Obama on the second amendment

[Larkinn]

So long as the newscasters are open about it, it doesn't matter.

When it's a problem is when the newscasters claim to be neutral, but in reality aren't, and are using every tool at their disposal to promote one side while painting a negative picture (or no picture at all ) of the opposition.

It does matter. If your honest about being a shithead, it doesn't make you any less of a shithead.

 

[Larkinn]

I'm not sure. Is there a difference other than the varying degrees of bias?

And one is intentional and one is not.

 

[manifold]

And one is intentional and one is not.

Bullshit. No offense.

It's all intentional.

 

[AllieBaba]

It does matter. If your honest about being a shithead, it doesn't make you any less of a shithead.

So you think that a person who is a commentator is every bit as bad as a person who claims to be a newsman, but who uses his position to slant the news and lie to people, all the while claiming to be neutral?

In other words, you're saying you have no problem with lying and hypocrisy at all.

 

[Larkinn]

Bullshit. No offense.

It's all intentional.

So you think every action we do is conscious and intentional? Do you know anything about psychology?

 

[Larkinn]

So you think that a person who is a commentator is every bit as bad as a person who claims to be a newsman, but who uses his position to slant the news and lie to people, all the while claiming to be neutral?

In other words, you're saying you have no problem with lying and hypocrisy at all.

Not quite. I wasn't comparing them, you said it "doesn't matter" if they slant the news if its known that they do it. I said it does matter. Thats not saying it matters more or less than a neutral newscaster.

 

[manifold]

So you think every action we do is conscious and intentional?

Wow!

The assclown strawman technique is quite the motif around here.

For the record, I neither said nor implied any such thing. We were talking about news sources. Now, if you can give me an example of a news source that is biased unintentionally, I'll be willing to consider your position further. However, I will not be holding my breath.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wow!

The assclown strawman technique is quite the motif around here.

For the record, I neither said nor implied any such thing. We were talking about news sources. Now, if you can give me an example of a news source that is biased unintentionally, I'll be willing to consider your position further. However, I will not be holding my breath.

Larkinn is so full of shit you can smell him coming. He never provides actual responses to questions like you have asked. Just like he ignored my question and can not provide a single piece of evidence that Obama did not, in fact vote on those bills as claimed.

Hie modeus operandi is to play word games.

 

[Larkinn]

Wow!

The assclown strawman technique is quite the motif around here.

For the record, I neither said nor implied any such thing. We were talking about news sources. Now, if you can give me an example of a news source that is biased unintentionally, I'll be willing to consider your position further. However, I will not be holding my breath.

Pick any news article you want. BBC/Fox/NPR/AP/Reuters, whatever. They all carry the unintentional biases of the reporter, at least to a degree. Why did they choose to write about that, and not something else? Why that angle on it?

And yeah, you did imply "such thing". Bias can be unintentional or intentional. To claim that its always intentional is to say that it is never unintentional. To say that its never unintentional is to say that they always can control their subconscious bias, which is absurd.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkinn is so full of shit you can smell him coming. He never provides actual responses to questions like you have asked. Just like he ignored my question and can not provide a single piece of evidence that Obama did not, in fact vote on those bills as claimed.

Hie modeus operandi is to play word games.

Aww, its the poodle.

You need to go for a walk?

I didn't respond to your question, because it had nothing to do with what I said.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not quite. I wasn't comparing them, you said it "doesn't matter" if they slant the news if its known that they do it. I said it does matter. Thats not saying it matters more or less than a neutral newscaster.

I think we're talking about different things. I don't think it's "slanting the news" to voice an opinion and then go about proving your point. That's what commentators do, it's the privilege of being a commentator.

A commentator may be a newsman, but he's not a "reporter". A reporter reports the news, period. Or at least, they're supposed to.

All reporters of course have personal bias, but they ethically are supposed to just report the news, regardless of what it is.

