The Deadly Irresponsibility of Newsweek Magazine

[Annie]

No, the Avalon project is quite credible. It is making these importantly published in print materials available on the web. I'm not saying something loses value because it is on the web, only that there is an inequality:

on web only < pub. article < pub. book . A book or document doesn't lose value for then being on the web, or an article. I'm saying a study in an article or paper is not as respected as a study also published in a book. You cited an article, I cited a book.

Books are NOT necessarily 'more credible' or 'less credible', it depends on who and what they did. I think on that we agree. As for the study you do not care for, as long as the parameters are stated and applied across the board, it is a fair study. U of C/Stanford would not allow their names or publish if not.

Now, if you or another do not agree with some 'given' such as the editorial influence, you can repeat the study, adding that and seeing what your findings are. I believe that was what you were discussing?

 

[IControlThePast]

Books are NOT necessarily 'more credible' or 'less credible', it depends on who and what they did. I think on that we agree. As for the study you do not care for, as long as the parameters are stated and applied across the board, it is a fair study. U of C/Stanford would not allow their names or publish if not.

Now, if you or another do not agree with some 'given' such as the editorial influence, you can repeat the study, adding that and seeing what your findings are. I believe that was what you were discussing?

I would agree, but Chomsky is given more credibility in Poli Sci and Linguistics than these two men, and his study is reliable, look at it. I didn't know UC or Stanford had their names on it, I only see the authors listing their teaching resume.

I don't know how often editorials would cite think tanks, but they are a major way of simply presenting biased opinions. The studies I've mentioned have included editorials when they creep into news but use a different methedology. I don't have the resources to personally repeat the study.

This study does not seem to be very prominent, which is understandable when it has this in it:

"That is, for instance, we do we need to read policy reports of the think tank or analyze its position on various issues to determine its ideology. Instead, we simply observe the ADA scores of the members of Congress who cite the think tank."

That's a rather blatant error for an editor to miss.

 

[musicman]

I see that Little Noamy-Poo has worked his way back into your conversation. You just can't help yourself, can you?

 

[musicman]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/coxandforkum/coxandforkum .asp

 

[IControlThePast]

I see that Little Noamy-Poo has worked his way back into your conversation. You just can't help yourself, can you?

Undoubtedly Chomsky is given academic merit. That point is established: he's the most cited living person. Whether he is right is another issue.

The people who conducted the study have less academic merit than Chomsky. You can understandably disagree with the academic merit system of established Universities like Chicago and Stanford, which Kathianne has used to support her argument. However, that would go against her argument that the study is more valid because it came from these Universities.

Have you actually ever met Chomsky? I probably know him a lot better than you do, and can say I don't support him.

 

[musicman]

Undoubtedly Chomsky is given academic merit. That point is established: he's the most cited living person. Whether he is right is another issue.

The people who conducted the study have less academic merit than Chomsky. You can understandably disagree with the academic merit system of established Universities like Chicago and Stanford, which Kathianne has used to support her argument. However, that would go against her argument that the study is more valid because it came from these Universities.

Yeah, but my point is that everyday Americans don't have to satisfy your narrow parameters of methodology to know that there is a pronounced, observable left-wing bias in the MSM/DNC - has been for decades. All we gotta do is listen, watch, and read. Don't underestimate ordinary Americans, ICTP. The left - in all its manifestations - has been doing precisely that, to its cost. Liberalism is dying, and in its arrogance, can't figure out why.

Have you actually ever met Chomsky? I probably know him a lot better than you do,

Ooooo - so sorry. Guess I didn't know who I was talking to.

and can say I don't support him.

Then why don't you stop citing him? The man's an asshole.

 

[IControlThePast]

Yeah, but my point is that everyday Americans don't have to satisfy your narrow parameters of methodology to know that there is a pronounced, observable left-wing bias in the MSM/DNC - has been for decades. All we gotta do is listen, watch, and read. Don't underestimate ordinary Americans, ICTP. The left - in all its manifestations - has been doing precisely that, to its cost. Liberalism is dying, and in its arrogance, can't figure out why.

Ooooo - so sorry. Guess I didn't know who I was talking to.


Then why don't you stop citing him? The man's an asshole.

People are clouded in their judgement, and that's why you need an objective means to prove anything that you wish to prove in any field.

Funny you should say that, I drew the exact same conclusion that he was an ass from meeting him and told Kathianne that in a previous PM .

Because I was asked to cite a study with contrary results to Kathianne's. I don't believe Chomsky's study is right. I don't believe the Stanford/UC study is right. I don't believe you'll find the objective truth in a study. I was just asked to cite an academically respected study with different results from the Stanford/UC one, so I cited one from probably the most prominent person in academia.

 

[Trinity]

People are clouded in their judgement, and that's why you need an objective means to prove anything that you wish to prove in any field.

 

[musicman]

People are clouded in their judgement, and that's why you need an objective means to prove anything that you wish to prove in any field.

The Fairness Doctrine being such an "objective means"? I'm sorry, ICTP, but some of the worst MSM/DNC abuses took place during the reign of the Fairness Doctrine. Government didn't restore fairness to media coverage - the market did. Americans are not as clouded in their judgement as you seem to believe. The market punished Eason Jordan. The market punished Dan Rather (60 Minutes II was cancelled today).The market will punish Newsweek.

 

[Bonnie]

The Fairness Doctrine being such an "objective means"? I'm sorry, ICTP, but some of the worst MSM/DNC abuses took place during the reign of the Fairness Doctrine. Government didn't restore fairness to media coverage - the market did. Americans are not as clouded in their judgement as you seem to believe. The market punished Eason Jordan. The market punished Dan Rather (60 Minutes II was cancelled today).The market will punish Newsweek.

Exactly Musicman, the American people are the ones taking to task those in the media that are being "outed" for bad journalism, because the media itself sure will not do it, like you said they are either so brainwashed, or arrogant they will never willingly monitor themselves unless the public holds their feet to the fire, and governement is not the way to go either, it was tried and didn't work.

 

[IControlThePast]

The Fairness Doctrine being such an "objective means"? I'm sorry, ICTP, but some of the worst MSM/DNC abuses took place during the reign of the Fairness Doctrine. Government didn't restore fairness to media coverage - the market did. Americans are not as clouded in their judgement as you seem to believe. The market punished Eason Jordan. The market punished Dan Rather (60 Minutes II was cancelled today).The market will punish Newsweek.

The Fairness Doctrine is a means to control some of the bias, yes. The market will still be there if we put in the FD. It will still punish people for being inaccurate. The FD will help prevent channels from presenting biased points of view, the market will keep the channels accurate. It's not specifically Americans who have their judgement clouded by preconcieved notions, every single human is like that.

 

[musicman]

The Fairness Doctrine is a means to control some of the bias, yes. The market will still be there if we put in the FD. It will still punish people for being inaccurate. The FD will help prevent channels from presenting biased points of view, the market will keep the channels accurate. It's not specifically Americans who have their judgement clouded by preconcieved notions, every single human is like that.

The market is working. Why involve the government now? What worse - or more just - punishment for irresponsible journalism can there be than irrelevance?

 

[IControlThePast]

The market is working. Why involve the government now? What worse - or more just - punishment for irresponsible journalism can there be than irrelevance?

It's not working at controlling bias. If it is then the FD won't do anything, right? The Govt. could make it optional, but require that any news who wants to declare themselves "fair, balanced," or anything synonymous to those words use the FD.

 

[ThomasPaine]

The Courts? It is my hope that the viewer or listener has enough sense about them to detect bias when they see or hear it. Granted that the MSM is, and has been for over 40 years, heavily left wing biased, it may be difficult for many to detect ongoing bias as that is all they have ever experienced. Thankfully with the advent of Fox news and the internet it has become easier to access other viewpoints than merely CBS, ABC, NBC, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, etcetera ad nauseum.

