John McCain and the Discovery Institute

You are focusing exclusively on what you call misrepresentations regarding politics. If that's all that you consider bias, you're missing a very large part of the picture.A significant part of what conservatives refer to as bias is in the area of entertainment. Movies and television shows are full of adultery, pre-marital sex, drug use, etc. There are a wide range of conservative beliefs that get little or no attention in these types of productions.One good show that I felt frequently gave both sides a fairly realistic treatment was The West Wing. To be sure, it was about a dimwitcrat administration, so there's no doubt that there was a left leaning bias, but quite often repugnantcan ideas were treated with respect and presented intelligently, as opposed to a strawman approach. There were smart dims and smart reps in that program, which I really enjoyed.For another example, look at Letterman's show. Every night, they have a segment called Great Moments in Presidential Speechs, or something along those lines. The punch line is always a clip of dumbya saying something idiotic sounding, or flubbing a line, something like that. They have also taken clips from dumbya speeches and slowed them down just a bit, making it sound like he was drunk when he was speaking. I have no doubt that something similar could have been done for just about any other previous president, but since dumbya is the current one, he gets that treatment now.Bias can also be found in stories not covered. How often does the so-called mainstream media do a story about someone saving a life or preventing a crime by the use of their gun? Not very often, but it happens quite frequently. Chalk that up to anti-gun bias.It's very easy to see bias against your viewpoint, but very easy not to see bias in things you agree with.There are a few examples for you. You want me to tell you how to go about doing a complete analysis of all the content of all the media in this country? I haven't the vaguest idea. All I know is that people on both sides of the aisle see bias against their position. Now, if you want to dismiss everyone who's right of center and disregard everything they say as unworthy of consideration, because they are lying, or stupid, or their bias prevents them from seeing the truth, go right ahead, no skin off my nose. But if that's your viewpoint, there's little point in continuing this discussion further, because you'll simply disregard anything I might say on their behalf anyway.As far as I'm concerned, bias is in the eye of the beholder. Dismiss that as another "smug aphorism" if you wish. But I'm pretty sure it's near to impossible for you to make a reasoned response to another person's position until you fully understand the basis for their argument.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Thank you for the reply. Your hypothesis, though, introduces another contradiction.You said earlier that this 'personally liberal' press manufactures news. You say this practice is widespread and that it 'undermines' liberal politicians the press personally supports.Here it is again as you said it in Message 23 (boldface mine): You are proposing 'overcorrection' of a remarkable sort.Professional journalists, you suggest, are so eager to behave in an ethical manner that they 'unwittingly' violate, in mass, the most basic principle of their professional ethics.Question. What keeps this extremely conscientious, personally liberal press from noticing its own egregious violation of its ethical standards as it manufactures controversies to sabotage Democrats? A curious phenomenon, I agree.I'm testing a hypothesis. So far the evidence supports it. I'll let you know more after seeing if the results can be replicated.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : added quote.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

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.

Because they're fucking boring and they don't make good TV. It has nothing to do with "bias", and I think equating salacious television designed to attract eyeballs with factual distortion by the news media - whose purpose, ostensibly, is to inform - is ludicrous on the face of it. Are you not counting police incidents, or something? I hear about those all the time. Can you support your assertion that it "happens quite frequently"? I don't believe enough private people carry firearms for it to happen all that frequently, and it's not clear what would be newsworthy about a policeman, say, drawing his pistol during an arrest, since it happens that way every single time. So, you were just asking for something you knew couldn't be delivered. Fair enough.

They don't check their facts. Why else would noted liberal Lou Dobbs be repeated, weeks after it was debunked, the idea that Nancy Pelosi demanded an enormous luxury plane upon taking office as Speaker of the House?It's a made-up story. Completely fabricated. And Dobbs is no right-wing ideologue. Why would he flog a story he knew was false?

First I'd say that represents only a small sampling of the total content of all U.S. media output during that period. As I explained in my Message 31 above, you're missing a great deal of the picture if that's all you look at.Second, I'd point out that during the first two terms of the Clinton Administration, when dimwitcrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, the ratio for Meet the Press was 65% dimwitcrats, 35% repugnantcans. During the second two years, after repugnantcans took over control of Congress, the balance shifted so that the ratio was almost equal. Source To me, all of this suggests that who ever is in power appears more, at least on that one show. When the power is split, so are the appearances.Third, I'd point out that the study took no account of the content of what was said by the various guests, it simply counted heads. What's more, there's always the question of the accuracy of the labeling. SourceTo 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.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Forgive me if I miss the boat on one or two of these, because I never really watched any of them, so I'm just going on my general impressions. But it seems to me that shows like 7th Heaven (1996 to present), Little House on the Prairie (1974-1983), Touched By an Angel (1994-2003), and Highway to Heaven (1984-1989) were all pretty successful while presenting stories that I suspect most repugnantcans would not find offensive. Perhaps these shows are "fucking boring" to you, I know they were to me. But of course, that completely misses the point (or perhaps it reinforces it). They were popular enough to stay on the air a good long while. It's obviously possible to present programming that people will watch without resorting to salaciousness. In fact, I'd bet it's a lot tougher. And you can always argue that those shows weren't "good TV," but they were good enough stay on for several years. Yes, I'm not counting police incidents. I'm referring to private citizens using them for their own protection. Here are five incidents that happened in a one month period. Now, your response is likely to be that all of these were published in newspapers, so obviously the media doesn't ignore them. However, you seem like a fairly well-read person, and you didn't seem to be aware of the frequency with which this kind of thing happens, so I guess they don't report it all that well. Tell ya what, why don't you write my posts for me? That way I'll actually say some of the things that you respond to. I didn't say I knew it couldn't be delivered. I said I didn't know how. Not the same thing.In any event, I made that suggestion in response to your claim that my "smug aphorism" of the media being comfortably in the middle most of the time is "demonstrably untrue." If you can think of another way to make this demonstration, I'll listen. But you're not going to convince me with a small sampling of a single type of televison programming. What's more, you're not going to convince me by presenting analyses from only one side of the aisle. Show me what both sides say and why each is right or wrong.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Then it sounds like there's plenty of TV coming out of Hollywood that conservatives can get behind. Where do you think those shows were made? The moon? So where's the bias? Sure. But is it any surprise that most TV will go for the easy sell and present salacious content? I resent, by the way, the implication that if a TV show has a bunch of sex and violence that it's somehow "liberal." "Liberal" is not a synonym for "reprehensible", even if conservatives use it that way. I don't follow crime stories all that much. Five incidents in a month, nationwide, aren't "quite frequently" to me. I don't see this as evidence of underreporting of gun issues. I probably could. Or do you think you have the corner on crank contrarianism around here? Absent any guidelines about how to proceed, which you admit you don't know how to provide, I don't see how that discussion winds up anywhere but an argument about whether or not I'm cherry-picking, or whether or not you are.And I don't see how showing examples of bias towards both sides, tit for tat, proves anything but your point. Absent a guideline for how to pick and reject examples, we can go back and forth all day with my examples of anti-liberal bias and your examples that you think are of bias against conservatives, and I don't see what that would prove.

Four in 20 years probably sounds like enough to you because you don't care for that kind of programming. Frankly, it's enough for me, too, as I don't care for it either. But we're not talking about your views or my views here, we're talking about whether it's balanced bewteen conflicting views. Obviously, it's not. Resent away. However, please direct that resentment toward someone who merits it. I never made any such impliction. In point of fact, I enjoy some of that salacious sex and gratuitous violence, and I certainly don't consider myself a liberal (no great surprise there, I'm sure). Moreover, I do not myself think "liberal" is a synonym for "reprehensible," nor do I consider "conservative" to be so.Regardless, the point that I am making is not that salaciouness is "liberal." 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. Well, you couldn't write them as well as I do. But I certainly don't think I have the corner on crank contrarianism. As far as that goes, I don't really consider myself a crank contrarian at all. Okay, maybe I have my moments, but not as a rule. In any event, I'd certainly cede the mantle of master crank to either you or nj. Sounds like you no longer think it's quite so demonstrable. Well, that's some progress. You are probably correct there. I imagine it would take some kind of broad-based analysis covering many years, many media outlets and many subjects before any kind of clear picture would emerge. Obviously, something like that is beyond either of our capabilities, or interest, I'd imagine.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.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

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?

Well, that's not strictly fair. Rush Limbaugh, for instance, certainly has a truckload of listeners who hate his living guts, but just have to hear what the bastard's gonna say next.Personally, I think the morbid fascination that drives someone to watch/listen to/read/whatever something they hate is a kind of enjoyment, so clearly they're getting something out of it. But it's not a wild idea to assume that people regularly patronize media that they find repugnant.That being said... (and this part isn't to you, just to the thread at large...) I think there are reasons beyond bias or partisanship or whatever why shows that feature hot young people having sex sell better than shows devoted to abstinence and virtue. The shows that feature hot young people having sex feature hot young people having sex.Christ. You don't need a marketing degree to see the green on that one.Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

No.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat