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

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

OTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game

As Time magazine recently reported, Republicans, frustrated by their 22-0 loss in last year’s game, sought a new coach to shake things up on the field this year. Some members even appealed to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to fire the coach, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas). But Boehner said he wasn’t powerful enough to control the baseball diamond, and Barton refused to walk away after spending 28 years with the game. Instead, he brought on Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), a former professional baseball player and coach at Texas Christian University, to coach while he stayed on as the team’s manager.

In the face of Wednesday’s loss, according to The Washington Post, Republicans are once again asking Boehner to remove Barton from the game. But with multiple pitchers giving up walk after walk, it seems that what the Republicans really need is a pitcher who can better match Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), who previously pitched on Morehouse College’s varsity baseball team.

Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 07:53 AM | 4025 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics, winning is fun

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 28 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 26 27 28 29 30 >  Last ›
   2701. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 21, 2014 at 08:16 PM (#4755444)
Anyone notice that Rasmussen - the pollster most favorable to Obama of late - has a tie in the Generic Congressional Ballot? Dems had been up 3% a couple of weeks ago & 1% last week.
   2702. tshipman Posted: July 21, 2014 at 08:45 PM (#4755451)
Anyone notice that Rasmussen - the pollster most favorable to Obama of late - has a tie in the Generic Congressional Ballot? Dems had been up 3% a couple of weeks ago & 1% last week.


You know those results are statistically indistinguishable, right?
   2703. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 21, 2014 at 09:05 PM (#4755466)
You know those results are statistically indistinguishable, right?

There was a tongue-in-cheek aspect to citing the Generic Congressional Ballot poll, given the reliance that others have placed on it. Still, any significant movement in such frequently conducted polls is often a series of statistically insignificant jumps.
   2704. tshipman Posted: July 21, 2014 at 09:14 PM (#4755473)
There was a tongue-in-cheek aspect to citing the Generic Congressional Ballot poll, given the reliance that others have placed on it. Still, any significant movement in such frequently conducted polls is often a series of statistically insignificant jumps.


GCB overall average has actually had a really tight bound on the results, from R+2.5 to D+2.5. The last month has been even tighter--from a tie to D+1.6.

By comparison, in the last few wave elections (2006, 2010), one side had a large lead pretty much from the beginning of summer. It's possible that this year will end up looking like that, but unlikely given past precedent.
   2705. bunyon Posted: July 22, 2014 at 01:59 AM (#4755564)
BDC, that Lucas/Murray stuff can't get posted enough. Lucas is my father's congressman - Dad knows him and knew his father pretty well. I asked, but Dad couldn't confirm for me he isn't a robot. Dad also knows a guy from the same district who now lives in the Ukraine. I mean, it's all right there.
   2706. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 22, 2014 at 09:24 AM (#4755611)
I'm starting to think that maybe the RNC should hire you


Why should they buy the cow when they're getting the milk for free?
   2707. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 22, 2014 at 09:25 AM (#4755612)
#2705 -- I suppose you're asking us to believe your dad isn't a robot.
   2708. Lassus Posted: July 22, 2014 at 09:26 AM (#4755614)
Stephen Byerley has my vote.
   2709. Howie Menckel Posted: July 22, 2014 at 09:52 AM (#4755626)
might even be worth its own thread:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2136602-michael-sam-can-prove-tony-dungy-wrong-be-much-more-than-a-distraction

re Michael Sam:

"It's not impossible for a seventh-rounder to make it; it does happen. Yet when speaking to people around the league, there is a feeling that Sam likely will not make the team. One general manager put his chances at 50 percent. Another at 30 percent. One AFC assistant coach said Sam would only make it if a number of Rams defenders at his position were injured.

They do not think he possesses the athleticism or speed to make an NFL roster. To them, it's that simple. This is something I do not believe. I believe Sam has something in him that cannot be calculated or measured or sifted. My belief is that Michael Sam will stun the league and prove, as many other players have done, that some men are more than their combine numbers."

also some Tony Dungy remarks about how Dungy (who seems to be quite religious) wouldn't have drafted him due to "the disraction" factor.


   2710. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 22, 2014 at 09:53 AM (#4755627)
Other coverage says Murray claims that Rep. Lucas was executed on a "white stage" in the Ukraine several years ago, and has been replaced in Congress by a robot body double. Murray says that one of his advantages as a Congressman is that he is a human being.


I believe it was posted in last month's thread. I can still remember a guy named Tony Zirkle going for Rep in my district with a campaign website that went on and on about the "Jewish Porn Dragon" and "Porn Mule Serial Women Slaughterers". Less crazy, but possibly more amusing.


There was a guy who ran against Peter King a few times, named Dal LaMagna, first time around he basically had two ad slogans, "vote for Tweezer Man" and "LaMagna rhymes with Lasagana"
Mr. Tweezerman actually had some money so you'd actually hear his substantive content free ads* on the radio not infrequently... it was a very bizarre vanity campaign.

*Near the end he ran some semi-professional attack ads against King... Which in context only served to reinforce the oddity of the campaign
   2711. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: July 22, 2014 at 10:34 AM (#4755650)
I believe Sam has something in him

Must.... not... make.... joke.
   2712. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: July 22, 2014 at 04:36 PM (#4755880)

might even be worth its own thread:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2136602-michael-sam-can-prove-tony-dungy-wrong-be-much-more-than-a-distraction

re Michael Sam:
"It's not impossible for a seventh-rounder to make it; it does happen. Yet when speaking to people around the league, there is a feeling that Sam likely will not make the team. One general manager put his chances at 50 percent. Another at 30 percent. One AFC assistant coach said Sam would only make it if a number of Rams defenders at his position were injured.

They do not think he possesses the athleticism or speed to make an NFL roster. To them, it's that simple. This is something I do not believe. I believe Sam has something in him that cannot be calculated or measured or sifted. My belief is that Michael Sam will stun the league and prove, as many other players have done, that some men are more than their combine numbers."

also some Tony Dungy remarks about how Dungy (who seems to be quite religious) wouldn't have drafted him due to "the disraction" factor.
this isn't very surprising because dungy has supported homophobic causes before, but it is hugely disappointing. tony dungy is supposed to be one of the best men in all of sports, but here he is, piling hypocrisy upon cowardice. too much of a coward to admit the reason he wouldn't want sam (and let's not pretend it's about talent or ability, because dungy is saying he wouldn't even give sam a shot in training camp) and as someone who spoke up for michael vick (and having watched vick for the last 5 years, he was right to), it's ludicrous for him to talk about someone being a distraction, let alone for the reason he believes sam would be distracting.


dungy comes out of this looking very, very small.

and judging by today's 'clarification', he might not be done putting his foot in his mouth.
   2713. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: July 22, 2014 at 05:27 PM (#4755918)
Dungy is spot on in a sense that this will be a massive distraction, as evidenced by this being the only topic on any talk show today. The coverage will definitely be Tebow like, which was beyond obnoxious.

That's different from whether or not someone should've drafted Sam, and unrelated to Dungy's remarks on his hypothetical of not drafting Sam if in a position to draft again.
   2714. Swoboda is freedom Posted: July 22, 2014 at 05:45 PM (#4755928)
this isn't very surprising because dungy has supported homophobic causes before, but it is hugely disappointing. tony dungy is supposed to be one of the best men in all of sports, but here he is, piling hypocrisy upon cowardice. too much of a coward to admit the reason he wouldn't want sam (and let's not pretend it's about talent or ability, because dungy is saying he wouldn't even give sam a shot in training camp) and as someone who spoke up for michael vick (and having watched vick for the last 5 years, he was right to), it's ludicrous for him to talk about someone being a distraction, let alone for the reason he believes sam would be distracting.

You might be correct, but it also might be a distraction. Sam will get a lot of coverage. What happens if he is not good enough? You go to cut him and the Huffington Post is labeling you a homophobe? He might not be good enough, he is a late round pick. If he were a first round talent, it might be less of an issue.
   2715. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 22, 2014 at 07:16 PM (#4755963)
The sort of distractions Dungy is 100% correct about are the result of people insisting on treating him as Michael Sam, gay football player instead of just Michael Sam, football player.

Where Dungy is sort of wrong is that if Sam's good enough to make the team and he plays well, eventually the distractions will go away. But it's silly to pretend that distractions and other non-football factors haven't made their way to the St. Louis Rams football team.
   2716. villageidiom Posted: July 22, 2014 at 08:17 PM (#4755990)
Media: Is this distracting?
Player: No.
Media: How about now?
Player: No.
Media: Now?
Player: No.
Media: Now?
Player: No.
Media: Now?
Player: No.
Media: Now?
Player: No.
Media: Now?
Player: ...Well, you are, yes.
Headline: SAM DRAMA IS DISTRACTION



   2717. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: July 22, 2014 at 08:41 PM (#4756000)
You might be correct, but it also might be a distraction. Sam will get a lot of coverage. What happens if he is not good enough? You go to cut him and the Huffington Post is labeling you a homophobe? He might not be good enough, he is a late round pick. If he were a first round talent, it might be less of an issue.

if he's not good enough, he's not good enough.

but dungy isn't saying that sam isn't good enough. what he's saying is that he wouldn't have given sam the chance to prove it one way or the other. he's also not saying that sam shouldn't get the chance to prove it, but that's a distinction without a difference in this case, imo.

and worrying about being labeled a homophobe is begging the question.
Dungy is spot on in a sense that this will be a massive distraction, as evidenced by this being the only topic on any talk show today. The coverage will definitely be Tebow like, which was beyond obnoxious.
it's not gonna be tebow like because sam isn't nearly as popular or well known or as high a draft pick as tebow was. he'll draw more interest than a typical 7th round pick, but that's a pretty #### reason not to give him a chance.
   2718. Howie Menckel Posted: July 22, 2014 at 08:47 PM (#4756003)

I don't know what the coverage will be like, but I do know that the relative skill level of Tebow to Sam will not be relevant to the amount of that coverage. I attended the "Tebow to Jets" press conference where he used the word "awesome" about 200 times while also patiently answering every question. The percentage of actual NFL or local news media to "other" was about 90/10.

Sam will be a different story, obviously.

and none of that answer has anything to do with whether Sam should get his chance.
   2719. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: July 22, 2014 at 09:51 PM (#4756030)
right; michael sam is playing in st louis, not new york, so you're not gonna get hundreds of random talking heads asking stupid questions to serious football coaches every single day. there isn't enough money left in tv/print journalism to waste it flying reports out to st louis to file a report on a somewhat random human interest story that's centered around a subject who doesn't really want to talk about it.

   2720. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: July 22, 2014 at 10:09 PM (#4756041)
getting back to the somewhat nominal point of this thread:
Sara Hellwege is a nurse in Tampa, FL who opposes the use of some of the most effective and female-controlled forms of contraception, such as the birth control pill. Despite that position, Hellwege applied for a job with the Tampa Family Health Centers. When asked by the human resources director about her affiliation with an anti-contraception group called the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Hellwege admitted she would refuse to prescribe the birth control pill to anyone who wanted it. She was summarily told that prescribing the birth control pill was part of the job and was not hired.


i think most people who read this thread can guess what happened next.
   2721. OCF Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:14 AM (#4756096)
Hellwege admitted she would refuse to prescribe the birth control pill to anyone who wanted it. She was summarily told that prescribing the birth control pill was part of the job and was not hired.

OK, let's try a hypothetical. A Muslim woman applies for a waitress job. The manager (who notices that she is wearing hijab) asks if she's OK serving alcohol. (The restaurant does have a liquor license.) She says that she would not allow the customers to order alcohol. Or pork. She is not hired. Is that religious discrimination?
   2722. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:25 AM (#4756104)
re: # 2720 & 2721: Employers are required to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees and applicants if they can do so without undue hardship. Depends on how big a part of the job the disputed aspect is and the alternatives available. Very fact specific inquiry in most cases. The example in #2721 couldn't be reasonably accommodated in any restaurant I'm familiar with, and #2720 might be difficult unless writing such prescriptions is a relatively small part of the job and other employees are readily available to step in as needed.
   2723. bobm Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:08 AM (#4756129)
[2721] #2720 might be difficult unless writing such prescriptions is a relatively small part of the job and other employees are readily available to step in as needed.