 

[IControlThePast]

The Courts? It is my hope that the viewer or listener has enough sense about them to detect bias when they see or hear it. Granted that the MSM is, and has been for over 40 years, heavily left wing biased, it may be difficult for many to detect ongoing bias as that is all they have ever experienced. Thankfully with the advent of Fox news and the internet it has become easier to access other viewpoints than merely CBS, ABC, NBC, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, etcetera ad nauseum.

Fairness is simply allowing a side or person critisized the chance to respond on air, and that if there is one side of a story presented, the other side must also be presented. It is much easier to tell whether one side of a story was presented, or a group was explicitly critisized than to try and detect bias.

Conservatives have always had the option of starting or using a printing press. Why would none do so over those 40 years?

 

[Annie]

Fairness is simply allowing a side or person critisized the chance to respond on air, and that if there is one side of a story presented, the other side must also be presented. It is much easier to tell whether one side of a story was presented, or a group was explicitly critisized than to try and detect bias.

Conservatives have always had the option of starting or using a printing press. Why would none do so over those 40 years?

Perhaps I'm missing something here? I've been reading this latest conversation while trying to teach, so I probably missed a lot. ICPT I thought you were arguing the fairness doctrine should be brought back, because of the slant of FOX and talkradio? I'm assuming you are looking to 'level the playing field'? Yet, I also thought I saw a post awhile back, where you mused that the liberal POV was going to become more upfront and entertaining?

Under the Fairness Doctrine, there really was a growing tendency towards a liberal only POV. Once it was removed, the Right was able to gain a voice. Now you want to bring it back, arguing that the Right can "choose the option" of a printing press? Help me out here!

 

[IControlThePast]

Perhaps I'm missing something here? I've been reading this latest conversation while trying to teach, so I probably missed a lot. ICPT I thought you were arguing the fairness doctrine should be brought back, because of the slant of FOX and talkradio? I'm assuming you are looking to 'level the playing field'? Yet, I also thought I saw a post awhile back, where you mused that the liberal POV was going to become more upfront and entertaining?

Under the Fairness Doctrine, there really was a growing tendency towards a liberal only POV. Once it was removed, the Right was able to gain a voice. Now you want to bring it back, arguing that the Right can "choose the option" of a printing press? Help me out here!

Yes, I think the liberal strategy will be to create liberal versions of Rush, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc if the FD is not put back in place. The media world will change into the "NBC Democratic Channel" and "Fox Republican Channel," neither being reliable.

No, I'm saying over the supposed 40 years of liberal bias, conservatives have had the option of using the printing press to enter the MSM. Why didn't they then? By creating a "non-liberal" source they could have captured a large market share if there really was a liberal MSM.

No, the right will still have its voice, but the Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity&Colmes, etc. will really have to allow the presentation opposing viewpoints. If given the choice, the liberals wouldn't want Alan Colmes speaking for them.

 

[Annie]

Yes, I think the liberal strategy will be to create liberal versions of Rush, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc if the FD is not put back in place. The media world will change into the "NBC Democratic Channel" and "Fox Republican Channel," neither being reliable.

No, I'm saying over the supposed 40 years of liberal bias, conservatives have had the option of using the printing press to enter the MSM. Why didn't they then? By creating a "non-liberal" source they could have captured a large market share if there really was a liberal MSM.

No, the right will still have its voice, but the Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity&Colmes, etc. will really have to allow the presentation opposing viewpoints. If given the choice, the liberals wouldn't want Alan Colmes speaking for them.

I await the left finding an entertaining viewpoint, really. O'Reilly and Hannity-ie FOX do present opposing viewpoints, even if the 'host' does not agree with them. On Rush, I agree with you. Coulter, well I read her columns when they show up here, but for the most part, she strikes me as the Right's answer to Michael Moore, a place I don't want to go.

