Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » The Media Bias Thread
| The Media Bias Thread [message #133446] |
Sat, 22 January 2005 07:12  |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
http://mediamatters.org/items/200501220001
Yes, the mainstream media is highly biased.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #133487] |
Sat, 22 January 2005 11:30  |
 |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
I didn't watch CNN or MSNBC that day, so I can't speak towards them, but what little I know of Fox flies in the face of what's on that site so I'm finding it hard to believe what it has to say about any of the channels.
The first thing it says about Fox is that one conservative appeared on Special Report's "All Star" Panel. Typically that panel has three people, so who were the other two for that day? (Usually there's a conservative, a moderate liberal, and a liberal) Or was it just the one guy? (Which means it wasn't a panel)
So right off the bat it has a bad start. Either its citing a highly unusual day, or whoever compiled that information can't count.
I didn't really watch 'The Big Story' that day, since they seemed to be talking too long with some crazy liberals I didn't want to hear from. So maybe they did have more conservatives on that day... I guess they are trying to be more balanced than they were during the campaign when they had that never-ending stream of Kerry spokespeople who talked to them straight out of Kerry campaign headquarters.
Oh look... Fox Report didn't have any commentators... for either side.
The first guy listed for O'Reilly is stated to be a presidential historian, doesn't seem quite like he was a conservative commentator that day. Tony Snow certainly is though, but that balances against Lanny Davis. Dick Morris is both a Bill Clinton and George Bush supporter. I know he leans conservative these days, but still...
Both Hannity & Colmes and On the Record were reporting from/about all the parties going on that night. So I would hope they would find a higher number of conservatives in that crowd, otherwise the laws of physics would have been broken.  Even with that said, On the Record still had a liberal... geez, why does Fox have to be so balanced on the day Bush took the oath of office. Can't we get one day free of whiny liberals?
Running down the list of CNN and MSNBC guests, I was going to point out that Scarborough Country had three conservatives and three liberals, but then I read the fine print that said one of the 'conservative' guests is a Kerry supporter, so I don't think he should fall under the banner of 'conservative commentator'. That means it was 2 conservatives and 3 or 4 liberals. But I guess when it comes to MSNBC, 2 to 4 means 3 to 3 just like in Special Report, 3 panelists somehow became 1 panelist. I know American test scores for math aren't the best... but that's really depressing.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #133577] |
Sat, 22 January 2005 15:38 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
gbull - you're missing the point entirely.
NeoSaber - that article actually has a table of all appearing guests on shows. It's a little easier to compare and contrast than what you saw on FOX that day.
msgtpain - that was a conversation starter, duh.
Oh, and your website link is retarded. It says that the majority of America believes the media is liberally biased. But then, its factual tables at the bottom state that the majority of people believe the media is biased. Not liberally.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #133608] |
Sat, 22 January 2005 17:37 |
msgtpain
Messages: 663
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Oh, and your website link is retarded. It says that the majority of America believes the media is liberally biased. But then, its factual tables at the bottom state that the majority of people believe the media is biased. Not liberally.
|
I don't know what grass you've been smoking... but, can I have some?
That single page has about 400 surveys on it, did you go find the single survey that wasn't worded the same as the opening paragraph on the page? Wouldn't surprise me, word twisting is generally how folks like you have to prove a point..
Come on, say it again.. nothing on that page states that the media is biased LIBERALLY does it?
Here, I'll help you out.. Instead of stopping on the section that you think makes your dillusional point for you.. keep reading on to the section entitled: "Most Americans View Bias as Liberal - OVERVIEW"
Who's retarded now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #133728] |
Sun, 23 January 2005 07:05 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Well, it's hard to be showing even amounts of Liberals and Conservatives when the Righties outnumber the lefties... in the US, in the Senate, in the House...
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #133743] |
Sun, 23 January 2005 08:05 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| msgtpain |
I don't know what grass you've been smoking... but, can I have some?
That single page has about 400 surveys on it, did you go find the single survey that wasn't worded the same as the opening paragraph on the page? Wouldn't surprise me, word twisting is generally how folks like you have to prove a point..
Come on, say it again.. nothing on that page states that the media is biased LIBERALLY does it?
Here, I'll help you out.. Instead of stopping on the section that you think makes your dillusional point for you.. keep reading on to the section entitled: "Most Americans View Bias as Liberal - OVERVIEW"
Who's retarded now?
|
Try this:
Step 1: Read the second paragraph on that site.