This applicant (a nurse-midwife) may have gone deliberately to provoke grounds for a test legal case. Five (5) seconds of research on the Web make it clear this nurse-midwife's attitude is not a reasonable fit with a core part of this clinic's mission regarding family planning services as they see it:

http://www.tampachc.com/services.htm

Family Planning: TFHC offers education and health care to men and women (including minors), enabling them to select the reproduction measure that is best for them. Title X gives individuals choices over their reproductive lives. TFHC is a Title X provider and services include:

Most FDA approved birth control (e.g. birth control pills, patches, and condoms)

Emergency contraception and follow-up

Pregnancy testing

Screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, cervical cancer, and female-related infections

HIV testingv (sic)

Counseling related to pregnancy and STD/HIV

For more information on Title X, please visit Title X Family Planning or download the fast facts (PDF). [Emphasis added]


The Title X flyer is published by NARAL FFS! It reads in part:

Title X (ten) of the Public Health Service Act is the cornerstone of the federal domestic family- planning program: It is the only federal program exclusively dedicated to family planning and reproductive-health services. [...]

[Q:] What services does the Title X family-planning program provide?

[A:] Title X provides voluntary, confidential reproductive-health services, including educational services and nondirective counseling on abstinence and contraceptive methods.

Federal law prohibits any Title X money from being used for abortion care.

Besides providing contraceptive methods, counseling and education, Title X family- planning clinics offer many other reproductive-health services, including: [...]


How is this clinic supposed to accommodate a nurse-midwife who clearly disagrees with their mission in family planning to educate and counsel "nondirectively" and give patients choices when that person says she refuses to facilitate patients' use of an entire set of (legal) contraception choices out of hand?
   2724. BrianBrianson Posted: July 23, 2014 at 04:13 AM (#4756142)
The example in #2721 couldn't be reasonably accommodated in any restaurant I'm familiar with


She could work the breakfast shift at most vegan & vegetarian restaurants (at least, in places you can't serve liquor before 11).
   2725. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 23, 2014 at 07:04 AM (#4756150)
Media: Is this distracting?
Player: No.
Media: How about now?
Player: No.
Media: Now?
Player: No.
Media: Now?
Player: No.
Media: Now?
Player: No.
Media: Now?
Player: No.
Media: Now?
Player: ...Well, you are, yes.
Headline: SAM DRAMA IS DISTRACTION


I was listening to ESPN radio last night driving up I-95, and for 45 minutes I kept hearing exactly this sort of heads I win / tails you lose "reasoning" played out by the two hosts in defense of Dungy, who just kept repeating it over and over like some ###### religious mantra.

Folks, all a teams has to do to cut off the media "distraction" is to refuse to answer any questions that concern Sam's sexuality and its effects on his teammates. And if some clown reporter persists along the lines of the above parody, you simply pull his credentials with an explanation that this has nothing to do with football, and let him whine about it to the mouthbreathers who simply are looking to feed their entirely self-created "controversy" prophecies.

Dungy knows all this, yet he acts as if the teams are all helpless about the media. What a crock. He could take a page from Leo Durocher's book when a few of the Dodgers threatened to refuse to play with Jackie Robinson. The point isn't to equate the two situations, but to illustrate the point that leadership with conviction can defeat a narrative with no moral core. In such a situation, a team that backed its player with action against any attempted media "distraction" would quickly isolate the jabberers and send a strong message all around.

And then if Sam gets cut because of talent issues, the team will have a lot more credibility to defend itself against the charge that he was released for non-football related reasons.
   2726. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 23, 2014 at 08:52 AM (#4756165)
Yeah, because the media environment is exactly the same in 2014 as it was in 1947. /eye roll
   2727. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 23, 2014 at 09:01 AM (#4756170)
Yeah, because the media environment is exactly the same in 2014 as it was in 1947. /eye roll


So it is your contention that teams are helpless before the media and leadership does no good in diffusing situations like this? Really?
   2728. BDC Posted: July 23, 2014 at 09:19 AM (#4756175)
I'm imagining a cult who believe hitting leather with wood is an abomination, all applying for jobs with the Texas Rangers. Come to think of it, that might explain this season.
   2729. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 23, 2014 at 09:54 AM (#4756184)
Yeah, because the media environment is exactly the same in 2014 as it was in 1947. /eye roll

Of course it isn't, which I've already acknowledged. But that's completely beside the point. Teams can certainly refuse to entertain stupid and repetitive questions that have nothing to do with football, and have the potential to distract the team. And teams have every right and power to strip the credentials of any reporter who kept persisting in pursuing this line of irrelevant questions.

And if you suppose that the rest of the media would support their trolling colleague(s)** on an issue like this, I think you'd be in for a rude awakening.

**And that's all these sorts of self-fulfilling prophecy questions about "distractions" amount to: Pure trolling, for the sake of creating a phony "controversy", where none exists except among a minority of bigots and a certain percentage of ratings-driven media creeps.
   2730. Ron J2 Posted: July 23, 2014 at 10:12 AM (#4756189)
#2691

Economic rebound? I'm extremely skeptical that anything could happen that moves the dial in favor of the Democrats. And while I'm not predicting anything negative it's easy to imagine negative scenarios that hurt them.

I make the economic risks hugely against the Democrats (even if I'm not expecting anything bad to happen)

And on the international front: Mid-term voters basically don't care much.

That said, I can see 4 area that might matter.

Afghanistan: Currently stablish, reasonable chance it all goes pear shaped. No upside for Democrats, small downside risk

Iraq/Syria: Currently a ###########. Very small chance that the situation in Syria improves (upside for Democrats). Iraq about as likely to get somewhat better as to get much worse. The only way it hurts Democrats is if the government collapses, and full blown civil war breaks out. Minor downside risk (because the current state of affairs, bad as it is, is baked in. It'll have to get a lot worse to affect mid-terms) There's some upside potential. ISIS is seemingly hugely dependent on a few key individuals and the US has a proven track record of getting these guys. Very small upside potential.

Israel and friends: Because of the current players on both sides, roughly no chance of anything meaningfully positive happening. And current state of affairs is roughly as bad as it's likely to be come voting day. Doubt it affects either party.

