press has never been neutral since Guttenberg and used to be MUCH more obviously biased. It's something that is up to the individual to account for with critical thinking and working at gathering information from a variety of sources (if cognitively capable and motivationally inclided), as well as (like with me) making your own judgments just from direct observation of the players. I derive a great deal of direction in forming my conclusions from simply watching and listenting to how people interact and behave (audible and visual behaviors) in a variety of circumstances and/or on a variety of topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Except that it doesn't at all explain the disparity between outlets. Aren't they all covering the same news? Editorial bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Editorial bias. Impossible. There is no bias in the media, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helptheSKINS Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Give it up. The left wing minions here (and everywhere really) already know that the media is biased. But they wont, and cant, admit it. Otherwise their house of cards starts to fall. What's funny is so many here are still arguing the obvious fact. Sadly, it's made an impact on the election. The media has become a joke in this country. I love that Fox was the only one fair and balanced. I watch the channel for that exact reason yet many of the lefties complain that one channel is not in the tank for the left. I'm a conservative but it's nice to hear views from an equal amount of the left and right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Impossible. There is no bias in the media, apparently. This is a true statement. There is no singular bias in the media. However, individual members of the media are biased and there are a few outlets which are biased as well, but there's no giant groupthink going on, no international media conspirasy... no MSM (although there is such a thing as MSG) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 That comment shows you posted based on your feelings and not on the data. Techboy is famous for being overly emotional and having little connection to rational debate and and supporting his reasoning with proper use of valid soruces or applying any form of logic to his interactions in topical discussion. Much as I struggle with the art of wry and meeting a Sisyphean challenge to provide text-based communication at an intellectual level beyond the cognitive development of a small jade plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Nice thread. About time the liberal bias in the media get exposed. But does this mean anything going to change. Problaby not. In fact its going to get worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 So, to take your argument to an absurd and offensive extreme...In WWII, there should have been an equal number of anti-Axis and pro-Axis news stories? Anything else would show bias? In theory yes. But that's a ridiculous notion. Like I said before, news agencies aren't suppose to be biased anyway, they are to report the news and instead they are an op-ed hour show. And since that is the case, than yes they should be balanced some what with regard to covering the candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 Techboy is famous for being overly emotional and having little connection to rational debate and and supporting his reasoning with proper use of valid soruces or applying any form of logic to his interactions in topical discussion.Much as I struggle with the art of wry and meeting a Sisyphean challenge to provide text-based communication at an intellectual level beyond the cognitive development of a small jade plant. You my friend, just short circuited my brain with that post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 97% of stories about the Raiders are negative13% of stories about the Titans are negative "Balanced" doesn't equal reality. Um, nationwide it's 49-43 right now. That would roughly equate to a 5-3 team vs. a 4-4 team. Not a 7-0 team vs. a 2-5 team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 In theory yes. But that's a ridiculous notion. Like I said before, news agencies aren't suppose to be biased anyway, they are to report the news and instead they are an op-ed hour show. And since that is the case, than yes they should be balanced some what with regard to covering the candidates. Somewhat. What if one campaign screws up more than the other one does. Then what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Um, nationwide it's 49-43 right now. That would roughly equate to a 5-3 team vs. a 4-4 team. Not a 7-0 team vs. a 2-5 team. Sure. But the point is the same. The fact that more negative stories are written about one side may be only because objectively there are more negative things to write about one side than the other. More outrageous claims, more gaffes, more questionable VP choices, more bad economic news to overcome, whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Truth should be sacrificed on the alter of fairness. LOL the mainstream media wouldn't report the truth if it hurt their side at all. History is repeat with examples of this. Fairness? You must be high if you think the MM is fair and just. Thew MM is unabashedly leftist and I have no problem with that if that's where they want to be for whatever reason. Just admit it and quit pretending to be something that you are not. But to continue to pretend & suggest that they are "objective" when covering politics is, well pretty much absurd. I think any reasonable person would agree that the MM is decidedly and unapologetically leftist. They've been so for decades. It's not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Truth should be sacrificed on the alter of fairness. LOL the mainstream media wouldn't report the truth if it hurt their side at all. History is repeat with examples of this. Thew MM is unabashedly leftist and I have no problem with that if that's where they want to be for whatever reason but to pretend and suggest that they are "objective" when covering politics is, well pretty much absurd. I think any reasonable person would agree that the MM is decidedly and unapologetically leftist. They've been so for decades. It's not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Sure. But the point is the same.The fact that more negative stories are written about one side may be only because objectively there are more negative things to write about one side than the other. More outrageous claims, more gaffes, more questionable VP choices, more bad economic news to overcome, whatever. I think that any reasonable person would grant that a perfectly neutral media outlet would not necessarily be exactly even positive/negative, but rather the split would be based on the actual number of positive and negative events. Of course, that's in a perfect world where the outlet is totally unbiased (impossible) and every story is covered (equally impossible). Would you care, then, to address the wild disparity between the various outlets that are reporting precisely the same set of events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 They can't help that the McCain campaign keeps doing negative things to report on The campaign screws up the most is going to have more negative coverage, thats simple math. Ort they only report what negative things they want to if Obama is shown in a more positive light then the media will have done its job and elected him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.