The New liberal Name For Our *PRESIDENT*...

[rtwngAvngr]

Well it's easy to support your argument when you simply assert a premise is just true (they were left). The point is that liberals can be up in arms about Fox being right if the other networks were either center OR left. Either one means that Fox is to the right of the others. The question is where were the other networks.



How are you measuring this outrage? Please provide the scale so I can better understand what level of outrage indicates what. That way I can better respond to this since I don't know what level of outrage signifies what.

My personal opinion:

Right = -10
Left = 10
Center = 0

Most of the major networks seem to have traditionally been around a 2 or 3. Slightly liberal but that is how I want journalism to be...always questioning the establishment. Fox came out and is around a -5 or -6. Thus the claim that Fox is so right wing because it is more to the right of center than the major networks are left of center. But that is just my personal opinion.

Let's not get into quantifying outrage. To me it was significant enough to indicate more than a distance between center and right.

It's a mistake to assume "the establishment" is always conservative. the underwriters for many left wing public programs are oftentimes huge defense contractors whose largest customers are the government. Done and undone.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Let's not get into quantifying outrage. To me it was significant enough to indicate more than a distance between center and right.

It's a mistake to assume "the establishment" is always conservative. the underwriters for many left wing public programs are oftentimes huge defense contractors whose largest customers are the government. Done and undone.

Then we must agree to disagree because I don't think the level of outrage indicates a distance greater than between center and right.

And yes, it is wrong to assume the establishment is always conservative. Blame it on Nixon then...if a Republican hadn't been caught doing what he did the world may be different.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Let's not get into quantifying outrage. To me it was significant enough to indicate more than a distance between center and right.

It's a mistake to assume "the establishment" is always conservative. the underwriters for many left wing public programs are oftentimes huge defense contractors whose largest customers are the government. Done and undone.

Then we must agree to disagree because I don't think the level of outrage indicates a distance greater than between center and right.

And yes, it is wrong to assume the establishment is always conservative. Blame it on Nixon then...if a Republican hadn't been caught doing what he did the world may be different.

And what does "done and undone" mean? Sounds like something from a teen movie, haha.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Let's not get into quantifying outrage. To me it was significant enough to indicate more than a distance between center and right.

It's a mistake to assume "the establishment" is always conservative. the underwriters for many left wing public programs are oftentimes huge defense contractors whose largest customers are the government. Done and undone.

Then we must agree to disagree because I don't think the level of outrage indicates a distance greater than between center and right.

And yes, it is wrong to assume the establishment is always conservative. Blame it on Nixon then...if a Republican hadn't been caught doing what he did the world may be different.

And what does "done and undone" mean? Sounds like something from a teen movie, haha. Any finger snapping that goes along with that?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Ooops, sorry everyone...my computer was not cooperating and I seem to have posted multiple repeats. Any way a mod can delete the superfluous posts?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Then we must agree to disagree because I don't think the level of outrage indicates a distance greater than between center and right.

And yes, it is wrong to assume the establishment is always conservative. Blame it on Nixon then...if a Republican hadn't been caught doing what he did the world may be different.

And what does "done and undone" mean? Sounds like something from a teen movie, haha. Any finger snapping that goes along with that?

I'm done and you're undone. Two snaps up!

 

[KarlMarx]

Then we must agree to disagree because I don't think the level of outrage indicates a distance greater than between center and right.

And yes, it is wrong to assume the establishment is always conservative. Blame it on Nixon then...if a Republican hadn't been caught doing what he did the world may be different.

And what does "done and undone" mean? Sounds like something from a teen movie, haha. Any finger snapping that goes along with that?

Just exactly what did Nixon "do"? I am still wondering about it. I asked a work colleague about Watergate and Nixon's role in it (he had just finished reading a book on him) and what he did that was so illegal. The answer is "not much, if anything...", his real problem was the way he projected himself, he was not the most likeable guy and he had a PR problem. But did Nixon actually break the law?

The answer in my mind has been drifting in the "no" direction.

This is somewhat of a shock to me, after 30 years of hearing "Nixon was bad, he broke the law" and "Ford should never have pardoned Nixon" (actually, how can you pardon someone who was not convicted or even indicted?). I'm starting to realize that Nixon did not break the law.

