Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannitty are awesome news reporter - Page 13

argexpat · 08-03-05, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

Firstly, you mistakenly make the assumption that I'm claiming that the media as a whole is liberal. Nowhere in this thread have I made a claim even approaching that. In fact, as you look, I've acknowledged from the start that there is bias on both sides, yet you misguidedly took me to task for something I never mentioned.

"Bias on both sides" is an oxymoron, and sounds like "balance" to me. So you agree that the statement "the media has a liberal bias" cannot be proved, rendering it specious? If so, then you should tell your fellow Republicans, who won't shut up about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

Secondly, your entire argument is premised on an invalid argument. You make the claim that because the owners of the media are corporatists (and in your mind, conservative, although this is a leap in and of itself), that that logically means that the reporters must be corporatists/conservatives. This logic chain is inherently flawed.

Wrong. This is a classic strawman argument on your part. Not once did I ever argue that corporatists are conservative. As I am not the one making the claim of a liberal bias in the media, I was simply pointing out a fact Republicans who make this claim insist on ignoring: that "the media " they claim has a liberal bias is corporate owned. And so I merely ask the next logical question: why would the corporate plutocrats who own the media allow a liberal bias? It's a perfectly reasonable question. And just once I'd like to find a Republican with some intellectual honesty to answer it. But no one has.

And why? Because "the media" is the product of corporate, free-market, entrepreneurial capitalism, whose inherent virtue is an article of faith among Republicans (government bad; private enterprise good, right?), so to acknowledge that the media Republicans claim has a liberal bias is actually the corporate, free-market, entrepreneurial capitalist media would seem to put Republicans in an awkward situation: denouncing the media that is the very product of the ideology they espouse. This puts you Republicans in an awkward rhetorical spot, doesn't it? If you rail against the corporate media, you'll sound just like a liberal. So instead Republicans resort to specious pretzel logic and concoct a laughable conspiracy theory instead, blaming a cabal of devious liberals who have infiltrated the media in order to disseminate a liberal ideology. It's not the free market that decides the media's content, it's those crypto-liberals who are skewing it leftward. It's classic scapegoating.

My argument, which I've repeated several times, is that bias of any kind in the media cannot be proved by any objective standard, and even if, for the sake of argument, we ignore that, claiming that the media has a liberal bias doesn't even make any logical sense, since it's corporate owned, and liberal ideology as caricatured by Republicans would seem to run counter to a corporate agenda. The truth is that the only bias the media has is toward the bottom line; make money or die. And if Republicans don't like what the media produces, then they just don't like capitalism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

What evidence do you have that this is the case? What do you have to back up this claim, other than your purported logic? Look at it this way: If, as you claim, all big business has a corporate bias, then according to your theory, all employees of "big business" should have a corporate bias, because why would corporatists hire anti-corporatists? As this is obviously not the case, your theory falls short.

See above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

Let's take it a step further: According to the study I previously mentioned, and the Pew study that was mentioned earlier in this thread, reporters have a tendency to self-identify as liberal more often than the general populace. If your claim of employees reflecting the leadership were to hold true, wouldn't this signal that the owners of the corporate media were more liberal than the general populace? And if that were the case, wouldn't that provide a solid basis for the argument of a liberal bias?

Exactly my point: if the reporters are predominantly Democrat, and this somehow proves that the media has a liberal bias (which it doesn't), then it's the corporate plutocrats who hired them who are to blame for this supposed liberal bias. So again I ask, why would they do that? It's not up to me to answer that question, since I'm not making the liberal media claim, it's up to Republicans who do make the claim to answer that question. I personally don't think corporate plutocrats have any political bias, except "that which helps me make a profit." That's why they give money to both parties, although they give somewhat more to the GOP. The corporatist ideology is to use the government to socialize risk and privatize profit; that's neither liberal nor conservative, it's corporatist (which, contrary to Republican lip service, is the true ideology of the GOP). Corporations don't give a sh!t what side of the isle you're on, as long as you do their bidding. And this is the bias that's inherent in, and promoted by, the corporate media. That's why nearly a third of all the content on the corporate media is in the form of naked corporate propaganda, a.k.a. commercials, which not only promote their products, but the very idea of capitalism (Consume your way to happiness!).

