Liberal Media Bias

[GG]

i have no trouble with Tebow. i think he makes for a good story. in my few dealings with him, he comes off as a good genuiune kid, who's done well for himself and has been true to himself.

 

the point i was making with the Bledsoe piece is that by merely quoting Bledsoe as saying he considers the Bills' starting job as his, flies in the face of the fact that he struggled the previous season. to simply quote Bledsoe and not apply perspective by citing mitigating facts is irresponsible.

 

it's no different than what somebody here was accusing the AP of doing with its debate story.

 

by taking political emotion out of the argument, i provided an example of how and why stories without perspective are mere press releases, or what Fox News does (couldn't resist )

 

jw

 

The proper analogy would not be that reporting on Bledsoe, where he's the only party in the story - of course you need to provide perspective on his cognitive dissonance of the 2004 season. But what if the story also started off by saying how well Losman played in practice and then launched into Bledsoe's view on him retaining the starting job and his poor performance. I think that's the analogy that B is getting to. It's not just reporting of the employment numbers, but reporting it in the context of the polar political perspectives.

[Magox]

In my opinion, Fox is a part of it insomuch as you refer to the news reporting legs of the programming, which is nominal; folks like Shepherd Smith or Brett Baier. Beyond that, just like most other MSM sources, there are other components not considered part of the "news reporting." Just like newspapers have forever had varying sections (Real estate, Lifestyle, etc), those considered MSM have varying sections as well. The money has been in providing political opinion, so you have the Hannitys and Maddows of the world that normal people only consider opinion shows.

 

For what little it's worth, one of the reasons liberals like yourself hate Fox News so much isn't because it tilts everything to the right; it's because it's the ONLY TV news channel that tilts to the right. Alternately, the TV news that tilts to the left is shared by many. Frankly, I thought it was pretty smart marketing; especially once Obama became the Democrat flavor of the day, because he is such a polarizing figure, the right needed somewhere to go. But where? NBC? CBS? ABC? MSNBC? Not hardly. Enter one place for all conservatives to go, and it's not wonder it kicks the crap out of every other cable "news" channel. Fox isn't better; it just doesn't have to compete for conservative viewers like the others have to compete for liberal viewers.

This is a point that I have made on this board more than a few times.

[Delete This Account]

Call them "Faux News" again, and that's a question that answers itself.

 

 

 

Who the hell pays attention to the Washington Times?

 

 

 

 

Were they insured?

-- that was actually a typo on Fux. i actually meant to write "Fox," i'm serious.

 

-- no, no one pays attention to the Times, i know that.

 

-- that's a question that wouldn't need to be asked in some civilized nations.

 

jw

[DC Tom]

-- that was actually a typo on Fux. i actually meant to write "Fox," i'm serious.

 

I figured. Doesn't change the point that earlier you called then "Faux News". People tend to not consider Fox "the media" (as I recall, this administration tried to have them removed from press conferences early on, a move that the rest of the networks and print media did not support). Fox likes it that way, as they get to be "counter-culture" - the anti-media, so to speak. Kind of like the OWS idiots thinking they're not part of the system they're protesting.

 

-- that's a question that wouldn't need to be asked in some civilized nations.

 

jw

 

"Civilized" = "universal health care"? Since when does "civilized" mean me paying for some other schmoe's heart attack? I've got my own to pay for.

 

In a "civilized" society, people take care of their own ****, and don't blame it on others. Or at least used to.

[IDBillzFan]

no, actually, if you read further down, the lack of universal health care did them in.

 

"In 2006, Andono suffered a heart attack. She spent nine days in the hospital, undergoing an angioplasty so a stent could be inserted to help blood flow. The result: a whopping $47,000 bill, the family says."

 

well, i guess that's just bad luck, eh?

 

jw

One could argue that that it was not the lack of universal health care that did them in, but rather the presence of universal health care that did them in such to the extent that Obamacare is forcing many companies to reduce their payrolls.

 

On the other hand, one could argue that you need only look at a photo of that woman once before even YOU can tell she's at risk for a heart attack. Did she end up with a $47,000 bill because she didn't have health care, or because she refused to take care of herself in a responsible manner so she could reduce her chances of having a heart attack?

 

But hey, you stick with that whole "lack of universal health care did them in" thing. It's going to be a very popular story line this year.

Edited January 9, 2012 by LABillzFan

[GG]

-- that was actually a typo on Fux. i actually meant to write "Fox," i'm serious.

 

-- no, no one pays attention to the Times, i know that.

 

-- that's a question that wouldn't need to be asked in some civilized nations.

 

jw

 

To answer one question - there may be many definitions of MSM, but to me it is a news outlet that gets a seat at the POTUS's press conferences. But, it's largely - AP, Bloomberg, CBS, Comcast, Disney, Newscorp, NY Times, Reuters, Wash Post, Tribune, Time Warner.

 

Now you may find this shocking, but nearly every person I've met on the reporting side of these organizations has been leftward leaning. But I'm sure that's coincidence.

 

To answer another question by asking another - would those be the civilized nations that are now having trouble paying their bills?

Edited January 9, 2012 by GG

[Delete This Account]

The proper analogy would not be that reporting on Bledsoe, where he's the only party in the story - of course you need to provide perspective on his cognitive dissonance of the 2004 season. But what if the story also started off by saying how well Losman played in practice and then launched into Bledsoe's view on him retaining the starting job and his poor performance. I think that's the analogy that B is getting to. It's not just reporting of the employment numbers, but reporting it in the context of the polar political perspectives.

putting the economic meltdown into context is no easy thing.

of course, those opposed to Obama like to blame him fully and completely for that, when it's clear that the downturn began before he was elected.

so to tie the 7.6 percent unemployment number of the Obama administration is quite wrong. but why quibble with points. (and note, the downturn was bound to happen because people were both naive and greedy.)

 

an argument can be made that this economy didn't become Obama's economy until say three months into his term when the money began flowing out of Washington hand over fist. don't know exactly what the unemployment rate was then. but a case could be made that would be where the comparisons should begin.

 

to call this "gratuitous editorializing" is a little far-fetched.

Romney asserts that Obama has ruined the economy, even though it's showing signs of coming back.

 

either way, the facts balance the story out, rather than slant it.

it quotes Romney and points out how his comments might be going against the grain.

 

in the Bledsoe piece, we (me and other reporters) quoted Bledsoe, and then noted that what he thinks might go against reality. i don't see how different this is.

 

jw

 

One could argue that that it was not the lack of universal health care that did them in, but rather the presence of universal health care that did them in such to the extent that Obamacare is forcing many companies to reduce their payrolls.

 

On the other hand, one could argue that you need only look at a photo of that woman once before even YOU can tell she's at risk for a heart attack. Did she end up with a $47,000 bill because she didn't have health care, or because she refused to take care of herself in a responsible manner so she could reduce her chances of having a heart attack?

 

But hey, you stick with that whole "lack of universal health care did them in" thing. It's going to be a very popular story line this year.

not entirely. the heart attack happen in 2006.

i don't buy this Darwinian response because it assumes we all started out equally.

we all came from the womb. the few fortunate among us, landed in middle-to-upper class households. others in poverty. others ethiopia. it doesn't fly with me.

and to say she or anyone didn't take care of herself well ... geez. the judgemental thing just doesn't suit you.

 

jw

 

To answer another question by asking another - would those be the civilized nations that are now having trouble paying their bills?

like Canada?

 

jw

Edited January 9, 2012 by john wawrow

[ieatcrayonz]

 

 

in the Bledsoe piece, we (me and other reporters) quoted Bledsoe, and then noted that what he thinks might go against reality. i don't see how different this is.

 

jw

Maybe Flutie/Johnson is a better example. Maybe if reporters always promoted Flutie despite his total and utter ineptitude in the last Bills playoff season and continued to carry the myth that he played well that year instead of evenly reporting that both he and Johnson sucked when they played and the defense was the only reason for the playoff run that would be a better example of bias. Maybe if they painted Johnson as a complete bum despite his leaving the field with a lead in a road playoff game to an eventual Super Bowl team that would be bias. Or maybe if they used the term "magic" to describe Flutie despite his being challenged to complete screen passes that would be seen as biased. You should use the even reporting that occurred as an example of non-bias from the sports world.

 

Oh, wait. You better go back to the Bledsoe example.