Nixon was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, courtesy of Dan Rather and the Media. The thing that was so unpardonable to the Left was that Nixon was part of the effort to expose and convict Alger Hiss and many high government officials of treason. Nixon also seemed to be persecuting the Vietnam war to what might have been a successful conclusion. Of course, Watergate and the efforts of the Liberals helped undermined that success.....

A. Did Nixon ever lie under oath? No
B. Did Nixon ever obstruct a federal investigation? Not really, he did fire the special prosecutor, but that was within his mandated powers to do so. Did he destroy evidence of any crimes? It doesn't seem so, at least nothing that can be proven

hmmmm.... we lost Vietnam because it was a quagmire, no, because the anti-war idiots and the leftist media helped us lose it..... just like they're trying to do now....

 

[007]

And your reply doesn't make any sense to me. I'll try to simplify: You think that there is a liberal bias in the media

Here's where you fall flat on your face mj. You see I don't "think" there's main stream liberal bias in the news, I "know" there's liberal bias. I know it, you know it, the man in the moon knows it.

Like I said, I don't expect you to "admit" it. You're a liberal, and liberals will argue the most blatant lies right into the dirt, for what appears to be just the sake of the arguement.

Well I'll leave you to argue with rwa, because I've made my point abundantly clear, and there's no need to read anymore of your bullshit about it.

 

[KarlMarx]

Here's where you fall flat on your face mj. You see I don't "think" there's main stream liberal bias in the news, I "know" there's liberal bias. I know it, you know it, the man in the moon knows it.

Like I said, I don't expect you to "admit" it. You're a liberal, and liberals will argue the most blatant lies right into the dirt, for what appears to be just the sake of the arguement.

Well I'll leave you to argue with rwa, because I've made my point abundantly clear, and there's no need to read anymore of your bullshit about it.

You know, in addition to his rustic charm, Pale Rider is quite correct when he claims in his uniquely straightforward manner that there is a liberal bias in the media (wow.... don't I sound like Willaim F. Buckley when I talk like that?). It is not an opinion, it is a fact, one that has been studied and measured, with hard numbers to back it up....

The most recent ASNE (American Association of Newspaper Editors ) study surveyed 1,037 newspaper reporters found 61 percent identified themselves as/leaning "liberal/Democratic" compared to only 15 percent who identified themselves as/leaning "conservative/Republican."

If you take the last election as an indication, then Americans are about half left of the political spectrum, and half are to the right, with slightly more to the right.

Lichter and Rothman's survey of journalists discovered that "Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum."
"Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right — a margin of seven-to-one."
Only one percent strongly agreed that environmental problems were ovestated, while a majority of 54 percent strongly disagreed.
90 percent favored abortion.
80 percent supported "strong affirmative action for blacks."
54 percent did not regard adultery as wrong, compared to only 15 percent who regarded it as wrong.

Clearly this does not reflect a population of people who would consider themselves conservative or right of center. In fact, this population of people is not even representative of the Americans as a whole.

44 percent of journalists identified themselves as Democrats, compared to only 16 percent who tagged themselves as Republican.

Journalists are 5 to 10 percentage points more likely to be Democrats than the general population and 10 to 15 points less likely to be Republicans

Again, journalists' political affiliations do not indicate any conservative political leanings, instead a leaning toward liberal political philosophy.

Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal.

84 percent of reporters and editors supported a so-called "nuclear freeze" to ban all future nuclear missile deployment; 80 percent were against increased defense spending; and 76 percent opposed aid to the Nicaraguan Contras.

82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control.

By a margin of two-to-one, reporters had a negative view of then-President Ronald Reagan and voted, by the same margin, for Walter Mondale in 1984

Nearly all of the media elite (97 percent) agreed that “it is a woman’s right to decide whether or not to have an abortion,” and five out of six (84 percent) agreed strongly.

Three out of four journalists (73 percent) agreed that “homosexuality is as acceptable a lifestyle as heterosexuality,” and 40 percent agreed strongly.

Seven out of ten journalists (71 percent) agreed that “government should work to ensure that everyone has a job,” and 30 percent said they strongly agreed with that statement.

Three-fourths (75 percent) agreed that “government should work to reduce the income gap between the rich and the poor,” and more than a third (34 percent) strongly agreed.

Relatively few journalists (39 percent) agreed that “less government regulation of business would be good for the economy,” and just five percent strongly agreed with this sentiment.

.
Again ... newspaper reporters and journalists as a population are more liberal than conservative and are definitely more liberal than the American public in general.

So, yes Virginia there really IS a liberal bias in the media!!!!!!!!

P.S. In addition the studies also indicate a HISTORICAL liberalism in the media which stretches back at least 40 years, long before Fox News came along. So Pale Rider is only half correct in saying there IS a liberal bias in the media, he didn't go far enough, there not only IS a liberal bias, there also has been a liberal bias in the media for the past 2 generations or longer.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#how

 

[Annie]

I agree with all that Karl Marx posted prior. I never was disputing the liberal bias, I don't know how many times I've added the links to UC/Stanford study which also confirms it. I just think the example of addressing the president is one of those things that undercuts the argument, since it's easy enough to see it's something that is done to ALL presidents. I would rather have a check of how many news conferences of the presidents were carried LIVE by the major networks. Again, my memory may be false, but until Slick Willy was in such hot water, they never missed an opportunity to throw him on the air. Not so with GW.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Here's where you fall flat on your face mj. You see I don't "think" there's main stream liberal bias in the news, I "know" there's liberal bias. I know it, you know it, the man in the moon knows it.

Like I said, I don't expect you to "admit" it. You're a liberal, and liberals will argue the most blatant lies right into the dirt, for what appears to be just the sake of the arguement.

Well I'll leave you to argue with rwa, because I've made my point abundantly clear, and there's no need to read anymore of your bullshit about it.

The verb used to denote a mental state is unimportant here. My point is still just as effective if you switch out the word "think" for the word "know." Which by the way I suggest is appropriate in one of my first posts.

You know there is a liberal bias in the media and therefore look for evidence to support that knowledge. Still backwards. This post began with someone cherry picking a practice in the media of not using the term "president" everytime Bush is mentioned. To be intellectually honest, move from the particular (not using "president" with Bush) to the general (not using "president" with any president).

Furthermore, where did I ever deny there is a liberal bias? I SPECIFICALLY denied doing that yet you choose to ignore what I actually say and supplant it with whatever will help your view.

The purpose of posts in the beginning were to point out the backwards nature of the use of logic.

Don't assume something I don't say and DEFINITELY don't put words in my mouth. Why even discuss a topic with someone else if you will not respond and discuss what they are saying?

 

[007]

You know there is a liberal bias in the media and therefore look for evidence to support that knowledge. Still backwards.

Again dunc... flat on your face, and arguing for nothing... *sigh*

I *STARTED* this thread, as a response to what I "had been" hearing. I was just standing in my kitchen listening to the TV as the ABC nightly news came on, as they highlighted their evenings stories, they refered to *PRESIDENT BUSH* as *mister* Bush. Not President Bush the FIRST time, and then MISTER Bush after the first reference, as Kathiane suggests would be normal, just *mister* Bush. This is the liberals new pet name, slap in the face, show no respect, he's not my president, way to refer to the President.

Now I've said that time and time and time again here, and you keep dancing around the truth of that matter with some fucking conjured up bullshit angle about some imaginary sequence of events. That's like me asking you how much electricity Hover Damn can produce in a day, and you answering, yes I packed my lunch.

How do you live with such twisted thoughts and reasoning? Well... don't tell me. It'll just be some more quirky, convoluted, meandering, tortuous, liberal crap that I won't either understand or want to hear.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Again dunc... flat on your face, and arguing for nothing... *sigh*

I'm not arguing what you want me to argue so don't get offended. I am attempting to point out the erroneous way in which you came to your conclusion.

Now I've said that time and time and time again here, and you keep dancing around the truth of that matter with some fucking conjured up bullshit angle about some imaginary sequence of events. That's like me asking you how much electricity Hover Damn can produce in a day, and you answering, yes I packed my lunch.

Not sure to what you are referring - possibly you could be more specific. I hope you're not referring to the structure of premises then conclusion as some imaginary sequence of events.

How do you live with such twisted thoughts and reasoning? Well... don't tell me. It'll just be some more quirky, convoluted, meandering, tortuous, liberal crap that I won't either understand or want to hear.

My reasoning is quite developed...studied logic and philosophy and am in law school - I'd say my life is pretty much built around logic.

 

[KarlMarx]

My reasoning is quite developed...studied logic and philosophy and am in law school - I'd say my life is pretty much built around logic.

Then, why are you a liberal? Or are you just taking a liberal position on this one issue?

 

[007]

I'm not arguing what you want me to argue so don't get offended. I am attempting to point out the erroneous way in which you came to your conclusion.



Not sure to what you are referring - possibly you could be more specific. I hope you're not referring to the structure of premises then conclusion as some imaginary sequence of events.



My reasoning is quite developed...studied logic and philosophy and am in law school - I'd say my life is pretty much built around logic.

Well here's some "logic" for ya dunc, you've read what I've said I don't how many times now, but in response to such, you haven't acknowledged that you've understood ANY of it. So, you have either NOT UNDERSTOOD ANYTHING I've said, which would indicate a severe reading comprehension disability, not good "if" you are in college, or you are completely IGNORING my point. Either way, your act is purely liberal in nature, and oh so typical for a liberal.

If you're building your life around that type of logic, or lack thereof, the life you're building is a lie.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Here's MJD's hard-coded rule for debate: "when losing, start babbling about Nixon." Yeah. Great logic.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Then, why are you a liberal? Or are you just taking a liberal position on this one issue?

Why am I a liberal? What do you mean, because I studied logic and philosophy?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Well here's some "logic" for ya dunc, you've read what I've said I don't how many times now, but in response to such, you haven't acknowledged that you've understood ANY of it. So, you have either NOT UNDERSTOOD ANYTHING I've said, which would indicate a severe reading comprehension disability, not good "if" you are in college, or you are completely IGNORING my point. Either way, your act is purely liberal in nature, and oh so typical for a liberal.

If you're building your life around that type of logic, or lack thereof, the life you're building is a lie.

You haven't acknowledged anything I've said either, is that a new policy where we have to acknowledge everything in a discussion? If you need an express acknowledgement for every post then make it known but until then I think it is best to assume that understanding is present.

Nice with the "if" too...why would I say I was if I wasn't - what would I gain?

The distinction you fail to realize is that we are arguing different things. You claim (know - don't get your panties in a bunch) that the media is liberal. I DON'T deny that fact, never have, and don't want to discuss it. I entered the discussion to point out the error in your logic.

You seem to be getting mad because I won't fight with you over something I don't want to fight about.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Here's MJD's hard-coded rule for debate: "when losing, start babbling about Nixon." Yeah. Great logic.

Babbling about Nixon? I mentioned him as a possible reason that the media is liberal. How about this: "When losing, or inept, make baseless claims and throw around insults."?

By the way - one thing I feel I need to point out is the difference between the logic I refer to and the one it seems everyone else refers to.

Logic can be defined (not exclusively) as a way of thinking (as in: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow) or the formal study of the relationship between premises and a conclusion as in (Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis). [examples from Dictionary.com]

As a liberal I'm sure you think my 'way of thinking' is off - however, I study (ied) formal logic and know the rules of that arena and forming the conlusion first is in violation. Whenever I use the word 'logic' I am referring to the discipline.

 

[007]

The distinction you fail to realize is that we are arguing different things. You claim (know - don't get your panties in a bunch) that the media is liberal. I DON'T deny that fact, never have, and don't want to discuss it. I entered the discussion to point out the error in your logic.

There is no error in my logic. It's based solely on my reading, listening and watching the liberal media bias, and then stating what I've read, heard and seen on here. The main stream media is biased liberal. There is NO error in that statement. It's fact. You've now admitted that yourself. But that's what irritates me when you say I made the assumption that the main stream media was liberal WITHOUT FIRST KNOWING THAT, and then insist I PROVE it. THAT was a twisted line of bologna.

Now we're no longer arguing about two different things, and I'm not mad.