• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

The Daily Caller Acquires Keith Olbermann

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It's not bias, but it IS juvenile, and potentially trademark-infringing. Stealing someone's name just isn't cool.
 

LimeLight

Active member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
343
Reaction score
76
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I see it as an attack. Seeking publicity (Which it has) to deliberately attack their political counter-part. I don't think the story or act was biased, but can be used to represent the political leanings and future bias of the Daily Caller. Then again their editor being Tucker Carlson, I think we all knew that anyway.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The Daily Caller makes no bones about being a conservative site.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
74,777
Reaction score
31,510
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Daily Caller Acquires Keith Olbermann

This is actually very funny and I'm surprised a thread hasn't been started as of yet. I think this could be considered as bias. What are your thoughts?

You watch that line in the movie Tropical Thunder "Im the dude playin the dude playin another dude" ? Thats kinda what this is. MSNBC is a joke. How do we know its a joke? Because its existence is predicated on attacking Fox News. They are pathetic...its the television version of penis envy. And now you have this site dedicated to calling out people with little dick syndrome? What does that say about Tucker Carlson?
 

LimeLight

Active member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
343
Reaction score
76
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Never said they did. I said this is just another example. The problem i had, which i forgot in my initial post, was the praise this story got by Fox News. Also I have a problem with people using their articles as valid sources of information.
 

LimeLight

Active member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
343
Reaction score
76
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You watch that line in the movie Tropical Thunder "Im the dude playin the dude playin another dude" ? Thats kinda what this is. MSNBC is a joke. How do we know its a joke? Because its existence is predicated on attacking Fox News. They are pathetic...its the television version of penis envy. And now you have this site dedicated to calling out people with little dick syndrome? What does that say about Tucker Carlson?

I'm with you when it comes to MSNBC's little dick syndrome. But don't even get me started on Tucker Carlson's bowtie.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Never said they did. I said this is just another example.

No, you didn't say it was "another example" or "another" anything. You posted as though you were ferreting out a bias which you apparently thought they were trying to hide, or at least not admitting. Not so.


The problem i had, which i forgot in my initial post, was the praise this story got by Fox News.

So what? Is it about Fox News or Daily Caller?


Also I have a problem with people using their articles as valid sources of information.

Well, then you live in logical fallacy. Just because a source has a lean doesn't mean what they say/write is invalid. It's always up to them to make their own case, but in refuting it, you need more than "they're biased."
 

LimeLight

Active member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
343
Reaction score
76
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
No, you didn't say it was "another example" or "another" anything. You posted as though you were ferreting out a bias which you apparently thought they were trying to hide, or at least not admitting. Not so.

I said I thought the article could be considered as bias. Other people in the past have claimed previous stories from the Daily Caller as being biased, and i thought this article as being another example representing so. The Daily Caller IS clearly biased, but some would make the argument that they aren't.


So what? Is it about Fox News or Daily Caller?

It could be used to show some bias in Fox as well. Why should a 'Fair and Balanced' Fox praise and joke towards the acts of an organization who is undoubtedly biased?



Well, then you live in logical fallacy. Just because a source has a lean doesn't mean what they say/write is invalid. It's always up to them to make their own case, but in refuting it, you need more than "they're biased."

It's not necessarily their bias that allows me to determine whether or not i consider the source valid/invalid. The problem is an organization CAN be biased and ALSO be very misleading. Depending on the case they make, is also dependent on how the reader interprets a story. Do you think if Fox claimed to be a 'right leaning network' that would not have an inherent effect on their credibility? Are all biased Networks and Media outlooks credible irrefutable sources of information? Bias is an issue and is highly considered a problem of credibility. If it wasn't all news networks would label themselves as their mean political lean.
 
Last edited:

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I said I thought the article could be considered as bias. Other people in the past have claimed previous stories from the Daily Caller as being biased, and i thought this article as being another example representing so. The Daily Caller IS clearly biased, but some would make the argument that they aren't.

Who would make that argument?

And what in the article represents a hitherto unstated bias?




It could be used to show some bias in Fox as well. Why should a 'Fair and Balanced' Fox praise and joke towards the acts of an organization who is undoubtedly biased?

Well, I guess the answer to that depends on who said it and in what context. Just saying "Fox News praised the article" isn't much to go on.





It's not necessarily their bias that allows me to determine whether or not i consider the source valid/invalid. The problem is an organization CAN be biased and ALSO be very misleading.

So what? Sure, they CAN be. And an "unbiased" media source CAN be misleading as well. If they are, point out with specificity exactly HOW they are. Just saying "they're biased!" is, as I said, a logical fallacy.


Depending on the case they make, is also dependent on how the reader interprets a story.

Then it's up to you to point out how they got it wrong. See immediately above.


Do you think if Fox claimed to be a 'right leaning network' that would not have an inherent effect on their credibility?

You would need to do the same heavy lifting to show how what they say is wrong. If it is, then you should be able to show how easily. And if they're truly dishonest, then they should provide you with a lot of grist.

Are all biased Networks and Media outlooks credible irrefutable sources of information?

I said nothing of the sort. If you think I did, then you have a lot of work to do getting up to speed with proper debate, logic, and epistemology.


Bias is an issue and is highly considered a problem of credibility.

Sure, if you claim to be unbiased when you're not. But the Daily Caller never claimed that.

Under your construct, no one could ever advocate for an issue, because advocacy is always biased, and you'd say they're unreliable as a matter of course.

In the actual world of logic, though, it's the actual statements and arguments which are to be evaluated, not the source. To do otherwise is a fallacy. You really should look this stuff up.


If it wasn't all news networks would label themselves as their mean political lean.

The opinion journalists do.
 

LimeLight

Active member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
343
Reaction score
76
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Who would make that argument?

Someone who may have watched this video.


3:16-4:01 and 5:51-6:02 can draw to that argument of the Daily Caller being unbiased.

And what in the article represents a hitherto unstated bias?

I believe that particular story in itself can reinforce the idea that they are biased. Why are they attacking Keith Olbermann?

Well, I guess the answer to that depends on who said it and in what context. Just saying "Fox News praised the article" isn't much to go on.

I watch Fox News regularly. The story was commentated on in a humorous snickering way. I cannot find the video on the internet as of yet since it happened yesterday. But I'm sure it will be posted sometime. Tucker Carlson and The Daily Caller have many links with Fox News.

So what? Sure, they CAN be. And an "unbiased" media source CAN be misleading as well. If they are, point out with specificity exactly HOW they are. Just saying "they're biased!" is, as I said, a logical fallacy.
Sure they can. But a biased media source actually has somewhat of an intention to reinforce their ideas. It's based on the extent of how extreme they will go to do it. It's called propganda and it can be reason to consider a sources credibility. Why do you think there is a topic specifically based on media bias?
Radical claims or using cheap juvenile tactics leads me to consider them unjust.

You would need to do the same heavy lifting to show how what they say is wrong. If it is, then you should be able to show how easily. And if they're truly dishonest, then they should provide you with a lot of grist.
I never said they are wrong. Fox News is my cable media of choice.
But having a self-proclaimed bias in no way shape or form helps an outlooks credibility. It only shows they have reason and intent to manipulate and adjust stories and information. If they label themselves as such, it would only show they have a reason to do something, and would gain from it as well.

Under your construct, no one could ever advocate for an issue, because advocacy is always biased, and you'd say they're unreliable as a matter of course.
I never said that. When they result to cheap tactics and wild claims that is when i draw the line on how seriously i take them. If someone has reason and viewer based allowance to reinforce their ideas, they are going to do it. Why should i believe a source that funds a website saying Keith Olbermann is a doo-doo head?

In the actual world of logic, though, it's the actual statements and arguments which are to be evaluated, not the source. To do otherwise is a fallacy. You really should look this stuff up.
You have yet to argue on how bias has no relation on how those statements and arguments can be unjust in order to reinforce the ideals between media and viewer. You should probably debate the issue of how bias isn't a legitimate reason on a sources credibility rather then continually insulting me.

The opinion journalists do.
I said News Networks, I'm not talking about just opinion shows. Hence why i said mean. Again why don't all news networks label their political lean if it has no effect on credibility?
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Someone who may have watched this video.


3:16-4:01 and 5:51-6:02 can draw to that argument of the Daily Caller being unbiased.

That's not what he said. He said he will post things they find interesting whatever the source. He didn't say they have no lean.




I believe that particular story in itself can reinforce the idea that they are biased. Why are they attacking Keith Olbermann?

They never claimed not to be. And they think Olbermann's a douche. They're not alone.



I watch Fox News regularly. The story was commentated on in a humorous snickering way.

By whom, and how?



Sure they can. But a biased media source actually has somewhat of an intention to reinforce their ideas. It's based on the extent of how extreme they will go to do it. It's called propganda and it can be reason to consider a sources credibility. Why do you think there is a topic specifically based on media bias?
Radical claims or using cheap juvenile tactics leads me to consider them unjust.

You're missing the point, entirely. It's not enough to say, simply, "they're biased." You still have to refute what they say. Accusations of "bias" are ad hominems, nothing more.


I never said they are wrong. Fox News is my cable media of choice.
But having a self-proclaimed bias in no way shape or form helps an outlooks credibility. It only shows they have reason and intent to manipulate and adjust stories and information. If they label themselves as such, it would only show they have a reason to do something, and would gain from it as well.

Why else would you bring up "credibility" unless to question their veracity or accuracy? Why would anyone?


I never said that. When they result to cheap tactics and wild claims that is when i draw the line on how seriously i take them. If someone has reason and viewer based allowance to reinforce their ideas, they are going to do it. Why should i believe a source that funds a website saying Keith Olbermann is a doo-doo head?

You can believe whatever you want. But if you're going to say they're wrong, you still have to show how. That's the part you don't seem to get.

You have yet to argue on how bias has no relation on how those statements and arguments can be unjust in order to reinforce the ideals between media and viewer. You should probably debate the issue of how bias isn't a legitimate reason on a sources credibility rather then continually insulting me.

That's funny; that's exactly what I've been debating.


I said News Networks, I'm not talking about just opinion shows. Hence why i said mean. Again why don't all news networks label their political lean if it has no effect on credibility?

Dude, I already said that if you claim to be something you're not, it impacts your credibility. But the larger point is, even so, no statement can be dismissed merely by questioning someone's credibility.
 
Top Bottom