• 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

Travis said:
I'd prefer it if we didn't have bigots in charge of major corporations but it is a free country. I just won't give them my business.
Click to expand...

As it should be. Citizens voting with their wallets is them exercising free speech. Government banning businesses who employ people who say things the local politicians disagree with is nothing short of censorship. That is a can of worms no one should want to see opened. And, so far as I can tell, liberals have largely been just as angry about this as conservatives. Fortunately Emanuel and his partner in stupidity Joe Moreno have been back peddling. I don't know this for sure, but suspect that someone in Emanuel's staff explained to him that he is not an emperor and his argument, which essentially amounts to "one of their employees is a jerk because he disagrees with me about a political issue so the company should be banned from economic participation," would not look so good in court.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Very biased, mis-leading headlines.
Click to expand...

You didn't say anything about where or not it had to be biased or not. You simply said:
Robert Prey said:
Oh, for example, Mainstream media is media that does not present news items such as Fast and Furious or Chick Fil A.
Click to expand...

So, once again your own definition fails you. Please just admit that you consider any media outlet that you don't like to be part of the mainstream media.
 
tyr_13 said:
I hate to have to be the one to break it to you, and this might come as a shock. Thankfully you're probably already sitting down at your computer.

Sam Walton is dead.
Click to expand...
Old news. But Sam did establish early company policy. But, ok, I should have said "Walton family" so as to avoid this little diversion.
 
Robert Prey said:
This upcoming Newsweek cover is typical -- The Wimp Factor. Just a few months ago they were calling him a bully.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rom...get-much-sleep’-if-i-worried-about-the-media/
Click to expand...

My god do I hate websites with pop ups! Makes me shut down the page instantly.

Anyway...

Looking at this article with a list of the stupid **** Ross has done it would seem that Ross does not demonstrate a liberal bias but rather a penchant for the sensational.

Previous errors include a 2001 report in which Ross suggested that Saddam Hussein may have been responsible for anthrax attacks on the United States.
Click to expand...

n 2006 Ross reported that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was a target in the federal corruption investigation involving Jack Abramoff, former lobbyist and businessman.
Click to expand...

In 2007, Ross reported that former CIA agent John Kiriakou issued only 35 seconds of water-boarding to suspected terrorist Abu Zubaydah which led to his confession of terrorist plots to the CIA.
Click to expand...

In 2010, Ross used spliced footage of a Toyota’s tachometer going from 1,000 RPM’s to 6,000 RPM’s in one second, accusing the company of “unintended acceleration.” The car, in fact, wasn’t in motion. It was parked with the doors open.
Click to expand...

The guys an idiot and not very credible. Have teabaggers recovered from this grave injustice yet or is it so unimportant that we can focus on chic-fil-a?

I only went to CFA (thats how the cool kids say it) once and never went back because they charge extra for toppings! Thats the real scandal here. Also why do they always open up next to in-n-out?
 
rustypouch said:
I'm wondering about something...

If MSNBC supposedly has a 'liberal' bias, why do they give Joe Scarborough, a Republican former Senator, three hours of air time every day? Wouldn't they choose to fill their programing will actual liberals?
Click to expand...
They needed a token conservative for "balance".

I need the laughing dog.
 
Robert Prey said:
By now, it's old news, and twisted by the mainstream media.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why, but in this thread, various people seem to have ganged up on you for mentioning liberal bias in mainstream media. This has been scientifically studied and is fairly well understood as a phenomena, and has been commented on by left and right (Left, notably Noam Chomsky).

Wikipedia reference follows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
 
We didn't gang on him for mentioning liberal bias. We ganged on him for making the false claim that the mainstream media won't cover the stories he mentioned.

Then he moved the goalposts instead of just admitting he screwed up. Entering Jedi Knight territory there.
 
mhaze said:
I'm not sure why, but in this thread, various people seem to have ganged up on you for mentioning liberal bias in mainstream media. This has been scientifically studied and is fairly well understood as a phenomena, and has been commented on by left and right (Left, notably Noam Chomsky).

Wikipedia reference follows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
Click to expand...

I really enjoy it when people post links that disprove what they claim it proves in the post.

If anything, that article shows that it is not 'fairly well understood' because of strong controversy even on a statistical level.
 
mhaze said:
I'm not sure why, but in this thread, various people seem to have ganged up on you for mentioning liberal bias in mainstream media. This has been scientifically studied and is fairly well understood as a phenomena, and has been commented on by left and right (Left, notably Noam Chomsky).

Wikipedia reference follows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
Click to expand...

No one ganged up on him for mentioning liberal bias. He was asked to define what his definition of mainstream media is so that we can determine what exactly he means. Robert steadfastly refuses to provide a definition, instead providing nebulous lists and erroneous examples.
 
gnome said:
We didn't gang on him for mentioning liberal bias. We ganged on him for making the false claim that the mainstream media won't cover the stories he mentioned.

Then he moved the goalposts instead of just admitting he screwed up. Entering Jedi Knight territory there.
Click to expand...
Oh, I read the thread, so I don't need your brilliant insights into techniques and methods of Internet idiocy, particularly by practitioners who are not adept.

"Won't cover the stories" of course can be refuted by a single instance, arguably, by a single station, but that sort of argument reflects quite poorly on he who makes the refutation, as it doesn't clarify the reality, but obfuscates it.

Statistical studies have been done on quite a number of these stories and issues. There's really no need to have a little Internet bitch session about them.
 
mhaze said:
Statistical studies have been done on quite a number of these stories and issues. There's really no need to have a little Internet bitch session about them.
Click to expand...
Well, tell us more. What conclusions are reached? Are the statistics valid and significant? Do you have cites?
 
SezMe said:
Well, tell us more. What conclusions are reached? Are the statistics valid and significant? Do you have cites?
Click to expand...

On WHAT, precisely?

Here's a recent one.

http://www.mrc.org/notable-quotables/john-roberts-man-hour-virtuoso-performance-worthy-king-solomon

Examples of the coverage of Roberts and the AHC before and after the decision, by various newscasters and media publications.

On the more general subject of media bias, here's likely more than you'd want to read about it going back decades.

http://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/m...eally-think-and-what-public-thinks-about-them
 
mhaze said:
On WHAT, precisely?
Click to expand...
Don't be dense, mhaze. You wrote:

Statistical studies have been done ...
Click to expand...
...after which I asked for more details. I'm sure English is your first language.

mhaze said:
Here's a recent one.

http://www.mrc.org/notable-quotables/john-roberts-man-hour-virtuoso-performance-worthy-king-solomon

Examples of the coverage of Roberts and the AHC before and after the decision, by various newscasters and media publications.
Click to expand...
Examples of coverage do not fall in the category of "statistical studies"

mhaze said:
On the more general subject of media bias, here's likely more than you'd want to read about it going back decades.

http://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/m...eally-think-and-what-public-thinks-about-them
Click to expand...
Now, that's relevant. Thanks. But I have a question. Since the Media Research Center was specifically set up to be a conservative counterpart to Media Matters, why should I trust either one more than the other?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom