How the mass media can manipulate a story, and the viewpoints of some

[buck]

Far larger than it should be. And when you remove all those who don't watch any news at all to speak of, you'll see it is far more important than you think. These people have hurt not only discourse, but logical and reasonable thought.

The estimate I saw was that roughly 3/4 of Americans watch the news. 85k is still meaningless.

And you are still wrong. BTW, whether the news is baised or not is not subjective. There is an objective truth. You may not be able to see it, but there is one.

Bias itself is subjective. The studies even confirm that the media is biased towards democrats or liberals There are a lot of studies and most of them reached the same or similar conclusions.

 

[Boo Radley]

Boo, just answer this simple question:

Is it your contention that a national network news program that uses only the opinions of democrats to judge the merits of democrats, and then uses only the opinions of democrats to judge the merits of republicans, is not displaying liberal bias?

They don't do that. You do know they run more than two stories on all candidates. You selectively pick two, and behave as if that is all there is to it. It isn't. Both are separate strories that are both accurate and proper. And they do not stand in isolation. You apporach these things illogically, and and reach inaccurate conclusions. the problems have been explained to you again and again, but you fail to grasp the error in your thinking. And when you get frustrated, you resort to wild proclaimations. You cannot measure, let alone prove, bias in the manner you are trying to do so.

 

[buck]

This is exactly right, notice although it would be pertinent to mention, Rather didn't mention Cheney's heart condition. Or Cheney picked himself as the VP or that he made up for Bush's lack of experience in foreign policy.

Both of those items would have been relevant for him to mention. The article you posted from the spposed conservative, seemed to be far less biased. It mentioned what both sides are saying, not just what opponents to Cheny think.

Most of what Rather mentioned was irrelevant and chosen to paint Cheney negatively - especially when compared to the positive Lieberman story.

 

[Grim17]

I haven't been caught lying. Nor have I lied. Please try to read more carefully.

Or is this your tactic to aviod dealing with the issue?

Please point out exactly what I have mis-read from the following post:

YOu tag them as democrat views. You see it that way. Marked by your bias...

...There is no democrat view or republican view, but where the story is. You miss this, and can't see beyond your biased view. Therefore you see the world divided in half and expect what you perceive as getting certain press...

...You list the points made comnpletely because you can't see through the vail in front of your eyes.

That entire post was built on a lie.

Every point I listed as being the "democratic view", Dan Rather made clear were in fact the opinions and views of democrats. If you can't acknowledge that indisputable fact, then your opinions are built on lies and therefore invalid.

 

[Grim17]

They don't do that.

That is precisely what Dan Rather did. Watch the videos and he even says so himself.

 

[Boo Radley]

Please point out exactly what I have mis-read from the following post:



That entire post was built on a lie.

Every point I listed as being the "democratic view", Dan Rather made clear were in fact the opinions and views of democrats. If you can't acknowledge that indisputable fact, then your opinions are built on lies and therefore invalid.

No, you speak to quotes used, which is what others say. The story itself is something separate.

 

[Boo Radley]

That is precisely what Dan Rather did. Watch the videos and he even says so himself.

Read the rest of the post. And no, it isn't what was done.

 

[Grim17]

This is what transpired:

I posted this list of the points made in both introductions:

Now, as for language, lets examine both videos. Lets look at what was said, who's view it reflects, whether it was a positive or negative reflection on the candidates, and whether it was accurate or not:

1. Lieberman "History making". Rather's view. Positive, Accurate
2. Gore/Lierberman "fight back - come back strategy". The candidates slogan. Positive, Accurate
3. Their message "They represent the future..." The candidates message. Positive, Accurate
4. Their message "High moral standards..." The candidates message. Positive, Accurate.
5. Their message "in tune w/ main stream America." The candidates message. Positive, Accurate.

Now lets look at video #2:

1. "Two Texas oil men". The opponents label. Negative, Accurate
2. They "blast Cheney's voting record." Rather's assessment. Negative, Accurate
3. Their record "Outside the American main stream" Opponentsts view. Negative, Accurate
4. Against the "Equal rights for women amendment" Opponents exclamations. Negative, Accurate
5. Against a "womans right to choose abortion" Opponents exclamation, possibly Rather's wording. Negative, Accurate
6. Against "abortion, as Cheney..." Cheney's words. In the context it was said, neutral at best, Accurate.
7. Cheney's votes "Against gun control" Opponents exclamation. Negative, Accurate
8. Republicans "hailing Bush's choice... Cheney's experience" Supporters viewpoint. Positive, Accurate.

After you failed to acknowledge where Rather got the opinions from, I posted this:

Rather's entire intro for Gore/Lieberman, every single word, was quoting how the candidates themselves and their supporters felt about the pick...On the other side of the coin, with the exception of the last sentence (5 seconds), Rather's entire intro for Bush/Cheney was quoting how their opposition felt about the pick, never once quoting how the candidates themselves felt about it.

You then responded by saying this:

YOu tag them as democrat views. You see it that way. Marked by your bias...

...There is no democrat view or republican view, but where the story is. You miss this, and can't see beyond your biased view. Therefore you see the world divided in half and expect what you perceive as getting certain press...

...You list the points made comnpletely because you can't see through the vail in front of your eyes.

Dan Rather's use of democrat opinions and views for both introductions was a fact, not my opinion.

Now you can either be honest by acknowledging that fact, and issue a retraction and an apology.... Or you can take the cowards option and continue pretending it never happened. It is once again, your choice Boo

 

[Grim17]

I don't often ask this, but...

A little help please.

Boo is running around in circles and either doesn't see, or refuses to see the facts here.

 

[Boo Radley]

I don't often ask this, but...

A little help please.

Boo is running around in circles and either doesn't see, or refuses to see the facts here.

Are you don't understnad what is being said.

1) You cannot measure bais this way. Positive and negative does nto measure bias.

2) these are two select stories which don't take into account all other stories.

3) He clearly indentifies who is saying what.

4) The demorcat and republican view I refer to is the stories, and not those being quoted. You make the wrong inference.

Again, to measure bias you have to examine language and inacuracy without consequence. Anything else simply will not prove the bias you claim.

 

[mpg]

I don't often ask this, but...

A little help please.

Boo is running around in circles and either doesn't see, or refuses to see the facts here.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he made a mistake. After you pointed out the mistake, he should've acknowledged it, and didn't. After that, it becomes a lie rather than a mistake.

 

[Boo Radley]

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he made a mistake. After you pointed out the mistake, he should've acknowledged it, and didn't. After that, it becomes a lie rather than a mistake.

I've made no mistake. He is merely speaking of something different than I am. This should be easy to see.

 

[mpg]

I've made no mistake. He is merely speaking of something different than I am. This should be easy to see.

That's factually incorrect. The facts have been laid out for you in no uncertain terms and you still deny them. We're well beyond the point where you could call it a mistake, or a matter of opinion.

 

[Grim17]

An honest person uses facts to establish their opinion. while a dishonest person uses their opinion to establish facts.

I've always believed strongly in the inherent honesty of all people, regardless of their political views... But it's threads like this one, that really have me questioning that belief. You have no idea how disappointing that is.

 

[misterman]

On the left is how you would probably see it on Al-Jazeera. On the right is how you would probably see it on FOX News. In the middle is the whole story.

Discussion?

You should watch Al-Jazeera AND Fox.

 

[pbrauer]

An honest person uses facts to establish their opinion. while a dishonest person uses their opinion to establish facts.

This is clearly what you do, Grim, apparently you don't realize it.

 

[pbrauer]

I don't often ask this, but...

A little help please.

Boo is running around in circles and either doesn't see, or refuses to see the facts here.

The facts are your opinion.

 

[Karl]

Fox News on Obama - "He is...get this....a smoker!!!!" • videosift.com

Pic is a screen cap of the linked video (an old John Gibson episode... at 2:31 in).

 

[Karl]

FOX's John Gibson: Will Obama "Blame America First"? - YouTube

Pic is a screen cap of the linked video (an old John Gibson episode... at 0:08 in).

 

[Karl]

Fox & Friends asks if Obama will "continue 'apology-looza'" in Saudi Arabia | Media Matters for America

 

[buck]

Those are all accurate stories (Obama is (was) a smoker and obama was on an "apology tour"). So, according to Boo, it doesn't prove that Fox is biased, or some such nonsense.

On the other hand, I say those are accurate stories and they provide evidence that Fox is biased.

 

[PeteEU]

Those are all accurate stories (Obama is (was) a smoker and obama was on an "apology tour"). So, according to Boo, it doesn't prove that Fox is biased, or some such nonsense.

On the other hand, I say those are accurate stories and they provide evidence that Fox is biased.

There is a difference in being accurate and twisting the facts into a negative. It is clear that Fox News wanted to paint the President as untrustworthy because he supposedly hid his smoking from the public. That is bias.

As for the "apology tour"... again more bias. He was on state visit, so unless I missed something in the official releases, then the trip was a state visit, and not part of "we are sorry" tour as Fox News and the US right claimed at the time.

 

[buck]

There is a difference in being accurate and twisting the facts into a negative. It is clear that Fox News wanted to paint the President as untrustworthy because he supposedly hid his smoking from the public. That is bias.

Yes, I agree. Items can be accurate and still be biased. Just like Dan Rather's report on the Cheney appointment. The difference? One is commentary. The other was news.

As for the "apology tour"... again more bias. He was on state visit, so unless I missed something in the official releases, then the trip was a state visit, and not part of "we are sorry" tour as Fox News and the US right claimed at the time.

This isn't really part of the thread, but I find this contention interesting. So, since it was a state visit, Obama couldn't have possibly been apologizing for the US in many of the speaches he made?

 

[PeteEU]

Yes, I agree. Items can be accurate and still be biased. Just like Dan Rather's report on the Cheney appointment. The difference? One is commentary. The other was news.

Problem with Fox News is the "commentary" bleeds into the real news constantly. My personal opinion is that "commentary" on Fox News is nothing but an excuse to justify utterly biased news reporting.... and it also means that actual news on Fox News accounts for a few hours a day at most and is decreasing... which is more than alarming. All it takes is the tone or a specific combination of words of the news anchor or reporter to take the story from news and facts to commentary and bias. And yes all news organisations have this problem, it is only natural. But the difference is that where as reporters and anchors on the BBC for example are fired (at worst) or disciplined for such transgressions and have a policy of not allowing bias in the news, on Fox News nothing happens and they are in fact encouraged often to show bias (right wing of course). Hence the factual news of the BBC for example is far far far more reliable and truthful than that coming from Fox News.

This isn't really part of the thread, but I find this contention interesting. So, since it was a state visit, Obama couldn't have possibly been apologizing for the US in many of the speaches he made?

That is the opinion of the US right, not the factual aspects of the speeches. By the definition of the US right, any US president going to the region is apologizing.. wonder what Bush was doing then.. or Rumsfeldt when he embraced Saddam Hussien? Can you point out where he used the words "sorry", or "apologize" in conjunction with former or present US policy in the region?

 

[buck]

Problem with Fox News is the "commentary" bleeds into the real news constantly.

I think the point is that Rather's report was not commentary. It was completely one sided intro of Cheney as VP. So, the opinion of democrats was given to people as news. Or to use your words, the commentary bled into the news.

That is the opinion of the US right, not the factual aspects of the speeches. By the definition of the US right, any US president going to the region is apologizing.. wonder what Bush was doing then.. or Rumsfeldt when he embraced Saddam Hussien? Can you point out where he used the words "sorry", or "apologize" in conjunction with former or present US policy in the region?

So, now your opinion has evolved to include, not only that since it was a state event it can't possibly be an "apologiy tour", that since the exact words "apology" and "sorry" weren't used, the president wasn't apologizing for our past "transgressions". Interesting (possibly just completely partisan) take, I guess.