Why I listen to Conservative Talk Radio

[DiveCon]

That has to be the STUPIDEST "study" in history. Determining bias by the "think tanks" cited. First of all, the vast majority of the 50 think tanks, over 30, were CON$ervative to begin with, another 10 or so were moderate and just a handful could be called Liberal.

And this is how the CON$ claim Liberal bias, they call anyone more moderate than the most extreme Right Wing whackos a "Liberal." You can see it when they try to pass Bush off as Liberal. There is not a Liberal bone in Bush's worthless body. CON$ even try to pass LBJ or Hubert Humphrey off as Libs. The Libs HATED LBJ and HHH. The real Liberal back then was Eugene McCarthy!!!!!

There are no Libs in media. The last true Libs in media were the Smothers Brothers, who were kicked off the air by "LIBERAL" CBS to curry favor with Nixon, another president the CON$ try to pass off as "Liberal." The Smothers Bros crucified LBJ over Vietnam every week but he did nothing to them. When Nixon became president and they then went after him, he got them kicked off the air and blackballed from TV.
So much for Free Speech GOP style.

yeah, that bastion of conservative thought, UCLA

this is why most everyone thinks you're a fucking IDIOT

Hey Dumbo, it was not a UCLA study! It was ONE Poly Sci professor from UCLA and one from the U of Missouri who was actually an economist.

he dumbfuck
the SOURCE was UCLA

 

[DiveCon]

Wrong again, Ind 17, Balt. 3. That's what my pompus ass is doing.
Listen Miester, you and the other clowns on the right are poorly educated, willfully ignorant, and obnoxious. The problem with Limbaugh, et al, is that you and the other members of the conservative chic, are too lazy to think critically (even if you were able) and parrot his bull shit as if it had validity. The fact is, it is all emotion; hence, the hysteria of you and your partners.
And now, back to the game.

proof you ARE a pompous ass


besides, its 20-3 right now

Wow, your right. Now, tell us what the final score will be, that's seems to be what you clowns on the right do, predict the future.

no, thats what clowns like YOU do
try to tell others what they believe

the point is, i can do this thread AND watch the game while also playing a couple of online games at the same time
its called MULTITASKING

 

[Meister]

Seems a little more than just a couple of people were involved with the research headed up by UCLA
We are grateful for the research assistance by Aviva Aminova, Jose Bustos, Anya Byers, Evan Davidson, Kristina Doan, Wesley Hussey, David Lee, Pauline Mena, Orges Obeqiri, Byrne Offut, Matt Patterson, David Primo, Darryl Reeves, Susie Rieniets, Tom Rosholt, Michael Uy, Diane Valos, Michael Visconti, Margaret Vo, Rachel Ward, and Andrew Wright. Also, we are grateful for comments and suggestions by Matt Baum, Mark Crain, Tim Groeling, Phil Gussin, Jay Hamilton, Wesley Hussey, Chap Lawson, Steve Levitt, Jeff Lewis, Andrew Martin, David Mayhew, Jeff Minter, Mike Munger, David Primo, Andy Waddell, Barry Weingast, John Zaller, and Jeff Zwiebel. We also owe gratitude to UCLA, University of Missouri, Stanford University, and the University of Chicago. These universities paid our salaries, funded our research assistants, and paid for services such as Lexis-Nexis, which were necessary for our data collection. No other organization or person helped to fund this research project.

 

[edthecynic]

As always you take things out of context or exclude key components, Phyllis.


To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.[1] We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet.



As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative. Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one. Our method asks: What is the estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches? This is the score that our method would assign the New York Times.



A feature of our method is that it does not require us to make a subjective assessment of how liberal or conservative a think tank is. 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. This feature is important, since an active controversy exists whether, e.g., the Brookings Institution or the RAND Corporation is moderate, left-wing, or right-wing.

A Measure of Media Bias

It's moronic to think that ADA scores have anything to do with think tanks and even less to do with media bias.

As Brendan Nyhan points out, "the paper's methodology doesn't allow for two important potential differences between the processes generating news citations and floor speech citations:

(1) Technocratic centrist to liberal organizations like Brookings and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities tend to have more credentialed experts with peer-reviewed publications than their conservative counterparts. This may result in a greater number of citations by the press, which seeks out expert perspectives on the news, but not more citations by members of Congress, who generally seek out views that reinforce their own.