Now, in this paragraph, and I quote:
| Misdirected thesis of the media |
Conservatives believe the mass media, predominantly television news programs, slant reports in favor of the liberal position on issues. Most Americans agree, as the data below indicate
|
There. Conservatives believe the media is liberally biased. And the majority of Americans agree.
Step 2: Click on the link.
Now read the five key findings from the 1997 Pew Report, and follow along with me:
1) This states people feel the media is biased. Not liberally, mind.
2) See above.
3) The site pretends this actually means something.
4) See #1
5) Well the media must be 3% biased. Again, this means nothing.
Now, let's move on to "Other Key Findings"
1) This chart states people feel the media is biased. Not liberally, mind.
2) See above.
3) See above.
4) See above.
Now, this "Most Americans View Bias as Liberal" section.
I would like to see the demographic for the 3,000 person poll that was supposedly conducted. I went to the Center for Media and Public Affairs website and could not find a link to any such study.
And "Most Recent Data: by 3-to-1 Americans Think Media Too Liberal"
Demographics are really quite nice.
And that's how people think.
Crimson, do you believe Republican representation in the government outnumbers Democrat representation by 41 to 10?
And by the way, many more Americans are Republican rather than Democrat, they just don't vote nearly as much.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #133887] |
Sun, 23 January 2005 13:04 |
msgtpain
Messages: 663
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
see above, see above, see above" What the hell does that show? That you made one conclusion and want to tie everything back to it?
Let me help you out here, since it appears you aren't really capable of reading a Web site you don't agree with.
| Quote: |
66 percent agree strongly or somewhat that the news media "favor a liberal point of view." Only 26 percent disagree strongly or somewhat that the news media "favor a liberal point of view."
|
| Quote: |
39 percent think national network TV news is biased against conservative political groups such as the Christian Coalition, National Rifle Association, National Right to Life Committee, compared to only 14 percent who believe it is biased in favor of such groups. 41 percent believed TV news was even-handed toward conservative political groups.
|
| Quote: |
47% of voters believed the meida wanted Gore to win, while only 23% felt they wanted Bush to win
|
KEY FINDINGS OF GALLUP POLL:
| Quote: |
By three-to-one, more Americans say that the media are too liberal (45%) than too conservative (15%).
|
| Quote: |
63% of conservatives think the news media are too liberal, as do 43% of moderates and even 18% of liberals.
|
In the summer of 2003, Princeton Survey Research Associates conducted a poll of 1,201 American adults
| Quote: |
Twice as many Americans believe news organizations are liberally (51 percent) rather than conservatively biased (26 percent).
|
| Quote: |
Not only do a majority of Republicans (by three-to-one) and independents (by two-to-one) see the news media liberally biased, Democrats do as well. Forty-one percent of Democrats perceive the media as liberally biased compared to 33 percent of Democrats who see it as conservatively biased
|
So say it again, SuperFlyingRetard..
| Quote: |
Oh, and your website link is retarded. It says that the majority of America believes the media is liberally biased. But then, its factual tables at the bottom state that the majority of people believe the media is biased. Not liberally."
|
When you're wrong, just admit it.. continuing to argue your point which is obviously and factually wrong, is sort of childish. wait a minute, what else would I expect?
That Web site definitely states the public feel that the media is biased LIBERALLY. So, are you willing to retract your accusation that it is "retarded" and give it a chance? Or would you rather find some other reason to believe its contents are "retarded".
That's such a great argument, can you tell I like it? " YOR PO1nT Iz R0nG Be CAusE tHe sITe Iz RetaRDed!!"
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #133969] |
Sun, 23 January 2005 18:53 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| msgtpain |
see above, see above, see above" What the hell does that show? That you made one conclusion and want to tie everything back to it?
|
What it means is that the same explanation is viable for all of them. It's very clever, I must say. Sorry if you didn't get it.
| msgtpain |
Let me help you out here, since it appears you aren't really capable of reading a Web site you don't agree with.
|
Nice to see people follow my lead...
| Quote: |
66 percent agree strongly or somewhat that the news media "favor a liberal point of view." Only 26 percent disagree strongly or somewhat that the news media "favor a liberal point of view."
|
| Quote: |
39 percent think national network TV news is biased against conservative political groups such as the Christian Coalition, National Rifle Association, National Right to Life Committee, compared to only 14 percent who believe it is biased in favor of such groups. 41 percent believed TV news was even-handed toward conservative political groups.
|
| Quote: |
47% of voters believed the meida wanted Gore to win, while only 23% felt they wanted Bush to win
|
Where, may I ask, did these numbers come from, again?
KEY FINDINGS OF GALLUP POLL:
| Quote: |
By three-to-one, more Americans say that the media are too liberal (45%) than too conservative (15%).
|
| Quote: |
63% of conservatives think the news media are too liberal, as do 43% of moderates and even 18% of liberals.
|
In the summer of 2003, Princeton Survey Research Associates conducted a poll of 1,201 American adults
| Quote: |
Twice as many Americans believe news organizations are liberally (51 percent) rather than conservatively biased (26 percent).
|
| Quote: |
Not only do a majority of Republicans (by three-to-one) and independents (by two-to-one) see the news media liberally biased, Democrats do as well. Forty-one percent of Democrats perceive the media as liberally biased compared to 33 percent of Democrats who see it as conservatively biased
|
Did you actually not read what I said at all? What are the demographics for this gallup poll? They had a bad habit of skewing their sample groups for the 2004 election.
Oh, and even if a selected group of a thousand people think something doesn't make it so. A better way to analyze data is to look at hard facts COUGHMEDIAMATTERS instead of the rhetoric people have been told to recite.
| msgt |
So say it again, SuperFlyingRetard..
| Quote: |
Oh, and your website link is retarded. It says that the majority of America believes the media is liberally biased. But then, its factual tables at the bottom state that the majority of people believe the media is biased. Not liberally."
|
When you're wrong, just admit it.. continuing to argue your point which is obviously and factually wrong, is sort of childish. wait a minute, what else would I expect?
|
You fail to have read what I said. While I hate to get into semantics, I specifically referred to the tables that the second paragraph listed.
| pain |
That Web site definitely states the public feel that the media is biased LIBERALLY. So, are you willing to retract your accusation that it is "retarded" and give it a chance? Or would you rather find some other reason to believe its contents are "retarded".
That's such a great argument, can you tell I like it? " YOR PO1nT Iz R0nG Be CAusE tHe sITe Iz RetaRDed!!"
|
It's a 9 million page "thesis" paper based on surveys that I could not locate to have ever existed saying people think this. That's not much ground to stand on.
EDIT: Oh yeah, almost forgot;
| ACK |
People "hear" lots of things but that doesn't make it true, now does it? I heard you're a purple monkey dishwasher, but that doesn't make you one simply because I heard so.
|
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #133976] |
Sun, 23 January 2005 19:11 |
msgtpain
Messages: 663
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Okay, so the nine million page "thesis paper" that you don't want to read or acknowledge, is more misleading than a Web site with this as the first paragraph on their "About" page?
| Quote: |
Who We Are
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Conservative misinformation is defined as news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda.
|
Why are you attempting to "twist" what the argument was about in to something else that you can attempt to save face with, rather than just state you didn't read it carefully enough?
We're not here arguing the "demographics" of the polls, or whether or not they even existed.. You specifically stated that the Web site was "retarded" because you claimed it said one thing in the opening paragraph and something different in the poll data. <- That is not true, and I've shown you a half dozen quotes from the same page to prove it.
This isn't a "my page is better than your page" debate. You immediately discredited the biased Web site I produced to counter the biased Web site you produced, and now you can't even argue your original point of why.
Got milk?
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #133980] |
Sun, 23 January 2005 19:17 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| msgtpain |
Okay, so the 4000 line "thesis paper" that you don't want to read or acknowledge, is more misleading than a Web site with this as the first paragraph on their "About" page?
|
I did read it. Does it really say anything other than give polls about people thinking the media is slanted?
| msgtpain |
We're not here arguing the "demographics" of the polls, or whether or not they even existed.. You specifically stated that the Web site was "retarded" because you claimed it said one thing in the opening paragraph and something different in the poll data. <- That is not true, and I've shown you a half dozen quotes from the same page to prove it.
|
Are you ABSOLUTELY refusing to read what I said?
| SuperFlyingEngi |
It says that the majority of America believes the media is liberally biased. But then, its factual tables
|
TABLES. That's what I said. I have no desire to save face, especially not in front of someone like you. My name on the politics forums is established, unlike yours.
| pain |
This isn't a "my page is better than your page" debate. You immediately discredited the biased Web site I produced to counter the biased Web site you produced, and now you can't even argue your original point of why.
|
I did. You just can't read.
Also, if it interests you, the guy [David Brock] who founded media matters used to be one of the biggest conservative liars for Rupert Murdoch. He was one of those guys who made up all the Clinton scandals. Read his book sometime, Blinded by the Right.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #133984] |
Sun, 23 January 2005 19:21 |
msgtpain
Messages: 663
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
My name on the politics forums is established, unlike yours..
|
ROFL... exactly what name has been established for you? 16 y/o pompous liberal tool?
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #133985] |
Sun, 23 January 2005 19:23 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Address the issues.
Oh, and that would be a 14-year old.
No, I'm actually not overweight.
Correct.
Because I don't agree with you?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #133987] |
Sun, 23 January 2005 19:28 |
msgtpain
Messages: 663
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
No, I'm actually not overweight.
|
A 14 y/o self-proclaimed genious that thinks pompous means fat...
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Because I don't agree with you?
|
No, because it's glaringly obvious that you aren't even able to postulate your own arguments.. Everything I have ever heard from you sounds too much like the "half" of the conversation that you overheard your folks talking about, and any follow-ups to the thread are devoid of any critical material other than "see above, read it again, my dad publishes physics books." etc.
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #133989] |
Sun, 23 January 2005 19:34 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Which explains why you abandoned your position to me?
I think you may actually be dyslexic. You've repeatedly shown that you can't effectively comprehend what I've been telling you. Namely, what I specifically referred to. coughtables.
You seem to have missed the point once again. When I say See Above, I mean I've already offered an adept explanation of the topic directly above this one. I could either do that or copy & paste. You have a bit of a habit of re-iterating yourself, just like that website.
Now, are you going to actually think about what you're saying, or wave the white flag?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #133993] |
Sun, 23 January 2005 19:41 |
msgtpain
Messages: 663
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Which explains why you abandoned your position to me?
I think you may actually be dyslexic. You've repeatedly shown that you can't effectively comprehend what I've been telling you. Namely, what I specifically referred to. coughtables.
You seem to have missed the point once again. When I say See Above, I mean I've already offered an adept explanation of the topic directly above this one. I could either do that or copy & paste. You have a bit of a habit of re-iterating yourself, just like that website.
Now, are you going to actually think about what you're saying, or wave the white flag?
|
No, I guess I'll just wave the white flag and move on..
It's not as if anyone else who reads this thread in the future won't see what's going on.
You go ahead and run along knowing that you got the best of me, I wouldn't want to interfere with a good nights sleep before school tomorrow.
Chalk one up for the super engie..
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #133997] |
Sun, 23 January 2005 19:48 |
 |
Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
Fungus, I'll come off here and be honest. While I don't really like msgtpain for the disagreements he and I have had in the past, I can still respect the guy for being what he is: He's not a dumbass, you are. He makes well thought out posts and is articulate while you go to some website like this:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Conservative misinformation is defined as news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda.
and expect people to swallow it down like we're kids begging for milk at some birthday party where they don't serve it, and only give you some kind of juice instead?
I suggest you look at this and find ways to improve your forum... stance, for lack of a better word, so you'll not get hammered on so much. There IS a reason why most forum posters here tell you to STFU every time you post something, and these are the reasons why:
1) You don't make articulate posts. You simply agree with party lines and refuse to acknowedge that you're wrong in most cases. I could understand if someone didn't prove your guilt in being wrong, but every time I see this, you're beyond that point and continue to deny being wrong about something. This is why you get kicked from IRC because we're sick of seeing it over and over, and over, and over... and over...
2) You don't think for yourself, and if you do, somehow your thought processes got switched around with the soul of a Democrat that was 25 years old when they died.
3) You refuse to accept that someone else might be right in most, if not all, arguments held in this forum. For example... THIS FUCKING THREAD.
Pain hammered your ass sideways, upside down, and even hammered your ass like a nail into a piece of plywood... and you still go "but you didn't read what I said, so raise the white flag or do something else that would make you look like the fool, and not I."
Okay... I figure this place is an area for discussion and free exchange of ideas. I have a set of rules on the RA forum that goes like this:
1. Respect the beliefs of everyone else. This is a discussion forum, not a "omg im right no matter wut" forum.
2. Be civil, or else I'll lay down the BanHammer on you for a while.
3. Keep your arguments focused on allowing a free exchange of ideas to ensue, not "well ur wrong cuz i think ur stoopid."
4. Have fun.
You violate 1 and 3 every time you post. Every one of your posts radiates that "I'm a fucking troller looking for fish to bite my lame arguments" kind of energy that shows all you care about is riling people up. You go into my IRC channel and talk about Rumsfeld having a case brought up against him in Germany AS IF ANYONE CARED! We're not there to fucking read your bullshit about politics. The ONLY time you bother going there is when someone like Aurora bans you from #n00bstories so you end up having to find another place to troll your fishing line at.
To be honest? This doctored image of Hitler eating a watermelon makes more sense than you do.
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #134002] |
Sun, 23 January 2005 20:02 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
msgtpain has a much better name around here than you'll ever have, SuperLiberalTool. Ever heard of a server called "The Pits"?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Media Bias Thread [message #134010] |
Sun, 23 January 2005 20:12 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| ACK |
Fungus, I'll come off here and be honest. While I don't really like msgtpain for the disagreements he and I have had in the past, I can still respect the guy for being what he is: He's not a dumbass, you are. He makes well thought out posts and is articulate while you go to some website like this:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Conservative misinformation is defined as news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda.
and expect people to swallow it down like we're kids begging for milk at some birthday party where they don't serve it, and only give you some kind of juice instead?
|
Did you look at the site? All it does is show the guests that appeared on the various shows inauguration day. I fail to see how that can be biased.
Oh, and you think msgtpain is articulate? I laugh in your face.
| ACK |
I suggest you look at this and find ways to improve your forum... stance, for lack of a better word, so you'll not get hammered on so much. There IS a reason why most forum posters here tell you to STFU every time you post something, and these are the reasons why:
|
1a) Heavy-handed conservative ideology.
| ACK |
1) You don't make articulate posts. You simply agree with party lines and refuse to acknowedge that you're wrong in most cases. I could understand if someone didn't prove your guilt in being wrong, but every time I see this, you're beyond that point and continue to deny being wrong about something. This is why you get kicked from IRC because we're sick of seeing it over and over, and over, and over... and over...
|
I fail to see how you believe pain is more articulate than I am.
Oh, and speaking of not being able to admit incorrectness,
Do you or do you not have any reason at all to believe that the Clintonites trashed the White House before they left?
| ACK |
2) You don't think for yourself, and if you do, somehow your thought processes got switched around with the soul of a Democrat that was 25 years old when they died.
|
Thinking for myself and not believing in what you hold as an article of faith are two entirely different things, you know...
| ACK |
3) You refuse to accept that someone else might be right in most, if not all, arguments held in this forum. For example... THIS FUCKING THREAD.
Pain hammered your ass sideways, upside down, and even hammered your ass like a nail into a piece of plywood... and you still go "but you didn't read what I said, so raise the white flag or do something else that would make you look like the fool, and not I."
|
msgt failed to do anything but stick by a site that merely refers to vague, untraceable polls about how people feel the media is biased, not necessarily even liberally. In your OWN WORDS;
| ACK |
People "hear" lots of things but that doesn't make it true, now does it? I heard you're a purple monkey dishwasher, but that doesn't make you one simply because I heard so.
|
And he did indeed fail to read what I said. If you would go back and read what I said...
| ACK |
Okay... I figure this place is an area for discussion and free exchange of ideas. I have a set of rules on the RA forum that goes like this:
1. Respect the beliefs of everyone else. This is a discussion forum, not a "omg im right no matter wut" forum.
2. Be civil, or else I'll lay down the BanHammer on you for a while.
3. Keep your arguments focused on allowing a free exchange of ideas to ensue, not "well ur wrong cuz i think ur stoopid."
4. Have fun.
|
That's nice.
| ACK |
You violate 1 and 3 every time you post. Every one of your posts radiates that "I'm a fucking troller looking for fish to bite my lame arguments" kind of energy that shows all you care about is riling people up. You go into my IRC channel and talk about Rumsfeld having a case brought up against him in Germany AS IF ANYONE CARED! We're not there to fucking read your bullshit about politics. The ONLY time you bother going there is when someone like Aurora bans you from #n00bstories so you end up having to find another place to troll your fishing line at.
|
I have posted ONE political thought in #renalert. And Aurora never gives straight reasons as to why he bans me. I think he has an OCD that makes his mind light up in a frenzy whenever he sees my name.
I do respect the beliefs of other people. That in no way implies or states that I cannot argue against their opinion.
Heh, this is a good one. Have you yet to realize that I am one of the least slanderous posters on this forum? I recieve multiple insults in almost every countering post to mine, and yet how many times do I return them? Incredibly rarely.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 07 03:24:45 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01198 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
)