The corporate media doesn't have a liberal bias; the corporate media has a corporate bias. And to claim otherwise belies either ignorance or partisan sophistry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

Your claim that that lean to the left is counterbalanced by the ownership is based on nothing but your own opinions, while the claim of a distinctive disjoint between the media and the public is backed by meticulously researched fact.

Another strawman. Since the content on the corporate media is dictated by free-market capitalism, then by definition it leans toward whatever will sell in the marketplace. If that content does not meet the demand of the marketplace, the corporate media will either satisfy that demand, or perish (which is exactly what's been happening, e.g. right-wing radio and Fox News). That's capitalism. If, according to your arbitrary, subjective definition of bias, you see the media as left-leaning (or too violent, or gratuitously sexual, or anti-Christian, etc.), then you Republicans should take solace in your faith in the market's ability to meet demand with supply and quit whining about a liberal media bias. Because you can't have it both ways; you can't fetishize free-market capitalism out of one side of your mouth, then decry what that free-market capitalism produces out of the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

You also at first refuse to accept the idea that there can in fact be a median voter (defying universally accepted political science), then, not a paragraph later, claim that corporations are tailoring their news toward the median viewer. If there is a way to define a median viewer's political leanings, wouldn't it stand to reason that there would be a way to define the median voter's leanings? And if a median voter's leanings could be defined, wouldn't that provide a comparison point to define liberal and conservative?

I'm saying the corporate media doesn't give two sh!ts about the Median Voter Theory unless it helps them make money; what it gives all its sh!ts about is maximizing profits, and they do that by appealing to as many consumers as possible, everything they do is subsumed to that purpose. Again, I'm not making the claim of a liberal media bias. The burden of proof is on those who do, and any logical inconsistencies are the result of the inherent fallacy of the liberal media claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

If one method of definition exists, so do both. I'm arguing that both exist, while you're arguing that one does and the other doesn't. Pick a side and stick with it.

See above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

To summarize, so you don't go off on a tangent again, knocking down the straw men you set up by putting words in my mouth:

I, and the vast majority of the political science community, believe that there is a method of defining the median voter, and from that, there is a way to define liberal and conservative. Whether it is based on votes, an arbitrary standard, or self-identification depends on the survey/source, but in all cases, a median can be determined. As a result of this, I believe that it is possible to measure, albeit with difficulty, the disjoint (if there is any) between the political leanings of various forms of media and the general public.

There's only a disjoint if you insist on analyzing the content of the corporate media in the narrow, hidebound, myopic standard of the cartoonish liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, blue/red political divide, ignoring the myriad other factors that drive content.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

As of yet, there are several studies that claim that in several arenas, there is evidence of a liberal bias. I agree that the media as a whole is too large to carelessly generalize with a bias. I would argue that much of the programming on the radio has a conservative bias, while the programming on television news as a whole, and many newspapers in general, has a liberal bias, although by no means are these uniform. As a result, I would not feel comfortable (and as a matter of course, have not) said that there is a blanket media bias. However, I feel that to deny the existence of bias in the media at all is not just ignorant, but disingenuous.

Oh, there is absolutely no doubt that there is bias in the media, of every conceivable stripe. To ignore all these other biases, especially the corporate bias toward profit, and focus solely on a supposed political bias, is not just ignorant, but disingenuous.

Billo_Really · 08-04-05, 04:26 AM

In the interests of giving credit where it is due. Here, on Thursday, August 4th, 2005, I have just finished watching the O'Reilly Factor on Fox. I think this will be the first time Bill and I are in agreement. He stated, "He has no confidence in Rumsfield"..., and neither do I. He also stated, "...that...[he]...didn't want to see an all "Right" world. That we need the left to provide some balance", which I also agree with.

I feel that it is necessary to have representation from irritating...[at least to me]... neo's like cnredd. We cannot function as a republic if we do not embrace opinions from all sides. I hope the Republicans lose some seats in the next election, but I do not want the Democrats getting them all. An equal number on both sides forces each other to work together if their going to get anything done. You give one side more power than the other, then each member starts thinking of everything in terms of sides.

As you can see in this very forum from some of the posts, drawing lines in the sand doesn't get us closer to solving our country's problems. Although the neo's position is f___ (and don't listen too) everyone that isn't like them. As strange as this might sound, that voice needs to be heard.

RightinNYC · 08-04-05, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by argexpat

"Bias on both sides" is an oxymoron, and sounds like "balance" to me. So you agree that the statement "the media has a liberal bias" cannot be proved, rendering it specious? If so, then you should tell your fellow Republicans, who won't shut up about it.

No it's not. Why would you assume that there couldn't be bias on both sides? If you look at moveon.org and then nra.com, there's bias on both sites, and I wouldn't say that that creates balance.

I'll tell my fellow republicans to shut up about it when you tell your fellow democrats to shut up about the Iraq war, tax cuts, and bush being stupid

Quote:

Wrong. This is a classic strawman argument on your part. Not once did I ever argue that corporatists are conservative. As I am not the one making the claim of a liberal bias in the media, I was simply pointing out a fact Republicans who make this claim insist on ignoring: that "the media " they claim has a liberal bias is corporate owned. And so I merely ask the next logical question: why would the corporate plutocrats who own the media allow a liberal bias? It's a perfectly reasonable question. And just once I'd like to find a Republican with some intellectual honesty to answer it. But no one has.

And why? Because "the media" is the product of corporate, free-market, entrepreneurial capitalism, whose inherent virtue is an article of faith among Republicans (government bad; private enterprise good, right?), so to acknowledge that the media Republicans claim has a liberal bias is actually the corporate, free-market, entrepreneurial capitalist media would seem to put Republicans in an awkward situation: denouncing the media that is the very product of the ideology they espouse. This puts you Republicans in an awkward rhetorical spot, doesn't it? If you rail against the corporate media, you'll sound just like a liberal. So instead Republicans resort to specious pretzel logic and concoct a laughable conspiracy theory instead, blaming a cabal of devious liberals who have infiltrated the media in order to disseminate a liberal ideology. It's not the free market that decides the media's content, it's those crypto-liberals who are skewing it leftward. It's classic scapegoating.

So your argument is that the media is corporate, not conservative (although you then go on to basically equate the two). Are you claiming that the media is accurately representative of the opinions of the general public?

Quote:

My argument, which I've repeated several times, is that bias of any kind in the media cannot be proved by any objective standard, and even if, for the sake of argument, we ignore that, claiming that the media has a liberal bias doesn't even make any logical sense, since it's corporate owned, and liberal ideology as caricatured by Republicans would seem to run counter to a corporate agenda. The truth is that the only bias the media has is toward the bottom line; make money or die. And if Republicans don't like what the media produces, then they just don't like capitalism.

Right. So if a rich person owns something, it means that he micromanages every detail? I've already proven that that's not the case, because of the disporportionate left leanings of reporters, although you conveniently ignore that fact. If a rich liberal were to buy Fox News, would every single conservative there be fired? No. It wouldn't be touched.

Quote:

Exactly my point: if the reporters are predominantly Democrat, and this somehow proves that the media has a liberal bias (which it doesn't), then it's the corporate plutocrats who hired them who are to blame for this supposed liberal bias. So again I ask, why would they do that? It's not up to me to answer that question, since I'm not making the liberal media claim, it's up to Republicans who do make the claim to answer that question. I personally don't think corporate plutocrats have any political bias, except "that which helps me make a profit." That's why they give money to both parties, although they give somewhat more to the GOP. The corporatist ideology is to use the government to socialize risk and privatize profit; that's neither liberal nor conservative, it's corporatist (which, contrary to Republican lip service, is the true ideology of the GOP). Corporations don't give a sh!t what side of the isle you're on, as long as you do their bidding. And this is the bias that's inherent in, and promoted by, the corporate media. That's why nearly a third of all the content on the corporate media is in the form of naked corporate propaganda, a.k.a. commercials, which not only promote their products, but the very idea of capitalism (Consume your way to happiness!).

Okay, so now you admit that you don't think the corporate owners have any political bias. Yet in your last post you claimed that the liberal leanings of the reporters was overmatched by the conservative leanings of the owners. Make up your mind.

And you also really don't think that the fact that the people who are writing and wording the stories, and deciding which stories run and where are overwhelmingly liberal could be viewed as a reason to be concerned about bias?

Quote:

Another strawman. Since the content on the corporate media is dictated by free-market capitalism, then by definition it leans toward whatever will sell in the marketplace. If that content does not meet the demand of the marketplace, the corporate media will either satisfy that demand, or perish (which is exactly what's been happening, e.g. right-wing radio and Fox News). That's capitalism. If, according to your arbitrary, subjective definition of bias, you see the media as left-leaning (or too violent, or gratuitously sexual, or anti-Christian, etc.), then you Republicans should take solace in your faith in the market's ability to meet demand with supply and quit whining about a liberal media bias. Because you can't have it both ways; you can't fetishize free-market capitalism out of one side of your mouth, then decry what that free-market capitalism produces out of the other.

Which is why Fox News, despite being by far the most popular news network, is smeared by liberals for being conservative, while the NYT and others are ignored.

Quote:

There's only a disjoint if you insist on analyzing the content of the corporate media in the narrow, hidebound, myopic standard of the cartoonish liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, blue/red political divide, ignoring the myriad other factors that drive content.

Why do you continuously refuse to accept the notion of absolutes? There ARE things that are liberal, and things that are conservative. Continually refusing to accept that is not helping your argument.

cnredd · 08-05-05, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

In the interests of giving credit where it is due. Here, on Thursday, August 4th, 2005, I have just finished watching the O'Reilly Factor on Fox. I think this will be the first time Bill and I are in agreement. He stated, "He has no confidence in Rumsfield"..., and neither do I. He also stated, "...that...[he]...didn't want to see an all "Right" world. That we need the left to provide some balance", which I also agree with.

I feel that it is necessary to have representation from irritating...[at least to me]... neo's like cnredd. We cannot function as a republic if we do not embrace opinions from all sides. I hope the Republicans lose some seats in the next election, but I do not want the Democrats getting them all. An equal number on both sides forces each other to work together if their going to get anything done. You give one side more power than the other, then each member starts thinking of everything in terms of sides.

As you can see in this very forum from some of the posts, drawing lines in the sand doesn't get us closer to solving our country's problems. Although the neo's position is f___ (and don't listen too) everyone that isn't like them. As strange as this might sound, that voice needs to be heard.

Great post...."I only pick-and-choose points that I agree with from the "opposition"(in this case, Bill O'Reilly), but I discount every other point he makes because he's a right-wing conservative bastard"....pure genius.

And seeing how you're the only one here that comes close to calling me a "neo", I think you don't understand that you find me irritating NOT because I disagree with your posts, but because I have found that you debate like Stevie Wonder skeet-shoots....A whole lot of uncoordinated and inconceivable shots, with one or two lucky ones accidentally finding their target.

Discounting you is like shooting fish in a barrel.....a two-foot high barrel......with no water in it.....filled to the brim....with fish that are already dead......

Billo_Really · 08-05-05, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cnredd:
Great post...."I only pick-and-choose points that I agree with from the "opposition"(in this case, Bill O'Reilly), but I discount every other point he makes because he's a right-wing conservative bastard"....pure genius.

Don't speak for me. You don't have a clue as to who I am, or what I am. You just go off on what you wish me to be. As for Bill, I discount 90% of what he says because its just hate-filled bull-$hit!

Quote:

Originally posted by cnredd:
And seeing how you're the only one here that comes close to calling me a "neo", I think you don't understand that you find me irritating NOT because I disagree with your posts, but because I have found that you debate like Stevie Wonder skeet-shoots....A whole lot of uncoordinated and inconceivable shots, with one or two lucky ones accidentally finding their target.

You watch too much TV. Bet your favorite show is Walker, Texas Ranger. I find you irritating because you just attack the individual instead of providing any proof of what your proposing about 90% of the time. Its all negative. You never admit your mistaken. You never see the point of someone else, unless it is another neo's hysterical rant.

Quote:

Originally posted by cnredd:
Discounting you is like shooting fish in a barrel.....a two-foot high barrel......with no water in it.....filled to the brim....with fish that are already dead......

Fishing is for people who have lost the will to live.

argexpat · 08-08-05, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

No it's not. Why would you assume that there couldn't be bias on both sides? If you look at moveon.org and then nra.com, there's bias on both sites, and I wouldn't say that that creates balance.

What the hell are you talking about? Something can't be biased on both sides. Do you not see the illogic in that? Bias by definition means to lean to one side. You can't lean to one side on both sides.

If by "bias on both sides" you mean that there are special interest groups that are considered "liberal" and others considered "conservative," then no sh!t Sherlock. How this proves that the media has a liberal bias still escapes me, as apparently it escapses you, too. This is a dumb argument.

But again, you make these illogical arguments because you're incapable of seeing the world in anything but this narrow, cartoonishly Manichean left v. right divide. You should venture out of that echo chamber you live in and explore the wide wide world of political discourse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

I'll tell my fellow republicans to shut up about it when you tell your fellow democrats to shut up about the Iraq war, tax cuts, and bush being stupid

I'm not a Democrat. See above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

So your argument is that the media is corporate, not conservative (although you then go on to basically equate the two). Are you claiming that the media is accurately representative of the opinions of the general public?

I'm arguing that what you see in "the media" is the product of free-market capitalism. What it produces is what it thinks will sell in the marketplace. Period. That's it's only agenda. And if you don't like what you see on it, if you think it's skewed unnaturally somehow, then you just don't like free-market capitalism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

Right. So if a rich person owns something, it means that he micromanages every detail? I've already proven that that's not the case, because of the disporportionate left leanings of reporters, although you conveniently ignore that fact. If a rich liberal were to buy Fox News, would every single conservative there be fired? No. It wouldn't be touched.

Another dumb argument. Who cares if X percent of reporters are Democrat, or Republican, or Zebra-striped, or 20 feet tall. Since their bosses are capitalists, it's they who ultimately determine the content of "the media." And you Republicans ignore this fact because it's inconvenient and awkward. If you have a beef with "the media," take it up with the capitalists who own it (And donate handsomely to the GOP). NBC is owned by GE, one of the largest and most powerful corporatations in the world, and a major defense contractor. But to you, that's not as significant as some study that says reporters voted this or that way. You're either being willfully ignorant, or just a partisan hack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

Okay, so now you admit that you don't think the corporate owners have any political bias. Yet in your last post you claimed that the liberal leanings of the reporters was overmatched by the conservative leanings of the owners. Make up your mind.

I never said capitalists had conservative leanings. I've repeatedly said that capitalists have capitalist leanings, so if "the media" really does have a liberal bias (which as you've so brilliantly demonstrated, is subjective and unprovable), then it's because the capitalists who own "the media" want it that way. Are you seriously incabable of grasping this concept or are you just playing dumb?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

And you also really don't think that the fact that the people who are writing and wording the stories, and deciding which stories run and where are overwhelmingly liberal could be viewed as a reason to be concerned about bias?

Maybe for you, since you're a Republican who apparently doesn't understand how free-market capitalsim works. I happen to like free-market capitalism, and I have faith that it will produce whatever people want to consume. My only concern is that Republicans like you will use the government to regulate it because it offends your "morals" and "traditional values" and "decency."

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

Which is why Fox News, despite being by far the most popular news network, is smeared by liberals for being conservative, while the NYT and others are ignored.

Again, these are two corporate media companies, providing a product for sale in the market. A foolish liberal media consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

Why do you continuously refuse to accept the notion of absolutes? There ARE things that are liberal, and things that are conservative. Continually refusing to accept that is not helping your argument.

Hmm...my argument is that you don't have an argument. But I'll give you one more chance: please prove, without resorting to anecdotal evidence and using an objective standard, that "the media" has a "liberal bias." It's pretty simple. You just have to prove it, that's it. And until you do, claiming that the media has a liberal bias is nothing more that a conspiracy theory and evidence that you're nothing more than a Dittohead mindlessly parroting Republican marching orders.

SKILMATIC · 08-11-05, 11:13 PM

Ok wow this is alot to read and I dont have the time to read it all so I am just going to comment on the original post.

Now why in the sam hill did you even post that? That statement was nothing more than pissed off liberalism at its best. What objective thinking or ideology did you come up with this eratic, nonchalant, mind-bustering cluster of words?

No one is being brain washed by anyone. If you want to accuse anyone of brain washing go to the radical terrorists casue they are very good at it.

And while you are on your high-horse why did you forget Mike Savage, and Tony Snow, or Rick Roberts, Limbaugh, or Roger Hedgecock?

Yeah hey guys from his statemnt he would suggest that no one should listen to these Journalists!!! But I am sure he would have no objection to Mr. Alan Colmes or Micheal moore. Yeah these guys are the only true voice of good news or journalism.

God, where is the common sense in this world? Is it gone or has the political machine concocted so many peoples common sense gene pool? We need to stop thinking left or right or whose right and whose wrong. We need to just come together as one nation under God and combat against these terrorists and terminate there way of life.

kal-el · 11-22-05, 07:11 PM

It seems as though "FOX" news refuses to air a negative piece on Alito:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/...4yBHNlYwNmYw--

hipsterdufus · 11-22-05, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KansasMeg

Ugh. Hannity is the biggest cry-baby I've heard on conservative radio. We (conservatives) never get our side reported in the mainstream media, those liberals have taken over, blah blah blah. Come on, guy! You have your conservative pres, congress, etc. Why on earth do you think you've been short-handed?

And then there's Alan Colmes. He's got to be the weakest, squirliest liberal on the radio. But no shock there, he is paid by FOX News. What conservative media outlet would want a real lib on their airwaves?

But Bill O'Reilly...does anyone support him? I have yet to find one conservative who doesn't see him as arrogant and annoying.

I personally think Al Franken (Air America Radio) has a great show. Not all this yelling or whinning you get from the conservative talk-shows. Plus he takes truth-telling very seriously.

But if you want *news* from actual reporters try NPR.

Meg,

Love your signature! Alan Colmes doesn't even describe himself as a liberal. It's typical "balanced" fox shenanigans. Put people on the far right and balance them with wimps from the middle. Hmm...wonder which way that is going to turn out. It's like the Harlem Globetrotters vs. The Washington Senators.

hipsterdufus · 11-22-05, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC

Yeah hey guys from his statemnt he would suggest that no one should listen to these Journalists!!! But I am sure he would have no objection to Mr. Alan Colmes or Micheal moore. Yeah these guys are the only true voice of good news or journalism.

I'll grant you that 2 hours of Fahrenheit 911 = 2 hours of Fox TV.
The problem is that Fox is on 24/7, spewing lie after lie after lie.