Sad article... even sadder is Fox News' attempt to turn it into propoganda

[RandomGuy]

Chinese toddler dies after parking row attack | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/27/chinese-toddler-dies-after-parking-row-attack/?intcmp=obnetwork)

I lol'd at the last line in this article... unsupported, irrelevant, and unfounded.

[.blank cd]

Fox News: creating unnecessary profitable controversy since 2006

[Sinfix_15]

Fox News: creating unnecessary profitable controversy since 2006

Says the democrat.

http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/video/RAW-AMERICASNEWSROOMDOTCOM-1FM32H9A_FNC_032312_10-41.jpg


Blankcd.... puts the blinders on and ignores all the numerous and plentiful crimes of his own political leaders...... but will jump a fence to comment on any crumb left behind by a conservative. Then he will proclaim to be a neutral observer with no bias.

[Vteckidd]

I dont see anything wrong, thats factually correct. Chinese social unrest is growing amidst the widening income gap.

Have you not heard of the suicides at the Apple plants?

China is using citizen slave labor to get rich manufacturing american goods.

[bu villain]

I dont see anything wrong, thats factually correct. Chinese social unrest is growing amidst the widening income gap.

Have you not heard of the suicides at the Apple plants?

China is using citizen slave labor to get rich manufacturing american goods.

But what does that have to do with a baby being killed over a parking spot?

[Sinfix_15]

But what does that have to do with a baby being killed over a parking spot?

i thought poverty, education and social issues were the cause of all criminal activity? or does that only apply to african americans?

[Vteckidd]

But what does that have to do with a baby being killed over a parking spot?

Social unrest............................isnt murder?

[Vteckidd]

I do see your point though, but knowing the culture answers this question. its not that far of a leap

[bu villain]

i thought poverty, education and social issues were the cause of all criminal activity? or does that only apply to african americans?

Many crimes are due to social issues (poverty and education are social issues by the way). But that doesn't mean every crime should be linked to every single one of these causes. For example, a crime may be due to poverty and not mental illness or vice versa. I don't see why we need to specifically discuss African Americans. This is a topic that applies to all races.


I do see your point though, but knowing the culture answers this question. its not that far of a leap

Why make a leap at all. The purpose of news is to report fact, not speculate.

[Sinfix_15]

Why make a leap at all. The purpose of news is to report fact, not speculate.

That was before Obama.... the democrat machine controls media now. If anything, Fox News is guilty of trying to play the game by their rules and keep up.

[.blank cd]

I dont see anything wrong, thats factually correct. Chinese social unrest is growing amidst the widening income gap.

Have you not heard of the suicides at the Apple plants?

China is using citizen slave labor to get rich manufacturing american goods.

Suicides at the *Foxconn* plants

[.blank cd]

i thought poverty, education and social issues were the cause of all criminal activity? or does that only apply to african americans?

-Turns something into a racial issue

-Quick to point out/outrage when someone else turns something into a racial issue.


Sinfix, Ladies and gentlemen.

[Sinfix_15]

-Turns something into a racial issue

-Quick to point out/outrage when someone else turns something into a racial issue.


Sinfix, Ladies and gentlemen.

Said in jest.... to mimic those i complain about. I've stated on numerous occasions that my comments are often in mockery......


If i repeat something you say, and then you tell me i'm stupid...... that means i win the argument. Get it?

So thank you.

[BanginJimmy]

Chinese toddler dies after parking row attack | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/27/chinese-toddler-dies-after-parking-row-attack/?intcmp=obnetwork)

I lol'd at the last line in this article... unsupported, irrelevant, and unfounded.



How is this different than any other news agency?

[Vteckidd]

Suicides at the *Foxconn* plants

same thing wasnt it?

Im not trying to be political, after rereading the article, i will change my opinion. It was far fetched, no need to put that in the article , it could be just 2 dirtbags being dirtbags.

My mistake.

[.blank cd]

same thing wasnt it?

If a bunch of employees climbed to the top of Best Buy and jumped off, would it be a bunch of suicides at the Sony store?

[Vteckidd]

If a bunch of employees climbed to the top of Best Buy and jumped off, would it be a bunch of suicides at the Sony store?

i thought Foxconn was owned BY apple. IM asking, NOT ARGUING, calm yo tits

[RandomGuy]

How is this different than any other news agency?

Should this be troubling?

[.blank cd]

NOT ARGUING, calm yo tits

Why does everyone think I'm pissed off this week? lol

[-EnVus-]

China had a female child make it past the government abortion ?
Also this report could have been done better by a child.

[Sinfix_15]

Should this be troubling?

That babies are getting killed over parking spots or that every single media outlet is biased and pushing an agenda?

[Echonova]

Fox News: creating unnecessary profitable controversy since 2006You mean Agence France-Presse... They are the ones that wrote the article. Fox clearly gave credit to them along with the story.

Chinese toddler dies after parking row attack | AFP.com (http://www.afp.com/en/node/1019188)

Who knew the French were part of the vast right-wing conspiracy?

[bu villain]

This isn't a "right wing" story. It's just a standard, listen to this outrageous incident that doesn't affect your life at all but we know you'll read about it because it's just so shocking... story.

[Sinfix_15]

This isn't a "right wing" story. It's just a standard, listen to this outrageous incident that doesn't affect your life at all but we know you'll read about it because it's just so shocking... story.

Not sure what you're advocating here. Should the news not tell us when babies are throw to their death or just not tell us when it happens in china?

[bu villain]

Not sure what you're advocating here. Should the news not tell us when babies are throw to their death or just not tell us when it happens in china?

I'm advocating the news should tell us stories that are relevant for the readers lives. I don't see how this is relevant for 99% of the audience. This is just my perspective though. Perhaps others find more value in it.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm advocating the news should tell us stories that are relevant for the readers lives. I don't see how this is relevant for 99% of the audience. This is just my perspective though. Perhaps others find more value in it.

So they shouldnt have covered the George Zimmerman trial?

[bu villain]

So they shouldnt have covered the George Zimmerman trial?

I don't think they should have covered it to the extent they did. However it is relevant to the American public because many states have or are considering similar stand your ground type laws and the Zimmerman case dealt with some of the controversial aspects of it. Therefor such coverage and discussion can help people to determine whether they think such laws are valid or not. I do not see such value in the Chinese baby story.

[.blank cd]

We shouldn't hear about either.

[David88vert]

I don't think they should have covered it to the extent they did. However it is relevant to the American public because many states have or are considering similar stand your ground type laws and the Zimmerman case dealt with some of the controversial aspects of it. Therefor such coverage and discussion can help people to determine whether they think such laws are valid or not. I do not see such value in the Chinese baby story.

Zimmerman never invoked the "Stand Your Ground" law. It is an irrelevant topic in regards to the Zimmerman trial.

[Sinfix_15]

Zimmerman never invoked the "Stand Your Ground" law. It is an irrelevant topic in regards to the Zimmerman trial.

So just another case of the puppet media injecting an agenda into any story they see fit?

[BanginJimmy]

Should this be troubling?

Yes it should and to a small minority of people it is. I understand this isnt a political issue, but politics is where you really see how absolutely uninformed people really are. Politicians prey on voters too stupid to see past a 30 second attack ad. We do not have an aggressive, unbiased media source out there to rely on for unfiltered info. Not a single source will cover both parties with the same vigor. If that unbiased source was out there, it would force all other news organizations to follow suit for fear of losing readers/viewers and the revenue that they generate. That same, more informed, audience would also prevent overly dramatized pieces and reports from actually making it onto the airwaves.

[bu villain]

Zimmerman never invoked the "Stand Your Ground" law. It is an irrelevant topic in regards to the Zimmerman trial.

I am aware he didn't actually invoke it but the debate started well before the trial.

[bu villain]

Yes it should and to a small minority of people it is. I understand this isnt a political issue, but politics is where you really see how absolutely uninformed people really are. Politicians prey on voters too stupid to see past a 30 second attack ad. We do not have an aggressive, unbiased media source out there to rely on for unfiltered info. Not a single source will cover both parties with the same vigor. If that unbiased source was out there, it would force all other news organizations to follow suit for fear of losing readers/viewers and the revenue that they generate. That same, more informed, audience would also prevent overly dramatized pieces and reports from actually making it onto the airwaves.

You are more optimistic in this arena than I. I think people either consciously or subconsciously want to watch news that confirms their biases. They find it reassuring and comforting to see their world view validated in such a way. That is why Fox became the most popular news network. They affirm a view that was not previously being presented in the news.

[BanginJimmy]

You are more optimistic in this arena than I. I think people either consciously or subconsciously want to watch news that confirms their biases. They find it reassuring and comforting to see their world view validated in such a way. That is why Fox became the most popular news network. They affirm a view that was not previously being presented in the news.

I agree with you when it comes to commentary but we can't even get an evening newscast without a political slant. The Zimmerman trial is a perfect example of this. They are reporting as fact items that were not even relevant to the trial, yes I am talking about stand your ground. They are also skewing facts to fit a narrative they want to convey, Zimmermans race.

Sent from my Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2.

[bu villain]

yes but I think they are doing that because it gets ratings. You said that if a truly unbiased objective new source was available, everyone would watch that and all the biased stations would have to clean up their act. I don't think that would be the result of such a station.

[BanginJimmy]

yes but I think they are doing that because it gets ratings. You said that if a truly unbiased objective new source was available, everyone would watch that and all the biased stations would have to clean up their act. I don't think that would be the result of such a station.

I think we see a small part of that already. Fox News actual news shows are the most centric you can find on TV and it isnt even debatable. Yes, their commentary is GOP, but their news is straight forward.

[.blank cd]

I think we see a small part of that already. Fox News actual news shows are the most centric you can find on TV and it isnt even debatable. Yes, their commentary is GOP, but their news is straight forward.

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHSHDHDJDIRHSBAS NAHA

[BanginJimmy]

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHSHDHDJDIRHSBAS NAHA

Thanks dor the confirmation.

Sent from my Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2.

[Sinfix_15]

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHSHDHDJDIRHSBAS NAHA

Fox is more accurate than other news organizations...... i'm not saying theyre accurate....... just saying that the bar has been set pretty low. The liberal media has been caught in a string of lies post election while a lot of the "crazy redneck right wing nut job conspiracy stories" by Fox have actually gained some credibility.

Despite the finger pointing campaign by Obama and friends, Fox is not the most biased or inaccurate news source.....

It's MSNBC by a mile..... theyre the world leader in disinformation.

[.blank cd]

a lot of the "crazy redneck right wing nut job conspiracy stories" by Fox have actually gained some credibility.

LOL. And which ones of those stories did they make you believe "gained credibility"?

[Echonova]

Benghazi... Even CNN is covering it now.

[Browning151]

Benghazi... Even CNN is covering it now.

That's just another "phony scandal", you'll see, there's no substance to it. 246929

[.blank cd]

That's just another "phony scandal", you'll see, there's no substance to it. 246929

Did Fox figure out if Obama killed those people at that embassy yet? Lol

[bu villain]

I think we see a small part of that already. Fox News actual news shows are the most centric you can find on TV and it isnt even debatable. Yes, their commentary is GOP, but their news is straight forward.

It's pretty much conjecture on our part about why people choose one network over another, and certainly there are multiple reasons, but I personally don't think Fox is the most popular news network because it is the least biased.

[Echonova]

Did Fox figure out if Obama killed those people at that embassy yet? LolNope.


Valerie Jarrett did.

[CarlosDanger]

Oh lawd, the GOP is at it again. Surprised MSNBC isn't on this yet. How the GOP Libya Witch Hunt Made us Close our Mideast Embassies and Crippled US Diplomacy | Informed Comment (http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/embassies-crippled-diplomacy.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:juancole/ymbn%28InformedComment%29)

[Sinfix_15]

Oh lawd, the GOP is at it again. Surprised MSNBC isn't on this yet. How the GOP Libya Witch Hunt Made us Close our Mideast Embassies and Crippled US Diplomacy | Informed Comment (http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/embassies-crippled-diplomacy.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:juancole/ymbn%28InformedComment%29)

like i said..... MSNBC is the biggest filth on TV.

[BanginJimmy]

I'm actually going to address a piece of this hack job.


But the constant innuendos on the Hill that some sort of malfeasance occurred in Benghazi

The only talk I have heard from the GOP about before the attack has been about the denial of additional security after Stevens asked for it. During the attack, I still wonder who gave the stand down order to US special forces. Even if the admins excuse that they wouldnt get there in time to help is baseless for 2 reasons. 1, did someone in the admin know how long the attack was going to last? 2, even if the attack was complete the consulate would definitely have benefited from the added manpower.

The real problem people have is with post attack. We know for a fact that someone within the admin massaged the talking points to shift blame away from terrorism, even though they knew it was terrorism very early on. We know for a fact that this was done for political reasons.

The entire reason this is such a huge story, and a major difference between this case and Beirut bombing that the author sites, is the complete lack of transparency and the stonewalling by the admin. If the admin is so sure it did nothing wrong in the lead up, during, and after the attack, why are they trying so hard to hinder the investigation? Why change the unclassified talking points provided by the CIA, to something that had no basis in fact?

Finally, the reason this wont go away is the cumulative effect of the IRS, Fast and Furious, the Black Panthers, the AP/Fox reporters, and now the NSA. The admin has proven to have very questionable ethics and an arrogance that trumps anything we have seen from a presidential admin in the history of this country. They get away with it with the help of a very friendly media an the willfully ignorant.

I sometimes wonder what this admin would look like if they got the same level of scrutiny from the media as Cheney and Rumsfeld got when they were in office.

[bu villain]

Finally, the reason this wont go away is the cumulative effect of the IRS, Fast and Furious, the Black Panthers, the AP/Fox reporters, and now the NSA...They get away with it with the help of a very friendly media an the willfully ignorant.

I sometimes wonder what this admin would look like if they got the same level of scrutiny from the media as Cheney and Rumsfeld got when they were in office.

I don't understand how you can say they aren't under a lot of scrutiny by the media when all those items you mentioned are common knowledge and were popular subjects in the media (including the mainstream media). Are only CNN and MSNBC "the media" and all the other news sources not "the media"? A lot of people aren't that upset about some of those items but it's not because the media is friendly to the Obama administration, it's because they simply don't care that much. Too busy living their day to day lives.

[Sinfix_15]

I don't understand how you can say they aren't under a lot of scrutiny by the media when all those items you mentioned are common knowledge and were popular subjects in the media (including the mainstream media). Are only CNN and MSNBC "the media" and all the other news sources not "the media"? A lot of people aren't that upset about some of those items but it's not because the media is friendly to the Obama administration, it's because they simply don't care that much. Too busy living their day to day lives.

The media does everything but shine Obama's shoes and put a mint under his pillow every morning. Yes... the media is very friendly to Obama. It wouldnt surprise me if it was eventually discovered that this kindness was not voluntary.

[bu villain]

The media does everything but shine Obama's shoes and put a mint under his pillow every morning. Yes... the media is very friendly to Obama. It wouldnt surprise me if it was eventually discovered that this kindness was not voluntary.

If this is true, why are all the "Obama scandals" constantly in the news?

[Sinfix_15]

If this is true, why are all the "Obama scandals" constantly in the news?

Incompetency..... i speak to this administration's intentions... it doesnt mean theyre 100% successful.

Look at how many members of media have said that the Obama admin uses intimidation to persuade what they do and do not cover. The one agency who is openly "anti-Obama", Fox, we know that the NSA program is wire tapping. This admin makes examples of whistle blowers.... the ones that havnt been caught dont say "im scared of going to jail".... they legitimately fear for their life. Everyone who was on the ground or anywhere near Benghazi gets weekly lie detector tests and threats not to talk about. How much more do you need to see???????????? For "the most transparent" government in history..... this government sure uses every resource at it's disposal to keep its secrets secret and attack anyone who gets in their way. Obama is the closest thing to a dictator (i hope) we ever have. 15-20 years from now we will see documentaries on Obama on those tv shows like "crimes of the century". This president is a tyrant..... and at the very least, he's a mindless buffoon who is asleep at the wheel while tyrants run the show.

[David88vert]

If this is true, why are all the "Obama scandals" constantly in the news?

The media is very friendly to Obama.

Remember Sarah Palin? How about the statement that "she could see Russia from her house, and that qualified her on foreign affairs"? Do you remember how that was run in the media for weeks as an attempt to negatively impact her political career? What people don't remember is that she never made that statement - Tina Fey made it on SNL while impersonating Palin.

Now, let's look at Obama's statement on Leno the other night, and how the media portrays it.
Obama stated that we need to dredge our Gulf ports, and then named three of them - Charleston, Savannah, and Jacksonville. Last time I checked, they weren't in the Gulf - they are on the Atlantic Ocean.
So, how did the Associated Press address it? They took it upon themselves to add in "and" in quotes in their article to try to hide the gaffe.

Obama also said that Putin was once the head of the KGB. I would hope that he would know more about the background of a world leader with nukes pointed at us. Putin was never the "head of the KGB" as Obama stated. The media let that one slide as well - they love Obama.

[CarlosDanger]

Because there are no longer only three networks controlling the flow of information. When did CNN start? 1980. When did Fox News start? 1996. Drudge Report? 1997. The expansion of news sources means we are no longer bottle-fed information. Consequently you have to be more discerning about the news sources you read, because any idiot with a computer can have a "blog" and everyone likes to feel that they are important. But thanks to the evil capitalist system we have here only the strong survive (unless you can get government funding). But when a kernel of truth is uncovered by the "new media", it makes news because the "old guard" needs to belittle and ridicule the "crazy conspiracy theorist" to maintain their access to the people in power and their invitations to the dinner parties. When that kernel of truth is later confirmed to be true, it is said to have happened (to quote Jay Carney) "a long time ago" and is no big deal. The old saying is that the cover-up is worse than the scandal, this administration might turn that notion on it's head. From direct WH involvement in the IRS to Valerie Jared giving the stand down order in Benghazi to NSA tracking US citizens to Fast and Furious (and Holders perjury) to Obama's own refusal to enforce laws he disagrees with (which I guess could be legal, I may have just missed that part in taking the oath of office). The acquisition of power is never satisfied, it's never enough and those on that quest never stop. The more that is gotten away with, only emboldens one to do more. So there will be no shortage of future scandals either.

[David88vert]

Here's some more insight. Does anyone remember the massive stimulus package that Obama signed on Feb of 2009? You know, the one that was going to create jobs, with a large amount of it going toward improving the nation's infrastructure. It was stated that it would get American's back to work, and it was passed by the Democratic controlled House and Senate, and signed by the newly elected President.
Obama promised transparency, and setup the website Recovery.gov. Almost $800B has been paid out, so far.

So, why did Obama say the other night that we need a stimulus now to improve our infrastructure? Where did the last stimulus money go to - which was supposed to put Americans to work improving infrastructure?

On Leno, Obama made statements to make it sound like the GOP was blocking this new stimulus and that he couldn't understand why it wouldn't be bi-partisan. Basically, he tried to paint the GOP as bad guys that were making your local bridges unsafe. Here's the issue though - it was an all-Democratic Congress that directed the funding.

Where did the funding go? It seems that the majority of the money went to states that voted for Obama by the widest of margins first, and the states needing the most economic help got the least. "Billionaire Democrat donors who received a lot of money from the Obama administration include: Solyndra owner George Kaiser; Tesla Motors owners Leon Musk, Larry Page and Sergey Brin; NRG Energy owners Warren Buffett, Steven Cohen, and Carl Icahn; Abound Solar Manufacturing’s Pat Stryker; and Siga Technologies’ Ronald Perelman. Among other wealthy Democrat winners were former Vice President Al Gore whose investment in Fisker Automotive was rewarded with a $529 million loan guarantee. All together about 75 percent of loans and grants have been given out to companies run by Obama supporters."

Job creation? In Wisconsin, 80 percent went to public sector unions – those with already locked-in jobs. Overall across the nation, right-to-work states got $266 less per person in stimulus money than heavily unionized states. In states that have a large majority of Democratic representatives, those states got $460 per person more.

Remember how Obama promised it would provide "help for those hardest hit by our economic crisis"? If you look at the per capita numbers, Washington DC got the most by far - $7,602 per capita. The next closest was Alaska at $2,495 per capita. Virginia got the least at $978. Sounds fair, right?

Oh, and remember Solyndra? they defaulted on more than half a billion dollars of taxpayer money.

[CarlosDanger]

The media is very friendly to Obama.

Remember Sarah Palin? How about the statement that "she could see Russia from her house, and that qualified her on foreign affairs"? Do you remember how that was run in the media for weeks as an attempt to negatively impact her political career? What people don't remember is that she never made that statement - Tina Fey made it on SNL while impersonating Palin.

Now, let's look at Obama's statement on Leno the other night, and how the media portrays it.
Obama stated that we need to dredge our Gulf ports, and then named three of them - Charleston, Savannah, and Jacksonville. Last time I checked, they weren't in the Gulf - they are on the Atlantic Ocean.
So, how did the Associated Press address it? They took it upon themselves to add in "and" in quotes in their article to try to hide the gaffe.

Obama also said that Putin was once the head of the KGB. I would hope that he would know more about the background of a world leader with nukes pointed at us. Putin was never the "head of the KGB" as Obama stated. The media let that one slide as well - they love Obama.I listened to Rush Limbaugh today too. But as usual, he is correct.

[David88vert]

First time that I listened to that show, for about 15 minutes. His voice grates on my nerves though. I went and verified the statements a little while ago. It's all documented.

Obama also made this statement once:

http://youtu.be/EpGH02DtIws

[BanginJimmy]

I don't understand how you can say they aren't under a lot of scrutiny by the media when all those items you mentioned are common knowledge and were popular subjects in the media (including the mainstream media).

Dont confuse a quick article here and there with in depth reporting. The media has consistently passed on obvious followup questions



Are only CNN and MSNBC "the media" and all the other news sources not "the media"?

You can add most of the newspapers in the country, all of NBC, CBS, and ABC and the AP to the list also.

Do you really think this admin is getting the same level of scrutiny as the Bush admin got?

[.blank cd]

Do you really think this admin is getting the same level of scrutiny as the Bush admin got?

Is this a serious question?

[Echonova]

Is this a serious question?Is this a serious question?

[bu villain]

Incompetency..... i speak to this administration's intentions... it doesnt mean theyre 100% successful.

Look at how many members of media have said that the Obama admin uses intimidation to persuade what they do and do not cover.....

I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not debating about the Obama administrations intentions. I am addressing whether the Obama administration is under media scrutiny or not. The fact that Benghazi, NSA wirteapping, etc. etc. are all common knowledge, I would say that yes, they are under a lot of scrutiny. If they weren't, most citizens would have heard about these things.


The media is very friendly to Obama.

Remember Sarah Palin? How about the statement that "she could see Russia from her house, and that qualified her on foreign affairs"? Do you remember how that was run in the media for weeks as an attempt to negatively impact her political career? What people don't remember is that she never made that statement - Tina Fey made it on SNL while impersonating Palin.

Now, let's look at Obama's statement on Leno the other night, and how the media portrays it...

I also remember clearly Obama getting ragged on for his 57 state comment and recently about Biden's shoot your shotgun in the air comment. Sure you can find individual instances where the media could have made a bigger deal about certain statements but the fact is, I've heard plenty of gaffe's on both sides covered by the media. Do you think Fox is Obama friendly? They are the most watched television news station so they are certainly included in "the media".


Dont confuse a quick article here and there with in depth reporting. The media has consistently passed on obvious followup questions

You can add most of the newspapers in the country, all of NBC, CBS, and ABC and the AP to the list also.

Do you really think this admin is getting the same level of scrutiny as the Bush admin got?

I think in depth reporting on a whole doesn't exist like it used to. I don't think it is because of this president, I think it is because investigative journalism is no longer the goal, ratings and revenue are. The average person has a very limited attention span and thus want quick sound bites and articles. They news outlets are catering to this. If people really wanted to know the in-depth from the source information about what is going on in Washington, C-SPAN would be the number 1 station on TV.

To answer your final question, yes I do think they are getting at least the same scrutiny as the Bush administration got. Not necessarily from the same sources, but from the entire media collectively, yes.

[David88vert]

I also remember clearly Obama getting ragged on for his 57 state comment and recently about Biden's shoot your shotgun in the air comment. Sure you can find individual instances where the media could have made a bigger deal about certain statements but the fact is, I've heard plenty of gaffe's on both sides covered by the media. Do you think Fox is Obama friendly? They are the most watched television news station so they are certainly included in "the media".


The difference is that both Obama and Biden made their own statements, and it was covered in the media for less than 3 days. Palin did not make the statement that the media continuously referred to for months. Even today, if you go out on the street and ask a random person "who said that they could see Russia from their house" - the vast majority will attribute it to Palin.
Then ask, "who said that they went to all 57 states", and see if they say, "Obama". I can tell you already, they won't know who said it. The reason for this is media coverage and promotion, plain and simple.

[bu villain]

The difference is that both Obama and Biden made their own statements, and it was covered in the media for less than 3 days. Palin did not make the statement that the media continuously referred to for months. Even today, if you go out on the street and ask a random person "who said that they could see Russia from their house" - the vast majority will attribute it to Palin.
Then ask, "who said that they went to all 57 states", and see if they say, "Obama". I can tell you already, they won't know who said it. The reason for this is media coverage and promotion, plain and simple.

I agree with you on these particular instances but I don't think it is indicative of the media as a whole. If the media attributed a comment to her that she didn't make, I won't defend that but as far as it being commonly attributed to her, the blame isn't entirely on the media either. First of all, the Palin comment was popularized by SNL which is not part of the media. Second, Palin did make a remark about being able to see Russia from Alaska although it wasn't from her house so that makes it more likely people would attribute it to her rather than SNL. Third, I've heard many more ridiculous statements from Palin so it's entirely conceivable she would make a comment like that. Those things combined are a big reason why it stuck in people's memory. Obama's 57 state comment on the other hand was pretty obviously a slip of the tongue. Does anyone really believe he doesn't know how many states there are?

[bu villain]

Btw, here is the transcript:

-----------------------------
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of this state give you?

GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)

They’re our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.
-----------------------------

So while she didn't say "I can see Russia from my house", she did say "you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." That's not a particularly important distinction to me. It was a terrible answer too because she didn't in any way answer the question. In my opinion, while this particular comment was stupid but not that big of a deal, however in my opinion Palin deserved most of the lampooning she got.

[David88vert]

Btw, here is the transcript:

-----------------------------
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of this state give you?

GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)

They’re our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.
-----------------------------

So while she didn't say "I can see Russia from my house", she did say "you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." That's not a particularly important distinction to me. It was a terrible answer too because she didn't in any way answer the question. In my opinion, while this particular comment was stupid but not that big of a deal, however in my opinion Palin deserved most of the lampooning she got.

The statement that she said was entirely true.
How come we didn't see CNN do the same attacking reporting on Obama's comments?

Here is the video that CNN produced, where they repeatedly incorrectly say that she claimed that being able to see Russia was a basis for foreign policy experience. She does not state that in the interview, which is at the beginning of the video.
This is blatant politically-biased journalism.

http://youtu.be/MgCS8OYqu2s

[bu villain]

Yes it was entirely true but that doesn't mean it's not a really stupid response given the question. Unfortunately I can't view the video here at work but for the sake of getting back to the overall issue, I will cede this instance for now and say she was criticized overly harshly for this particular comment. That doesn't mean that the entire media (which includes WaPo, Fox, etc), is in love with Obama and don't scrutinize Obama as much as they did the Bush administration.

[David88vert]

I agree with you on these particular instances but I don't think it is indicative of the media as a whole. If the media attributed a comment to her that she didn't make, I won't defend that but as far as it being commonly attributed to her, the blame isn't entirely on the media either. First of all, the Palin comment was popularized by SNL which is not part of the media. Second, Palin did make a remark about being able to see Russia from Alaska although it wasn't from her house so that makes it more likely people would attribute it to her rather than SNL. Third, I've heard many more ridiculous statements from Palin so it's entirely conceivable she would make a comment like that. Those things combined are a big reason why it stuck in people's memory. Obama's 57 state comment on the other hand was pretty obviously a slip of the tongue. Does anyone really believe he doesn't know how many states there are?

He obviously doesn't know that Jacksonville, Charleston, and Savannah are not on the Gulf, and is asking for taxpayers to pay to dredge these "Gulf of Mexico ports".
He also didn't know what position that Putin (who he is supposed to know all about) held in the KGB, when he declared that Putin was the "former head of the KGB". He wasn't even in a position of real power in the KGB.
These two statements were made THIS WEEK - after he has already been President for a full term.

[David88vert]

Yes it was entirely true but that doesn't mean it's not a really stupid response given the question. Unfortunately I can't view the video here at work but for the sake of getting back to the overall issue, I will cede this instance for now and say she was criticized overly harshly for this particular comment. That doesn't mean that the entire media (which includes WaPo, Fox, etc), is in love with Obama and don't scrutinize Obama as much as they did the Bush administration.

Not the "entire media". The "overall media. We are looking at the average, not the sum.

[bu villain]

He obviously doesn't know that Jacksonville, Charleston, and Savannah are not on the Gulf, and is asking for taxpayers to pay to dredge these "Gulf of Mexico ports".
He also didn't know what position that Putin (who he is supposed to know all about) held in the KGB, when he declared that Putin was the "former head of the KGB". He wasn't even in a position of real power in the KGB.
These two statements were made THIS WEEK - after he has already been President for a full term.

Actually I don't believe he doesn't know where the Gulf of Mexico is and that all those cities aren't on it. I think it is more likely that he misspoke. About Putin, I agree that was a legitimate gaffe.


Not the "entire media". The "overall media. We are looking at the average, not the sum.

I don't understand the distinction between "entire" and "overall". I'm saying on average he gets as much scrutiny as the last administration. As a sum, he probably gets more because there are more small and independent news sources now than in 2000-2008.

[David88vert]

Actually I don't believe he doesn't know where the Gulf of Mexico is and that all those cities aren't on it. I think it is more likely that he misspoke. About Putin, I agree that was a legitimate gaffe.



I don't understand the distinction between "entire" and "overall". I'm saying on average he gets as much scrutiny as the last administration. As a sum, he probably gets more because there are more small and independent news sources now than in 2000-2008.

Obama's statement on Leno:
"If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla. — if we don't do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and we'll lose jobs."

Think that AP didn't add in (like I said earlier)?
AP issues correction on Obama quote - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/ap-issues-correction-on-obama-quote-170273.html)

On Putin, shouldn't he know the history of the man who he negotiates with on issues like nuclear weapons? And what about his 2008 campaign promise to meet with foreign leaders of governments that the US doesn't necessarily agree with? Didn't he state that Bush was wrong when he refused to meet with America's adversaries? It was a pretty big deal at the time. Now, he cancels his meeting with Putin and "takes his ball and goes home". Of course, that might be a good thing for us, as it is clear that he has not done his homework on Putin - and he has had over 5 years to get up to speed.

Much of the US does not watch "small and independent" news sources. Quite a lot of the country doesn't even have cable. The main TV available for news are the broadcast stations of ABC, NBC, and CBS - all of who are pro-Obama (if you have watched them). The nightly news is what many people get their news from.

NBC - about 7.5 million nightly
ABC - about 7 million nightly
CBS - about 6 million nightly

That adds up to over 20 million watching nightly news that is easier on Obama than they were on Bush - on just the broadcast stations.


Remember that comment that Fox news is the most watched. Well, it is true - if you keep to cable news networks, but the numbers need to be understood to see how political support is drawn. In the coveted 25-45 year old group, the right (FNC) scores daily around 215 on average, and the left (MSNBC, CNN, HLN), score daily an average around 280. The ratings are all publicly available.

[bu villain]

Obama's statement on Leno:
"If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla. — if we don't do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and we'll lose jobs."

Not debating the words, just whether he misspoke or actually believes it.


Think that AP didn't add in (like I said earlier)?
AP issues correction on Obama quote - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/ap-issues-correction-on-obama-quote-170273.html)

Never claimed bias didn't exist.


On Putin, shouldn't he know the history of the man who he negotiates with on issues like nuclear weapons? And what about his 2008 campaign promise to meet with foreign leaders of governments that the US doesn't necessarily agree with? Didn't he state that Bush was wrong when he refused to meet with America's adversaries? It was a pretty big deal at the time. Now, he cancels his meeting with Putin and "takes his ball and goes home". Of course, that might be a good thing for us, as it is clear that he has not done his homework on Putin - and he has had over 5 years to get up to speed.

Was never arguing if Obama should know this or not. I already said this was a legitimate error on Obama's part.


Much of the US does not watch "small and independent" news sources. Quite a lot of the country doesn't even have cable. The main TV available for news are the broadcast stations of ABC, NBC, and CBS - all of who are pro-Obama (if you have watched them). The nightly news is what many people get their news from.

NBC - about 7.5 million nightly
ABC - about 7 million nightly
CBS - about 6 million nightly

That adds up to over 20 million watching nightly news that is easier on Obama than they were on Bush - on just the broadcast stations.


Remember that comment that Fox news is the most watched. Well, it is true - if you keep to cable news networks, but the numbers need to be understood to see how political support is drawn. In the coveted 25-45 year old group, the right (FNC) scores daily around 215 on average, and the left (MSNBC, CNN, HLN), score daily an average around 280. The ratings are all publicly available.

Your comparison is leaving out an important variable, the degree of bias. If the right is more biased against Obama than the left is biased towards Obama, then the impact of the right's bias could be bigger even though they have slightly less viewers. Honestly though, it's pretty hard to quantify the exact amount of bias and even harder to quantify its effect. Do you believe that if all the MSNBC viewers who support Obama started watching Fox, they would stop being Obama supporters or vice versa? For me, the practical question is, does the administration get scrutinized and are the results easily available to the public? I think that answer is a clear yes. You can't force people to care, or to choose unbiased sources.

[David88vert]

Your comparison is leaving out an important variable, the degree of bias. If the right is more biased against Obama than the left is biased towards Obama, then the impact of the right's bias could be bigger even though they have slightly less viewers. Honestly though, it's pretty hard to quantify the exact amount of bias and even harder to quantify its effect. Do you believe that if all the MSNBC viewers who support Obama started watching Fox, they would stop being Obama supporters or vice versa? For me, the practical question is, does the administration get scrutinized and are the results easily available to the public? I think that answer is a clear yes. You can't force people to care, or to choose unbiased sources.

The "degree of bias" is not the variable that you would use, it would actually be the degree of impact on the actual voters and non-voters that participate in political discussions. As you have alluded, it is a figure that is beyond the capabilities of us on this forum to calculate.
In answer to your question, "Do you believe that if all the MSNBC viewers who support Obama started watching Fox, they would stop being Obama supporters or vice versa?" The answer is that some, not all, would be influenced over time by a biased media that is not adhere to the basic fundamentals of journalism. You can see that if you look at our history, even over the last few years.
On the second question, "does the administration get scrutinized and are the results easily available to the public?", the initial answer is yes, there is always someone looking closely into everything, and the data is usually available to the public; however, the discussion is about the mainstream public large media organizations, not small, independent ones. These large organizations have been avoiding some topics (like Benghazi) in the WH press conferences, and they have repeatedly (see the CNN video that I posted earlier) manipulated their "interpretation" of stories and events and the amount of their coverage of these stories/events to fall in line with the current Administration. This should concern you, as a free and unbridled press is one of the cornerstones that our forefathers based our American way-of-life upon.

[Sinfix_15]

The media shields and protects Obama..... this is hardly disputable.....


the real question is why?

[Sinfix_15]

I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not debating about the Obama administrations intentions. I am addressing whether the Obama administration is under media scrutiny or not. The fact that Benghazi, NSA wirteapping, etc. etc. are all common knowledge, I would say that yes, they are under a lot of scrutiny. If they weren't, most citizens would have heard about these things.


Most of what we know is from whistle blowers..... if not for them, Obama and the media would still be lying to us. Obama does everything in his power to prevent whistle blowers from getting out and makes sure they will rot in prison of they do.

[.blank cd]

The media shields and protects Obama..... this is hardly disputable.....


the real question is why?

Its very disputable, because the opposite is true.

[Sinfix_15]

Its very disputable, because the opposite is true.

Amazing how you became a car enthusiasts.... or that you can even drive.....































you know, since you seem to live life with a blind fold on.

[David88vert]

Its very disputable, because the opposite is true.

Fact: The Pew Research Center found that in the FINAL WEEK BEFORE VOTING of the last presidential campaign, MSNBC network did absolutely no negative stories about President Obama OR positive ones about Mitt Romney. MSNBC's coverage of Romney during the final week (68% negative with no positive stories), was far more negative than the overall press, and even more negative than it had been during October 1 to 28 when 5% was positive and 57% was negative.
Meanwhile, the coverage improved for a positive effect for Obama in the final week. From October 1 to 28, 33% was positive and 13% negative. During the campaign's final week, fully 51% of MSNBC's stories were positive while there were no negative stories at all.

The Study: Final Weeks in the Mainstream Press | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) (http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/final_weeks_mainstream_press)

Why doesn't the press ask the hard questions in the WH press conferences? Watch one, and you will see that they don't dig for answers. Obama has made it clear that anyone that doesn't play by his rules (no tough questions) is out - and will be subject to a DOJ investigation (see FOX and CBS).
Why don't they ask him about entitlement reform? Congress is about to head into a new round of budget negotiations. Some Republicans leaders have suggested that they are willing to offer concessions on the budget sequester if Obama commits to entitlement reform. He has spoken in theory about making some cuts but have never presented a plan, on paper, and have rejected all suggestions, even the Simpson-Bowles commission. Why isn't the press asking the question of where is his plan to reform entitlements?

[David88vert]

You can't force people to care, or to choose unbiased sources.

One article that you might like: Media Bias and Voting (http://www.nber.org/digest/oct06/w12169.html)

The introduction of FNC on cable had a small, but measureable effect on voting. It is not a stretch to say that the repetition of liberal media should also have a similar, but increased, effect.

[.blank cd]

Amazing how you became a car enthusiasts.... or that you can even drive.....

you know, since you seem to live life with a blind fold on.

Wow sinfix, youre absolutely right. Look at how much the media loves Obama.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/08/08/The-American-People-Aren-t-Buying-Obama-s-Phony-Scandal-Line

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=19920474&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/07/fox-news-poll-71-percent-say-obamas-offering-nothing-new-on-economy/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/28/fact-check-obama-accused-selectively-quoting-bin-laden-in-counterterror-speech/

I'm starting to see why people hate this sub so much. So much factless Obama-hating. It's not even fun debunking everything all the time. I'm starting to see that what some psychologists say is pretty true in here. To some people, when you show them the truth, they entrench themselves deeper in their beliefs.

I know you feel that the media loves Obama, but its clearly obvious it's the other way around. I don't even understand why this has to even be debated.

[Sinfix_15]

Wow sinfix, youre absolutely right. Look at how much the media loves Obama.

The American People Aren't Buying Obama's 'Phony Scandal' Line (http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/08/08/The-American-People-Aren-t-Buying-Obama-s-Phony-Scandal-Line)

President Obama's Surprise Revelation of Sealed Benghazi Indictment - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=19920474&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F)

Fox News Poll: 71 percent say Obama (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/07/fox-news-poll-71-percent-say-obamas-offering-nothing-new-on-economy/)

Fact Check: Did Obama selectively quote Usama bin Laden in counterterror speech? | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/28/fact-check-obama-accused-selectively-quoting-bin-laden-in-counterterror-speech/)

I'm starting to see why people hate this sub so much. So much factless Obama-hating. It's not even fun debunking everything all the time. I'm starting to see that what some psychologists say is pretty true in here. To some people, when you show them the truth, they entrench themselves deeper in their beliefs.

I know you feel that the media loves Obama, but its clearly obvious it's the other way around. I don't even understand why this has to even be debated.


As i said before, i feel your interest in psychology comes from the need to self diagnose. It's pure comedy when you start going on these little rants.







moving on, so why does the media protect Obama? what do they have to gain from it? or are they doing it in fear of retaliation?

[.blank cd]

Facepalm.

[BanginJimmy]

or are they doing it in fear of retaliation?


This right here. Reporters are afraid of decreased access to the admin so they temper their articles with that in mind.


Sent from my Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2.

[bu villain]

In answer to your question, "Do you believe that if all the MSNBC viewers who support Obama started watching Fox, they would stop being Obama supporters or vice versa?" The answer is that some, not all, would be influenced over time by a biased media that is not adhere to the basic fundamentals of journalism. You can see that if you look at our history, even over the last few years.

I certainly agree that media bias can and does have some affect on voting. What I don't agree on is that the effect is necessarily more pronounced in democratic/liberal voters.


On the second question, "does the administration get scrutinized and are the results easily available to the public?", the initial answer is yes, there is always someone looking closely into everything, and the data is usually available to the public; however, the discussion is about the mainstream public large media organizations, not small, independent ones. These large organizations have been avoiding some topics (like Benghazi) in the WH press conferences, and they have repeatedly (see the CNN video that I posted earlier) manipulated their "interpretation" of stories and events and the amount of their coverage of these stories/events to fall in line with the current Administration. This should concern you, as a free and unbridled press is one of the cornerstones that our forefathers based our American way-of-life upon.

Benghazi has been a major news story for many many months now so I wouldn't say they are avoiding it. There is a legitimate disagreement about the significance of it though and that is not purely a matter of political bias. If it were up to the current administration, there would be no coverage from anyone about Benghazi. Again, I don't disagree with you that the major media outlets as a whole are not living up to a high standard of journalistic excellence, I just disagree that the cause is primarily a political agenda.


Most of what we know is from whistle blowers..... if not for them, Obama and the media would still be lying to us. Obama does everything in his power to prevent whistle blowers from getting out and makes sure they will rot in prison of they do.

Yes, what you say about whistle blowers is true but whistle blowers have always been a major source for such news. I disagree that the media was lying to us before about say the NSA program. They were simply ignorant. Once a whistle blower emerged, they covered the story quite extensively. It is still a top topic in the mainstream media months after the story broke.


Fact: The Pew Research Center found that in the FINAL WEEK BEFORE VOTING of the last presidential campaign, MSNBC network did absolutely no negative stories about President Obama OR positive ones about Mitt Romney. MSNBC's coverage of Romney during the final week (68% negative with no positive stories), was far more negative than the overall press, and even more negative than it had been during October 1 to 28 when 5% was positive and 57% was negative.
Meanwhile, the coverage improved for a positive effect for Obama in the final week. From October 1 to 28, 33% was positive and 13% negative. During the campaign's final week, fully 51% of MSNBC's stories were positive while there were no negative stories at all.

The Study: Final Weeks in the Mainstream Press | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) (http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/final_weeks_mainstream_press)

As the article discusses though, some of the reason for that was due to horse-race coverage. Obama was leading in many polls so simply reporting those polls was taken as positive coverage for Obama and negative for Romney. This is not bias though. Now this does not say the trend doesn't clearly imply some bias, but it is not as skewed as the raw data would make you believe. It's also important to note that they compare Fox to MSNBC at the same time and you see a very similar skewing in the opposite direction. So if you ignore the very legitimate reasons why Obama might be getting more favorable coverage in the last week, how do you account for Fox's anti-Obama bias (as clear as MSNBC's) and still say the mainstream media has an Obama bias.


Why doesn't the press ask the hard questions in the WH press conferences? Watch one, and you will see that they don't dig for answers. Obama has made it clear that anyone that doesn't play by his rules (no tough questions) is out - and will be subject to a DOJ investigation (see FOX and CBS).
Why don't they ask him about entitlement reform? Congress is about to head into a new round of budget negotiations. Some Republicans leaders have suggested that they are willing to offer concessions on the budget sequester if Obama commits to entitlement reform. He has spoken in theory about making some cuts but have never presented a plan, on paper, and have rejected all suggestions, even the Simpson-Bowles commission. Why isn't the press asking the question of where is his plan to reform entitlements?

You answered your own question as to why the press isn't asking hard questions. But not wanting to jeapordize their access is not the same as being in love with the Obama administration.


One article that you might like: Media Bias and Voting (http://www.nber.org/digest/oct06/w12169.html)

The introduction of FNC on cable had a small, but measureable effect on voting. It is not a stretch to say that the repetition of liberal media should also have a similar, but increased, effect.

I agree except I'm not sure why the "liberal media" would have an increased effect. Fox is the most watched news network in the country and it has a clear right wing bias as supported by both articles you posted earlier.

[David88vert]

It appears that you do not see that while Fox News is the largest news organization on cable, it is not as large as combination of major news organizations (cable + broadcast) that take a stance opposite from it, and thus you have an increased impact size when compared to FNC.

[.blank cd]

It appears that you do not see that while Fox News is the largest news organization on cable, it is not as large as combination of major news organizations (cable + broadcast) that take a stance opposite from it, and thus you have an increased impact size when compared to FNC.

What is the stance opposite from Fox News?

Which stations do you think take the "opposite stance" from Fox News?

[Sinfix_15]

I certainly agree that media bias can and does have some affect on voting. What I don't agree on is that the effect is necessarily more pronounced in democratic/liberal voters.


Yes........ yes it is...............

The only news organizations being critical of Obama are the only news organizations being attacked by the democratic machine. Obama himself is attacking anyone in the media who even begins to hold him accountable. His actions mirror that of any other criminal. Silence or get rid of the witnesses.... strike fear into anyone who would consider opposing him in the future.

Fox news is biased.... right wing nuts are.... nuts........

but the democratic machine has institutionalized this bias. Theyre using the power and resources of government to fight political battles. The NSA/IRS/DHS is the military wing of the democratic party.

[David88vert]

What is the stance opposite from Fox News?

Which stations do you think take the "opposite stance" from Fox News?

FNC is the only one that could be described as "right of center". The rest of the major news outlets are typically considered to be "left of center". I would expect you to already know this if you are interested in participating in this forum.

[.blank cd]

FNC is the only one that could be described as "right of center". The rest of the major news outlets are typically considered to be "left of center". I would expect you to already know this if you are interested in participating in this forum.

Specifically, why do you consider FNC to be "right of center" and everything else "left of center"?

[bu villain]

It appears that you do not see that while Fox News is the largest news organization on cable, it is not as large as combination of major news organizations (cable + broadcast) that take a stance opposite from it, and thus you have an increased impact size when compared to FNC.

Again, I think you are just comparing the number of viewers though and not the impact and level of bias. I do not think the level of bias from NBC or ABC is anywhere near that of Fox news, so even if the total number of viewers of "liberal media" is larger, the impact of the bias isn't necessarily larger. From my personal experience, people who watch Fox are much more fervent and entrenched right wing advocates than people who watch the "liberal" outlets are strong left wing advocates. I think most people who watch CNN for example are simply waiting to catch a plane and thus, less beholden to that network to be the purveyors of truth. While of course this is a difficult issue to measure subjectively as we discussed, the presence of Fox (with it's high viewer ratings and high level of bias) alone seems enough to me to debunk the narrative that the mainstream media has an overwhelming liberal bias.


Yes........ yes it is...............

The only news organizations being critical of Obama are the only news organizations being attacked by the democratic machine. Obama himself is attacking anyone in the media who even begins to hold him accountable. His actions mirror that of any other criminal. Silence or get rid of the witnesses.... strike fear into anyone who would consider opposing him in the future.

Fox news is biased.... right wing nuts are.... nuts........

but the democratic machine has institutionalized this bias. Theyre using the power and resources of government to fight political battles. The NSA/IRS/DHS is the military wing of the democratic party.

You are getting off topic. This is not about Obama's use of the NSA/IRS/DHS. This is about the media and saying that left wing bias exists doesn't mean that right wing bias also doesn't exist. Both of which have prominent roles in "the media". I am not arguing that no one in the media has a liberal bias, I am arguing that both exist and I don't think there is sufficient evidence to say that the impact of the bias from the left is significantly greater than the impact of the bias from the right. Obama's actions are not really part of that equation. My secondary point was the mainstream media includes Fox which is a huge and severely right biased organization. When you refer to the mainstream media, you don't get to exclude them just because the liberal leaning stations are greater in number.

[.blank cd]

The NSA/IRS/DHS is the military wing of the democratic party.

What?

[David88vert]

Specifically, why do you consider FNC to be "right of center" and everything else "left of center"?

You should read some of the links that I have posted in the past. This has been discussed before.
Since I am not about to go dig through all of my old posts, and I don't expect you to either, I'll just give you a few links to get you started in research. You can form your own opinion after you have done some research.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/04_0614_liberalmedia_bw.pdf

Media Research Center (http://www.mrc.org)
The State of the News Media 2013 (http://www.stateofthemedia.org)
Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) | Understanding News in the Information Age (http://www.journalism.org)

Numerous polls also show far more journalists describe themselves as “liberal” compared to the general public. In 1996, the American Society of Newspaper Editors surveyed 1,037 journalists at 61 newspapers, and found those calling themselves “liberal/Democrat” outnumbered “conservative/Republican” by a four-to-one margin (61% to 15%).

In May 2004, the Pew Research Center found that the proportion of liberals in the national media had actually grown over the previous nine years, from 22% in 1995 to 34% in 2004. Meanwhile, the percentage of conservatives remained minuscule: just 4% in 1995, 7% in 2004.

Prior to the 2000, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, Slate surveyed its staff to find out how they intended to vote. As a case study, Slate surveys match scientific polls of the media elite: 76% picked Al Gore as their top choice in 2000; 87% said they planned to vote for John Kerry in 2004; 96% said they were supporting Barack Obama in 2008.

With this many staffers describing themselves as liberals, do you really believe that they are writing conservative or balanced pieces?

[Sinfix_15]

Again, I think you are just comparing the number of viewers though and not the impact and level of bias. I do not think the level of bias from NBC or ABC is anywhere near that of Fox news, so even if the total number of viewers of "liberal media" is larger, the impact of the bias isn't necessarily larger. From my personal experience, people who watch Fox are much more fervent and entrenched right wing advocates than people who watch the "liberal" outlets are strong left wing advocates. I think most people who watch CNN for example are simply waiting to catch a plane and thus, less beholden to that network to be the purveyors of truth. While of course this is a difficult issue to measure subjectively as we discussed, the presence of Fox (with it's high viewer ratings and high level of bias) alone seems enough to me to debunk the narrative that the mainstream media has an overwhelming liberal bias.



You are getting off topic. This is not about Obama's use of the NSA/IRS/DHS. This is about the media and saying that left wing bias exists doesn't mean that right wing bias also doesn't exist. Both of which have prominent roles in "the media". I am not arguing that no one in the media has a liberal bias, I am arguing that both exist and I don't think there is sufficient evidence to say that the impact of the bias from the left is significantly greater than the impact of the bias from the right. Obama's actions are not really part of that equation. My secondary point was the mainstream media includes Fox which is a huge and severely right biased organization. When you refer to the mainstream media, you don't get to exclude them just because the liberal leaning stations are greater in number.

Fox is the only right wing media. The democratic machine is using it's resources to silence Fox. Their actions mimic that of typical criminal activity.

[.blank cd]

With this many staffers describing themselves as liberals, do you really believe that they are writing conservative or balanced pieces?
Balanced. Yes.

[David88vert]

Again, I think you are just comparing the number of viewers though and not the impact and level of bias. I do not think the level of bias from NBC or ABC is anywhere near that of Fox news, so even if the total number of viewers of "liberal media" is larger, the impact of the bias isn't necessarily larger. From my personal experience, people who watch Fox are much more fervent and entrenched right wing advocates than people who watch the "liberal" outlets are strong left wing advocates. I think most people who watch CNN for example are simply waiting to catch a plane and thus, less beholden to that network to be the purveyors of truth. While of course this is a difficult issue to measure subjectively as we discussed, the presence of Fox (with it's high viewer ratings and high level of bias) alone seems enough to me to debunk the narrative that the mainstream media has an overwhelming liberal bias.


When you say that you "do not think the level of bias from NBC or ABC is anywhere near that of Fox news", you are stating that from your opinion that you are centric. If you do not remove yourself from the equation, and view from the point of a centrist, then your understanding of the impact will be skewed. The better argument is that you do not know the native political leanings of the individual viewers, so the amount of impact would vary per viewer, and make calculations difficult.
If you take the overall media, it is recognized as having a left of center bias, and journalists are overwhelming liberals/Democrats. In advertising, one of the main methods to establishing a narrative is repetition, which we see broadcast in mass from the liberal media. FNC stands alone on the conservative side. You will have extreme believers on both sides of the political aisle watching their favorite stations for certain, but to discount the overall amount of bias broadcast on a daily basis is disingenuous.

[.blank cd]

Fox is the only right wing media. The democratic machine is using it's resources to silence Fox. Their actions mimic that of typical criminal activity.

So what about all the other "right wing" media that exists? You think fox are the only offenders?

How do you think the "democratic machine" is silencing fox? It's still on 24hrs a day spewing the same BS, at least it is on Comcast, I dunno about where you're watching TV at.

[bu villain]

Numerous polls also show far more journalists describe themselves as “liberal” compared to the general public. In 1996, the American Society of Newspaper Editors surveyed 1,037 journalists at 61 newspapers, and found those calling themselves “liberal/Democrat” outnumbered “conservative/Republican” by a four-to-one margin (61% to 15%).

In May 2004, the Pew Research Center found that the proportion of liberals in the national media had actually grown over the previous nine years, from 22% in 1995 to 34% in 2004. Meanwhile, the percentage of conservatives remained minuscule: just 4% in 1995, 7% in 2004.

Prior to the 2000, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, Slate surveyed its staff to find out how they intended to vote. As a case study, Slate surveys match scientific polls of the media elite: 76% picked Al Gore as their top choice in 2000; 87% said they planned to vote for John Kerry in 2004; 96% said they were supporting Barack Obama in 2008.

With this many staffers describing themselves as liberals, do you really believe that they are writing conservative or balanced pieces?

This is an interesting side topic. Do you think that people who consider themselves liberal or conservative or that vote primarily for one party are incapable of being unbiased?


Fox is the only right wing media. The democratic machine is using it's resources to silence Fox. Their actions mimic that of typical criminal activity.

No, Fox is definitely not the only right wing media and the actions of the Obama administration and the democratic party are irrelevant to this discussion about the media.

[David88vert]

Balanced. Yes.

Thank you for showing that you have no concept of what balanced actually means.

[.blank cd]

In advertising, one of the main methods to establishing a narrative is repetition, which we see broadcast in mass from the liberal media.Are you suggesting that a repetitive narrative doesnt exist on FNC?

FNC stands alone on the conservative side.
What makes FNC "conservative"?

[.blank cd]

Thank you for showing that you have no concept of what balanced actually means.
What do you believe "Balanced" means? Reporting more of the things you believe in? Lol. Doesn't work that way.

Do you believe you can uses someone's political leanings as a barometer for objectivity in journalism, across the board?

[Sinfix_15]

Balanced. Yes.


So we're really debating if the media has a liberal bias...... ok....



anyone want to argue that the earth is flat?

Anyone think the dolphins won the superbowl last year?

lets get a serious debate going...

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTfKMPm4gVc9lYMVtKQphGncjPsqM7gX 47jmzWUN3S8G6AptMHprg

[David88vert]

This is an interesting side topic. Do you think that people who consider themselves liberal or conservative or that vote primarily for one party are incapable of being unbiased?


When you have that many people that have a similar belief, it is inevitable that they will start to let their personal positions creep into their writing, and influence colleagues to do the same. As it continues, it becomes less journalism and more propaganda. It has happened around the world for centuries, and America is not immune. Conservative or liberal doesn't matter, as any one viewpoint keeps getting repeated and positions become mentally reinforced.

[David88vert]

Are you suggesting that a repetitive narrative doesnt exist on FNC?


It certainly exists on FNC just as much as it does on MSNBC. There is no debate about that.

[.blank cd]

lets get a serious debate going...

A serious debate almost never includes Sinfix_15

[Sinfix_15]

A serious debate almost never includes Sinfix_15

laughable coming from you. You're the clown in this rodeo.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/obama-clown.gif

[David88vert]

What do you believe "Balanced" means? Reporting more of the things you believe in? Lol. Doesn't work that way.

Do you believe you can uses someone's political leanings as a barometer for objectivity in journalism, across the board?

Have you ever watched or read the news? It's pretty clear and obvious, if you would take the time to observe.

[.blank cd]

You're the clown in this rodeo.
I will agree with you here

[.blank cd]

Have you ever watched or read the news? It's pretty clear and obvious, if you would take the time to observe.

Yep. Watched it. Read it. It's all the same thing now-a-days.

[bu villain]

When you say that you "do not think the level of bias from NBC or ABC is anywhere near that of Fox news", you are stating that from your opinion that you are centric. If you do not remove yourself from the equation, and view from the point of a centrist, then your understanding of the impact will be skewed. The better argument is that you do not know the native political leanings of the individual viewers, so the amount of impact would vary per viewer, and make calculations difficult.

We have already agreed that calculation of the impact is difficult. So until some evidence is presented, I have no choice but to rely on my personal experiences. The only evidence you have presented so far shows that Fox and MSNBC are both pretty extreme. I don't see how that equates to media having a huge left wing bias. Although no one is perfectly centrist, I do regularly vote for people of both parties and even third parties.


If you take the overall media, it is recognized as having a left of center bias, and journalists are overwhelming liberals/Democrats. In advertising, one of the main methods to establishing a narrative is repetition, which we see broadcast in mass from the liberal media. FNC stands alone on the conservative side. You will have extreme believers on both sides of the political aisle watching their favorite stations for certain, but to discount the overall amount of bias broadcast on a daily basis is disingenuous.

Recognized by who? Not me. I don't disagree that journalists are more often liberals but I also believe you can be an objective journalist and a liberal. Perhaps the reason I have such a hard time recognizing this supposed bias is that I rarely watch television news and see a much stronger bias from Fox than other stations. Of course I don't think I have ever watched MSNBC in my life. I'm still waiting for evidence stronger than "it is recognized". I'm sorry if you think I am being disingenuous but I assure you I am not.

[David88vert]

I will agree with you here

Sinfix and blank agreeing on something?????
That's it - this thread needs to be locked. It's out of control!!!

[bu villain]

When you have that many people that have a similar belief, it is inevitable that they will start to let their personal positions creep into their writing, and influence colleagues to do the same. As it continues, it becomes less journalism and more propaganda. It has happened around the world for centuries, and America is not immune. Conservative or liberal doesn't matter, as any one viewpoint keeps getting repeated and positions become mentally reinforced.

You may be familiar with the psychological study that came out last year I believe that showed that presenting someone with facts that contradict their position can make them retreat even further into that position and build a higher mental wall to defend it. I think Sinflix is an example of this. If you expose any crack in his position, he doubles down on it and defends it even more aggressively. I also think some of the liberal bias in the media has this affect as well. So while liberal bias may influence some to be more liberal, it also influences some to be more conservative.

[.blank cd]

You may be familiar with the psychological study that came out last year I believe that showed that presenting someone with facts that contradict their position can make them retreat even further into that position and build a higher mental wall to defend it. I think Sinflix is an example of this. If you expose any crack in his position, he doubles down on it and defends it even more aggressively. I also think some of the liberal bias in the media has this affect as well. So while liberal bias may influence some to be more liberal, it also influences some to be more conservative.

I think I've referenced that study here before. I told someone they were guilty of this just the other day. Pretty sure it was Sinfix.

[David88vert]

We have already agreed that calculation of the impact is difficult. So until some evidence is presented, I have no choice but to rely on my personal experiences. The only evidence you have presented so far shows that Fox and MSNBC are both pretty extreme. I don't see how that equates to media having a huge left wing bias. Although no one is perfectly centrist, I do regularly vote for people of both parties and even third parties.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I am not saying that the entire media has a "huge" left bias, only that it does have a left bias, according to those who have actually studied it, and are in the industry.

In case you haven't noticed, I have been presenting the only "evidence" in this thread. No one else is backing up their own opinions with anything else by their own opinions.

20 major media outlets rank on Groseclose and Milyo’s slant scale, with 100 representing the most liberal and zero the most conservative:

ABC Good Morning America
56.1

ABC World News Tonight
61.0

CBS Early Show
66.6

CBS Evening News
73.7

CNN NewsNight
56.0

Drudge Report
60.4

Fox News Spec. Rept. w/ Brit Hume
39.7

Los Angeles Times
70.0

NBC Nightly News
61.6

NBC Today Show
64.0

New York Times
73.7

Newshour with Jim Lehrer
55.8

Newsweek
66.3

NPR Morning Edition
66.3

Time Magazine
65.4

U.S. News and World Report
65.8

USA Today
63.4

Wall Street Journal
85.1

Washington Post
66.6

Washington Times
35.4





Recognized by who? Not me. I don't disagree that journalists are more often liberals but I also believe you can be an objective journalist and a liberal. Perhaps the reason I have such a hard time recognizing this supposed bias is that I rarely watch television news and see a much stronger bias from Fox than other stations. Of course I don't think I have ever watched MSNBC in my life. I'm still waiting for evidence stronger than "it is recognized". I'm sorry if you think I am being disingenuous but I assure you I am not.

The bias in the media is recognized by professors, industry experts, think tanks, etc.
I gave you many links that give you the "evidence". I cannot force you to read them or believe them.

[David88vert]

You may be familiar with the psychological study that came out last year I believe that showed that presenting someone with facts that contradict their position can make them retreat even further into that position and build a higher mental wall to defend it. I think Sinflix is an example of this. If you expose any crack in his position, he doubles down on it and defends it even more aggressively. I also think some of the liberal bias in the media has this affect as well. So while liberal bias may influence some to be more liberal, it also influences some to be more conservative.

I do not disagree with this statement, but let me make this clear - there are many, many more liberal journalists with a lot more airtime, printed pages, etc, than there are conservative ones. The numbers and percentages do not lie.

[David88vert]

I think I've referenced that study here before. I told someone they were guilty of this just the other day. Pretty sure it was Sinfix.

I can't handle you and Sinfix agreeing anymore. Please make it stop!!!

[Sinfix_15]

I can't handle you and Sinfix agreeing anymore. Please make it stop!!!

I question myself anytime blank agrees with me. Soon as i found out he was an atheist, i decided to give the bible another chance.

[.blank cd]

Racism Hoax?
Anyone want to take a stab at what's wrong with this quote ere from Dollard's article about Oprah? This isn't any kind of proper writing style at all, and you'd flunk out of any kind of journalism class for doing just this. This right here is the crux of the ENTIRE pseudo-conservative movement. All of this anti-Obama bullshit was bourne by this very clever piece of literary garbage right here

[Sinfix_15]

You may be familiar with the psychological study that came out last year I believe that showed that presenting someone with facts that contradict their position can make them retreat even further into that position and build a higher mental wall to defend it. I think Sinflix is an example of this. If you expose any crack in his position, he doubles down on it and defends it even more aggressively. I also think some of the liberal bias in the media has this affect as well. So while liberal bias may influence some to be more liberal, it also influences some to be more conservative.

Please elaborate on any position i take that has been proven false. Unless by proven false, you mean that its your opinion that its false.


Please lay out a belief that i hold, that is false, that i double down on when faced with proof that its false. I'm very curious about this.

[David88vert]

Anyone want to take a stab at what's wrong with this quote ere from Dollard's article about Oprah? This isn't any kind of proper writing style at all, and you'd flunk out of any kind of journalism class for doing just this. This right here is the crux of the ENTIRE pseudo-conservative movement. All of this anti-Obama bullshit was bourne by this very clever piece of literary garbage right here

The problem with the quote is that it wasn't you that wrote it.
It's your own style of not answering a question, by asking a question, rather than utilizing facts to support your position(s). We discussed that you tend to do this in the past, and you claimed that it was a psychology technique that you were utilizing. now, if someone else uses a question mark, it is "literary garbage". Get consistent - don't be a "John Kerry".
"This right here is the crux of the ENTIRE .blank_cd psychological/religious/political/liberal/leftist/Democratic movement", isn't it?

[Sinfix_15]

The problem with the quote is that it wasn't you that wrote it.
It's your own style of not answering a question, by asking a question, rather than utilizing facts to support your position(s). We discussed that you tend to do this in the past, and you claimed that it was a psychology technique that you were utilizing. now, if someone else uses a question mark, it is "literary garbage". Get consistent - don't be a "John Kerry".
"This right here is the crux of the ENTIRE .blank_cd psychological/religious/political/liberal/leftist/Democratic movement", isn't it?

I wish blank were smart enough to realize how bad you just burned him. This may be the biggest "checkmate" post ive ever seen on this forum.

[.blank cd]

Please elaborate on any position i take that has been proven false. Unless by proven false, you mean that its your opinion that its false.


Please lay out a belief that i hold, that is false, that i double down on when faced with proof that its false. I'm very curious about this.

We don't have enough server space to list that.

[.blank cd]

The problem with the quote is that it wasn't you that wrote it.
It's your own style of not answering a question, by asking a question, rather than utilizing facts to support your position(s). We discussed that you tend to do this in the past, and you claimed that it was a psychology technique that you were utilizing. now, if someone else uses a question mark, it is "literary garbage". Get consistent - don't be a "John Kerry".
"This right here is the crux of the ENTIRE .blank_cd psychological/religious/political/liberal/leftist/Democratic movement", isn't it?What are you even talking about? Of course I didnt write it. I would never write anything like that and never have. It has nothing to do with how I answer a question with a question, because I'm not selling you anything as news or writing a headline for an editorial.

Good try though.

[.blank cd]

I wish blank were smart enough to realize how bad you just burned him. This may be the biggest "checkmate" post ive ever seen on this forum.

I see that you're not smart enough to realize it wasnt a burn, but a failed answer to a posed question.

[David88vert]

What are you even talking about? Of course I didnt write it. I would never write anything like that and never have. It has nothing to do with how I answer a question with a question, because I'm not selling you anything as news or writing a headline for an editorial.

Good try though.

You must not understand what an editorial is.

[.blank cd]

You must not understand what an editorial is.

Yes. I understand what an editorial is. I've written them. Have you?

[David88vert]

Yes. I understand what an editorial is. I've written them. Have you?



Unfortunately, yes, I did, when I was younger. Didn't make a dime for doing it.

So, why is it wrong for an opinion piece to have a question mark in the headline?

[.blank cd]

Unfortunately, yes, I did, when I was younger. Didn't make a dime for doing it.

So, why is it wrong for an opinion piece to have a question mark in the headline?

Its journalistic principle that if an article has a question in the headline, the answer is always no. The author is trying to form your opinion before you read it. It means your article doesn't provide enough substantial information to allow the readers to form their own opinion.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

If an article asks you a question before you read it, answer no and skip over it.

[Sinfix_15]

I see that you're not smart enough to realize it wasnt a burn, but a failed answer to a posed question.

think what you want.... that's what you do anyways, regardless of how wrong you are.... but David rips you a new asshole almost every single time you guys debate something. This particular debate is no exception.

[.blank cd]

think what you want.... that's what you do anyways, regardless of how wrong you are.... but David rips you a new asshole almost every single time you guys debate something. This particular debate is no exception.

Not even hardly.

[David88vert]

Its journalistic principle that if an article has a question in the headline, the answer is always no. The author is trying to form your opinion before you read it. It means your article doesn't provide enough substantial information to allow the readers to form their own opinion.

Betteridge's law of headlines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

If an article asks you a question before you read it, answer no and skip over it.

Even Betteridge has broken his own "law". Does the Mac App Store allow commercial use? | News | TechRadar (http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/does-the-mac-app-store-allow-commercial-use--921293)

It's not actually a "law", it's Betteridge's own opinion. I don't necessarily disagree with it either, but I am intelligent enough to be able to read an article and determine if the article is "bullshit" (as Betteridge" puts it so eloquently) - no matter how the headline might be displayed.

So, what at Betteridge's credentials for stating this "law", and who is he?
He is a technology writer in the UK. That's what he is. He goes through old content and edits it to be more current, and he writes a lot of pro-Mac articles (self-described).
His writing style is hardly objective, as most of his non-tech articles are attacks on conservatives/Republicans. He is a fine journalist, in your opinion, correct?
He graduated from Hatfield Polytechnic in 1989 with a BA (Hons) in Humanities. His employment history speaks volumes - you should review it, then tell us how he is qualified to state this "law" that you wish to promote as a basis for your statement.

[.blank cd]

Even Betteridge has broken his own "law". Does the Mac App Store allow commercial use? | News | TechRadar (http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/does-the-mac-app-store-allow-commercial-use--921293)

It's not actually a "law", it's Betteridge's own opinion. I don't necessarily disagree with it either, but I am intelligent enough to be able to read an article and determine if the article is "bullshit" (as Betteridge" puts it so eloquently) - no matter how the headline might be displayed.

So, what at Betteridge's credentials for stating this "law", and who is he?
He is a technology writer in the UK. That's what he is. He goes through old content and edits it to be more current, and he writes a lot of pro-Mac articles (self-described).
His writing style is hardly objective, as most of his non-tech articles are attacks on conservatives/Republicans. He is a fine journalist, in your opinion, correct?
He graduated from Hatfield Polytechnic in 1989 with a BA (Hons) in Humanities. His employment history speaks volumes - you should review it, then tell us how he is qualified to state this "law" that you wish to promote as a basis for your statement.
You're reading too much into it. It's a principle that's been followed since before Betteridge. It's more of a maxim, but the principle still stands.

[David88vert]

You're reading too much into it. It's a principle that's been followed since before Betteridge. It's more of a maxim, but the principle still stands.

Diane Sawyer and ABC would disagree with you. How many times have we heard her say, "Would you believe ..."?

In fact, all of the major news outlets, other than CNN, disagree with Betteridge's "law", and use the question mark on many headlines. A random survey done a little while back showed that only CNN had no headlines that ended with a quotation mark.

University of Kansas (they have a journalism school) has headline rules listed online, but there is nothing about not using question marks in headlines.

I agree that it really shouldn't be done - but because it's a cheap and irritating trick.

So, the real headline to this thread should be, "Was Betteridge right?" I think that if we use Betteridge's "law", then we know the answer to be "No".

[.blank cd]

Diane Sawyer and ABC would disagree with you. How many times have we heard her say, "Would you believe ..."?

In fact, all of the major news outlets, other than CNN, disagree with Betteridge's "law", and use the question mark on many headlines. A random survey done a little while back showed that only CNN had no headlines that ended with a quotation mark.No one disagrees with the law at all, some still choose to disregard it. Why is anyone's guess.


University of Kansas (they have a journalism school) has headline rules listed online, but there is nothing about not using question marks in headlines.Thats one school...


I agree that it really shouldn't be done - but because it's a cheap and irritating trick.So if its a cheap and lazy way to write an article, why should I waste my time with Dollard's editorial, which not only runs afoul of the law, but does so in the most racist of fashion?


So, the real headline to this thread should be, "Was Betteridge right?" I think that if we use Betteridge's "law", then we know the answer to be "No".But this thread isn't an editorial or a news piece, its a discussion and a dialogue, so the law doesn't apply here.

[David88vert]

No one disagrees with the law at all, some still choose to disregard it. Why is anyone's guess.

It's not a "law" - it's the opinion of a tech writer, who has no journalism degree.
Perhaps they disregard something that they were never taught in journalism school?



Thats one school...

Yes, it is one more journalism school than you have presented supporting this statement from a little-known tech writer.

Here's another: Columbia University, recognized as the TOP journalism school, also posts up an entire page on writing headlines. Apparently, they do not think that this "journalistic principle" is a rule for headlines.

Where did you get your journalism degree from again?


So if its a cheap and lazy way to write an article, why should I waste my time with Dollard's editorial, which not only runs afoul of the law, but does so in the most racist of fashion?

If you are willing to take a stance and speak out against it (see your previous posts), shouldn't you take the time to actually review the topic in questions and make your statement with actual knowledge, rather than with ignorance?

Please elaborate on what laws the article has broken, and include the citation to the actual law.

Also, please explain in detail how you believe (your opinion) the article is racist.


But this thread isn't an editorial or a news piece, its a discussion and a dialogue, so the law doesn't apply here.

An editorial is an opinion. In case you were not told when you went to journalism school, editorials are often used to create, promote, or draw attention to a discussion.

[.blank cd]

Why am I even in here debating basic principles of writing with people I've assumed have graduated from high school? Do I need to discuss the reason why you don't write an essay in all-caps too? Is anyone still confused on comma splicing? Subject verb agreements?

[David88vert]

Why am I even in here debating basic principles of writing with people I've assumed have graduated from high school? Do I need to discuss the reason why you don't write an essay in all-caps too? Is anyone still confused on comma splicing? Subject verb agreements?

Show me where it is listed as a basic principle of writing. That should be easy, right?

I'm not asking you to present anything else. Don't get off on a tangent.

You made the statement that it was wrong to list a headline like that. You gave this "law" as the basis for stating it was wrong. You stated that it was a journalistic principle that had been followed for a long time. I'm just asking you to show that to be true.

[.blank cd]

Show me where it is listed as a basic principle of writing. That should be easy, right?

I'm not asking you to present anything else. Don't get off on a tangent.

You made the statement that it was wrong to list a headline like that. You gave this "law" as the basis for stating it was wrong. You stated that it was a journalistic principle that had been followed for a long time. I'm just asking you to show that to be true.

Are you saying you're unable to find that writing headlines with leading open ended questions is a journalistic faux pas, and has been for quite some time?

[David88vert]

Are you saying you're unable to find that writing headlines with leading open ended questions is a journalistic faux pas, and has been for quite some time?

I'm saying that you have not supported your own statements, and I have asked you repeatedly to show schools of journalism teaching this as a journalistic principle.
Why should I be going to find support for your statements?

[.blank cd]

Looking back, I've given you all the links you need to do your own research and answer your questions. I'm not holding any grown adults hands through the learning process anymore. I don't get paid enough. That's the last I'll say about it. I've proven my statements enough. It makes no difference if its up to your standard of proof or not.

[David88vert]

Looking back, I've given you all the links you need to do your own research and answer your questions. I'm not holding any grown adults hands through the learning process anymore. I don't get paid enough. That's the last I'll say about it. I've proven my statements enough. It makes no difference if its up to your standard of proof or not.

You haven't given any proof of anything - only a link to a statement of someone's opinion, which I clearly showed is just an opinion of a person who is not even regarded as an industry leader. That opinion is the only support that you have presented for your own opinion.

Here is what is quite funny. You just stated this morning in the "Oprah" thread, "I don't accept anyone's opinion as fact. Never have, never will.", yet, here we find that you are taking Betteridge's opinion to be the end all statement of factual proof. Care to recant your previous statement?

A simple paragraph in a textbook being used in a journalism school would be sufficient for me, but you only need your own opinion to be "fact". I obviously have a higher standard of proof than you do.

