An excellent example of liberal media bias.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
From Dukes Website:
...[anti-semitic claptrap]...
Now, Cyrus are you sure you dont like David Duke a little more than you initially thought?? Bc it seems like you 2 might have alot of commonly held values/beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

You arguments are getting more devastating by the day, Zaxx. Keep up the good work.

[zaxx19]

What arguement?

[Felix_Nietsche]

".....if there are whole websites devoted to it, it's gotta be true!!!!!! "
************************************************** ***
Sarcasm eh.....You have implied that these cites are not credible.
So are you disputing the accuracy of these websites which documents Dan Rather's bias? If so here is one of the websites>

http://www.ratherbiased.com/compare.htm

I suspect you rather make saracstic comments rather than back up your arguments with supporting facts and supporting examples.... Any chimp can make a post stating their opinions without supporting facts and supporting examples... Feel free to point out where they have unfairly documented Dan Rathers reporting... I won't hold my breath.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
So are you disputing the accuracy of these websites which documents Dan Rather's bias? If so here is one of the websites>

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not disputing the accuracy at all. I'm only claiming that merely because some quantity of websites (be they numerous or few) exist asserting that Dan Rather is biased is NOT sufficient evidence! Enough red herrings. I never disputed their accuracy; I'm only disputing the notion the because websites exist on a certain subject has little to do with their veracity.

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect you rather make saracstic comments rather than back up your arguments with supporting facts and supporting examples

[/ QUOTE ]

My argument is only that you made poor arguments, not that Dan Rather/the media isn't liberal. Sometimes I would rather use sarcasm to make my point, sometime I wouldn't.

[ QUOTE ]
.... Any chimp can make a post stating their opinions without supporting facts and supporting examples...

[/ QUOTE ]

The 'any chimp' part is just boring ad hominem. My opinion is simply that you made two arguments which were particularly ridiculous:
1) The 'words' debate. Some conservative media and politicians have been as willing to use the word nuclear option as liberal media/politicians. It's false to suggest otherwise. Please see the links I provided in the previous post.
2) The idea that 'because whole websites' are devoted to something proves, by the very fact that they EXIST, its assertions are true. This idea is easily rejectable. IMO, I agree with the websites! Rather was likely a liberal, and it showed in his reporting. But the fact that 'whole websites are devoted' to proving Rather is biased (whether or not you and I agree) is NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE! These claims deserve further investigation.

[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to point out where they have unfairly documented Dan Rathers reporting... I won't hold my breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I claim Dan Rather wasn't biased? I merely criticized your manner for justifying why you believe the media is liberal; I'm NOT claiming the mainstream media ISN'T liberal, only that your reasoning is poor. ENOUGH RED HERRINGS!

[Felix_Nietsche]

"I'm not disputing the accuracy at all. I'm only claiming that merely because some quantity of websites (be they numerous or few) exist asserting that Dan Rather is biased is NOT sufficient evidence!"
************************************************** *****
Then say so....sarcasm does not communicate this idea.
If your not disputing the accuracy of these websites which point out Rather's bias....then WHY EVEN COMMENT? Are you the 'Proper Argument Police'? If so please state your credentials which qualifies you for this position.
Most people on the forum focus on the IDEA FIRST....*THEN* they attack the supporting arguments (if poster gave any supporting evidence which rare on this forum). To ignore whether you think the idea is True/or Untrue and focus on other aspects of the post is the EPITOME of chasing 'red herrings'.


Did I claim Dan Rather wasn't biased?
************************************************** *****
You implied that he wasn't biased with your sarcasm...
I would bet most people reading your reply assumed the same thing.


"I merely criticized your manner for justifying why you believe the media is liberal; I'm NOT claiming the mainstream media ISN'T liberal, only that your reasoning is poor."
************************************************** ****
If you think the media is biased THEN SAY SO.
If you think it is not, THEN SAY SO.
And back it up with supporting facts and/or examples... Show us how a smart guy like you backs up his arguments...
In the politcal forum people argue IDEAS. Most Devil's Advocates would argue with a rock if they could.
If you want to be the forums OFFICIAL Devil's Advocate, then the job is yours.... just don't be surprised if people just see you as a major pain-in-the-***.

I look forward to your future posts showing us mere mortals how to make a proper argument...

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Time devoted to a story.
E.g. The media spent FIVE YEARS trying to nail Bush about his national guard service. It finally climaxed with the Dan Rather fake memos. While the coverage for the oil-for-food lasted maybe a week.

[/ QUOTE ]

by your reasoning, was the medis biased in favor of the republicans during the Clinton presidency? In both cases, IMO, they were after the one thing that REALLY drives news orginizations.... PROFITS.

I'm not saying thet the 'mainstream liberal news bias' is a total myth, there's some truth to it, but not at the level thet conservitives like to insinuate it is. you guys come off sounding like conspiricy theroy type nuts when you clain that the majority of the mainstream news media outlets are out to get the republican party and conservatives in general.

In fact, the leading news outlets these days may have a CONSERVATIVE bias, ABC, FOX, etc...


you bring up a good point about word choice, though- i studed journalism, and the myth of objectivity in reporting is clearly exposed when one considers that the very nouns and adjectives that a reporter chooses to use, conciously or not, reveal their bias.

"insurgents" vs "rebels" vs "freedom fighters"
"president bush 'speedily' did blah, blah..." vs "hastily" vs "aggressivly"

and so on and so forth.


I place the blame for such bias squarely on the veiwing public. it is the responsibility of the veiwer to sift through all this free content that we're getting and determine for ourselves what most closely approximates the truth.

personally, i watch both FOX and CNN, the BBC, i read the NYT and the WSJ ad the AP wire and NPR. Real Time and even a little Rush now and then

and, IMO, the most TRULY unbiased news source out there right now is the Christian Science Monitor- don't get hung up on the name, it is a FANTASTIC newspsper.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If your not disputing the accuracy of these websites which point out Rather's bias....then WHY EVEN COMMENT?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because faulty logic needs to be exposed for what it is.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you the 'Proper Argument Police'? If so please state your credentials which qualifies you for this position.

[/ QUOTE ]

If referring to me as the 'Proper Argument Police' means that I believe justifications matter in arguments and not just conclusion, then sure, give me a badge, some handcuffs and a squad car.

I believe anyone is qualified to recognize disingenuous arguments (only Democrats/liberal politicians and media use the phrase 'nuclear options') or fallacies (claiming that merely because websites exist constitutes legitimate proof). Arguments matter, not just conclusions.

[ QUOTE ]
Most people on the forum focus on the IDEA FIRST

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not interested in how most people behave when posting. Should I call you the 'Forum Posting Etiquette Police'?

[ QUOTE ]
To ignore whether you think the idea is True/or Untrue and focus on other aspects of the post is the EPITOME of chasing 'red herrings'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm allowed to focus on whatever aspects of the post that I choose to. You claimed only Dem./liberal media use the phrase 'nuclear option.' It's clearly not true. I stuck to the point. No red herring there.

You submitted that because 'whole websites exist' which claim Rather is a liberal, that constitutes conclusive proof. It doesn't. I stuck to the topic at hand. No red herring here either.

[ QUOTE ]
You implied that he wasn't biased with your sarcasm...

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
I would bet most people reading your reply assumed the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then they made a mistake too. My sarcasm was only meant to mock faulty logic; it did not make claims (or even imply claims) about my opinion of Dan Rather. If people misunderstood this, then they should assume less.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think the media is biased THEN SAY SO.
If you think it is not, THEN SAY SO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I under an obligation to do this? I don't think I am.

If people are dying of curiosity as to what my opinion is, I think the debate over media bias is framed poorly. Questions like 'are the media bias?' fail to discriminate between the thousands (millions?) of media sources which exist! Is the NYT biased? Is the WSJ biased? Fox News? CBS? TheDrudgeReport? DemocraticUnderground? CSPAN? The AP? Routers? All of these news sources deserve their own scrutiny. To make sweeping generalizations about the media being 'liberal' or 'conservative' is foolishness.

I feel as if I've read far too many 'gotcha' posts about media bias; someone posts some small tidbit of information from some small corner of the media universe, and it's supposed to stand as conclusive proof about biases and agendas on behalf of the entire media.

Let's segregate one portion of the media; the New York Times. Are the political reporters as biased as the business reporters? The education reporters? The science reporters? Certainly we could leave room for degrees of bias among individual reporters/columnists. Is Adam Clymer as biased as Carl Hulse? What about their corporate owners? Do they have biases and agendas?

Imagine the time and effort it would take to examine every facet of the New York Times editorial decisions, story choices, corporate strategy, etc. Thousands of man hours would be needed to carefully scruitnize the thousands of editions of NYT which have been printed in just the last 20 years. Imagine if we expanded our media investigation to include just daily newspapers. Does the New York Times coordinate their agendas with the Los Angeles Times? Does the Wall Street Journal share the same biases as the Washington Post? Imagine if we included in our investigation the national cable news networks, the Internet (newsites, weblogs, message boards), daily newspapers, local and network television news coverage, etc.

What's my point? This is a very complicated discussion that is treated with very little depth or serious inquiry. And perhaps well it shouldn't! Imagine if we could perform a serious investigation about bias in certain media sources. Imagine, then, it was conclusively proven that systemic, widespread media bias exists. Where would it get us? Well, we live in a pluralistic society with free markets and free speech. The government can’t regulate the media. The conclusion would invariably be caveat emptor, which is what everyone who claims the media is biased is essentially suggesting now anyway! With the plethora of media sources which exist, people of every political persuasion can go to whichever news source they feel most comfortable with; the debate over media bias is an elitist one. Anyone who wants to fight the media bias battle is claiming something along the lines of this: "I can easily recognize the bias of News Source XYZ; but the uneducated, ignorant masses who accept News Source XYZ as gospel are really having the wool pulled over their eyes! If they only knew what I knew, then we would get somewhere."

The days of a media controlled by Cronkite and a few localized newspapers are dead; let's let the media bias debate die with it.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to be the forums OFFICIAL Devil's Advocate, then the job is yours

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it pay well? Can I talk it over with my family first? Leaving the Proper Argument Police to become Head Devil’s Advocate is a big career move and shouldn't be taken lightly.

[ QUOTE ]
.... just don't be surprised if people just see you as a major pain-in-the-***.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heaven forbid.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"I'm not saying thet the 'mainstream liberal news bias' is a total myth, there's some truth to it, but not at the level thet conservitives like to insinuate it is."
************************************************** ***
I basically agree. The bias is more subtle.
E.g. When Clinton issued an executive order to reverse a small abortion related issue that Reagan signed. Rather refered to this as Clinton fulfilling a campaign promise. When Bush43 reversed that decision, Rather referred to the incident as Bush appeasing his right-wing base. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]


"In both cases, IMO, they were after the one thing that REALLY drives news orginizations.... PROFITS."
**************************************************
I partially disagree here. At least at CBS, Dan rather was a strong proponent that the news divsions should NOT be held to the same P/L(profit/loss) standards as the other divisions... His position was in effect that the news division performed a valuble public service and profits/losses should not used to evaluated their division.


"In fact, the leading news outlets these days may have a CONSERVATIVE bias, ABC, FOX, etc..."
************************************************** ****
I would agree that Fox has a slight conservative bias. ABC conservative!!?? Peter Jennings is NOT conservative and he has shown a liberal bias in the past... One nice thing that this generation has today is the Big Media monopoly of ABC, CBS, and NBC has been broken by the internet, Fox News, and talk radio. In the past if I wanted to listen to the news I had to suffer with biases that I disagreed with....no more. I just change the channel. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Some may disagree with me on this but since Fox news and the internet took off, ABC, NBC, and CBS SEEMED to have shifted from left-leaning to now slightly left-of-center. The news on the big three still irritates me with their bias from time-to-time but not NEARLY as much as 10 years ago...
By the way, the audience size of Fox is no where near the size of CBS, NBC, or ABC....


"insurgents" vs "rebels" vs "freedom fighters"
"president bush 'speedily' did blah, blah..." vs "hastily" vs "aggressivly"
**************************************************
Good examples....


"IMO, the most TRULY unbiased news source out there right now is the Christian Science Monitor- don't get hung up on the name, it is a FANTASTIC newspsper."
************************************************** *
I haven't read that paper in a LONG time. I'll look it up gain next time I go to the library..


Very good post.....keep it up.

[bholdr]

"One nice thing that this generation has today is the Big Media monopoly of ABC, CBS, and NBC has been broken by the internet, Fox News, and talk radio."

...ABC & disney own a whole bunch of conservative talk outlets, including Rush. their prime time news programming is more than offset by their conservative endevours.

remember F-9-11- the whole contraversy about disney not wanting to release it because of it's political content? this from the company that produces EIB...

"By the way, the audience size of Fox is no where near the size of CBS, NBC, or ABC...."

am i the only one that's suprised that FOX hasn't yet started to show their news programming on their network broadcast outlets? one would think there's money to be made there...

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]

am i the only one that's suprised that FOX hasn't yet started to show their news programming on their network broadcast outlets? one would think there's money to be made there...

[/ QUOTE ]

They tried this a few years back, sort of a news magazine show featuring O'Reilly, Greta & a few others. Didn't last. FOX channel viewers would rather be watching Temptation Island.