Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Al Gore, the Internet, and the Gullibility of the Populace
Tusko
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 46 of 58 (198276)
04-11-2005 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Ooook!
04-11-2005 10:18 AM


Re: If the cap fits
Okay, I suppose that makes sense. Like wearing a T-Shirt saying "kick me", going on TV to be smug about your brilliance when you are already seen as a bit of a Dr Smug is asking for it.
Lest there be any mistake, I personally find Michael Howard pretty devoid of anything resembling cuddliness (unlike your good orange self). Incidentally: I was reading in the Observer yesterday how he is a Bryan Adams fan... terrifying.
My main gripe with people who say "something of the night" is that it seems like they don't seem to have to bother about what he's saying any more, they just use it as a kind of mantra to express their distaste, like screwing up their faces, or going "eww!" or something. I think it would be much better if they actually said what it was they didn't like about his policies. They can be funny, or poetic, or whatever, but if they actually talk about substantive issues rather than use that phrase, then it looks a bit better for them. I'm only actually saying all this because I saw a guy on question time (I think) the other day just going "something of the night! Something of the night!) It was a bit embarrassing.
I'd be interested to see a general election topic too. If it dies a horrible lonely death, then so be it - it was worth trying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Ooook!, posted 04-11-2005 10:18 AM Ooook! has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 47 of 58 (198305)
04-11-2005 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Trae
04-11-2005 1:50 AM


Re: point of view
In that particular message, I was talking about politicians
quote:
Actually, what should be clear is that politicians exaggerate...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Trae, posted 04-11-2005 1:50 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 48 of 58 (198309)
04-11-2005 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by nator
04-11-2005 11:01 AM


quote:
CNN used to be pretty middle of the road-leaning, but they have seen the success of Fox News in creating "brand loyalty" and have been moving rightward, along with MSNBC, and the rest of the mainstream news networks for a while now.
I don't believe that.
And FAIR does have a political bias, they lean to the left. Just as AIM (Accuracy in Media) leans to the right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by nator, posted 04-11-2005 11:01 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 04-11-2005 9:08 PM Monk has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 58 (198401)
04-11-2005 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Monk
04-11-2005 1:06 PM


CNN used to be pretty middle of the road-leaning, but they have seen the success of Fox News in creating "brand loyalty" and have been moving rightward, along with MSNBC, and the rest of the mainstream news networks for a while now.
quote:
I don't believe that.
Uh, why not?
Upon what evidence do you base this belief?
Care to explain?
quote:
And FAIR does have a political bias, they lean to the left. Just as AIM (Accuracy in Media) leans to the right.
What on that page I linked you to is incorrect or inaccurate regarding CNN? Give me examples.
Come on, support your assertions.
Just because a media watchdog group may lean left or right doesn't mean it is partisan.
What is your evidence that F.A.I.R. is inaccurate or misleading?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Monk, posted 04-11-2005 1:06 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Monk, posted 04-12-2005 2:13 AM nator has replied

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 50 of 58 (198424)
04-12-2005 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Ooook!
04-11-2005 10:18 AM


Re: If the cap fits
Let's get that General Election thread up and running - can't let the colonials have all the fun
Apart from general (no pun intended) political stuff I'd be interested in seeing what people think the result will be in advance.

The Tigers roared in Dublin - and I was there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Ooook!, posted 04-11-2005 10:18 AM Ooook! has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 51 of 58 (198435)
04-12-2005 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by nator
04-11-2005 9:08 PM


schrafinator writes:
Uh, why not?
Upon what evidence do you base this belief?
Care to explain?
My opinion is based on my years of observations of the media you have listed. Based on this I believe that CNN is still neutral as far as political bias. They have an equal share of both conservative and liberal journalist and that's why I consider them to be middle of the road.
I can provide articles as evidence showing CNN to be a left leaning organization and I'm sure you can find other evidence showing CNN's so called move to the right.
But what will that accomplish? Political bias in the media is relative to the competition. CNN is to the left of Fox but to the right of Democracy Now.
schrafinator writes:
What on that page I linked you to is incorrect or inaccurate regarding CNN? Give me examples.
I didn't say it was incorrect or inaccurate.
schrafinator writes:
Just because a media watchdog group may lean left or right doesn't mean it is partisan.
It seems you are using a definition for partisan that is different from mine. Leaning with a left or right bias is the meaning of partisan.
schrafinator writes:
What is your evidence that F.A.I.R. is inaccurate or misleading?
I didn't say F.A.I.R. is inaccurate or misleading, only biased.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 04-11-2005 9:08 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 04-12-2005 9:14 AM Monk has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 58 (198449)
04-12-2005 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Tusko
04-11-2005 11:03 AM


Re: Scary Manipulation
quote:
What intrigues me is that you are really certain that he didn't mean it the "sane" way. Is that because you believe him to be barking from his other actions, or is it purely because you believe the evidence to be so clear cut in this case that he could have meant nothing other than to be the designer and maker/programmer/whatever of the internet?
Well, I'm in the "clear cut" camp. To me, the claim was so patently absurd I really cannot explain why he made it. I can only assume that he was relying on his audience not knowing what he was talking about, and therefore expecting not to be contradicted.
As for this article, yes I think its entirely possible that this is essentially partisan politics. My challenge to Cirf and the defenders of Gore is to lay out exactly what contributions he is supposed to have made. They refer to these "initiatives" but of what do the "initiatives" consist? As mentioned previously, as far as I am aware the infratstructure spending was done under the auspices of the Department of Defence alone.
I mean, in what way does a technical invention need "promoting"? An actually useful technology does not need to be promoted, merely rolled out. This reeks of political doublespeak and IMO undermines Cirfs argument; if the only role they can credit Al Gore with having actually done is to express approval, then his critics are quite right to laugh at him and his claims. All Cirf and Khan have to say about these "initiatives" is that they were local talking shops within the US government about joined up departments... but how on earth does that parochial exercise have to do with the WORLD wide web, as it is now? The whole thing is absurd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Tusko, posted 04-11-2005 11:03 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Tusko, posted 04-12-2005 6:44 AM contracycle has not replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 53 of 58 (198484)
04-12-2005 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by contracycle
04-12-2005 4:52 AM


Re: Scary Manipulation
Okay, I'm really pathetic and can never stick to one point of view for very long. I think I'm understanding what you are arguing now, and it makes sense to me... I don't know what to think now... so I'm going to think about it a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by contracycle, posted 04-12-2005 4:52 AM contracycle has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 58 (198523)
04-12-2005 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Monk
04-12-2005 2:13 AM


quote:
My opinion is based on my years of observations of the media you have listed.
Well, that's not really much, is it?
It's many people's opinion that Fox News is "Fair and Balanced", too.
What I was actually looking for is perhaps some kind of objectively gathered data, rather than just your opinion.
If all we ever did on this board was trade opinions, rather than require and provide facts and data, then what would be the point?
"It's my opinion that evolution doesn't happen, Frank."
"Well Mort, it's my opinion that it has happened."
"OK, well, see you areound, Frank."
"Bye, Mort."
quote:
Based on this I believe that CNN is still neutral as far as political bias.
So, you've done a study, then? Great, let's see your report.
quote:
They have an equal share of both conservative and liberal journalist and that's why I consider them to be middle of the road.
Well, why don't you list them? Then we can really see if your factual claim is true.
Please list all of the journalists at CNN and what their political leaning is.
While you're at it, why don't you list the political bent of all of the editors at CNN, who are the people who get to decide which stories run. I also think it would be good to include the political leanings of the people at Time/Warner who oversee CNN, too.
BTW, I thought that journalists, in their reporting, weren't supposed to have a noticeable political lean. Commentators, yes, but not journalists.
This is what I see as part of the problem with much of the US news media these days, which is that they have followed Fox News in blurring the line between actual journalism/reporting and punditry and opinion.
For example, Wolf Blitzer was a straight ahead reporter for years, but now he does both news reporting and conservative opinion on CNN. How many people listen to what Wolf Blitzer says as a reporter, which are supposed to be just reported facts, and then watch him as a conservative commentator and also take his opinions as facts?
quote:
I can provide articles as evidence showing CNN to be a left leaning organization and I'm sure you can find other evidence showing CNN's so called move to the right.
Please do provide those studies of trends showing the overall leftward slant of CNN on it's number of appearences of left leaning politicians, activists, guests on talk shows, experts, etc., compared to right-leaning.
I have provided quite a few showing that CNN has made moves rightward in order to attract more conservative viewers.
Aren't you going to comment upon any of my evidence?
quote:
But what will that accomplish? Political bias in the media is relative to the competition. CNN is to the left of Fox but to the right of Democracy Now.
What it will accomplish is that we will have a much better basis to base one's opinion on other than "I've watched CNN a lot."
I agree that CNN is to the left of Fox, but that still doesn't mean that CNN hasn't moved rightward in order to try to capture more viewers. Isn't that what we are talking about?
quote:
What on that page I linked you to is incorrect or inaccurate regarding CNN? Give me examples.
quote:
I didn't say it was incorrect or inaccurate.
Then why do you discount it? The new president of CNN met with conservative lawmakers in congress to find out how he could appease them. Doesn't that sound like a shift to the right to you?
Just because a media watchdog group may lean left or right doesn't mean it is partisan.
quote:
It seems you are using a definition for partisan that is different from mine. Leaning with a left or right bias is the meaning of partisan.
No, being partisan means you support a particular political party.
What is your evidence that F.A.I.R. is inaccurate or misleading?
quote:
I didn't say F.A.I.R. is inaccurate or misleading, only biased.
Well, FAIR indicates quite convincingly that CNN has been moving to the political right.
If you cannot point out how they are misleading us or presenting inaccuracies as fact, then you must agree that CNN has, in fact, been moving rightward.
Why should I believe your personal opinion over FAIR's facts?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-12-2005 08:15 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Monk, posted 04-12-2005 2:13 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Monk, posted 04-12-2005 12:53 PM nator has replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 55 of 58 (198625)
04-12-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nator
04-12-2005 9:14 AM


quote:
Well, that's not really much, is it?
It is to me
quote:
It's many people's opinion that Fox News is "Fair and Balanced", too.
That’s true
quote:
What I was actually looking for is perhaps some kind of objectively gathered data, rather than just your opinion.
My opinion was offered because that’s what was asked.
quote:
If all we ever did on this board was trade opinions, rather than require and provide facts and data, then what would be the point?
That’s true. I suppose I would be more willing to debate and provide facts and data in support of my opinion if the topic were less subjective. But political bias in the media is in the eye of the beholder.
quote:
They have an equal share of both conservative and liberal journalist and that's why I consider them to be middle of the road.
quote:
Well, why don't you list them? Then we can really see if your factual claim is true. Please list all of the journalists at CNN and what their political leaning is. While you're at it, why don't you list the political bent of all of the editors at CNN, who are the people who get to decide which stories run. I also think it would be good to include the political leanings of the people at Time/Warner who oversee CNN, too.

