"Fox News is Not Just Biased -- It's a Cult

[blurred visions]

***Great article I just stumbled across.***



The danger Fox News poses to America is not that it is a biased or partisan arm of the Republican Party, as the Obama Administration contends. Fox is a danger because it is a cult and uses the same destabilizing psychological techniques cults use to undermine the independent functioning of minds they want to control.

Once unleashed, these cult-like techniques can ultimately take on a life of their own and become very dangerous, especially to the most important of all American freedoms, the freedom of thought. The most precise term for these techniques is mind control.

Unfortunately, by focusing on Fox News' bias, the Administration diverts attention from the true problem. Fox is a powerful system of mind control that makes a mockery of the principles of self-reliance and individual responsibility for which Fox adherents ostensibly stand.

For cults, like Fox News, their objective is total control of the victim's mind so that the viewer becomes the easily manipulated pawn of the cult. The cult leadership is not satisfied to merely convince the listener of a particular point of view. The cult wants to effectively pull the levers inside the listener's mind, and direct that mind lock, stock and barrel. The cult will measure its own success by the relative ease with which it is able to do this.

As with any successful vehicle of thought control in a democratic society, overtly coercive tools of domination are not available as they are in more traditionally authoritarian regimes. People must not only join the cult voluntarily, they must also join without any awareness they have joined a cult.

Fox succeeds in both of these tasks in large part because they successfully penetrates their viewers' minds in such a way that the viewers do not experience Fox News as telling them what to believe, what to do or, for that matter, even as advocating for what Fox News believes.

Instead, the Fox viewer has the experience of hearing something they believe they have already known or felt before, whether they have or have not, not unlike a déjà vu experience. The difference between psychological suggestion and independent thought is lost on the person succumbing to psychological suggestion.

Similarly, on an emotional level, Fox News elicits feelings of resentment from people, feelings which may be there to some extent, but which become far more pronounced by the time the extensive Fox commentary is over. Fox cleverly mirrors and amplifies these feelings explaining why any "sane" person would have the same feelings. The most common emotions in these cases are anger, disgust, and contempt. Humanistic emotions of compassion, love, and humor are almost totally lacking.

Many of the rest of us, the "non-adherents," if you will, cannot understand how people can stand to listen to Fox News with its non-stop onslaught of what we experience as invective. What we don't allow for in our assessment, because we don't experience it, is the extraordinary relief Fox "commentary" provides to the minds of its adherents. It keeps listeners feeling certain, justified, and stimulated all day long, 24-7. This is no trivial psychological service.

Fox appears to provide a 24/7 fortification of people's "own" political beliefs. And it is presented in a manner that ostensibly justifies a badly felt need for an emotional catharsis, especially rage, generated by the confusion people feel over the complexity of modern political and cultural issues. Helping people organize a suitable target for this rage requires creativity, good organizational skills and an interest in domination.

These psychological "services" make Fox a Trojan Horse ostensibly bearing psychological gifts that give Fox free entry to the mind of its listeners and enabling it to surreptitiously exercise longstanding Orwellian techniques of thought control. Well orchestrated, repetitive talking points, limited to a very few key "loaded words," to borrow Orwell's term, take on great psychological effectiveness. The words become mental implants, not arguments or policy justifications.

In this and other ways, the mind is gradually seduced into letting Fox have its way with the subjects' psyche with remarkably little resistance. People display a robotic acquiescence to positions and attitudes that heretofore had never been of concern to them.

We have all experienced this striking transition with our own friends and acquaintances, and many of us have even experienced it with loved ones. It is as if one day they are there and reachable and the next they are shut off from us, unreachable by rational discussion. Some literally have a faraway look in their eyes. These are like the terrifying encounters that families of young people confront when their child has been "captured" by a cult. The Fox News cult is one that appeals to "children of all ages."

After a certain period of time in such a dependent state, the mind is too enfeebled to reestablish any independence. This is what is often referred to as the "dumbing-down" of America.

This is also why we are seeing in Fox News adherents increasing evidence of cult influence. The Republican conventioneers riotous laughter at the phrase "Drill, Baby, drill," the "birthers" crazily insisting that Obama was born in Kenya, and the "deathers" insisting that the government was putting a clause in the health insurance reform package that would be a "death sentence" for them all suggest that rapturous, cult-induced, vacuous thinking has increasingly replaced rational and independent thought.

The effects of the manipulations of a cult are very difficult to reverse. Cults are known for the casualties they cause. For some people, the loss of a connection to their cult is followed by acute psychiatric breakdowns. For a democratic society to have so many of its independent minds under this kind of assault is extremely dangerous as the ill-conceived ventures we have undertaken as a nation over the last decade so painfully illustrate.

Cults need to grow or they wither. They are dependent upon the vampire-like, insatiable need to bring new "blood" into the system with its invigorating impact on the group. How far Fox can go is unclear, but there is no apparent limit to its potential expansion at the present time.

Arthur Miller's 1945 novel Focus made into a 2002 movie by the same name starring William Macy and Laura Dern provides a chilling portrayal of the spread of a political cult with an unnamed prejudice, presumably anti-semitism. For readers who have not seen it, it will provide an eerie reminder to the feeling you have when your neighbor almost overnight seems to have "swallowed the kool aid" and tells you, as one of my friends did, that he listens to Fox News because it is "fair and balanced." This was not an independent thought my friend had. It was a "thought" chip that had been implanted in his mind by Fox News.

Cults provide a powerful temporary balm to a troubled mind -- they provide simplicity in the form of a surrender of the struggle an independent confronts. "Give me your tired and uncertain mind, and I will keep you safe from the complexities, uncertainties and fears that afflict you." It is, of course, from the perspective of the person's mental functioning, a Faustian barter with the devil except that one surrenders the mind, not the soul.

The problem is that with each surrender of an independent mind, there is a strong likelihood that that mind will never return to independent functioning, but, instead, will be in the service of inherently repressive cult-like forces who can only function in what is really a lifeless existence where processes of destruction substitute for life and vitality,

The Obama Administration is right to be concerned about Fox News. But Fox is not just another biased news media. Fox is a cult.

Bryant Welch, J.D., Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist and attorney. He is the author of State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind (St Martin's Press, 2008.)

[Vteckidd]

More propaghanda to try and Make liberals feel better.

See liberals attack the other side without proof. That's their way cause they know they can't argue their own agenda. They can't debate the issues cause they will lose.

People with a brain realize the difference between right wing zealots and rhetoric. Something you obviously can't do

i watch fox and CNN and CNN is so far out there it's rediculous. Fox has a bias but they are by far the most neutral in rporting .

When is the last time a conservative was on msnbc? Or CNN?

[Total_Blender]

When is the last time a conservative was on msnbc? Or CNN?

The House minority leader, John Boehner was on Meet The Press on NBC/MSNBC this morning, and they let him spew right wing talking points for about 15 minutes.

Also, Joe Scarborugh has a morning show on MSNBC. And Glenn Beck wasn't fired from CNN, he just got a better offer from Fox. If you'll remember, just last year CNN's primetime lineup was Beck, Dobbs, and Nancy Grace... that was like 4 hours of conservative commentary, lol.

When have you ever seen a liberal on Fox News who wasn't shouted down?

[Browning151]

***Great article I just stumbled across.***



The danger CNN poses to America is not that it is a biased or partisan arm of the Democrat Party, as Americans contend. CNN is a danger because it is a cult and uses the same destabilizing psychological techniques cults use to undermine the independent functioning of minds they want to control.

Once unleashed, these cult-like techniques can ultimately take on a life of their own and become very dangerous, especially to the most important of all American freedoms, the freedom of thought. The most precise term for these techniques is mind control.

Unfortunately, by focusing on CNN bias, Americans divert attention from the true problem. CNN is a powerful system of mind control that makes a mockery of the principles of self-reliance and individual responsibility for which CNN adherents ostensibly stand.

For cults, like CNN, their objective is total control of the victim's mind so that the viewer becomes the easily manipulated pawn of the cult. The cult leadership is not satisfied to merely convince the listener of a particular point of view. The cult wants to effectively pull the levers inside the listener's mind, and direct that mind lock, stock and barrel. The cult will measure its own success by the relative ease with which it is able to do this.

As with any successful vehicle of thought control in a democratic society, overtly coercive tools of domination are not available as they are in more traditionally authoritarian regimes. People must not only join the cult voluntarily, they must also join without any awareness they have joined a cult.

CNN succeeds in both of these tasks in large part because they successfully penetrates their viewers' minds in such a way that the viewers do not experience CNN as telling them what to believe, what to do or, for that matter, even as advocating for what CNN believes.

Instead, the CNN viewer has the experience of hearing something they believe they have already known or felt before, whether they have or have not, not unlike a déjà vu experience. The difference between psychological suggestion and independent thought is lost on the person succumbing to psychological suggestion.

Similarly, on an emotional level, CNN elicits feelings of resentment from people, feelings which may be there to some extent, but which become far more pronounced by the time the extensive CNN commentary is over. CNN cleverly mirrors and amplifies these feelings explaining why any "sane" person would have the same feelings. The most common emotions in these cases are anger, disgust, and contempt. Humanistic emotions of compassion, love, and humor are almost totally lacking.

Many of the rest of us, the "non-adherents," if you will, cannot understand how people can stand to listen to CNN with its non-stop onslaught of what we experience as invective. What we don't allow for in our assessment, because we don't experience it, is the extraordinary relief CNN "commentary" provides to the minds of its adherents. It keeps listeners feeling certain, justified, and stimulated all day long, 24-7. This is no trivial psychological service.

CNN appears to provide a 24/7 fortification of people's "own" political beliefs. And it is presented in a manner that ostensibly justifies a badly felt need for an emotional catharsis, especially rage, generated by the confusion people feel over the complexity of modern political and cultural issues. Helping people organize a suitable target for this rage requires creativity, good organizational skills and an interest in domination.

These psychological "services" make CNN a Trojan Horse ostensibly bearing psychological gifts that give CNN free entry to the mind of its listeners and enabling it to surreptitiously exercise longstanding Orwellian techniques of thought control. Well orchestrated, repetitive talking points, limited to a very few key "loaded words," to borrow Orwell's term, take on great psychological effectiveness. The words become mental implants, not arguments or policy justifications.

In this and other ways, the mind is gradually seduced into letting CNN have its way with the subjects' psyche with remarkably little resistance. People display a robotic acquiescence to positions and attitudes that heretofore had never been of concern to them.

We have all experienced this striking transition with our own friends and acquaintances, and many of us have even experienced it with loved ones. It is as if one day they are there and reachable and the next they are shut off from us, unreachable by rational discussion. Some literally have a faraway look in their eyes. These are like the terrifying encounters that families of young people confront when their child has been "captured" by a cult. The CNN cult is one that appeals to "children of all ages."

After a certain period of time in such a dependent state, the mind is too enfeebled to reestablish any independence. This is what is often referred to as the "dumbing-down" of America.

This is also why we are seeing in CNN adherents increasing evidence of cult influence. The Democrat conventioneers riotous laughter at the phrase "evil rich people," the "anti-birthers" crazily insisting that Obama wasn't born in Kenya, and the "healthcare supporters" insisting that the government wasn't putting a clause in the health insurance reform package that would be a "death sentence" for them all suggest that rapturous, cult-induced, vacuous thinking has increasingly replaced rational and independent thought.

The effects of the manipulations of a cult are very difficult to reverse. Cults are known for the casualties they cause. For some people, the loss of a connection to their cult is followed by acute psychiatric breakdowns. For a democratic society to have so many of its independent minds under this kind of assault is extremely dangerous as the ill-conceived ventures we have undertaken as a nation over the last decade so painfully illustrate.

Cults need to grow or they wither. They are dependent upon the vampire-like, insatiable need to bring new "blood" into the system with its invigorating impact on the group. How far CNN can go is unclear, but there is no apparent limit to its potential expansion at the present time.

Arthur Miller's 1945 novel Focus made into a 2002 movie by the same name starring William Macy and Laura Dern provides a chilling portrayal of the spread of a political cult with an unnamed prejudice, presumably anti-semitism. For readers who have not seen it, it will provide an eerie reminder to the feeling you have when your neighbor almost overnight seems to have "swallowed the kool aid" and tells you, as one of my friends did, that he listens to CNN because it is "The Best Political Team on Television." This was not an independent thought my friend had. It was a "thought" chip that had been implanted in his mind by CNN.

Cults provide a powerful temporary balm to a troubled mind -- they provide simplicity in the form of a surrender of the struggle an independent confronts. "Give me your tired and uncertain mind, and I will keep you safe from the complexities, uncertainties and fears that afflict you." It is, of course, from the perspective of the person's mental functioning, a Faustian barter with the devil except that one surrenders the mind, not the soul.

The problem is that with each surrender of an independent mind, there is a strong likelihood that that mind will never return to independent functioning, but, instead, will be in the service of inherently repressive cult-like forces who can only function in what is really a lifeless existence where processes of destruction substitute for life and vitality,

Americans are right to be concerned about CNN. But CNN is not just another biased news media. CNN is a cult.



Hmmm, I bet if it were written this way originally you would be in here screaming biased propaganda wouldn't you? See how easy it is to change the spin of that article? Anyone can go out there, write up some garbage like that and publish it and it sounds just as convincing whether it says Fox or CNN or whatever news outlet you change the name to.

[Vteckidd]

The House minority leader, John Boehner was on Meet The Press on NBC/MSNBC this morning, and they let him spew right wing talking points for about 15 minutes.

Also, Joe Scarborugh has a morning show on MSNBC. And Glenn Beck wasn't fired from CNN, he just got a better offer from Fox. If you'll remember, just last year CNN's primetime lineup was Beck, Dobbs, and Nancy Grace... that was like 4 hours of conservative commentary, lol.

When have you ever seen a liberal on Fox News who wasn't shouted down?


Boehner is prob the best person in congress right now. I enjoy his candor and he's not afraid of a fight.

Dont confuse stance on the issues with "talking points". Talkig points usually refers to rhetoric you can't argue. Broad opinion on issues.

If boehner spewed talking points so did Obama wed night

[blurred visions]

How am I not surprised, these are all typical conservative responses. Each of you right-wingers sound like a spitting image of Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. bashing on topics you simply can't get your head around and/or topics that are against your beliefs. Fox's mind control is certainly at work here.

I'm working on my PhD in Sociology at an SEC school, so if you would like to discuss having a brain then I'm down. Maybe this article is just too advanced for some of you.

[blurred visions]

Actually, scratch that, I really don't have time going around in circles with you conservatives. All I can say is, get an education.

[Vteckidd]

What would you like to debate? You say I have no education you just posted an article that has zero facts. It's opinion.

Sources? Interviews? Can I get some evidence this cult actually exists? It's a shit article, substitue CNN or msnbc for "fox news" and you get the same thing, a biased opinionated article whose only objective is to give you a reason to hate fox news

I'll debate issues all day long. I'm educated and I run a quarter million dollar business which I started 2 years ago.

Uneducated would mean I couldn't argue or understand and issues. I can't argue this article on merits as it has no facts it's someones blog post.

You're the sheep not me.

[man]

Really? A conspiracy theory? That's the worst aspect of the internet, every idiot can write an "article" or post a thread.

[BanginJimmy]

I'm working on my PhD in Sociology at an SEC school,


I'm sorry, but I dont argue with the mentally challenged.




The nice thing about academia is that you are completely shielded from the real world. All of those nice theories simply dont apply to the real world.

[One_Bad_SHO]

I'd watch Fox over the Communist News Network any day.

[BanginJimmy]

Actually, scratch that, I really don't have time going around in circles with you conservatives. All I can say is, get an education.


Typical liberal. When the facts dont fit with your agenda, quickly go right back to attacks. I understand why you dont want to even try to "go around in circles" though. You really are out matched. All you have to fall back on is something a (most likely very liberal) professor has told you.


By the way, anyone with the time and money can get a phd. It is not a measure of intelligence.

[PSINXS]

all your news is biased and cult like. the same bastard owns most of your news, while two to other bastards own all the rest. News is dictated you the way THEY see fit.

[PSINXS]

Typical liberal. When the facts dont fit with your agenda, quickly go right back to attacks. I understand why you dont want to even try to "go around in circles" though. You really are out matched. All you have to fall back on is something a (most likely very liberal) professor has told you.


By the way, anyone with the time and money can get a phd. It is not a measure of intelligence.

thats the dumbest shit ive ever heard. yea u dont need an IQ to get a phd.:rolleyes: if u dont have an ounce of grammar skills or intelligence, you wont even finish the dissertation for obtaining a Phd. Sorry but a Phd is no cake walk, if so we all would have them.

[NewGen33]

I feel like each side is so biased that would rather see the country fall then come together and make shit happen.

[BB6dohcvtec]

Both Fox News and MSNBC are jokes they deliver the news in a way that they know their target audience want to hear.

[blurred visions]

Both Fox News and MSNBC are jokes they deliver the news in a way that they know their target audience want to hear.

Fox cannot be compared with MSNBC. Fox has greater powers, they control the redneck market, aka the weak-minded.

Watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LUid0IZ2w

[quickdodge®]

I feel like each side is so biased that would rather see the country fall then come together and make shit happen.

I agree. In fact, this can be said about politics in general. It seems no one is out to make this country a better place. It's every man for himself. Later, QD.

[Vteckidd]

Lol ok and dems own the poor demographic which is largely NOT white. Can I call them stupid?

Red neck is usually anyone from the south , doesn't mean they are stupid or weak minded. Just like being poor and black doesn't make you stupid.

There's crazies on both sides of the aisle . So what? To try and say that a small section of them represents the whole party is ignorant.

It's so funny that the liberals have 3 major networks in the bag, ONE conservative channel comes out and it's "oh it's not fair"

[Total_Blender]

They may not be representative of the whole party, but they are certainly the most vocal and they are the ones the party leaders like Beck/Limbaugh/Palin are trying to court.

[Vteckidd]

Fox cannot be compared with MSNBC. Fox has greater powers, they control the redneck market, aka the weak-minded.

Watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LUid0IZ2w

Yeah and Rachel maddow is the fucking north star we should set our compass too lol

she got so many things wrong in that piece. 9-12 project which led to tea parties was organized by beck not fox news. Fox news isn't funding or creating the tea parties try are covering them and why shouldn't they? It's not anti-govt protests no one there is an anarchist asshats.

So where was all this during the bush years when the left media ripped him apart and bush still did interviews with NBC and abc? Can u imagine if he labeled the a "opposition political party to the white house"?

Where's the outrage over te left glorifying Cindy sheen and Michael Moore? The left is much more diabolical in their methods

It's only fair when it works in their favor

[blurred visions]

Lol ok and dems own the poor demographic which is largely NOT white. Can I call them stupid?

Red neck is usually anyone from the south , doesn't mean they are stupid or weak minded. Just like being poor and black doesn't make you stupid.

There's crazies on both sides of the aisle . So what? To try and say that a small section of them represents the whole party is ignorant.

It's so funny that the liberals have 3 major networks in the bag, ONE conservative channel comes out and it's "oh it's not fair"

Did you even watch that last video I posted? About Fox organizing protests against the US Government? That is what is "not fair." This is simply the media abusing their powers; making everyone (weak-minded) first believe they are a news network and then causing an uproar of uninformed people. (Forward to this post http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/showthread.php?t=277399)

If you would even take the time to watch these videos and see my point then you wouldn't have shit to say.

[Vteckidd]

Your video had nothing to do with fox news controlling the rednecks maybe you should watch it again

[blurred visions]

Yeah and Rachel maddow is the fucking north star we should set out compass too lol

she got so many things wrong in that piece. 9-12 project which led to tea parties was organized by beck not fox news. Fox news isn't funding or creating the tea parties try are covering them and why shouldn't they? It's not anti-govt protests no one there is an anarchist asshats.

So where was all this during the bush years when the left media ripped him apart and bush still did interviews with NBC and abc? Can u imagine if he labeled the a "opposition political party to the white house"?

Where's the outrage over te left glorifying Cindy sheen and Michael Moore? The left is much more diabolical in their methods

It's only fair when it works in their favor


Haha what?! Beck IS Fox News, he WORKS for Fox News and he announced AND organized these tea parties on his FOX NEWS SHOW. You have got to be a fucking retard.

Now your trying to talk about the left during Bush years? Don't even compare that to the Right wing today. The left never organized MASSIVE movements across the nation protesting for.... no one really knows, republicans marching don't even know. http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/showthread.php?t=277399

[Vteckidd]

They aren't protesting anti govt you dumbasses lol

fox is covering it so the fuck what? The left landers to their viewers why can't fox pander to theirs?

The tea party was a huge story and only fox covered it. WHY?

How come NONE of the major networks covered Scott browns victory speech even though fox covered both coakley and brown?

Cause the left media doesn't want egg on their face

[Vteckidd]

Haha what?! Beck IS Fox News, he WORKS for Fox News and he announced AND organized these tea parties on his FOX NEWS SHOW. You have got to be a fucking retard.

Now your trying to talk about the left during Bush years? Don't even compare that to the Right wing today. The left never organized MASSIVE movements across the nation protesting for.... no one really knows, republicans marching don't even know. http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/showthread.php?t=277399

Whose weak minded and stupid?

You guys admit beck is a infotainer he's not their news correspondents. He's like geraldo, John stossel etc. Some of it's rhetoric some of it's true.

Seems like you can't tell the difference. And you call me dumb

Beck organized the 9-12 project just like oreilly and beck do the bold fresh tour. He used his show to promote it, which was nothig to do with antigovt protests.

Oooooo shame on him for having a meeting with likeminded individuals.

Can we kick apart all the news anchors on the left that go to anti bush events?

[Vteckidd]

You can't hold an argument with us at all cause you don't know enough. You run down liberal left talking points and blogs and act like that means something.

I'll provide you the same challenge i made to blender, watch an episode of Glenn beck with me TiVo it and come back here afterwards and you show me what was wrong that he reported and how he's in the tank for the GOP.

[blurred visions]

Fox news isn't funding or creating the tea parties try are covering them and why shouldn't they?


fox is covering it so the fuck what?

The tea party was a huge story and only fox covered it.

Are these two opposing points? I can't really make out the first one, did you mean to say, "or trying to cover them." ??



The tea party was a huge story and only fox covered it. WHY?

How come NONE of the major networks covered Scott browns victory speech even though fox covered both coakley and brown?