(2) The Groseclose/Milyo methodology doesn't allow for differential rates of productivity in producing work of interest to the media or Congress between organizations. To the extent that a think tank is better at marketing itself to the press than Congress (or vice versa), it could skew the results. For instance, the Heritage Foundation is extremely close to conservative members of Congress and has an elaborate operation designed to put material into their hands. But the fact that these members end up citing Heritage more than the press does is not ipso facto proof that the media is liberal."

 

[edthecynic]

Seems a little more than just a couple of people were involved with the research headed up by UCLA
We are grateful for the research assistance by Aviva Aminova, Jose Bustos, Anya Byers, Evan Davidson, Kristina Doan, Wesley Hussey, David Lee, Pauline Mena, Orges Obeqiri, Byrne Offut, Matt Patterson, David Primo, Darryl Reeves, Susie Rieniets, Tom Rosholt, Michael Uy, Diane Valos, Michael Visconti, Margaret Vo, Rachel Ward, and Andrew Wright. Also, we are grateful for comments and suggestions by Matt Baum, Mark Crain, Tim Groeling, Phil Gussin, Jay Hamilton, Wesley Hussey, Chap Lawson, Steve Levitt, Jeff Lewis, Andrew Martin, David Mayhew, Jeff Minter, Mike Munger, David Primo, Andy Waddell, Barry Weingast, John Zaller, and Jeff Zwiebel. We also owe gratitude to UCLA, University of Missouri, Stanford University, and the University of Chicago. These universities paid our salaries, funded our research assistants, and paid for services such as Lexis-Nexis, which were necessary for our data collection. No other organization or person helped to fund this research project.

The "research assistants" were STUDENTS hired to code the data!!!!!!!

"Because, at times, there is some subjectivity in coding our data, when we hired our research assistants we asked (i) for whom they voted or would have voted if they were limited to choosing only Al Gore and George Bush. We chose research assistants so that approximately half our data was coded by Gore supporters and half by Bush supporters."

 

[edthecynic]

yeah, that bastion of conservative thought, UCLA

this is why most everyone thinks you're a fucking IDIOT

Hey Dumbo, it was not a UCLA study! It was ONE Poly Sci professor from UCLA and one from the U of Missouri who was actually an economist.

he dumbfuck
the SOURCE was UCLA

Prove it DumbCon.

 

[Meister]

As always you take things out of context or exclude key components, Phyllis.


To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.[1] We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet.



As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative. Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one. Our method asks: What is the estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches? This is the score that our method would assign the New York Times.



A feature of our method is that it does not require us to make a subjective assessment of how liberal or conservative a think tank is. 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. This feature is important, since an active controversy exists whether, e.g., the Brookings Institution or the RAND Corporation is moderate, left-wing, or right-wing.

A Measure of Media Bias

It's moronic to think that ADA scores have anything to do with think tanks and even less to do with media bias.

As Brendan Nyhan points out, "the paper's methodology doesn't allow for two important potential differences between the processes generating news citations and floor speech citations:

(1) Technocratic centrist to liberal organizations like Brookings and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities tend to have more credentialed experts with peer-reviewed publications than their conservative counterparts. This may result in a greater number of citations by the press, which seeks out expert perspectives on the news, but not more citations by members of Congress, who generally seek out views that reinforce their own.

(2) The Groseclose/Milyo methodology doesn't allow for differential rates of productivity in producing work of interest to the media or Congress between organizations. To the extent that a think tank is better at marketing itself to the press than Congress (or vice versa), it could skew the results. For instance, the Heritage Foundation is extremely close to conservative members of Congress and has an elaborate operation designed to put material into their hands. But the fact that these members end up citing Heritage more than the press does is not ipso facto proof that the media is liberal."

Phyllis, your going to have to take everything this study has in it's entirety. There shows other studies that were done that came to the same conclusion.

I know, I know, that would mean that you couldn't leave out key components, and taking data out of context, which is your method of operation, but you need to look at the whole picture. Once you do that, the picture is very much clearer, and more honest than your drivel. Good evening, Phyllis....have a good Sunday.

 

[edthecynic]

As always you take things out of context or exclude key components, Phyllis.


To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.[1] We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet.



