Ok, and that wasn't just a teensy clue?
While it is quite possible for an astute reader to (correctly) read "Please provide some evidence to back up your position." as "That's bull ****!", it is much less likely that one would read "That's bull****!" as "Please provide some evidence to back up your position.".
I merely took your post (which translates as "That's bull****!") to mean exactly what it implied.
A massive yaaaaaaaawwwnnnnnnnn. Pretty much what I expected from the source you chose.
TRANSLATION - "Thanks, but that data doesn't say what I want to hear, so I won't pay any attention to it."
Yeah, if you hand someone a document and say "read the conservative trash" they're going to agree with you. Similarly for liberal information.
And, of course, since you haven't bothered to find out how the study was conducted, you have reached the conclusion that it was conducted in that manner based on what? Let me guess, the basis for your conclusion is "I want to dismiss the findings and if the study was conducted in a highly prejudicial manner then I can dismiss the findings, so that must mean that the study was conducted in a highly prejudicial manner. As proof of that, I have dismissed the findings of the study and I always dismiss the findings of studies conducted in a highly prejudicial manner which means that the studies were conducted in a highly prejudicial manner because I have dismissed the findings of the study."
People tend to believe what agrees with the current beliefs - it's called confirmation bias.
November Sierra Sierra.
And what do you call it when "Person A" WILL believe "Statement B" provided that it comes from a source that "Person A" knows generally DOES support the views that "Person A" holds, but WILL NOT believe the IDENTICAL "Statement B" if it comes from a source that "Person A" knows generally DOES NOT support the views that "Person A" holds? In other words, whether what "Person A" hears is "what they want to hear" depending MORE on where they hear it from and LESS on what it is that they hear.
But commonsense says in a balanced environment pro-left and pro-right biases should be roughly equal and that is definitely NOT the case in the Main Stream Media.
In a world where the "mission" of the media was to provide information and enlightened comment so that the consumers of the media output could make up their own minds in an intelligent and rational manner, I would agree with your first half completely.
Unfortunately that is NOT the world we live in. The "mission" of the media is to make as much money for the owners of the media as possible and that has nothing whatsoever to do with "balance" and one hell of a lot to do with "market share". "Unbalanced coverage" has a MUCH better ROI than "balanced coverage" because people do NOT want to hear that what they believe is absolute crap.
They whine and cry about "free press" but totally ignore its adjunct - fair press.
You might benefit from actually reading what was in the general circulation media at the time of the American Revolution. You might also want to extend that survey to the eras both before and after the American Revolution. In fact, if you look at the actual history of the media, the amount of "fair" press today is likely to be roughly at the same level as it was at the time of the American Revolution (which is to say "damn little").
Do you know that saying "I forget where this comes from" kinda negates the idea of asking for a link.
True, but it does not negate "I find that interesting, could you try and find it again for me. Thanks."
PS - As an example of "believing absolute crap because it comes from a source that supports what I believe in", you might want to contact the Student Christian Movement to see if they still have their records from their 1964 (I think) International Conference that was held in Cleveland and ask them to send you the (approximately 200 page long) report on the "focus group" that had as its topic "Mass Media, Public Opinion, and Politics" and which ran the campaign to force the SCM to reverse the decision to bar the admission of the "North Korean Christian Students Association" delegation (I think that that was the name the "focus group" used to describe the non-existent delegation [if not, it's close]) to see how fast a group of intelligent and educated people can be convinced of the reality of something that even ten minutes of thought would have shown was totally bogus.
