60 minutes bias example

[Grim17]

First off I have to say I am amazed that the libs in here attack grim even after he disagrees with my assessment of the 60 minute piece, there is just no pleasing you guys.

Telling... Isn't it?

I have a different take than Grim though, I saw the story as intentionally leaving out any mention of Dem's being involved in this scandal as typical pre election brainwashing of the masses who don't really pay attention to the news. If you were Suzy home maker and sat down after a hard day raising kids to try and inform yourself you would have come away misinformed not informed.She would have come away shaking her head saying, gosh those darn Republicans are such crooks, I notice no democrats were involved in this. This is exactly the way the lib media works, highlight anything that makes reps look bad while glossing over or ignoring anything that makes Dem's look bad. So Grim, I respectfully disagree with you, I think this is a perfect example of liberal brainwashing tactics. You saw the 60 minute story through highly informed eyes, put yourself in Suzy's shoes a minute, think like her and you may yet agree with me.

I agree that the story left the impression that the scandal, as well as the underlying political corruption, involved only republican representatives. That's why I think CBS should have at least mentioned somewhere in the story that Abramoff had corrupt dealings with lawmakers and staffs from both partys, so the public didn't get the wrong impression with an election just a few months away.

I just didn't see it as being a blatant a case of liberal bias, because CBS didn't show that condescension toward republicans that I'm so used to seeing, and the fact that the main players in the scandal and criminal proceedings were republicans... Not democrats.

Based on those reasons, I'm giving CBS the benefit of the doubt that not mentioning that both partys were involved in the corruption, was a simple oversight that wasn't intentional, nor the conscience or unconscience result of their political bias... But who knows, I could be wrong.

 

[notquiteright]

It is pretty simple by the responses. Most see the piece as concentrating on who 'owns' Congress, rich folks with powerful lobbyists. The people discussed/ interviewed went to prison. Partisan right wing wants those who were not convicted to be mentioned along with those who were. The usual suspects carry on how unfair it is to not try and paint both sides with the same convicted brush. Most everyone else disagrees.

I saw the piece as nothing has changed since the Abramoff scandal. A select few can't get past partisan hackery howling and fault finding. They miss the forest for the fleas... should be more careful where they lay, all that scratching ruins your concentration on the subject at hand...

 

[jet57]

What facts prove me wrong? I stated no mention of dem involvement was ever mentioned in the story and I gave examples of democrat involvement in the scandal. What are your facts that prove me wrong?

Because Dems weren't mentioned does not mean there was a bias to the story. The only two Republicans mentioned are convicted felons. Morover, as we delve into the story we find that Republicans dominated it. Those are facts that overshadow your "wish". Thus far there is only one Democrat who reveived a "gift". It's so lopsided that it really does just prove you wrong.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Telling... Isn't it?



I agree that the story left the impression that the scandal, as well as the underlying political corruption, involved only republican representatives. That's why I think CBS should have at least mentioned somewhere in the story that Abramoff had corrupt dealings with lawmakers and staffs from both partys, so the public didn't get the wrong impression with an election just a few months away.

I just didn't see it as being a blatant a case of liberal bias, because CBS didn't show that condescension toward republicans that I'm so used to seeing, and the fact that the main players in the scandal and criminal proceedings were republicans... Not democrats.

Based on those reasons, I'm giving CBS the benefit of the doubt that not mentioning that both partys were involved in the corruption, was a simple oversight that wasn't intentional, nor the conscience or unconscience result of their political bias... But who knows, I could be wrong.

Disagreeing with you reminds me of a thread I started once where I said when I disagree with cons I get a reasoned thoughtful response whereas when I disagree with libs I get insults in return, unfortunately that thread lasted about 10 minutes until a lib mod removed it in a rage.:lol:

I think I am going to coin a term for you Grim, "battered conservative syndrome". You are so used to the media being so biased that when they are less biased than usual in a story you give them a pass and say, in the scheme of things it wasn't all that bad. It is much like battered wife syndrome where a woman is so used to getting horribly beat up that one day when her husband walks by and shoves her against the fridge then quietly walks away, she smiles and says to herself "in the scheme of things that wasn't abusive at all, no black eye, no broken ribs, all is good".

 

[Grim17]

I don't think there is anything to engage in.

Except for applauding and showing your approval for unprovoked personal attacks posted by others.

But you did throw in your biased rhetoric...

And what rhetoric would that be?

As I've told you before, this is one area you struggle in. You've done a good elsewhere, which I've commented on. But not here. Not with the media.

Struggle? Hardly my friend.

I understood several years ago that a persons appraisal or agreement with the presentation of a news story, is not only totally irrelevant to the question of political bias, but unless they acknowledge that appraisal and learn how to take it completely out of the equation, their judgment on the subject can never be trusted. As for myself, I put some time and effort into learning how to set aside my own personal opinions and biases when evaluating stories in the news media, and I'll pit my ability to analyze and accurately detect political bias in the main stream media, against anyone, any time.

In my view, political bias of any kind in the main stream news media is a crime against the citizens of the United States. Put simply it's large scale, agenda driven, public brainwashing that's being done by a small, elite group of individuals within the American news media, and it's time to put an end to it. Over the last several decades the main stream news media has been slowly and very effectively manipulating opinions, what people think, and how they feel about a variety of different issues and people, that all stems from the political bias they've incorporate into the news.

It's dishonest, it's wrong, and it's a huge disservice to the American public... I know you and most liberals don't give a damn about liberal media bias, because that bias supports your political ideology.... As for me, I don't put politics and ideological beliefs ahead of doing what's right, so I do give a damn about the political bias in the American news media and want to see it eliminated.

 

[Grim17]

Disagreeing with you reminds me of a thread I started once where I said when I disagree with cons I get a reasoned thoughtful response whereas when I disagree with libs I get insults in return, unfortunately that thread lasted about 10 minutes until a lib mod removed it in a rage.:lol:

I repeat... Telling, isn't it?

I think I am going to coin a term for you Grim, "battered conservative syndrome". You are so used to the media being so biased that when they are less biased than usual in a story you give them a pass and say, in the scheme of things it wasn't all that bad. It is much like battered wife syndrome where a woman is so used to getting horribly beat up that one day when her husband walks by and shoves her against the fridge then quietly walks away, she smiles and says to herself "in the scheme of things that wasn't abusive at all, no black eye, no broken ribs, all is good".

You never know... You could be right.

 

[pbrauer]

What facts prove me wrong? I stated no mention of dem involvement was ever mentioned in the story and I gave examples of democrat involvement in the scandal. What are your facts that prove me wrong?

No, you have not given any examples of Democratic involvement in the scandal, you've shown only that Democrats took money from Abramoff. But that alone does not indicate they had any involvement in the scam that was perpetrated against Indian casinos. IIRC, Sen Reid had received money before Abramoff entered the scene.

Please show where the Democrats mentioned where involved in deceiving the Indians... until then you've got nothing pal.

 

[jet57]

Total BS Grim, what Democrats were involved?

There was one federal employee who happended to be a Democrat who accepted a "gift" from Abramoff. The majority of the convictions and teh major players were Republicans however. Grim is asking a decent question, but wih respect to 60 Minutes, it won't fly.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

No, you have not given any examples of Democratic involvement in the scandal, you've shown only that Democrats took money from Abramoff. But that alone does not indicate they had any involvement in the scam that was perpetrated against Indian casinos. IIRC, Sen Reid had received money before Abramoff entered the scene.

Please show where the Democrats mentioned where involved in deceiving the Indians... until then you've got nothing pal.[/QUOTE

I don't recall saying democrats or republicans were involved with deceiving the Indians, that was Jack's baby. They were however involved with taking gifts and money from Jack just like so many of the reps that were brought up in Leslie's propaganda piece that failed to mention Dem's were also involved. Nice try though, typical lib tactic, put words in someones mouth and then try to get them to defend what they never said. You guys are nothing if not predictable. I am beginning to think you have an actual playbook you follow. :lol:

 

[notquiteright]

Sawyer-
I was going to ask you about following playbooks. Seems the usual counter whine when 'conservatives' (with their constant drum beat of high moral standards) get sent to prison over political corruption that the apologists line up to find some equiv to whine out. Throw in the usual dead horse about media bias and away we go!

