How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Gingrich - the next target   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Gingrich - the next target

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


50 posted 12-16-2011 09:09 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


To have a reprobate do something sleazy is not news; to have a man who holds himself up as a moral exemplar do something sleazy is news.  To blame the media for reporting the news only makes the sleaze factor appear more ripe and pustulant.

I agree completely, Bob. I do not blame the media for reporting the news, rather that they report the sleazy only when it applies to Republicans, while downplaying or ignoring when applied to others. That makes them as sleazy as the news.

And Fox so often presents its entertainment in the form of things that appear to be news programs that it can be difficult at times to tell the difference.

Fox news is Fox news. It has nothing to do with talk shows or anything else.  Just as Rachel Maddow or Obermann does not represent actual MSNBC news, neither do the Fox talk shows, which are clearly defined as being talk shows.

Most watched does not equate with most accurate.

I refer you to "Field of Dreams" and "if you build it, they will come." Apparently many do consider it worthy of watching and accurate. Surely if they kept discovering that Fox could not be trusted for it's accuracy, they would go somewhere else. The fact that they don't proves the point.

....as does every news agency, grinch.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


51 posted 12-17-2011 02:08 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

while downplaying or ignoring when applied to others



Such a statement is hard to qualify, or quantify, but its ramifications are huge.  Gosh!  We can't know what they're not telling us about the Democrats because they're not telling us!  This could be huge.  But, wait a minute..... how do we know what they're not telling us about the Republicans?

Between Rush's speedo and now this, I may never sleep again.  I know I'm just being paranoid, but, am I being paranoid enough?  What else should I be afraid of that I don't know about?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


52 posted 12-17-2011 07:17 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
....as does every news agency, grinch.

True, though most news agencies would vigorously deny ever exercising that right. Fox news however have openly admitted, in a court of law no less, that they lie and distort news reports and vehemently defended their right to do so.

I may be wrong but it strikes me that a section of the media that openly lies and distorts the news is far worse than those sections of the media who report the truth with a left or right leaning political bias.

quote:
I refer you to "Field of Dreams" and "if you build it, they will come." Apparently many do consider it worthy of watching and accurate. Surely if they kept discovering that Fox could not be trusted for it's accuracy, they would go somewhere else. The fact that they don't proves the point.


Unfortunately, it proves nothing. People tend to believe what they want to believe even when what they believe isn't true or consistent with the facts. Those people will actively seek out likeminded people who repeat or reiterate their own beliefs; history is full of religious nut jobs proclaiming that the end of the world is nigh and even when the predicted date comes and goes they still aren't short of eager followers.

If you build it they will come? Maybe, but if you tell them what they want to hear when they get there, even if it's a lie, they're far more likely to stay.

.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


53 posted 12-17-2011 09:42 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I refer you to "Field of Dreams" and "if you build it, they will come." Apparently many do consider it worthy of watching and accurate. Surely if they kept discovering that Fox could not be trusted for it's accuracy, they would go somewhere else. The fact that they don't proves the point.

It's a shame, Mike, you won't simply apply that same laissez faire attitude to ALL the media. It would do wonders, I'm sure, for your blood pressure. After all, if the media "could not be trusted for its accuracy," surely they (meaning us) would go somewhere else (presumably to Fox?).

My mother, bless her heart, sincerely believed she was at least somewhat psychic. She would think about a person and, the next thing you knew, the telephone would ring, with that thought-of person calling her seemingly out of the blue. She would dream something and, sure enough, it would come to pass. She would look out the front window just seconds before someone would pull into the drive-way. It was, she often said, simply uncanny.

In truth, however, Mom was a victim of a very well documented human foible. She vividly remembered all the times she thought of a person just before they called because, well, it was a very memorable thing to have happen. She didn't remember all the times she thought of someone and they DIDN'T call her. Those times, after all, were unremarkable. Similarly, Mom didn't recall the dreams that were clearly just dreams or remember the thousands of times she looked out the window and the drive-way remained empty.

The significance of ANY event is determined by our own perception of its importance. What you see in the major media, Mike, is as much a reflection of YOU as it is of them. And it clearly isn't doing your blood pressure any good.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


54 posted 12-17-2011 07:20 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Once again, Mike, truth is not a popularity contest.  "Most likely to succeed" in a high school year book is a matter of guesswork and popularity.  Homecoming Queen and Homecoming King are pretty much straight popularity contests.  News programs, not so much.