The right has used the media, ala WSJ and a few others-used to be I could throw the Chicago Tribune in here, but it has become left of the Chicago Sun-Times, at least editorially. That's the print media.

Now on the audio-visual side, seems that the liberal agenda is still well served by the networks. Yet, you are correct regarding cable, seems most people would rather watch FOX, whether liberal or conservative-the numbers bear that out. For some reason, the viewers recognize propaganda from CNN/MSNBC when confronted with it. From my point of view, you should be happy that so many liberals watch FOX, while certainly not agreeing with the hosts. Why one might ask, do they watch it? Probably for the reason you are trying to complain about, they put on opposing POV, which the host may disagree with, though some viewers root for.

 

[IControlThePast]

I await the left finding an entertaining viewpoint, really. O'Reilly and Hannity-ie FOX do present opposing viewpoints, even if the 'host' does not agree with them. On Rush, I agree with you. Coulter, well I read her columns when they show up here, but for the most part, she strikes me as the Right's answer to Michael Moore, a place I don't want to go.

The right has used the media, ala WSJ and a few others-used to be I could throw the Chicago Tribune in here, but it has become left of the Chicago Sun-Times, at least editorially. That's the print media.

Now on the audio-visual side, seems that the liberal agenda is still well served by the networks. Yet, you are correct regarding cable, seems most people would rather watch FOX, whether liberal or conservative-the numbers bear that out. For some reason, the viewers recognize propaganda from CNN/MSNBC when confronted with it. From my point of view, you should be happy that so many liberals watch FOX, while certainly not agreeing with the hosts. Why one might ask, do they watch it? Probably for the reason you are trying to complain about, they put on opposing POV, which the host may disagree with, though some viewers root for.

What, Jon Stewart isn't funny :tng:? I second that Coulter vs. Moore thing. There was a long discussion about that in the thread of how liberals don't like her because she speaks the truth.

Well then if the WSJ was the only conservative source in the MSM, why didn't it recieve huge circulation numbers?

Those shows seem to use the "I'll turn off your mic" or turn out like Crossfire if a guest starts to have a reasonable debate. Also, if given a choice in representation like the FD would do, liberals wouldn't chose Alan Colmes as their spokesman to defend the left. He's probably single-handedly forwarded the false stereotype of the weak, ineffectual liberal more than anyone else .

They may put on someone from the other POV, but that person is generally not allowed to make a case. If you're saying Fox, as a channel, provides an opposing viewpoint for liberals, then that is another place where I don't want to go. There shouldn't be a "Democratic or (Moore" channel and a "Republican or Coulter" channel, because neither will be accurate, even if you put them together and watch both.

 

[Annie]

What, Jon Stewart isn't funny :tng:? I second that Coulter vs. Moore thing. There was a long discussion about that in the thread of how liberals don't like her because she speaks the truth.

Well then if the WSJ was the only conservative source in the MSM, why didn't it recieve huge circulation numbers?

Those shows seem to use the "I'll turn off your mic" or turn out like Crossfire if a guest starts to have a reasonable debate. Also, if given a choice in representation like the FD would do, liberals wouldn't chose Alan Colmes as their spokesman to defend the left. He's probably single-handedly forwarded the false stereotype of the weak, ineffectual liberal more than anyone else .

They may put on someone from the other POV, but that person is generally not allowed to make a case. If you're saying Fox, as a channel, provides an opposing viewpoint for liberals, then that is another place where I don't want to go. There shouldn't be a "Democratic or (Moore" channel and a "Republican or Coulter" channel, because neither will be accurate, even if you put them together and watch both.

Actually I do disagree with you on FOX, though I do agree about Colmes! They do put 'the other side on' even on H & C, Hannity asks the best questions, the 'left' guest responds, and Hannity rebuts and it's over. Not 'fair', but more than CNN does, which does do left nearly all the time. Not as much as MSNBC though. Neither of which can hold a candle to 'free' networks, not too mention PBS, which we are all currently contributing to, though probably not for long.