The Left Controls the Media

[Martinsamerica]

I wouldn't go so far to say the media is "controlled" by a leftist agenda, but it is fair to say that the media as a whole is certainly leftist leaning - some particular outlets are far more left than others though.

martinsamerica.com

 

[gxnelson]

I wouldn't go so far to say the media is "controlled" by a leftist agenda, but it is fair to say that the media as a whole is certainly leftist leaning - some particular outlets are far more left than others though.

martinsamerica.com

I wouldn't say controlled, but I wouldn't say leaning. If it was leaning I feel like we would hear the opinions of the right more often than we do. More like the media is left-biased.

Which, annoys me to no end. But that's why I come on here, to hear the other side and listen to a repub radio station. (which does have some good points)

 

[Trajan]

Gee, what a surprise! NOT! Rather than admit the rating system is not just flawed, but moronic on its face, you choose to misrepresent what I said. I pointed out the the authors are CON$ and not Libs because they are from UCLA as presented by CON$. Rather than admit your fellow travelers were deliberately misrepresenting the authors as Libs, you misrepresent me. No surprise there from a typical CON$ervative.

And it is the "study" you are worshiping that lists the ACLU as a CON$ervative think tank, so you have unwittingly exposed yet another flaw in their "study."
Thank you, keep it up.

And don't change the subject with questions from more phony data to deflect from the stupidity of the "study" in question.

here, Reading Comprehension Connection: Home

I never argued many of the points you are refuting. read what I write not what you want me to say so as to fashion your own answer making yourself right. see the course above for help.

I am not arguing the merits of the studies mechanics merely pointing out flaws in your characterizations and the particulars ala Hume etc. you chose to highlight as proof the study was cooked, that was your assertion.

You didn't read the report, you went to media matters et al and they told you what to say, and, you parrot it here. Thats why I asked you that question at the end of my last post- the topic of the thread is;

The Left Controls the Media


so frankly, your choosing now to laud your sheepish brilliance by attempting to close off debate is the usual, so again, I will ask-

Question 1; in light of the following I am curious-

85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.

what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?



and to your point ala the aclu;

here is the quote from their study, with the sublinks you would have seen IF you had actually read the report ;

The web site, WheretodoResearch lists 200 of the most prominent think tanks and policy groups in the U.S.

WheretodoResearch

WheretodoResearch.com - Directory of 200 Think Tanks and Policy Groups Sites

American Civil Liberties Union


I found this interesting to;

While most of these averages closely agree with the conventional wisdom, two cases seem somewhat anomalous. The first is the ACLU. The average score of legislators citing it was 49.8. Later, we shall provide reasons why it makes sense to define the political center at 50.1. This suggests that the ACLU, if anything is a right-leaning organization. The reason the ACLU has such a low score is that it opposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and conservatives in Congress cited this often. In fact, slightly more than one-eight of all ACLU citations in Congress were due to one person alone, Mitch McConnell (R.-Kt.), perhaps the chief critic of McCain-Feingold. If we omit McConnell’s citations, the ACLU’s average score increases to 55.9. Because of this anomaly, in the Appendix we report the results when we repeat all of our analyses but omit the ACLU data.


I noticed you didn't comment on the Rand corp. blurb from the study either.



So, lets clear things up,it appears in your opinion any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise that the authors are slanted, so, again;

Question 2- ergo; any study too, that is performed by left leaning self identified authors is slanted left, that is what you inferred very strongly vis a vis goreclose and his being a 'righty'.

is that correct?


yes, or no.

so please answer my 2 questions, it would clear things up.

You're falsely assuming that it is impossible for the news to be reported objectively if the reporters, editors, readers, etc., etc., have political opinions that put them anywhere but dead center.

That logically leads to the assumption that there is no such thing as objective news reporting.

I have already said that everyone has a slant, you me everyone, keep up.

and are you going to take ed to task for assuming that this report was cooked? becasue the authors previously took money from right wing sources? yet they purposefully avoided that with this study and said so and said why.Further they make several remarks speaking to their own study and the what appears to be counter intuitive findings.

 

[Trajan]

here, Reading Comprehension Connection: Home

I never argued many of the points you are refuting. read what I write not what you want me to say so as to fashion your own answer making yourself right. see the course above for help.

I am not arguing the merits of the studies mechanics merely pointing out flaws in your characterizations and the particulars ala Hume etc. you chose to highlight as proof the study was cooked, that was your assertion.

You didn't read the report, you went to media matters et al and they told you what to say, and, you parrot it here. Thats why I asked you that question at the end of my last post- the topic of the thread is;

The Left Controls the Media


so frankly, your choosing now to laud your sheepish brilliance by attempting to close off debate is the usual, so again, I will ask-

Question 1; in light of the following I am curious-

85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.

what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?



and to your point ala the aclu;

here is the quote from their study, with the sublinks you would have seen IF you had actually read the report ;

The web site, WheretodoResearch lists 200 of the most prominent think tanks and policy groups in the U.S.

WheretodoResearch

WheretodoResearch.com - Directory of 200 Think Tanks and Policy Groups Sites

American Civil Liberties Union


I found this interesting to;

While most of these averages closely agree with the conventional wisdom, two cases seem somewhat anomalous. The first is the ACLU. The average score of legislators citing it was 49.8. Later, we shall provide reasons why it makes sense to define the political center at 50.1. This suggests that the ACLU, if anything is a right-leaning organization. The reason the ACLU has such a low score is that it opposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and conservatives in Congress cited this often. In fact, slightly more than one-eight of all ACLU citations in Congress were due to one person alone, Mitch McConnell (R.-Kt.), perhaps the chief critic of McCain-Feingold. If we omit McConnell’s citations, the ACLU’s average score increases to 55.9. Because of this anomaly, in the Appendix we report the results when we repeat all of our analyses but omit the ACLU data.


I noticed you didn't comment on the Rand corp. blurb from the study either.



So, lets clear things up,it appears in your opinion any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise that the authors are slanted, so, again;

Question 2- ergo; any study too, that is performed by left leaning self identified authors is slanted left, that is what you inferred very strongly vis a vis goreclose and his being a 'righty'.

is that correct?


yes, or no.

so please answer my 2 questions, it would clear things up.

It's always the case that the most arrogantly condescending CON$ comprehend the least.

CON$ tried to pass off the CON$ervative authors of the phony "study" as Libs from the bastion of Liberalism, UCLA. It is my contention that even CON$ knew just how slanted the phony "study" was and and tried to pass the authors off as Libs in a feeble attempt to preempt the obvious Right-wing bias in the phony "study." The dishonesty of the CON$ in representing the authors as Libs telegraphs the CON$ own awareness of the phoniness of the "study."

You are too dishonest to admit that your fellow travelers were deliberately deceptive in presenting the phony "study" as a study by Libs, so you create a straw man, "any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise that the authors are slanted," BTW the exact argument CON$ use to reject any study from a Liberal, rather than acknowledge that passing off the authors as Libs is an obviously red flag to any honest person.

So my question is, if the "study" was so solid, why did the CON$ervative who posted it feel obligated to misrepresent the authors as Libs from UCLA????

I don't care who passed off what, answer the questions please, we don't even need the study, stop using it as a crutch.

do I need to post the questions again?

hello Ed...one more time..


_______________________________________________________________________

So, lets clear things up,it appears in your opinion any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise that the authors are slanted, so, again;

Question 2- ergo; any study too, that is performed by left leaning self identified authors is slanted left, that is what you inferred very strongly vis a vis goreclose and his being a 'righty'.

is that correct?


yes, or no.

so please answer my 2 questions, it would clear things up.

 

[madasheck]

The msm leans to the left, Gad....it didn't fall off the cliff.
Next time you do your scientific study, why don't you count the number of positive articles towards the right, and then count the number of positive articles towards the left.
Also, when you do your extensive scientific study with the newspapers, look to which page the positive articles for the conservative articles are located and do the same with the positive liberal articles are located.
Then get back to us, okay?

When you have fruitcakes like Buchanan, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Paul on the right, you expect positive articles? The wingnuts are the ones off the cliff. The media shouldn't be expected to jerk them back to the other side.

It's supposed to be reporting of fact, not political activism.

There's your problem. Well, one of them, at least.

There you go again, dave.

And there's no reason that the over-the-edge Republican candidates should be centralized to keep the fringe happy. Let the fringe start its own TV station. Actually, they already have an out-there station that deludes its lemmings into thinking it's impartial.

