John McCain and the Discovery Institute

McCain To Deliver Keynote Speech For CreationistsEdited by nator, : No reason given.

I like Clinton over John any day.

Reporters, the people who actually go after and write the news, are generally liberal-leaning.Their editors and the owners of the publications they write for are generally conservative.All mainstream media owners, in general, are much more concerned with making money than in journalistic integrity.

quote:

---

Leftwingnuts think the media is slanted conservative. Rightwingnuts think it's slanted liberal. To me that means that most of the time it's comfortably in the middle.

---

So, if I were to inform you that since the Bush administration came into power, the majority of guests on the mainstream news media's Sunday morning political talk shows have been conservative, would you say that this is "comfortably in the middle"? sourceAnd anyway, subbie, you KNOW that just because conservatives complain about something doesn't mean that there is any basis whatsoever for that complaint. I mean, just watch FOX News and you will see that this is the case.

---

'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders

quote:

---

In this case, the obvious tension that exists in the idea that a 'predominantly liberal and Democratic media industry'--your words--'gives a pass' to 'Republicans and conservatives'--your words--while 'manufacturing controversies' to 'undermine' liberals and Democrats--your words.

​

You have made no attempt to explain how this apparent self-contradiction can exist.

---

There are several reasons.One reason is that many of the "big time" mainstream political reporters have, in recent years, becoome far too cozy with the powerful and wealthy Washington establishment. They are invited to the parties, the dinners, and other events and hob-nob with the very people they are supposed to be investigating and helping to keep on the straight and narrow.Another reason is, during the current Bush regime, journalists who wanted any access to the White House or who wanted to get called on at all during press conferences learned very quickly to not EVER ask any difficult or probing questions.

quote:

---

To me, the bottom line on all of this is that people find bias when they look for it, and you're more likely to see bias against your own viewpoint because that's the kind of bias you are most likely to be sensitive to. When you hear programming that you agree with what you believe, you're not likely to call that bias, just accuracy.

---

So, I guess what you're saying is that, no matter what evidence is put forward, to you, there's no possible way that bias in the media can ever be detected.Is that correct?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It's that conservatives are the ones who are more upset about their ideas and values being marginalized by the sympathetic and rampant portrayal of, among other things, pre-marital sex in the media.

---

Aren't conservatives into the free market, though? Aren't the conservatives the ones who decided to keep reducing the amount of time that the networks were required to provide children's educational programming? Weren't the conservatives the ones who fight for deregulation all the time?Dude, can't you see that all of this conservative "protest" about the sex (and it's generally ONLY the sex. I don't hear about conservatives complaining about TV violence much) is just a smokescreen? It's just a way to make liberals and Hollywood look immoral and make them the degenerate enemy?Conservatives HAVE to be watching a TON of the TV they say they despise, otherwise the shows wouldn't do very well.The difference between conservatives and progressives WRT this issue is this:Progressive: "I don't like those TV shows, so I won't watch them."Conservative: "I don't like those TV shows so nobody should be able to watch them, Likewise, because I am incapable of turning the TV off, it's everybody else's fault that I or my children watch them."Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I will say this. Based on the report that nator linked to above, and the one that I mentioned, I do think it's likely that among the talking head political wonk shows the representation of conservatives has been higher during most of the dumbya presidency, given that repugnantcrats have been in power during that period. Now that there's been a shift, it might be interesting to see if that representation balances out some in the next two years.

---

So, you agree that this is evidence of bias in the media?

quote:

---

During the first two years of Clinton's presidency, when dimwitcrats controlled Congress, 65% of those who appeared were dimwitcrats. It's evidence that when repugnantcans are in power, more repugnantcans get asked to appear on those shows.

---

So, when Clinton was in office, there were more Democrats on the shows. How is this not bias towards Democrats in the media?And now that Bush is in office, with also a Republican congress, there were more Republicans on the shows. How is this not bias towards Republicans in the media.also, what about the fact that anti-Iraq invasion politicians, pundits, or journalists were pretty much absent from ANY of the shows on during the run up to the war?Is it "balanced? TV journalism to have ignored the people against the invasion(and there were more than a few)?

quote:

---

Why is it biased to recognize when one party or the other seems to hold more of the power and seek more input from them during those times?

---

Er, because just because one party or the other is in power doesn't mean that theirs is the only arty that exists.You were talking about balance in journalism before, weren't you?What is "balanced" about allowing the people in power a greater platform?If the media wasn't biased, we should see no change in the political inclinations in panelists on those Sunday talk shows depending upon which party was perceived to be in power, shouldn't we?

quote:

---

Your recollection is different from mine. I recall that there was relatively little opposition during the run up.

---

There was plenty of opposition from journalists and political activist groups in the run up to the war. There were enormous domestic and international protest rallies that were largely ignored by the press. Even major newspapers like the New York Times (IIRC) later admitted that they shirked their journalistic duty by simply taking too much of the administration's claims as truth without really investigating them.Perhaps you don't "recollect" them becasue the mainstream US and conservative media didn't report the events and and didn't invite the objectors on their shows.Becasue they were biased in favor of this administration and the war.That this happened is pretty much common knowledge these days, subbie.

quote:

---

If all you're trying to prove is that from time to time political talk shows focus more one on side or the other of some issue, I'll grant you that. So what? Do you expect all segments of the media to be perfectly balanced across all issues for any time period one could select?

---

I am simply addressing your claim that it all "balances out in the end".It doesn't.

quote:

---

A bias in favor of incumbency is not the same thing as a bias in favor of a partisan viewpoint.
Which kind of favoritism is being asserted here?

---

What I'm asserting is that the "liberal media" crap that the conservatives insist is the case is a myth.

quote:

---

For instance, reporters commonly question whether or not Bill Clinton's marital proclivities will harm Hillary Clinton's career, or whether or not Hillary would be as successful as she is now if she hadn't married into success. But where's the questioning of Rudy Guliani, who divorced one of his wives at a press conference? Where's the wondering if John McCain would have been successful in politics if he hadn't divorced his first wife to marry into money? (Why is it that John Kerry is the only politician the media have accused of doing that?)

---

Let's not forget how Newt Gingrich's dodgy marital history.(He's rumored to be considering a run this year) Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The right wingers I listened to in the past (and O'Reilly) all say that polls say journalists vote 85% or 90% democrat. One, do you believe that's true,

---

Nope.The American Journalist | Pew Research Center

quote:

---

and two, wouldn't that suggest that some sort of liberal bias would be unavoidable?

---

The only problem with that theory is that the majority of these journalists' editors are conservative. Same with the owners of the publications they work for.The editors control what leads get followed, what facts are included, and certainly what stories will run in the first place.