Questions you want answered (P&C Edition)

Rallick wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Rallick wrote:

I know there have been studies that show it, and it's taken as a fact by liberals, but do conservatives / Republicans also acknowledge this?

Some might acknowledge. Overall, no.

Then why not? Do Democrats have the same hangups when it comes to acknowledging liberal bias in news agencies?

Why don't conservatives acknowledge the bias of FOX News? Because they believe wholeheartedly in the myth that all news media has a blatantly liberal bias and is inherently hostile to all things conservative. In their mind FOX News is the only place where they can get news that is free of that political manipulation and taint even though the exact opposite it true.

Personally I don't buy into the idea that media has a liberal bias. Just about all media companies are owned by handful of massive media corporations and their news divisions are run as a profit/loss center, just like their entertainment or microwave divisions. Those news division care more about getting eyeballs than scoring political points since political points don't pay the bills or contribute to the bottom line. That means they make a product--news reports--that appeal to the broadest possible audience, which means they aren't acting like shills for the Democratic Party.

Are there some media corporations looking to target liberal viewers much like FOX did with conservatives? Absolutely. But, as others have pointed out, it's pretty clear what those program are (programs, mind you, not entire channels).

I have a sneaking suspicion that the idea that media has a liberal bias is grounded in the 60s and 70s, which is exactly when the still prevalent idea that Democrats are soft hippies who just want to tax and spend and Republicans are financially responsible adults who just want to make sure things are safe and secure came from. Those concepts have been embedded in our national psyche even though they're not really true anymore.

I would claim most media outlets have a *statist* bias.

Well OG I think we also get into that sad territory we have now that reality and facts tend to have a liberal bias.
1. Global climate change is real, is based in science.
2. American was not founded by Christians, to promote fundamentalist Christian Values.
3. Seeking equal aplication of rights to all people is the story of the nation.
4. The bible is not part of American law.
5. The theory of evolution is tested, peer reviewed, based on facts.

You can keep listing the liberal bias in facts ad nauseum.

When we cross over from a difference in opinion or philosophy, say with economic theory, into the earth being 6,000 years old according to say Manuel Lujan or GW Bush, we are into a new territory of crazy or some of the fun medical statements being touted by Republicans.

People believe what they want to believe. There was a study (pdf warning) not too long ago that revealed that conservative fans of the Colbert Report tend not to realize the show is satirical (which is likely why he was asked to speak at the 2006 White House Press Dinner). Considering the show is openly satirical, believing in the earnestness of Fox News isn't terribly far-fetched.

Seth wrote:

I would claim most media outlets have a *statist* bias.

+ a billion, Fox News included in this group. They know upon which side their bread is buttered.

ruhk wrote:

People believe what they want to believe. There was a study (pdf warning) not too long ago that revealed that conservative fans of the Colbert Report tend not to realize the show is satirical (which is likely why he was asked to speak at the 2006 White House Press Dinner). Considering the show is openly satirical, believing in the earnestness of Fox News isn't terribly far-fetched.

Yeah, Rush Limbaugh, for like the first week after the show debuted, was going nuts for it, saying it was great to have a conservative counter balance to the Daily Show... and I was just left wondering... "Are we watching the same show or are you taking too many pills again?"

Minarchist wrote:
Seth wrote:

I would claim most media outlets have a *statist* bias.

+ a billion, Fox News included in this group. They know upon which side their bread is buttered.

And I just learned what your name means. Cool! But yeah, either way, not a lot of anarchist media bias.

Just look at the coverage of pretty much any example of law enforcement abuses of power, drug laws being loosened, or anything where there one of the sides of the discussion is "maintain or increase power of the state," and the media will tend to back that side. This goes for both Fox News and NPR.

Here, this guy already did some research for me:

http://www.theagitator.com/2012/11/0...

Minarchist wrote:
Seth wrote:

I would claim most media outlets have a *statist* bias.

+ a billion, Fox News included in this group. They know upon which side their bread is buttered.

Not just Fox though -- I would also lump CNN et al in there as well. The push for most news outlets is for the 24-hour "news as entertainment" model. Stories get dropped when they lose their novelty. (For example, Mitt hasn't really answered any questions put to him over the course of the campaign, he's just waited for people to get bored with asking him)

Almost all of them are echo chambers trying to push manufactured stories -- Fox is just more blatant about their political agenda.

*Reality* has a "statist bias", guys. If that's a bias, it's hard to ask how news about countries or governments would be reported, otherwise. It's like saying "alcoholics have a drinking bias" - yeah, okay, that's true, but how would you talk about alcoholism without mentioning drinking? Governments and states have been with us for thousands of years. Doesn't make that the ideal system, but it's hard to argue that the media is somehow biased for working within that framework. (Although it is an interesting way to propagandize one's views - first, turn the status quo into an unfair bias...)

It's not a "bias", it's reality. If you want to change it, how can you deny that statism exists, that it's ubiquitous? Seems like that's the first step, admitting there's a problem. And right there, if there's a bias, you're using it yourself... The eternal PC problem...

Almost all of them are echo chambers trying to push manufactured stories -- Fox is just more blatant about their political agenda.

So the fact that Fox News has been repeatedly shown to have an editorial bias, driving anchors to present particular viewpoints, while other news operations don't, that's simply a matter of degree? The only other one I can think of that does that is MSNBC, and they are garbage these days, for that reason. But I think it's important not to lump deliberate propagandizing with companies attempting to avoid bias, even if they are not perfect at it. That just engenders mistrust of the entire business, based on an outlier.

Robear wrote:
Almost all of them are echo chambers trying to push manufactured stories -- Fox is just more blatant about their political agenda.

So the fact that Fox News has been repeatedly shown to have an editorial bias, driving anchors to present particular viewpoints, while other news operations don't, that's simply a matter of degree? The only other one I can think of that does that is MSNBC, and they are garbage these days, for that reason. But I think it's important not to lump deliberate propagandizing with companies attempting to avoid bias, even if they are not perfect at it. That just engenders mistrust of the entire business, based on an outlier.

I had a really long reply but deleted it. Suffice to say that most mainstream news outlets go for the quick and easy news story and move on instead of really pursing the news. Instead of getting a steak, we get a McDonald's cheeseburger.

edosan wrote:

I had a really long reply but deleted it. Suffice to say that most mainstream news outlets go for the quick and easy news story and move on instead of really pursing the news. Instead of getting a steak, we get a McDonald's cheeseburger.

But that's not the question Robear asked...

From your original statement it seemed like you were saying that all media outlets were as politically biased as FOX News, but that FOX simply wore its bias as a red badge of conservative courage while the other outlets did not.

I agree that most mainstream news outfits aren't exactly doing hardcore investigative journalism, but there's a world of difference between them doing Mickey D-type edutainment reporting and being an active shill for the Republican party.

I had a really long reply but deleted it. Suffice to say that most mainstream news outlets go for the quick and easy news story and move on instead of really pursing the news. Instead of getting a steak, we get a McDonald's cheeseburger.

That has nothing to do with the fact that of all the major news outlets, only Fox News was actually set up with the agenda of pushing one political perspective, not just in editorial content, but in reporting. It was actually a huge change in the field, and painting all news outlets with the same deliberate practices seems wrong to me.

So Nate Silver accurately predicted all 50 states. But FOX News and the like have been saying that all of the polls are skewed and all that data is BS. They've been saying "here's the real data, Romney is going to win by a landslide." Which is fine, they're entertainment and have to stay on message. But the average viewer...does this not bother them? Shouldn't they feel lied to and manipulated?

SixteenBlue wrote:

So Nate Silver accurately predicted all 50 states. But FOX News and the like have been saying that all of the polls are skewed and all that data is BS. They've been saying "here's the real data, Romney is going to win by a landslide." Which is fine, they're entertainment and have to stay on message. But the average viewer...does this not bother them? Shouldn't they feel lied to and manipulated?

Who can worry about petty things like that when Obama's going to destroy the country!!

SixteenBlue wrote:

But the average viewer...does this not bother them? Shouldn't they feel lied to and manipulated?

From the mental gymnastics I saw taking place on FOX last night over the course of a single hour, I came to the realization that the 24 hour news model relies almost entirely on the average viewer's short attention span and disregard for details. You could literally say "We've always thought pizza tasted good." at the top of the hour and 45 minutes later they could say "We've always thought pizza was poisonous bile." and I dare say 85% of the audience wouldn't bat an eye and would just remember the last thing that was said.

If that's not the case I honestly can't explain how all of Romney's daily flip-flopping and contradictory statements along with the FOX post-election spin wasn't immediately called out by every single news agency and average Joe on the planet. As I've said before, truth has become what you feel is right, not what is supported by facts. If you feel like Obama is a secret Muslim communist who wants to take all of your money and turn over the US government to the UN then you're not going to be convinced otherwise with facts from 999 new agencies as long as you can find a couple of websites or bloggers who agree with you. Confirmation bias to the highest degree. If 7 billion people tell you you're wrong but 3 people agree then those 3 people are the only one who know the "truth".

Via Tanglebones: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...

This puts into words what I was thinking. The last paragraph basically says what Kehama and OG said, as well.

my mother watches Glen Beck on a daily basis and every time I walk by her TV I hear some new conspiracy theory about how the muslim brotherhood has infiltrated the white house, and while I know that this is complete nonsense and that I'm never going to convince my mother otherwise, I'd still like to have some idea of were these theories come from in the first place.

I have tried to look in to this myself but it usually ends with me wanting to throw something out a window while quoting AM from I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream, and I have to imagine that's not particularly good for my blood pressure. I know this kinda of a lot to ask but as far as I can tell most news actually news sources have given up on trying to correct this kind of nonsense, which means whenever this gets brought up in conversation I'm left with only the argument of how stupid it is on face value, and while as I've stated before I've given up on changing her opinion on the matter I'd still like to have the knowledge for my own sake.

Simple. Obama was born in Kenya, of a Kenyan Muslim father, and grew up in Malaysia attending a radical Islamic madrassa (where he was also conditioned as a Soviet sleeper agent, probably through contacts his mother had.) He was then brought to America, with a faked background, and proceeded to use his foreign Communist and Islamic contacts to get contacts in the American radical leftist underground, developing a career as a "community organizer" where he could agitate quietly and move himself into a position of power, in order to corrupt and damage the American government from within.

It succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election, his true agenda will be seen sooner rather than later. Expect the economy to go to hell, the persecution of Christians and patriots, wholesale outlawing of the weapons of freedom, the effective enslavement of the economy to Chinese interests, martial law declared in red states after government agitators create incidents, the nationalization of key industries, and ultimately the redistribution of wealth by force a la Mao.

(Did I miss any major conspiracy theory? Oh, right, imposition of Sharia Law in the Federal court system. But that almost goes without saying, doesn't it?)

Robear wrote:

Simple. Obama was born in Kenya, of a Kenyan Muslim father, and grew up in Malaysia attending a radical Islamic madrassa (where he was also conditioned as a Soviet sleeper agent, probably through contacts his mother had.) He was then brought to America, with a faked background, and proceeded to use his foreign Communist and Islamic contacts to get contacts in the American radical leftist underground, developing a career as a "community organizer" where he could agitate quietly and move himself into a position of power, in order to corrupt and damage the American government from within.

It succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election, his true agenda will be seen sooner rather than later. Expect the economy to go to hell, the persecution of Christians and patriots, wholesale outlawing of the weapons of freedom, the effective enslavement of the economy to Chinese interests, martial law declared in red states after government agitators create incidents, the nationalization of key industries, and ultimately the redistribution of wealth by force a la Mao.

(Did I miss any major conspiracy theory? Oh, right, imposition of Sharia Law in the Federal court system. But that almost goes without saying, doesn't it?)

Needs more lizard people.

Tanglebones wrote:
Robear wrote:

Simple. Obama was born in Kenya, of a Kenyan Muslim father, and grew up in Malaysia attending a radical Islamic madrassa (where he was also conditioned as a Soviet sleeper agent, probably through contacts his mother had.) He was then brought to America, with a faked background, and proceeded to use his foreign Communist and Islamic contacts to get contacts in the American radical leftist underground, developing a career as a "community organizer" where he could agitate quietly and move himself into a position of power, in order to corrupt and damage the American government from within.

It succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election, his true agenda will be seen sooner rather than later. Expect the economy to go to hell, the persecution of Christians and patriots, wholesale outlawing of the weapons of freedom, the effective enslavement of the economy to Chinese interests, martial law declared in red states after government agitators create incidents, the nationalization of key industries, and ultimately the redistribution of wealth by force a la Mao.

(Did I miss any major conspiracy theory? Oh, right, imposition of Sharia Law in the Federal court system. But that almost goes without saying, doesn't it?)

Needs more lizard people.

And how the Justice League of Middling Quasi-Fast Food Purveyors represent our nation's last, greatest hope.

