• 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 saw Cindy Sheehan and her idiotic antics being covered on Fox News way more than other network. Maybe because they knew she was actually a very unsympathetic character?
Click to expand...

You're most welcome to enter the name in quotes into the search bars in the various websites as I did - and support your assertion with facts. Otherwise, I think I'll discount it as the opinion of one person.

varwoche said:
Er, you convienently gloss over the evidence I provided, proving that RP's claim with which you agree -- that NBC didn't cover the story until two weeks ago -- is false.

(By the way, if you would have allowed more than three minutes to pass before responding to the 4 links I provided, you could have pretended to have actually read them.)

Duhh?
Click to expand...
Because the two of the links you provided which I did look at had a bunch of chatter about the "problem of guns being bought in the US and winding up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels". That meme has been floating around for a number of years. It's been quoted as rationale for stricter gun law by Hillary Clinton, and was used as rationale for an aborted executive order by Obama.

F&F is a bit different from that. It's an operation where the US Government aided and abetted the movement of guns to Mexican cartels. I can't see looking for news stories about F&F without simply typing in "Fast and Furious". Granted, there would be false positives and negatives. Not denying that.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
F&F is a bit different from that. It's an operation where the US Government aided and abetted the movement of guns to Mexican cartels. I can't see looking for news stories about F&F without simply typing in "Fast and Furious". Granted, there would be false positives and negatives. Not denying that.
Click to expand...
Your impenetrability is something to behold. Here, this is from one of the links:

NBC News said:
Feds watched as US guns were shipped to cartels
Three federal firearms investigators told Congress on Wednesday that they were repeatedly ordered to step aside while gun buyers in Arizona walked away with AK-47s and other high-powered weaponry headed for Mexican drug cartels in a risky U.S. law enforcement operation that went out of control.
Rep. Darrell Issa of California said leaders of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were fully aware of the details of Operation Fast and Furious, which was designed to track small-time gun buyers to major weapons traffickers along the Southwest border.
Click to expand...
See mhaze, that's the problem with the right wing echo chamber. Often the echoes are falsehoods.

If you'd pay better attention, we could avoid these unnecessary back and forths.
 
varwoche said:
Your impenetrability is something to behold. Here, this is from one of the links:

See mhaze, that's the problem with the right wing echo chamber. Often the echoes are falsehoods.

If you'd pay better attention, we could avoid these unnecessary back and forths.
Click to expand...

??? So you've argued we should not look for the phrase F&F, then you support your argument with a reference to the phrase F&F?

One would think that this cite would have been aggregated within the search I previously did.
 
mhaze said:
??? So you've argued we should not look for the phrase F&F, then you support your argument with a reference to the phrase F&F?
Click to expand...
You got busted arguing via hasty google search. Deal with it.

One would think that this cite would have been aggregated within the search I previously did.
Click to expand...
One might think a lot of things, if one is not a critical thinker.
 
I'm still waiting for evidence that Fast & Furious was covered up by the media to protect Obama.
 
I have my disappointments with the media and what they will and won't cover... but it's far too easy to focus on just one item or theme of items that has less than ideal coverage, and get a distorted narrative from that.

For those that think things aren't covered because the media wants to promote liberalism, have you ever wondered why liberals get frustrated with the media?

The media wants to promote one thing: dollars for themselves.
 
varwoche said:
You got busted arguing via hasty google search. Deal with it.

One might think a lot of things, if one is not a critical thinker.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. You're welcome to proposed some better grammar to insert into the search engines and produce results than what I did.

But you haven't shown or proven anything, except the NBC search engine gives one incorrect data when you type in "Fast and Furious".

I couldn't really care less. Seems like we should be able to type in a phrase, and then develop comparables. If their engine is half broke, it's their problem. Aggregated numbers of the phrase are the only way to answer the question about media bias and coverage,with respect to the F&F program under discussion.

You produce no useful input to that by going off and finding a couple of references. Think about it. Is the coverage by NBC 100% of that by Fox news?

"Well, I found a couple..."

Is the coverage by NBC 10% of that by Fox News?

"Well, I found a couple..."

Is the coverage by NBC 1% of that by Fox News?

"well, I found a couple..."
 
Travis said:
I'm still waiting for evidence that Fast & Furious was covered up by the media to protect Obama.
Click to expand...

Well, how much coverage in the so called mainstream media was there of Holder's stonewalling and of Obama's executive order protecting him? (Results of Issa's investigation into F&F).

Obviously and HISTORICALLY, this is a rare and newsworthy event. It's a STORY. You know, a BIG NEWS STORY?

Let's look for the phrase holder contempt

  • msnbc - 4
  • nbc.com - 0
  • cnn.com - 216
  • foxnews.com 7779
  • cbs.com 27
  • abc.com - weird result, no # listed

Clearly, the indictment of the US Attorney General by the US House is "NOT NEWS" to msnbc, cnn, cbs, but is to foxnews.

Varoche - since this shows 0 also for nbc, I conclude that something is indeed funky with their search engine.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Well, how much coverage in the so called mainstream media was there of Holder's stonewalling and of Obama's executive order protecting him? (Results of Issa's investigation into F&F).

Obviously and HISTORICALLY, this is a rare and newsworthy event. It's a STORY. You know, a BIG NEWS STORY?

Let's look for the phrase holder contempt

  • msnbc - 4
  • nbc.com - 0
  • cnn.com - 216
  • foxnews.com 7779
  • cbs.com 27
  • abc.com - weird result, no # listed
Clearly, the indictment of the US Attorney General by the US House is "NOT NEWS" to msnbc, cnn, cbs, but is to foxnews.

Varoche - since this shows 0 also for nbc, I conclude that something is indeed funky with their search engine.
Click to expand...

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/28/12462074-house-votes-to-cite-holder-for-contempt

Found in seconds.

If you're aware that judging by search results is unreliable, why do you draw a conclusion based on it anyway? That's nutty arguing and you're just going to embarrass yourself every time.
 
gnome said:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/28/12462074-house-votes-to-cite-holder-for-contempt

Found in seconds.

If you're aware that judging by search results is unreliable, why do you draw a conclusion based on it anyway? That's nutty arguing and you're just going to embarrass yourself every time.
Click to expand...

I'm not - just noting a problem with nbc. Thanks for clarifying, it should have been "nbcnews.com" instead of "nbc.com".

Moreover, although you can nitpick (and I haven't said the method was perfect, quite the opposite), the trend is quite obvious. Little coverage in the mainstream media, of something, like F&F, that would be politically embarrasing to Bamsterville.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure the TP has smeared ABC, among others. It's a bit precious that they'd cry foul about someone stooping to their level.
 
mhaze said:
I'm not - just noting a problem with nbc. Thanks for clarifying, it should have been "nbcnews.com" instead of "nbc.com".

Moreover, although you can nitpick (and I haven't said the method was perfect, quite the opposite), the trend is quite obvious. Little coverage in the mainstream media, of something, like F&F, that would be politically embarrasing to Bamsterville.
Click to expand...

So quantity is how you measure appropriate coverage?
 
gnome said:
So quantity is how you measure appropriate coverage?
Click to expand...
It is one measure. There are others, such as attempting to measure "slant" or "positive versus negative" portrayals. But quantity we can measure quickly, while these other things take researchers days.

"Ignoring a story" is certainly a part, a big part, of the complaint that conservatives have with the "mainstream media". They assert that stories that reflect poorly on the current administration are simply ignored. And they are pretty much right.

As I noted early, the curiosity is that a fair part of what is being ignored is "big stories".

Is there a bias? Look at political donations by the reporters. A study by msnbc:

125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both partie
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
It is one measure. There are others, such as attempting to measure "slant" or "positive versus negative" portrayals. But quantity we can measure quickly, while these other things take researchers days.

"Ignoring a story" is certainly a part, a big part, of the complaint that conservatives have with the "mainstream media". They assert that stories that reflect poorly on the current administration are simply ignored. And they are pretty much right.

As I noted early, the curiosity is that a fair part of what is being ignored is "big stories".
Click to expand...
Is it because a lot of the "stories that reflect poorly" are simply that, stories and not news?

mhaze said:
Is there a bias? Look at political donations by the reporters. A study by msnbc:

125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both partie
Click to expand...
That doesn't prove anything. Do you not think that someone can be unbiased in their job and biased in their personal views?
 
Spindrift said:
Is it because a lot of the "stories that reflect poorly" are simply that, stories and not news?...
Click to expand...
Surrrreeee, buddy. The indictment of a US Attorney General by Congress is just a story, and not news.

Let's hear more, please.

Spindrift said:
...
That doesn't prove anything. Do you not think that someone can be unbiased in their job and biased in their personal views?
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with that statement and I personally know people that do that. In news reporting, though, evidence is that may be more the exception than the rule. Otherwise we would not be discussing the subject.

Certainly that "unbias in the job" is not shown in the private writings of major journalists, now exposed.

Journolist.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
It is one measure. There are others, such as attempting to measure "slant" or "positive versus negative" portrayals. But quantity we can measure quickly, while these other things take researchers days.

"Ignoring a story" is certainly a part, a big part, of the complaint that conservatives have with the "mainstream media". They assert that stories that reflect poorly on the current administration are simply ignored. And they are pretty much right.

As I noted early, the curiosity is that a fair part of what is being ignored is "big stories".

Is there a bias? Look at political donations by the reporters. A study by msnbc:

125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both partie
Click to expand...

I wonder what that survey would look like if it only included journalists that have editorial power to select what stories appear.

I would also again point out that judging bias by what someone won't cover can be misleading. In fact, it would be possible to simultaneously prove a newspaper to be liberally biased and conservatively biased using that criteria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom