Bill O'Reilly

[SezMe]

The "drumbeat of bad news"? When the economic news was uniformly good over the past few years...

*Snort* Speaking of confirmation bias....

 

[Upchurch]

Now you're making a specific charge, that Notable Quotables somehow distorts the quotes they present by taking them out of context.

I am not making any specific charge that they are distorting the quotes. I'm saying that they don't provide enough context to be able to determine if they are distorting the quotes or not.

You are missing the larger point, however. The purpose of the publication is to show what liberals actually say. It is not to paint them as more extreme than they really are. It is show what liberals regard as objective, unbiased reporting.

Without the context in which those quotes were made, it shows nothing.

Let me select an example from the December 31, 2007 issue: "It may be that no amount of hall decking can convince Americans to be jolly about the economy this holiday season...The drumbeat of bad news is producing national jitters...John Edwards has the message that's most consistently appealing to people suffering from economic woes. But at the same time, the Clinton brand has a strong economic reputation." -- ABC's Claire Shipman, Dec. 12 Good Morning America

I can neither find nor verify that quote. I have no way of knowing if that quote is accurate or in context.

Well, it's reassuring that they label themselves accurately, but I have heard representatives of Media Matters on Fox shows describe their group as "objective."

Where did you hear that? You've been wrong before, are you wrong now?

 

[Iamme]

I will admit that the news reporting on Foxnews is far less conservatively slanted than the rest of its programming. I think we liberals sometimes get caught up in lumping it all together but you have to remember that there is very little news in the FoxNews lineup. Let's take a look at their weekly schedule:

5AM-7 Fox & Friends First <-lighthearted news/opinion show with definite conservative bias
7-9 Fox & Friends <-lighthearted news/opinion show with definite conservative bias
9-11 America's Newsroom <-I don't watch it so don't know
11-1PM Happening Now<-I don't watch it so don't know
1PM-2 Live Desk w/ Martha<-I don't watch it so don't know
2-3 America's Pulse w/ ED Hill <-I don't watch but ED is a conservative but that does not mean the show is conservative
3-4 Studio B w/Shepard Smith <-News program, little bias IMO
4-5 Your World w/ Neil Cavuto <-Ostensibly a business program but a definite conservative bias.
5-6 The Big Story w/ Gibson <-News/opinion show with definite conservative bias
6-7 Special Report w/ Brit Hume <- News/opinion show with definite conservative bias as evidenced by his daily Grapevine Segment which attacks liberals daily
7-8 Fox Report w/ Shepard Smith <-News program, little bias IMO
8-9 O'Reilly Factor <-News/Opinion show with strong conservative bias
9-10 Hannity & Colmes <-News/Opinion show, appearance of balance but Hannity regularly gets more time to speak, stories seem to be chosen to promote conservatives or attack liberals. I'll call this a toss-up even though I think it is weighted towards conservatives
10-11 On the Record w/ Greta <-I've been told this is liberal biased but I don't watch it so don't knwo for sure. Can anyone help me out here?

So, it appears most of the shows on a daily basis are conservative in nature. Hmmm.

Hi Lurker.

You forgot a FOX News show: "Redeye", on late, hosted by Greg Gutfeld and regular and special guests. Love it. Sacreligiously funny, 'dirty' and uncouth... and would have dead evangelical conservatives tossing in their graves.

 

[pomeroo]

*Snort* Speaking of confirmation bias....

You miss my point. The economy over the past few years, had a Democrat in the White House presided over it, would have produced hosannas from the mainstream media. In reality, there is always something to complain about if you look hard enough for it. We never live in a time when every piece of the economic puzzle fits perfectly. During Clinton's presidency, the MSM stressed the predominantly good news; during Bush's, the media relentlessly hammers home any negative spin that can possibly be applied.

 

[pomeroo]

I am not making any specific charge that they are distorting the quotes. I'm saying that they don't provide enough context to be able to determine if they are distorting the quotes or not.


Without the context in which those quotes were made, it shows nothing.

No, your point is invalid. The quotes speak for themselves. Try this one:

"Now to Barack Obama. When I spent the day with him in Iowa over the weekend, you could sense the excitement he nearly always generates...Whatever he's eating, it is working for Obama, as he is hitting his stride on the stump...Here as elsewhere, the crowd listens closely to Barack's real argument, that he is tomorrow, a fresh face who represents a real change from our bitter polarized politics...When you talk to Iowa voters who come to hear Obama, you get the sense they know they might be part of something big here, something historic." --

ABC's Terry Moran on Nightline, November 26.

Once again, I have no problem with the Obama campaign running this as an ad. But, to pass it off as journalism insults everyone's intelligence. Obama's "real" argument is that he is "tomorrow"? If my real argument is that I am the Way and the Life, you can conclude with justification that I am a delusional lunatic. Every pol paints himself as "the future," "a real change," as all things to all people. They are all ambitious mediocrities deserving serious scrutiny by a media that can check its ideology at the door. A "reporter" who characterizies empty puffery as a "real argument" is no reporter at all. You are so accustomed to hearing Democratic candidates described in messianic terms and Republicans depicted as mean-spirited corporate tools that you fail to see anything unusual about the practice. And that's the funny part--there isn't anything unusual.

I can neither find nor verify that quote. I have no way of knowing if that quote is accurate or in context.

Why is saying this better than acknowledging that Shipman is betraying the ethics of journalism? Who are you kidding? The quote speaks for itself.

Where did you hear that? You've been wrong before, are you wrong now?

Most likely, on Hannity & Colmes. The guy said that Media Matters is an objective watchdog group. Am I wrong that I heard what I heard? No.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

said the guy who just said: "There is no evidence that Fox slants its news coverage."

Does anyone serious take you seriously?

And just as I said, pomy doesn't have to address any of the facts Media Matters presents even when those facts are carefully backed up by cited evidence if pomy just dismisses the messenger.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ah, the other side comes out. I would like to see some references to these good deeds, ....

The vast majority if not all of the evidence is simply O'Reilly bragging about his own accomplishments. And since O'Reilly is known to stretch the truth well beyond reality, then those claims of the good things he's done do indeed need to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Cicero]

Journalism schools are taught by liberals. Those who go into the journalism profession tend to be liberals. The New York Times publisher Pinch Sulzberger is a radical liberal. The media itself does not deny their predominate liberal makeup, they just refuse to admit it colors their reporting. CBS insider Bernard Goldberg violated the sacred cow of journalism by admitting the liberal bias and named names. For this, he is ridiculed by the benighted left even though his former colleagues prove him right everyday.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Isn't Bernie Goldberg's book Bias essentially soley anecdotal evidence for liberal media? I mean, he does absolutley no studies. He does no comparison to other networks. He clearly has no idea how to do actual research.

Pomy's sources of this claim about Gore supporters cheating on the election in Palm Beach, John Fund, been thoroughly debunked in another thread. Pomy just refuses to believe it and repeats the false claims over and over.

 

[Upchurch]

No, your point is invalid. The quotes speak for themselves.

Okay, so, you don't want to understand the basics of how skepticism and evidence works. It's a shame, but its no skin off my nose.

Most likely, on Hannity & Colmes. The guy said that Media Matters is an objective watchdog group. Am I wrong that I heard what I heard? No.

An anecdote? Why wouldn't that convince anyone?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Arguing with a liberal about whether there is a liberal bias in mainstream news reporting is like to trying to convince a creationist that virtually everything in the world around us demonstrates an old earth formed through natural processes. Creationists are so blinded by their dogma that they even perceive evidence such as rock layers, fossils, and fuel deposits as supporting their position.

It has been my experience that when emotion enters the mind, logic exits. So it should come as no surprise that fervent liberals would be unable to see a liberal bias in the media, no matter how blatant. But it is there nonetheless. I'm not talking about nit-picking mistakes, I'm talking about crafting the reporting and stories to lead the viewer to a desired conclusion, even if the crafting is merely the result of unprofessionalism or sloppiness. But someone who doesn't want to see it never will, no matter how many references anybody cites.


I would never expect someone who would actually post this to be capable of discerning a liberal bias.

I'll admit that it's entirely possible that Fox News has a conservative bias that I've been blind to. In fact, that's why I posted in this thread. But whether there's a conservative bias at Fox News is irrelevant to whether there is a liberal bias in other mainstream media news reporting, except that a great deal of Fox's success can be attributed to the widespread perception that the other networks do carry a liberal bias.

I don't defend Fox News. Fire away, I don't care, except that if there is a legitimate bias in the news reporting on Fox News, I would want to be aware of it.

I posted the basis of my position. Should I repeat it here? You aren't addressing the facts so I guess I should.

Address these facts:

The claim the media has a liberal bias is based on research looking at the employees in media organizations. Apparently, more liberals work in the media business than conservatives.

The claim the media has a conservative bias is based on actual surveys of the content in the news.

The editors and owners it turns out, lean heavily conservative.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I will admit that the news reporting on Foxnews is far less conservatively slanted than the rest of its programming. I think we liberals sometimes get caught up in lumping it all together but you have to remember that there is very little news in the FoxNews lineup. Let's take a look at their weekly schedule:

5AM-7 Fox & Friends First <-lighthearted news/opinion show with definite conservative bias
7-9 Fox & Friends <-lighthearted news/opinion show with definite conservative bias
9-11 America's Newsroom <-I don't watch it so don't know
11-1PM Happening Now<-I don't watch it so don't know
1PM-2 Live Desk w/ Martha<-I don't watch it so don't know
2-3 America's Pulse w/ ED Hill <-I don't watch but ED is a conservative but that does not mean the show is conservative
3-4 Studio B w/Shepard Smith <-News program, little bias IMO
4-5 Your World w/ Neil Cavuto <-Ostensibly a business program but a definite conservative bias.
5-6 The Big Story w/ Gibson <-News/opinion show with definite conservative bias
6-7 Special Report w/ Brit Hume <- News/opinion show with definite conservative bias as evidenced by his daily Grapevine Segment which attacks liberals daily
7-8 Fox Report w/ Shepard Smith <-News program, little bias IMO
8-9 O'Reilly Factor <-News/Opinion show with strong conservative bias
9-10 Hannity & Colmes <-News/Opinion show, appearance of balance but Hannity regularly gets more time to speak, stories seem to be chosen to promote conservatives or attack liberals. I'll call this a toss-up even though I think it is weighted towards conservatives
10-11 On the Record w/ Greta <-I've been told this is liberal biased but I don't watch it so don't knwo for sure. Can anyone help me out here?

So, it appears most of the shows on a daily basis are conservative in nature. Hmmm.

As far as the news itself, however, there not only has been a conservative bias, Rupert Murdoch has said he sees no problem with that. But the evidence is again in surveys of the news content. All of the major news broadcast networks had well over 90% pro Iraq war news for example in the months leading up to the war. I have posted links to this evidence before. I'm not sure how much time I want to spend on it again. No amount of evidence convinces pomy and I would guess that is true for a couple other conservatives posting in this thread.

Bill Moyers included a lot of the data about surveys of news coverage in his documentary, "Buying the War".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My personal anecdote, with the caveat that I have never voted for any Bush (or Clinton for that matter):

When Bush Sr. ran against Bill "It's the economy, stupid!" Clinton, Bush was claiming since July the leading economic indicators showed the recession was over and the economy was growing. This was little reported and seemed to be regarded as untrustworthy 'administration' figures. The WEEK after Clinton was elected...not took office, ELECTED, the big news was that the economy had turned around and I was hearing man on the street interviews crediting Clinton-generated optimism for the new prosperity.

I think this was, at best, bias that may have thrown an election. At worst, some journalists may have consciously tried to make things easier for 'their guy Bill'. I've seen 'tout the economy when Dems are in charge, run it down when Repubs are in charge' as a general bias, although FOX certainly also does the reverse.

OTH, the bias may be more a matter of pessimism: journalists who can't resist putting a cloud on economic silver linings. You know, items like "Employment is up in the 3rd Quarter but could slow down in the 4th Quarter"

Right, so 8 years under Clinton's economic policies which ended with a net surplus in the Treasury upon Clinton leaving office was all due to Bush Sr's policies prior to Clinton's term.

And the last 7 years of overspending and the mess we are currently in as far as the economy goes was all because of the recession which started before Bush Jr took office.

What a load of nonsense.

 

[pomeroo]

Okay, so, you don't want to understand the basics of how skepticism and evidence works. It's a shame, but its no skin off my nose. ]/quote]


But you are clueless about these matters. It is exasperating to keep explaining that Notable Quotables presents the quote, the date, and the venue. You read the quote and decide for yourself if what is being said constitutes journalism or advocacy. Are you pretending that the quotes are manufactured? Funny, no one has tried that approach yet.

An anecdote? Why wouldn't that convince anyone?

What? I'm telling you that someone from Media Matters described the group as an objective watchdog group. Do you think I have in my possession every transcript of every show aired on Fox? Am I lying about what I heard the guy say? That's always good when all else fails.

 

[pomeroo]

Right, so 8 years under Clinton's economic policies which ended with a net surplus in the Treasury upon Clinton leaving office was all due to Bush Sr's policies prior to Clinton's term.

And the last 7 years of overspending and the mess we are currently in as far as the economy goes was all because of the recession which started before Bush Jr took office.

What a load of nonsense.

Skeptigirl, economics is a subject about which books--rectangular objects containing paper with words printed on them--have been written. This doesn't concern you.

 

[Cicero]

I The editors and owners it turns out, lean heavily conservative.

Where do you get your info from? Moveon.org? NYT publisher Pinch Sulzberger is conservative? Ben Bradley, former editor of the Washington Post, is a conservative? USA Today founder Al Neuharth is a conservative? Walter Cronkite is a conservative? Dan rather is a conservative? Peter Jennings was a conservative? Tom Brokaw is a conservative? Brian Williams is a conservative? Ted Koppel is a conservative? Anderson Cooper is a conservative? PBS's Bill Moyers is a conservative?

Do you want to actually name any of these faceless powers in media who ARE actually conservative?

 

[pomeroo]

I posted the basis of my position. Should I repeat it here? You aren't addressing the facts so I guess I should.

Address these facts:

The claim the media has a liberal bias is based on research looking at the employees in media organizations. Apparently, more liberals work in the media business than conservatives.

The claim the media has a conservative bias is based on actual surveys of the content in the news.

The editors and owners it turns out, lean heavily conservative.

No one seriously claims that there is a conservative bias in the mainstream media. Conservatives have talk radio and Fox. Liberals have everything else. Why do you think that no one attempts to dispute any of the specific issues Bernie Goldberg raises?

 

[pomeroo]

Pomy's sources of this claim about Gore supporters cheating on the election in Palm Beach, John Fund, been thoroughly debunked in another thread. Pomy just refuses to believe it and repeats the false claims over and over.

No, the loony-left zealots cited by skeptigirl did not come close to debunking the statistical case made by Fund. Bear in mind that skeptigirl refuses to read Fund and shows no evidence of ever having read any book.

 

[pomeroo]

And just as I said, pomy doesn't have to address any of the facts Media Matters presents even when those facts are carefully backed up by cited evidence if pomy just dismisses the messenger.

Media Matters is a far-left advocacy group. It is hopelessly unobjective.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, this violates just about my every impression of the media but it would be confirmation bias to ignore it. It is an attempt to objectively measure media bias.



I've not read the actual study but the link says they found, for example, that Drudge has a leftward tilt. Would anybody here claim that Drudge is a liberal?

ETA: Whew. I'm not the only one who questions this study. Linky.

I looked into this study when I was looking at the data for myself about the media bias. What Media Matters had to say was echoed by other peer reviews of the UCLA work.

Summary: News outlets including CNN cited a study of several major media outlets by a UCLA political scientist and a University of Missouri-Columbia economist purporting to "show a strong liberal bias." But the study employed a measure of "bias" so problematic that its findings are next to useless, and the authors -- both former fellows at conservative think tanks cited in the study to illustrate liberal bias -- seem unaware of the substantial scholarly work that exists on the topic.

If anyone is really interested in the truth, look at the study problems cited in the Media Matters review of the research.

I'm not one to automatically discount a report based on a source, but I do become more skeptical when a source seeks to cloak itself in something more legitimate. You have to wonder why that would be.

The Center for American Progress noted about the "UCLA" study

Check the fine print and one finds this study—naively touted as both objective and significant by the UCLA public affairs office and published, inexplicably, by the previously respected Quarterly Journal of Economics, edited at Harvard University's Department of Economics, was the product of a significant investment by right-wing think tanks. In 2000-2001, Groseclose was a Hoover Institution national fellow, while Milyo has been granted $40,500 from the American Enterprise Institute; both were Heritage Foundation Salvatori fellows in 1997.