Left wing bias - Page 16

Sir Loin · 07-24-08, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

Try to sway away from nonsense. The blame for the drivel lies squarely at your right wing chum's feet. The attempt to peddle a theoretical paper, even though he thinks greek letters are a novel new brand of spaghetti shapes, was my particular favourite.

We have a paper that describes neatly the consequences of media bias, whilst avoiding the ad hoc procedures that inflict the general literature. You were honest enough to admit that you have nothing to compare to that paper. I therefore continue to predict that the 'non-rational, easily persuaded' group is more substantial amongst the right. I'd predict this as the left is more commonly dominated by economic matters and therefore rationality is a core trait

What we have is an utterly typical “internet debate” with plenty of blame to go around little boy.

I’m honest alright, you are not. You actually seem to think that because you have found a paper that agrees with your take on matters, you therefore are right. Naturally you have dismissed EVERYTHING else presented as useless, bad Google skills, none of it matters or addresses your points, blah utterly common internet “debate” blah. Yes, we can all refuse to look at much less acknowledge, the points of someone we are arguing with. Only a few think this raises their “game” to the level of genius awaiting Knighthood. Chuckle.

Who cares what you suggest? You’re the same person choosing to ignore actual debate and keep playing out the “internet debate” game. All while braying you are not. OK. It is not as if you have a reputation for doing this…………….

End of the day, your argument is fixated on Fox and you sure don’t want anyone using your logic and that of your paper/study against any other media news outlets. What you don’t seem to want to go anywhere near is the natural consequences of your study upon ALL news media. You just want to play like this applies only to Fox.

One thing is for sure, you are quite vapid.

Shouldn't you be claiming you are gonna go, or are not interested in being childish and arguing, then posting again 30 seconds from now? Chuckle.

Scucca · 07-24-08, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

What we have is an utterly typical “internet debate” with plenty of blame to go around little boy.

Little boy? Chortle, chortle, great one!

Quote:

I’m honest alright, you are not.

You won't be able to find any examples of dishonesty, so your attacks really are below par.

Quote:

You actually seem to think that because you have found a paper that agrees with your take on matters, you therefore are right.

This is low brow nonsense. I clearly referred to how my hypothesis cannot be 'proved'. Following Stats 101, I referred to the failure to reject my hypothesis. No evidence has been presented that can be used to reject my hypothesis. Indeed, if anything, we've seen weak support from the intellectual failures of your comrades.

Perhaps you'd like to try and buck the trend? Take my point "I'd predict this as the left is more commonly dominated by economic matters and therefore rationality is a core trait". How would you attack it? (Try to be mature, I'm sick of the immaturity been offered so far)

Quote:

Naturally you have dismissed EVRYTHING else presented as useless, bad google skills, none of it is as good as your, blah utterly common internet “debate” blah.

Do you honestly think any of the bad googling attempts meet the criteria I've set? I'm happy to discuss each of them in depth. Go ahead, refer to any one and tell me how those "blanks" can be filled in.

Quote:

Who cares what you suggest?

You're not coming out with any content, so I don't expect you to care. Personally, I see no point in constructing empty sneer. I'm very happy to receive hardcore spit and spat, but I do expect some attempt at relevance. Try answering my requests above! Thanks for the co-operation.

Quote:

End of the day, your argument is fixated on Fox and you sure don’t want anyone using your logic and that of your paper/study against any other media news outlets.

What a ridiculous remark! I've asked several times for papers that "use my logic and that of the QJE paper against any other media news outlet". We of course have to factor in data restrictions, plus the econometric methodologies favoured by specific researchers. However, without voting effects measured, we have no means to entertain the significance of bias.

Quote:

What you don’t seem to want to go anywhere near is the natural consequences of your study upon ALL news media. You just want to play like this applies only to Fox.

Another ridiculous remark. I've made it darn obvious that I expect asymmetric effects, given the differences in left wing and right wing traits. Consider, for example, the paper by Napier and Jost (2008, Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?, Psychological Science, Vol 19, pp 565-572):

In this research, we drew on system-justification theory and the notion that conservative ideology serves a palliative function to explain why conservatives are happier than liberals. Specifically, in three studies using nationally representative data from the United States and nine additional countries, we found that right-wing (vs. left-wing) orientation is indeed associated with greater subjective well-being and that the relation between political orientation and subjective well-being is mediated by the rationalization of inequality. In our third study, we found that increasing economic inequality (as measured by the Gini index) from 1974 to 2004 has exacerbated the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives, apparently because conservatives (more than liberals) possess an ideological buffer against the negative hedonic effects of economic inequality.

This paper is of course more general and is from the social well-being literature. However, it has some bearing for this thread. I argued that the lefty is more likely to be dominated by economic matters (and therefore rationality). And what does this paper show? That economic concerns, such as income equality, have a more significant effect on the liberal

Reverend_Hellh0und · 07-24-08, 11:38 AM

I thought you took your ball and went home.

Promises, promises.

Sir Loin · 07-25-08, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

Little boy? Chortle, chortle, great one!

You won't be able to find any examples of dishonesty, so your attacks really are below par.

This is low brow nonsense. I clearly referred to how my hypothesis cannot be 'proved'. Following Stats 101, I referred to the failure to reject my hypothesis. No evidence has been presented that can be used to reject my hypothesis. Indeed, if anything, we've seen weak support from the intellectual failures of your comrades.

Perhaps you'd like to try and buck the trend? Take my point "I'd predict this as the left is more commonly dominated by economic matters and therefore rationality is a core trait". How would you attack it? (Try to be mature, I'm sick of the immaturity been offered so far)

Do you honestly think any of the bad googling attempts meet the criteria I've set? I'm happy to discuss each of them in depth. Go ahead, refer to any one and tell me how those "blanks" can be filled in.

You're not coming out with any content, so I don't expect you to care. Personally, I see no point in constructing empty sneer. I'm very happy to receive hardcore spit and spat, but I do expect some attempt at relevance. Try answering my requests above! Thanks for the co-operation.

What a ridiculous remark! I've asked several times for papers that "use my logic and that of the QJE paper against any other media news outlet". We of course have to factor in data restrictions, plus the econometric methodologies favoured by specific researchers. However, without voting effects measured, we have no means to entertain the significance of bias.

Another ridiculous remark. I've made it darn obvious that I expect asymmetric effects, given the differences in left wing and right wing traits. Consider, for example, the paper by Napier and Jost (2008, Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?, Psychological Science, Vol 19, pp 565-572):

In this research, we drew on system-justification theory and the notion that conservative ideology serves a palliative function to explain why conservatives are happier than liberals. Specifically, in three studies using nationally representative data from the United States and nine additional countries, we found that right-wing (vs. left-wing) orientation is indeed associated with greater subjective well-being and that the relation between political orientation and subjective well-being is mediated by the rationalization of inequality. In our third study, we found that increasing economic inequality (as measured by the Gini index) from 1974 to 2004 has exacerbated the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives, apparently because conservatives (more than liberals) possess an ideological buffer against the negative hedonic effects of economic inequality.

This paper is of course more general and is from the social well-being literature. However, it has some bearing for this thread. I argued that the lefty is more likely to be dominated by economic matters (and therefore rationality). And what does this paper show? That economic concerns, such as income equality, have a more significant effect on the liberal

Reading your posts in this thread is very similar to listening to LeVar Burton explain Warp Field Mechanics.

Utterly inventive bullshizzite.

Couched in mounds of tech-NO-babble.

If you could fling anymore of your over intellectualized work product around, you would be Spock on brown acid. Bueller, Bueller.......anyone?

CaptainCourtesy · 07-25-08, 02:12 AM

Moderator's Warning:

Sir Loin, please stop the personal attacks.

Scucca · 07-25-08, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

Reading your posts

To make things simple for you, I'll summarise what I achieved. First, I found peer reviewed evidence to support my contention that economics (and therefore rationality) plays a different role for Democrats and Republicans. Second, I showed willingness to consider any of the sources presented. I knew you wouldn't consider discussion of these sources as you surely have already appreciated that they are irrelevant to the hypothesis I constructed.

Thanks for your continued honesty.

Sir Loin · 07-25-08, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

To make things simple for you, I'll summarise what I achieved. First, I found peer reviewed evidence to support my contention that economics (and therefore rationality) plays a different role for Democrats and Republicans. Second, I showed willingness to consider any of the sources presented. I knew you wouldn't consider discussion of these sources as you surely have already appreciated that they are irrelevant to the hypothesis I constructed.

Thanks for your continued honesty.

Oh my, that is rich. Now your study about Fox News affecting voter habits is about the economic rationality of republicans versus democrats? And what next? Your study shows that it was infighting between the Fox News staff and the GOP that lead to the Big Bang?

Clearly rather than keep things simple, your claims are growing more convoluted and vapid with each post.

Scucca · 07-25-08, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

Oh my, that is rich. Now your study about Fox News affecting voter habits is about the economic rationality of republicans versus democrats?

You haven't kept up! The QJE paper describes the best methodology for assessing the impact of media bias. It gives us a clearcut measure of the impact on right wing voting habits. I've since referred to subjective well-being analysis, given it can be used to assess the differences in importance of economic variables on left wing/right wing attitudes. We have an example where economic variables are more significant for the left winger. Thus, even if the right winger is confronted by negative economic data (such as the US's lack of income mobility), they are more likely to be affected by simple ideology persuasion (such as the myth-making around the American Dream). Rationality is more likely to be ignored.

This of course is not perfect evidence to test the hypothesis. However, I have noted that you have provided nothing to reject it. It would be great to see you put your thinking cap on and attempt such rejection.

Truth Detector · 07-25-08, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

Okay, we constantly hear on these boards that US media has a left wing bias.

Now my question is.. can anyone show me where some of the main networks show left wing bias?

And no criticizing Bush or a Republican is not showing left wing bias. And no that lame biased UCLA study on media bias does not cut it either. And no even mentioning left wing polices or the word socialist is not left wing bias.

What I am looking for is clear cut left wing bias along the lines of the way Fox News does bias.. Comments like the Terrorist fist jab, or promoting out right lies or twisting facts for political bias.

So do people have any examples of left wing media bias.

\

The list is long, but let’s start with this one; every time the media mentions Cheney, they add; "who ran Halliburton. "

Again it begs the question why does that have to be added to any story.

Here's another one that is more subtle; whenever you read a story about political corruption, you can tell if the story is about a Democrat or Republican because if it is a Democrat, the party affiliation is left off; but when it is a republican, they make sure that the affiliation is there.

I know it is hard to see bias when you agree with the bias and are closed minded about HONEST intellectual debate, but just watch MSNBC sometime when they talk to anyone from the Republican side and there can be no doubt about the bias; unless of course you are a Leftist who wallows in denial and enjoy being uninformed.

winston53660 · 07-25-08, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

\

The list is long, but let’s start with this one; every time the media mentions Cheney, they add; "who ran Halliburton. "

.

Everytime? do you have any empirical evidence to prove this?