Gary Conner
New member
Actually calling David Broder neutral, is akin to describing George Will as a simple minded country boy.
Liberal Media Myth Busted
- Thread starter amaverick
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
"All that was proven is that the content was not an issue here just discrediting the source..."
Source and content can't be separated when the organization states that its purpose is "correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
That immediately calls all of their data into question because they have stated, up front, that they are NOT unbiased.
In essence, they came pre-discredited.
That shouldn't be so difficult to understand, but obviously it is.
A correlary study conducted by researchers at UCLA found results that were pretty much exactly the opposite of Media Matters results.
How do you explain that?
Source and content can't be separated when the organization states that its purpose is "correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
That immediately calls all of their data into question because they have stated, up front, that they are NOT unbiased.
In essence, they came pre-discredited.
That shouldn't be so difficult to understand, but obviously it is.
A correlary study conducted by researchers at UCLA found results that were pretty much exactly the opposite of Media Matters results.
How do you explain that?
loggerhead
Moderator
UCLA?????? nuff said!!!!!
Silver bullet, "Bias" is an excellent book, Bernard Goldberg simply shows the blatant truth about how liberal the media really is.
I don't care if the NYT is so bent too the left that teir right arms no long move, but they should state at th top of the page, Warning: this is a hard core liberal newspaper!
I don't care if the NYT is so bent too the left that teir right arms no long move, but they should state at th top of the page, Warning: this is a hard core liberal newspaper!
Oh, Please.
With a stated objective of:
They've discredited themselves.
The Media Research Center has a similar mission statement - just diametrically opposed. Anything they put out is a foregone conclusion.
Conservatives believe the media is liberal, liberals believe it's conservative. When your objective is stated up front, the results of your "studies" never vary.
Can you predict the outcome of a study published by:
The VPC or the NRA?
The Sierra Club or Junk Science?
The Discovery Institute or Athiest Alliance International?
Sure you can. So can I. Saying that you would actually examine the methodology of a study before dismissing it due to the source is disengenuous: you know better. If a study produced results contrary to the mission of the group involved it would never see the light of day.
If the Media Research Center ran a study that showed conservative bias in the media it would be buried, dug up, dissolved in acid and thrown into a volcano. I believe most conservatives on this board would acknowledge that.
Media Matters is no different - they've simply staked out ground on the other side of the issue.
You're at a gun board. You may safely assume that most here are ideologically aligned with the NRA and not the VPC. With respect to sympathy towards MRC (or Rush) vs MM, your assumptions are built on a far shakier foundation.
If you would like to demonstrate a conservative media bias, may I suggest getting a lexis-nexis account, some stat software, maybe a copy of AskSam then publishing your findings? Independent thought and analysis tends to garner respect around here. 'Course there's always the danger that the results won't be exactly what you expect. I'm pretty confident they won't mirror MM's (or MRC's).
"Rush Limbaugh does not pretend to be un-biased, and if you would read the material from "Media Matters" web site, neither do they."
I see no one is required to defend Rush but I have to defend "Media Matters"? I will not defend them because it is like talking to the deaf. I can see there is only one 'side' on this site, too bad. I just posted an article of theirs. I can see by the responses an unbiased discussion is impossible. So believe what you want. If you have some time I suggest you check and see who owns these 'liberal' stations. You will be surprised.
I see no one is required to defend Rush but I have to defend "Media Matters"? I will not defend them because it is like talking to the deaf. I can see there is only one 'side' on this site, too bad. I just posted an article of theirs. I can see by the responses an unbiased discussion is impossible. So believe what you want. If you have some time I suggest you check and see who owns these 'liberal' stations. You will be surprised.
It is funny how all these new groups to defend the media popped up once people started to see the liberal bias.
Another neat little tactic the media likes is "Polling"
They'll beat an issue like Iraq to death day after day, and then they take a poll. It's a great way for them to gauge how effective their propaganda is working.
Another neat little tactic the media likes is "Polling"
They'll beat an issue like Iraq to death day after day, and then they take a poll. It's a great way for them to gauge how effective their propaganda is working.
Silver Bullet
New member
Ownership doesn't determine the bias of a station; the owners don't write the news. It's the bias of the writers and editors that determines the bias of a station.
If you think ownership has nothing to do with the bias on a news channel you need to take a deeper look at the effects of ownership. Look at ABC. Who owns ABC, well the Disney Corp. does. Hmm, come to think of it I don't think I've ever seen a story critical of Disney on ABC. Is that a coincidence, or could the fact that Disney OWNS ABC force ABC to have a pro-Disney bias? The owners may not write the news, but they let it be known which topics aren't the best idea to persue. It is a very real thing.
Silver Bullet
New member
I didn't say it had nothing to do with it, I said it doesn't determine it.
It's ridiculous to claim that because of some silly "study" that the media is not strongly left leaning: I can see it all the time, every day, on television, newspapers, magazines.
This reminds me of Richard Pryor's gag when his wife catches him with another woman: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
It's ridiculous to claim that because of some silly "study" that the media is not strongly left leaning: I can see it all the time, every day, on television, newspapers, magazines.
