Last edited by Crunch; 02-16-10 at 05:34 PM.
There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.
Originally Posted by PogueMoran
I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.
Last edited by Sir Loin; 02-16-10 at 05:26 PM.
So, to be clear, you didn't address anything -- just a feeble fallacious argument.
Try again, if you like.
Those on conservative sites and WND...???Have you got a peer reviewed study about media bias that debunks those already in the public domain?
Tell you what, Lion, you go first. I'd love to read one objective academic study that shows a clear across-the-board bias on both social and fiscal issues by the mainstream media...
But no LINKS to WND...
As for the rest of your yammering, back to the old Straw man, I see -- You love to put words in my mouth. I suppose that it's easier for you to debate me when you misconstrue the point...
So, please show me where I state that all the other outlets were 100% unbiased and FOX was the only biased source?
I was pretty specific in my comments regarding FNC; perhaps you should re-read and not just make crap up.
Some things are so simplistic they really need neither your confirmation nor your personal stamp of approval, but for arguments sake let us explore what you chose to reply to, that I stated.
To quote precisely what came from your post, if in fact Fox News viewers think the other cable news media are biased, they are correct are they not? If not how so? By all means debunk away.
If in fact you really think Fox viewers would be wrong, other cable news media are not biased, surely you have something other than just a Hazelnut thinks so, which is worth nada as you know.
Seems to me you are already starting to try to wiggle out of your previous comment and add new facets to it that were not present. I understand, it was a patently dumb comment, but you made it so own it brave intellectual warrior. Good luck, I have zero confidence in you, so surprise me!
Last edited by Sir Loin; 02-16-10 at 07:34 PM.
First of all define "biased" -- if you're talking across the board slant on all stories every single day, I'd say no. Absolutely not.
MSNBC offers counter-programming to FNC. Sort of. Many of their commentator/hosts are left-leaning counter-parts to those on FNC. Morning Joe is a mixed bag. Scarborough is a moderate, but Pat Buchanan is on a regular basis.
CNN -- Anderson Cooper, Campbell Brown - pretty straight forward news programming. Larry King -- interview show with softball questions. They have a mid-day guy, Rick something who is left-leaning. But you'd have a hard time showing a consistent daily slant on stories coming out of CNN.
Again, the qualification for bias is consistent. Not one story or even one show--but a daily effort to produce a news "narrative" from a specific angle.
CBS, NBC, ABC -- local news highlight local stories. They cater to their audience and demos. The nightly network news shows cover stories from a variety of angles -- you'd have a hard time showing any consistent bias one way or another. I know Bill O'Rielly has got a hardon for NBC, but I don't see it.
Newspapers -- Front page, straight news. Columnists -- opinion. Editorial page -- varies from week to week. Basically, they bigger papers cater to a certain audience and stories are selected and edited based on how well they'll sell that paper to their audience.
The ONLY BIAS, meaning consistent slat on stories, you'll see is what I call a "conflict bias." Stories are framed around the most dramatic elements--the conflict between two sides.
In dramatic story telling, you engage your audience by punching up the conflict between two people or parties. In order to make their programming more compelling, MSM will frame or tell stories from an angle that implies some sort of conflict. Listen to the language used over the weekend when Cheney and Biden made statements on the Sunday shows.
Why does Sarah Palin get more coverage--because she's a polarizing personality--conflict comes naturally. Love her or hater her, viewers will stay tuned in.
The one bias I will give you -- On social issues, there is more tolerance among people who work in the media for gays.
A lot of "liberal media" bias arguments consist of finding fault in which stories were not covered. I have yet to see a legitimate relevant major story that was not covered by major outlets in some fashion.
The bottom line here is that no other outlet, not even MSNBC approaches News/Editorial cable programming in the fashion FNC does -- they have reinvented New/editorial programing and packaged it as a daily news 'narrative' told from a conservative angle.
This is nothing new. William Randolph Hearst ran his newspapers the same way.
In fact your entire stance is exactly the appeal to belief/spite you complain vacuously about. Which comes not at all as a shock to anyone thoughtful who has bothered reading most of your post across many threads since you arrived. The hackery is outweighed only by the hypocrisy with you and you are utterly inconsistent. As you argue about consistency, chuckle.
You watch Fox News, you do so because you think/believe you are getting a fair and balanced accounting of events? No eh? Well then, you prognostication about "why" millions of other people watch Fox News is just so much "Appeal to Belief/Spite" and once again you are trapped in a conundrum of your own making. You frame your narrative to fit your outlook. See that is the problem with posters like you who labor with Fox Derangement Syndrome. In order to make your arguments about bias, you end up asking others what they mean by "bias" when you get caught in a causality loop. You start at broad sweeping generalizations, and then when you get challenged do you reply honestly and directly to the challenge or question? No, you spin like a top and then want to get "specific" about what you think "bias" is. In other words, you are the personification of an internet argument. I've always argued what is the bias argument worth? I've posed that question directly to you before; not that you could muster a response to it. Much as before, it is amazing how you could type so much yet not address anything I asked you or stated. You sir are far more impressed with your internet spin-dance than am I and to judge by responses at DP, many others seeking intellectually honest discourse. But then I actually know a thing or two about journalism and so called "media bias" whereas you are left spining in a rut crying, don't quote "conservative websites" or use WND, both themselves vacuous appeals to belief/spite, to quote your latest circular posing.
No group can overthrow the government by force, as things currently stand. Have you ever watched some of the SWAT teams on TV? Do you really want to try and attack those people? You would lose. No matter which group you happen to be associated with. Of course SWAT would be backed up by the Marines special ops.
No, it really can't be done by force, unless, our money becomes worthless. In that scenario the Police and Military members would resign from their duties after a while. Thus ensuing chaos.
Chaos would then start a civil war to see who would take the reins of power after value returned to the currency. Using history as a guide, the left would be the most likely group to start the "revolution" (as it would be called), or the civil war, which it would become in short order.
So while people are stockpiling foods and weapons, I'm content to practice my grasp on the Spanish language. Civil wars are best viewed from the sidelines.
P.S: This isn't a media bias thread.
Last edited by d0gbreath; 02-17-10 at 10:05 AM.
HELPING HILLARY PICK OUT HER INAUGURAL GOWN!The jokes write themselves!
Fox packages it's cable news channel as "Fair and Balanced" - Fact.
The most popular programs on FNC are editorial/opinion programs - Fact.
Editorial is not news - Fact.
Calling editorial programing "fair and balanced" is ironic. - Fact.
People who watch opinion shows and think they're getting news are sad and stupid - IMO.
I believe you understood everything I said the first time around and only wish to bait and play silly little game of parsing and misstating what I said.
I'm not even sure you've taken a side or made a point.
I guess that's difficult when the conversation is over your head or you really having nothing to say and just want to attack...
Please see facts above should you continue to be confused about what constitutes a legitimate argument.In fact your entire stance is exactly the appeal to belief/spite you complain vacuously about.
BTW - I'm still waiting for you do post one fact.
I stated that I watch FNC to get a conservative perspective on current evets.You[/B] watch Fox News, you do so because you think/believe you are getting a fair and balanced accounting of events?
You continue to play your little game of putting words into my mouth and misstating what I said to create an argument you can attack.
Pathetic. -- Anyone following the thread can see how desperately you continue to assemble your little straw friends.
Really, where?I've posed that question directly to you before; not that you could muster a response to it.
And if I had a dollar for every question of mine that you avoided --
Projection. Were you ever going to take side or just parse and attack everything I post with weak straw men??Much as before, it is amazing how you could type so much yet not address anything I asked you or stated.
The fine art of trolling -- you're determined to take it to a new level.
Really -- because I was working for Fox during the inception of FNC. I would love to hear about your journalistic background.But then I actually know a thing or two about journalism and so called "media bias"
Honestly, Sir L, are you taking a position or just parsing everything I say in a weak attempt to bait me (into what I can't imagine)?
The way you keep calling me "Sir" -- are you acting out some weird fantasy?
I wonder how many post you are willing to just dodge and keep arguing, presenting your appeals to belief/spite and acting sincerely as if you are not doing exactly that. I bet quite a lot.
Last edited by Sir Loin; 02-20-10 at 12:38 AM.