Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

OTP- August 2012: The Leader Post: New stadium won’t have same appeal, says Bill ‘Spaceman’ Lee

“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”

The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.

“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”

With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.

“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

Guess what, its the new OT politics thread!

Tripon Posted: August 01, 2012 at 12:04 AM | 5975 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 39 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >  Last ›
   3801. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:57 AM (#4216654)
I just want to announce that I've been sitting out this portion of the argument. For no reason, other than I'm better than all of you. I'm above it.

I will note, re the Empire State Building Shooting, that despite being just scant blocks away from there at the time, I am fine and was unharmed.

For any of you who was concerned.
   3802. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:01 AM (#4216659)
I just want to announce that I've been sitting out this portion of the argument.

Yeah, this one's getting kinda repetitive. I'm probably sitting out until Sam says something ridiculous.
   3803. Lassus Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:04 AM (#4216663)
And as a result, I consider someone who is against gay marriage or for laws against sodomy to be in the exact same boat and given the exact same regard to people who are against free speech for corporations that profit in currency but for free speech for corporations that profit in non-currency. The distinction in the latter obviously exists in law, but it's completely unjustified.

What other human rights would you give to corporations that currently only apply to human beings? All of them? There is no distinction at all? I asked before, and I am still confused.

I wish Gaelan would show up to speak about humanity and personhood, because something about making human beings and legal entities completely equal - using relationships and sexuality as an example - strikes me as morally shaky.
   3804. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:04 AM (#4216664)
Yeah, this one's getting kinda repetitive. I'm probably sitting out until Sam says something ridiculous.


Sorry. I got distracted playing softball and running around in the real world having fun and ####. I've missed most of the last page. What are you getting 1000% wrong today, Dan?
   3805. GregD Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4216675)
I will note, re the Empire State Building Shooting, that despite being just scant blocks away from there at the time, I am fine and was unharmed.
Glad to hear it. I am uptown today and have been waffling between wanting updates from everyone I know in that part of midtown and recognizing that it's ridiculous to expect hundreds of people to send such reassurance.
   3806. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM (#4216679)
And as a result, I consider someone who is against gay marriage or for laws against sodomy to be in the exact same boat and given the exact same regard to people who are against free speech for corporations that profit in currency but for free speech for corporations that profit in non-currency. The distinction in the latter obviously exists in law, but it's completely unjustified.


I sort of like this analogy. I don't agree with it, but it does illustrate some of the issues.

To be clear I am against granting the right of free speech to any non-person. I am willing to give more leeway in regulations around non-profits (but still not make it a right) because they are organized for a specific purpose and have pretty strict regulations around how they spend money. For profits basically have the mandate of making money, which while economically valuable doesn't have the social heft that a non-profit has.

However (and again) in neither case am I for granting non-people the rights of people. I would like more clarification on what "profit in non-currency" actually means. Profit is pretty much a currency related term in my mind and does not really branch out to non-profits in my mind.
   3807. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:24 AM (#4216684)
I wish Gaelan would show up to speak about humanity and personhood, because something about making human beings and legal entities completely equal - using relationships and sexuality as an example - strikes me as morally shaky.


Of course it does. Because it shocks your worldview.
   3808. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4216687)
The law, as it exists, considers "profit" and "non-profit" voluntary corporate relationships differently.


Yes, yes it does.
Among other things the ownership and tax structures are different, and the law also treats the following entities differently:

Sole Proprietorship
Joint Enterprise
Common Law Partnership
Limited Partnership
Limited Liability Partnership
Corporation
Not for Profit Corporation
Professional Corporation
Limited Liability Company

There are differences between how they are owned, who can own them, the fiduciary duties owed by the board (or equivalent)- to whom such duty is owed, etc. How they are taxed, are they taxed or does all income pass through, what form ownership shares take and how they can be sold (or not be sold). There are differences in how the "owners" are treated, their liability for the acts or liabilities of the entity .
   3809. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:33 AM (#4216690)
Yeah, this one's getting kinda repetitive. I'm probably sitting out until Sam says something ridiculous.


You really want to encourage him don't you.
   3810. Lassus Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:33 AM (#4216691)
Of course it does. Because it shocks your worldview.

No, Ray, anything involving humanity shocks you, not me.
   3811. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:36 AM (#4216695)
In unrelated news, an armed man ran amok in a shopping mall in Sweden on Wednesday. He was armed only with a knife, not a gun, and only three people were injured with no deaths. I'm sure those two facts are unrelated.
   3812. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:36 AM (#4216696)
Among other things the ownership and tax structures are different, and the law also treats the following entities differently


For pretty good reasons too. Having a choice in how to structure with different pluses and minuses allows groups of people to find the structure that fits them. From an economic efficiency perspective this is a good thing. It is also likely good from a societal good perspective (but that is not as clear cut).

So which have the rights of people, and which rights do they get? I suppose from a libertarian perspective* where the important rights seem to revolve around owning stuff (I am simplifying feel free to correct me) I suppose this is a reasonably easy question to answer.

* As relayed by ... ummm. Good Face I think in response to a question I asked a month or so ago. But as I have said before my memory is terrible so if it wasn't GF I am sorry.
   3813. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:37 AM (#4216699)
#3811 Guns don't kill people people kill people, but guns make it much much easier (that is what they are for after all).
   3814. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4216708)

How's the economy doing today?
   3815. formerly dp Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:43 AM (#4216710)
because something about making human beings and legal entities completely equal - using relationships and sexuality as an example - strikes me as morally shaky.


Because it's a terrible analogy if you spend more than 4 seconds thinking about it. The issue with gay marriage isn't just about conferring formal legal rights, but about the cultural value ascribed to the institution of marriage-- which is why advocates for homosexual rights have rejected civil unions as an inadequate "compromise."

And that's after spending 10 seconds thinking about it, which is about 9 more than it warrants.
   3816. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4216719)
How's the economy doing today?


Well the Stock Market is so - so. Why, is the economy special today?

   3817. Lassus Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:53 AM (#4216721)
Well the Stock Market is so - so. Why, is the economy special today?

The liberal media cares more about people being shot at one of the biggest tourist draws in the nation instead of today's economy.
   3818. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:54 AM (#4216722)
Wait a minute. Someone tried to equate corporate "personhood" with civil rights for gays and lesbians? It was either Ray or Dan, wasn't it?
   3819. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4216726)
Because it's a terrible analogy if you spend more than 4 seconds thinking about it. The issue with gay marriage isn't just about conferring formal legal rights, but about the cultural value ascribed to the institution of marriage-- which is why advocates for homosexual rights have rejected civil unions as an inadequate "compromise."


