[color=red]Moderator’s Note: This topic is continued from here.[/color]
Wait a minute here!
No one has anything to say about the figures that the Magnificent Tigerman has posted? Nothing? Look at these figures people and tell me that the media is not biased!
Sloppy reporting, not biased.
You’ve go to be kidding me. Look at the number of stories supporting Wilson and then he is revealed as a fraud and no one has a major reporting cycle? This is not news or this is being determined by editorial boards to not be news? This is a case of bias.
I’m not arguing that the media is unbiased, but Tigerman is using a graphic from a very biased source. Look at the above that they use to show how much better Bush’s economy is than Clinton’s in their first terms. Don’t you think they conveniently left out a few things?
What did they conveniently leave out? Productivity is productivity. Inflation is inflation. GDP is GDP. What exactly is wrong about these figures? Are you challenging their statistical accuracy? Are you challenging the right to compare two president’s first terms? What exactly about this graph is unfair?
But the point is still that looking at Tigerman’s statistics regarding media reporting on the Wilson issue, we cannot help but be flabbergasted at the total lack of follow up on an issue that was deemed by editors merely six months to a year ago of being of crucial national importance, so crucial that it was plastered across the front pages for months on end and now, what? two follow up stories buried on page 10? Give me a break.
Magnificent Tigerman:
Can you please repost that graph again so that it is more current? I want everyone to see the shameful condition that our nation’s media is in. AND if this is just one example, what do you think is going on with things like Iraq? Hmm?
Certainly.
It doesn’t matter that the person who prepared the graph below is biased, so long as he presented accurate numbers the information is of value for our purposes:
The graph above cites numbers from those “trustworthy” and “objective” news agencies.
Yeah, here’s a little LSAT lesson for those of you who wish to draw certain conclusions from TMTM’s image.
Let’s hear it, boyz, what can you logically conclude from this?
Logically, I can conclude that it is very unusual that a major story that generated so much anti-Bush coverage would receive scant coverage when a major development emerged that challenged and put to rest all the assertions that had the media in such a frenzy before. I could conclude knowing that many believe the American media to be heavily biased to the left, that in fact this is another example of such bias. I could conclude that given voting patterns by editors and journalists at major media institutions that their coverage is in fact being slanted by their political affiliation. What exactly would you conclude?
Really, all of that from this alone?
Ok, back it all up. Show me, fred smith, how you get there.
I mean, it’s your minimum standard for Rascal, surely you can meet it in such a hurry.
Well?
Go back and look at the first thread Flike:
All of this information is already in there. If you are too lazy to scroll through the first media bias thread, don’t expect me to do it.
We have shown party affiliation for journalists. We have posted studies that show media bias. Go back and read it. You know where the thread is start from page 1 and scroll through it. Don’t tell me that is too difficult for you.
Ergo this is how I arrived at my conclusions.
Sorry Rascal:
It was not my intention to drag you into this. Just trying to answer an assertion from Flike regarding facts.
Now, Flike, we went over all of this in the first thread. Go the fuck over there and start from page 10 and find this info yourself.
I know that you are just trying to pick a fight with me but I ain’t biting. The information is all there. Prove it is not.
This is what I said:
So if we have 89% of Washington reporters voting for Clinton, can I not conclude that their coverage is being slanted by their political affiliation? If not, why not?
There are other polls that show how reporters and other media people label themselves. By far, the majority consider themselves liberal or “moderate” and few are conservative, but when asked what “moderate” meant, in fact, their stances made them very very liberal.
Also, we have voting patterns of journalists compared against the most liberal counties in the United States. Journalists were up to three times more likely to support causes and politicians of the liberal ilk than in even these liberal bastions. So what don’t you get?
Now, where are any “facts” wrong? They are there in black and white and I have attributed them. Now, I said I could “conclude” that there was an indication of leftist bias. I did not anywhere say that this was fact. You had better learn to read a bit more carefully. I find you very erratic today. Are you drinking? You have that edgy abusive quality that one would associate with someone who is drunk.
Fred, in a word professionalism. Maybe this is a misplaced word bearing mind the example given, but it answers your question.
Are you really trying to say that every report you have to write is slanted by your political beliefs, i suggest it is probably not the case. Why? I expect we would get the same answer, professionalism.
