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?
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.
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.
So what? Is it about Fox News or Daily Caller?
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."
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.
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?
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.
Who would make that argument?
And what in the article represents a hitherto unstated bias?
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.
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?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.
I never said they are wrong. Fox News is my cable media of choice.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 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?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.
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.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.
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?The opinion journalists do.
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.
I believe that particular story in itself can reinforce the idea that they are biased. Why are they attacking Keith Olbermann?
I watch Fox News regularly. The story was commentated on in a humorous snickering way.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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?