- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 34,478
- Reaction score
- 17,282
- Location
- Southwestern U.S.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
This entire segment is worth watching, but the relevant part about the media starts at the 5:55 mark. He points out what's so patently obvious to everyone, except of course those who put politics above honesty:
This entire segment is worth watching, but the relevant part about the media starts at the 5:55 mark. He points out what's so patently obvious to everyone, except of course those who put politics above honesty:
]
Hooray, Joe Scarborough has an opinion, the fact is he doesn't know how the media would have reacted given the same situation with President Bush. But of course Bush wasn't faced with an average one of these shooting per month. These shootings have become so common place these days that people don't think that much anymore about them.
what's so patently obvious to everyone, except of course those who put politics above honesty
Who gives a **** what you said?? If you are implying I was being dishonest,show me.Just as I said, he points out what's so patently obvious to everyone, except of course those who put politics above honesty.
Just as I said, he points out what's so patently obvious to everyone, except of course those who put politics above honesty.
Who gives a **** what you said?? If you are implying I was being dishonest,show me.
This is a pretty rotten way of trying to silence those who don't buy into the meme.
Dishonesty is dishonesty... Even if a person is so blinded by there political beliefs and truly doesn't see the liberal bias in the main stream news media themselves, they would have to discount every one of the many studies and surveys that have been done over the years that concluded that the MSM does have a liberal bias. A person may believe something isn't true based on their own feelings, but when there is stacks of evidence, along with studies and surveys that contradict that belief, it's just plain dishonest to continue to deny it's existence.
The honest response from someone who just isn't capable of seeing the bias, when asked "Does the main stream news media have a liberal bias", is "Apparently so, but I don't see it."
For 12 years I've posted on political boards, and I'm still waiting someone on the left to finally step up and say something like that.
The problem with those "studies and surveys" is that they rarely, if ever, properly define "main stream news media."
Is, say, conservative talk radio "main stream news media"? The average person would probably say "no, it's opinion"; however, a great many of the millions upon millions who listen to Rush will take what he claims as gospel. When opinion and information have been so cavalierly mixed, pretty much anything could be construed as "news media."
Now, could it be said that most "main stream news media" has a pro-government slant? Absolutely. Specifically, slanted toward those in power or those about to be. Witness the "main stream news media" beating the war drums in 2003 leading up to Iraq. Even liberal MSNBC fired Phil Donahue for speaking out against the war.
The other issue with these "studies and surveys" is that they rarely, if ever, define exactly what "liberal bias" entails. If there is a "liberal" politician and a "conservative" politician debating an issue, and the "liberal" is clearly correct on the issue, and coverage is more favorable to that, is that "liberal bias"? Or is that simply the media reporting what the facts are? Too many people see facts reported they don't agree with, since in today's hyper-polarized society people feel they are perfectly entitled to facts that support their predetermined worldview, and attribute the lack of self-affirmation to "bias."
The only surveys and studies I even pay attention to are concerning the news media. In fact, I don't know of any done on opinion based media.
Hooray, Joe Scarborough has an opinion, the fact is he doesn't know how the media would have reacted given the same situation with President Bush. But of course Bush wasn't faced with an average one of these shooting per month. These shootings have become so common place these days that people don't think that much anymore about them.
This italic highlighted area is true. Now, just take that and apply it to the oft-quoted studies here on other threads and other topics, and one can begin to understand that the credence placed on "studies" depends in large part on exactly who conducted the study and what the outcome is intended to demonstrate. Many which receive near reverential credence are laughable in that the study and the outcome were specifically designed to prove their thesis from the start. I would agree that someone with an agenda would be silly not to conduct a study in that manner, but it is even more ridiculous give credence to the results.Then you're missing my point entirely. For one, the studies often wildly vary depending on who is conducting them; and the surveys wildly vary depending on who is being surveyed. Conservatives feel the media is liberal; liberals feel the media is either conservative or corporatist. Either side draws its conclusions based on its ideological bent.
However, where I was going was that opinion-based media often has the same effect, or more, as actual news media. A great many people strictly get their news from Rush Limbaugh, or Jon Stewart, or Sean Hannity, or whoever, and that generally doesn't fall under the auspices of "news media" and is thereby unaccounted for.
You can "just pay attention" to those surveys and studies; however, you're not getting the full "story" of how America gets its information, or disinformation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?