If all liberals are trying to destroy America, why would they have to import this one particular guy from Kenya for their nefarious America-destroying plans to work? Couldn't they just find an American born person willing to do the same thing? I'm pretty sure the birthers hate Hilary Clinton too, and if Obama hadn't been around, she would've probably taken the nomination and the presidency. Couldn't they just have used her instead?

I'm sorry, I just put more than ten seconds of thought into birther "theories", I should be ashamed of myself...

Oh Robear, that right there. That's why I love you. Your truly detailed and crazy quantities of sourcing are all well and good. But that was probably the funniest thing I've seen all day, and that includes all the awesome moments of awkwardness in the Picture thread in Everything Else today.

Tanglebones wrote:
Robear wrote:

Simple. Obama was born in Kenya, of a Kenyan Muslim father, and grew up in Malaysia attending a radical Islamic madrassa (where he was also conditioned as a Soviet sleeper agent, probably through contacts his mother had.) He was then brought to America, with a faked background, and proceeded to use his foreign Communist and Islamic contacts to get contacts in the American radical leftist underground, developing a career as a "community organizer" where he could agitate quietly and move himself into a position of power, in order to corrupt and damage the American government from within.

It succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election, his true agenda will be seen sooner rather than later. Expect the economy to go to hell, the persecution of Christians and patriots, wholesale outlawing of the weapons of freedom, the effective enslavement of the economy to Chinese interests, martial law declared in red states after government agitators create incidents, the nationalization of key industries, and ultimately the redistribution of wealth by force a la Mao.

(Did I miss any major conspiracy theory? Oh, right, imposition of Sharia Law in the Federal court system. But that almost goes without saying, doesn't it?)

Needs more lizard people.

And reverse vampires.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Robear wrote:

Simple. Obama was born in Kenya, of a Kenyan Muslim father, and grew up in Malaysia attending a radical Islamic madrassa (where he was also conditioned as a Soviet sleeper agent, probably through contacts his mother had.) He was then brought to America, with a faked background, and proceeded to use his foreign Communist and Islamic contacts to get contacts in the American radical leftist underground, developing a career as a "community organizer" where he could agitate quietly and move himself into a position of power, in order to corrupt and damage the American government from within.

It succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election, his true agenda will be seen sooner rather than later. Expect the economy to go to hell, the persecution of Christians and patriots, wholesale outlawing of the weapons of freedom, the effective enslavement of the economy to Chinese interests, martial law declared in red states after government agitators create incidents, the nationalization of key industries, and ultimately the redistribution of wealth by force a la Mao.

(Did I miss any major conspiracy theory? Oh, right, imposition of Sharia Law in the Federal court system. But that almost goes without saying, doesn't it?)

Needs more lizard people.

And reverse vampires.

The sparkling kind?

Demyx wrote:

If all liberals are trying to destroy America, why would they have to import this one particular guy from Kenya for their nefarious America-destroying plans to work? Couldn't they just find an American born person willing to do the same thing? I'm pretty sure the birthers hate Hilary Clinton too, and if Obama hadn't been around, she would've probably taken the nomination and the presidency. Couldn't they just have used her instead?

I'm sorry, I just put more than ten seconds of thought into birther "theories", I should be ashamed of myself...

Because Obama's the Antichrist. Duh.

Robear wrote:

(Did I miss any major conspiracy theory? Oh, right, imposition of Sharia Law in the Federal court system. But that almost goes without saying, doesn't it?)

You could throw in some 9/11 stuff too.

See this is kind of my problem, the only argument I have against this crap is how absurd it is on face value, which is in this case a perfectly valid argument but does me no good when I'm in a situation were I'm forced to deal with this nonsense, when this is my only argument its too easy to dismiss based on how I "Just don't understand how the world works".

IHateDRM wrote:

See this is kind of my problem, the only argument I have against this crap is how absurd it is on face value, which is in this case a perfectly valid argument but does me no good when I'm in a situation were I'm forced to deal with this nonsense, when this is my only argument its too easy to dismiss based on how I "Just don't understand how the world works".

"The head of the CIA can't keep a mistress a secret... but somehow a plot to overthrow America with such a convoluted plan was never leaked by anyone is the last 5 years? While a large group of people (the other Democratic primary contenders' campaigns, McCain's campaign, Mitt Romney's campaign, and the entirety of the right wing crazy media) have been constantly digging into everything they can on him to knock him down a peg?"