[birdog1960]

Again..................and again...............and again,

 

its not the commentators (on either side )

 

It is the slant given to the actual news stories on the front page and on the "news" report.

 

so you see a big difference between "commentators and "serious" mainstream news. you mean the news that spends about 1/2 of the allotted time reporting entertainment news and sensational stories while almost completely ignoring most daily world events except those in europe and the us?

 

even if we accept your premise that there is a difference, which form is the more influential for the target audience? propaganda is rarely successful if it's literal. do you think the german people really thought jews were rats? the propagandists are intentionally made to be cartoon characters, olberman included. there are just a lot more conservative ones than liberal ones.

[IDBillzFan]

not entirely. the heart attack happen in 2006.

i don't buy this Darwinian response because it assumes we all started out equally.

we all came from the womb. the few fortunate among us, landed in middle-to-upper class households. others in poverty. others ethiopia. it doesn't fly with me.

and to say she or anyone didn't take of herself well ... geez. the judgemental thing just doesn't suit you.

 

jw

Everyone stands in judgement of everyone. You'd think a liberal would know that better than most.

 

Snide comments aside, some basic differences between conservatives like me and liberals like you are are (1) I believe people should help one another and you believe people should be forced to help one another via a governmental go-between and (2) you believe that being born into poverty is a disadvantage simply because you were born into poverty. Being born into poverty is actually a real problem if your parents don't understand they should have NEVER brought you into this world in the first place. If being born into poverty is a disadvantage, then what do you say we don't give incentivess to the poor to earn more government cash by having more babies? But that would be heartless, wouldn't it? What to do, what to do.

 

One last thing: I would be happy to add that woman to the list of people I try to help in my life if she can show me where, when she had health insurance, she regularly went to a doctor who said there was nothing wrong with her physical condition, and she should have another Ho-Ho.

[meazza]

like Canada?

 

You know this year, I had a lump on my arm. Cost me $1,000 out of pocket to get it checked out because going through the public system would have cost me a wait of 6 months to a year. Many people like me are turning towards private because the public system is terribly run.

 

How much you want to bet that the notional amount I pay in a year in taxes directed specifically towards health care and throw in the out of pocket medical expenses is 3-4 times what the average healthy American would pay in insurance.

 

Get your head out of the clouds.

[3rdnlng]

so you see a big difference between "commentators and "serious" mainstream news. you mean the news that spends about 1/2 of the allotted time reporting entertainment news and sensational stories while almost completely ignoring most daily world events except those in europe and the us?

 

even if we accept your premise that there is a difference, which form is the more influential for the target audience? propaganda is rarely successful if it's literal. do you think the german people really thought jews were rats? the propagandists are intentionally made to be cartoon characters, olberman included. there are just a lot more conservative ones than liberal ones.

 

 

That makes me feel like Taylor in the "Planet of the Apes".

[Delete This Account]

You know this year, I had a lump on my arm. Cost me $1,000 out of pocket to get it checked out because going through the public system would have cost me a wait of 6 months to a year. Many people like me are turning towards private because the public system is terribly run.

 

How much you want to bet that the notional amount I pay in a year in taxes directed specifically towards health care and throw in the out of pocket medical expenses is 3-4 times what the average healthy American would pay in insurance.

 

Get your head out of the clouds.

be careful what you wish for.

 

jw

[B-Man]

so you see a big difference between "commentators and "serious" mainstream news. you mean the news that spends about 1/2 of the allotted time reporting entertainment news and sensational stories while almost completely ignoring most daily world events except those in europe and the us?

 

even if we accept your premise that there is a difference, which form is the more influential for the target audience? propaganda is rarely successful if it's literal. do you think the german people really thought jews were rats? the propagandists are intentionally made to be cartoon characters, olberman included. there are just a lot more conservative ones than liberal ones.

 

 

You are mistaken. I was not "ranking" which way of delivering the news was better,

 

merely pointing out the folly of those using commentators ( who are paid to give opinions) as some type of example of right (or left) bias, as opposed to the everday slant put in the nightly broadcasts.

 

 

As to your second paragraph, commentators influence has always been way over-rated, most people recognize opinion when they see or read it.

It is those who read the headlines and the front page and (still) watch the evening news, who somehow think that they are getting ALL the news in an unbiased manner, who are fooling themselves.

 

 

 

.

[meazza]

be careful what you wish for.

 

jw

 

So basically you have nothing?

[birdog1960]

You know this year, I had a lump on my arm. Cost me $1,000 out of pocket to get it checked out because going through the public system would have cost me a wait of 6 months to a year. Many people like me are turning towards private because the public system is terribly run.

 

How much you want to bet that the notional amount I pay in a year in taxes directed specifically towards health care and throw in the out of pocket medical expenses is 3-4 times what the average healthy American would pay in insurance.

 

Get your head out of the clouds.

get an clue of what private insurance costs in the us. a 50 year old wanting to retire early and trying to buy a decent policy is looking at $10000/ year plus a fairly high deductible. are you paying $40k in taxes to national health? didn't think so.

[Chef Jim]

get an clue of what private insurance costs in the us. a 50 year old wanting to retire early and trying to buy a decent policy is looking at $10000/ year plus a fairly high deductible. are you paying $40k in taxes to national health? didn't think so.

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about but if you mean that 50 year old is retiring prior to qualifying for Medicare. If that 50 year old retiring cannot affort the $10000 in health care he should not be retiring.

[meazza]

get an clue of what private insurance costs in the us. a 50 year old wanting to retire early and trying to buy a decent policy is looking at $10000/ year plus a fairly high deductible. are you paying $40k in taxes to national health? didn't think so.

 

How about a 30 year old in good health?

 

Here's a hint and this is just an estimate. I paid about 10K in tax dollars this year related to health care (this is just income tax, let's not forget all the wonderful other taxes I pay) that goes into the health care budget and I'm far from wealthy.

Edited January 9, 2012 by meazza

[birdog1960]

You are mistaken. I was not "ranking" which way of delivering the news was better,

 

merely pointing out the folly of those using commentators ( who are paid to give opinions) as some type of example of right (or left) bias, as opposed to the everday slant put in the nightly broadcasts.

 

 

As to your second paragraph, commentators influence has always been way over-rated, most people recognize opinion when they see or read it.

It is those who read the headlines and the front page and (still) watch the evening news, who somehow think that they are getting ALL the news in an unbiased manner, who are fooling themselves.

 

 

 

.

not ranking, just differentiating...and there is little difference in most cases. one exception is pbs (i'm not sure the newshour even mentioned michael jackson's death) but few watch it and far fewer yet are influenced by it. they are, rather, informed by it. and that's the point.

[Delete This Account]

Everyone stands in judgement of everyone. You'd think a liberal would know that better than most.

i stand in judgment at St. Pete's gates. i'm serious.

 

Snide comments aside, some basic differences between conservatives like me and liberals like you are are (1) I believe people should help one another and you believe people should be forced to help one another via a governmental go-between and

as for this, the theory kinda works, and then you bring greed into the equation. people helping one another is all well and good, until it comes time to help one another. i see the wall street boys are doing a bang-up job in helping us all out, out of the goodness of their hearts. and we all know how the middle-east dictators work in doling out the gold nuggets.

works great.

greed effects more greed. some people, i've found, have difficulty getting their hands dirty.

to take your point further, why have traffic lights.

liberals like me, think there outta be laws in place to prevent people from running through intersections like morons.

conservatives like you, think there should be no laws because people generally go out of their way to look out for each other.

 

(2) you believe that being born into poverty is a disadvantage simply because you were born into poverty. Being born into poverty is actually a real problem if your parents don't understand they should have NEVER brought you into this world in the first place. If being born into poverty is a disadvantage, then what do you say we don't give incentivess to the poor to earn more government cash by having more babies? But that would be heartless, wouldn't it? What to do, what to do.

right, more often than not, a majority of today's billionaires were born into poverty and through the magic of free enterprise rose up from nothing.

head down to the local food bank and trot out that theory, and see where it gets you. but wait, you have money. good for you.

 

One last thing: I would be happy to add that woman to the list of people I try to help in my life if she can show me where, when she had health insurance, she regularly went to a doctor who said there was nothing wrong with her physical condition, and she should have another Ho-Ho.

funny, i keep thumbing through my Bible, and can't seem to find the chapter and verse on that approach. was that in Mark or Luke?

 

jw