“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.”
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.
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.
Yeah, this one's getting kinda repetitive. I'm probably sitting out until Sam says something ridiculous.
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.
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?
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.
Of course it does. Because it shocks your worldview.
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 .
You really want to encourage him don't you.
No, Ray, anything involving humanity shocks you, not me.
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.
How's the economy doing today?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
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?
No way. Elwood Blues drove his car through a huge mall and no one even got hurt--just broke up some storefronts is all.
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?
"Disco pants and haircuts."
"This mall's got everything."
Well yes, but all of those guys are flying Shaolin monks.
Cue lecture from Lassus about ethnic sensitivity in 5..4..3...
Fixed.
Sure.
Using equally ridiculous false equivalency in the very same post. Laughable.
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.
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.
**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.**
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.
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?
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.
It was boring back in 1992 as well, but that didn't stop the media from pounding away at Bush 24/7.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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'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?
...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.
He did, pages ago. That you don't care or agree really doesn't mean it didn't happen.
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 :
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.
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.
Drink.
Make it a double.
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:
OK I'll play. From Wikipedia:
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.
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.
Because if the Russkies aren't evil, who are we going to point all of these guns at, man?
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.
Really strange how much liberals object to seeing the word "liberal."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
... 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.
Unlike yours.
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?
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?
Why does every libertarian have a raging hard-on for the nineteenth century?
Apples and oranges. One is advertising clearly labeled as advertising, and the other is biased news presented as unbiased news.
***
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.
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?
I'm going to assume you're referring specifically to Fox here.
Well of course it's easier when everyone has to stand shoulder-to-shoulder.
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.
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.
What does the complexity have to do with the validity?
Nah, we just like to drink.
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.
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.
You don't know how to read. The linked articles, in their lit reviews, specifically addressed your particular view.
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.
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.
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.
Wherein "more of the same" equals strong data and argument against things that TGF desperately needs to be true, which he will ignore.
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.
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.
LOL
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?
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
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 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.
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.
I don't doubt media professionals dislike getting criticized from the left.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
==
I explained the scientific method and its rationale above. You can call ######## on the last 300 years of western epistemology if you want.
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 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.
on the internet?
maybe in some alternate universe
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.
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.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main