Here is a list of the top ten schools of journalism in the US. None of them have anything published that supports your statements that I have seen. Obviously, you haven't seen anything either, or you would have already presented it.

•Columbia University, Graduate School of Journalism

•New York University, Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute

•Northwestern University, Medill School of Journalism

•Stanford University, Department of Communication

•Syracuse University, Newhouse School of Public Communication

•UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism

•University of Maryland, Philip Merrill College of Journalism

•University of Missouri-Columbia, Missouri School of Journalism

•University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Journalism and Mass Communication

•University of Wisconsin - Madison, School of Journalism and Mass Communication

[.blank cd]

You haven't given any proof of anything - only a link to a statement of someone's opinion, which I clearly showed is just an opinion of a person who is not even regarded as an industry leader. That opinion is the only support that you have presented for your own opinion.

Here is what is quite funny. You just stated this morning in the "Oprah" thread, "I don't accept anyone's opinion as fact. Never have, never will.", yet, here we find that you are taking Betteridge's opinion to be the end all statement of factual proof. Care to recant your previous statement?Its not his opinion. Do you know what an opinion is? Betteridge is irrelevant! How many times am I going to say that?


Here is a list of the top ten schools of journalism in the US. None of them have anything published that supports your statements that I have seen. Obviously, you haven't seen anything either, or you would have already presented it.

Go to any of those schools and write your headlines with leading questions. Hope you like blowing tuition money.

I've said all ill say about not writing questions in headlines. It's universally agreed upon to not fucking do it if you want to be taken seriously as someone who puts ink to a piece of paper. I've provided you with more than enough sources to support this. It's not up for debate anymore.

[David88vert]

Its not his opinion. Do you know what an opinion is? Betteridge is irrelevant! How many times am I going to say that?

It most certainly is an opinion, and it was first published by him in Feb 2009. You do not seem to be able to understand what an opinion is, if you continue to confuse his opinion as a factual basis for your own opinion.

What other basis do you have to support your own stated opinion?



Go to any of those schools and write your headlines with leading questions. Hope you like blowing tuition money.

I give you a list of the top schools, and the fact that none of them have anything listed on their pages concerning writing headlines, and that is all you have in response?


I've said all ill say about not writing questions in headlines. It's universally agreed upon to not fucking do it if you want to be taken seriously as someone who puts ink to a piece of paper. I've provided you with more than enough sources to support this. It's not up for debate anymore.

Universally agreed to by whom? No one recognized as a leader in the journalism industry seems to agree to it.

So, NBC News should not be taken seriously, since they have a headline on their homepage right now that reads, "Al Qaeda bomb master wounded in drone strike?"
Likewise, CBS News should not be taken seriously, since they have several headlines on their homepage right now that read, "Powering the Future: Power from wind or waves: Why pick?" and "Future of TV?" and "Honeybee crisis: What's killing the bees?" and "Fake mountain: How did illegal construction go up?"
I don't think that you should discount these major media outlets just because they choose to use headlines with question marks. It's a tactic to get people to read the article, and while we can both agree that it is a less than ideal one (in our opinions), we can't agree that it is universally accepted when there is no supporting proof of that statement.

You are right on one thing - it's not up to debate anymore. You are unable to formulate any factually-based response.

[.blank cd]

Ok David. You're right and I'm just talking out of my ass. No one anywhere has ever been taught not to put questions in headlines.

[Sinfix_15]

Ok David. You're right and I'm just talking out of my ass. No one anywhere has ever been taught not to put questions in headlines.

So, you dont dispute the content of the article but you decided you will discredit it anyways based on writing style? makes sense..... aside from not making any sense.

[David88vert]

Giving up so soon? I was still holding back on showing you that you had no basis for your statements. Remember what you just said, "It's universally agreed upon to not fucking do it if you want to be taken seriously as someone who puts ink to a piece of paper."?


I'm guessing that you have never heard of the American Copy Editors Society, or of their website, copydesk.org. I'm also guessing that you have never heard of their headline contest, the National Headline Contest. It has two categories, one for individual headlines and the other for staff headlines.

In 2011, The New York Times only got third place, but several of their entries had interrogative headlines (as well as others having declarative), like this one:
http://headlines.copydesk.org/2011/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/headline63.png

One of those pesky interrogative headlines from second place for Staff, the Los Angeles Times, also happened to get first place for individual writing headlines:
http://headlines.copydesk.org/2011/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/headline42.png

The first place for Staff went to the Dallas Morning News, which had more than one interrogative headline, but this is my favorite:
http://headlines.copydesk.org/2011/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/headline6.png

These guys must not have gone to your high school. :no:

Your stated opinion should have just been that you prefer declarative headlines. That would have been something that was not debatable.

[.blank cd]

100% right.

[bu villain]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I am not saying that the entire media has a "huge" left bias, only that it does have a left bias, according to those who have actually studied it, and are in the industry.

Ok, saying that there is a left bias but it isn't "huge" seems much more reasonable to me than what is usually claimed, which is that the media is basically synonymous with the democratic party and the Obama administration or as Sinflix put it, the military wing of the democratic party.


In case you haven't noticed, I have been presenting the only "evidence" in this thread. No one else is backing up their own opinions with anything else by their own opinions.

I have noticed actually and I have clearly stated my view comes from ignorance and my personal experience. That's why I am engaging with you and not so much Sinflix who believes the left wing media bias is a tautology and therefore feels no need to present evidence to support his position.


20 major media outlets rank on Groseclose and Milyo’s slant scale, with 100 representing the most liberal and zero the most conservative:...
The bias in the media is recognized by professors, industry experts, think tanks, etc.
I gave you many links that give you the "evidence". I cannot force you to read them or believe them.

This is good evidence and is helping to convince me you are right although I need to delve in deeper to determine how they came up with those numbers to make sure the methodology is sound. Before this post, the only evidence you presented showed that bias exists on both sides but it hardly answered the question about the media as a whole.


I do not disagree with this statement, but let me make this clear - there are many, many more liberal journalists with a lot more airtime, printed pages, etc, than there are conservative ones. The numbers and percentages do not lie.

No debate there, we just disagree on whether or not a journalists personal views keep them from reporting news in an unbiased way.


Please elaborate on any position i take that has been proven false. Unless by proven false, you mean that its your opinion that its false.


Please lay out a belief that i hold, that is false, that i double down on when faced with proof that its false. I'm very curious about this.

The most recent example is where you stated that your number of postings on crimes committed by blacks reflected the statistics of how many crimes are committed by blacks. After I presented actual statistics that showed blacks commit roughly 20% of crimes, you refused to recognize that your posts (100% black perpetrators) did not reflect the actual crime rates (20% black perpetrators).

[David88vert]

Ok, saying that there is a left bias but it isn't "huge" seems much more reasonable to me than what is usually claimed, which is that the media is basically synonymous with the democratic party and the Obama administration or as Sinflix put it, the military wing of the democratic party.

I have noticed actually and I have clearly stated my view comes from ignorance and my personal experience. That's why I am engaging with you and not so much Sinflix who believes the left wing media bias is a tautology and therefore feels no need to present evidence to support his position.

This is good evidence and is helping to convince me you are right although I need to delve in deeper to determine how they came up with those numbers to make sure the methodology is sound. Before this post, the only evidence you presented showed that bias exists on both sides but it hardly answered the question about the media as a whole.

No debate there, we just disagree on whether or not a journalists personal views keep them from reporting news in an unbiased way.

I think that we can agree for the most part here.
A few things to note:

1) I do not agree with Sinfix's assessment or that the media is completely controlled by the Democratic party (or Obama's Administration). My opinion, based upon my own observations, and from what I have read, is that their are more journalists that will give those that have similar viewpoints on political positions more positive press coverage than those that do not have the same political positions. That is not the same as saying that the media is taking its "marching orders" from the Obama Administration.

2) I do not think that the methodology that was used to determine the amount of bias was completely unbiased. The values used to calculate scoring could easily be questioned, from what I understand. While the general results seem realistic, I would suggest that the study not be taken as gospel by itself. There are several others that have published similar results though, which would suggest that media bias is prevalent, although not "huge".

3) I am sure that out of all of the journalists out there, there are many that are excellent with keeping themselves objective and focused on presenting solid facts and supporting data. It is unreasonable though to believe that all of them behave objectively, when they are human, and are subject to their own humanity.

[bu villain]

Yes, I think I can agree to all of that. Your evidence has helped to convince me that you are probably correct. Thanks for helping to inform me better.

[David88vert]

Yes, I think I can agree to all of that. Your evidence has helped to convince me that you are probably correct. Thanks for helping to inform me better.

Always double-check the facts for yourself.

[Sinfix_15]

The most recent example is where you stated that your number of postings on crimes committed by blacks reflected the statistics of how many crimes are committed by blacks. After I presented actual statistics that showed blacks commit roughly 20% of crimes, you refused to recognize that your posts (100% black perpetrators) did not reflect the actual crime rates (20% black perpetrators).

No. I pretty thoroughly disputed the skewed interpretation of statistics that you were trying to project.

You cherry pick stats, i easily disputed them. When confronted with the glaring negative stats, you throw your hands up because you cant answer for them. You can selectively chose the stats you want to talk about and then close the door on the argument with counter stats are produced. I very thoroughly debunked the point you were attempting to make, i suggest you reread it before we continue this debate any further.

[Sinfix_15]

Obama 'Limiting Press Access In Ways That Past Administrations Wouldn't Have Dared': AP (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/obama-press-access_n_2992733.html)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NlGNhAnwp_Y

Beat the press - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/beat_the_press_96lFrUNync5zuBZTiZ6aUL)

[bu villain]

Always double-check the facts for yourself.

I will, which is why I said you convinced me that you are "probably correct".

[bu villain]

No. I pretty thoroughly disputed the skewed interpretation of statistics that you were trying to project.

You cherry pick stats, i easily disputed them. When confronted with the glaring negative stats, you throw your hands up because you cant answer for them. You can selectively chose the stats you want to talk about and then close the door on the argument with counter stats are produced. I very thoroughly debunked the point you were attempting to make, i suggest you reread it before we continue this debate any further.

I have no interest in debating what we already concluded and further derail this thread. I also don't remember disagreeing with any of your stats, nor do I remember you presenting any stats that show blacks commit 100% of any crimes.

[Sinfix_15]

I have no interest in debating what we already concluded and further derail this thread. I also don't remember disagreeing with any of your stats, nor do I remember you presenting any stats that show blacks commit 100% of any crimes.

You attempting to railroad my position shows how weak your argument is. I'll take this type of foolish comment as your surrender and accept the compliment with gratitude. If at any point you do wish to reread our debate and actually present something of substance, id be more than happy to oblige you. Until then.... like you said, stay on topic.

[bu villain]

take it however you like. My goal is not to convince you of anything.