As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative. Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one. Our method asks: What is the estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches? This is the score that our method would assign the New York Times.



A feature of our method is that it does not require us to make a subjective assessment of how liberal or conservative a think tank is. 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. This feature is important, since an active controversy exists whether, e.g., the Brookings Institution or the RAND Corporation is moderate, left-wing, or right-wing.

A Measure of Media Bias

It's moronic to think that ADA scores have anything to do with think tanks and even less to do with media bias.

As Brendan Nyhan points out, "the paper's methodology doesn't allow for two important potential differences between the processes generating news citations and floor speech citations:

(1) Technocratic centrist to liberal organizations like Brookings and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities tend to have more credentialed experts with peer-reviewed publications than their conservative counterparts. This may result in a greater number of citations by the press, which seeks out expert perspectives on the news, but not more citations by members of Congress, who generally seek out views that reinforce their own.

(2) The Groseclose/Milyo methodology doesn't allow for differential rates of productivity in producing work of interest to the media or Congress between organizations. To the extent that a think tank is better at marketing itself to the press than Congress (or vice versa), it could skew the results. For instance, the Heritage Foundation is extremely close to conservative members of Congress and has an elaborate operation designed to put material into their hands. But the fact that these members end up citing Heritage more than the press does is not ipso facto proof that the media is liberal."

Phyllis, your going to have to take everything this study has in it's entirety. There shows other studies that were done that came to the same conclusion.

I know, I know, that would mean that you couldn't leave out key components, and taking data out of context, which is your method of operation, but you need to look at the whole picture. Once you do that, the picture is very much clearer, and more honest than your drivel. Good evening, Phyllis....have a good Sunday.

Con$ are very good at producing PHONY "studies" that will show any conclusion they want. The fact remains that there is no Liberal media, and there never has been Liberal media, and if corporate media has its way, there never will be any Liberal media.

 

[Wry Catcher]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. My own personal idiotgram - so much more substance then the dribble from the right.

 

[SwingVoter]

LOL, "interesting comment from someone in San Francisco". FYI, San Francisco (the SF Bay Area) is a large, diverse, cosmopolitan region with world renown universities (CAL, UCSF and Stanford; USF, Santa Clara, St. Mary's) and other top tier schools of higher learning.
As for my opinons, they are based on principles formed over my lifetime - I'm 62 - and well developed before Olbermann appeared on TV.

typical smug liberal baby boomer from SF, crappy public transportation for a large city, museums are a joke compared to NY or DC, no diversity of opinion, ugly women (I know they're womyn and I'm sexist) and can't get over itself

your views are the same as every other sheep liberal, your arguments are the same, just what happens when you're surrounded by people who all think the same

 

[SwingVoter]

and there never has been Liberal media.

maybe, but there are very liberal journalists, from Katie Couric to Dan Rather to Matt Lauer, who pretend to be "objective" when there is no doubt from their coverage which party they prefer

but these guys are old school, modern liberals like Olbermann and the MSNBC crew don't pretend to be objective, and they are needed by the many sheep liberals who are unable to think for themselves, and can only support cult of personality candidates like Obama

 

[DiveCon]

Hey Dumbo, it was not a UCLA study! It was ONE Poly Sci professor from UCLA and one from the U of Missouri who was actually an economist.

he dumbfuck
the SOURCE was UCLA

Prove it DumbCon.

look at the link moron

 

[edthecynic]

he dumbfuck
the SOURCE was UCLA

Prove it DumbCon.

look at the link moron

The link only proves the teacher who is the source of the asinine "study" is from UCLA. Students can post to the same sscnet site, it in no way proves the phony "study" was sanctioned by UCLA.

There are some dead giveaways of how ridiculous the sham "study" is when you have the Drudge Report listed as Liberal. This again shows that the media is so completely dominated by CON$ that they have to pass off any CON$ervative who isn't the most extreme as Liberal.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Blah, blah, blah, how typical, attack the man and his audience but always fail to refute his arguments, I hope you realize that Americans are waking up to this old, tired tactic of "debate" and most of us really don't care anymore.

That being said, Rush Limbaugh 1, You and Your IlK 0, have a nice day.

In my informed opinion, Limbaugh never argues an issue, he starts with a false premise, and build a case against a strawman. Those who taken a college level course in critical thinking, or a course in logic, quickly see through his sophistry.
Your post suggests you are a dittohead and offended by my post - the ball is in your court. Either call me a name or offer a valid argument of Limabughs rhetoric - if you can find one.

You require the member to provide a valid argument of Limbaugh's rhetoric but do not require that of yourself?

I have taken a college level course in criticial thinking and I also know the definition of sophistry. Your statement could easily be interpreted as an excellent illustration of sophistry woven into a prejudicial statement grounded in no basis of fact.

Perhaps if you provided an illustration to support your statement, you would have more justification in asking another member to do so.

Several pages back, I posted this question to you:

Calling policies of the Obama Administration "reckless socialism" may or may not be a lie, but is it true? Maybe Foxfyre will define socialism, or what he thinks socialism is by suggesting an alternative policy.

You call Obama's 'policy' "reckless socialism"; now, tell us, how and why you use such rhetoric. Define your terms, and then I will provide you with the "illustration" you desire.

 

[DiveCon]

Prove it DumbCon.

look at the link moron

The link only proves the teacher who is the source of the asinine "study" is from UCLA. Students can post to the same sscnet site, it in no way proves the phony "study" was sanctioned by UCLA.

There are some dead giveaways of how ridiculous the sham "study" is when you have the Drudge Report listed as Liberal. This again shows that the media is so completely dominated by CON$ that they have to pass off any CON$ervative who isn't the most extreme as Liberal.

damn, you just keep proving hoiw much of a fucking idiot you are
if you had an ounce of common sense you would be embarrassed

 

[Wry Catcher]

look at the link moron

The link only proves the teacher who is the source of the asinine "study" is from UCLA. Students can post to the same sscnet site, it in no way proves the phony "study" was sanctioned by UCLA.

There are some dead giveaways of how ridiculous the sham "study" is when you have the Drudge Report listed as Liberal. This again shows that the media is so completely dominated by CON$ that they have to pass off any CON$ervative who isn't the most extreme as Liberal.

damn, you just keep proving hoiw much of a fucking idiot you are
if you had an ounce of common sense you would be embarrassed

If the Drudge Report was listed as Liberal, the entire RW argument is bogus. Answer the allegation DC, or do the DC thing and call the witness a name.

 

[DiveCon]

The link only proves the teacher who is the source of the asinine "study" is from UCLA. Students can post to the same sscnet site, it in no way proves the phony "study" was sanctioned by UCLA.

There are some dead giveaways of how ridiculous the sham "study" is when you have the Drudge Report listed as Liberal. This again shows that the media is so completely dominated by CON$ that they have to pass off any CON$ervative who isn't the most extreme as Liberal.

damn, you just keep proving hoiw much of a fucking idiot you are
if you had an ounce of common sense you would be embarrassed

If the Drudge Report was listed as Liberal, the entire RW argument is bogus. Answer the allegation DC, or do the DC thing and call the witness a name.

ed, the moron is a fucking liar
and an idiot
as you have shown you are as well
fuck off pissant

 

[Foxfyre]

Several pages back, I posted this question to you:

Calling policies of the Obama Administration "reckless socialism" may or may not be a lie, but is it true? Maybe Foxfyre will define socialism, or what he thinks socialism is by suggesting an alternative policy.

You call Obama's 'policy' "reckless socialism"; now, tell us, how and why you use such rhetoric. Define your terms, and then I will provide you with the "illustration" you desire.

Okay. Socialism is a rather broad term in itself and can include various sociopolitical and economic theories of government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. In Obama's version, it is illustrated by government ownership of large auto companies and some banks and also assigning ownership to unions, firmly under government control in practice if not by law. It is further illustrated in the government presuming to assign appropriate wages for executives to earn and imposing punative measures on those who fail to toe the line as the government dictates.

Obama seems to be enamored with a soft Marxist view of socialism in which it will be necessary to impose a heavy hand of authoritative government to crush opposition and eventually bring about the collective good. I presume that in his world there will eventually be no rich and poor and all will live happily ever after in eternal gratitude to the great messiah who saved them. He sort of skims over the part, however, where no government has ever willingly passed through the heavy handed stage once it gets there.