Russia et al: Minor chances both ways. Because things will have to get either a lot better or a lot worse to matter. I think the risks are primarily to the Democrats because hostile stability (I think that makes sense) is about as good as is likely and that won't matter to the voters.
   2731. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 11:07 AM (#4756207)
this isn't very surprising because dungy has supported homophobic causes before, but it is hugely disappointing. tony dungy is supposed to be one of the best men in all of sports, but here he is, piling hypocrisy upon cowardice. too much of a coward to admit the reason he wouldn't want sam (and let's not pretend it's about talent or ability, because dungy is saying he wouldn't even give sam a shot in training camp) and as someone who spoke up for michael vick (and having watched vick for the last 5 years, he was right to), it's ludicrous for him to talk about someone being a distraction, let alone for the reason he believes sam would be distracting.

dungy comes out of this looking very, very small.


? But Sam will be a distraction. Of that there is no doubt.
   2732. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 11:10 AM (#4756213)
Of course, Sam won't be a distraction because the players and coaches can't handle his sexuality; he will be a distraction because the media can't handle it.
   2733. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM (#4756222)
but dungy isn't saying that sam isn't good enough. what he's saying is that he wouldn't have given sam the chance to prove it one way or the other.


But not because Sam is gay; because the media and liberals can't handle the fact that Sam is gay.

All other groups moved on from this issue long ago.

he's also not saying that sam shouldn't get the chance to prove it, but that's a distinction without a difference in this case, imo.

and worrying about being labeled a homophobe is begging the question.


Yes, yes, Dungy is a horrible person for not toeing the party line. You folks needed your pound of flesh from him, led by Olbermann. And you got it. He issued his clarification. Hooray. Not allowing people to speak openly is Progress.
   2734. Ron J2 Posted: July 23, 2014 at 11:34 AM (#4756228)
There's an article in the Guardian with an amusing headline: Tony Abbott achieves the impossible: unity among economists.

From the article:

The Abbott government’s agenda has been driven by three major claims, all of them economic in nature. Let’s see how economists view these three themes:

1) There is a budget emergency

Number of economists who agree: zero

2) The federal government has a debt crisis

Number of economists who agree: zero

3) Carbon pricing is an economic wrecking ball

Number of economists who agree: zero

The author (an economist) admits there's a bit of hyperbole. "You can find people with some economics qualifications who agree with the government but, without exception, they either work for the Coalition or for some entity with ideological motives (like the IPA or News Corp)."
   2735. Ron J2 Posted: July 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM (#4756233)
If I was running St. Louis specifically I wouldn't have drafted Sam either. Because he's a lousy fit for the team -- a guy with a single strength that happens to be in an area where the team is already very strong.

He's less likely to make this team than any other in the NFL, and why expose yourself to the, "why did you cut him?" line of questioning.

But I find it tough to believe he's not worth a look by 20+ teams.
   2736. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM (#4756234)
But not because Sam is gay; because the media and liberals can't handle the fact that Sam is gay.

All other groups moved on from this issue long ago.


This is hilarious. Yes, it is liberals who have a problem with people who are gay. Everyone else has moved on.

No one believes this. No one.
   2737. BDC Posted: July 23, 2014 at 11:52 AM (#4756238)
One AFC assistant coach said Sam would only make it if a number of Rams defenders at his position were injured

Hell, that's how nearly everyone in last year's Cowboys' defensive lineup made the team.
   2738. The Good Face Posted: July 23, 2014 at 11:57 AM (#4756242)
This is hilarious. Yes, it is liberals who have a problem with people who are gay. Everyone else has moved on.

No one believes this. No one.


Liberals don't have a problem with Sam being gay, but they do have a problem with the possibility that anybody else might, or could possibly be less enthusiastic about his gayness than said liberals. Which is why they have the media constantly kicking the bushes looking for somebody to voice such a lack of enthusiasm, so they can launch a 2 Minute Hate against that person.
   2739. Lassus Posted: July 23, 2014 at 11:59 AM (#4756243)
We need to have some quiz where we see who can be identified solely by their posts and corresponding language. I can't imagine anyone scores higher than Ray.
   2740. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:01 PM (#4756246)
Of course, Sam won't be a distraction because the players and coaches can't handle his sexuality; he will be a distraction because the media can't handle it.

As if the team has no control over the questions that get repeated ad nauseum to their coaches and players.

Teams can simply make an announcement that no questions relating to a player's sexuality will be answered, and that any reporter who persists along these lines will be stripped of his credentials. And let the media whine all they want about whatever they want.

And if you don't go along with this solution, then don't pretend that you're not enabling the problem.
   2741. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:03 PM (#4756248)
We need to have some quiz where we see who can be identified solely by their posts and corresponding language. I can't imagine anyone scores higher than Ray.

It'd be a tie between Ray and SBB's "Modern Liberals in Decline Since 1979, as proven conclusively by my repeated assertions."
   2742. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:07 PM (#4756251)
As if the team has no control over the questions that get repeated ad nauseum to their coaches and players.


? They don't, for all practical purposes. (They certainly don't have any control over what the media writes.)

Teams can simply make an announcement that no questions relating to a player's sexuality will be answered, and that any reporter who persists along these lines will be stripped of his credentials. And let the media whine all they want about whatever they want.


Yeah, that'll go over well.

Are you serious?
   2743. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:09 PM (#4756252)
It'd be a tie between Ray and SBB's "Modern Liberals in Decline Since 1979, as proven conclusively by my repeated assertions."


Don't forget Lassus's constant questions that he trots out whenever someone makes a point he doesn't agree with. "What does this mean?" "I don't understand this. Can you explain it?"
   2744. Greg K Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:10 PM (#4756254)
We need to have some quiz where we see who can be identified solely by their posts and corresponding language. I can't imagine anyone scores higher than Ray.

gef is fairly distinctive (I'll leave it to the reader's imagination whether that is a compliment or not). I'm pretty easy in that if there's no mention of 17th century England in a post, it's not me. Yankee Redneck and Sam have fairly distinctive tones. Brock Hanke cheats a bit on his...
   2745. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4756259)
Which is why they have the media ...


Yeah I love that the media does whatever Liberals want. It is awesome. Cathedral powers, ACTIVATE!

The media wants controversy. Eyeballs, clicks, whatever. And if they think this will do it, then they are on it like white on rice.
   2746. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4756260)
STEAGLES' mix of poor writing and exclusive posting on gay rights issues is pretty inimitatable.
   2747. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:16 PM (#4756264)
gef is fairly distinctive


That's what she said.
   2748. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:23 PM (#4756267)
STEAGLES' mix of poor writing and exclusive posting on gay rights issues is pretty inimitatable.


Christopher Hitchens would have called his posts "unlettered."
   2749. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:31 PM (#4756273)
As if the team has no control over the questions that get repeated ad nauseum to their coaches and players.

? They don't, for all practical purposes. (They certainly don't have any control over what the media writes.)


But how long are the trolling media going to keep dwelling on a non-issue that isn't constantly being troll-fed by the team or its players? The media at some point are going to tire of talking to themselves.

Teams can simply make an announcement that no questions relating to a player's sexuality will be answered, and that any reporter who persists along these lines will be stripped of his credentials. And let the media whine all they want about whatever they want.

Yeah, that'll go over well.

Are you serious?


Dead serious. When it comes to an issue like this, who cares what a handful of media trollers think? The vast majority of the media will get the point of the team's announced non-responsive policy and move on, while the trollers will be left talking to the mouthbreathers who refuse to let the non-"issue" die.

You can see an easy parallel right here. If Repoz didn't keep posting Murray Chass's rantings, how many Primates would know that Chass was even alive?** If the team exercises leadership in ceasing to feed the trolls, then the trolls will be effectively isolated.

**How many Primates are on Chass's e-mail list? Is it Mr. Nobody or Ms. Not One?
   2750. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:36 PM (#4756276)
Dead serious. When it comes to an issue like this, who cares what a handful of media trollers think? The vast majority of the media will get the point of the team's announced non-responsive policy and move on, while the trollers will be left talking to the mouthbreathers who refuse to let the non-"issue" die.


I can't wait to hear the fevered reaction to the team's newfound policy of suppressing questions relating to sexual orientation.
   2751. Lassus Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:43 PM (#4756278)
Don't forget Lassus's constant questions that he trots out whenever someone makes a point he doesn't agree with. "What does this mean?" "I don't understand this. Can you explain it?"

Interesting that it's a drone, so thanks, but I'd rather have more information than react based on one or two snarky sentences.


As if the team has no control over the questions that get repeated ad nauseum to their coaches and players.
? They don't, for all practical purposes. (They certainly don't have any control over what the media writes.)


I do kind of agree with Ray here. They can prevent some of the repetitive tide by saying, "We don't have any issues, if you ask any more of these questions, you'll be ignored," but that's still not having CONTROL, per se, just moving the conversation.
   2752. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4756279)
I can't wait to hear the fevered reaction to the team's newfound policy of suppressing questions relating to sexual orientation.

Who cares? Let the mouthbreathers rev up their oxygen tanks and act as if any sane person cares about their sputterings of phony indignation.

And BTW what would be your reaction, given how you've repeatedly (and rightly) said that Sam's sexual orientation is a non-issue? Since you always say how much you prize consistency, I'm assuming you'd be equally (and rightly) dismissive of any negative reaction to such an announcement.
   2753. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4756280)
Who cares? Let the mouthbreathers rev up their oxygen tanks and act as if any sane person cares about their sputterings of phony indignation.


You're proving why Dungy's comment that this will be a distraction was entirely correct. There is nothing the team can do with respect to this issue that won't be criticized, no new "policy" or media policy the team can make, other than to just ride it out and pretend it's not distracting the team.
   2754. Lassus Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:49 PM (#4756282)
And BTW, it was Peg-Leg Menckel who brought this issue up this time, a decidedly non-liberal poster.
   2755. BDC Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:51 PM (#4756284)
Tony Dungy has since qualified his remarks; his rhetoric is interesting:

"The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they're good enough to play. That's my opinion as a coach.

"But those were not the questions I was asked. What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.

"I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction."


Which is kind of like "I believe everyone has the right to keep their porch light on all night. But if your light is on, somebody's going to come along and shoot it out with a BB gun. Unfortunately we are seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that I'm the one who shot it out."

I really don't mean to participate in the "2 minutes hate"; I think as objectionable remarks go, Dungy's are extremely mild. I just think that the rhetoric of apology is fascinating.
   2756. Eddo Posted: July 23, 2014 at 12:53 PM (#4756285)
I can't wait to hear the fevered reaction to the team's newfound policy of suppressing questions relating to sexual orientation.

I feel like this is a pretty straightforward ban. I can't imagine my employer would answer any third-party questions about my sexual orientation. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's illegal for them to do so, or at the very least, risky.
   2757. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 23, 2014 at 01:01 PM (#4756287)
The media reaction isn't a matter of "trolling," it's a matter of the media enforcing the requisite amount of celebration and the threat of them doing their one raised eyebrow thing if the team decides Sam isn't good enough to make the team -- another distraction and potential bad pr for the franchise.

The underlying cause of all of it is the modern liberal insistence that one and all be sufficiently celebratory of Sams gayness rather than properly insisting that he be treated like everyone else and their silly knee jerk certainty that if he's cut well then the Rams *must* be homophobes.
   2758. Lassus Posted: July 23, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4756291)
STEAGLES' mix of poor writing and exclusive posting on gay rights issues is pretty inimitatable.

"Exclusive" does not mean what you think it means, and I'm pretty sure that a number count over the past year would put Ray's posts on gay rights issues neck-and-neck with STEAGLES, if not over.


The underlying cause of all of it is the modern liberal insistence that one and all be sufficiently celebratory of Sams gayness rather than properly insisting that he be treated like everyone else.

Hee. The root cause isn't the reaction to being gay, the root cause is the response to the reaction to the reaction to being gay.
   2759. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 01:11 PM (#4756294)
The underlying cause of all of it is the modern liberal insistence


*Drink*!
   2760. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 23, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4756295)
Who cares? Let the mouthbreathers rev up their oxygen tanks and act as if any sane person cares about their sputterings of phony indignation.

You're proving why Dungy's comment that this will be a distraction was entirely correct. There is nothing the team can do with respect to this issue that won't be criticized, no new "policy" or media policy the team can make, other than to just ride it out and pretend it's not distracting the team.


There were infinitely more media members who mocked and were otherwise critical of Branch Rickey's signing of Jackie Robinson in 1945** than there are media members today who are critical of the Rams' decision to draft Sam. They raised all sorts of concern troll questions about "How will southern ballplayers react?", "What about Spring Training in Florida?", and other such "issues" whose intent was to keep the status quo.

So should Rickey have listened to them? Or was he wrong to limit his public answers to Robinson's playing ability?

**Most prominently the ultra-influential "Bible of Baseball", The Sporting News, which sounded "concerns" remarkably similar to Tony Dungy's.

---------------------------------------------------

Which is kind of like "I believe everyone has the right to keep their porch light on all night. But if your light is on, somebody's going to come along and shoot it out with a BB gun. Unfortunately we are seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that I'm the one who shot it out."

Whether he likes it or not, Dungy's reaction amounts to little more than a cowardly admission that he'd let someone else's bigotry and trolling influence his decision. What a cop-out.
   2761. Howie Menckel Posted: July 23, 2014 at 01:13 PM (#4756296)

"Teams can simply make an announcement that no questions relating to a player's sexuality will be answered, and that any reporter who persists along these lines will be stripped of his credentials."

The solution generally is to have a 45-minute or so presser with the particular athlete, and have the same or another day where other players and coaches agree to take questions on the topic, and move on.

For Tebow and the Jets, that applied to his religious missionary work and such. The circus continued simply because he was a bizarre acquisition and there was a chance he would either play a unique Wildcat role, or even become the starting QB somehow.

As for Sam, if he makes the team he'll be a special teamer with little to no shot at making a big impact. Not the stuff of back pages, assuming neither he nor his teammates stir the soup.

my posting of the issue had to do with what seemed a curious comment: "My belief is that Michael Sam will stun the league and prove, as many other players have done, that some men are more than their combine numbers."

had a trace of the "noble savage" element...

   2762. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 23, 2014 at 01:16 PM (#4756299)
I can't wait to hear the fevered reaction to the team's newfound policy of suppressing questions relating to sexual orientation.


I feel like this is a pretty straightforward ban. I can't imagine my employer would answer any third-party questions about my sexual orientation. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's illegal for them to do so, or at the very least, risky.

And to put it in terms that Troll Boy might understand, it would be a private organization establishing such a policy. It would have absolutely no legal or moral obligation to address issues of Sam's sexual orientation.
   2763. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 23, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4756301)
"Teams can simply make an announcement that no questions relating to a player's sexuality will be answered, and that any reporter who persists along these lines will be stripped of his credentials."

The solution generally is to have a 45-minute or so presser with the particular athlete, and have the same or another day where other players and coaches agree to take questions on the topic, and move on.


Which in this case would (a) give undeserved credibility to an irrelevant line of questioning; and (b) feed the beast only to have him come back every day expecting to be fed all over again.

Much better to simply say, "Sorry, no questions about sexual orientation. Period. Anything other than that?"
   2764. The Good Face Posted: July 23, 2014 at 01:24 PM (#4756302)
Yeah I love that the media does whatever Liberals want. It is awesome. Cathedral powers, ACTIVATE!


Are you claiming that hunting down and 2 Minute Hating on people who are insufficiently delighted about Sam's big gay career is done at the behest of right wingers?

The media wants controversy. Eyeballs, clicks, whatever. And if they think this will do it, then they are on it like white on rice.


And yet, aside from media that's explicitly right wing, the controversy almost always seems to be advancing the left wing narrative. Funny how that works.
   2765. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 01:26 PM (#4756306)
Whether he likes it or not, Dungy's reaction amounts to little more than a cowardly admission that he'd let someone else's bigotry and trolling influence his decision. What a cop-out.


The media is not being "bigoted" by asking these questions; they're there as sort of the speech police, to make sure that everyone who comments on this issue is commenting according to Accepted Views. When Dungy said something that ran counter to that, he was pilloried.

   2766. Lassus Posted: July 23, 2014 at 01:26 PM (#4756307)
Are you claiming that hunting down and 2 Minute Hating on people who are insufficiently delighted about Sam's big gay career is done at the behest of right wingers?

"Also, have you stopped beating your wife?"

Seriously, come on. Did Dungy say "You know, whatever, I don't have an opinion on Sam's gayness, I really don't care"? No, so this is simply a dishonest question.

I actually think piling on Dungy is unwarranted. You, SBB, and Ray make way more sense as targets based on your own statements. If you mattered to anybody.
   2767. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 01:35 PM (#4756311)
You, SBB, and Ray make way more sense as targets based on your own statements. If you mattered to anybody.


What did I say that should make me a "target"?
   2768. Lassus Posted: July 23, 2014 at 01:39 PM (#4756315)
Keep in mind on this very page with where I agreed with you in response to one of Andy's points.

But an easy look finds this
But not because Sam is gay; because the media and liberals can't handle the fact that Sam is gay. All other groups moved on from this issue long ago.
being target-worthy (and by target, I mean for noticing and criticizing - whatever other target you imagine yourself, take it up with those folks) for sheer lack of acknowledgement of reality.
   2769. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 23, 2014 at 01:45 PM (#4756317)
And yet, aside from media that's explicitly right wing, the controversy almost always seems to be advancing the left wing narrative. Funny how that works.


Well your assumptions are flawed, so obviously the edifice built on those assumptions is not very solid. In other words that is more your confirmation bias at work than anything.
   2770. The Good Face Posted: July 23, 2014 at 01:47 PM (#4756319)
Are you claiming that hunting down and 2 Minute Hating on people who are insufficiently delighted about Sam's big gay career is done at the behest of right wingers?

"Also, have you stopped beating your wife?"


Non-responsive to the point, but your attempt to dodge the question and shut down the conversation has been noted. If it's not liberals pushing this type of coverage, then who is?
   2771. formerly dp Posted: July 23, 2014 at 01:49 PM (#4756321)
In other words that is more your confirmation bias at work than anything.
It's a weird mix of confirmation bias and persecution complex.
   2772. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 23, 2014 at 01:55 PM (#4756322)
Non-responsive to the point, but your attempt to dodge the question and shut down the conversation has been noted. If it's not liberals pushing this type of coverage, then who is?


You are assuming a conspiracy that benefits one side, and then accuse people of being non responsive when they challenge the assumption of a conspiracy as opposed to answering your question.

There is no hidden media conspiracy, so no one is behind it. Asking "if not the liberals then who" is missing the point.
   2773. Lassus Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:00 PM (#4756323)
Non-responsive to the point, but your attempt to dodge the question and shut down the conversation has been noted. If it's not liberals pushing this type of coverage, then who is?

No one but no one is hating on people insufficiently delighted; Dungy's statements would only be defined as insufficiently delighted by someone who doesn't care about how words work. Pointing out your false premise is most certainly responsive.
   2774. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4756325)
#2773 Please, Lassus. Dungy was attacked because he wasn't sufficiently delighted by the prospect of dealing with the distractions that Sam brings. Why deny the obvious?

Why was Dungy criticized, in your view? (I'll laugh if your response to this is "I don't understand the question.")
   2775. The Good Face Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:04 PM (#4756326)
You are assuming a conspiracy that benefits one side, and then accuse people of being non responsive when they challenge the assumption of a conspiracy as opposed to answering your question.


No, you're attempting to dodge a simple question by accusing me of assuming a conspiracy. You're the one who claimed the media isn't serving liberal interests here. Well then, whose interests are being served by this sort of coverage? Are you claiming that it's conservative interests? What's behind your cowardly refusal to answer?
   2776. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:05 PM (#4756327)
BM, let me help you: liberal media bias is not a "conspiracy."
   2777. Steve Treder Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4756330)
BM, let me help you: liberal media bias is not a "conspiracy."

That's correct. It is a delusion.
   2778. villageidiom Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4756331)
If it's not liberals pushing this type of coverage, then who is?
It's either/or for you, isn't it? It's liberals! No? Then you must mean it's right-wingers! Non-responsive? Then it's liberals!

It's people. People who need something to write about, but are too lazy to go for something worthwhile. Laziness in sports journalism is not a liberal thing. It's a thing.

For Tebow and the Jets, that applied to his religious missionary work and such. The circus continued simply because he was a bizarre acquisition and there was a chance he would either play a unique Wildcat role, or even become the starting QB somehow.
Correct. Much of the Jets fan base wanted Sanchez gone, so Tebow was a convenient opportunity to push for it. There is no analogous Mark Sanchez with the Rams. There are players standing in the way of Sam staying on with the team, but not anyone that the fan base wants dropped.
   2779. formerly dp Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:20 PM (#4756332)
BM, let me help you: liberal media bias is not a "conspiracy."
Ray, let me help you: liberal media bias is a figment of the fevered conservative imagination.
   2780. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4756337)
That's correct. It is a delusion.

Are you disputing that the great majority of the journalists in this country self-identify as liberals and Democrats?
   2781. spike Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4756339)
And so it follows that any and all of their actions are a function of that?
   2782. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4756340)
That's correct. It is a delusion.


Well, you would know.
   2783. The Good Face Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:46 PM (#4756350)
It's either/or for you, isn't it? It's liberals! No? Then you must mean it's right-wingers! Non-responsive? Then it's liberals!

It's people. People who need something to write about, but are too lazy to go for something worthwhile. Laziness in sports journalism is not a liberal thing. It's a thing.


Still non-responsive. Is the media coverage of Sam furthering the interests of liberals more than those of right wingers? Are they reinforcing liberal worldviews and values or right wing ones? It's such a simple question, and none of the lefties seem willing to answer it.
   2784. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4756357)
Well then, whose interests are being served by this sort of coverage? Are you claiming that it's conservative interests? What's behind your cowardly refusal to answer?


It is in the interests of the media. The media is self serving. And I already pointed this out in #2745, so calling me out for being cowardly for not answering is really dumb. I answered long ago, you just didn't like the answer.

Let me say it one more time so maybe it penetrates. The media is not serving liberal, conservative, libertarian, or any other groups interests. It is a business, functioning in the free market. It is trying to make money. To make money it must attract eyeballs, ears and other sundry organs. Different media organizations use different strategies to do this, and some of those strategies appeal to different demographics and different constituencies, and some of those constituencies are political leaning groups of people.

But media is still fundamentally a business out to make money, not advance some groups agenda.
   2785. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4756358)
Whether he likes it or not, Dungy's reaction amounts to little more than a cowardly admission that he'd let someone else's bigotry and trolling influence his decision. What a cop-out.


The media is not being "bigoted" by asking these questions;


They weren't being bigoted by raising the questions of "distractions" once or twice right after Sam came out of the closet, but by continuing to harp on these "questions" long after they've been addressed to anyone willing to listen is little more than trollery in the service of bigots, however unintentional. Dungy's "concerns" are those of a coward, disguised as "honesty".

Ask yourself this: If this were 1946, would Dungy have refused to draft Kenny Washington because of the "distractions" of introducing a black player into an all-white and partly anti-black NFL? Yeah, right. Dungy's not "evil" or any of that sort of thing, but he's willing to let the bigots drive the narrative and shape his draft choices, and the only word for that is cowardice. Sorry if that offends the professional "anti-PC" folks around here.

they're there as sort of the speech police, to make sure that everyone who comments on this issue is commenting according to Accepted Views. When Dungy said something that ran counter to that, he was pilloried.

I'll be honest. I sincerely do wish that the media would simply STFU about this entire "non-issue" and let Sam try to make the team like any other player. This sentiment is directed to media members of all persuasions, regardless of who they're voting for in past or future elections.




   2786. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4756359)
It's such a simple question, and none of the lefties seem willing to answer it.


We have answered it. Repeatedly. Loudly suggesting we haven't is dumb.
   2787. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4756360)
And so it follows that any and all of their actions are a function of that?

Of course not. But peoples' beliefs always bias them to a certain extent, if only in terms of what they find interesting/newsworthy.

If 100% of stories on gun violence/gun control were written by NRA members, that would obviously impose a slant on the coverage.
   2788. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 02:58 PM (#4756361)
Let me say it one more time so maybe it penetrates. The media is not serving liberal, conservative, libertarian, or any other groups interests. It is a business, functioning in the free market. It is trying to make money. To make money it must attract eyeballs, ears and other sundry organs. Different media organizations use different strategies to do this, and some of those strategies appeal to different demographics and different constituencies, and some of those constituencies are political leaning groups of people.

But media is still fundamentally a business out to make money, not advance some groups agenda.


Pretty much this. The number of newspaper, TV stations, etc. operated by workers' collectives, as opposed to wealthy corporations &/or families, has to be vanishingly small.
   2789. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4756365)
But media is still fundamentally a business out to make money, not advance some groups agenda.

Sure. But the people who self-select to work in media are overwhelmingly liberal. Regardless of the profit objective, that will slant coverage.
   2790. Lassus Posted: July 23, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4756369)
Why was Dungy criticized, in your view? (I'll laugh if your response to this is "I don't understand the question."

I understand the question. Why you're asking it is another story. I doubt there is anything I could tell you about why Dungy was criticized that you would either care about or listen to. I already said I do not think the entirety of the criticism he has received has been warranted, but criticizing him for being cowardly via how he says he would react is valid, IMO. In answer to your question, I do think that's why he's being criticized.

This would probably be a lot easier if Sam wasn't a borderline NFL player like a bazillion other draftees. I would love it if he ends up one of those late-round Tom Brady success stories. You want to see a lot of people not caring? That's what will help with that, although I doubt it will happen.


There's probably a liberal media bias, but the level at which you and GF and SBB put it at is pretty goofy.
   2791. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4756370)
But the people who self-select to work in media are overwhelmingly liberal.


And why do you think that is? (No snark or whatever intended -- I'm genuinely curious, especially since I worked for nearly two decades as a newspaper reporter & editor & certainly fit your description ... though as I've related more than once, the Little Rock daily where I spent most of my career was & remains very solidly entrenched at the conservative end of the spectrum).
   2792. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 23, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4756373)
Sure. But the people who self-select to work in media are overwhelmingly liberal. Regardless of the profit objective, that will slant coverage.


Sort of. People who own and manage media conglomerates are overwhelmingly conservative. That will slant media coverage as well.

However the end result, the net of all that built in bias, because we are all human, is that either the media company makes money and survives or it dies. And if they have to kill and eat babies on air to boost rating they will (Perhaps a slight exaggeration).

Of course it may well be that reality skews liberal and what many conservatives are seeing as terrible bias is just reality sneaking through the conflicting layers of other biases forces of self interest. Or you know, there REALLY IS a giant liberal media conspiracy, that just happens to fail with monotonous regularity.
   2793. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 23, 2014 at 03:16 PM (#4756376)
Yesterday two different appeals court panels handed down conflicting decisionS on part of the ACA. One panel upheld this key provision unanimously, while the other court voided it by 2 to 1. There's pretty much agreement that the latter panel will be overturned when the full court convenes, as the three judge panel was made up of 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat, while the full court is now majority Democrat, with 4 new Obama appointees.

Here's the lead headline in today's liberal Washington Post that summarized these decisions:

"RULING MAY GUT HEALTH LAW"
   2794. BDC Posted: July 23, 2014 at 03:16 PM (#4756377)
people who self-select to work in media are overwhelmingly liberal.

And why do you think that is?


For starters, I assume they have to be able to read.
   2795. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4756380)
And why do you think that is? (No snark or whatever intended -- I'm genuinely curious, especially since I worked for nearly two decades as a newspaper reporter & editor & certainly fit your description ... though as I've related more than once, the Little Rock daily where I spent most of my career was & remains very solidly entrenched at the conservative end of the spectrum).

I think it's the "muckraking" tradition embedded in modern journalism. Journalists aspire to expose wrong doing and get someone to "do something about it". That naturally predisposes them to more Gov't action b/c it is "doing something" (at least superficially) about the problems.

Also, good journalism includes a heavy dose of human interest. Journalists have every incentive to expose individual suffering, among highly sympathetic people, and to present those people to the audience in the way that garners the most empathy.

But, just as it's said "hard cases make bad laws", sympathetic sufferers can make bad public policy. By focusing on a small number of people suffering through no fault of their own, you often get a distorted view of social problems, and, again, the cry is to "do something". Not a good recipe for dispassionate policy analysis.
   2796. The Good Face Posted: July 23, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4756382)
It is in the interests of the media. The media is self serving. And I already pointed this out in #2745, so calling me out for being cowardly for not answering is really dumb. I answered long ago, you just didn't like the answer.


This is just a cowardly dodge. Gay "rights" are a political issue, and the media has most certainly taken sides on the Sam issue. Their coverage supports and benefits one side more than the other. Why are you unwilling to answer my question if not cowardice? It's a simple, easily answered question, but you're too weak to admit that I'm right about the media advancing a liberal narrative in this case, so you're attempting to weasel out. Cowardly.

Let me say it one more time so maybe it penetrates. The media is not serving liberal, conservative, libertarian, or any other groups interests. It is a business, functioning in the free market. It is trying to make money. To make money it must attract eyeballs, ears and other sundry organs. Different media organizations use different strategies to do this, and some of those strategies appeal to different demographics and different constituencies, and some of those constituencies are political leaning groups of people.


And yet when they advance one narrative over another, they ARE serving the agenda of some groups over those of other groups. So whose agenda is being advanced by the Sam coverage? I'll keep asking until you find the courage to answer the question.
   2797. Ron J2 Posted: July 23, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4756383)
In today's Rob Ford new, the mayoral race is now basically a flat tie. He's in third at 27% while the leader is at 29%. He's got the strongest disapproval rating, suggesting that he probably has limited upside growth. At the same time he has the most committed supporters meaning he could easily win on simple turnout.
   2798. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 23, 2014 at 03:23 PM (#4756384)
Ron, I absolutely love that you are so into the Rob Ford thing. Hey, we all have our pet interests :-)
   2799. Ron J2 Posted: July 23, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4756386)
I'll answer the question you've posed Face. Nobody's agenda is being advanced by the Sam coverage.

Now how about you and Snapper addressing that while journalists themselves skew liberal, management/ownership skews conservative.
   2800. Ron J2 Posted: July 23, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4756391)
#2798 It just amuses the hell out of me. And I know the saga is weirdly fascinating to a lot of people. Not least because he's so contrary to the Canadian stereotype. My mayor is a typical earnest, boring Canadian.

And the idea that he could easily win reelection after all that's happened just floors me.
Page 28 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 26 27 28 29 30 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sebastian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Page rendered in 0.9192 seconds
48 querie(s) executed