RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge!

RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 4:58:49 PM)
So now the terms have been redefined again? Wow this study would be loved by the folks over at Global Warming Inc. So basically as soon as a media source is shown to be biased, it gets pulled. This challenge just drips with intellectuall integrity..... So now CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC have all been removed... Don't fewer than 5% of Americans read the NY Times and listen to NPR? (or is that an incorrect number? I honestly am not sure. If anyone wants to give a different number, fine)

luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 5:01:06 PM)
Though I see bias in this story from NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120846593 It has a sublead that says the commitee denied the article, for an innocent reason. But only backs it up by interviewing one member of the commitee. Why not have a sublead, leaked memos show orginized effort to supress Christies studies. Two individulas, and they choose one to give a sublead to, while pretending it was the backed up decision of a commitee. NPR did not have to choose a side, but they did. And you can see how MM who introduced the article in another thread interpreted it. As proof that the committee had pure motives, when it is in fact debatable. http://www.collarchat.com/m_2922724/tm.htm# Which is of course the point of bias..... Also it seems rather ridiculous to accept at face value that ten studies is actually the cut off point.

Sanity -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 5:14:45 PM)
No Google searches, no third party media analysts which specifically look for bias. All sorts of nifty rules keep getting added... [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg So now the terms have been redefined again? Wow this study would be loved by the folks over at Global Warming Inc. So basically as soon as a media source is shown to be biased, it gets pulled. This challenge just drips with intellectuall integrity..... So now CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC have all been removed... Don't fewer than 5% of Americans read the NY Times and listen to NPR? (or is that an incorrect number? I honestly am not sure. If anyone wants to give a different number, fine)

luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 5:15:50 PM)
"no third party media analysts which specifically look for bias. " If that is true then absolutly no evidence of Bias at Fox has been presented so far.....

Musicmystery -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 6:52:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg So now the terms have been redefined again? Wow this study would be loved by the folks over at Global Warming Inc. So basically as soon as a media source is shown to be biased, it gets pulled. This challenge just drips with intellectuall integrity..... So now CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC have all been removed... Don't fewer than 5% of Americans read the NY Times and listen to NPR? (or is that an incorrect number? I honestly am not sure. If anyone wants to give a different number, fine) That's the trouble with looking at everything through either/or winner-take-all glasses. I acknowledge CNN is not what I remember it as, that the three major networks are not good sources of information, and that it wouldn't surprise me a bit if MSNBC does have a liberal bias...and you keep spinning it as me changing the terms so I can win an argument? Hell, I should just admit defeat--then you'd never be able to meet the challenge! You're obviously not interested in a discussion. Just shrug, convinced I'm an idiot, and walk away. Not worth your time.

Musicmystery -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 6:56:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You should try gargling with it Tim - you would be amazed at everything it cures. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Have you been drinking Sanity juice? You too. You're an idiot, just this guy's lapdog. You declare NPR is "boycotting" coverage, and I immediately post three links to stories (and now there's a bunch). Yet you're harping about changing the rules and "intellectual honesty" too? You are simply full of shit.

luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 6:59:52 PM)
You asked to have your eyes opened, and presented a challange. Of which you then redefined the terms in the middle, when you realised your challenge has been met, because you had a specific result you wanted. You were crowing that you had won it before I really got involved. And had to be kind of annoying on a point to get you to acknowledge it. Though I do understand why you want to walk away, rather than discuss my NPR example I gave. The reason is quite obvious, it is clearly biased, they chose sides.

Musicmystery -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 7:00:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Googling TV for press coverage? I can tell you that both the New York Times and NPR have multiple stories on this--both sites are searchable (if you're starved for coverage). And yes, I agree that ABC, CBS, and NBC are problems--though I think the problems are deeper and different than you surmise (I agree that editors are a main problem, though). I'll save this for the forthcoming epic mini-series (I've started outlining it). th A googling of "Obama copenhagen climate" pointed me straight to the TV networks homepage, Tim. It also found this without much hassle; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDJ_Mz8ftqI Those three networks are an enormous slice of the "mainstream media." I hope you aren't planning to dismiss that. I'm sure you aren't planning to just disqualify them for discussion on the basis that we can't compare their coverage, because they didn't cover it. Rich, you're the only reason I'm still in this. At times you too jump on the bandwagon, but other times you raise points and thoughtful objections. You and I, at least, have the basis for a conversation. But you've missed a lot of things that have been hashed out along the way. That's why I want to recap them and what I see that has been learned and established, at least by way of better mutual understanding of where we're coming from. If it's just gonna be dismissed as "changing the rules," I'm wasting my time. So I hope I'm talking to Rich the Reasonable, and not Rich the Rabblefollower on this.

luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 7:02:32 PM)
so you seriously do not see bias in snickering with an insulting name at a political movement? really? come on....

luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 7:03:35 PM)
oops double post

luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 7:05:31 PM)
And I don't see how ignoring a point, saying you will adress it at a specific time, and then not doing so is a discussion of any sort. I am trying to have a discussion, you just keep saying you will resond later, for resons I see as clear.

Musicmystery -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 7:05:42 PM)
Gosh, did that goal just shift again? You and Panda can handle that one. I don't attend every argument I'm invited to. I don't even see what the damn fuss is, on either side. I told you before I don't have a dog in that fight. Read all the parts, not just the ones you like.

Musicmystery -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 7:07:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg And I don't see how ignoring a point, saying you will adress it at a specific time, and then not doing so is a discussion of any sort. I am trying to have a discussion, you just keep saying you will resond later, for resons I see as clear. Fuck you. Plenty of things going on here far more important than you. What, this won't still be an issue when I post it? Plenty of people to goad and insult in the meantime. No worries.

Lucylastic -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 7:09:43 PM)
Its almost been a month Music...19 pages and ooooooh 366 posts...apart from the teabaggin hysteria, all I have seen is lots of right wing pouting and claims of changing goalposts, and major major obfuscation. Of course I could be biased:)

luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 7:19:08 PM)
Fuck you? You put up the challenge of showing bias at CNN.....Pandas nonsense aside, it clearly is bias, and that clearly is why you pulled CNN from your challenge. and I do realise saying "Fuck You" is easier than adressing the bias I pointed out in the NPR article you cited....or are you going to pull NPR from the "challenge" also?

Musicmystery -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 7:30:06 PM)
Stolen E-Mails Raise Questions On Climate Research by RICHARD HARRIS November 25, 2009 "A huge pile of e-mails were stolen from a British climate laboratory and posted on the Internet last week. The correspondence shows that some climate scientists are resorting to bare-knuckle tactics to defend the orthodoxy of global warming. "In particular, a group of scientists who support the consensus view of climate change have been working together to influence what gets published in science journals. "Journals are supposed to be impartial filters that let good ideas rise to the top and bad ideas sink to the bottom. But the stolen e-mails show that a group of scientists has decided that's not working well enough. So they have resorted to strong tactics — including possible boycotts — to keep any paper they think is dubious from reaching the pages of a journal." Clear liberal bias there. The rest of the article expands the context. I know that's confusing to an either/or mind. Nicpic from there. Hey, where's the balanced story? I'd like to learn the unbiased truth. That article just says a group of global warming supporting scientists suppressed contrary evidence for political reasons. What's the honest take? Or hell, the view from the right?

luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 7:33:43 PM)
and you didn't adress a single point I raised..... There is no such thing as the unbiased truth.

TheHeretic -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/27/2009 8:46:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Rich the Reasonable We'll see how your expanded piece on this comes out. And I'm a rabble-ROUSER, thank you very much. You should see the naked pics I get from my legions of adoring fans [:D] Lucy is right. We should give a more described discussion a new thread. Maybe call it, "a reasonable discussion of the many facets of media bias."

Lucylastic -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/28/2009 5:02:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Rich the Reasonable We'll see how your expanded piece on this comes out. And I'm a rabble-ROUSER, thank you very much. You should see the naked pics I get from my legions of adoring fans [:D] Lucy is right. We should give a more described discussion a new thread. Maybe call it, "a reasonable discussion of the many facets of media bias." Dont lay that at my feet Rich, [:D] I do not think another thread is required, so that you can split hairs and semantics and whittle this down to your way or no way. But..go ahead fill your boots. Its plain that there is a lack of evidence to prove the storm of liberal bias that is apparently upsetting so many non liberals I think Music has been more than generous with his thread. I had no intention of directing the flow, I was just commenting. PS the YOU in this thread is generic. Peace

luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/28/2009 8:55:55 AM)
um MM is the one whittling things down, by removing parts (that is what whittling means) of the challenge, when he doesn't like what he sees.

Page: << < prev 16 17 18 [19] 20 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875