This reminds me of Richard Pryor's gag when his wife catches him with another woman: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
Cowled_Wolfe
New member
The difference between Rush and Media Matters is that instead of adding anything new (aside from humor, rants, and outrage), he just states what OTHER news sources say, and interprets him as he sees it.
ANYONE can check the nightly news and see what he's having a heart attack over this time.
Media Matters is A.) Hiding the raw numbers behind their percentages, and B.) Not open to peer review.
---
If I hear Rush say something, I treat it like any other news source. If other news sources agree, it lends credability. If he's alone on his "facts", it's a grain of doubt that grows pretty fast.
Why should I treat Media Matters any differently?
Wolfe.
Cowled_Wolfe
New member
Note to self... Don't post twice.
Last edited:
Cowled_Wolfe
New member
Darnit... A triple!
Last edited:
Well, I do not watch CBS, NBC, ABC, or FOX for news. When ratings become more important than unbiased news, then it's not news, it's entertainment. I get my news directly from Reuters, and daily read Barrons and the WSJ. Think what you want, I really do not care and am sorry I even started this thread. It's wasting my time.
Cowled_Wolfe
New member
I used the term "nightly news" loosely, just as Media Matters uses "neutral" loosely, so I'm sorry about that. I'd like to clarify that ratings don't matter - unbiased news does -- as you said.
However, my point was that you can't trust a single organization releasing its own conclusions based on its own statistics based on its own study when they don't even release raw data for the consideration of others.
I don't care what the source is -- if they don't provide a way for you to see the source of those percentages, it's unwise to trust them.
If CBS, FOX, ABC, [insert 3 letters here], etc give me a story, they usually show the source. Be it "a federal study", etc. And 99% of the time, you can find whatever study it was with a minimum of effort, and then look for yourself.
---
But since you really don't care, I suppose I'm wasting air explaining why numerous sources *might* be a bit reliable than one source which hides the basis of its conclusions... So I'm done for now.
Wolfe.
However, my point was that you can't trust a single organization releasing its own conclusions based on its own statistics based on its own study when they don't even release raw data for the consideration of others.
I don't care what the source is -- if they don't provide a way for you to see the source of those percentages, it's unwise to trust them.
If CBS, FOX, ABC, [insert 3 letters here], etc give me a story, they usually show the source. Be it "a federal study", etc. And 99% of the time, you can find whatever study it was with a minimum of effort, and then look for yourself.
---
But since you really don't care, I suppose I'm wasting air explaining why numerous sources *might* be a bit reliable than one source which hides the basis of its conclusions... So I'm done for now.
Wolfe.
The words are the give away
Progressive and Conservative.
Some time ago, the left wing realized that the right wing was attacking the word liberal so much that the word was gaining a negative connotation. About the year 2000 there was a push to begin using the word "progressive" instead.
Unfortunately, for the liberals, no one uses the word progressive in place of liberal unless you are a liberal.
You see, progressive is a positive word that describes:
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression
Liberal is a word that has come to mean:
of or relating to those who dislike conservatives and believe in a political structure that has little to do with historical liberalism but more to do with the influence of any and all social special interests that seek to re-write the American landscape at a drop of a hat and threatens an American way of life that is disappearing do an out of touch leadership that chooses anything else before it chooses its own country.
So, the fact that the study reports liberals as "progressive" screams bias.
And really, the measuring of invited guests to a show is not a valid measurement in this day and age. Especially when the media completely disregards every statistic that shows a decline in firearms and violent crime but always is on hand to hype up the school shooting and firearm incident or anyone who speaks out against firearm ownership as if it is a modern day epidemic threatening the very fabric of our lives.
If the media were truly neutral in interested in facts they would have a weekly report on gun safety and education, but instead they have fear driven hype that has a growing number of citizens "afraid of firearms" based solely on what they see on the television. We have become a nation of people who accept 2nd and 3rd hand accounts before they believe their own eyes and their own reality.
Now that is progressive.
Progressive and Conservative.
Some time ago, the left wing realized that the right wing was attacking the word liberal so much that the word was gaining a negative connotation. About the year 2000 there was a push to begin using the word "progressive" instead.
Unfortunately, for the liberals, no one uses the word progressive in place of liberal unless you are a liberal.
You see, progressive is a positive word that describes:
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression
Liberal is a word that has come to mean:
of or relating to those who dislike conservatives and believe in a political structure that has little to do with historical liberalism but more to do with the influence of any and all social special interests that seek to re-write the American landscape at a drop of a hat and threatens an American way of life that is disappearing do an out of touch leadership that chooses anything else before it chooses its own country.
So, the fact that the study reports liberals as "progressive" screams bias.
And really, the measuring of invited guests to a show is not a valid measurement in this day and age. Especially when the media completely disregards every statistic that shows a decline in firearms and violent crime but always is on hand to hype up the school shooting and firearm incident or anyone who speaks out against firearm ownership as if it is a modern day epidemic threatening the very fabric of our lives.
If the media were truly neutral in interested in facts they would have a weekly report on gun safety and education, but instead they have fear driven hype that has a growing number of citizens "afraid of firearms" based solely on what they see on the television. We have become a nation of people who accept 2nd and 3rd hand accounts before they believe their own eyes and their own reality.
Now that is progressive.