War on Terror

[rrfield]

Nope. It's a lie. Funny thing is...the folks who watched CNN and MSNBC believed that lie.

I really wish you would consult a dictionary before posting.

sen·sa·tion·al (sĕn-sā'shə-nəl)
adj.
1. Of or relating to sensation.
2. Arousing or intended to arouse strong curiosity, interest, or reaction, especially by exaggerated or lurid details: sensational journalism; a sensational television report.
3. Outstanding; spectacular: a sensational concert; a sensational dinner.

bi·as (bī'əs)
tr.v., -ased or -assed, -as·ing or -as·sing, -as·es or -as·ses.
1. To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.
2. To apply a small voltage to (a grid).

Now if they are willing to lie about something an innocuous as a picnic bench being washed over the side of a pier, what else would they lie about? That's where the bias comes in.

Your example is bunk. Give us an example of bias, not sensationalism, and we will listen. Go home, find a dictionary, read it. Once you get a basic grasp of the English language, go back to high school and take Intro to Journalism. When you learn something about journalism you may try again.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I really wish you would consult a dictionary before posting.

sen·sa·tion·al (sĕn-sā'shə-nəl)
adj.
1. Of or relating to sensation.
2. Arousing or intended to arouse strong curiosity, interest, or reaction, especially by exaggerated or lurid details: sensational journalism; a sensational television report.
3. Outstanding; spectacular: a sensational concert; a sensational dinner.

bi·as (bī'əs)
tr.v., -ased or -assed, -as·ing or -as·sing, -as·es or -as·ses.
1. To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.
2. To apply a small voltage to (a grid).



Your example is bunk. Give us an example of bias, not sensationalism, and we will listen. Go home, find a dictionary, read it. Once you get a basic grasp of the English language, go back to high school and take Intro to Journalism. When you learn something about journalism you may try again.

It was a lie. You can swing this however you like, but it won't change the fact. Question...


Was the pier destroyed? It's yes, or no. If it was yes, then you'd have something, but it wasn't, which relegates their whole story to a lie. You have trouble reading, and you also have problems with the truth. You want to change the definition, go ahead, but don't tell me that my example is bunk, because it's not. It shows exactly how it starts. It influenced in an unfair direction. Now...I suggest you go read a dictionary, and this time, try to understand what's there...

 

[rrfield]

Now...I suggest you go read a dictionary.

I consulted a dictionary. You made shit up to prove a non-existant point. How much is Rupert paying you? I'd ask for my money back if I were him.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I consulted a dictionary. You made shit up to prove a non-existant point. How much is Rupert paying you? I'd ask for my money back if I were him.

But you didn't understand it. Thanks for making my point for me. Bias is a type of lie, and you lap up liberal bias like a pig in slop. You know good and well that leading something based on sensationalism is bias at it's highest form...or...perhaps I'm giving you too much credit...

 

[rrfield]

The point of sensationalism isn't to push a point of view. That's bias. Sensationalism is used to draw in viewers. What's more interesting, a pier that's getting pounded but holding up, or a pier that's HEY THAT GUY SAYS THE PIER IS NO MORE! RUN WITH IT! Bad reporting? Yes. Sensationalism.

A report can be sensational. The same report can also be biased. A report can also be one wihtout being the other. The example given is sensational but not biased.

By the way, where did I defend MSNBC or CNN? Why do you assume I am a flaming lib, just because I don't agree with you 100% of the time?

 

[catocom]

What kills me about the whole war in Iraq thing, and the news media, and
even the pres. at this point, is (and the pres may just be playing to the press...)
is...They all keep saying there where/are no wmd in Iraq.
They are just now getting the equipment together to do ultrasound on the ground.
If the find that there are still wmd buried say 13 stories under ground, how
many people are going to change their tune, and how many are going to
say it's a conspiracy, and that we planted um there?
I still think there's an excellent chance that there is something more there.
Why has everyone already drawn conclusions when ALL the possibilities have
not yet been exhausted?
I personally have just a little more faith in our intel. than most people.

 

[Gato_Solo]

The point of sensationalism isn't to push a point of view. That's bias. Sensationalism is used to draw in viewers. What's more interesting, a pier that's getting pounded but holding up, or a pier that's HEY THAT GUY SAYS THE PIER IS NO MORE! RUN WITH IT! Bad reporting? Yes. Sensationalism.

A report can be sensational. The same report can also be biased. A report can also be one wihtout being the other. The example given is sensational but not biased.

By the way, where did I defend MSNBC or CNN? Why do you assume I am a flaming lib, just because I don't agree with you 100% of the time?

Nope. I assume nothing. I am only responding to what you say. Now...the report on the pier was bias simply because it changed the truth to something not true. That's what bias does. It changes the definition, and the scope, of everything it touches. You call that sensationalism. I call it a lie, and that lie is used to create bias. Take a look at the links that master shake put up...one for CNN and one for Fox. Take a good look at the headline...which I put in bold. Both are true...to a certain degree, but one also mixes lies into it's header...You call that sensationalism...I call it a lie used to create the bias that the author is looking for. You can't have one without a bit, or a lot, of the other.

 

[flavio]

Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:

Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2119864/
​

​

 

[Gato_Solo]

Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:

Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2119864/

Ahhh...the typical disgruntled employee, eh? I'm sure I can find the same type of person who worked for the other news outlets...


BTW...you do realize that he calls the left dishonest, right?

 

[flavio]

What makes you think he's disgruntled?


Is this guy disgruntled to?

From the July 19 broadcast of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly
O'REILLY: And FOX does tilt right, I believe.

 

[Gato_Solo]

What makes you think he's disgruntled?

Just a wild guess...since I've never heard of the guy before.

Is this guy disgruntled to?

From the July 19 broadcast of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly
O'REILLY: And FOX does tilt right, I believe.

Do I really have to answer that? You've seen his show...

 

[flavio]

Just a wild guess...since I've never heard of the guy before.

Obviously there's something wrong with him if you don't like what he said.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Obviously there's something wrong with him if you don't like what he said.

Nope. Your quote...not mine...

Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly.

Club them to death and feed the scraps. Sounds disgruntled to me.

 

[Inkara1]

Your quote changes jack shit, flav. No one disputes that O'Reilly's show leans right. The analysis/opinion shows do lean right. The debate here is the HARD NEWS.

 

[flavio]

Nope. Your quote...not mine...

Yes, the quote I posted you dismissed as from a "disgruntled employee" because it didn't agree with your view.

Your quote changes jack shit, flav. No one disputes that O'Reilly's show leans right. The analysis/opinion shows do lean right. The debate here is the HARD NEWS.

Notice he didn't say his show leaned right but that FOX leans right. Notice the difference?

 

[Gato_Solo]

Yes, the quote I posted you dismissed as from a "disgruntled employee" because it didn't agree with your view.

Nope. Guess you'd better read my previous response to this, and do try to keep up.

 

[Inkara1]

Notice he didn't say his show leaned right but that FOX leans right. Notice the difference?

The San Francisco Chronicle leans left, but you accept their hard news stories as fact and not bias. So what's your point?

 

[The Other One]

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

"According to Robert J. Barro, the Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics at Harvard University, who is also a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, the study illustrates “that the liberal inclination of the mainstream media is clear.”

 

[MrBishop]

Just fromt he beginning...I like this part. "We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate"

He's comparing news outlets with Congressmen?
Which is in turn based on which think-tanks they quote...leading me to ask. Who listed which think tanks liberal/conservative or other? The scoring is interesting too...

Hell of a long article, TOO.

Remind me to really look it over when my insomnia kicks in.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Just fromt he beginning...I like this part. "We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate"

He's comparing news outlets with Congressmen?
Which is in turn based on which think-tanks they quote...leading me to ask. Who listed which think tanks liberal/conservative or other? The scoring is interesting too...

Hell of a long article, TOO.

Remind me to really look it over when my insomnia kicks in.

Sounds reasonable to me...

In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three network television news shows. Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as “Is the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle?” or “Is the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?” To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score. As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative. Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one. Our method asks: What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches? This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times. Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, NPR’s Morning Edition, NBC’s Nightly News and ABC’s World News Tonight were moderately left. The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC’s Good Morning America. Fox News’ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks’ evening news broadcasts. All of our findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.