Well, that, plus there are legal reasons as well why "civil unions" wouldn't suffice -- relating to whether other states accept it as a legally defined marriage.

   3820. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4216730)
He was armed only with a knife, not a gun, and only three people were injured with no deaths. I'm sure those two facts are unrelated.


This happen in China a lot, guns are simply unavailable... and yet some of these guys can injure and even kill a surprisingly high number of people- just two weeks ago a 17 year old stabbed 9 people to death after a fight with his GF's family.
   3821. Greg K Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:10 PM (#4216735)
This happen in China a lot, guns are simply unavailable... and yet some of these guys can injure and even kill a surprisingly high number of people- just two weeks ago a 17 year old stabbed 9 people to death after a fight with his GF's family.

I think the Taiping Rebellion proved you don't always need firearms to kill millions and millions of people.
   3822. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:11 PM (#4216736)
So which have the rights of people, and which rights do they get?


They generally all have the right to sue and be sued (the right to get sued is important- the ability to sue a corporation and not the corporation's owners is very important, likewise the owner's lose the ability to sue (in their own names) for the debts owed to the corporation.

With regard to partnerships - if a partnership owes you money you can sue the partnership- you can also sue each individual partner.

With regard to Limited Partnerships- you can sue the partnership, you can also sue the general partner(s), you can't sue the limited partners.

   3823. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4216748)
In unrelated news, an armed man ran amok in a shopping mall in Sweden on Wednesday. He was armed only with a knife, not a gun, and only three people were injured with no deaths. I'm sure those two facts are unrelated.


Pointing to a single example as representative? That's pretty laughable.

Knives can do a lot of damage, you might have heard. I believe that there are even a few cases in recorded human history of people being killed with a knife.

Can guns do more damage than knives? Sure, but you're missing the boat here. Driving your car through a crowd of people can do a lot more damage than a gun. Should cars be banned? Should knives?

People really have an oddly simplistic view of this issue.
   3824. formerly dp Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4216749)
Well, that, plus there are legal reasons as well why "civil unions" wouldn't suffice -- relating to whether other states accept it as a legally defined marriage.


The emotional desire for the status conferred by the term "marriage" has been consistently articulated as important to homosexual couples-- they want more than just formal legal equality. But TAFKAR's legendary inability to comprehend human emotions will I'm sure prevent you from recognizing this.
   3825. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4216760)
The emotional desire for the status conferred by the term "marriage" has been consistently articulated as important to homosexual couples-- they want more than just formal legal equality. But TAFKAR's legendary inability to comprehend human emotions will I'm sure prevent you from recognizing this.


What the hell? I specifically recognized that, in the comment you quoted in your post.

I was agreeing with you, 100%.
   3826. zenbitz Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4216761)
Do families have human rights? Families and corporation are both groups of people with particular legal status.
   3827. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4216762)
I think the Taiping Rebellion proved you don't always need firearms to kill millions and millions of people.

Well, it doesn't hurt to stretch it out for 15 years, give the Empire's army plenty of modern artillery that can slaughter rebels on a wholesale basis, and then throw in recurring plagues and famines. I'm sure they had lots of ways of killing people long before the invention of gunpower, but a modern knife-wielding terrorist or madman is going to have to outrun his victims one by one or get them locked into a small space.

Obviously we've simply accepted the idea of nearly unlimited and unrestricted gun ownership (and periodic mass murders) as the price to be paid for whatever the hell we think we're buying with it, but it's hardly an accident that among first world countries we have a murder rate that puts us to shame.
   3828. Lassus Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM (#4216764)
Driving your car through a crowd of people can do a lot more damage than a gun. Should cars be banned? Should knives?

The car thing is a fine defense for a random loon. This guy was a specific loon, so the idea that he could have even remotely have figured out how to run his guy over in Herald Square is pretty dumb. Not only that, if he had decided to defend himself from the police with the hypothetical knife he had just killed his victim with, I kind of doubt there would have been as many people hurt by stray... stabbing.

Equivalency fail.


Do families have human rights? Families and corporation are both groups of people with particular legal status.

...that are completely different. A family is not invented by laws. What on earth are you trying to prove?
   3829. rr Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:36 PM (#4216767)
Driving your car through a crowd of people can do a lot more damage than a gun.


No way. Elwood Blues drove his car through a huge mall and no one even got hurt--just broke up some storefronts is all.
   3830. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:38 PM (#4216769)
Can guns do more damage than knives? Sure, but you're missing the boat here. Driving your car through a crowd of people can do a lot more damage than a gun. Should cars be banned? Should knives?

Yes, and there's no "logical" reason why private individuals shouldn't be allowed to buy and sell battlefield-scaled bazookas and biological weapons on the open market. You never know what you might need to defend yourself against the tyranny of an IRS audit, and who are we to make these nitpicking distinctions?
   3831. Lassus Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:44 PM (#4216783)
As an edit to #3828, I for some reason have always had a problem not considering the Empire State Building part of Herald Square, which it pretty clearly isn't. He would indeed have a far easier time running a specific person down on 5th and 33rd than on 6th and 33rd. I still think it would be quite a feat, though, getting up any speed in the distance required to find the person he was looking for in the crowds in that area. It's just not really feasible.
   3832. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:47 PM (#4216787)
Elwood Blues drove his car through a huge mall and no one even got hurt--just broke up some storefronts is all.


"Disco pants and haircuts."

"This mall's got everything."
   3833. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:48 PM (#4216789)
This happen in China a lot, guns are simply unavailable... and yet some of these guys can injure and even kill a surprisingly high number of people- just two weeks ago a 17 year old stabbed 9 people to death after a fight with his GF's family.


Well yes, but all of those guys are flying Shaolin monks.

Cue lecture from Lassus about ethnic sensitivity in 5..4..3...
   3834. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4216793)
The liberal media cares more about people being shot at one of the biggest tourist draws in the nation instead of absolutely anything other than today's economy.

Fixed.
   3835. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:50 PM (#4216794)
Pointing to a single example as representative? That's pretty laughable.


Sure.

Can guns do more damage than knives? Sure, but you're missing the boat here. Driving your car through a crowd of people can do a lot more damage than a gun. Should cars be banned? Should knives?


Using equally ridiculous false equivalency in the very same post. Laughable.
   3836. formerly dp Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM (#4216797)
What the hell? I specifically recognized that, in the comment you quoted in your post.


In your response to Lassus, you endorsed the analogy. My post showed why the two weren't analogous; I assumed you were being sarcastic in your post, rather than agreeing that the two situations (gay/straight marriage and profit/non-profits) are incongruous due to the emotional component present in the former.
   3837. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:52 PM (#4216799)
Can guns do more damage than knives? Sure, but you're missing the boat here. Driving your car through a crowd of people can do a lot more damage than a gun. Should cars be banned? Should knives?


Hold up a minute fellas. You're giving the RayBot too much of a pass here. Cars can not do more damage as a weapon than a gun. They might be able to do more damage on the first pass, but they're hella difficult to reload and re-target/aim after the herd has been spooked. A dedicated resource with an assault rifle and basic training could kill more people on the street than a guy running wild with a car. The fact that Ray doesn't know how to use a gun doesn't make this less true.

The right to bear arms is descended from the ban on non-nobility classes to carry swords in medieval times.
   3838. steagles Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4216801)
Yes, and there's no "logical" reason why private individuals shouldn't be allowed to buy and sell battlefield-scaled bazookas and biological weapons on the open market. You never know what you might need to defend yourself against the tyranny of an IRS audit, and who are we to make these nitpicking distinctions?
interestingly, there happens to be a currently serving supreme court justice who completely agrees with you.


**that's a link to breitbart, by the way, where the headline from that interview wasn't that scalia advocated for the personal ownership of rocket propelled grenade launchers, but rather, that the liberal media had falsely accused him of advocating for limitations on the second ammendments.**
   3839. formerly dp Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4216802)
Fixed.


Have you started counting yet? Maybe it's because I'm listening to the conservative propaganda outlet NPR, but I've heard at least 3 stories about the economy this morning.
   3840. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 24, 2012 at 12:56 PM (#4216805)
Uh Joe, Economics is kind of boring. And I studied it and liked it a great deal relative to a huge percentage of people. The numbers all kind of blend together and it forms a fairly uninteresting narrative.

Fun game, we should count the number of times "Liberal" is used as an adjective versus the number of times "Conservative" is used. Honestly among conservatives the inability to form a sentence discussing politics without inserting random "Liberal"s into it is roughly akin to trying to get socially awkward teens to talk without "ummm" and "well" and "yeah" although perhaps I should use the generic "you know" instead.

You know?
   3841. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4216816)
Have you started counting yet? Maybe it's because I'm listening to the conservative propaganda outlet NPR, but I've heard at least 3 stories about the economy this morning.

No need to start counting. Anyone claiming there's as much focus on the economy this year as there was in "It's the economy, stupid" 1992 is either dishonest or delusional. And 1992's economy was far better than 2012's.

Uh Joe, Economics is kind of boring.

It was boring back in 1992 as well, but that didn't stop the media from pounding away at Bush 24/7.
   3842. billyshears Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:04 PM (#4216819)
Knives can do a lot of damage, you might have heard. I believe that there are even a few cases in recorded human history of people being killed with a knife.

Can guns do more damage than knives? Sure, but you're missing the boat here. Driving your car through a crowd of people can do a lot more damage than a gun. Should cars be banned? Should knives?

People really have an oddly simplistic view of this issue.


I actually think you're making this oddly complicated. There's no reason to think about the damage one can do with a knife or a car in debating whether gun-control is a legitimate objective.
   3843. steagles Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:05 PM (#4216820)
Fun game, we should count the number of times "Liberal" is used as an adjective versus the number of times "Conservative" is used. Honestly among conservatives the inability to form a sentence discussing politics without inserting random "Liberal"s into it is roughly akin to trying to get socially awkward teens to talk without "ummm" and "well" and "yeah" although perhaps I should use the generic "you know" instead.

You know?
i do.
   3844. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4216821)
It was boring back in 1992 as well, but that didn't stop the media from pounding away at Bush 24/7.


Confirmation bias and people's ability to apply patterns to things that are without pattern are two of the more interesting attributes people have. They have strong evolutionary underpinnings I am sure, but they don't seem to help much in the modern world.
   3845. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4216824)
Confirmation bias and people's ability to apply patterns to things that are without pattern are two of the more interesting attributes people have. They have strong evolutionary underpinnings I am sure, but they don't seem to help much in the modern world.

Wait, so 1992 wasn't "It's the economy, stupid"? I'm imagining that?
   3846. Lassus Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4216828)
Wait, so 1992 wasn't "It's the economy, stupid"? I'm imagining that?

No one said you were, and you weren't, I was there too.

They are saying that at 20 or so, in undergrad I assume, you weren't counting the broadcasts about the economy vs. everything else - specifically in regards to the election - for future debate purposes.
   3847. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:17 PM (#4216839)
Wait, so 1992 wasn't "It's the economy, stupid"? I'm imagining that?


1992 was NEVER as simple as "It's the economy, stupid." Anyone that thinks it was, was not paying attention and has fallen for the sound bite recap of electoral history. 1992 was a very complex election with three major candidates and plenty of cross currents between them. At some point I think all three were ahead, in the middle, and behind (in either polls, narrative, or both).

Do you really think that "It's the economy, stupid" really sums up the entirety of 1992? Really? Sure it is a nice phrase and after the election it got a bunch of praise (oddly the winner's slogan is always seen as better than the loser's), but during the election the economy was just a part of the story. Of course the economy is ALWAYS part of the story for presidential elections, but I am not convinced it was more important in 1992 than any other election - cool sound bite to the contrary.
   3848. formerly dp Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4216853)
No need to start counting.


Yeah, I mean, why let objectively-obtained empirical evidence unscrew your persecution complex.

You still haven't explained why the competing companies who own the various commercial media outlets in this country, each of which is deeply invested in different aspects of America's political and economic stability, would allow their mid-level employees to consistently advocate on behalf of one major party, at the expense of the other.
   3849. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4216856)
1992 was NEVER as simple as "It's the economy, stupid." Anyone that thinks it was, was not paying attention and has fallen for the sound bite recap of electoral history. 1992 was a very complex election with three major candidates and plenty of cross currents between them.

OK, what were all of the other major issues in the "complex" 1992 election? If not for a liberal media that gleefully went along with "It's the economy, stupid" despite the '92 economy not being half as bad as Clinton (and the media) claimed, the entire narrative of the '92 election would have been different.
   3850. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4216863)
Yeah, I mean, why let objectively-obtained empirical evidence unscrew your persecution complex.

It's funny you keep mentioning evidence. Are you ever going to produce any of the studies you claim disprove the notion of liberal media bias?
   3851. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4216866)
Forbes magazine and Pew Research just issued a report (Study Of Presidential Race Finds Coverage Of Candidates Overwhelmingly Negative) on coverage of presidential candidates going back to 2000 And since nobody here seems to like to click on links, here's their methodology...

Coverage of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, especially on cable TV and leading news websites, is increasingly driven by the campaigns themselves, resulting in one of the most negative elections this country has seen in decades. That’s the conclusion of a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, which looked at more than 800 news stories produced by top newspapers, websites, and television and radio shows during the general election campaign.

Pew’s researchers took the 1,772 assertions contained within those stories and divided them into categories in order to tease out the “master narratives” surrounding the characters of the candidates. (“Character” is used somewhat loosely here, referring basically to any personal attributes of the candidates.)


...and here's what it reports:

Postive-Negative percentage
2012

Romney 29-71
Obama 28-72
(GOP + 1)

2008
McCain 43-57
Obama 69-31
(Dem + 26)

2004
Bush 25-75
Kerry 30-70
(Dem + 5)

2000
Bush 48-52
Gore 20-80
(GOP + 28)

Sure looks like an ongoing conspiracy to me.
   3852. Lassus Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4216867)
Are you ever going to produce any of the studies you claim disprove the notion of liberal media bias?

He did, pages ago. That you don't care or agree really doesn't mean it didn't happen.
   3853. formerly dp Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4216873)
OK, what were all of the other major issues in the "complex" 1992 election? If not for a liberal media that gleefully went along with "It's the economy, stupid" despite the '92 economy not being half as bad as Clinton (and the media) claimed, the entire narrative of the '92 election would have been different.


It would be great of there were a whole body of scholarship devoted to studying this, so that we didn't have to rely on your selective and admittedly biased memory to inform us.

Here's what one recent study of that election found :
Grabe and Bucy found the volume of news coverage focusing exclusively on each party -- one measure of media bias -- favored Republicans. Their research found there were more single-party stories about Republicans overall and in each election year except 1992. When they studied the time duration of these stories, no pattern of favoritism was evident.


Here's a study on the coverage of economic news in general(speaks more to what Bitter Mouse was discussing). His suggestions seem to fit pretty well with how the economy is being covered in this election-- a lot of doom and gloom, with the expectation that the struggling economy will be the biggest factor in deciding the election. The explosion over the abortion issue this week doesn't change any of that, at least from the meta-analysis I've heard on NPR this week.

It's funny you keep mentioning evidence. Are you ever going to produce any of the studies you claim disprove the notion of liberal media bias?


I posted them on the last page-- messed up the formatting on a few links, but if your read the first few pages of the academic studies, they provide a really concise summary of the history of debates around media bias, with rich lit reviews that will point you to the pertinent literature. But if counting is too much to ask, I'm not expecting you to try to wrap your head around a social science publication.
   3854. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4216874)
3849. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4216856)



OK, what were all of the other major issues in the "complex" 1992 election? If not for a liberal


Drink.

3850. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4216863)




It's funny you keep mentioning evidence. Are you ever going to produce any of the studies you claim disprove the notion of liberal media bias


Make it a double.
   3855. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4216877)
If not for a liberal media that gleefully went along with "It's the economy, stupid" despite the '92 economy not being half as bad as Clinton (and the media) claimed,

First, "It's the economy, stupid" was a slogan drummed into Clinton campaign workers by Carville, that was REPORTED by the media, mostly because it was a pithy way of describing the message of one campaign. "Who would you rather have a beer with?" was a similar narrative in 2000, pushed by the Bush campaign and repeated ad nauseum in countless stories. Perhaps that's reflected in the Pew findings above that showed the 28% gap in positive coverage that (that year) favored the Republicans.

But I'm sure you'll find a way to explain that gap away. This gets better by the minute.

Here's a slightly more objective perspective on that 1992 election, in Wiki of all places:

Several factors made the results possible. First, the campaign came on the heels of an economic slowdown. Exit polling shows[23] that 75% thought the economy was in Fairly Bad or Very Bad shape while 63% thought their personal finances were better or the same as four years ago. The decision by Bush to accept a tax increase adversely affected his re-election bid. Pressured by rising budget deficits, Bush agreed to a budget compromise with Congress which raised taxes. Clinton was able to condemn the tax increase effectively on both its own merits and as a reflection of Bush's honesty. Effective Democratic TV ads were aired showing a clip of Bush's infamous 1988 campaign speech in which he promised "Read my lips ... No new taxes." Most importantly, Bush's coalition was in disarray, for both the aforementioned reasons and for unrelated reasons. The end of the Cold War allowed old rivalries among conservatives to re-emerge and meant that other voters focused more on domestic policy, to the detriment of Bush, a social and fiscal moderate. The consequence of such a perception depressed conservative turnout.[24]
   3856. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4216880)
OK, what were all of the other major issues in the "complex" 1992 election?


OK I'll play. From Wikipedia:

The United States presidential election of 1992 had three major candidates: Incumbent Republican President George H. W. Bush; Democratic Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, and independent Texas businessman Ross Perot.

Bush had alienated much of his conservative base by breaking his 1988 campaign pledge against raising taxes, the economy was in a recession, and Bush's perceived greatest strength, foreign policy, was regarded as much less important following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the relatively peaceful climate in the Middle East after the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War.


The economy mattered. It also mattered that there were three major candidates*. And "Read my lips, no new taxes" mattered to conservatives who felt betrayed. And the whole foreign policy bit mentioned above mattered.

It really was never only about the economy.

* I remember noticing a long stretch where Bill was in third place (MSM narrative) and both Bush and Perot ignored him and went after each other. Without that stretch I don't think Clinton could have won. The whole dynamic of the race was impacted by there being three candidates, and it was one of the more unusual elections I can remember.

EDIT: Yet again I am too slow. Cola with Spiced Dark Rum to Andy.
   3857. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 24, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4216889)
Yeah, but I've been up since 6:00 doing opposition research. (smile)
   3858. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 24, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4216893)
The whole dynamic of the race was impacted by there being three candidates, and it was one of the more unusual elections I can remember.


And the official GOP talking point coming out of that election was that it wasn't legitimate and didn't represent any sort of real endorsement of the Dems post-Reagan, because Clinton didn't win a majority, only a plurality in the 3-way race.
   3859. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 24, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4216894)
You still haven't explained why the competing companies who own the various commercial media outlets in this country, each of which is deeply invested in different aspects of America's political and economic stability, would allow their mid-level employees to consistently advocate on behalf of one major party, at the expense of the other.


Because if the Russkies aren't evil, who are we going to point all of these guns at, man?
   3860. billyshears Posted: August 24, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4216896)
I remember noticing a long stretch where Bill was in third place (MSM narrative) and both Bush and Perot ignored him and went after each other. Without that stretch I don't think Clinton could have won. The whole dynamic of the race was impacted by there being three candidates, and it was one of the more unusual elections I can remember.


I don't know - Clinton got a very significant bounce from the convention that year, which he never really gave back. He was leading the race from the day the convention ended in mid-July through election day. Perot's popularity peaked in June, and then he set fire to his candidacy by dropping out of the race and getting back in. For 3 1/2 months, this was really a two candidate race and most everybody knew it. Ultimately, I don't think Perot had much impact on the outcome of the election.
   3861. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 24, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4216901)
Drink.
Make it a double.

Really strange how much liberals object to seeing the word "liberal."

The economy mattered.

Yes, the economy mattered a lot, especially because the media aided and abetted Clinton's dishonest effort to convince the country the economy was far worse than it actually was.

Ask 25 people who voted in '92 how best to summarize the '92 election, and I bet 15 or 20 of them will say, "It was the economy, stupid." That wasn't just some throwaway slogan that got 10 minutes of attention. The media pounded Bush with that phrase day after day after day.
   3862. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 24, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4216902)
#3860. Post convention I agree, but before the convention it was a different matter. Clinton had a tough Primary and though he came out well ahead in delegates it was much closer than that. Plus he was damaged goods from a couple things including rumors (completely unbelievable to be sure) that he had slept around. His candidacy was circling the drain in June.

Then he got a long breather while Perot and Bush went at it (it seemed pretty personal between them for some reason). It allowed him to "come back into the race" and (to borrow a phrase from the Romney campaign) shake up the etch-a-sketch a bit.

Maybe none of that mattered, but having a strong independent voice (Perot) saying bad things about Bush really seemed top make the latter campaign and Clinton's attacks against Bush much stronger.
   3863. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 24, 2012 at 02:14 PM (#4216909)
Yes, the economy mattered a lot, especially because the media aided and abetted Clinton's dishonest effort to convince the country the economy was far worse than it actually was.


So the media is all powerful and can convince people of things that are not true, but unlimited money in campaigns is OK because advertising doesn't really matter? Sure.

And regarding Liberal I like the word just fine (I prefer Progressive), but I also like the phrase "You know", you know? But you know it gets tiresome when it is used in every post, you know?
   3864. steagles Posted: August 24, 2012 at 02:15 PM (#4216911)
3861. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 24, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4216901)

Drink.


Make it a double.



Really strange how much liberals object to seeing the word "liberal"
DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!
   3865. The Good Face Posted: August 24, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4216913)
It would be great of there were a whole body of scholarship devoted to studying this, so that we didn't have to rely on your selective and admittedly biased memory to inform us.

Here's what one recent study of that election found :

Grabe and Bucy found the volume of news coverage focusing exclusively on each party -- one measure of media bias -- favored Republicans. Their research found there were more single-party stories about Republicans overall and in each election year except 1992. When they studied the time duration of these stories, no pattern of favoritism was evident.


Wow. A link to a book description. No access to the text or their data (there's that word again!). But hey, as long as the media and media cheerleaders say they're not biased, we should all take their word for it, right? If Goldman Sachs produced a study that concluded Wall Street was perfectly regulated, no, was in fact overly regulated, and refused to provide their data, how persuasive would you find it to be?

Also, that book is about the VISUAL presentation of ONLY presidential candidates. Did you even read the description? The idea that such a limited scope could be dispositive of the entire spectrum of media bias in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary is idiotic, even assuming the authors have real data to back up their claims. Besides, any time photos of Michael Dukakis are in play, it's axiomatic that the other side is going to come out looking better.

Fortunately, your anosognosia while terminal, isn't really serious. Media in the U.S. will continue fragmenting and drifting towards the old partisan model. An overall improvement really, even if it causes Andy to weep for the days of yore.
   3866. Lassus Posted: August 24, 2012 at 02:17 PM (#4216915)
Really strange how much liberals object to seeing the word "liberal."

Making fun of your hammer is not the same thing as abandoning the nail.


Ask 25 people who voted in '92 how best to summarize the '92 election, and I bet 15 or 20 of them will say, "It was the economy, stupid." That wasn't just some throwaway slogan that got 10 minutes of attention. The media pounded Bush with that phrase day after day after day.

The fact that you utterly ignore facts presented to you and present none of your own, combined with no acknowledgement that you personally were in college at the time and not exactly focused on election coverage is starting to make this whole thing more than a little weak on your end.
   3867. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 24, 2012 at 02:19 PM (#4216919)
Thanks Good Face, I learned a new word today: anosognosia. And people saying arguing on the internet is a waste of time.
   3868. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 24, 2012 at 02:23 PM (#4216923)
Ask 25 people who voted in '92 how best to summarize the '92 election, and I bet 15 or 20 of them will say


... I voted for X, where X is the candidate of their current party. Likely completely independent on how they voted. Do you really want to base your argument on a hypothetical on what people vaguely remember about an election 20 years ago?

The media narrative of the 1992 election is completely "It's the economy, stupid", but since you have spent many posts disparaging the media and its narratives I find it odd that you have so completely bought into this one. Perhaps the media is able to control (some) minds in a spooky fashion.
   3869. Lassus Posted: August 24, 2012 at 02:25 PM (#4216928)
Fortunately, your anosognosia while terminal, isn't really serious.

Unlike yours.
   3870. formerly dp Posted: August 24, 2012 at 02:37 PM (#4216939)
Also, that book is about the VISUAL presentation of ONLY presidential candidates. Did you even read the description? The idea that such a limited scope could be dispositive of the entire spectrum of media bias in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary is idiotic, even assuming the authors have real data to back up their claims. Besides, any time photos of Michael Dukakis are in play, it's axiomatic that the other side is going to come out looking better.


I linked to two academic studies on the last page-- I'll assume you read neither? The link to the book was to suggest that there's research specific to media coverage of the presidential election. It doesn't disprove systemic liberal bias, but then, it doesn't have to, since no one has ever proven it! It also doesn't suggest systemic conservative bias. I've tried to relieve you of some of your ignorance on this subject, but you insist on displaying it time and time again. You've provided nothing, other than evidence about the political beliefs of mid-level employees who work for news corporations. This evidence is suggestive, but doesn't approach being conclusive. It's also painfully simpleminded.

Why are you mad that I linked to the publisher's site?

But hey, as long as the media and media cheerleaders say they're not biased, we should all take their word for it, right?


Who, in your expert opinion, doesn't count as a "media cheerleader"? What methods do you propose we use? Do you object to the different categories of media bias outlined by researchers (summarized on the last page)? Or have you simply taken "THE LIBERAL MEDIA" as a pillar of your conservative faith?
   3871. formerly dp Posted: August 24, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4216949)
Media in the U.S. will continue fragmenting and drifting towards the old partisan model.


Why does every libertarian have a raging hard-on for the nineteenth century?
   3872. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:00 PM (#4216952)
So the media is all powerful and can convince people of things that are not true, but unlimited money in campaigns is OK because advertising doesn't really matter? Sure.

Apples and oranges. One is advertising clearly labeled as advertising, and the other is biased news presented as unbiased news.

***
combined with no acknowledgement that you personally were in college at the time and not exactly focused on election coverage is starting to make this whole thing more than a little weak on your end.

I wasn't in college at the time, so your demands that I acknowledge I was in college are a little strange.
   3873. Lassus Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:05 PM (#4216956)
I wasn't in college at the time, so your demands that I acknowledge I was in college are a little strange.

My apologies, certainly, you didn't answer the last one when I assumed the same. I thought I recalled your age from some previous thread as 8 for the 1980 election? Or wait, was it 6? So you weren't in college yet?

Regardless, I regret my unconfirmed assumption.
   3874. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:06 PM (#4216957)
Why does every libertarian have a raging hard-on for the nineteenth century?


Hey I still want to know why the rage against the 17th amendment? And while we are asking why are taxes for health care evil, but taxes for denying people the right to vote excellent?
   3875. GregD Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:09 PM (#4216959)
Why does every libertarian have a raging hard-on for the nineteenth century?
Must be all those millions the government poured into canal building and railroad construction? Or possibly all the municipal vagrancy laws making it illegal for men to not have proof of employment?
   3876. formerly dp Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:10 PM (#4216960)
the other is biased news presented as unbiased news.


I'm going to assume you're referring specifically to Fox here.
   3877. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4216964)
This happen in China a lot, guns are simply unavailable... and yet some of these guys can injure and even kill a surprisingly high number of people- just two weeks ago a 17 year old stabbed 9 people to death after a fight with his GF's family.


Well of course it's easier when everyone has to stand shoulder-to-shoulder.
   3878. The Good Face Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:22 PM (#4216965)
I linked to two academic studies on the last page-- I'll assume you read neither?


I looked at them, but they were more of the same. Journalists or journalist cheerleaders addressing narrow tranches of content and determining that everything's copacetic without providing meaningful data. I don't take self-interested assertions on faith.

The link to the book was to suggest that there's research specific to media coverage of the presidential election. It doesn't disprove systemic liberal bias, but then, it doesn't have to, since no one has ever proven it! It also doesn't suggest systemic conservative bias. I've tried to relieve you of some of your ignorance on this subject, but you insist on displaying it time and time again. You've provided nothing, other than evidence about the political beliefs of mid-level employees who work for news corporations.


I've proven the overwhelming majority of the people who produce material for the media are Democrats/liberals. We know this through objective records such as campaign contributions.

I've proven (to your satisfaction since you agreed with it) that people are not rational actors, but rather act in accordance with their intuitive beliefs and preferences.

With the above established as facts, it is impossible that there not be media bias in favor of democrats/liberals, this bias manifesting itself in a myriad of ways.

The segments of the population who would be bothered by this point it out constantly. The segments that aren't either suffer from anosognosia or simply lie/rationalize the issue away, since it's unfavorable to them.

You've argued that the vast majority of editors/publishers are conservative, but have provided no evidence to that effect.

You've argued that those hypothetical conservative editors/publishers are capable of preventing any bias, without explaining how this mechanism would actually work. If editors and publishers truly exercised that level of control over content, there would be no need for journalists in the first place.

And you've argued that we should just trust the media when they say they're not biased, because they're like, professionals and stuff. Practically scientists really.

But at no point have you been able to assail the primary points, and with good reason. They're true.

This evidence is suggestive, but doesn't approach being conclusive. It's also painfully simpleminded.


What does the complexity have to do with the validity?
   3879. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4216967)
Really strange how much liberals object to seeing the word "liberal"


Nah, we just like to drink.
   3880. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4216969)
I'm going to assume you're referring specifically to Fox here.

Right, Fox News is biased, while all the other outlets are down the middle.

The fact you see bias at Fox News but nowhere else is really comical.
   3881. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4216971)
The fact you see bias at Fox News but nowhere else is really comical.


I believe MSNBC has been mentioned numerous times on this thread. But you knew that already.
   3882. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4216974)
I believe MSNBC has been mentioned numerous times on this thread. But you knew that already.

OK, Fox News is biased for the right, MSNBC is biased for the left, and all the others are down the middle. Still comical.
   3883. formerly dp Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4216976)
I looked at them, but they were more of the same. Journalists or journalist cheerleaders addressing narrow tranches of content and determining that everything's copacetic without providing meaningful data. I don't take self-interested assertions on faith.


You don't know how to read. The linked articles, in their lit reviews, specifically addressed your particular view.

I've proven the overwhelming majority of the people who produce material for the media are Democrats/liberals. We know this through objective records such as campaign contributions.


That says nothing about the content they produce. I admitted that, absent any other factors, your statistic suggests there would be a bias. I then introduced and outlined the mitigating factors. You pretended they don't exist, because you've apparently decided that all social scientists are also in the tank for Democrats. It's a neat trick, but not really that original.

And you've argued that we should just trust the media when they say they're not biased, because they're like, professionals and stuff. Practically scientists really.


I've provided the studies, and you've handwaved them away, by calling the social scientists who study the subject "cheerleaders". This is not critical thinking, it's name-calling.

The literature is there for you to peruse. The D'Alessio and Allen study, a meta-analysis, specifically references a study on journalistic bias and its relationship to content.

What does the complexity have to do with the validity?


A lot, actually. When you're looking at a complex problem, involving competing actors with competing interests, you need to employ a range of methods to study it. What you've done is focus on the articulated political affiliations of a very small subset of actors involved in the production of journalistic content, and then plugged your ears to all other methods employed to get at the problem. This is a mind-numbingly foolish way to approach any problem, and why social scientists (my colleagues who criticize the media for a living would be really amused at your description of them as "cheerleaders", when media professionals view them as the opposite) have developed a wide range of methods for studying bias.
   3884. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:35 PM (#4216977)
I looked at them, but they were more of the same.


Wherein "more of the same" equals strong data and argument against things that TGF desperately needs to be true, which he will ignore.
   3885. formerly dp Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:55 PM (#4216994)
You've argued that those hypothetical conservative editors/publishers are capable of preventing any bias, without explaining how this mechanism would actually work. If editors and publishers truly exercised that level of control over content, there would be no need for journalists in the first place.


I missed this particularly fuktarded statement the first time around. Journalists are workers. Editors manage them. Are you arguing that managers don't need their employees? Really? Someone's got to do the grunt work-- pounding the pavement, working beats, hounding people for quotes, ect. The editors review and decide what's fit for print or airtime, and they're accountable to the need to lure the eyeballs and eardrums of affluent and semi-affluent consumers, so that they can promise them to advertisers and sponsors.* I can't believe this actually needs to be explained to you, but this is where we're at.

And the links I provided discuss all of these issues-- particularly the relationships between journalists and their bosses. One author suggested, based on his conversations with journalists, that the dedicated partisans, the ones who don't want to or are unable to curb their bias, go to work for publications that will indulge it, or strike out on their own as freelancers.

*One more group that can influence content-- which is why Adbusters couldn't get airtime for their Buy Nothing Day campaign, while the same networks (ABC, MTV) that rejected their ad as incompatible with their values, routinely run ads for boner pills and other wholesome content.
   3886. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:57 PM (#4216996)
I've proven the overwhelming majority of the people who produce material for the media are Democrats/liberals. We know this through objective records such as campaign contributions.

I've proven (to your satisfaction since you agreed with it) that people are not rational actors, but rather act in accordance with their intuitive beliefs and preferences.

With the above established as facts, it is impossible that there not be media bias in favor of democrats/liberals, this bias manifesting itself in a myriad of ways.


Funny how that Forbes / Pew study of media coverage in the past 4 elections showed no such thing, but I guess you were to busy to notice it up there in #3851. I guess I should've put the typeface in Big Gulp size or something.
   3887. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4217001)
Mitt with a little light pandering to the frothing base:


COMMERCE, Mich. – At a rally meant to highlight Mitt Romney’s hometown roots here in Michigan, a joke delivered by the candidate seemed to make reference to the fringe birther controversy that suggests President Obama was not born in the United States.

“Now, I love being home in this place where Ann and I were raised, where both of us were born,” said Romney. “Ann was born in Henry Ford Hospital. I was born in Harper Hospital.”

“No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate,” said Romney. “They know that this is the place that we were born and raised.”
   3888. Fanshawe Posted: August 24, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4217002)
OK, Fox News is biased for the right, MSNBC is biased for the left, and all the others are down the middle. Still comical.

LOL
   3889. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 24, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4217003)
Funny how that Forbes / Pew study of media coverage in the past 4 elections showed no such thing,


He has a survey of 200 reporters from 1980. Why would he need more recent data than that when his 1980 data confirms his persecution complex?
   3890. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 24, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4217006)
Why does every libertarian have a raging hard-on for the nineteenth century?


its nostalgia for a time and place that didn't actually exist
most groups have that, for biblical literalists it's the Garden of Eden before the Fall
for many middle class Americans it is the 1950s

when libertarians look at the 19th century, they don't see the real 19th century anymore than any group sees the real past that they are mythologizing - what they see is a society where the rights of the individual were paramount, little to no government regulation or taxes, every man was free to do what he wanted when he wanted where he wanted.

You owned a piece of land and wanted to build a house? You just built the damn thing, you didn't have to deal with a government holding you up because your porch was 6 inches wider than the one submitted on the plans to the government. Want to open a store and sell produce- rent a damn space and put up a sign you didn't need a license, want to work as a stage hand, just get hired, you didn't have to join a union, and work only when that union said you could.

Of course the 19th century of the Libertarian dreams didn't exist, and moreover it couldn't, the Liberteria of their dreams is an even more farfetched fantasy than Marx's communist utopia
   3891. Darren Posted: August 24, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4217011)
Is there a non 'troll-and-response' political thread somewhere? Geez, I thought kevin had been banned.
   3892. The Good Face Posted: August 24, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4217012)
That says nothing about the content they produce. I admitted that, absent any other factors, your statistic suggests there would be a bias. I then introduced and outlined the mitigating factors. You pretended they don't exist, because you've apparently decided that all social scientists are also in the tank for Democrats. It's a neat trick, but not really that original.


They don't exist because you haven't provided any evidence that they exist. You wanting them to exist really badly is not evidence. You've repeatedly stated that editors and publishers are conservative without a shred of data. Also, I'm pretty confident that if I did some digging, I'd discover that social scientists are in the tank for Democrats, and in approximately the same proportion as journalists, but that's an effort for another day.

I've provided the studies, and you've handwaved them away, by calling the social scientists who study the subject "cheerleaders". This is not critical thinking, it's name-calling.


I've repeatedly pointed out why the studies you've linked weren't applicable. In many cases they were barely tangentially related to what we've been discussing, which leads me to believe you're frantically googling out of desperation to find something, anything, that won't make you look such the spinner.

A lot, actually. When you're looking at a complex problem, involving competing actors with competing interests, you need to employ a range of methods to study it. What you've done is focus on the articulated political affiliations of a very small subset of actors involved in the production of journalistic content, and then plugged your ears to all other methods employed to get at the problem.


The actual problem isn't particularly complex. You may want it to be complex in an effort to muddy the waters, but your wants are irrelevant to reality. Also, cute attempt to misrepresent the data. A "very small subset involved in the production". Haha. Let's stick with the truth, which is virtually 100% of mainstream media content production. 90% of those producers being partisans for one side.

This is a mind-numbingly foolish way to approach any problem, and why social scientists (my colleagues who criticize the media for a living would be really amused at your description of them as "cheerleaders", when media professionals view them as the opposite) have developed a wide range of methods for studying bias.


I don't doubt media professionals dislike getting criticized from the left.
   3893. steagles Posted: August 24, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4217015)
OK, Fox News is biased for the right, MSNBC is biased for the left, and all the others are down the middle. Still comical.
do you have any thoughts on the results of this poll:
The survey of 1185 random people conducted by landline and cell phone in early February follows a similar poll FDU conducted last November, which surveyed only New Jersey residents and returned similar results.

Each respondent was asked four of eight questions, which are at the bottom of this post. “On average, people were able to answer correctly 1.8 of 4 questions about international news, and 1.6 of 5 questions about domestic affairs,” the report says. Here’s the breakdown by viewing habits.
The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only The Daily Show with Jon Stewart could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.


   3894. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: August 24, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4217018)
Coverage of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, especially on cable TV and leading news websites, is increasingly driven by the campaigns themselves

As they say on the Internet: "Well, there's your problem, right there."

The Modern Way is for any political "story" to be "investigated" by finding out what two sides say (there are never more than two sides), and then... well, that's it, actually.

Attributed to George Orwell: "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."
Give me an example of a major story broken by Jake Tapper or Gwen Ifill or any of them, where they had to actually leave the office and do some investigating, and I'll take it all back. As it is, near as I can tell, there is not a single journalist working for any major media organization.
They don't want journalists, they don't hire journalists, they don't print journalism.
   3895. Ron J2 Posted: August 24, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4217049)
All going back and forth on media bias, I think DMN is correct on one point. There is a general bias towards reporting action as positive.

Mind you I don't think that in practice this actually translates to a pro-left effect because American Conservatives aren't actually aiming at preserving the status quo.
   3896. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 24, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4217050)
Attributed to George Orwell: "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."

Give me an example of a major story broken by Jake Tapper or Gwen Ifill or any of them, where they had to actually leave the office and do some investigating, and I'll take it all back. As it is, near as I can tell, there is not a single journalist working for any major media organization.


So Margaret Warner, who travels around the world every other week to file reports from everywhere from Syria to Tibet, isn't a real journalist?

So the many investigative reporters on the Times and other papers aren't also real journalists?

I'm trying to be charitable here. Who are some examples of actual journalists in your opinion? Did they all die out with Izzy Stone?

But perhaps you're referring only to current presidential campaign coverage. In that case, what do you say about the many stories about both Romney's and Obama's financial backers? Do you think that their campaigns "wanted that printed"?
   3897. formerly dp Posted: August 24, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4217058)
Of course the 19th century of the Libertarian dreams didn't exist, and moreover it couldn't, the Liberteria of their dreams is an even more farfetched fantasy than Marx's communist utopia


My question was rhetorical, but that's a concise, and I think pretty accurate answer to the libertarian power fantasy that is the 19th century.

==
Also, I'm pretty confident that if I did some digging, I'd discover that social scientists are in the tank for Democrats, and in approximately the same proportion as journalists, but that's an effort for another day.


I explained the scientific method and its rationale above. You can call bullshit on the last 300 years of western epistemology if you want.

I've repeatedly pointed out why the studies you've linked weren't applicable. In many cases they were barely tangentially related to what we've been discussing, which leads me to believe you're frantically googling out of desperation to find something, anything, that won't make you look such the spinner.


Read them-- they address every issue you're raising-- gatekeeping bias, framing bias ect. Other than for purely ideological reasons, I have no idea why you think those questions, and the methods used to address them, aren't valid.

The actual problem isn't particularly complex. You may want it to be complex in an effort to muddy the waters, but your wants are irrelevant to reality. Also, cute attempt to misrepresent the data. A "very small subset involved in the production". Haha. Let's stick with the truth, which is virtually 100% of mainstream media content production. 90% of those producers being partisans for one side.


The fact that you don't think it's complex is part of your problem-- you're not recognizing the competing interests at play in the monolithic bloc you're referring to as "the" media. Every attempt at introducing nuance into your thinking has been waved away by just calling anyone who disagrees with your myopic and ill-informed view "in the tank" or a "cheerleader". You're living in a feedback loop that refuses to be interrupted.

"The" media consists of a small handful of corporations-- AOL-Time Warner, Vivendi, NewsCorp, Disney and Clear Channel. Those companies control the bulk of the content produced in this country. Your thesis is that these multinationals allow their politics to be dictated by their biased and subversive low-level employees.

Both on a systemic and anecdotal level, your thesis fails. How is it that "the liberal media" propagated Bush's lie about Iraq having both WMDs and an active nuclear weapons program? Journalists outside of the US were shaking their heads at this-- the truth about Iraq's nuclear program was freely available on the internet, and routinely reported on by reputable international papers, but Americans purportedly under the sway of Democratic journalists continued to believe in a lie.
   3898. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 24, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4217066)
Is there a non 'troll-and-response' political thread somewhere?


on the internet?

maybe in some alternate universe
   3899. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 24, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4217113)
Romney was being Romney again today.

When he was campaigning in Michigan before his usual collection of cranky old codgers, he said that

“No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate."

This is the sort of thing that apparently passes for humor in Romneyland, since the crowd roared its approval.
   3900. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 24, 2012 at 06:40 PM (#4217134)
do you have any thoughts on the results of this poll:

PolitiFact gave the rundown of a rundown of these specific studies.

The fact in question was <U>Jon Stewart says those who watch Fox News are the "most consistently misinformed media viewers"</U>

PolitiFact's verdict: False.
Page 39 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Guts
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(512 - 11:47pm, Oct 24)
Last: boteman

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(10 - 11:46pm, Oct 24)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(73 - 11:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogHow top World Series players ranked as prospects. | SportsonEarth.com : Jim Callis Article
(19 - 11:08pm, Oct 24)
Last: Chip

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(77 - 11:07pm, Oct 24)
Last: HMS Moses Taylor

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3732 - 10:54pm, Oct 24)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(381 - 9:55pm, Oct 24)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(17 - 8:40pm, Oct 24)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(13 - 8:11pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBeaneball | Gold Gloves and Coco Crisp's Terrible 2014 Defense
(2 - 7:47pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(915 - 7:37pm, Oct 24)
Last: CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(871 - 7:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jim Wisinski

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(67 - 6:38pm, Oct 24)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogThe ‘Little Things’ – The Hardball Times
(2 - 6:34pm, Oct 24)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(15 - 5:31pm, Oct 24)
Last: zonk

Page rendered in 0.9974 seconds
52 querie(s) executed