Rather than concentrate on the report's thrust that the lobbyists still buy political influence, it's lets whine about this time it was Republicans getting caught up in the influence peddling. (Be thankful they didn't dredge up 'Duke', cry me a river as I go to prison, Cunningham :shock: )

The piece interviewed the guys who went to prison. I can see how the hyperpartisan howlers can see the piece as a hack job... what is telling is how it is justa few of the usual howlers trying to whine about this.

That is very telling...

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Sawyer-
I was going to ask you about following playbooks. Seems the usual counter whine when 'conservatives' (with their constant drum beat of high moral standards) get sent to prison over political corruption that the apologists line up to find some equiv to whine out. Throw in the usual dead horse about media bias and away we go!

Rather than concentrate on the report's thrust that the lobbyists still buy political influence, it's lets whine about this time it was Republicans getting caught up in the influence peddling. (Be thankful they didn't dredge up 'Duke', cry me a river as I go to prison, Cunningham :shock: )

The piece interviewed the guys who went to prison. I can see how the hyperpartisan howlers can see the piece as a hack job... what is telling is how it is justa few of the usual howlers trying to whine about this.

That is very telling...

I tried to find some snippet of your post that wasn't couched in a personnel attack that I could respond too, you know something relevant to the op. Just one sentence that didn't accuse me of whining and sadly I had no luck. Yet another play from the democrat book, attack the poster, ignore the post.Change the subject and try to distract your opponent from the point he is trying to make. What page is that one on? :lol: This is very telling.

 

[Boo Radley]

Except for applauding and showing your approval for unprovoked personal attacks posted by others.

I did because he said what I think. Yes.

And what rhetoric would that be?

read the post I aplauded. The rhetoric is spelled out clearly there.

Struggle? Hardly my friend.

I understood several years ago that a persons appraisal or agreement with the presentation of a news story, is not only totally irrelevant to the question of political bias, but unless they acknowledge that appraisal and learn how to take it completely out of the equation, their judgment on the subject can never be trusted. As for myself, I put some time and effort into learning how to set aside my own personal opinions and biases when evaluating stories in the news media, and I'll pit my ability to analyze and accurately detect political bias in the main stream media, against anyone, any time.

In my view, political bias of any kind in the main stream news media is a crime against the citizens of the United States. Put simply it's large scale, agenda driven, public brainwashing that's being done by a small, elite group of individuals within the American news media, and it's time to put an end to it. Over the last several decades the main stream news media has been slowly and very effectively manipulating opinions, what people think, and how they feel about a variety of different issues and people, that all stems from the political bias they've incorporate into the news.

It's dishonest, it's wrong, and it's a huge disservice to the American public... I know you and most liberals don't give a damn about liberal media bias, because that bias supports your political ideology.... As for me, I don't put politics and ideological beliefs ahead of doing what's right, so I do give a damn about the political bias in the American news media and want to see it eliminated.

You have mislearned a lot. Perspective is essential. Without it, you're only a voyuer who has nothing to place the the information into. Journalism used to teach this. Yes, you report the five w's, but you understnad context and perspective. That is not bias. Bias requires slanting the language, misrepresenting the facts as to be inaccurate, and the system not holding you accountable. Any reporter can cross the line, but for the "MEDIA" to be biased, it would have to allow that (See the Weekly Standard and Moveon as examples).

All too often, people don't like how their side comes across, and so they call in bais. Politicians learned long ago all they had to do was scream bais and the faithful would pile on. It has been quite effective. But, the problem I have is they ask nothing in terms of evidence, questioning nothing presented to them, willingly following the silliness over the clift. Where I see good thought elsewhere in your posts, I don't see it on this subject. Kind of like TD on taxes.

 

[Grim17]

I did because he said what I think. Yes...

...read the post I aplauded. The rhetoric is spelled out clearly there.

That post was an off-topic, unprovoked personal attack on me, that completely ignored my response to the op... By golly, it was worthy of not 1... not 2... but 3 cheers from you Boo...

Carry on in you liberal world, filled with liberal hate, liberal anger, liberal denial, liberal dishonesty, and liberal condescension, surrounded by those special set of liberal facts you pull out of a hat when ever reality isn't to your liking. (which happens a lot)

As I've suggested to others, why don't you start talking about my mother now... It suites the mentality of your ideological brothers and sisters.

