I propose a new forum requirement.. sourcing!

[healthmyths]

Media coverage was more favorable to Romney than to Obama.

Study: Obama's Media Coverage More Negative Than Romney's - NationalJournal.com

Shitty thread, by the way. Do you want to bitch about people not sourcing claims or do you want to bitch about your fake media bias? Whining bitch can't decide. Booooooo hooooooo!

A) What FAKE Media bias? You mean when 85% of news organizations give to Obama/Democrats AND
when Editor of NewsWeek ADMITS there is a liberal bias,
when NBC reports 144 biased news people gave to the democrats... THAT is not enougH??
Journalists Admitting Liberal Bias, Part Two | Media Research Center


B) YOU never read the entire study as I DID!!!
source: Methodology | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)
Do a little research LIKE I did and see that NO WHERE WAS THERE ANY MENTION of OBAMA more negative!
I am shouting now because YOU JUST like most idiots superficially too what YOU wanted to believe!
THIS WAS THE PRIMARY opponents... NOT against Obama!

After Romney’s tight victory in the Michigan primary on Feb. 28, news coverage about his candidacy became measurably more favorable and the portrayal of his rivals—particularly Rick Santorum—began to become more negative and to shrink in volume.


NOW here is what YOU are basing your totally ignorant comment on:

Since November, nearly two-thirds--63 percent--of the coverage about Obama were framed around political strategy and momentum. In comparison, 21 percent primarily connected the president with foreign- or domestic-policy issues.
Researchers said the result "suggests the media have been treating [Obama] more as a presidential candidate than a chief executive for months."
Mitt Romney has publicly griped about the way the news media have covered him, but the presumptive GOP nominee has gotten better press in 2012 than President Obama, according to a study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.

THIS idiot like YOU MAD UP the statement "Romney gotten better press in 2012 than President Obama"!

Finally READ what people who KNOW what they are talking about think of the BIASED National Journal.. the source of the statement... ""Romney gotten better press in 2012 than President Obama"!"

Partisans. The term "'partisan Republican'...has turned up 85 times in the English-language news media over the past 90 days. By contrast, the term 'partisan Democrat' has turned up only 58 times in the same time period." That's a ratio of 1.5 to 1.

Extremists. "A Nexis search of 'extreme right' over the past 90 days was 'interrupted' because it exceeded 1,000 documents, which seems to bog down Nexis' data retrieval system. So we narrowed down our investigation time-frame. A Nexis search of 'extreme right' over the past month scored 212 mentions; a Nexis search of 'extreme left' over the past month yielded 58 items. This search reveals that the print media label right-wingers 'extreme' nearly four times more often than they label left-wingers 'extreme.'"

Hard Right/Left. "Nexis search for print media uses of 'hard right' over the past 90 days: 683. Nexis search for print media uses of 'hard left' over the past 90 days: 312. Again, the media are apt to label an individual or group 'hard right' more than twice as often than they are apt to label an individual or group 'hard left.'"

Far Right/Left. "Nexis search of 'far right' over past week: 267 (past 90 days and 30 days yielded more than 1,000 documents). Nexis search of 'far left' over past week: 130....the media are more than twice as likely to label a conservative person or group as 'far right' than they are to label a liberal person or group 'far left.'

Shosteck concluded: "When conservatives kvetch about the media being more apt to use negative labels for their leaders, special interest groups and public policy positions than they are for liberal leaders, special interest groups and public policy positions, conservatives are not just spouting empty rhetoric.
The raw numbers, free of any manipulation, back up conservatives' claims."

NationalJournal.com Finds Liberal Bias | Media Research Center


NOW again... idiot... show where THESE stories and the following study ARE WRONG???

According to Pew, “42% of the character narrative” about Obama was positive on mainstream networks such as ABC, NBC, and CBS while 58% was negative.
42% of the stories were POSITIVE!! 58% negative for Obama

BUT when it came to ROMNEY???
On the other hand, only 29 percent of the narrative on Governor Romney was positive while 71 percent was negative.
Study Finds Widespread Bias in Mainstream Media Coverage of Election | Women of Grace

SO again explain how if the BIASED MSM shows 42 stories out of 100 positive and 29 positive for Romney and 58 stories negative for Obama BUT 72 stories negative for Romney..
WHO do you think gets a more NEGATIVE IMAGE... Obama or Romney?
But of course you have absolutely no concept of what I'm describing!!!

 

[healthmyths]

Just curious, but how do you source an opinion?

OK ... a little primer for you...
I have an opinion that YOU don't know what sourcing means.. RIGHT?
Source for my opinion:
SOURCE:

Just curious, but how do you source an opinion?

 

[Unkotare]

I suggest a long, detailed OP need not be copied into every reply made to it.....there are pages here and every other board that are only 3 replies long because of it. C/P the part you're replying to and edit the rest out....(highlight it and hit "backspace")....waste of bandwidth otherwise.

As to sourcing, fine when there is hard numbers data involved but who can link their opinion? I don't care if anybody believes what I believe or post or not, as long as they try to read it without prejudice because I'm Tea Party. I'm here to change opinions not echo somebody else's.

You don't want to be required to produce pics of all the eyes you have gouged out with 'the deadly' kitty kat stance?

 

[healthmyths]

It just seems so idiotic that this medium provides people to hyperbolic opinions, exaggerated claims, gross hysterical statements without any sourcing! I generally not all the time as in the case of this post have some sort of link to support my contention.

For example the FACTS that the MSM is biased and protects OBAMA is based on three separate sources:

1) There were 1,160 (85%) of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. an average contribution of $880. By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863.
The average Republican contribution was $744.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters | The Daily Caller

2) Now these same donors/news people of the stories about Romney in the 2012 campaign, 71% were NEGATIVE!!! 7 out of 10 stories presented a negative image of Romney.
Study Finds Widespread Bias in Mainstream Media Coverage of Election | Women of Grace

3) Evan Thomas Editor of NewsWeek's quotes Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do." --
Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington,
February 2, 2007.Newsweek's Evan Thomas: 'Our Job Is To Bash the President' | NewsBusters

But that will never happen under Obama because this same editor's his response about Obama???

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, Newsweek?s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ?Sort of God? | NewsBusters

"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time.There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.
There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -
- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas — Newsweek's Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

Thomas' assertion of 85% reporters vote Democratic is backed up by:
"MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."
Journalists give campaign cash - politics | NBC News

All sorts of sources to back up the FACTS there is a Mainstream Media liberal bias! So for all you people on this forum... don't you think the Moderators should require facts before opinions are so wrongly spouted based on NO FACTS?

There are a number of problems with this proposal.

1. This is not an academic venue where the subject of discussion is the focus. Everyone here knows that the purpose of this forum it to assassinate the character of the other side, or to deflect when facts cannot be denied. Both sides do it.

2. Posted links is an invitation to exposing yourself to real harm. I have been on political forums for more than a decade. There are people so obsessed with their point of view that they will literally destroy the life of their opponent if given the chance. Once such couple were so obsessed with silencing a conservative voice that they used technology to discover who their target was, and though a series of emails and slander, managed to get their target fired from their job. No one on this forum, or any other forum, can be trusted. If you want to supply supporting evidence to you claims, then just provide the search terms you used and the search engine and let them go find out for themselves. Never do their work for them.

3. When I am debating with a person, I want their opinion. "THEIR OPNION" I do not want the opinion of a blog, another journalist, an editorial, or a book. People who write those things are not here to defend themselves and should not be brought into the conversation without prior notice. Voice you opinion and have the balls and intelligence to back it up with rational arguments.

Have a nice day.

SO??? What am I asking that is different then what you wrote "Voice you opinion and have the balls and intelligence to back it up with rational arguments." wrote!

 

[healthmyths]

And if the source is biased, what good is it? Discuss the issue. I am far more interested in the reasoning proposed by the poster than by the reason proposed by a PAID source.

BUT the opinion is BIASED by the source that helped form their OPINION!
The majority of people seem to think just because something happened to them ... it happens to everyone! Anecdotal in other words.
Case in point... How many people have been agitated to ban guns entirely. Based on what?
Sandy Point?

My opinion is that there is NOT enough of an issue especially when current gun laws are NOT enforced to have further legislation.
My opinion evidently unlike the majority of anti-gun people is based on two facts!

FACT 1) Exceptional INFREQUENT EVENTS mass shootings.. only 8 people killed per year in 2 shootings per year over the last 30 years!
Since 1982 there have been at least 62 mass shootings* across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. Twenty-five of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006, and 7 of them have taken place in 2012. We've mapped them below, including details on the shooters' identities, the types of weapons they used, and the number of victims they injured and killed.

The shooter took the lives of at least four people. An FBI crime classification report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location.
A Guide to Mass Shootings in America | Mother Jones

So why are these 8 deaths a year a cause for more laws?

FACT 2) Despite his calls for greater gun control, including a new assault weapons ban that extends to handguns, President Obama's administration has turned away from enforcing gun laws, cutting weapons prosecutions some 40 percent since a high of about 11,000 under former President Bush.
Gun prosecutions under Obama down more than 45 percent | WashingtonExaminer.com

WHY in the FACE of these FACTS are millions of obviously uninformed people reading the biased MSM exaggerated blown out of proportion stories wanting more
gun laws when laws on the books aren't being enforced?
Why in the FACE of the FACT 8 people a year killed by Mass shootings by guns!

So MY opinion based on the above facts is the MSM blew out of proportion for their POLITICAL agenda and exaggerated stories that have convinced millions there should be more laws even though the existing laws aren't enforced.

 

[healthmyths]

It just seems so idiotic that this medium provides people to hyperbolic opinions, exaggerated claims, gross hysterical statements without any sourcing! I generally not all the time as in the case of this post have some sort of link to support my contention.

For example the FACTS that the MSM is biased and protects OBAMA is based on three separate sources:

1) There were 1,160 (85%) of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. an average contribution of $880. By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863.
The average Republican contribution was $744.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters | The Daily Caller

2) Now these same donors/news people of the stories about Romney in the 2012 campaign, 71% were NEGATIVE!!! 7 out of 10 stories presented a negative image of Romney.
Study Finds Widespread Bias in Mainstream Media Coverage of Election | Women of Grace

3) Evan Thomas Editor of NewsWeek's quotes Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do." --
Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington,
February 2, 2007.Newsweek's Evan Thomas: 'Our Job Is To Bash the President' | NewsBusters

But that will never happen under Obama because this same editor's his response about Obama???

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, Newsweek?s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ?Sort of God? | NewsBusters

"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time.There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.
There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -
- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas — Newsweek's Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

Thomas' assertion of 85% reporters vote Democratic is backed up by:
"MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."
Journalists give campaign cash - politics | NBC News

All sorts of sources to back up the FACTS there is a Mainstream Media liberal bias! So for all you people on this forum... don't you think the Moderators should require facts before opinions are so wrongly spouted based on NO FACTS?

Are you really stupid enough to think that the moderators are going to pore over every post made and then do their own research to determine whether or not some opinion is fact based?

I expect a simple review to see if there is a source. A link. They have enough judgement to move health care topics for example... just move these unsubstantiated,unsourced
posts to the "BADLANDS"! Why waste MY time reading garbage that has NO validity to back up the crap people put on this forum!

 

[healthmyths]

It doesn't take any time for Moderators to see if a link is provided and if none.. MOVE the unsubstantiated post to the "BADLANDS" where all wild eyed hair brain opinons should be!

 

[JoeBlam]

It doesn't take any time for Moderators to see if a link is provided and if none.. MOVE the unsubstantiated post to the "BADLANDS" where all wild eyed hair brain opinons should be!