Cause the left media doesn't want egg on their face

Fox covered it because they created it!! It's just an angle for them, they simply get uninformed "patriotic" citizens to stand up for their "American rights" so that people see huge masses of protesters. This is Fox's attempt at making them look like their ideas and viewpoints are the right ones.

I'm sure other networks showed highlights of the speech, but I really don't see the need to show US senator's victory speeches all over the networks. But since CNN didn't show this, then in your eyes they are left? Right?

[Total_Blender]

I'll provide you the same challenge i made to blender, watch an episode of Glenn beck with me TiVo it and come back here afterwards and you show me what was wrong that he reported and how he's in the tank for the GOP.

I've pointed it out countless times, you just choose to ignore it. You are entitled to believe whatever you want, as wrong as that may be. I'm over Beck's hatespeak and loony conspiracy theories, its beneath me to waste any more time on that trash. :goodjob:

[blurred visions]

Whose weak minded and stupid?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevga9jUC48



You guys admit beck is a infotainer he's not their news correspondents. He's like geraldo, John stossel etc. Some of it's rhetoric some of it's true.

You're right, some of it is entertainment and some is true, but thats exactly what he has to do. He has to have some true points in his segments to reassure you that he is telling the truth.



Beck organized the 9-12 project just like oreilly and beck do the bold fresh tour. He used his show to promote it, which was nothig to do with antigovt protests.

You know damn well those people out marching are there because their guy lost, and Obama is in office. Therefore, they are marching against Obama. Obama is the President, in the US GOVERNMENT. The people are marching AGAINST THE US GOVERNMENT.



Oooooo shame on him for having a meeting with likeminded individuals.


If anyone is being ignorant now, it's you. To think that these protests are meetings is outrageous. These are clear as day PROTESTS against Obama.



Can we kick apart all the news anchors on the left that go to anti bush events?

Be my guest.

[blurred visions]

I've pointed it out countless times, you just choose to ignore it. You are entitled to believe whatever you want, as wrong as that may be. I'm over Beck's hatespeak and loony conspiracy theories, its beneath me to waste any more time on that trash. :goodjob:

+1

[Vteckidd]

I'm on my iphone I'll respond tonight

[Vteckidd]

I've pointed it out countless times, you just choose to ignore it. You are entitled to believe whatever you want, as wrong as that may be. I'm over Beck's hatespeak and loony conspiracy theories, its beneath me to waste any more time on that trash. :goodjob:

This should be EASY for you then! Why back down?

You haven't pointed out anything you've posted other peoples blogs or video that you couldn't argue or articulate yourself. I've dethroned you almost every time and now I offer you a chance to shine and you back down

[Total_Blender]

If its that important to you we'll do it. I'll have to check the DVR and find a vacant time that no one else in the house is recording anything. It will probably have to be tomorrow's episode as I have a lot of projects going on this week and I'm working extra hours.

Glenn comes on at 5 right? Got to get the old people early because most of them usually go to bed by 7 :lmfao:

[Vteckidd]

If you accept we can choose what night I'm flying tomrrow so I can't do it but later this week I'm game

I'll even watch olberman and do the same thing if you want to be fair

[Total_Blender]

If you accept we can choose what night I'm flying tomrrow so I can't do it but later this week I'm game

I'll even watch olberman and do the same thing if you want to be fair

I set up the DVR for today's Glenn Beck. So its today, Thursday, or next week sometime. I've got plans Wednesday and Friday.

[Echonova]

I'm working on my PhD in Sociology at an SEC school, so if you would like to discuss having a brain then I'm down. Maybe this article is just too advanced for some of you.I am absolutely positive, beyond a shadow of a doubt my IQ is higher than yours and I watch Fox. I'm sure you love to go around and tout how smart you are, and if everyone would just listen to you the world would be a better place. It would not. That article is full of complete retardation. No wonder you found it intriguing.


Actually, scratch that, I really don't have time going around in circles with you conservatives. All I can say is, get an education.Again, you are in school now. I have finished college (AKA my "education") and live and work in the real world. I don't need an education... You need to finish yours.


Fox cannot be compared with MSNBC. Fox has greater powers, they control the redneck market, aka the weak-minded.

Watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LUid0IZ2wLOLOLOL... So only the smart people watch MSNBC??? LOLOLOL

While I can see where in your liberal mind this all makes sense... The clip starts off about the White House's objection to Fox talking to the "Pay Czar". Just take that in itself, how in the world do we even have a "Pay Czar"? Doesn't that bother you? Of course it doesn't, because everyone rich lied, cheated or stole to get the money. Right? Screwed over the little guy? Oppressed some minorities? Yeah...

Why are liberals, who claim to be open minded, the most vitriolic about opposing views?

BTW: Karl Marx is one of the principal architects of modern social science (Sociology, if I was unclear). Enjoy that degree.

[Vteckidd]

I will argue and debate with anyone, liberal spew talking points , then say "youre too dumb to understand" and withdraw into their own social circles

You can tell by reading these forums who KNOWS what they are talking about, and who doesnt.

Although i dont agree with Tonys views, i respect them and he can articulate his point (even though i may disagree with it)

Blender ou show FLASHES of being able to do that then you just resort to name calling and posting left wing blogs if anyone challenges you.

Blurred Visions, well, if hes associated with the car club of the same name, then he needs no explanation lol

[Total_Blender]

When have I posted a left wing blog? I wasn't aware that the AP and its affiliated newspapers, nor the US census were left wing blogs.

[blurred visions]

I am absolutely positive, beyond a shadow of a doubt my IQ is higher than yours and I watch Fox.

I'll be laughing at this all the way to my grave. :lmfao:



I'm sure you love to go around and tout how smart you are, and if everyone would just listen to you the world would be a better place. It would not. That article is full of complete retardation. No wonder you found it intriguing.

This is coming from someone who A. Didn't read the article or B. Didn't understand it.



Again, you are in school now. I have finished college (AKA my "education") and live and work in the real world. I don't need an education... You need to finish yours.

I did live in the real world and I worked, fortunately I was able to see how well an education would pay off for me in the end. "I have finished college" is a term you are using too broadly. That could easily mean you got an associates, and I am over here finishing my PhD. This is purely a Fox Republican tactic of quickly masking information in a way that makes it seem as if it is greater than what it really is.



LOLOLOL... So only the smart people watch MSNBC??? LOLOLOL

I posted that clip to back up my theory.

[bu villain]

I will argue and debate with anyone, liberal spew talking points , then say "youre too dumb to understand" and withdraw into their own social circles

Unfortunately it seems about 80% of the posts made in this section contain personal attacks and/or debates about who is smarter. Not that there aren't some good facts and ideas discussed but you really have to swim through the filth to get to them.

I challenge anyone to find a thread in this section without any personal attacks (although I'm pretty sure its impossible).

[Echonova]

Haha what?! Beck IS Fox News, he WORKS for Fox News and he announced AND organized these tea parties on his FOX NEWS SHOW. You have got to be a fucking retard.
I have noticed in a lot of your posts you use vulgarity or talk down to people. That is the language of the ignorant when they can't articulate their point.


I do however, desire more glistening jewels of your intellect. Don't let me down.

[Total_Blender]

If you accept we can choose what night I'm flying tomrrow so I can't do it but later this week I'm game

Thursday? I still have yesterday's episode on the DVR, I didn't get to watch it because my roommates were watching LOST last night. Its funny, I walked into the house last night and my roommate says:

"Who the hell is taping Glenn Beck? What the..."

"I am, I got into a debate with..."

"Are for fucking kidding me?"

"I got into a debate with some folks about how terrible Glenn Beck is and then I got the "I bet you never watched a single episode" spiel, so I agree'd to watch one episode from beginning to end and comment on it."

"Oh, carry on then"

:lmfao:

[StreetHazard]

Keith Olbermann and MSNBC is just as bad as anything on FOX news, they both pander to their own demographics. And the hypocrisy of both make me equally angry.

[F8d2Blk]

I think you guys are still stuck in the left, right paradigm. There is no left or right, it's just to keep you guys busy griping at each other every day. We would be in the same rut that we are in if we would of got McCain in. Turn off the news, please and do something for this country before it goes down the toilet. Oh and those that agree that we needed the patriot act are the dumbest people on the planet.

Oh and Beck didn't organize any tea parties and Beck is just a puppet, like the rest of the news goons out there and politicians. :goodjob:

[Vteckidd]

I was travelling all day yesterday so i wasnt home to TIVO yesterays episode.

Tonight i have some business meetings so i wont be home either (i already left so i cant TIVO it)

But we can do tomorrows episode or fridays

[StreetHazard]

I like the fact that Total Blender comes across as the token "liberal" in a virtual sea of southern republicans. I like that...I like it alot = )

But I do particularly enjoy this little gem given by our fiendish friends at FOX news that I can only assume was produced immediately following a rotation of handjobs for the dark lord of Satan himself. But I am not sure exactly how much christian republican prayer will be required to absolve themselves from all that evil jizz.

According to this an education has a tendency to make you against school prayer, for gay-rights and an abortion supporting liberal faggot, I suppose the research shows their reasoning is sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l1X1JLmKog

[Vteckidd]

Im not southern nor a republican

[StreetHazard]

Im not southern nor a republican

Me neither, but this is Import Atlanta....which places it firmly in the bible belt, which then means typically those states and areas lean heavily to the right. of course not everyone is a right-wing republican but most people are in the south, especially in rural areas. Someone like Total Blender is probably harassed at work whenever these conversations come up, or even talked down upon by his own family.

It would be like if a christian "fundie" struck up a conversation in downtown San Francisco on Haight street, you are almost asking to be ridiculed and scoffed at. It's tough to be a "liberal" in the south. But at the same time it's fun if you can cause anger and frustration in casual conversation.

Then again if I tried to describe my own political ideologies I would be ridiculed and laughed at by BOTH sides of the isle...so my opinion is probably null and void.

[Total_Blender]

Someone like Total Blender is probably harassed at work whenever these conversations come up, or even talked down upon by his own family.
.

Not really, I mean most of my extended family (aunts, uncles, cousins, etc) are republicans but its not that big of a deal. We just avoid talking about politics, or we can agree to disagree. My immediate/close family (Mom, Dad, Sister, a few cousins) all have a similar political stance, so we all get along great.

As far as work goes... I work at a university, probably 90% of my coworkers are more liberal than I am.:ninja:

[blurred visions]

I like the fact that Total Blender comes across as the token "liberal" in a virtual sea of southern republicans. I like that...I like it alot = )

But I do particularly enjoy this little gem given by our fiendish friends at FOX news that I can only assume was produced immediately following a rotation of handjobs for the dark lord of Satan himself. But I am not sure exactly how much christian republican prayer will be required to absolve themselves from all that evil jizz.

According to this an education has a tendency to make you against school prayer, for gay-rights and an abortion supporting liberal faggot, I suppose the research shows their reasoning is sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l1X1JLmKog


Wow, that video is completely ridiculous and it is exactly what I would expect out of Fox.

Take this quote from the commentator:
"So what is the answer here? How do we fix this? If degrees are making it more likely to support same-sex marriage, abortion, less likely to support school prayer, and American work ethic, how do you fix this?"


This is exactly the Fox manipulation that is to be expected. "Fox News: Fair and Balanced....This just in, college grads are most likely liberal, this is a problem, what can be done to fix this problem?"

[h23bb2]

More propaghanda to try and Make liberals feel better.

See liberals attack the other side without proof. That's their way cause they know they can't argue their own agenda. They can't debate the issues cause they will lose.

People with a brain realize the difference between right wing zealots and rhetoric. Something you obviously can't do

i watch fox and CNN and CNN is so far out there it's rediculous. Fox has a bias but they are by far the most neutral in rporting .

When is the last time a conservative was on msnbc? Or CNN?

I have given too much rep in the last 24hrs. I'll get you back later. :goodjob:

[Vteckidd]

Wow, that video is completely ridiculous and it is exactly what I would expect out of Fox.

Take this quote from the commentator:
"So what is the answer here? How do we fix this? If degrees are making it more likely to support same-sex marriage, abortion, less likely to support school prayer, and American work ethic, how do you fix this?"


This is exactly the Fox manipulation that is to be expected. "Fox News: Fair and Balanced....This just in, college grads are most likely liberal, this is a problem, what can be done to fix this problem?"


Wow you guys totally missed the entire fucking point of that whole report.

I agree "how can we fix it" is the wrong terms to use he should have said "how do we make colleges teach kids facts and not opinions". In other words you go to college to be taught information, its up to YOU to decode how to interpret that information and decide for yourself how to align yourself with your core values.

That report is accurate. mAnY higher learning institutions teach hardcore liberal policies because they employ hardcore liberal professors who teach their brand of hardcore liberal material.

That's not their job , their job is to teach facts and curriculum with some opinion, their job isn't to indoctrinate their students.

In college professors are not bound by any laws or curriculum to teach from. They teach what they want.

That whole report is saying from an study of 14000 students most of them couldn't answer basic historical or civics questions, but they had overwhelming liberal social issue views.

IE they aren't being taught information they are being told how to think. I have no problem with someone that naturally thinks o a liberal level. We are all entitled to our opinions. But to pay a university and have that university brainwash or indoctrinate it's students to think a certain way is WRONG.

It's wrong if liberals do it it's wrong if conservatives do it.

Can you guys not get that?

[NevrNufTorq]

Wow you guys totally missed the entire fucking point of that whole report.

I agree "how can we fix it" is the wrong terms to use he should have said "how do we make colleges teach kids facts and not opinions". In other words you go to college to be taught information, its up to YOU to decode how to interpret that information and decide for yourself how to align yourself with your core values.

That report is accurate. mAnY higher learning institutions teach hardcore liberal policies because they employ hardcore liberal professors who teach their brand of hardcore liberal material.

That's not their job , their job is to teach facts and curriculum with some opinion, their job isn't to indoctrinate their students.

In college professors are not bound by any laws or curriculum to teach from. They teach what they want.

That whole report is saying from an study of 14000 students most of them couldn't answer basic historical or civics questions, but they had overwhelming liberal social issue views.

IE they aren't being taught information they are being told how to think. I have no problem with someone that naturally thinks o a liberal level. We are all entitled to our opinions. But to pay a university and have that university brainwash or indoctrinate it's students to think a certain way is WRONG.

It's wrong if liberals do it it's wrong if conservatives do it.

Can you guys not get that?

he doesnt have a job, he's in school....it all sounds good when we' in school....then we go get a job and the cold hard realities of life start to come to fruition like the government wont put food on the table, wont pay for my clothes and isnt gonna give me a car payment or pay my mortgage:2cents:

[Vteckidd]

he doesnt have a job, he's in school....it all sounds good when we' in school....then we go get a job and the cold hard realities of life start to come to fruition like the government wont put food on the table, wont pay for my clothes and isnt gonna give me a car payment or pay my mortgage:2cents:

It's amazing how small business people think. I LOV3 talking to small business owners and hearing their points of view. It's these people that employ 80% of our work force. It's these people that are going to hire you or increase your wages etc

it's fascinating to me how these small business owners and partners really see and understand the issues.

[NevrNufTorq]

It's amazing how small business people think. I LOV3 talking to small business owners and hearing their points of view. It's these people that employ 80% of our work force. It's these people that are going to hire you or increase your wages etc

it's fascinating to me how these small business owners and partners really see and understand the issues.

that's the way brother:goodjob:dont even wanna start on how i have 100+ people that i have to worry about their families they support if i dont make the right choices for the business....too bad the government doesnt even have to worry about the checks they write but i'd be thrown in jail for running my business the way they run our government:2cents:

[Total_Blender]

he doesnt have a job, he's in school....it all sounds good when we' in school....then we go get a job and the cold hard realities of life start to come :blah::blah::blah:e:2cents:

Dude said he's in grad school, and I haven't met a grad student yet who didn't also have a job or even 2 jobs in addition to school. Most of the developmental, freshman, sophomore classes are taught by grad students at the bigger schools. Graduate students also usually work as research assistants, lab technicians, etc etc.

About "liberal indoctrination," not really. We learned about "the shock doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_%28economics%29)" and its critics in economics in the same unbiased fashion that we learned about Keynesian economics and it's critics. In poly sci we spent equal time discussing constructionism and the "elastic clause" and the bases for both. VTECKIDDDD's #1 homie, former 7th district rep. Bob Barr is a adjunct professor of political science over at Kennesaw State. He gave a speech at GA Highlands in Cartersville just the other day...

[Vteckidd]

Who said I was a bob barr fan?

I didn't say ALL universities, I said MOST. The report was about a study done on 14000 students and it's results.

If you disagree you would need to find a report showing the opposite and conducted in the same manor. I'm not saying one doest exist, but to say "nah not true" is wrong because according to THEIR results this is what they found.

[S2KJD]

lol. i read the title and stopped there.

[StreetHazard]

I watch FOX and MSNBC for pure entertainment purposes. I try to get the stuff I am actually interested in off the internet. Glenn, and Bill O'Reilly along with Keith Olbermann fill me with giggles, glee and joy for only as long as they hold my attention. I watch Pat Robertson on the 700 club the same way while pointing at the screen and howling with laughter. It's a shame so many people take these people seriously.

[Vteckidd]

Last night i watched the 2am broadcast of BECK and ,while eccentric, i dont see at anypoint where he said something that WASNT true.

I counted 4 times he openly bashed the republicans and George Bush and the current GOP Leadership. 2 other times he subtley bashed the GOP.

The only problem i had with last nights show was that he went a little overboard on the fear speech but i can understand WHY he did it. In his opinion,as well as mine, we have a HUGE ticket that is going to be cashed in at one point or another in terms of the money we have borrowed. Any CHART will tell you that the US MONETARY supply (IE Money injected into the system) has gone up by something like 1000% in the last 15 years.

We no longer owe China the most, we now owe JAPAN. China has stopped buying our debt and is doing some minor selloffs.

We owe the FED 5.1 TRILLION in monies borrowed.

There is 2 TRILLION DOLLARS parked on the side in the FED that has NOT BEEN INJECTED into the economy yet.

When that money gets put into the system, you are going to see MASSIVE inflation. Sure une,ployment will come down but your job is going to be worth less as inflation will drive your costs up.

All he was saying last night was "get out of debt if you can, learn a skill" like being able to grow a garden, or produce your own food because when bread costs $30 a loaf you may not be able to afford it.

I dont think it will get THAT BAD,but theres nothing against being overprepared. Again you have to be able to cut through the crap and grasp the real point of the conversation. Im sure the liberals will just say "OMG HES PREACHING DOOM AND GLOOM HES A FEAR MONGERER " completely missing the entire point of the piece.

[Total_Blender]

If you disagree you would need to find a report showing the opposite and conducted in the same manor. I'm not saying one doest exist, but to say "nah not true" is wrong because according to THEIR results this is what they found.

I don't disagree that more college educated people are liberal though, what I disagree with is that this is because of "liberal indoctrination" from the professors. I don't see any report that you have posted that shows evidence of "liberal indoctrination," so if you have info that proves it, then post it.

I didn't watch Beck yesterday, I thought we had agree'd upon today as the day. Yesterday's should still be on the DVR though, or we can do discuss today's.

[StreetHazard]

I don't disagree that more college educated people are liberal though, what I disagree with is that this is because of "liberal indoctrination" from the professors. I don't see any report that you have posted that shows evidence of "liberal indoctrination," so if you have info that proves it, then post it.

I didn't watch Beck yesterday, I thought we had agree'd upon today as the day. Yesterday's should still be on the DVR though, or we can do discuss today's.


heh! are you two serious? LOL :lmfao:

[David88vert]

I don't disagree that more college educated people are liberal though, what I disagree with is that this is because of "liberal indoctrination" from the professors. I don't see any report that you have posted that shows evidence of "liberal indoctrination," so if you have info that proves it, then post it.

Colleges and universities rely on a lot of grant funding. Grants require a description of what is to be taught prior to the securing of the grant. If you wish to receive the grant, you must teach what the grantor wants you to teach. Why do you think that colleges fire professors for not teaching the circulum that the board has approved? It is a system that is designed to indoctrinate young adults, who are highly impressionable, into falling in line with the promoted agenda.




PS: Political Science and Politics Journal found that an overwhelming amount of professors were liberal, and that there was a shift in the political leanings of the students. They published the raw data from the study - so you can draw your own conclusions.
The number of students self-identifying as “far left” more than doubles while the “far right” cohort drops nearly a third. There’s a ten percent drop in conservatives and a 25 percent jump in liberals. That’s indoctrination. Luckily, it also appears that a lot of students are smart enought to see past the teachings as well.

[Total_Blender]

Colleges and universities rely on a lot of grant funding. Grants require a description of what is to be taught prior to the securing of the grant.l.

Theres nothing at or below Bachelor's degree level that requires grant funding. The grants you are speaking of are for research and higher-level acedemic projects. Basic 1000 - 4000 level classes are paid for from tuition, the lottery, and other sources.

The link below is from the BOR website. You'll see that while there is a "sponsored" column, the amount of money is a drop in the bucket compared to the total expenditure on instruction.

https://app.usg.edu/portal/page/portal/USG123_DOC/FDM/FY05EP.pdf

It is true that the professors have to submit proposals and get approval for the subjects they want to teach, but they submit their the directors of their department, to the deans of their schools, and finally to the Board of Regents. The 18 voting members of the Board of Regents serve 7 year terms and are all appointed by the Governor and approved by the state Senate.

Our Governor, and our state Senate are firmly in GOP control. Also, many of the college presidents are Republicans and appoint their fellow Republicans to committees and boards. I'm not insinuating that there's a right-wing conspiracy in the way curriculae are approved, quite the opposite. If there were some sort of political conspiracy involved I highly doubt the GOP would allow classes like "Transgender theory" or whatever.

[alpine_aw11]

College has brought me more into the moderate perspective if anything, remember a lot of what influences you is discussion with STUDENTS instead of mainly professors. Any good professor will establish an equal sided discussion, it's more about simply asking questions and enabling a student to think/learn on a broader spectrum than it is about trying to directly influence opinions. My political science professor is most likely a liberal but it's hard to tell because he won't directly support most policies, but ask us how we feel and try to get everyone's voice out in the classroom. These studies must be coming from the wrong colleges....

[bu villain]

PS: Political Science and Politics Journal found that an overwhelming amount of professors were liberal, and that there was a shift in the political leanings of the students. They published the raw data from the study - so you can draw your own conclusions.
The number of students self-identifying as “far left” more than doubles while the “far right” cohort drops nearly a third. There’s a ten percent drop in conservatives and a 25 percent jump in liberals. That’s indoctrination. Luckily, it also appears that a lot of students are smart enought to see past the teachings as well.

Just to remind everyone that correlation is not causation.

My theory is that before college, a large number of people live in a relatively sheltered/closed world in social aspects. They don't question their local customs and values as much. This is why they tend to be more socially conservative. Once in college, they are exposed to a wide range of social groups, and are in an environment which allows them to experiment and question much more of the world. I believe this is what causes them to become more socially liberal, regardless of their professors.

Since you only linked to a small chart and not the whole study, can you tell me how does this study disprove my theory and prove indoctrination instead?

[David88vert]

Theres nothing at or below Bachelor's degree level that requires grant funding. The grants you are speaking of are for research and higher-level acedemic projects. Basic 1000 - 4000 level classes are paid for from tuition, the lottery, and other sources.

The link below is from the BOR website. You'll see that while there is a "sponsored" column, the amount of money is a drop in the bucket compared to the total expenditure on instruction.

https://app.usg.edu/portal/page/portal/USG123_DOC/FDM/FY05EP.pdf

It is true that the professors have to submit proposals and get approval for the subjects they want to teach, but they submit their the directors of their department, to the deans of their schools, and finally to the Board of Regents. The 18 voting members of the Board of Regents serve 7 year terms and are all appointed by the Governor and approved by the state Senate.

Our Governor, and our state Senate are firmly in GOP control. Also, many of the college presidents are Republicans and appoint their fellow Republicans to committees and boards. I'm not insinuating that there's a right-wing conspiracy in the way curriculae are approved, quite the opposite. If there were some sort of political conspiracy involved I highly doubt the GOP would allow classes like "Transgender theory" or whatever.

The studies made by liberal scholars disagree with you. Daniel Klein, for example: http://www.gmu.edu/depts/economics/klein/
"Even if it were true that students totally took a Bart Simpson attitude toward their college professors and were completely uninfluenced by them, I still think it would be a tragedy that during those four years, they were not getting the good stuff," Klein said. There is an "opportunity cost" when students graduate in four years and haven't been exposed (or have only been exposed to negative ideas about) Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, Klein said. Too many students graduate with a "complete zero" in those and other people worth knowing, Klein said. So political leanings matter, he added, even without the assumption of indoctrination.


The majority of professors in the AAUP might disagree with you.
Some no-politically aligned information:
http://www.noindoctrination.org/cgibin/news.cgi
http://www.noindoctrination.org/cgibin/related.cgi


So, you can't disagree with the data posted earlier?

[David88vert]

Just to remind everyone that correlation is not causation.

My theory is that before college, a large number of people live in a relatively sheltered/closed world in social aspects. They don't question their local customs and values as much. This is why they tend to be more socially conservative. Once in college, they are exposed to a wide range of social groups, and are in an environment which allows them to experiment and question much more of the world. I believe this is what causes them to become more socially liberal, regardless of their professors.

Since you only linked to a small chart and not the whole study, can you tell me how does this study disprove my theory and prove indoctrination instead?

You are correct, correlation is not causation.

It doesn't disprove your theory. Your theory is a reasonable one. Your conclusion is just that - your conclusion. My conclusion is different, but that is just my conclusion. People interpret information differently.

[Total_Blender]

Selected quotes from the article posted by David8814wguy:

PS: Political Science & Politics (2008), 41: 773-783 Cambridge University Press

Indoctrination U.? Faculty Ideology and Changes
in Student Political Orientation
Mack D. Mariani, Xavier University
Gordon J. Hewitt, Hamilton College

We find little evidence, however, that
faculty ideology is associated with
changes in students’ ideological orientation.
The students at colleges with more
liberal faculties were not statistically
more likely to move to the left than students
at other institutions.(773)



The study, which
included 3,890 students, found that conservative
students received grades equal
to or higher than more liberal students;
in fact, conservatives actually scored
higher grades than liberals in the fields
of business and economics and there
was no difference between the grades
received by liberals and conservatives
in sociology, African American studies,
and other more liberal fields of study (775)

The study is limited, however, in that it examines
the impact of faculty ideology on
students taking a single course. Additional
research is needed to take into account
the effect of faculty ideology on
student ideology across multiple classes
or over the duration of a college career.
The indoctrination argument is fundamentally
an argument about change, the
main point being that liberal professors
indoctrinate students to become more
liberal over the course of their college
careers. Thus, in order to assess whether
there is evidence of indoctrination, additional
empirical research is needed that
takes into account both faculty ideology
and changes in student political orientation
that occurs between the time that
students start and finish college.(775)

So the article from whence your table comes did not come to a definite conclusion. One of the things the authors suggest is that conservatives are more prone to select careers in other fields than academia because they can make more money in business, technology and other fields.

Another thing the study fails to account for is the political affiliations of the parents, as there are many studies that show young people are likely to have the same affiliations at their parents. I suppose a better study would begin by comparing the beliefs of the students to their parents and then track the students through all 4 years of college to see if and how their orientation shifts.

Maybe you could submit a research proposal for such a study to some conservative watchdog foundation like the CSPC study from the first article (now called the David Horrowitz Freedom Center). :goodjob:

David Horrowitz is truly an awful person, who circulates "hit list" style pamphlets and books featuring liberal academics. See also: The murder of Dr. George Tiller by right-wing extremists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Tiller).

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0895260034.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Pennsylvania actually took Horrowitz to task and had a big to-do about "academic freedom," the results were inconclusive and Horrowitz and his supporters could not come up with specific evidence of conservative students being discriminated against to back up their claims.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/11/16/tabor

[David88vert]

Selected quotes from the article posted by David8814wguy:

PS: Political Science & Politics (2008), 41: 773-783 Cambridge University Press

Indoctrination U.? Faculty Ideology and Changes
in Student Political Orientation
Mack D. Mariani, Xavier University
Gordon J. Hewitt, Hamilton College
....
[/URL]

That's why I gave you Daniel Klein's insight. He is a known liberal. He is one of the many liberal professors that say that the establishment is liberal. He disagreed with the study - which was done by one Republican and one Democrat. To deny that the majority of professors have a liberal bias is simply sticking your head in the sand.
Does this bias affect the thinking of students? It would be irrational to deny it. It is also irrational to deny that parents' ideology would not affect their children's thinking. Every interaction that a person has WILL have some affect - however, some will leave a greater impression.

[url]http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/27/politics (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/11/16/tabor)

I have a question for you. Why do you think that the majority of children that come from a conservative family, tend to become more liberal in their viewpoint by the time they graduate college, and then tend to return to more conservative tendencies later in life? Perhaps because interaction over the course of their life makes impressions? ;)

BTW - Personally, I feel that BOTH opposing viewpoints should be taught without bias, and let the students learn and decide for themselves.

[Total_Blender]

I won't deny that more educated people and professors tend to be progressives, yet I don't see any evidence that they are teaching with a progressive bias. Professors have their curriculae evaluated by the board of regents and they also go through evaluations in their departments based on the evaluations students fill out at the end of each term. There are several checks and balances that keep professors in line.

Also, since you are saying people start conservative like their parents, then go liberal after college, then go back to conservative, lets see your data and research on that.

I read Klien's page (the one that looks like a GeoSites page circa 1993) and he doesn't seem liberal to me at all...



My sensibilities are libertarian/classical liberal. My "Mere Libertarianism" offers a definition of libertarianism as movement and political persuasion.

I think when he says "classical liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism)" he means the more 19th century style of librealism... AKA the age of the Robber Barons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_%28industrialist%29). We call that style of "liberalism" by the name of conservatism today. :goodjob:

[Justin51982]

Just making a quick point. Say what you will about fox news being a little bit more towards the right, but CNN and almost all other news journalism are very left winged.

Nothing is said about that because it tends to be the "norm" however when one station tends to disagree with the liberal agenda all the sudden they are "a cult". Fucking wow.

[Total_Blender]

Just making a quick point. Say what you will about fox news being a little bit more towards the right, but CNN and almost all other news journalism are very left winged.

Care to back that statement up with some research? CNN had conservative commentators Dobbs, Beck, and Nancy Grace as their prime time lineup just last year. Beck and other conservatives like Stossel are leaving the other networks because Fox is offering them a shit ton more money. According to Wikipedia, Glenn Beck is raking in $23 million a year, more thandouble what Peyton Manning makes (11 million).

[David88vert]

I won't deny that more educated people and professors tend to be progressives, yet I don't see any evidence that they are teaching with a progressive bias. Professors have their curriculae evaluated by the board of regents and they also go through evaluations in their departments based on the evaluations students fill out at the end of each term. There are several checks and balances that keep professors in line.

Then we basically agree. I would not say that all liberal professors teach with bias; however, it is undeniable to say that many still will let their personal bias infuence their teaching style, and not all to the same degree. Some will be more controlled than others obviously, due to human nature. That is true for any teacher, both those that are liberal and conservative.
I would agree that checks and balances work for the most part, but you cannot say that some universities are more extreme. Berkley can hardly be considered balanced.



Also, since you are saying people start conservative like their parents, then go liberal after college, then go back to conservative, lets see your data and research on that.

No research data. I simply have observed that here in the South for many years. I would suspect that children from liberal parents, and that chose to go to a conservative school, would be more liberal later in life also.



I read Klien's page (the one that looks like a GeoSites page circa 1993) and he doesn't seem liberal to me at all...



I think when he says "classical liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism)" he means the more 19th century style of librealism... AKA the age of the Robber Barons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_%28industrialist%29). We call that style of "liberalism" by the name of conservatism today. :goodjob:

It sure appears that the majority of conservatives consider him a liberal. I can understand an extremist liberal such as yourself considering him to be a conservative though, since he is on the right of you. :taun:

Here's you a good read from Klein:
http://www.criticalreview.com/2004/pdfs/klein_stern.pdf

[Vteckidd]

Care to back that statement up with some research? CNN had conservative commentators Dobbs, Beck, and Nancy Grace as their prime time lineup just last year. Beck and other conservatives like Stossel are leaving the other networks because Fox is offering them a shit ton more money. According to Wikipedia, Glenn Beck is raking in $23 million a year, more thandouble what Peyton Manning makes (11 million).

if you can honestly say that NBC abc CNN and CBS aren't traditionally thought as "liberal left media" you have your head in the sand.

[Total_Blender]

Here's you a good read from Klein:
http://www.criticalreview.com/2004/pdfs/klein_stern.pdf

I've only gotten to the second page of the Klien article you posted, and I find this:

We do not address what is taught in the classroom, which would require
a much different research approach. Our chief concern here is to establish
the data in their fullness. Aside from some passing remarks, we do not
discuss what the data mean. In particular,we do not address the following
big questions:

Why are academics so preponderantly Democratic, and why has the
preponderance increased since 1970? This is a huge, complex matter;
we prefer to establish the dependent variable and let others speculate
about its causes.

Do professors exert a left-wing influence on students? Again, this is
complex and speculative, best left aside here.

In policy views (as opposed to voting behavior), how does the professoriate
compare to the general public? Our survey questions were asked only
of the members of six scholarly associations. Thus, we do not have a
basis for direct comparison to public opinion.

The numbers are what they are, but the authors of this paper have
developed the numbers in particular ways. The reader will want to
know where we are coming from. Thus, we say openly that our sensibilities
are classical liberal/libertarian. (Klien, 258)

So it seems Klien's study is, like all of these arguments, more about the sheer percentages of affiliations among professors and not about what they actually teach. He states his bias as "classical liberal," and again, classical liberal is not synonymous with the social liberalism as identified with the Left nowadays.

[David88vert]

I've only gotten to the second page of the Klien article you posted, and I find this:....

Like I said, it's a good read. I meant nothing more by it than that. I figured you might like the link. I agree that this paper by him was more on professor's affiliations, which we recently had posted about.

Do you truly believe that the majority of professors teaching are currently unconvinced enough of their own political viewpoint (conservative or liberal) that they would consider student's opinions equally without bias?

[David88vert]

Now, back to the original topic - media bias, not education.

What do you think of this?

During his speech at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Miss., part of the third annual Stuart J. Bullion Lecture, Time magazine Managing Editor Richard Stengel defied the traditional notion that journalists should be unbiased.

"I didn't go to journalism school," Stengel said. "But this notion that journalism is objective, or must be objective is something that has always bothered me - because the notion about objectivity is in some ways a fantasy. I don't know that there is as such a thing as objectivity."
"[F]rom the time I came back, I have felt that we have to actually say, ‘We have a point of view about something and we feel strongly about it, we just have to be assertive about it and say it positively,'" Stengel said. "I don't think people are looking for us to ask questions, I think they're looking for us to answer questions."


Basically, he claims that the media cannot report objectively, and admits to having a bias in his publishing.
Time Magazine is blatently liberal. And there is nothing wrong with that, as long as they are honest in letting readers know that they are.
Fox is definitely conservative, and everyone knows it as well. So what is the issue?

[bu villain]

Basically, he claims that the media cannot report objectively, and admits to having a bias in his publishing.
Time Magazine is blatently liberal. And there is nothing wrong with that, as long as they are honest in letting readers know that they are.
Fox is definitely conservative, and everyone knows it as well. So what is the issue?

Personally I feel just because you can't stop all bias in journalism, doesn't mean that everyone should just completely abandon objective reporting. That's like saying we shouldn't fight crime because there will always be criminals. Objective reporting is a good goal even when reporters fall short. That being said, there is a place for perspectives, like the opinion section of a newspaper, but it shouldn't be 80% of the newspaper.

Also I think a lot of people would feel a lot better about Fox if they said they were conservative but they don't. They say they are fair and balanced which implies impartiality.

[Total_Blender]

They say they are fair and balanced which implies impartiality.

This :goodjob: reps if/when I can.

The thing about Fox is that the anchors just do a straight read of whatever comes from the wire service, and then do commentary on it. They never do investigative segments, ad if they do interviews, its always either coddling the interviewee, or badgering them, depending on whether or not the interviewee is "Murdoch approved."

The newspapers and other media of the 1840's / 1850's were pretty divided as far as partisanship goes, and I think that now with the rise of the conglomerates like Newscorp and the increased visibility of the lunatic fringe via the internet, that we are heading back in that direction.

[David88vert]

This :goodjob: reps if/when I can.

The thing about Fox is that the anchors just do a straight read of whatever comes from the wire service, and then do commentary on it. They never do investigative segments, ad if they do interviews, its always either coddling the interviewee, or badgering them, depending on whether or not the interviewee is "Murdoch approved."

The newspapers and other media of the 1840's / 1850's were pretty divided as far as partisanship goes, and I think that now with the rise of the conglomerates like Newscorp and the increased visibility of the lunatic fringe via the internet, that we are heading back in that direction.

I agree.

[StreetHazard]

Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990