Still one more scandal

[spike]

What he is saying is that a major news organization, watched by millions and in the tank for the democrats, readily showed their bias by failing to mention the party affiliation of Blagojevich the day after the scandal broke.

Hmmn... but since major news organizations watched by millions and in the tank for the republicans readily showed their bias by mentioning Blago's party affiliation that leaves you and H20 without a point.

 

[jimpeel]

No Jim, there is no evidence to support your contentions by any margin unless except the ones that come from utterly biased sources like newsbusters. There are certainly studies that both show media biased towards the right or to the left but there isn't anything that is unbiased and definitive.

Are you then saying that the following sources are affiliated with NewsBusters? That they are biased to the conservative agenda?

Investors Business Daily: Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased

University of Michigan: News Bias

Pew Research Center: Modest Interest in 2008 Campaign News
Democratic Candidates Better Known, Even Among Republicans

Pew Research Center: THE INVISIBLE PRIMARY—INVISIBLE NO LONGER: A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy

Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy: The Invisible Primary (Archive removed. See above.) We had a discussion on this study HERE but you chose to debate the semantics of "bias" vs. "tone".

There are studies which show that there are more conservative syndicated op-ed columns but note it is from an "utterly biased" source on your side of the equation -- Media Matters. The fact remains, however, that in hard news, not op-ed pages, the media remains firmly in the tank for the democrats and the left.

Media Matters: Black and White and Re(a)d All Over: The Conservative Advantage in Syndicated Op-Ed Columns

The opposite of that would be Media Research Center which published this report on biased television coverage.

Media Research Center: ABC, CBS and NBC Morning Shows Promote Democratic Candidates, Push Liberal News Agenda

Anyway, I could go on but I'm tired and I have to change the belts on my F-350, one-ton, crew cab, 7.5 liter, 9 mpg, huge "carbon footprint", Prius killing truck.

 

[H2O boy]

not quite. closer than normal for your stock and trade, yet still wanting in the accuracy department.

however, to show that i am fair and balanced, i will give you credit for avoiding the seemingly overbearing compulsion to act like a jeopardy contestant and phrase everything in the form of a question. declarative sentences are your friends

as to the topic at hand, your close but still not close enough. now i cant fault you completely for that, because there are certain things you would have no possible way of knowing. for example, you could not be expected to know that the example i chose to post was chosen for one simple reason. its the only one i checked. you couldnt know that because you werent here. i chose it simply out of laziness and convenience. it was a major news story, widely reported, has bearing on the events of the day, and it involved someone who until the story broke i had no idea who he was. so i thought that would be a fair example of something to just look at and see how it went reported.

we all see how it went reported. with bias. thus rendering the statements claiming no bias exists to be inaccurate

now at this point i could continue the logical progression. that if a source is less than truthful once it has a high liklihood of being so again. i could, but i choose not to because i understand the laws of logic a bit deeper than that. instead i will simply make the point and let it go. the contention that the major news media are non-biased is inaccurate

this is not the fault of either party nor its candidates and/or adherents. any blame associated with the fact rests solely upon those media themselves. they make their decisions on how to run their organizations. why it is so difficult for a segment of the population to simply acknowledge this and move on to discussions that actually matter is a different thing entirely. but since some feel so tied to the notion of defending each and every tenet of their chosen leanings, no matter how frivolous said tenet might be, i supose it bears some attention and investigation. i did some of it. the results are before you. make of them as you wish. i certainly have

sweeping generalizations are inaccurate as absolutes. we seem to have a grasp on that concept as applies to certain issues. why this isnt one of them is a mystery to me. should you choose to cling to them then eventually your ship will sink and you with it and that will be that i on the other hand will continue to take every piece of information released through any media organization with the proverbial grain of salt and research independently the ones that i deem important enough to warrant investigation. its worked for me so far, and i dont feel the need for change

 

[spike]

Investors Business Daily: Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased

IBD wrongly interpreted that study. Harvard did not claim the media was biased and it only covered the last crop of pres candidates. This does not show general media bias.

University of Michigan: News Bias

This is an article on forms of bias and not something that shows the media biased towards one way or the other.

Pew Research Center: Modest Interest in 2008 Campaign News
Democratic Candidates Better Known, Even Among Republicans

Dem candidates better known. This doesn't really support your case.

Pew Research Center: THE INVISIBLE PRIMARY—INVISIBLE NO LONGER: A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy

Interesting Guiliani got more favorable coverage than Hillary and I'm a bit surprised that Thompson got such good coverage.

 

[spike]

i chose it simply out of laziness and convenience. it was a major news story, widely reported, has bearing on the events of the day, and it involved someone who until the story broke i had no idea who he was. so i thought that would be a fair example of something to just look at and see how it went reported.

we all see how it went reported. with bias. thus rendering the statements claiming no bias exists to be inaccurate

now at this point i could continue the logical progression.

There is no logical progression from there. You chose one article that didn't mention someone's party and have tried to make a unfounded sweeping generalization from there. All we need to do is look at the other articles that do mention a democrats party and ones that don't mention a republicans party and the generalization fails.

 

[H2O boy]

why it is so difficult for a segment of the population to simply acknowledge this and move on to discussions that actually matter is a different thing entirely. but since some feel so tied to the notion of defending each and every tenet of their chosen leanings, no matter how frivolous said tenet might be, i supose it bears some attention and investigation.

and onward we digress

kudos to you though. two consecutive replies consisting of declarative statements. now thats change we can all believe in

 

[spike]

Now if you could get over your fear of questions and also start making some rational thought out replies we might get an actual discussion going.

Admittedly the thread was a loser from the start and Jim was just trying to defend some frivolous tenent of his chosen leaning. Maybe next thread.

 

[Gonz]

Now if you could get over your fear of questions and also start making some rational thought out replies we might get an actual discussion going.

 

[H2O boy]

an exchange where all one party does is ask questions is not a discussion, its a senate hearing

 

[spike]

We haven't had one of those.