You have mislearned a lot. Perspective is essential. Without it, you're only a voyuer who has nothing to place the the information into. Journalism used to teach this. Yes, you report the five w's, but you understnad context and perspective. That is not bias. Bias requires slanting the language, misrepresenting the facts as to be inaccurate, and the system not holding you accountable. Any reporter can cross the line, but for the "MEDIA" to be biased, it would have to allow that (See the Weekly Standard and Moveon as examples).

I'm sorry Boo but you are absolutely, positively, the last poster in the biased media section of this forum (who isn't a complete partisan joke) who should be telling anyone what media bias is. Never in my life, have I seen someone in such a complete state of denial as you when it comes to media bias. You must have worked weeks, even months coming up with all those pre-made excuses you throw out there every time you end up face to face with reality and common sense.

All too often, people don't like how their side comes across, and so they call in bais.

I know... Media Matters makes their living that way. Not me though, as my response to this thread clearly demonstrates... Oh, I forgot... You never even read it... All you're interested in are the posts that personally attack those you disagree with.

Everything else you posted, was nothing more than those excuses from the hat I mentioned earlier, so I did myself a favor and skipped over them this time.

 

[Boo Radley]

That post was an off-topic, unprovoked personal attack on me, that completely ignored my response to the op... By golly, it was worthy of not 1... not 2... but 3 cheers from you Boo...

Carry on in you liberal world, filled with liberal hate, liberal anger, liberal denial, liberal dishonesty, and liberal condescension, surrounded by those special set of liberal facts you pull out of a hat when ever reality isn't to your liking. (which happens a lot)

As I've suggested to others, why don't you start talking about my mother now... It suites the mentality of your ideological brothers and sisters.

I think your language provoked it. It was pointed out. Do you dispute that?

I'm sorry Boo but you are absolutely, positively, the last poster in the biased media section of this forum (who isn't a complete partisan joke) who should be telling anyone what media bias is. Never in my life, have I seen someone in such a complete state of denial as you when it comes to media bias. You must have worked weeks, even months coming up with all those pre-made excuses you throw out there every time you end up face to face with reality and common sense.

I think this pot to kettle. But, I give very detailed reasons for my objections. And I actually know something about it.

I know... Media Matters makes their living that way. Not me though, as my response to this thread clearly demonstrates... Oh, I forgot... You never even read it... All you're interested in are the posts that personally attack those you disagree with.

Everything else you posted, was nothing more than those excuses from the hat I mentioned earlier, so I did myself a favor and skipped over them this time.

I don't read media matters. They suffer from the same affliction, different side of the same coin. And I have stated on those threads that Fox's actual news is no more biased than MSNBC's One poster even uses that in his signature. You miss the point. And I believe your bais blinds you to what is being argued, and you willingly suspend your disbelief and don't question near enough. You accept opinion as fact. You accept polls. You don't listen to rebuttals. Your mind is set, unmovable. I even give you what will convince me, showing clearly that I can change my mind. I also don't claim bias doesn't exist. I claim it hasn't been proven by has been presented so far. You use the weak "it obvious" in lue of addressing the rebuttals. We've been down this road.

 

[Grim17]

Hey Boo, how about you apply your talents to evaluating my original response to this thread.

 

[Boo Radley]

Hey Boo, how about you apply your talents to evaluating my original response to this thread.

I'm not all that interested. But you couldn't resist the liberal this and that.

 

[Grim17]

I'm not all that interested.

I know... All you are interested in on this thread are the personal attacks on me.

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that my post makes it difficult for you to apply the "partisan" label and dismiss or discredit what I post in the future, would it?

 

[Boo Radley]

I know... All you are interested in on this thread are the personal attacks on me.

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that my post makes it difficult for you to apply the "partisan" label and dismiss or discredit what I post in the future, would it?

Not really. I've also complimented you. But, you like anyone else of any strip who runs amoke with liberla this or conservative that is fair game IMo to be called on it, and I do appluad that. I've seen you do better. And no, you do not make it difficult in this forum. Like I keep pointing out, you too willingly suspend your disblief and refuse to question such clearly weak evidence as polls and such. This speaks volumes.