The problem with the press is that from the 70s until just recently, they weren't doing that. They were presenting themselves in that light, as unbiased "reporters" when in fact they were editorializing, creating, and adjusting the news they reported, to reflect their own personal views. THAT is what is dishonest and unethical.

I could care less if Bill Maher (is that his name?) or Rush Limbaugh or Levine or that other sap...Michael Medvich? blab 24 hours a day because they aren't being dishonest about their motive. (Well, Medvich doesn't have a motive, he's just plain off the wall nuts). They are not in the same class of sub-humans who pose as unbiased "reporters" who tweak the news to suit themselves and then pretend they are honestly reporting the real news. You can choose to listen to them or not, and you know what their views are and what they are trying to portray.

What is WRONG are people who intentionally mislead the public. It's not the fact that they have strong opinions that makes them horrible...it's the fact that they distort the news and present it as straight reporting.

 

[AllieBaba]

Pick any news article you want. BBC/Fox/NPR/AP/Reuters, whatever. They all carry the unintentional biases of the reporter, at least to a degree. Why did they choose to write about that, and not something else? Why that angle on it?

And yeah, you did imply "such thing". Bias can be unintentional or intentional. To claim that its always intentional is to say that it is never unintentional. To say that its never unintentional is to say that they always can control their subconscious bias, which is absurd.

Not unintentional on the parts of BBC and NPR, who have admitted their bias and in the case of BBC been convicted of it.
Reuters and Fox I've always thought were reliable, and any errors were just errors...

 

[manifold]

Pick any news article you want. BBC/Fox/NPR/AP/Reuters, whatever. They all carry the unintentional biases of the reporter, at least to a degree. Why did they choose to write about that, and not something else? Why that angle on it?

And yeah, you did imply "such thing". Bias can be unintentional or intentional. To claim that its always intentional is to say that it is never unintentional. To say that its never unintentional is to say that they always can control their subconscious bias, which is absurd.

Bullshit again. Every one of the sources you cite employ reporters with a particular bias...intentionally.

 

[AllieBaba]

There's no intention, period, to reporting bias. You either report straight, or you deliberately report with a view to making a point.
Any bias is intentional, and a separate thing from a mistake based upon a bad tip, accidentally misquoting the wrong person (which today should never happen), or accidentally leaving out a fact which turns out to be a big deal.

You report an event by attending and talking to random people in the crowd. You bias it by slanting your questions. It's easy to do, but I promise you, it isn't accidental. You bias it by carefully choosing whom you speak to, and which quotes you use. You bias it by not noting how many people are at the event....

Just not reporting the fact that there are 10 opposed to 300 people at an event CAN be an oversight (though not likely) but is not evidence of bias at all.

Refusing to quote anyone whose views don't mesh with your own IS bias, and it's always intentional.

 

[AllieBaba]

Bullshit again. Every one of the sources you cite employ reporters with a particular bias...intentionally.

BBC.
NPR.

 

[Ravi]

Bullshit again. Every one of the sources you cite employ reporters with a particular bias...intentionally.

Why do you claim it's intentional?

 

[manifold]

Why do you claim it's intentional?

It would be nearly impossible, statistically speaking, for it to be merely coincidental.

 

[AllieBaba]

There's no such thing as "unintentional BIAS". Bias is intentional.

Ppl can make mistakes which read as bias, but provided they are honest mistakes and are owned up to are a different thing.

However, biased reporters LIE about their bias all the time (Dan Rather. I'll buy once...not twice) and claim it was all a terrible misunderstanding.

 

[Ravi]

It would be nearly impossible, statistically speaking, for it to be merely coincidental.

Coincidental and unintentional have different meanings.

 

[Ravi]

There's no such thing as "unintentional BIAS". Bias is intentional.

That's just silly. You are biased (I'm guessing) by thinking Bush is a wonderful president. I doubt you intentionally set out to have those biases or act on the intentionally in every situation.