As to the alternative policy, I go with the theory of government as proposed by the Founders and great concepts of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and others. The basic principle is that property precedes government and, when acquired legally is sacrosanct. The federal government restricts itself to securing and defending our unalienable, Constitutional, legal, and human rights and then gets out of our way to let us create the sort of society that we want.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Several pages back, I posted this question to you:

Calling policies of the Obama Administration "reckless socialism" may or may not be a lie, but is it true? Maybe Foxfyre will define socialism, or what he thinks socialism is by suggesting an alternative policy.

You call Obama's 'policy' "reckless socialism"; now, tell us, how and why you use such rhetoric. Define your terms, and then I will provide you with the "illustration" you desire.

Okay. Socialism is a rather broad term in itself and can include various sociopolitical and economic theories of government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. In Obama's version, it is illustrated by government ownership of large auto companies and some banks and also assigning ownership to unions, firmly under government control in practice if not by law. It is further illustrated in the government presuming to assign appropriate wages for executives to earn and imposing punative measures on those who fail to toe the line as the government dictates.

Obama seems to be enamored with a soft Marxist view of socialism in which it will be necessary to impose a heavy hand of authoritative government to crush opposition and eventually bring about the collective good. I presume that in his world there will eventually be no rich and poor and all will live happily ever after in eternal gratitude to the great messiah who saved them. He sort of skims over the part, however, where no government has ever willingly passed through the heavy handed stage once it gets there.

As to the alternative policy, I go with the theory of government as proposed by the Founders and great concepts of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and others. The basic principle is that property precedes government and, when acquired legally is sacrosanct. The federal government restricts itself to securing and defending our unalienable, Constitutional, legal, and human rights and then gets out of our way to let us create the sort of society that we want.

I appreciate your response, surprised maybe accurate too. I'll respond to each paragraph, because each presents in a different manner.
As to #2: This paragraph is imho all opinion, and typical of the RW rhetoric posted every day on this and other message boards.
In #1 you lay claim that Obama's response to an economic crisis (can we agree on that?) was 'socialism' which you define as not a single entity, but on a continuum of government control or interference in the markets and means of production. Obama has 'interferred' in the markets, as well as the means of producton, NOT as persumed by many on the right out of ideological desire, but (IMO) as a pragmatic approach to a crisis.
I believe that had Obama not acted as he did, and acted within the Constitutional powers of his office, the economic crisis may have had '1929' consequences. Of course, we are not out of the woods yet, and it is also my opinion that the RW rehtoric of doom, gloom and allegations of "reckless socialism" has retarded economic recovery.
Many on the right - and this includes 'conservative radio - believe a lassiez faire response would have been the correct course, and this was the course of Pres. Hoover - and we know how that turned out. With the '29 crisis and the response by Hoover and Roosevelt as a guide, I side with Obama.
There is not time to respond to your third paragraph, though I will discuss some of the ideas of those you cite.
Adam Smith, as we know posited economic Laws. The first law of the market is Self Interest, and the second, competitition. What if Obama had allowed GM and Chrysler to fail?
How would that have played into our nations economic self interest? German, Japanese and maybe China and Korea would soon further dominate our market, more than they do today. And what of the workers who would have lost their jobs? More homes in default, higher unemployment, more homeless children, more demand on social services and more local and state government failures?
That said, I disagree with the bailout of those banks too big to fail. I would have preferred a bail out allowing homeowners to remain in their homes, and that local banks service the loans for the commuities effected by the crisis. I would have allowed the big guys to fail, and screw the money changers, the bankers and their share holders.
In short, I don't believe the answer to our current economic woes is to rely on an ideology, rather, our leaders need to understand history, and look to pragmatic strategies at first, and long term solutions as we pull back from the precipice.

 

[edthecynic]

damn, you just keep proving hoiw much of a fucking idiot you are
if you had an ounce of common sense you would be embarrassed

If the Drudge Report was listed as Liberal, the entire RW argument is bogus. Answer the allegation DC, or do the DC thing and call the witness a name.

ed, the moron is a fucking liar
and an idiot
as you have shown you are as well
fuck off pissant

In other words, YES the Drudge Report was scored as liberal.

Any media that scored higher than 50.1 was defined by the phony "study" as Liberal and Drudge scored 60.4. BTW, Murdoch's Wall Street Journal scored the highest LIBERAL rating, 85.1, even higher than the N Y Times, 73.7.