liberal media bias is real

There is this wonderful filter that Yurt and others fail to see past, media is corporate owned and operated, it cannot be liberal nor even conservative. I'm not sure what ideological frame I would use on it, but consider only that China's Walmart advertises there and if you have ever see tough hard hitting stories on their deplorable pay and union busting on MSM let me know. Media needs ads plain and simple, they are hardly liberal.


"Russell Baker, legendary columnist for the New York Times, put the matter well in December 2003: "Today's topdrawer Washington news people are part of a highly educated, upper middle class elite; they belong to the culture for which the American system works extremely well. Which is to say, they are, in the pure sense of the word, extremely [corporatist] conservative.""
 
Oh God. How many times does this "liberal Bias" crap have to be shot down? Please explain to me how the media's pro Isaraelis bias is liberal bias?

Please explain how the medias opposition to labor organization efforts and how they report it as a threat to consumers is a liberal bias?

Please explain to me their failure to look at the Bush administrations run up to war in Iraq with a critical view and facilitating the administrations beating of the war drums is a liberal bias?

Please explain to me how their failure to discredit the birthers/he's a muslim faction during Obama's campaign as a liberal bias?

You wing nuts seem to draw this conclusion that if somone isn't singing to your choir that they have a liberal bias. It's more then silly, it's plain stupid.

Midcan is right, there's other bias in the news media that are of more concern the some mythological liberal bias.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh God. How many times does this "liberal Bias" crap have to be shot down? Please explain to me how the media's pro Isaraelis bias is liberal bias?

Please explain how the medias opposition to labor organization efforts and how they report it as a threat to consumers is a liberal bias?

Please explain to me their failure to look at the Bush administrations run up to war in Iraq
Click to expand...

did you even read the ACLU article
 
Yurt said:
what is amazing is that this is a UCLA study......



http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx


but oh noze....fox is teh eveel
Click to expand...

Oh, Christ. That UCLA "study" was debunked as crap within weeks of its 2005 release. I can't believe somebody here brought that piece of shit up. The idiots that published it were shredded on their utyterly bogus methodology in peer reviews All they did was count every mention of recognizeable liberal and conservative individuals and groups, and in the media outlets they "examined" for the period of the study, the liberal names and organizations were mentioned more often. They concluded from that raw data that the media were liberal.

There was "ONLY" one problem with their data: IT WASN'T FILTERED QUALITATIVELY, SO IT WAS FUCKING WORTHLESS What do i mean by filterd qualitatively? There was no examination of the context of the mention, whether it was positive, neutral, or negative, there was no differentiation between a puff piece or a verbal ass-whuppin'. A mention was a mention was a mention. To draw a parallel to JPP, that study would have concluded that JPP had a HUGE liberal bias, because of the many, many times ACORN is mentioned on these threads, but we all know the reality is the right-wing obsession with slamming ACORN.

The peer review process caught the basd methodology almost immediately, but it took a while to ere-examine the raw data and assign values to it, but the drubbing the study got didn't get nearly the coverage the original steaming load of bullshit got, and a few months later, when the data retabulation was finished, the result wasn't mnentioned at all. Why? BECAUSE THE MEDIA ARE CORPORATELY OWNED, AND NOT LIBERAL BY ANY STANDARDS OR STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, AND THE POLITICAL LEANINGS OF THE ON-AIR PERSONALITIES ARE IRRELEVENT IF THEY DIFFER FROM THEB POSITION OF THE CORPORATION THAT OWNS THE OUTLET. It is as I've said before: if there is a conflict between the guy who signs the paychecks, and the people who cash them, the signer always wins.

The University of Maryland study is considered the gold standard on political bias, since it examined the political eself-identification of the talking-head guests on the major news interview and analysis programs (Face the Nation, Meet the Press, George Stefanopoulos,etc., during both the Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations, with the assumption that a truly neutral media would have the same percentage of guests from each party, regsardless of whicjh was in power: 50-50 dems to GOP, or if they opted to fulfill their adversarial erole envisioned by Jefferson, they would have more of the opposition party on, to keep the party in power honest, or at least on their toes, more GOP on during the clinton years, more Dems on during the Bush years, what they found was a few more GOP on during the Clinton years, and a LOT more GOP on during the Bush years, a clear conservative bias.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
 
do you have a link that supports your claim to this alleged debunking?

and if you think the media has a conservative bias, you're smoking some bad crack dude....
 
