I guess this is more

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm just going to add one last little nugget of gold to this thread, and it's the very first line in the thread:

 

Those convinced that liberals make up a disproportionate share of newsroom workers have long relied on Pew Research Center surveys to confirm this view, and they will not be disappointed by the results of Pew's latest study released today.

 

So, uhm, what exactly does this add?

 

I get the feeling it works like this:

 

 

Rush Limbaugh: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!

Sean Hannity: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!

Media Whore O'Reilly: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS! BUY FACTOR GEAR!

Michael Savage: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!

Glenn Beck: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!

Laura Ingraham: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!

Everybody I Forgot: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!

 

Average Joe: Hmmm... Sounds like there's a liberal media bias. I should buy Factor Gear.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm just going to add one last little nugget of gold to this thread, and it's the very first line in the thread:

 

Those convinced that liberals make up a disproportionate share of newsroom workers have long relied on Pew Research Center surveys to confirm this view, and they will not be disappointed by the results of Pew's latest study released today.

 

So, uhm, what exactly does this add?

 

I get the feeling it works like this:

 

 

Rush Limbaugh: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!

Sean Hannity: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!

Media Whore O'Reilly: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS! BUY FACTOR GEAR!

Michael Savage: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!

Glenn Beck: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!

Laura Ingraham: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!

Everybody I Forgot: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!

 

Average Joe: Hmmm... Sounds like there's a liberal media bias. I should buy Factor Gear.

So, people who EXPECT this are wrong in some way because their assumptions are proven true?

 

Heck, I fully expect life to exist somewhere in the universe. I guess if it DOES exist somewhere, the fact that I expected it means that it really isn't noteworthy?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So, people who EXPECT this are wrong in some way because their assumptions are proven true?

They're not proven true, Mike.

 

For one thing, more people chose moderate than liberal or conservative. This doesn't do much to reinforce the conservative view that about 75% of the nation's media is liberally biased.

 

Secondly, it counts each individual as one point. That doesn't do very good. That means that the coffee guy at Fox News saying he's a liberal means just as much as Brit Hume saying he's a conservative, but which employee holds more weight in the presentation of the news and the journalistic integrity?

 

 

For another example, let's pretend we're talking about the old era of CNN. Now, the guy who runs the Copy Room says he's a conservative, but Ted Turner says he's a liberal. Is that equally important to determining the bias of the network? Wouldn't you say that Turner's influence is probably that of a dozen or more copy boys?

[Guest MikeSC]

So, people who EXPECT this are wrong in some way because their assumptions are proven true?

They're not proven true, Mike.

 

For one thing, more people chose moderate than liberal or conservative. This doesn't do much to reinforce the conservative view that about 75% of the nation's media is liberally biased.

 

Secondly, it counts each individual as one point. That doesn't do very good. That means that the coffee guy at Fox News saying he's a liberal means just as much as Brit Hume saying he's a conservative, but which employee holds more weight in the presentation of the news and the journalistic integrity?

 

 

For another example, let's pretend we're talking about the old era of CNN. Now, the guy who runs the Copy Room says he's a conservative, but Ted Turner says he's a liberal. Is that equally important to determining the bias of the network? Wouldn't you say that Turner's influence is probably that of a dozen or more copy boys?

Well, since Pew wasn't questioning the guys in the mail room and the like --- your entire argument is moot.

-=Mike

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

So, people who EXPECT this are wrong in some way because their assumptions are proven true?

They're not proven true, Mike.

 

For one thing, more people chose moderate than liberal or conservative. This doesn't do much to reinforce the conservative view that about 75% of the nation's media is liberally biased.

 

Secondly, it counts each individual as one point. That doesn't do very good. That means that the coffee guy at Fox News saying he's a liberal means just as much as Brit Hume saying he's a conservative, but which employee holds more weight in the presentation of the news and the journalistic integrity?

 

 

For another example, let's pretend we're talking about the old era of CNN. Now, the guy who runs the Copy Room says he's a conservative, but Ted Turner says he's a liberal. Is that equally important to determining the bias of the network? Wouldn't you say that Turner's influence is probably that of a dozen or more copy boys?

Well, since Pew wasn't questioning the guys in the mail room and the like --- your entire argument is moot.

-=Mike

That part of his argument is, but he's still right that it doesn't prove much. Indirect claims of media bias like this just flop all over the place. Pew does this sort of thing a lot, and while their methodology is great, the actual tangible impact of this particular study isn't very high. Members of the media tend to consider themselves more liberal than conservative. Okay, everybody knows this already - when you find the studies that have direct claims of media bias - i.e., content analysis, then I will care.

 

The notion that a journalist can try to be objective isn't entirely lost on me. Preferences slip in, but most of the studies of direct bias that I've seen indicate that questions of corporate ownership in the news should be much more of a concern than if someone voted for Clinton.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, people who EXPECT this are wrong in some way because their assumptions are proven true?

They're not proven true, Mike.

 

For one thing, more people chose moderate than liberal or conservative. This doesn't do much to reinforce the conservative view that about 75% of the nation's media is liberally biased.

 

Secondly, it counts each individual as one point. That doesn't do very good. That means that the coffee guy at Fox News saying he's a liberal means just as much as Brit Hume saying he's a conservative, but which employee holds more weight in the presentation of the news and the journalistic integrity?

 

 

For another example, let's pretend we're talking about the old era of CNN. Now, the guy who runs the Copy Room says he's a conservative, but Ted Turner says he's a liberal. Is that equally important to determining the bias of the network? Wouldn't you say that Turner's influence is probably that of a dozen or more copy boys?

Well, since Pew wasn't questioning the guys in the mail room and the like --- your entire argument is moot.

-=Mike

That part of his argument is, but he's still right that it doesn't prove much. Indirect claims of media bias like this just flop all over the place. Pew does this sort of thing a lot, and while their methodology is great, the actual tangible impact of this particular study isn't very high. Members of the media tend to consider themselves more liberal than conservative. Okay, everybody knows this already - when you find the studies that have direct claims of media bias - i.e., content analysis, then I will care.

 

The notion that a journalist can try to be objective isn't entirely lost on me. Preferences slip in, but most of the studies of direct bias that I've seen indicate that questions of corporate ownership in the news should be much more of a concern than if someone voted for Clinton.

Care for a review of the NY Times coverage of terrorism after 9/11? How 'bout network coverage of the GOP Congressional wins of 1994? Heck, I could give you some Dick Morris' anecdotes of how the NY Times treated Clinton when he was his campaign manager.

-=Mike

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

And for every one of these I can pick out the annihilation of Howard Dean, the obsession with Clinton's sex life, etc. I'm not really concerned with anecdotes - there are thousands on either side of partisanship. I'm more interested in seeing long-term analysis of media trends - coverage of the 1994 congressional elections versus coverage of elections with a different outcome, for example. Lots of sources, and a meticulously designed model for determining best what accounts for bias. If you just want to play the anecdote game, then the media isn't biased in any particular direction - it's just a bunch of jackasses.

[Guest MikeSC]

And for every one of these I can pick out the annihilation of Howard Dean

You can ACTUALLY thank Clinton for that. He wanted McAuliffe to remain as head of the DNC and that wouldn't happen if Dean won.

 

Just saying...

the obsession with Clinton's sex life, etc.  I'm not really concerned with anecdotes - there are thousands on either side of partisanship.  I'm more interested in seeing long-term analysis of media trends - coverage of the 1994 congressional elections versus coverage of elections with a different outcome, for example.  Lots of sources, and a meticulously designed model for determining best what accounts for bias.  If you just want to play the anecdote game, then the media isn't biased in any particular direction - it's just a bunch of jackasses.

The Republican win in 1994 was described, by Dan Rather, as a "temper tantrum".

 

Care to explain how that DOESN'T show a bias?

 

How about the odd manner in the way they handled awarding states to candidates back in 2000?

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

You can ACTUALLY thank Clinton for that. He wanted McAuliffe to remain as head of the DNC and that wouldn't happen if Dean won.

 

While I'd disagree that Clinton was the only one who had a hand in this, his faction certainly played into it.

[Guest MikeSC]

You can ACTUALLY thank Clinton for that. He wanted McAuliffe to remain as head of the DNC and that wouldn't happen if Dean won.

 

While I'd disagree that Clinton was the only one who had a hand in this, his faction certainly played into it.

I'll say the GOP had NO role in it. They WANTED Dean to win the nomination.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And for every one of these I can pick out the annihilation of Howard Dean

You can ACTUALLY thank Clinton for that.

How can you thank Bill Clinton for playing a scream sound effect over and over again? Because that was the problem. It was like every station in town had that sound bound to a button push and kept their finger on it at all times.

[Guest MikeSC]

And for every one of these I can pick out the annihilation of Howard Dean

You can ACTUALLY thank Clinton for that.

How can you thank Bill Clinton for playing a scream sound effect over and over again? Because that was the problem. It was like every station in town had that sound bound to a button push and kept their finger on it at all times.

Clinton leaked out all of the dirt on Dean. Clinton sabotaged him.

 

You seem to forget that the scream came after a primary he was SUPPOSED TO HAVE WON EASILY. This was a problem BEFORE the scream. And the scream was as big a factor in his demise as Dole falling off the stage in 1996 was to him.

 

Namely, it was not one.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

And for every one of these I can pick out the annihilation of Howard Dean

You can ACTUALLY thank Clinton for that.

How can you thank Bill Clinton for playing a scream sound effect over and over again? Because that was the problem. It was like every station in town had that sound bound to a button push and kept their finger on it at all times.

Clinton leaked out all of the dirt on Dean. Clinton sabotaged him.

 

You seem to forget that the scream came after a primary he was SUPPOSED TO HAVE WON EASILY. This was a problem BEFORE the scream. And the scream was as big a factor in his demise as Dole falling off the stage in 1996 was to him.

 

Namely, it was not one.

-=Mike

Mike's right.

 

Well, I don't know about the Clinton stuff.....but he's right on this one point - Dean was finished long before the scream.

 

Liberals who supported Dean tend to bring up the scream as it if was his undoing. It wasn't; by that point, voters had already decided that this man wasn't the one they wanted to even have the opportunity to lead the nation.

 

The scream may have been the nail in the coffin, but the body of his campaign had already grown cold.

[Styles 0]

Seriously he finished a distant THIRD in a primary that hyped him cleaning up, yet as time approached people actually stopped and reflected "wait, would I want THIS guy as President?" His rabid scream speech just took away any fleeting hope he had left of recovering.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

He lost Iowa because of the caucus system. He had an army of volunteers who didn't know how to caucus at all, and after the caucus (which was a spectacular blunder), the scream buried him.

 

Contrary to the conservative view of the collapse (which is pretty much dumb, as displayed by:

 

yet as time approached people actually stopped and reflected "wait, would I want THIS guy as President?" His rabid scream speech just took away any fleeting hope he had left of recovering.

 

 

Quite simply, Kerry's people knew how to caucus. Dean's didn't. And then the scream ruined his shit.

[EricMM 0]

Well he shouldn't have screamed...

[Guest MikeSC]

He lost Iowa because of the caucus system. He had an army of volunteers who didn't know how to caucus at all, and after the caucus (which was a spectacular blunder), the scream buried him.

 

Contrary to the conservative view of the collapse (which is pretty much dumb, as displayed by:

 

yet as time approached people actually stopped and reflected "wait, would I want THIS guy as President?" His rabid scream speech just took away any fleeting hope he had left of recovering.

 

 

Quite simply, Kerry's people knew how to caucus. Dean's didn't. And then the scream ruined his shit.

Tyler, the scream didn't hurt him much at all, to be perfectly honest. His horrid performances in IA and NH did it --- especially when polls had him as such a prohibitive favorite heading in.

 

There were issues about his electability (you can guess where I imagine those stories originated from) and his piss-poor performances early on cemented those fears. The hard left decided that they want to support a guy who might be able to win, over a guy they felt would get slaughtered.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

The hard left decided that they want to support a guy who might be able to win, over a guy they felt would get slaughtered

And so they picked... Kerry? What am I missing?

[Guest MikeSC]

The hard left decided that they want to support a guy who might be able to win, over a guy they felt would get slaughtered

And so they picked... Kerry? What am I missing?

Nobody said the left made good choices.

 

See Mondale, Walter

Dukakis, Michael

Carter, Jimmy

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

To be fair I thought Kerry had a good chance of being electable before Dean crapped out. Then again I guess Bozo the Clown would look more electable next to Dean.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

The hard left decided that they want to support a guy who might be able to win, over a guy they felt would get slaughtered

And so they picked... Kerry? What am I missing?

Nobody said the left made good choices.

 

See Mondale, Walter

Dukakis, Michael

Carter, Jimmy

-=Mike

Now to be fair, Jimmy Carter did win an election. You should have added

 

McGovern, George

 

instead.

[Guest MikeSC]

The hard left decided that they want to support a guy who might be able to win, over a guy they felt would get slaughtered

And so they picked... Kerry? What am I missing?

Nobody said the left made good choices.

 

See Mondale, Walter

Dukakis, Michael

Carter, Jimmy

-=Mike

Now to be fair, Jimmy Carter did win an election. You should have added

 

McGovern, George

 

instead.

Carter, Jimmy barely beat Ford, Gerald --- also quite the inept President --- with Watergate KILLING the Republican party and Ford's pardoning of Nixon infuriating a lot of voters.

 

With all Carter was given, that he BARELY managed to win should have been upsetting. But, for what it's worth, the Democrats HATED his guts.

-=Mike