 

[daveman]

When you have fruitcakes like Buchanan, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Paul on the right, you expect positive articles? The wingnuts are the ones off the cliff. The media shouldn't be expected to jerk them back to the other side.

It's supposed to be reporting of fact, not political activism.

There's your problem. Well, one of them, at least.

There you go again, dave.

And there's no reason that the over-the-edge Republican candidates should be centralized to keep the fringe happy. Let the fringe start its own TV station. Actually, they already have an out-there station that deludes its lemmings into thinking it's impartial.

You seem to have a great deal of contempt for freedom of speech.

But then, you're a leftist.

 

[Meister]

I have read a lot of good articles all over in the recent week on Republican politics.
I see no control by the left wing media in any of them.
How could this be? Have we finally broke through the entanglement and web of total control of the media by the left wing boogeymen?

The msm leans to the left, Gad....it didn't fall off the cliff.
Next time you do your scientific study, why don't you count the number of positive articles towards the right, and then count the number of positive articles towards the left.
Also, when you do your extensive scientific study with the newspapers, look to which page the positive articles for the conservative articles are located and do the same with the positive liberal articles are located.
Then get back to us, okay?

When you have fruitcakes like Buchanan, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Paul on the right, you expect positive articles? The wingnuts are the ones off the cliff. The media shouldn't be expected to jerk them back to the other side.

Anybody that disagrees with you is a fruitcake, huh?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Anybody that disagrees with you is a fruitcake, huh?

Anyone disagreeing with Noam Chomsky, more likely....

 

[HUGGY]

The msm leans to the left, Gad....it didn't fall off the cliff.
Next time you do your scientific study, why don't you count the number of positive articles towards the right, and then count the number of positive articles towards the left.
Also, when you do your extensive scientific study with the newspapers, look to which page the positive articles for the conservative articles are located and do the same with the positive liberal articles are located.
Then get back to us, okay?

When you have fruitcakes like Buchanan, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Paul on the right, you expect positive articles? The wingnuts are the ones off the cliff. The media shouldn't be expected to jerk them back to the other side.

Anybody that disagrees with you is a fruitcake, huh?

So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media? Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.

 

[edthecynic]

It's always the case that the most arrogantly condescending CON$ comprehend the least.

CON$ tried to pass off the CON$ervative authors of the phony "study" as Libs from the bastion of Liberalism, UCLA. It is my contention that even CON$ knew just how slanted the phony "study" was and and tried to pass the authors off as Libs in a feeble attempt to preempt the obvious Right-wing bias in the phony "study." The dishonesty of the CON$ in representing the authors as Libs telegraphs the CON$ own awareness of the phoniness of the "study."

You are too dishonest to admit that your fellow travelers were deliberately deceptive in presenting the phony "study" as a study by Libs, so you create a straw man, "any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise that the authors are slanted," BTW the exact argument CON$ use to reject any study from a Liberal, rather than acknowledge that passing off the authors as Libs is an obviously red flag to any honest person.

So my question is, if the "study" was so solid, why did the CON$ervative who posted it feel obligated to misrepresent the authors as Libs from UCLA????

I don't care who passed off what, answer the questions please, we don't even need the study, stop using it as a crutch.

do I need to post the questions again?

hello Ed...one more time..


_______________________________________________________________________

So, lets clear things up,it appears in your opinion any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise that the authors are slanted, so, again;

Question 2- ergo; any study too, that is performed by left leaning self identified authors is slanted left, that is what you inferred very strongly vis a vis goreclose and his being a 'righty'.

is that correct?


yes, or no.

so please answer my 2 questions, it would clear things up.

Question 1 is the CON$ervative rationalization to reject anything they disagree with, as YOU well know. The fact that you keep trying to attribute it to me merely exposes YOUR dishonesty.

Question 2, CON$ dishonestly try to pass off Goreclose as a Lib when it is undeniable he is a CON$ervative. That fact exposes that the inherent dishonesty of the "study" is obvious even to CON$, who try to preempt the undeniable bias of the phony "study" by claiming it is a Lib study from the Liberal UCLA.

You have been shown this repeatedly, but I';m sure you will continue to play dumb and ask your stupid questions again and again pretending they have not been answered repeatedly.

 

[daveman]

When you have fruitcakes like Buchanan, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Paul on the right, you expect positive articles? The wingnuts are the ones off the cliff. The media shouldn't be expected to jerk them back to the other side.

Anybody that disagrees with you is a fruitcake, huh?

So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media? Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.

You should tell that to the morons who cite Chomsky.

 

[HUGGY]

Anybody that disagrees with you is a fruitcake, huh?

So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media? Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.

You should tell that to the morons who cite Chomsky.

Not familiar with "Chomsky". Should I be? Over the years I have ignored some input. Is Chomsky a commie? Communism doesn't work in large groups. That isn't to say that some communists don't have intelligence and have important points to make. It is just that pure communism is a fools errand. That does not mean that pure capitalism does not need to be regulated because pure capitalism is just as stupid and dangerous. Pure capitalism ends up with one supplier in partnership with government which is really the goal of pure communism.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media? Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.

I take it that your definition of "insane" is any deviation to party dogma, right?

Therefore, sanity is doing as you do and bleating "Ohhhh Bahhhh Bahhh Bahhh Mahhh." Which is what you view as the extent of what the papers should carry....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not familiar with "Chomsky". Should I be?

Yes, most of your ideas come from him. That it is filtered and regurgitated from Moveon, Truthout, Think Progress and the other hate sites doesn't alter the original source.

Over the years I have ignored some input. Is Chomsky a commie? Communism doesn't work in large groups.

Have you told Obama that?

That isn't to say that some communists don't have intelligence and have important points to make. It is just that pure communism is a fools errand. That does not mean that pure capitalism does not need to be regulated because pure capitalism is just as stupid and dangerous. Pure capitalism ends up with one supplier in partnership with government which is really the goal of pure communism.

So you don't support "pure" communism, but rather a hybrid system that combines corporate structures with direction and control by the state?

 

[Meister]

When you have fruitcakes like Buchanan, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Paul on the right, you expect positive articles? The wingnuts are the ones off the cliff. The media shouldn't be expected to jerk them back to the other side.

Anybody that disagrees with you is a fruitcake, huh?

So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media? Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.

Anybody that disagrees with you is insane and doesn't deserve respect, huh?

 

[HUGGY]

So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media? Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.

I take it that your definition of "insane" is any deviation to party dogma, right?

Therefore, sanity is doing as you do and bleating "Ohhhh Bahhhh Bahhh Bahhh Mahhh." Which is what you view as the extent of what the papers should carry....

My definition of insane mostly includes people that base their foundation and input on make believe....AKA fantasy/hallucination/delusion.

I'm not a democrat...and your assuming that does not make it so.

 

[HUGGY]

Anybody that disagrees with you is a fruitcake, huh?

So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media? Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.

Anybody that disagrees with you is insane and doesn't deserve respect, huh?

Anyone that does not share my definition of the word "insane" loses credibility with me in a discussion of insanity. People that make up definitions or reality as they go along do not deserve to be taken seriously.

"insanity" : mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.

Many "religious" people including those previously mentioned in the earlier post cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.

The Definition of Insanity is... | Psychology Today

 

[Meister]

So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media? Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.

Anybody that disagrees with you is insane and doesn't deserve respect, huh?

Anyone that does not share my definition of the word "insane" loses credibility with me in a discussion of insanity. People that make up definitions or reality as they go along do not deserve to be taken seriously.

"insanity" : mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.

Many "religious" people including those previously mentioned in the earlier post cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.

The Definition of Insanity is... | Psychology Today

You're either crazy, or a moron, I can't tell which it is.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My definition of insane mostly includes people that base their foundation and input on make believe....AKA fantasy/hallucination/delusion.

I'm not a democrat...and your assuming that does not make it so.

So who do you want to win the presidential election?

 

[daveman]

So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media? Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.

You should tell that to the morons who cite Chomsky.

Not familiar with "Chomsky". Should I be?

The far left loves him because he hates America as much as they do.

Over the years I have ignored some input. Is Chomsky a commie?

He's a Commie apologist.

Communism doesn't work in large groups. That isn't to say that some communists don't have intelligence and have important points to make.

Communists are not intelligent because they never take human nature into account. They never accept the reason communism has failed, every time, is due to their blindness.

It is just that pure communism is a fools errand. That does not mean that pure capitalism does not need to be regulated because pure capitalism is just as stupid and dangerous. Pure capitalism ends up with one supplier in partnership with government which is really the goal of pure communism.

No one's calling for pure capitalism.