I report, you decide: FOX on Santorum

[hgc]

I'm not trying to slip out of a god damn thing. I have said that it is anecdotal data. It could be interpeted as being bias. But it is proof of NOTHING. Is there something about that you don't understand? That being said, My world view tends to believe that it is.

I already know it's proof of nothing. I was trying to establish if you actually even believe it be anecdotal evidence of media bias against Republicans falling down. I'm not sure what you mean by saying "[your] world view tends to believe that it is." I think you're saying that you believe it. I say you're off your nut. That's not a logical argument, just my assertion that your belief if kooky.

Yes, the logical inconsitency is noted. Thank you. Unless of course you didn't mean to imply that the reporting of Clinton's sex scandal as opposed to Bush's drinking is evidence of bias.

Come on now, don't slip out of it. Are you implying that the reporting of Bush vs. Clinton is evidence of Bias?

I don't understand the inconsistency you're talking about. You thought W's drinking got too much coverage (I think). I countered that it got a few days of coverage, and that it was appropriate. Clinton's sex scandals got a lot more coverage over the course of 8 years. And why not? There was a lot more news there.

Why didn't you give your little quip to JJ?

You have not answered my questions, absent your answer I will duly note your bias.

Have I answered your questions? I have honestly tried. As for my position, I'm not afraid to articulate it. I don't think the major American media are systematically biased for or against the positions and politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties, with the exception of Fox, which consistently comes down in favor of the Republicans.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by hammegk
Care to back your assertion with any facts?

Stop it! You're killin' me!

 

[RandFan]

Have I answered your questions? I have honestly tried. As for my position, I'm not afraid to articulate it. I don't think the major American media are systematically biased for or against the positions and politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties, with the exception of Fox, which consistently comes down in favor of the Republicans.

And I think you are off of your nut and a kook and a jerk and you can kiss my a$$. I hope that is clear.

 

[hgc]

RandFan:

And I think you are off of your nut and a kook and a jerk and you can kiss my a$$. I hope that is clear.

Does that mean you don't want to talk about Fox News bias any more?

 

[RandFan]

I don't understand the inconsistency you're talking about.

Well of course you don't. And no you didn't answer my questions honestly or not.

Do you believe that it is bias?

JJ does, how is anecdotal example any different than mine, aside from your opinion which coupled with a hand full of spit is roughly worth a handful of spit.

You thought W's drinking got too much coverage (I think). I countered that it got a few days of coverage, and that it was appropriate. Clinton's sex scandals got a lot more coverage over the course of 8 years. And why not? There was a lot more news there.

Still not proof of bias is it? Nor does it prove a lack of bias does it?

Have I answered your questions?

No.

I have honestly tried.

You wouldn't know it from reading your response.

As for my position, I'm not afraid to articulate it. I don't think the major American media are systematically biased for or against the positions and politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties, with the exception of Fox, which consistently comes down in favor of the Republicans.

Do you have any objective proof or are we talking about that vaunted opinion of yours?

 

[RandFan]

Does that mean you don't want to talk about Fox News bias any more?

No it means there is little reason to talk to you about it since you obviously are inconsistent with your critisism.

 

[hgc]

RandFan:
No it means there is little reason to talk to you about it since you obviously are inconsistent with your critisism.

Inconsitent? Show me.

Do you have any objective proof or are we talking about that vaunted opinion of yours?

Oh come on. Who on this board doesn't come here to express their opinions? These are very subjective arguments. People with prior disagreement can almost never provide "proof" to the others' satisfaction. Good example: your "world view" informs you that the media is biased against Republicans falling down (and puking). I would never think of asking you to prove that.

 

[Baker]

Have I answered your questions? I have honestly tried. As for my position, I'm not afraid to articulate it. I don't think the major American media are systematically biased for or against the positions and politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties, with the exception of Fox, which consistently comes down in favor of the Republicans.

Oh, so you don't think the major American media are systematically biased for or against the positions and politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties.
However, you ignore my examples showing that they are.
It seems you are the one being biased here!

 

[hgc]

Oh, so you don't think the major American media are systematically biased for or against the positions and politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties.
However, you ignore my examples showing that they are.
It seems you are the one being biased here!

hgc: emphasis mine

You had very nice examples. Not the same as proving systematic bias. Like I said above, these things are very hard to prove. That's why I'm honest enough to state it as my opinion, just as the opposing view is your opinion. You got a problem with that?

 

[RandFan]

Inconsitent? Show me.

Simple, that you think that JJ's example proves something that mine does not without any logic or rational.

Oh come on. Who on this board doesn't come here to express their opinions?

Yes, but calling people kooks for expressing opinions is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

These are very subjective arguments. People with prior disagreement can almost never provide "proof" to the others' satisfaction. Good example: your "world view" informs you that the media is biased against Republicans falling down (and puking). I would never think of asking you to prove that.

And there would be no reason to ask me to prove it since I said from the very start that it was anecdotal.

Look, I don't have a problem when my logic is questioned. I do have a problem when someone says out of the blue that an opinion that is expresed as opinion is ludicrous and then supports an equally undefensible opinion based upon...opinion.

 

[Baker]

You had very nice examples. Not the same as proving systematic bias. Like I said above, these things are very hard to prove. That's why I'm honest enough to state it as my opinion, just as the opposing view is your opinion. You got a problem with that?

You seemed quite sure of it in earlier posts but all take it as just opinions.
The link I posted a few messages back was on the same subject Santorum did make some good points.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2003/press20030424.asp

 

[daredelvis]

IMO, the GOP is anti-federal and pro-state/local control, not "keeping government out of people's lives" (unless you assume that to mean the federal government).

A good example of this is the GOP’s position on counting ballots in Florida.



Daredelvis

 

[corplinx]

Does that mean you don't want to talk about Fox News bias any more?

I will. They are obviously part of the liberal conspiracy. They broke the Bush DUI story. The hounded Trent Lott like no other news org. Obviously they are matriarchal totalitarian leftists.

 

[Baker]

It wasn’t Fox who got it wrong it was the other Networks.
So Fox is slanted to the right for not spreading the same false story as the other networks.

Unfortunately, several media outlets have misrepresented Santorum's quote to imply that the senator explicitly compared homosexuality to polygamy, incest and adultery. The problem can be found in several reports such as the lead of an Associated Press article: "Gay-rights groups, fuming over Sen. Rick Santorum's comparison of homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, yesterday urged Republican leaders to consider removing the Pennsylvania lawmaker from the GOP Senate leadership." Maureen Dowd made the same allegation in her New York Times op-ed column, stating, "Rick Santorum, the obnoxious Pennsylvania senator who is No. 3 in the G.O.P., equated homosexuality with incest, bigamy and polygamy." A Washington Post piece also stated that, "The leading Democratic presidential contenders and congressional leaders condemned [Santorum] for comparing gay sex to incest, bigamy and polygamy in an interview published Monday by the Associated Press."
http://www.spinsanity.org/