     There are actually college graduates who believe this stuff — that reality and truth is up for a vote; and the side with the biggest majority wins.  In some situations, the construction you place on reality matters very much; but it turns out that there are other things where that’s not at all the case.  It's difficult to take a vote that is very telling on what the value should be for the speed of light, or pi.  When one steps off a cliff anywhere I’ve been, votes don’t count as to whether gravity applies; ignorance of the law in this case, is no excuse.

     It makes as much sense to me to say that people like the story Fox tells as it does to say that the story Fox tells is correct.  In fact it makes more sense, because that would account for the lack of corrections for some of their more outstanding misrepresentations about Iraq, for example, and our involvement there.

     Other news organizations may have broadcast or published the same initial information, but published or broadcast more accurate information as it became available.  Many Fox viewers were not informed by Fox of the lack of connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda or of the lack of connection between Saddam and the Twin Towers bombings, and the trail of misinformation and disinformation simply built from there.

     Isn't that true?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


55 posted 12-17-2011 09:33 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Homecoming Queen and Homecoming King are pretty much straight popularity contests.  News programs, not so much.

On the contrary, Bob, in this country that's exactly what they are. And I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


56 posted 12-17-2011 10:07 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


Fox news however have openly admitted, in a court of law no less, that they lie and distort news reports and vehemently defended their right to do so.

Obviously, grinch, you have links at the ready to prove that point. Fire when ready, Gridley. I'm interested in seeing it.

. People tend to believe what they want to believe even when what they believe isn't true or consistent with the facts. Those people will actively seek out likeminded people who repeat or reiterate their own beliefs; history is full of religious nut jobs proclaiming that the end of the world is nigh and even when the predicted date comes and goes they still aren't short of eager followers.

So what you are saying is the majority that voted Obama into office now find Fox news to be made up of like-minded people who mirror their own beliefs. Pardon me if that doesn't make any sense at all.....?

ROn, I read your response more than once and I have to tell you that I can find no relationship between your mother and the news agencies. I'm sure there must be one but it's too hidden for my feeble mind.
What you see in the major media, Mike, is as much a reflection of YOU as it is of them.

My point is not what I see in the media, Ron....it's what I DON'T see. Just as I have touched on the discrepancy of the different way the Tea Party and the Occupiers were portrayed (which everyone has ignored), what I DON'T see is the fervor used against republicans also used against democrats.

You guys are trying to make points about Fox news, what they cover, how honest or dishonest their reporting is, etc, etc, etc. That's not the point I brought up at all, which had absolutely nothing to do with Fox news. If there are those of you who want to transfer the conversation over to Fox, go ahead, b ut it doesn't change the subject.

In some situations, the construction you place on reality matters very much; but it turns out that there are other things where that’s not at all the case.  It's difficult to take a vote that is very telling on what the value should be for the speed of light, or pi.  When one steps off a cliff anywhere I’ve been, votes don’t count as to whether gravity applies; ignorance of the law in this case, is no excuse.

Bob, I have absolutely no idea what you said there.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


57 posted 12-17-2011 10:39 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I've got to say, you have a point, which I acknowledge later in my post when I comment about the nature of the story that Fox tells (or any news source tells).  Viewership depends on the appeal of the story to that viewership.  

     That, however, is not about truth but about mythology.  The problem with that is that almost everybody has a mythology.

     Of the many reasons that people despise lawyers, one of the primary reasons is that at least some of the training involves being able to identify and argue conflicting mythologies, and to create alternate and competitive stories to explain the same sets of events.  News sources may offer different sorts of mythologies to explain events, may offer different stories to explain them.  I'm glad you like that.

     My notion of the first ammendment is that it was meant to protect people's access to the truth and the press's right to publish it, and that it was meant to cover political speech.  It's been constructed as widely as it's been because we want to protect as widely as possible as many possible versions of what may be true as possible.  Sources such as Fox that knowingly print false information or misinformation, such as they printed and failed to retract about the Iraq war, are certainly protected because the first ammendment is cast as broadly as it is to protect different potential versions of the truth.

     Although I have to say that I am not as well read as I would like to be on this area, and while the above is my opinion, I would be pleased to learn information that seems to be more firmly based in research.  If anybody has some atual research based evidence that would lead me to a different conclusion, I would be pleased to change my mind on the appropriate details.

     I still, however, believe that when a news source says "these are the facts,"  that they really ought to be the facts as best they can determine them.  Otherwise I expect a retraction and a restatement of the facts as they stand in reality as of that point to appear in a timely fashion.  In a news source of record, that is generally what I will get.  I won't trouble you with my usual list of suitable candidates, but they include sources from the left, and the right and what might be reasonably called the center, though people disagree what that is today.

     Fox News does not appear on that list because it doesn't fit the criteria.  The fact that it is popular indicates good business practices, great marketing, and finding a suitable niche for its product.  You can say the same for cocaine, and heroin.  I think they should be taxed and should be legal as Fox News, whose Tax Status I am not  so clear about.  Alcohol for the most part pays significant taxes, and though it may keep a large number of our citizens in poverty and degredation and acting against their own best interests, it's my personal belief that Fox News is trying its best to do the same and make a profit from doing so.

    
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


58 posted 12-18-2011 12:39 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
ROn, I read your response more than once and I have to tell you that I can find no relationship between your mother and the news agencies.

The analogy wasn't between Mom and the media, Mike, it was supposed to be between Mom and you. The similarity is that Mom was, like you are now, wrong. She let herself be deceived by subjective observations, coupled with selective memory.

I don't believe in ESP, and I don't believe in a national conspiracy that can effectively coordinate literally tens of thousands of newspapers, magazines, television and radio stations. Neither, in my world view, are credible concepts. It's much easier to believe in coincidence on the one hand and, on the other, the very real possibility that you might be a little biased.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


59 posted 12-18-2011 07:05 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Obviously, grinch, you have links at the ready to prove that point.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of links Mike - some to sources that lie or distort news reports and some to sources that tell the truth with a political or personal bias?

Which would you prefer?

quote:
So what you are saying is the majority that voted Obama into office now find Fox news to be made up of like-minded people who mirror their own beliefs


No Mike - that'd be a dumb thing to say and I try to avoid saying dumb things.



Just because I think the world will eventually end doesn't automatically mean that I believe Harold Camping's inane prophesies, by the same token, just because I don't think Obama has done as good a job as he could have doesn't mean I agree with the distorted view of Fox news.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


60 posted 12-18-2011 08:09 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The similarity is that Mom was, like you are now, wrong. At least I can count on you to tell me when I'm wrong. Must be nice to be so omnipotent.   She let herself be deceived by subjective observations, coupled with selective memory. Once again, my comments are not based on what I see, but what I don't see. If you fellas want to pretend that network news has fair coverage, go ahead. If you want to believe that they have no obligation to provide fair coverage, that's fine, too. I can't disagree. I have simply stated that that's the way it is and, pretending it's not, or pointing fingers elsewhere, doesn't change it.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


61 posted 12-18-2011 09:04 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.
"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

(This report is from when a Republican lived in the White House. Under Obama it is even worse.)
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


62 posted 12-18-2011 12:11 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
At least I can count on you to tell me when I'm wrong. Must be nice to be so omnipotent.

Come on, Mike, you know one doesn't necessarily follow the other. I don't need to be omnipotent -- or even particularly smart -- to know when two plus two doesn't equal five.

quote:
Once again, my comments are not based on what I see, but what I don't see.

What you don't see, Mike, defines what you do see. They're the same thing. But, fine, if you want to maintain the distinction, the analogy still stands. Mom didn't see all the times she thought of a person and they failed to immediately phone her. Why should she? Those instances weren't remarkable in any way and didn't serve to support her world view of what ESP would be like. We are ALL victims of selective memory.

quote:
Media Human Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

Duh? Of course it's real. Just as the electrical charge on elementary particles is a real phenomenon. It doesn't matter on the grander scale, however, because negative charges cancel out positive charges, leaving the bulk of our Universe largely neutral. Imbalances happen, sure, but they are always localized and temporal.

There is no conspiracy, Mike. If there was, and assuming it was at all effective, you would never know about it. And no Republican would ever be elected.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


63 posted 12-18-2011 02:07 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

quote:
what I DON'T see is the fervor used against republicans also used against democrats.