I will let Flike’s erratic (perhaps drunken behavior?) speak for itself. You asked for facts, I have told you to check the other thread. You scrolled to the top of this thread and then started berating me because you could not find the facts I mentioned. There are TWO threads Flike. This is part 2. Now, I have given you FACTS about voting patterns and once again reiterated that I could conclude from these facts that the media is biased. Can you prove that I do not have a right to draw such conclusions? Hmmm?
today’s been a whirlwind with the whole faked nation guard records story. long story short, the documents produced by cbs to discredit bush in their 60 minutes segment last night was fake. here’s a snippet of one of the documents:
notice the kerning in the text. kerning is when 2 letter run into each other’s spaces. like in the word “flight”. notice how the “f” and the “l” touch each other in the document. that is a feature of graphical fonts and can’t be reproduced on typewriters.
here’s an example of a guy who opened up word 2002, used the default settings, and produced almost the EXACT same document:
johnssketchpad.com/ebay/Fakeddocs.jpg
the main difference is the superscript “th”. what is curious is that if you print out the word document, the “th” appears in the EXACT same place as in the forgery.
anyway, the point is the story started on the freerepublic.com message boards. as people got hold of the document from the cbs site and broke it apart, it became more and more obvious that it was a fake. soon the news was picked up by various blogs, talk radio and internet sites. and finally fox took the plunge and tackled the story themselves. now we have some of the tradition media venturing to question the documents.
anyone who’s ever bitched in here about how biased american media feed us misinformation should be happy at the triumph of the collective power of the internet over biased journalism.
lol. cbs starting internal investigation to figure out where the hell those faked documents came from. what a sad state of affairs. my favorite part of all this is the guy who runs the website dedicated to the old ibm selectic typewriter. check out the site:
selectric.org/selectric/index.html
i love how dynamic things move nowadays.
It’s very important when you have the presidential election for the most powerful country in the world to avoid the substative issues altogether. Certainly the media loves to analyze itself. Stories about stories are far more interesting than economic policy. For myself, I have already determined that the sole factor in this election is John Kelley’s chin (posts passim).
In England, the Sun would have picked this up months ago, and would have created special window posters featuring Jimmy Hill alongside Chinny Kerry.
Fred: a website like this is required.
i like this graphic. it overlays a word document and the alleged nation guard records:
img53.exs.cx/img53/5017/CBS.gif
here’s a great article with inside info on how this whole mess came about. seems cbs got the docs from the kerry campaign. even though there were doubts about authenticity from both the kerry campaign and cbs itself, the station decided to run with it:
spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7096
poor biased left wing media.
[quote=“Flipper”]I like this graphic. it overlays a word document and the alleged nation guard records:
img53.exs.cx/img53/5017/CBS.gif
here’s a great article with inside info on how this whole mess came about. seems cbs got the docs from the Kerry campaign. even though there were doubts about authenticity from both the Kerry campaign and cbs itself, the station decided to run with it:
spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7096
poor biased left wing media. [/quote]
Oh, you have to love this last paragraph from the Spectator article:
It’s all the evil Republicans’ fault! The Democraps were innocent dupes! The Democraps can’t help being stupid turds! Karl Rove, the evil genius, took advantage of the Democraps’ natural credulity!
story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … ampaign_dc
[quote]“Rather than deal with real issues with real candor, Mr. McClellan is resorting to hurling nonsensical, inaccurate and baseless charges at the Kerry campaign,” said adviser Joe Lockhart. “This is a classic political tactic, when you can’t tell the truth or you don’t know the truth, blame your opponent.”
Democrats tried to keep the heat on Bush at a morning news conference. Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin said crucial questions had been raised by the military records, including memos from Bush’s squadron commander indicating he was being pressured to give Bush a favorable evaluation.
“This is not about Vietnam. This about truthfulness and credibility,” Harkin said. “These are no longer allegations. We have data, we have facts, we have records.” [/quote]
Wow! They have facts! They have records! I wonder if any of the records are of Elvis?! I wonder if Elvis is hiding in Harkin’s office!?!?! I wonder if Harkin has credibility?!?!!??
I guess the answer to all of my questions is “no”.