• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Tea Party Smeared by ABC

Spindrift said:
cbs.com covered it.

foxnews.com beat it to death.
Click to expand...
I have no issue with you supporting liberal bias in news coverage whatsoever.

As it was, we were discussing whether liberal bias existed in the "mainstream media". I've offered some of the reasons why and how that occurs.

By the way....please also note that I mentioned the well known liberal news website, Huffington Post, had done well on covering these stories. So the "Mainstream media" and the liberal bias therein is with cable and satellite news, include broadcast news if anyone is still watching that. "Mainstream media" does not include internet news sources such as Huff.

I notice the following story on Instapundit.com, one of my primary sources for aggregation of libertarian news..."mainstream media" is losing out bigtime, likely because of some of the factors I have mentioned, such as their missing or omitting big, interesting stories.

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/0...slow-death-losing-400000-customers-this-year/
 
mhaze said:
I have no issue with you supporting liberal bias in news coverage whatsoever.

As it was, we were discussing whether liberal bias existed in the "mainstream media". I've offered some of the reasons why and how that occurs.

By the way....please also note that I mentioned the well known liberal news website, Huffington Post, had done well on covering these stories. So the "Mainstream media" and the liberal bias therein is with cable and satellite news, include broadcast news if anyone is still watching that. "Mainstream media" does not include internet news sources such as Huff.

I notice the following story on Instapundit.com, one of my primary sources for aggregation of libertarian news..."mainstream media" is losing out bigtime, likely because of some of the factors I have mentioned, such as their missing or omitting big, interesting stories.

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/0...slow-death-losing-400000-customers-this-year/
Click to expand...
Actually we were discussing the definition of 'mainstream media' and Robert Prey's inability to provide a definition.

However from context, mainstream media means any media outlet which conveys a story with which conservatives disagree.
 
I don't think anyone doubts that big media companies drop the ball on coverage often. Or ask too many softball questions to one person while misrepresenting a sound bite from another. What is not established is the intent behind it. I don't wish to assume without evidence that they are simply shilling for a political agenda. I suspect the truth is more self-serving than that.
 
Spindrift said:
Actually we were discussing the definition of 'mainstream media' and Robert Prey's inability to provide a definition.

However from context, mainstream media means any media outlet which conveys a story with which conservatives disagree.
Click to expand...
No it does not mean that. Not at all. Most of my comments were about "mainstream media" NOT COVERING stories. In similar fashion, we can easily document "media bias". But all of these comments concern cable and broadcast stations.

That is as far as I know what "mainstream media" refers to - broadcast and cable. Maybe it used to refer to Time, Newsweek, NY Times, etc - - but those print publications have gone so far down they hardly count anymore.
 
mhaze said:
No it does not mean that. Not at all. Most of my comments were about "mainstream media" NOT COVERING stories. In similar fashion, we can easily document "media bias". But all of these comments concern cable and broadcast stations.

That is as far as I know what "mainstream media" refers to - broadcast and cable. Maybe it used to refer to Time, Newsweek, NY Times, etc - - but those print publications have gone so far down they hardly count anymore.
Click to expand...

So FoxNews is "mainstream media"? If not, why not?
 
What is fast and furious:

ATF gunwalking scandal
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011.[2][5] This was done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[6] "Gun walking" or "letting guns walk" was a tactic whereby the ATF "purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders."[7] The stated goal of allowing these purchases was to continue to track the firearms as they were transferred to higher-level traffickers and key figures in Mexican cartels, with the expectation that this would lead to their arrests and the dismantling of the cartels.[8][9] The tactic was questioned during the operations by a number of people, including ATF field agents and cooperating licensed gun dealers.[10][11][12][13][14] Operation Fast and Furious, by far the largest "gunwalking" probe, monitored the sale of over 2,000 firearms, of which nearly 700 were recovered as of October 20, 2011.[15] A number of straw purchasers have been arrested and indicted; however, as of October 2011, none of the targeted high-level cartel figures have been arrested.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#cite_note-lat1-6
Click to expand...
 
Spindrift said:
Any chance you'll answer post #266?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8517995#post8517995
Click to expand...
I already have. But you might ask yourself the question, why am I asking these questions? How do they contribute to mutual understanding? Or is it just continual nitpicking?

Because when terms are commonly used and understood in public discourse, there isn't any obvious gain if you try to redefine them in the context of an internet forum.

Non whatsoever.
 
mhaze said:
I already have. But you might ask yourself the question, why am I asking these questions? How do they contribute to mutual understanding? Or is it just continual nitpicking?

Because when terms are commonly used and understood in public discourse, there isn't any obvious gain if you try to redefine them in the context of an internet forum.

Non whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I think a specific understanding of what "mainstream media" is is germaine to a discussion on a USA Politics forum, when the term is used to suggest ones' opponent is mis-or-under-informed with regards to salient information in an election year.

I have frequently seen bumper stickers with an "I don't believe the mainstream media" theme, and have also seen politicians (Sarah Palin comes to mind) denigrating "LAMEstream media" in public.

It seems like an attempt to "poison the well".When someones' personage or ideology is consistently revealed as flawed or unsupportable by data, they push to have the outlets providing that data ignored or disbelieved. Often in favor of one particular outlet that favors their position.

Since an outlet like "FoxNews" is consistently biased to the right, yet still wishes to present itself to its viewers as unbiased, or at least "fair and balanced", when it is clearly far to one side -(I am reminded of McCain-Obama debates, after which the "scoring" on all other networks was usually in the 60%-%40 range, with Obama on top, the scoring on FoxNews was consistently in the %90-%10 range favoring McCain)- Fox has to justify its' fringe position by suggesting collusion on behalf of all other independent outlets.

More simply put, if I get twenty eyewitness accounts of a single event, and nineteen of them say "x", while only one of them say "y", the only way I can justify my prejudice to believe "y" is to lump all 19 of the "x" reports into a single category. The "Mainstream" eyewitnesses say "x", and the non"mainstream" eyewitnesses say "y"- presents a case that the eyewitnesses were evenly split, so I might as well go with what I want to believe.
 
mhaze said:
I already have. But you might ask yourself the question, why am I asking these questions? How do they contribute to mutual understanding? Or is it just continual nitpicking?

Because when terms are commonly used and understood in public discourse, there isn't any obvious gain if you try to redefine them in the context of an internet forum.

Non whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I can't seem to find where you answered that question. Can you tell me in what post it was?
 
mhaze said:
Overall, Randfan's wikepedia link and this associated one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_and_Furious

do provide a good general background to these operations. There are some inaccurate statements, but hey, it's wikipedia.
Click to expand...

The first sentence of the article you linked:

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011.[2][5] "

So why wasn't the media reporting this and slamming the administration in 2006?
 
Distracted1 said:
I think a specific understanding of what "mainstream media" is is germaine to a discussion on a USA Politics forum, when the term is used to suggest ones' opponent is mis-or-under-informed with regards to salient information in an election year.....
Click to expand...
I agree with that and thus have taken the time to note on several topics, variations in coverage between the "mainstream media" and Fox News. I'm not sure that we have any disagreement that when Fox News chooses to distance itself from the mainstream media, or when people use the term "mainstream media" to refer to broadcast or cable implicitly excluding Fox News, that Fox New isn't a conservative site or otherwise biased. That was never the question or the issue.

rustypouch said:
The first sentence of the article you linked:

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011.[2][5] "

So why wasn't the media reporting this and slamming the administration in 2006?
Click to expand...
because (A) they were well managed and (B) they were covert operations.

(A) is the important part. You could say that even a media that was opposed to Bush, and even his political opponents, would likely have not have found fault with the ATF operations at that time. As is CURRENTLY ALSO the case. The facts of these operations show that the latest incarnation, Fast and Furious, constitutes gross negligence of duties and responsibilities with the direct result being hundreds dead.
 
Last edited:
Spindrift said:
Actually we were discussing the definition of 'mainstream media' and Robert Prey's inability to provide a definition.

However from context, mainstream media means any media outlet which conveys a story with which conservatives disagree.
Click to expand...

Anyone who has to ask the question "What is Fast and Furious" is a victim of the mainstream media.
 
Robert Prey said:
Because unlike the rest of the national media, Fox really is relatively fair and balanced.
Click to expand...

Do you ever watch other national media, let alone international media, such as the BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera, for example?

Wait, do you even watch Fox?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom