• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this bias or just fact?

Grim, just a reminder, Fox and Friends isn't news. They are in the arena of political entertainers. Bias is permitted.​


Really? Why thank you Boo... What ever would I do without your intelectual brilliance around here to save me?

It's not as if I said in my previous post:

The fact it was on Fox & Friends means it's no big deal. They are more of an entertainment program that also gives you the latest news.
 
1)the media is corporate
2)there are leaders and financial motives in corporations
3)people (and indeed institutions) have preferences
4)Preferences will create bias
5)Bias will inevitably enter said corporation
6)the media will take sides

Every outlet has some level of bias...though I personally find CNN to be somewhat even and factual. Fox however, has taken bias to a level approahcjing propoganda.
 
They cherry pick one misleading stat, don't present it in context or don't explain the whole picture, then on to the next one.

:Cough: Kind of like only showing the "Bush" part of your "From Bush to Obama" dating back to Dec 2007 instead of actually showing the entire time of his Presidency and his job totals? That kind of cherry picking?

Not to mention pointing to statistics are a fun way to get "Facts". That's the wonderful thing about politics...so much of it is perception. For example, someone could point out from your graph that the dip in Job Growth came post 2006, when Democrats took back over the Congress, and that prior to that we were gaining, not losing, jobs.

Still others could choose not to cherry pick, like yourself, or be hyper partisan, like yourself, and take a more measured look at it.

For the past 20 years our job growth has been in a relatively similar location save for a few instances that partisans will argue is one parties fault or another but in reality has the finger prints of both sides on them.

6a00e551f0800388340162ff1d779e970d-pi


From 1992 to 2012 you'll notice our that the majority of the time our economy turns a positive number in terms of jobs, and those numbers generally 1500 to 3000 range on the chart, give or take a bit. The times during that period that we did not do that? 2001.2002...9/11 and the remanents of the tech bubble bursting. 2008/2009, the housing bubble bursting. Shocker that a terrorist attack on the economic center of our country mixed with a bubble bursting and then later a second bubble bursting that was tied to an industry that is interwoven with all business (in the banks) caused massive issues for our economy.

The reality is that the American Economy and the engine of capitalism is largley one that, while perhaps tweaked by those in power, largely propels itself forward with or without government. Government is like adding a fuel injection cleaner to your car or not inflating your tires all year....sure, it may help or harm the efficiency of your car going a bit, but those things sure as hell aren't what's making your car actually GO. I watch people blame Bush for 2008 and 2009 while ignoring or writing off the improvement under him after 9/11...but then they turn around and ignore the first years under Obama completely writing those off and seem to think that some good years now means that its a success, as if a similar fall such as happened after Bush's success through MOST of his Presidency would be IMPOSSIBLE.

Quite frankly the economy is bigger than both of them and congress, and while they've undoubtably exerted some affect onto it...good or bad based on your opinions....by and large the dips and the climbs have more to do with the power and ability of the American economic system.
 
Really? Why thank you Boo... What ever would I do without your intelectual brilliance around here to save me?

It's not as if I said in my previous post:

Just checking. You seem to be concerned about these political entertainers. ;)
 
I rarely watch any of the morning news shows because I don't like the format of hard news mixed with pure fluff. One minute they are talking about Iran getting nukes and the next minute some lady in tights showing other women how to exercise that fat ass away. I agree with whoever said the story I posted is OK on a morning show but not OK in a hard news program. I did catch this segment of Fox And Friends though and it did make me laugh, it was facts and truth presented in an entertaining way. If it was biased I am fine with it as we need at least one counter balance to all the other networks and cable shows that lean way left.
 
Gotta love when a liberal posts a graph supposedly trying to show Obama's wonderful accomplishments and a republican comes along and runs it through a lawnmower with the mulching attachment installed!
 
:Cough: Kind of like only showing the "Bush" part of your "From Bush to Obama" dating back to Dec 2007 instead of actually showing the entire time of his Presidency and his job totals? That kind of cherry picking?

Depends what we're talking about. Just showing the last couple years of Bush's presidency would be a distortion of his performance (although as your graph shows, his performance overall in terms of jobs was still terrible). But if we're talking about evaluating Obama, which is what this thread is about, then those years wouldn't be relevant. The only relevant thing would be what condition the economy was in when Obama got it and those last couple years of Bush show us what condition that was.

The reality is that the American Economy and the engine of capitalism is largley one that, while perhaps tweaked by those in power, largely propels itself forward with or without government. Government is like adding a fuel injection cleaner to your car or not inflating your tires all year....sure, it may help or harm the efficiency of your car going a bit, but those things sure as hell aren't what's making your car actually GO.

To some extent I agree. But given that Obama's performance on jobs has actually been good, the right has two options. They can say "whatever, its the economy, the president can't control it" or they can say "Obama did well in that area", but this nonsense about Obama the job destroyer is just idiotic.

As for the impact government has, I think you're more or less right, except I would make two exceptions. First, spending has a short term impact. It boosts up the economy temporarily. That can be crucial in softening the worst blows of the economic variation.

Second, over the long term, the government has a massive impact on deciding who gets the proceeds of the economy. Ever since Reagan we've had that dial turned all the way towards directing money to the super rich. The idea (Reaganomics) was that we needed more investment more than we needed consumer spending. For a while it worked and the stock market boomed. But over time it went so far that we're now at the point where we have the opposite problem- plenty of investment capital, but not nearly enough consumer spending to sustain the valuations these companies reached due to the influx of investment capital. In short, we ended up scuttling the middle class and it's the middle class that sustains the actual revenues of these companies. I think that is something government bears responsibility for and I believe it is having a massive impact on the economy.
 
Depends what we're talking about. Just showing the last couple years of Bush's presidency would be a distortion of his performance (although as your graph shows, his performance overall in terms of jobs was still terrible). But if we're talking about evaluating Obama, which is what this thread is about, then those years wouldn't be relevant. The only relevant thing would be what condition the economy was in when Obama got it and those last couple years of Bush show us what condition that was.

However, by using a graph that specifically pointed out "Bush Administration" for the time prior to Obama, you are tactily blaming the Bush Administration for the economic issues Obama inhereted. You are "cherry picking" the information for your argument to display it as a problem of the Bush Administraiton, as if there was not a Democratic controlled congress passing laws and controlling the purse strings at the time. If your interest was simply to defend Obama, and not attack the Bush Administration, you would've used one of the multitude of graphs out there that doesn't specifically indicate "Bush Administration" but rather simply highlights the time period. Instead you cherry pick to tacitly lay blame on Bush.

To some extent I agree. But given that Obama's performance on jobs has actually been good, the right has two options. They can say "whatever, its the economy, the president can't control it" or they can say "Obama did well in that area", but this nonsense about Obama the job destroyer is just idiotic.

Actually, they've been taking a variation of the first one that goes in line with what I said. That the economy functions largely on its own and the President by and large can only exert some influence on it. Specifically their argument has been that many of Obama's actions have actually caused the economy to rebound slower than it would have had the policies, or the portion of polices, that he supported not happened.

Essentially the notion that if nothing was done the economy would bounce back in time on its own...the difference being if we help speed it along or if we slow it down. Their statement and belief is that Obama's actions have by and large slowed it down.
 
However, by using a graph that specifically pointed out "Bush Administration" for the time prior to Obama, you are tactily blaming the Bush Administration for the economic issues Obama inhereted. You are "cherry picking" the information for your argument to display it as a problem of the Bush Administraiton, as if there was not a Democratic controlled congress passing laws and controlling the purse strings at the time. If your interest was simply to defend Obama, and not attack the Bush Administration, you would've used one of the multitude of graphs out there that doesn't specifically indicate "Bush Administration" but rather simply highlights the time period. Instead you cherry pick to tacitly lay blame on Bush.

The Congress argument is kind of a non-starter. They didn't really pass anything significant during the last 2 years of Bush. The Republicans just filibustered everything and even if they didn't for some reason, Bush could just have vetoed it.

Actually, they've been taking a variation of the first one that goes in line with what I said. That the economy functions largely on its own and the President by and large can only exert some influence on it. Specifically their argument has been that many of Obama's actions have actually caused the economy to rebound slower than it would have had the policies, or the portion of polices, that he supported not happened.

Essentially the notion that if nothing was done the economy would bounce back in time on its own...the difference being if we help speed it along or if we slow it down. Their statement and belief is that Obama's actions have by and large slowed it down.

The overwhelming consensus of economists agree that the stimulus helped get us out of the recession faster.
 
Last edited:
Even Alan Greenspan says it slowed the recovery.

"Even" Alan Greenspan? Greenspan is they guy Ronald Reagan picked to run the federal reserve... He's super conservative.

I said the consensus of economists. Not every single economist. The consensus...

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com
New Consensus Views Stimulus as Worthy Step - NYTimes.com
Consensus Among Economists Says Stimulus Working
Economists’ Consensus: Obama Was Correct on Stimulus Saving Economy | The Progressive Professor
 
Things can't be biased and true? That's news to me.

What would make a fact biased? If a candidate did or said something that was wrong, false, stupid, made the candidate look bad, what would make reporting it biased? I ask only out of curiousity to how you might answer.
 
What would make a fact biased? If a candidate did or said something that was wrong, false, stupid, made the candidate look bad, what would make reporting it biased? I ask only out of curiousity to how you might answer.

IMO, when you report something you shouldn't have any emotion at all. No smirk or difference in voice, etc. News should be a dry, boring program. Only then will it be truly non biased.

For example, nobody has really said that the OP is biased. Only that Fox is biased because they wouldn't do such to a GOP candidate.
 
Last edited:
IMO, when you report something you shouldn't have any emotion at all. No smirk or difference in voice, etc. News should be a dry, boring program. Only then will it be truly non biased.

For example, nobody has really said that the OP is biased. Only that Fox is biased because they wouldn't do such to a GOP candidate.

Actually, I say Fox's actual news is no different thany anyone elses. But like many more and more these days, they ahve very little actual news, and what isn't is meant to be baised.

Anyhow, reporters are not robots, and I don't want them to be. When they report something, say funny for example, a laugh us appropirate. And while there are limits to what language they should use and how over the top they can go, it would be hard for any actual human being to never let show that something stupid wasn't stupid. But I agree they should largely try.
 
How about this : Former GOP Sheriff of the Year Busted in Gay Sex-for-Meth Deal

According to some, it's horribly biased because it mentions his party affiliation. On the other hand, it is a fact.

I don't know how that could be biased. Unless, media outlets typically only give party affiliation for sheriffs that screw up when its republicans, but not when it's democrats. I've seen items like that with local council members. Republicans will often be identified by party affiliation. Democrats rarely.
 
I don't know how that could be biased. Unless, media outlets typically only give party affiliation for sheriffs that screw up when its republicans, but not when it's democrats. I've seen items like that with local council members. Republicans will often be identified by party affiliation. Democrats rarely.

I was gonna say that damnit!
 
I don't know how that could be biased. Unless, media outlets typically only give party affiliation for sheriffs that screw up when its republicans, but not when it's democrats. I've seen items like that with local council members. Republicans will often be identified by party affiliation. Democrats rarely.

Seen, or only recognized, noted or paid any attention to it?

;)
 
Seen, or only recognized, noted or paid any attention to it?

;)

If there is no mention of political identification within the first couple of paragraphs, it will almost always be a democrat. If there is no political affiliation mentioned in the story, I will always look it up to verify, and in almost all cases it turns out to be a democrat. You can think you're being all slick and smart, but really you just have blinders on.
 
I don't know how that could be biased. Unless, media outlets typically only give party affiliation for sheriffs that screw up when its republicans, but not when it's democrats. I've seen items like that with local council members. Republicans will often be identified by party affiliation. Democrats rarely.

That's kind of the point. Bias is usually in how facts are presented.

Like saying "Obama is a Half-Breed." Technically, that's correct. But would anybody say that if they didn't hate Obama? The only real connotation of it is negative. Yet, completely factual.
 
That's kind of the point. Bias is usually in how facts are presented.

Like saying "Obama is a Half-Breed." Technically, that's correct. But would anybody say that if they didn't hate Obama? The only real connotation of it is negative. Yet, completely factual.

Rarely is media bias a case of a story not being factual. Most of the time, media bias is what facts are included and not included in a story, and the manner in which those facts are presented.

I can give you a great example based on what Buck was saying... If in a particular state during one year, lets say there were 10 politicians who got in trouble with the law and violated the public trust, creating big local headlines and news coverage. Lets say five of them were democrats, and five were republicans. If the media makes sure to point out every republicans party affiliation. but only mentions the party affiliation of 2 of the 5 democrats, at the end of the year, which party do you think the public overall, will most associate with corruption?

The main stream media has been doing that exact thing for many, many years, and never does it ever go the other way.
 
Back
Top Bottom