Hmmm... That’s a lot of time intensive research. You should initiate this research yourself to prove your assertion that CNN has moved to the right.
Yes, I know, you provided one story about the former head of CNN, Walter Isaakson, who had one meeting with republican lawmakers 4 years ago. Since then Isaakson has left CNN and been replaced with Jim Walton.
Do you suggest that CNN is still leaning to the right based on this one meeting by a former CNN chief. Doesn’t the new head of CNN news steer the ship his own way?
Walton is cognizant of the rise of Fox News and their increasing market share and has an uphill challenge. His approach seems to be to reaffirm CNN as an international organization.
quote:
Since CNN's new chief, Jim Walton, took over last winter the network has reaffirmed its role as an international news network. It is the only one of the three cable-news networks without a flag on its screen now.
Link
You said:
quote:
I have provided quite a few showing that CNN has made moves rightward in order to attract more conservative viewers.
I only saw the Isaakson article in this thread.
quote:
Then why do you discount it? The new president of CNN met with conservative lawmakers in congress to find out how he could appease them. Doesn't that sound like a shift to the right to you?
It’s past history, 4 years old. Times change, Isaakson isn’t there any more
I said:
quote:
It seems you are using a definition for partisan that is different from mine. Leaning with a left or right bias is the meaning of partisan.
Your response:
quote:
No, being partisan means you support a particular political party.
As I said, it’s roughly the same thing. Here is the dictionary.com version
Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.
quote:
Well, FAIR indicates quite convincingly that CNN has been moving to the political right.
I wouldn’t describe one obsolete 4 year old article as convincing.
quote:
If you cannot point out how they are misleading us or presenting inaccuracies as fact, then you must agree that CNN has, in fact, been moving rightward.
Well, to begin with media bias can be more that just presenting inaccuracies. I think Wikepedia does a good job of explaining the various forms. But if you must have some examples of CNN liberal bias then go to Media Research and search for "CNN bias".
Also, here is an article from AIM, a conservative media watch group, discussing the general and persistent trend of left bias in the media.
quote:
Why should I believe your personal opinion over FAIR's facts?
I suppose you don’t need to believe my opinion. There are many media watchdog organizations and each one invariably has an ax to grind. Wikepedia again does a good job in my opinion of describing bias and in particular labels FAIR as a liberal site whose purpose is to expose conservative bias. Here are a few other links from Wikepedia. Each site contains many articles supporting their left or right point of view.
Media Research Center (conservative site which claims to expose liberal bias)
Fairpress.org - Citizens Coalition for Responsible Media (conservative site which claims to expose liberal bias)
Pew Research Center For the People and the Press (non-partisan organization which studies attitudes towards the press)
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (liberal site which claims to expose conservative bias)
Media Matters for America (liberal site which claims to expose conservative bias)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 04-12-2005 9:14 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by nator, posted 04-12-2005 1:10 PM Monk has replied
 Message 58 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-12-2005 3:57 PM Monk has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 58 (198633)
04-12-2005 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Monk
04-12-2005 12:53 PM


quote:
I suppose I would be more willing to debate and provide facts and data in support of my opinion if the topic were less subjective. But political bias in the media is in the eye of the beholder.
That CNN has made a rightward shift over time is a pretty clear cut thing, and evidence could be compiled to show this, wouldn't you agree?
I have provided quite a few showing that CNN has made moves rightward in order to attract more conservative viewers.
quote:
I only saw the Isaakson article in this thread.
There were two links in that message, the one you mention and the other, which was an entire page of FAIR reports on CNN. Here it is again:
CNN/Time Warner FAIR page
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-12-2005 12:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Monk, posted 04-12-2005 12:53 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Monk, posted 04-12-2005 1:24 PM nator has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 57 of 58 (198641)
04-12-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by nator
04-12-2005 1:10 PM


quote:
That CNN has made a rightward shift over time is a pretty clear cut thing, and evidence could be compiled to show this, wouldn't you agree?
No I don't. Perhaps if Isaakson had continued.
Ok, I see the other link. But all of your info seems to be coming from one source, FAIR. They do have a lot of articles supporting the right lean of CNN and the media in general. But they are but one source.
My point is that right leaning media watchdogs also have a large number of articles for their point of view. From their perspective the media continues to be left leaning and is not moving to the right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by nator, posted 04-12-2005 1:10 PM nator has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 58 of 58 (198720)
04-12-2005 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Monk
04-12-2005 12:53 PM


Need a new topic - Closing down
In my heavily biased opinion, this discussion is pretty marginal to things Al Gore. It is also way too important of a theme to get buried in an Al Gore topic.
I invite Monk to start a new "Coffee House" topic. Some of the links in the message this is a reply to seem to be important things to include. You might also want to link back to this topic.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Monk, posted 04-12-2005 12:53 PM Monk has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024