Yurt said:
do you have a link that supports your claim to this alleged debunking?

and if you think the media has a conservative bias, you're smoking some bad crack dude....
Click to expand...


A link? Sure.The link you posted will do just fine. I assume you examined the methodology they used yourself...or didn't you check it out before you posted it?

As far as what I'm smoking, how do you figure a corporately owned media are going to report with a bias that runs counter to their position? They aren't. That ewas the whole purpose of relaxing the ownership rules for media outlets that has been going on since the Reagan administration. That doesn't require a link, just common sense.
 
zoombwaz said:
A link? Sure.The link you posted will do just fine. I assume you examined the methodology they used yourself...or didn't you check it out before you posted it?

As far as what I'm smoking, how do you figure a corporately owned media are going to report with a bias that runs counter to their position? They aren't. That ewas the whole purpose of relaxing the ownership rules for media outlets that has been going on since the Reagan administration. That doesn't require a link, just common sense.
Click to expand...

Mr. Counsellor Yurt must have used due diligence, mustn't he?
 
DNC said:
You also thought it was a "safe way to go" that you'd have 8 years of McSame/Failin', didn't you? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I would have preferred it.....I had anticipated that whoever the Dumbs ran against Bush would win, however....what I hadn't anticipated was Obama fucking things up so fast........his lack of political experience is really showing right now.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the Dumbs didn't run Obama against McCain and Palin....the Dumbs ran Obama against Bush.......try and keep up....
Click to expand...

I get it. In your mind "Dumbs" refers to the majority of the electorate, not the behavior exhibited by the GOP. And you still maintain that Bush was on the 2008 ballot. My mistake. Got it. :cof1:
 
DNC said:
I get it. In your mind "Dumbs" refers to the majority of the electorate, not the behavior exhibited by the GOP. And you still maintain that Bush was on the 2008 ballot. My mistake. Got it. :cof1:
Click to expand...
the fact that you didn't get it the first time just confirms it's true....
 
zoombwaz said:
A link? Sure.The link you posted will do just fine. I assume you examined the methodology they used yourself...or didn't you check it out before you posted it?

As far as what I'm smoking, how do you figure a corporately owned media are going to report with a bias that runs counter to their position? They aren't. That ewas the whole purpose of relaxing the ownership rules for media outlets that has been going on since the Reagan administration. That doesn't require a link, just common sense.
Click to expand...

you lied then....it is nothing more than your opinion....you made it seem as if it was widely debunked when in fact it was not...only tools like you who don't want to accept the study....and UCLA still stands by the article and its findings....

face it, liberal media bias is real
 
Yurt said:
you lied then....it is nothing more than your opinion....you made it seem as if it was widely debunked when in fact it was not...only tools like you who don't want to accept the study....and UCLA still stands by the article and its findings....

face it, liberal media bias is real
Click to expand...


I didn't lie. I used facts ad logic , ewhich always lead to the truth, if the facts quoted are indeed factual and true, and the logic is valid, not merely an opinion. It is a fact that the methodology was wrong, not an opinion. It is an undeniable fact that if you are doing a study to detrrmine whether or not there is media bias, you can't tally a negative or neutral mention of a liberal person or organization and claim that shows a positive bias toward that person or organization. The "study" you touted did exactly that, which makes that so-called study a steaming pile of worthless bullshit, and speaking of worthless bullshit, if you can't differentiate between opinion, and a valid logical argument predicated on empirica; evidence, then your posts are worthless opinion, and given your complete and documented inability to know when the GOP is lying to you, (hint: their lips are moving), you should probably hold off calling me a liar, you half-witted, butt-ignorant, dim-bulb, dull-tool, simple-minded, in-breeding-shallow-end-of-the-gene-pool-family-tree-does-not-fork, slack-jawed yokel. And as my Spanish-speaking friends say, "Senor, su Caballo.":321:

BTW. who gives a shit if UCLA still stands by the study? It's an illogical piece of excrement, and your agument that UCLA still standfs by it is a logical fallacy known as "the argument fcrfom authority," an invalid argument which assumes that an argument posited by an "authority" has the effec of being true simply because the alleged authority was the source. The argument must stand on its own, and the UCLA argument does not. Quod erat demonstrandum.


Cretin.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top