Why do you blame other people for this?  If there are two movies, and one of them keeps keeps on getting worse reviews, then it might just be true that that movie is worse than the other movie.  Wouldn't it be better for the movie director or the actors involved to face the fact, or at least a likelihood, that they should try to work on making better movies and giving a better performance rather than using the reviewers as scapegoats so they can avoid the blame and avoid addressing their own weaknesses?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


64 posted 12-18-2011 04:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

There is no conspiracy, Mike. If there was, and assuming it was at all effective, you would never know about it. And no Republican would ever be elected.
No problem, Ron. You can state that as a certainty if you like. To me, there certainly IS one and we know about it because it is too hard to hide. Network news omissions along with obvious bias has come to be so noticable it is out in the open.....one reason why they continue to lose viewers. No republican would be elected if they WERE effective. They are not, thankfully.

"The curious case of the dog barking at midnight......" - mainstream media.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


65 posted 12-18-2011 05:46 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     I want to thank Mike for his effort in finding the 2005 research study from UCLA.  I feel it was a thoughtful thing to do on his part because it tries to place the discussion on more solid ground, and because it tries to look at the facts behind everybody’s claims.  It aims to get to the truth at what we are trying to figure out together and not simply the partisan rhetoric.

     I think that in some ways the study has made its point and there is some rightness that I have to acknowledge in the point the study is making and the point that Mike is trying to make by bringing the study up.  Yes, there is media bias, in some cases from the left and in some cases from the right, and that this will work against the Republicans in some cases just as it will work against the Democrats in the others.  The somewhat surprising rankings of the various media outlets the study produces are probably accurate given the standard against which these outlets are being measured.  I believe that in all this, the researchers and Mike have an excellent point and one which is well worth taking into account.

     The suggestion that Mike makes that because the article was published during a Republican administration and that we are now in a Democratic administration the conditions now are worse, I must disagree with.  First, the big example of the most liberal news outlet, The Wall Street Journal, is now owned by Rupert Murdock and is a very conservative news outlet; and, second, the entire method of measurement has to do with how the votes in congress are judged to fall  by political orientation, to the left or to the right, so what is liberal and what is conservative in terms of news reportage  (in this study) will change from one year to the next.  A person’s feel for what is liberal or what is conservative, in other words, doesn’t count in this study, and what Mike might think or what I might think  doesn’t affect the actual measurement.

     That’s both an advantage and a disadvantage.

     In doing a study like this, one of the biggest problems is in establishing a measurement of what is the political center.  I think this study made a brave attempt to establish what the political center is.  There is much that is satisfactory about the scheme they’ve come up with, but also much that simply doesn’t work.  In the study, the notion of the political center changes from year to year; in one year, it might be very liberal to think of social security as a keystone government program; in another, it might be very conservative.  Then, if a particular news outlet takes a solid stand for social security, in year one, it will show liberal bias and in year two it will show conservative bias — if it’s evaluated by the standards of this study.  That would be with the same stance.


     I’ve spoken about this sort of thing before when I’ve spoken of the rightward drift of  American politics and of how President Obama — for me at least — seems more like a liberal Republican than a left wing Democrat:  More like an Eisenhower or a Rockefeller than an LBJ or a Ted Kennedy.

     To my mind there are and always have been conservative Democrats who vote with the conservatives in the Republican Party.  The Republicans have been skewing their party to the right for 30 years, even funding more conservative candidates by preference over less conservative ones within their own party.  This, I believe, gives us an artificial understanding of where the actual center lies in this country.  And this is why I believe that the methodology of this study is flawed.  It measures the political spectrum of legislators and not the population as a whole, and it makes the assumption that the legislators work for the people who voted for them rather than the people who funded the winning campaigns.  I believe this assumption to be at best questionable and most likely to be false.

     The study was definitely worthy of publication and consideration; but I believe, because of the methodological flaw I discussed above, must be applauded as a brilliant early attempt and not as definitive.  Again, I’d like to thank Mike for bringing it up.    
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


66 posted 12-18-2011 08:48 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self." - Aldous Huxley
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


67 posted 12-19-2011 12:32 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The Occupy Wall Street protestors have received overwhelmingly positive coverage from the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) news networks, as they used their airtime to publicize and promote the aggressively leftist movement. In just the first eleven days of October, ABC, CBS and NBC flooded their morning and evening newscasts with a whopping 33 full stories or interview segments on the protesters. This was a far cry from the greeting the Tea Party received from the Big Three as that conservative protest movement was initially ignored (only 13 total stories in all of 2009) and then reviled.

Where the Tea Party was met with skeptical claims of their motivations -- with some reporters claiming they were merely corporate backed puppets and others implying they were spurred on by their racist opposition to the first black president – the Occupy Wall Street crowd was depicted as an almost genial “grassroots” movement.

While network reporters weren’t hesitant to describe the Tea Party as conservative, only once did a reporter attach even the “liberal” label to the overtly leftist Wall Street protestors.

Network anchors like Brian Williams couldn’t be bothered with ideological labeling of the occupiers as he was, on the October 5 NBC Nightly News, too busy celebrating the arrival of the “massive protest movement” that “could well turn out to be the protest of this current era.”

ABC’s Diane Sawyer was so excited she tripped herself up in hyperbole as she proclaimed, on the October 10 World News, that the movement had “spread to more than 250 American cities, more than a thousand countries – every continent but Antarctica.” (Video) Sawyer would have to correct herself on a later edition of the program as she clarified it was “more than a thousand cities around the world – every continent but Antarctica.” That's still a tremendous exaggeration.

Most astoundingly, the networks’ Occupy Wall Street (OWS) stories were overwhelmingly sympathetic: Protesters and supporters of the movement dominated the soundbites, with 109 (87%) to just 8 critics (6%), with another 8 soundbites from neutral sources. Five of the eight soundbites unsympathetic to the protesters were brief clips of GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain blasting the occupiers. In addition to the 109 pro-OWS soundbites, seven times guests on the Big Three network morning shows expressed sympathy for the protestors. No guests opposed the protests.

http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/realitycheck/2011/20111013100045.aspx
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


68 posted 12-19-2011 12:34 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


The Tea Party was a movement that was so peaceful, so respectful of public and private property, so familial and so powerful that leftists had to spend weeks agonizing over unrelated Lyndon LaRouche posters or in some cases, inventing incidents of racism or name-calling to attempt to smear it.

So we know how President Obama and his liberal base hysterically responded to the reality of Tea Party. The question is this: how would they have responded to the following 25 headlines?

Pair Living With Tea Party Protesters Arrested For Selling Heroin
Tea Party Protester Defecates on Police Car
More than 700 Arrested After Tea Party Blocks Traffic on Brooklyn Bridge
Police In Riot Gear Clear Tea Party Protesters in California City
130 Tea Party Arrests in Chicago
Police Investigating Possible Sexual Assault of Teen at Tea Party
Tea Party Discourages Sexual Assault Victims From Contacting Police
Tea Party Protests Go Global; Riots in Rome
Muppet-Wielding Tea Partiers Occupy George Soros’ Speech
Florida Mom Abandons Family for Tea Party
Police Worry as Tea Party Pines for World Series Spotlight
Tea Partiers ‘Defecating on Our Doorsteps,’ NYC Residents Complain
Riot Police Arrest Tea Party Protesters
Tea Party Occupies GE CEO Jeff Immelt’s Connecticut Front Lawn
Tea Party Targets Phil Griffin’s House
Tea Party Takes On NYPD at Times Sq.; Then March to Washington Sq.: 74 Total Arrests
Repairing Tea Party Damage to City Hall Could Cost $400,000
Tea Party Killing Tax-Funded Grass at McPherson Square
Cincinnati Police Arrest More Than 20 Tea Partiers at Piatt Park
Tea Party Speaker: Violence Will Be Necessary to Achieve Our Goals
NYers to Tea Party: Lay Off the Drums
Tea Party Protesters Sing “F*** the USA”
98 Degrees Singer Among Tea Party Arrests
Protesters Accused of Hurting NYC Economy
Tea Party Gets ‘Getting Arrested’ App
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/25/over-2400-tea-partiers-arrested/

Change Tea Party to OCCUPIERS and these are actual headlines. How many have you seen discussed on the mainstream nightly news? Obama has not condemned them. Pelosi applauds them. The press leaves them alone. Coincidence? Not likely. If it were actually the Tea Party in these headlines, How much criticism do you think would come from Obama, Pelosi and the mainstream news programs?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


69 posted 12-19-2011 02:46 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Hmmm?

