Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Interesting, but it still does not mean the news organization or content is further right/left. It is merely charting the audience's political tendencies. The biggest shockers for me are NYT, WSJ, and Fox News. I thought WSJ would be mildly on the right side, NYT mildly on the left, and I thought Fox News would be closer to where Drudge is.
Maybe it's just a bad study. The NY Times has right wing guys like David Brooks and Ross Douthat as regular writers on their OP Ed Page. The Right Wing sites like the WSJ don't have any similar left wing voices. That's fine with me, I'd rather they do that than pretend they were objective.
Every time I see David Brooks on MTP, he's always criticizing the GOP. I feel like he's one of these guys who says he's a Republican (or conservative), but that the party has left him.
This is absolutely the best post in this thread. The liberal media bias is just one term used by someone confronted with facts that contradict their world view. Instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks, address the message. The truth is out there.
Thanks. But what's depressing is that since I wrote that, over a year ago, it's only gotten worse to a level I couldn't even have imagined mere months ago. Donald Trump tells one lie after another. And people just accept it.
Not a very compelling article, IMHO. The article itself demonstrates bias using terms like Republican echo chamber, which is something only a left-winger would do. Also concluding that the conservative viewpoint is cowardly? IMHO, the article is a perfect demonstration of the point it is trying to disprove. As far as some of the points in the article, I think saying that the content is catered to their readership doesn't have any real basis. It is more likely the relationship is that like-minded flock to sources which reflect their bias. Do you really think Rush is right-wing because he audiance is right-wing? No, Rush did his show and people with a similar mindset flocked to it. Rush of course now knows who is audiance is and probably plays to them, but that was not the driving force into who Rush is.
See this is an unintentionally funny example.
Fox also has a habit of pulling some heady brah from a Phish parking lot with his dog Trey to represent the left in these debates, rather than inviting somebody actually capable of debate.
Its hilarious to me that you would choose this example. The treatment afforded Hillary Clinton this last summer during the whole so-called email "scandal" should be proof to anyone that there is no liberal bias.
I sorta have my own theory on this. Print journalism is a profession where to be successful you need to be smart, a good writer, and to work hard. And the pay sucks. People with those skills typically have a number of other more lucrative professions that they could go into, and most of them do. Only someone that values other priorities over money would choose to be a print journalist, and most of the people with that perspective are liberals. It seems to me that's the same reason that college professors are overwhelmingly liberal.
I'm just saying what is in the actual emails and indicated that it likely happens with other politicians. I didn't reach any conclusions about overall coverage.
Most career journalists I have known were singularly incurious about things with which they were not comfortable. They do indeed speak frequently of travels all over the world to learn and report about events and different cultures. They also advocate heavily on the behalf of any number of popular, industry approved interests. At the same time most detest setting foot in the more rural portions of their own nation out of utter disdain for the nature of the local populace. Looking down your nose at flyover country" isn't a sign of innate curiosity. It's prejudice and elitism.
Not sure I understand your conclusion here. That the media criticizes when appropriate isn't proof that there is no bias at all. The argument isn't that the media always treats one side or the other favorably or unfavorably. The argument is that the media is biased, and therefore, treats one side or the other favorably/unfavorably more so than they should, or would, were they not biased.
lol. Hammering home? With anybody else it's a complete non-story. With Hillary they talked about it every night and constantly questioned whether her campaign was doomed. The amount of negative coverage she received last summer was overwhelming.
I just assumed he was trolling TPW. Good theory, though. That makes a lot of sense.
Bingo. The most significant point of the whole thing was completely missed and it's because the media doesn't get it either, which is pretty bad.
I don't think that's a bad explanation. I will add that it's funny how people's perspectives change when they're dealing with local politics, which is what most print journalists cover. People are conservative nationally but can be very liberal locally and vice versa. Mostly what people want is explanation of what is really going and exposition of corruption IMO. Where that leads might depend on your ideological (as opposed to political) POV though. Your local mayor is being paid via a side contract by the big garbage contractor in town? Go get `em! Your Senator runs a non-profit that gets major donations from a company before his regulatory committee? Meh.
I guess that innate sense of curiosity they have doesn't expand to consider technology issues.
At the time a lot of people on the left were hoping Sanders would beat Hillary or someone else would jump. I know you find this very difficult to believe, but not everyone loves Hillary as much as you do. I agree the media was pretty harsh on Hillary, but now that Sanders is not seen as a huge threat, the media is falling into place behind Hillary and it will be like pulling teeth to get serious coverage of the email scandal even if something serious is revealed.
I'm sorta surprised (but not really) that one of the various IT experts talking about the security of the server didn't really catch on. These dopes were so focused on email content, they missed the forest for the trees. OR, they were doing Hillary a solid by avoiding the real problem and having the crazies focus on the email content boogeymanI guess that innate sense of curiosity they have doesn't expand to consider technology issues.
What I probably should have said is that conservatives are generally more resistant to change and people who become journalists are generally interested in change. Changes are the most interesting things to write about. Well, that and a county commissioner being discovered in a cozy little financial relationship with a local contractor. You'd be amazed at how much local reporters get criticized for exposing things like that, though, generally along the lines of "he's doing a good job, why are you rocking the boat?"Black Box said:
Glad to see he skipped the fishing pole and went with the large net.roadkill1292 said:
SO DOES HILLARY CLINTON AND YOU ACCEPT IT. Jesus, Tim.timschochet said:
Actually in that situation if the ideology is not adjusted then I think that's when ideology turns to dogma.
Wasn't nearly enough, IMO, seeing as the public doesn't seem to much care. While the media did its typical "OMG squirrel" routine, it didn't make any effort at all to point out what a serious issue this was, and explain why it makes her unfit for office.timschochet said:
Not that I am thrilled with the prospect of Hillary becoming POTUS, but maybe you can unpack this and explain to why it makes her unfit for office.
I've explained it dozens of times in various threads, but the primary concern is a complete and total disregard for security.
Way to prove the point of the article. The author refers to both Republican and Democratic "echo chambers", but is clearly a "left-winger" for mentioning the Republican version. The article says ducking questions by switching to complaints about the liberal media is cowardly, but that somehow becomes the liberal media saying that the conservative viewpoint is cowardly. With only two completely off the wall mis-characterizations, you can "prove" it's a liberal media piece. Amazing.
IMHO, anyone who can't see a bias in media is blind. There is bias all over the place. Every media outlet has a bias towards a political party and towards a specific position on issues like abortion, global warming, taxes, social welfare, race issues, war, etc. If you look at the reporting on a particular topic and don't see how the source is bias, you really are not looking or more likely it confirms your bias and you are blind to it.
Media bias is like biased referees in football. Everyone feels they favor the other side, and the worse you are, the more convinced you are that it's the biased referees who are the fault.
In journalism, it is about 90% who favor a liberal viewpoint. There are dozens of journalists who are or have been part of the Obama administration. Nothing like that has ever occurred in a republican administration. If you want a football analogy, it is like having 90% of referees who use to be ex-Bears football players. The Packers may have a legitimate beef.
good schtick.