You're a RACIST!

 

[Missourian]

Just curious, but how do you source an opinion?

Not the opinion, but the supporting facts.

Example:

Opinion: I think assault weapons should be banned because millions of Americans are murdered by assault weapons!!!!! ( <----notice the five exclamation points, a sure sign of insanity)


Fact: 323 Americans total were killed by all rifles in 2011.

 

[deltex1]

Sources are like assholes...everyone has them...and all are suspect.

 

[healthmyths]

Sources are like assholes...everyone has them...and all are suspect.

So are you calling the Qur&#700;an an "asshole"? People quote the Qur&#700;an as a source all the time which means according to you the Qur&#700;an is an asshole!

 

[whitehall]

Lefties have the right (pardon the pun) idea. Dial up Huffington every day and cut and paste Media Matters scoops. That way you don't have to spend valuable time thinking instead of smoking dope.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Just curious, but how do you source an opinion?

Not the opinion, but the supporting facts.

Example:

Opinion: I think assault weapons should be banned because millions of Americans are murdered by assault weapons!!!!! ( <----notice the five exclamation points, a sure sign of insanity)


Fact: 323 Americans total were killed by all rifles in 2011.

Yeah....I doubt that.

 

[Missourian]

Just curious, but how do you source an opinion?

Not the opinion, but the supporting facts.

Example:

Opinion: I think assault weapons should be banned because millions of Americans are murdered by assault weapons!!!!! ( <----notice the five exclamation points, a sure sign of insanity)


Fact: 323 Americans total were killed by all rifles in 2011.

Yeah....I doubt that.

Which part?

 

[LoneLaugher]

The UNSOURCED part.

This is just too easy.

 

[flacaltenn]

It just seems so idiotic that this medium provides people to hyperbolic opinions, exaggerated claims, gross hysterical statements without any sourcing! I generally not all the time as in the case of this post have some sort of link to support my contention.

For example the FACTS that the MSM is biased and protects OBAMA is based on three separate sources:

1) There were 1,160 (85%) of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. an average contribution of $880. By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863.
The average Republican contribution was $744.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters | The Daily Caller

2) Now these same donors/news people of the stories about Romney in the 2012 campaign, 71% were NEGATIVE!!! 7 out of 10 stories presented a negative image of Romney.
Study Finds Widespread Bias in Mainstream Media Coverage of Election | Women of Grace

3) Evan Thomas Editor of NewsWeek's quotes Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do." --
Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington,
February 2, 2007.Newsweek's Evan Thomas: 'Our Job Is To Bash the President' | NewsBusters

But that will never happen under Obama because this same editor's his response about Obama???

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, Newsweek?s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ?Sort of God? | NewsBusters

"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time.There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.
There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -
- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas — Newsweek's Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

Thomas' assertion of 85% reporters vote Democratic is backed up by:
"MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."
Journalists give campaign cash - politics | NBC News

All sorts of sources to back up the FACTS there is a Mainstream Media liberal bias! So for all you people on this forum... don't you think the Moderators should require facts before opinions are so wrongly spouted based on NO FACTS?

There are a number of problems with this proposal.

1. This is not an academic venue where the subject of discussion is the focus. Everyone here knows that the purpose of this forum it to assassinate the character of the other side, or to deflect when facts cannot be denied. Both sides do it.

2. Posted links is an invitation to exposing yourself to real harm. I have been on political forums for more than a decade. There are people so obsessed with their point of view that they will literally destroy the life of their opponent if given the chance. Once such couple were so obsessed with silencing a conservative voice that they used technology to discover who their target was, and though a series of emails and slander, managed to get their target fired from their job. No one on this forum, or any other forum, can be trusted. If you want to supply supporting evidence to you claims, then just provide the search terms you used and the search engine and let them go find out for themselves. Never do their work for them.

3. When I am debating with a person, I want their opinion. "THEIR OPNION" I do not want the opinion of a blog, another journalist, an editorial, or a book. People who write those things are not here to defend themselves and should not be brought into the conversation without prior notice. Voice you opinion and have the balls and intelligence to back it up with rational arguments.

Have a nice day.

I kinda agree that sourcing is used almost as weapon when the REQUESTOR of such sourcing is gasping for air or has no traction in the debate. Whatdoyado?

It's kinda like knowing the audience that you are writing for. We assume (i do on USMB) that I'm conversing with the top 10% of the informed in world with a few obvious NutCases for topping.

So if someone asks for a back-up -- I work really really hard to do that on the assumption that the person does not KNOW THAT as a fact, and has never seen evidence to the contrary. Because if they ACTUALLY KNEW that what I said was wrong -- they would give me a just whooping with a linkstorm...

That said --- I disagree STRONGLY with your following..

When I am debating with a person, I want their opinion. "THEIR OPNION" I do not want the opinion of a blog, another journalist, an editorial, or a book.

I would NEVER spend time on a forum dominated by opinion.. I'm here to learn. Don't have time to suffer some fools complete misappropriation of the topic.. You should be prepared to OFFER that opinion and to always back it UNLESS you're being played like a hooked tarpon...

 

[Dot Com]

its common courtesy/netiqueete. How many msg boards have you been on anyway sport? On the 5+ I've been on, its the Righties/Randians/lolibertarians that are the ones that consistently have NOT provided proof, to back up their statements, unless they are backed in the corner.

 

[flacaltenn]

its common courtesy/netiqueete. How many msg boards have you been on anyway sport? On the 5+ I've been on, its the Righties/Randians/lolibertarians that are the ones that consistently have NOT provided proof, to back up their statements, unless they are backed in the corner.

Figures you'd be hanging in the alleyways and darkly lit areas. Can see that from your avi.



Now that you've found USMB -- while you're here and not somewhere more important, you can start tomorrow to comply with all the advice you just gave.

 

[JoeBlam]

You don't want to be required to produce pics of all the eyes you have gouged out with 'the deadly' kitty kat stance?

Here ya go, squirt....I know you have the attention-span of a fruit fly so try to focus....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmR9cyNmU-8]Jitsumi G?gen Yamaguchi. 10 dan Goju Ryu - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Wry Catcher]

It just seems so idiotic that this medium provides people to hyperbolic opinions, exaggerated claims, gross hysterical statements without any sourcing! I generally not all the time as in the case of this post have some sort of link to support my contention.

For example the FACTS that the MSM is biased and protects OBAMA is based on three separate sources:

1) There were 1,160 (85%) of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. an average contribution of $880. By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863.
The average Republican contribution was $744.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters | The Daily Caller

2) Now these same donors/news people of the stories about Romney in the 2012 campaign, 71% were NEGATIVE!!! 7 out of 10 stories presented a negative image of Romney.
Study Finds Widespread Bias in Mainstream Media Coverage of Election | Women of Grace

3) Evan Thomas Editor of NewsWeek's quotes Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do." --
Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington,
February 2, 2007.Newsweek's Evan Thomas: 'Our Job Is To Bash the President' | NewsBusters

But that will never happen under Obama because this same editor's his response about Obama???

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, Newsweek?s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ?Sort of God? | NewsBusters

"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time.There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.
There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -
- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas — Newsweek's Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

Thomas' assertion of 85% reporters vote Democratic is backed up by:
"MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."
Journalists give campaign cash - politics | NBC News

All sorts of sources to back up the FACTS there is a Mainstream Media liberal bias! So for all you people on this forum... don't you think the Moderators should require facts before opinions are so wrongly spouted based on NO FACTS?

Maybe the bias is based on intellect, maybe most conservatives aren't intelligent enough to qualify for a job as a journalist? Did that ever cross your mind? I've read too many of your posts to put you in the drawer as one of the sharpest people who post here often.