     I think that the Demographics of the two groups are different, aren't they?  The same behavior from two different groups with substantially different Demographics can mean different things.  Also, as I understand it, the Demographics of the OWS folks are considerably more diverse by age, and by economic status than the range of the Tea Party.  The OWS folks would have a lot more folks  on either side of the tail of the bell curve than would the Tea Party folks, so you'd get headlines about folks on the extremes of the OWS folks that wouldn't apply to the majority of the OWS folks, whereas the Tea Party, being a somewhat though not entirely more homogenious outfit might be able to have at least a few more generalizations made about them.

     That's speculative, because I haven't seen any hard information on the demographics of either group, but that's the impression I get.  I'm open to discussion on that, and I'd be interested in hearing other opinions.

     No such headlines were offered about the Tea Party.  The stories behind the headlines in the examples about the OWS would need to be taken one at a time and discussed.  Near as I can tell, all these headlines about OWS seem to inducate that there is a large amount of critical coverage about OWS, and that you seem to be quoting some of the parts that you find damaging.  If the coverage was as biased as you suggest, there wouldn't be any stories running around at all, would there?

     What I don't see in all this obsessional nit-picking is reference to reality.

     I do see a lot of concern about who's gotten the most and best publicity, but I sure don't see any concern with the economic realities of either position.  Where are the references to the economists and the sociologists and the folks who can offer us some sort of information about what's happening to the economy right now, and why?  

     The Right is making some assertions about economics and governmental policy and how these things are related to taxation and employment, and I haven't seen them prove their assertions.  The OWS folks are saying that most of these assertions or many of them have led our country and perhaps the world into a major recession and possibly a depression; and the Tea Party is saying that we need to cut back on spending and allow unfettered corporate capitalism a free hand by cutting government regulation and power to the bone.

    It seems to me that the issue is the truthfulness of these claims by either side and not whether the party that's more or less run  the country for the last 30 years is getting a fair shake in the press.  If they weren't getting a fair enough shake, they wouldn't be where they are.

     Why not keep our eyes on the road?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


70 posted 12-19-2011 07:36 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, as I recall, and would be easy to prove, you were quite vocal, outraged, incensed, and accusatory concerning the Tea Party when they were getting headlines. Yet, with all of these things the above stories refer to, involving all sorts of crimes and criminal behavior, your response is "let's keep our eyes on the road". With all due respect, that appears to be the exact actions of the liberal media I have been referring to. Thank you for demonstrating it.


The same behavior from two different groups with substantially different Demographics can mean different things.

That's the point, Bob. We are not referring to the same behavior. We are talking crimes, up to and including felonies, being perpetrated by OWS. No demographices you can come up with makes them non-crimes.

If the coverage was as biased as you suggest, there wouldn't be any stories running around at all, would there?

Good point. Check out where these stories were reported...mainly from local newspapers covering the events. My question was how many of them have you seen on the mainstream nighty news?


Face it. For the mainstream press to condemn actions of the Occupiers, they would be going against Obama, Pelosi, Soros and all of the biggies who have called the movement the greatest thing since the Slinky. If they actually were to report all of the things in the local headlines listed above, Obama and Pelosi would be put in a position of having to acknowledge that they were "perhaps" mistaken in their assessment and approval of the movement. Pelosi may even have to change her "God bless them" to "God, forgive them".

Ain't gonna happen...
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


71 posted 12-19-2011 10:12 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Check out where these stories were reported...mainly from local newspapers covering the events.

Mike, your observations still remain subjective and wholly dependent on selective memory. As just one example, if you stop labeling reports like "grassroots" and "massive protest movement" as somehow supporting OWS, rather than simply being accurate descriptions, it would be the first step in seeing the world with less bias.

I've seen plenty of negative reports on the OWS movement. More than enough to sway me, more than enough to convince me.

And trust me, old friend . . . the local coverage in Colon, a village of 1200 people, hasn't exactly been impressive, either for or against.




Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


72 posted 12-19-2011 05:12 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Hmmm again, Mike.

     The response to "crimes" is difficult in a lawful society, where these are usually spoken about as "allegations" by folks who aren't already biased, right?  That's why these things will often go through the court system, to protect us from the bias of people who already have the answers before they have the information necessary to come to a legal decision.  I might remind you of the case of the Frenchman [Edited - Ron]. It seems  there wasn’t enough evidence for a successful prosecution in front of a real court with real rules of evidence and a real judge and a real jury having to contend with real actual law.

     Some of us are fond of civil liberties and the legal system because it protects,  or tries to protect, those accused from judgements like that, even at the occasional cost of allowing the guilty to go free.  It's one of the things about America we are proud of.

     Another thing about America we tend to be proud of is that we make it a bit difficult for people to smear organizations for the activities of their members unless a clear connection between the two can be shown. I don't know that's enshrined in statute or in the constitution, but I do believe — purely on my own cranky and often mistaken intuition — that's one of the reasons that much of the law around conspiracy and criminal conspiracy has been on such contested ground for so long, at least as I understand it.  But that may be headed off in another direction.  If these cases are real, then the people involved should be charged.  If the organization is believed to be responsible, then the organization should be charged or sued for its responsibility, much as The Republican Party has been sued on several occasions for its activities in elections and its attempts to suppress minority voters.  Having had this discussion with me before, you will no doubt remember that The Republicans lost those suits, and you will find the details in one of Greg Pallast"s books.  Pardon my memory, but I believe it's The Finest Democracy Money Can Buy.  It's very well footnoted.

     So far as I know, OWS has been much vilified by the Right, though I don't know that it identifies itself by party so much as by economics.  Trying to smear OWS in comparison to The Tea Party  and to bring up who gets the better value out of public relations dollars spent, if OWS actually spends any, seems to me a waste of time.  I said it was a waste of time in my last posting, I believe.  

     It's a good thing I don't necessarily hate to repeat myself, because I thought I had it about right before:

quote:



     The Right is making some assertions about economics and governmental policy and how these things are related to taxation and employment, and I haven't seen them prove their assertions.  The OWS folks are saying that most of these assertions or many of them have led our country and perhaps the world into a major recession and possibly a depression; and the Tea Party is saying that we need to cut back on spending and allow unfettered corporate capitalism a free hand by cutting government regulation and power to the bone.

    It seems to me that the issue is the truthfulness of these claims by either side and not whether the party that's more or less run  the country for the last 30 years is getting a fair shake in the press.  If they weren't getting a fair enough shake, they wouldn't be where they are.



     Is there something wrong with dealing with the truthfulness of these claims by The Right.  If memory serves correctly, Nixon first started talking about press bias when they started to pick up on Watergate.  Bush Senior knew that this sort of economic thinking was silly.  So did David Stockman, Reagan's Treasury guy, and he wrote a book about it.  Bush called this "Voudou Economics."  They were both right.

     No wonder the Right is getting hysterical about press bias, especially when we have a press that seems even remotely biased toward figuring out what the truth is about the Way the right has been playing games with the American wallet and pocketbook prior to an election.  If I were a Republican, I'd be making a lot of noise about this sort of thing too.  The public might wake up.

[This message has been edited by Ron (12-19-2011 05:24 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


73 posted 12-19-2011 07:52 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

  Another thing about America we tend to be proud of is that we make it a bit difficult for people to smear organizations for the activities of their members unless a clear connection between the two can be shown.

True enough, Bob, although you had no problem doing exactly that with the Tea Party. It's funny how one's perceptions changes depending on which side of the fence they are standing on.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


74 posted 12-19-2011 09:02 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron, believe it or not, I didn't have a political bone in my body before Clinton....no bias, either.

Then, Clinton came along (with me not caring one way or the other) and I got amazed at the coverage and what they got away with. This was also the time I get re-interested in computers and the internet. The first thing I saw was the firing of the White House Travel office. When I looked at that, it was obvious that it was a Hillary manipulation to get her friends in and the current people out. I wondered why it wasn't given any attention on the news. Then we had Clinton and the bevy of beauties, one even accusing him of attempted rape....and very little coverage. Then Monica came along and it seemed the press was in the midsts of portraying her as a dingbat looking for her 15 minutes, until the blue dress and subsequent confession came up. I saw Hillary use "I can't recall" as an excuse 15 times in 17 minutes, with the press not even finding that strange. Then, of course, things like Clinton's "It all depends what "is" is" and other comments like that that the press didn't call him on.

Throughout his presidency, I kept seeing this favoritism granted anything to do with the Clintons. Remember...at that time I had nothing against Clinton and it didn't matter to me if he was president or not. But I kep seeing it. After Clinton left and Bush took over I saw the exact opposite, a mud-slinging frenzy by the same press that gave Clinton such passes. THAT'S when I started paying attention to the bias....and, from what I see, it still holds true to form.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Gingrich - the next target   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors