Screw 'em if they hate us
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 09:13
VIEWED: 19860
PAGE 4 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, can you even envision for a moment a LITTLE bit of air between "the United States" and "capitalism"? Or are they synonymous in your mind?
In at least one respect they are synonymous. You never have anything good to say about either.
I can only go on what I see here in RWED, but all I see from you is someone who spouts unremitting vitriol against the US, and at anyone who does not agree with 100% of your opinions about it. You don't look for compromise or solutions, don't consider that anyone else can have a valid point of view that differs from yours, and go out of your way to antagonise any one who disagrees with you.
If I've missed some thread where you say "well, I actually like this particular thing about the people or government of the US." please point it out to me.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, you falsely assume that A reporters personal political opinion has some bearing on what they can report, when clearly the evidence, that what the news outlets actually report and how they do so refutes that claim. It's just plain silly, you're assertion is essentially that the secretary on the front desk has more bearing on company policy and output than the CEO. The guy at the top makes the policy, the guy at the top decides what leaves his newsroom, not the cogs in the machine. If the head of the organisation is a Republican, and their interests are best served by Republicans, they're going to support Republicans. The organisations policy will be to support Republicans. The individual Journalists could politically support anyone they like, but if they're reporting doesn't tow the line of the organisations policy, it won't be reported. That's what editors are for. It's just plain silly to suggest that journalists have more power than editors.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You continue to falsly assume that, because some one owns a radio or t.v. network, and they might be conservative, they MUST dictate how the news gets reported. CLEARLY, the evidence does not support that claim.
More over, you're alluding to evidence that clearly shows this or that, but you've not provided any. You've shown that Journalists tend to lean left, fair enough, but your assumption that they're reporting and that of the media leans left is still unproven. You've proven the first part of your theory, but not the progression, link nor outcome, that's all left up to your assumption. On the other hand I've given numerous examples before now where the US media demonstrably swings to support of Republicans. You're hung up on what the journalists think, but it proves nothing, you need to demonstrate where the media, not individual journalist, actually leans left. You haven't done that.
Quote:
When, in late July, a study was released suggesting that George W. Bush was getting more positive presidential election coverage than Al Gore, the Media Research Center wasted no time in bringing out the long knives.
The study was conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Committee for Concerned Journalists ("funded by the liberal Pew Charitable Trusts," MRC wants you to know) and was based on one sample week each month over five months in early 2000, focused on media coverage of specific character-related "themes" of the Bush and Gore campaign. It concluded that coverage of Gore tended to focus on negative themes, while coverage of Bush tended to focus on positive themes.
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2000/votestudy.html
Quote:
The findings include:
# On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
# Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.
# The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.
# Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447
Right-Wing Media Groups Provide Ammo for "Liberal Media" Claims
http://www.fair.org/extra/9807/myth-makers.html
Quote:Well, it's funny I have to tell you this, but over the last century the Executive Branch of the United States government has grown to wield much more power than the founding fathers ever intended, and certainly more than the House of Representatives that it's supposed to be on equal footi
Well, I'll give you half credit on this one. True, the GOP has sat in the Oval Office much more than the Democrats. But as for the House of Representatives ?? Another lesson begins.....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I often go to the Scieceagogo web site where there are people who are claiming that we are evil for wanting to turn our crops into fuel rather than to feed the poor and starving nations of the world, and my arguments to this are that it is the poor and starving nations which are evil for making more babies then they can feed, that simply because we have the ability to grow food enough to feed the poor and starving nations does not in any way obligate us to do so, and hat the Farmers in the United States have the right to do what ever they please with their crops. The Farmer’s first responsibility after God is to their families, and just because we fulfill a Christian sense of charity by giving the people of these poor and starving nations food does not give others the right to call us evil and greedy when ever that food does not get delivered. That goes doubly when it is the poor and starving nations of the world who refuse the boatloads of food we send them because the food was genetically altered and they do not wish to contaminate themselves or their land.
http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You're hung up on what the journalists think, but it proves nothing, you need to demonstrate where the media, not individual journalist, actually leans left. You haven't done that.
Now I have. Enjoy
While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.
Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.
Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.
Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.
"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.
"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."
The fourth most centrist outle
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not true. IMHO, everything that's seriously wrong with the United States can be traced back to corporatism. I've had lots of good things to say about our Constitution, separation of church and state, ability to self-correct etc. Unlike some of our Libertarian brethren I even envision a positive role for elected government. But even tho they want to do away with our government altogether- which is bordering on sedition- I don't see you fretting about them!
In at least one respect they are synonymous. You never have anything good to say about either.
Must be because your real allegiance is to wealth, not democracy.
Quote:Awww.... you're just mad because I once said you were as stupid as Rapo because, for once, you actually were. But that's OK, I forgive you!
I can only go on what I see here in RWED, but all I see from you is someone who spouts unremitting vitriol against the US, and at anyone who does not agree with 100% of your opinions about it.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Cool, now we have something to work with. This is, in fact an opinion piece, with no links as I can see to the actual underlying study itself, but lets ignore that for the moment to focus on what it says about the study. This ADA scale seems a singularly ineffective match to media outlets, it's one thing to judge law makers by the way they vote, but quite another to judge media outlets on a subjective scale, based on criteria that seem fairly arbitrary. The criteria, i.e. who they cite seems faulty at best, since it makes no allowances for actual content.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Now I have. Enjoy
...
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-666
4.aspx?RelNum=6664
The ADA scale, when used for congressmen, analyses they're conclusions through they're voting record. Here they've applied it to analyse supporting citations, not the conclusions that are drawn. That is, if the outlet cited only left wing sources, but always reached right wing conclusions, this method would define it as left-wing. I question the validity of that methodology.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor: I haven't read the paper, but I immediately have three fundamental question about it
1) Who decides whether a think tank is left, middle of the road, or centrist? My definitions could be very different from the authors', so what are their criteria? Seat of the pants? since they use those assumptions to set the mathematical "boundaries" for the study it's important what those are.
2) In addition, since only successful and moneyed foundations are actually likely to be quoted in the news, and most of these foundation get their money from corporations, its unlikely that they represent the real range of public opinion which is likely to be much broader.
I think it would have been far more accurate to look at non-profits (NGOs) and churches which derive their income from individual donations (people voting with their hard-earned money), and see how many times those organizations are cited in the news! The NRDC versus The Assemblies of God smackdown!
3) Why do the authors assume that the Senate's range of opinion represents the US population's? Senate membership is highly filtered by money, so it's unlikely that you'll find the endpoints on either end of ANY spectrum in the Senate. At best, I think the Senate (just like the think tanks) represent a muffled version of our diverse viewpoints.
When I read the paper, perhaps I'll have more questions.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
IMHO, everything that's seriously wrong with the United States can be traced back to corporatism.
So you didn't like the New Deal?
But you didn't mention corporatism in your response to 6ix, unless you consider corporatism and monopolism synonymous, in which case I guess we need a SignyM dictionary. Your response targets the US.
"They're jealous of our long work hours, our high crime rate, our homelessness, our boob of a President, our monopolism, our lack of health-care. And what they're REALLY jealous of is our system of government, which is freely selected by a corrupted and fraudulent voting system."
Quote:
I've had lots of good things to say about our Constitution, separation of church and state, ability to self-correct etc.
I can't find them. Cites please.
Quote:
Unlike some of our Libertarian brethren I even envision a positive role for elected government.
you mean "...our system of government, which is freely selected by a corrupted and fraudulent voting system."? And BTW, even the most ardent libertarian here knows that we're not going to get rid of government alltogether. most would be happy just reducing its size and power.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Cool, now we have something to work with. This is, in fact an opinion piece, with no links as I can see to the actual underlying study itself...
Here it is.
http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc
Edit to add: ...and their defense against a critical review.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001301.html
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No time to fully respond to the questions you posed ( going to a FIREFLY meet up ) but I've always noticed how, when a think tank is mentioned in the media, it's always referred to as a "conservative " think tank, if its conservative, but almost never are Liberal think tanks referred in like manner.
Just my 2 cents.
As you were.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME