"Marxist" questions to Biden get News Channel "cut off" from Obama camp

[quote name='elprincipe']1. Off the top of my head, I can't think of an equivalent of Media Matters on the right, but I know they exist. I'm not sure why this is relevant to anything, as it would only prove that there are hacks on both sides, something everyone with any brain agrees on.[/quote]

There's newsbusters/L. Brent Bozell's Media Research Center. That's the closest I can think of. But, of course, Newsbusters picks largely dreadful examples of bias, while MMFA picks some bad examples of bias. In my opinion, at any rate.

2. The "liberal media" is not a myth. Most journalists are liberals. This is something self-admitted. 90+% of journalists voted for Bill Clinton, for example, and the vast majority supported Gore and Kerry over Bush. I'm sure the vast majority will vote for Obama (Salon just recently reported that in their offices 55 would vote for Obama, one (1) for McCain).
Click to expand...

You're a smart cat. You've shown that plenty of times in the past. That's why it's disappointing to see you conflate how members of the media vote with how they do their jobs. That you know better is what's disappointing. And we've had discussions about proportionate representation before. Bill O'Reilly may be one registered Republican in a sea of liberals, but he has far more exposure than John McNobody, beat reporter for the Sioux City Wheeler Dealer. So the overall proportion is not only leading people down the wrong logical path, it's a misleading and inaccurate statistic to use in the first place.

Whether or not, or to what extent, this affects coverage is the important question, however. Personally, I think it has an effect but not as much as some conservatives would have us believe.
Click to expand...

After all this absolutist posturing about the certainty of the liberal media, I guess you got tired and felt the need to sit down and take a break? Is it deliberate or mere coincidence that you've sat down on a fence all of a sudden after leveling the accusations you did with as much certainty as you have?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You're a smart cat. You've shown that plenty of times in the past. That's why it's disappointing to see you conflate how members of the media vote with how they do their jobs. That you know better is what's disappointing. And we've had discussions about proportionate representation before. Bill O'Reilly may be one registered Republican in a sea of liberals, but he has far more exposure than John McNobody, beat reporter for the Sioux City Wheeler Dealer. So the overall proportion is not only leading people down the wrong logical path, it's a misleading and inaccurate statistic to use in the first place.[/quote]

Not sure what you mean here. The next paragraph of my original post is relevant. See below also.

[quote name='mykevermin']After all this absolutist posturing about the certainty of the liberal media, I guess you got tired and felt the need to sit down and take a break? Is it deliberate or mere coincidence that you've sat down on a fence all of a sudden after leveling the accusations you did with as much certainty as you have?[/QUOTE]

What accusations? I merely stated the fact that most of the media is liberal. There is nothing to accuse there because it's a fact. But of course that merely is relevant information and not something to argue over; just because that's true doesn't mean coverage is affected.

In the second paragraph of my post you responded to, I stated that I thought this had some effect on coverage but not as much as many conservatives would have you believe. This, of course, is not fact but opinion, and I expect there will be widely varying opinions on this. It's very hard to determine how much political ideology/leanings of members of the media seeps into their work. I certainly wouldn't claim that just because someone is liberal or Democrat (or conservative/Republican/whatever) it would influence how they did their job. However, I would claim that for some people this is a problem. I have personal experience with this, so it's not something that I just throw out there without thinking.
 
1. Your " Not my boys, son." seem to have a much greater understanding of this liberal media propaganda you have lapped up. Take it from the horses mouth. You ignore this. Gee, I wonder why.

2. I did not say that Media Matters is unbiased or the pinnacle of journalism/whatever. My point is just what the other guy said, you take the facts they bring forward with more credibility. Go ahead and dissect one of their pieces not with "insight" as "this is liberal bias!" But, by researching what they say. This "liberal media" myth is just a lazy persons way of abdicating their ability to think. Go to FAIR and PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE dissect their report on the "liberal media" crap. Good luck. FAIR may look "liberal" to you since they present data and analysis. FYI, you will learn that journalists have marginal control. Ownership has FAR more influence. If you can't see that after READING the report THOROUGHLY, sorry, I can't help you.

3. Read the PIPA study and explain to me why the most conservative media such as Fox has the most ill-informed viewers? And the least conservative NPR/PBS has more informed? Sorry, don't mean to give you a tough one there.



[quote name='thrustbucket']My boys?
Not my boys, son.


Your tunnel vision is so utterly satisfying; to see someone both deny liberal media bias and defend media matters as a legitimate source of news and facts on the same page. Next you'll be telling us Foxnews has no right bias and republicans represent conservatism. I can't wait to see what you say next.


I'm sorry but defending media matters as legitimate does kind of the opposite of make you an authority on liberal media bias. Let me guess, Dailykos is for desert?



Wrong. Conservatives change all the time. Study history. They just don't like to change without good reasons, change to changes that makes no sense, or change for changes sake. Which puts them at polar opposite of the modern liberal movement.


That's quite a generalization.
Merriam Webster:


Since generalizations are the theme of the past 2 pages, allow me mine:

The big difference between conservatives and liberals in modern politics:

Conservatives are generally pretty happy with the way the United States was created. They like the constitution. They like states rights inherent in the founding documents. They like government to mostly be in charge of protection and defense and to stay out of most everything else. They feel the country is and has deviated from it's original set up and would like to work to get it back (for the most part i.e. not slavery).

Liberals generally, take very fundamental issues with the foundation of the United States. They feel the constitution was the best thing written at the time, but flawed, and feel it's due for a lot of changes. Capitalism is unfair and leaves a sour taste in their mouth and they gravitate towards larger nanny state policy. Fairness, above all else, is the role of government, and it must be grown and funded eternally in pursuit of the ultimate fair state at any cost. They aren't as happy with the way the country was set up originally, and they would like to morph it into something else more like countries across the pond.[/quote]
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Now, keep in mind I am not a Republican, but you do realize that slavery was ended by Republicans, and the Civil Rights Act was filibustered by Southern Democrats, right? That's just for starters. You equate today's "liberals" with classic liberalism. One some issues you are right, and on others the Republican Party are the classic liberals. The BS you wrote above is naive at best.[/quote]

I should have clarified. Then again maybe it shoudl be obvious. Guess not...
I am speaking of liberalism in the socio-political context. Not econ. I really don't feel that just because capitalism is often labeled as "liberal" has any bearing on the concept of liberal. All its strains, are really conservative at best. Look at how most people accept the mantras of laissez faire. In politics, liberal/conservative are relative as to the status quo. Most people, yourself included, do not understand this dichotomy.

And your point as to slavery and the Republicans is sophomoric at best. No shit, the Republicans were liberal. There was an ideological shift between the parties. Republicans were relatively liberal at that time especially looking at the Dems.

The reality, which it looks like you acknowledge is that Dems are socially liberal today when compared to the Republicans. I consider the Dems to be really centrists with SLIGHT left tendencies. But compared to the sad excuse called the Republican party OF TODAY they are "liberal". How sad. Cons in Canada would be considered Dems here. And the liberals would be THOSE DAMN COMMIES!!!

So, I never said that the Republicans of Abe Lincoln were socially conservative.

Did you read the FAIR study? It points out that journalists have only marginal impact. Editors and owners control the news. I don't consider the NY Times as liberal. They are quite establishment (hence conservative). Read the study. If you see any problems with it, break it down then. Also, I suggest reading Media Monopoly. Its the seminal book on issues of media.
 
Yeah, I think it's a really transparent ploy. GOP claims media is liberally biased. People like bmulligan fall for it/actually believe it and claim media is liberally biased, also.
Soon enough the media is bending over backwards wiping the GOP's asses with their tongues in their reports trying to avoid being labeled liberally biased in the future.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Yeah, I think it's a really transparent ploy. GOP claims media is liberally biased. People like bmulligan fall for it/actually believe it and claim media is liberally biased, also.
Soon enough the media is bending over backwards wiping the GOP's asses with their tongues in their reports trying to avoid being labeled liberally biased in the future.[/quote]

Haha! Well said. How well did the liberal media work when it came to challenging the conservative administration on the Iraq propaganda? And yuou ever see a White House press conference? WHAT A JOKE! Seriously, proponents of the liberal meda myth, go watch a press conference in another country. US politicians would be massacred and shamed. Shit, Bushy couldn't handle a press conference in UK or Pakistan. I have to give Blair credit for being able to somewhat handle his press. And Musharraff had to step in to shield Bushy boy from his press at a joint conference. You guys just don't see much of the outside world no? No wonder you think this media is "liberal"!!! Get outside the country or even tune in to foreign press. The CORPORATE media is basically state propaganda in the US. Its worse than a media in a dictatorship because the people know its propaganda. The pinnacle of achievement is what we have here, propaganda that citizens believe is a free and independent press. The Iraq Conquest would NEVER happen in a truly free society.
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']I don't consider the NY Times as liberal.[/QUOTE]

You know, I was going to spend time and respond to you more fully, but this response really says it all, so I'll just let it stand.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You know, I was going to spend time and respond to you more fully, but this response really says it all, so I'll just let it stand.[/QUOTE]

You live in a fantasy world, it is quite common among cons.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Now, keep in mind I am not a Republican, but you do realize that slavery was ended by Republicans, and the Civil Rights Act was filibustered by Southern Democrats, right? That's just for starters. You equate today's "liberals" with classic liberalism. One some issues you are right, and on others the Republican Party are the classic liberals. The BS you wrote above is naive at best.[/quote]

The Republican Party of that time doesn't resemble the Republican Party today. In fact, Abraham Lincoln wasn't a Republican in the election of 1864. He ran under the National Union Party banner. Republicans around the North actually wanted to negotiate with the South and end the war not because the couldn't win but because they really didn't care about slavery.

The "Dixiecrats" were such a divisive force, they were forced out of the mainline Democratic Party. Calling them Democrats only muddles the issue.
 
[quote name='depascal22']The Republican Party of that time doesn't resemble the Republican Party today. In fact, Abraham Lincoln wasn't a Republican in the election of 1864. He ran under the National Union Party banner. Republicans around the North actually wanted to negotiate with the South and end the war not because the couldn't win but because they really didn't care about slavery.

The "Dixiecrats" were such a divisive force, they were forced out of the mainline Democratic Party. Calling them Democrats only muddles the issue.[/QUOTE]

Of course the Republican Party has changed a lot since Lincoln. The Democratic Party, fond of saying they were founded by Jefferson, has changed a lot since then, as I'm sure you'll agree. Heck, the Democratic Party has changed a whole lot since the center-leftist bent of Bill Clinton, realigning more and more with the far left of MoveOn.org, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the most liberal senator, Barack Obama. The Democratic primary fight was between DNC Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton or Bill Richardson, and MoveOn.org/ACORN Democrats, such as Barack Obama. Obama won, completing the far left takeover of the party. It's kind of similar in a way to the takeover of the Republican Party by evangelical neocons, for which they are suffering greatly right now.
 
Healthcarerage8.jpg


I googled 'cheapassgamer obama hitler' and this was the 1st thread that popped up.
 
[quote name='camoor']I mean come on - this is America, as soon as anyone starts comparing mainstream candidates to Marx or Hitler I think most intelligent people tune out.

Unless we're talking about W in which case - compare on! :D ;)[/QUOTE]

lol... great thread to dig up. ;)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']lol... great thread to dig up. ;)[/QUOTE]

Yes. How dare someone ask pointed or relevant questions. There ought to be some kind of law to only allow softballs to democrats in election years. We'll call it the Hillary Doctrine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top