As newspaper Web sites blend in more with blogs that do not hold to the same journalistic rules, there is greater pressure to “write like them”  and sometimes cut corners on the principles of objectivity and balance that have been the oft-stated mainstay, for better or worse, of newspaper news coverage.
“I see a lot of cheering in the press box that used to not be the way,” says Carla Marinucci, a 12-year political reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle who noted a much more partisan tone at this year’s political conventions due to many bloggers in attendance than in the past. “All of us have to be very careful in this brave new world  a lot of places are calling for your opinion.”
Globe Editor Martin Baron, agrees that the challenges are greater, but stresses that is no excuse for newspapers getting away from the core demands of journalism: “We need to be honest, accurate and fair. Those are the principles. Those are the words that define what our mission is. The others send us in odd directions.” But, he adds, “that doesn’t mean a blog cannot have a personality or be more casual or irreverent in certain ways. It has a certain style to it, much like a feature has a different style to it. But it is still grounded by core principles.”
Others claim the reporter’s rule of remaining objective has never really been the case, and for newspapers to pretend to “hold on” to it in the growing age of online opinions and fast-moving facts only holds them back. “I’m not a believer in the myth of objectivity to begin with  what we are talking about is fairness,” says Keith Woods, dean of faculty at the Poynter Institute. “We may aspire to [objectivity], but we have not come close to achieving it.”
Woods explains that as reporters move into new areas, it becomes much harder to keep your opinions to yourself as you move across forms. “Invariably, one leaks into another. Writing a blog, then going on radio or TV to give an opinion, then writing a staff news story is more difficult.”
And of course, the difficulty of a project is justification for either its abandonment, or else an excuse for its corruption. At least, if Mr Woods is to be believed.
Me, I have other ideas. If being a reporter — that is, taking a job that requires of you at least an attempt to pursue objectivity (with the linguistic given that your own subjectivity will oftentimes seep through, no matter how hard you try to avoid its doing so) — is too difficult, find another line of work.
I’ve argued before that a mainstream press that surrendered the veneer of objectivity and labeled its biases clearly would be fine by me; because the real scandal is that the mainstream press as an institution continues to shield itself with a pretense of objectivity and fairness, while those doing the actual work of journalism are moving increasingly toward advocacy and “framing” stories in a way so that readers draw the “correct” lessons.
These two imperatives are clearly at odds, and it’s time the mainstream press determine its function and then police its own in order to protect its integrity.
Otherwise, they should surrender the cover they’ve been so cynically clinging to — something that of course will never happen, because to advocates, that cover provides an advantage, and in the game of advocacy journalism, the ends justify the means.
Yup. The vast difference between an individual blogging, basically publishing their OPINIONS, and actual journalism, which is REPORTING THE FACTS, in an unbiased manner, is completely lost on this pantload. Well, they were determined to get a win for their boy, and did so. But only at the price of losing all their crdibility, authority, and, might as well say it-honor. They bitched and moaned for years about the Bush administration “destroying” the Constitution, and in their fevered desire to “save” it, they have likely flushed the Republic down the crapper. Nice work, assholes. Why couldn’t you have just moved to Europe or something?
People used to be able to be fair and mostly impartial, but that was back when you raised boys to be men of virtue and honor, and to be gracious in both victory and defeat. The examined life, I think they used to call it. It was also before every fucking political issue was cloaked in the language of “rights,” thus leading to the conclusion that anyone opposing “rights” is a monster on par with Bull Connor.
Gotta love the way they blame their being in the tank for Obama on bloggers.
Hey, morons! People knew you were in the tank for Democrats LONG BEFORE THERE WERE BLOGS!!!
Objectivity in the media is a myth.
They all have axes to grind and oxen to guard.
If we have always been unbiased, why was there always a “conservative” paper and a “liberal” paper in mostly every town?
I call bullshit. Steaming, fragrant bullshit.
It’s just that they used to be banging the drum for our side.
Lisa, I haven’t lived in a town like that (Louisville, Memphis, Montgomery, Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas) in my life. YMMV
Like when William Randolf wanted us to go kick Spains ass.
Or Life Magazine talked about Japs and Krauts.
Objectivity in the media is a myth.
They all have axes to grind and oxen to guard.
I agree. Never has been – never will be. Bias in the media is the rallying cry of the loser. “It is not that I lost fair and square or because everyone thinks my ideas fucking stink….it is Teh Bias!”
Come on, go cook up something new guys. That shit might have worked in 1992. But the shit was old even then – if you want to know the real-deal-Holyfield truth.
Now they are all O-bot zombies.
I fear Lisa got bit on the hand.
“It is not that I lost fair and square or because everyone thinks my ideas fucking stink….it is Teh Bias!â€Â
And I am saying that as someone who tiredly trotted that shit out everytime the news was bad for my side the last eight years. “What? Cindy Sheehan turns out to be a anti-semitic crank? Its the Bush Lapdog Media!!!1!!!”
I fear Lisa got bit on the hand.
No I am actually an O-bot Zombie. But I try to refrain from devouring the delicious, innocent flesh of conservatives until after sundown.
Lisa seems to be advocating a position for which we could produce a thousand counterfactuals on the basis of ‘all towns have a conservative and a liberal paper.’ Well, first of all, here in NJ the Star-Ledger rarely pens anything other than the liberal pov, all local papers ditto. We’re talking about more than newspapers as well with something like 92% of journalists self identifying as liberal, the bias thus becomes what is omitted from papers rather than the rather transparent bias in most papers.
Too many rathers. I blame it on Dan Rather. Fake but accurate.
Too many rathers. I blame it on Dan Rather. Fake but accurate.
Learned it from Uncle Wally, I expect.
Dash my side has a thousand reasons why the “corporate media” is a bunch of authoritarian autobot stenographers for the Reichwing(!!!!) They have a bunch of dot-connections that point to sinister consolidations with the ultimate goal of making the media a corporate mouthpeice lazily burping up PR for the corporatocracy and the military-industrial complex.
When you have both sides of the issue fervently believing that the media is Teh Suck because they are A)A bunch of liberals because the reporters are all Democrats or B) A bunch of stenographers for the Corporatocracy — a reasonable person would naturally come to the conclusion that both sides are barking and move on.
They don’t get to have this conversation. Game over, journalist fags. You abdicated. Fuck off.
and then police its own in order to protect its integrity.
Right. That would require that the networks and papers and mags call each other out when the see shoddy reporting. And in the spirit of competition, you’d maybe expect that they’d try to boost their own brand by pointing out how shoddy the other guy does.
But no. The journalism field is a merry-go-round, with reporter hopping from one market to the next, all in an upward climb or at least a way of getting some variety in your life. Or escaping a festering sore of an editor.
So no way are they going to rat each other out, because if you’re the NBC reporter who does an exposé on how bad ABC flubbed a story, you ain’t working at ABC ever.
As for the absence of bias, reporters actually used to pursue such a thing. They saw themselves as government watchdogs, those who would provide as much transparency as possible into what those morons were doing with our tax dollars. They were the sunshine that disinfected as many filthy corners as they could brighten.
They actually believed that it was their job to make sure that no corrupt politician got away with anything, that no scandal ever went unreported, that the powers that be never get too cocky.
But with the advent of J-school instead of the school of hard knocks, reporters became like the academic class: self-important Brahmans with contempt for the public and a zeal for “setting things right.”
Creeps.
For a fresh example of this practice, see this IHT article. I bitched about it earlier today here.
I find it kinda funny, in an Orwellian kind of way, when the left complains of right-leaning media bias. Sure, Fox espouses a conservative viewpoint, but by virtue of that alone it seems that a large portion of the left encompassing the far, far left all the way to the left-center have dubbed it Reich-wing news. We’ve also got talk radio, but nobody maintains that Rush et al. are anything other that conservative. Then ya’ll got NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, MSNBC, PBS, NYT, LAT.
Ther’s definitely a continuum in bias though, while the nightly news programs on the big 3 alphabet networks might dutifully report the actions of Obama and McCain, what they said, etc, they are more guilty of the bias via omission, cf. Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko. The left calls them distractions, well ok, let that stand in a field of public and subsequently living room debate. Then you have the institutions like the NYT, LAT, New Yorker which openly advocate for left-wing causes in the way right wing talk radio does, and more recently try to whitewash the history of certain individuals, to make that certain ‘distraction’ all the less insidious.
O yea, the last time I checked your side has been advocating for institutionalized bias through the Fairness Doctrine (Schumer).
making the media a corporate mouthpiece lazily burping up PR for the corporatocracy and the military-industrial complex
I would like to know exactly what such a thing looks like. I’ve never looked at the media through that particular prism, because I suspect that the owners of newspapers and media conglomerates don’t give a rat’s rear about the content (or integrity) of a paper as long as they can make a buck.
Can you provide examples of reporters who had hot stories but the editor spiked them because the suits didn’t like them? Or suspicious edits that tilted things in such a way that Wal-Mart doesn’t look bad?
I mean, the fact that both sides are complaining doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re both equally right or wrong. It could be that one side is barking at a mirage and the other at the real thing.
Michael Issakoff had a famously spiked story Drudge took advantage of. Was the spiking about money? I have no idea.
“Can you provide examples of reporters who had hot stories but the editor spiked them because the suits didn’t like them?”
Like all those stories about the average global temperature today being equivalent to what it was in 1930. Or increasing Arctic and Antarctic ice. Or how all those doom and gloom models of rising oceans and 6 degrees temp rises were only off by a few dozen orders of magnitude, and all those scientists who think AGW is bunk.
My best friend Jeff is a personal and political conservative, but when it comes to his role as a journalist, he is eminently fair – he distrusts everyone.
I have a much deeper knowledge about most things than he does, but he has a great way of asking the tough, embarassing questions no matter who makes a statement. He also has a rule, if you ever lie, you die.
I can live with personal biases, but to sell out your public trust “for the greater good” is to drive a stake into the heart of democracy. How can we participate if we do not know the facts?
I think media should do what movies have done, adopt a series of ratings that warn the viewers of a program’s content in advance.
This will produce two desirable results: the industry will be made to admit that much of its product rates as “Urban Satire” – including many of its “news” shows, and its paying consumers will begin to get a clue about of the quality of the information that global media are feeding regularly into their brains.
And make Academe play along, too, darnit! Its solid ‘campuses’ are but one type of campus among many virtual ones in the larger industry: it should join its tele-casting media coleagues in the ratings run-off.
“making the media a corporate mouthpiece lazily burping up PR for the corporatocracy and the military-industrial complex”
Considering media in a broader sense with hollywood involved, you have the semblance of a point, but in a disingenuously Chomskyite way. Well there’s the obvious example of every Iraq war movie to date (~11) being overtly negative, portraying soldiers as all rapists, murderers, dupes, rednecks, killbots, [insert pejorative]. So that’s not quite it.
Then there are those vanilla action movies like, say, Transformers, which feature cool military toys and portray members of the military heroically and such, which I imagine sticks out like the pea under the collective liberal Princess’s bed. “But don’t they know the military is for killing? The military-industrial produces those machines to air-raid civilians! This portrayal is banal and un-nuanced propaganda.”
Rush is frequently mentioned in these arguments (usually by the left) but he is not a journalist. We have Fox and they frequently have people from the left on to make their case. Fox is certainly closer to being fair than the other three letter networks.
If we have always been unbiased, why was there always a “conservative†paper and a “liberal†paper in mostly every town?
That the press has always been unbiased is not the premise.
The observation is that while the news is sold as facts, “journalists” are described as “objective”, the truth is, it has become depressingly obvious, that such is no longer the ideal.
Using that obsolete Christian fantasy that high ideals are not negated by the failure to attain them.
aaarggh-it’s how they frame the narritive u douche-bag liberal ass holes
it’s what they don’t report-
i get the main narrative thru some weird borg assimilation
i read blogs that i like
i watch amy goodman etc
but i’m a news-junkie!- i like to do it!
how many friends have casually said some dumb-fuck meme
repeated endlessly
people don’t have time![center right] we got jobs/kids/families]
how many people got too much time?[leftards?]
they’re all corparete whores anyway- who is the gatekeeper/who controls the flow?
who’s louder?
vigilance is the price of…
hey!-american idol is on/nfl/pbs…
bread and circuses
the best part is when u smack ’em in the face
Q-why don’t we drill off the coast 4 oil?
retards-uh-cuz it’s bad for the enviroment
Q-didn’t we just have a category 5 hurricane blow thru the gulf coast oil-fields off of new orleans without any spillage?
retard….free numia
fuck off!
Lakoff. He gave them license. Katrina gave them opportunity. Done deal.
I love how easily Lisa and Roland throw out the “everybody does it” strawman in this argument.
Sure, historically there have always been biased news outlets around. But not ALL of them were. Furthermore, in the past where you had “conservative” and “liberal” newspapers around in a given market, where you found that difference was mainly on the editorial page, where such things belonged.
Indeed, a major difference between the two sorts of papers that has always been around (for at least as long as I can remember) is that the conservative papers and the liberal ones is that in the realm of reporting, the conservative papers pretty much stuck to the who-what-where-when-why in their reporting of the news, and kept the pontificating on the editorial pages. The lib papers, not so much (see William Duranty and the New York Times in the 1930s, as an example).
The fact that Lisa’s pals in the nutroot blogosphere have a “thousand reasons why the “corporate media†is a bunch of authoritarian autobot stenographers for the Reichwing(!!!!) They have a bunch of dot-connections that point to sinister consolidations with the ultimate goal of making the media a corporate mouthpeice lazily burping up PR for the corporatocracy and the military-industrial complex” doesn’t change the fact that, as in so many other things, they are talking smack. That is, either they are idiots who don’t know what they are talking about, or they are lying, take your pick.
(Of course, for some of Lisa’s pals, anything that does not read like “Pravda” or “The Daily Worker” would be considered “authoritarian autobot stenographers for the Reichwing”. Yawn.)
Anyone who can step back and look dispassionately at what the media has been saying and doing, especially over the past twenty years or so, and has a basic grasp of semantics KNOWS the media blatantly biased to the lib/left POV, and indeed they have not even bothered to hide it in the last several years.
Look at all the outrage that has been spewed by the Left over Fox News. Yet the truth is that in their actual NEWS reporting, Fox at least makes the attempt to simply report what happened in a given news story, and let me, the viewer, draw my own conclusions, thank you very much. Certainly compared to, say, CNN or MSNBC, they succeed quite well.
The truth is that what steams the lefturds so much about Fox is not so much that they are “Stenographers for the Reichwing” (they aren’t) but that when they (Fox) gets around to their opinion shows, they commit the unpardonable sin of letting both sides have an EQUAL say in the debate, and that they cannot stand. Why? Because when a leftie and a conservative debate ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, the leftie nearly always loses, because they can’t stand against the facts and logic of the conservative.
And this is nothing new. Back in the early 1990s I became a C-SPAN addict, and my favorite show was “Washington Journal”. One of the things liked about it was that they would have the moderator, and one liberal and one conservative, and the latter two would discuss that morning’s newspaper stories. As usual, the conservative would nearly always hand the lib his/her head. It was great while it lasted, until Brian Lamb changed the format of the show, removing the left/right discussion aspect. I quit watching after that.
I could go on and on about this, but there’s no point. The truth about the extent of leftwing media is obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together. Those who think otherwise are either liars or fools. It really is just that simple.
If we have always been unbiased, why was there always a “conservative†paper and a “liberal†paper in mostly every town?
See, in those deadtree things there was a Front page of a NEWS section, then there was the Opinion/Editorial section … and then there was advertising department…and there were walls erected between each
but hell, Lisa, why should tradition mean anything? It is a NEW DAY, for Changey Hopeyness! All New begins with BarryO!
Lisa’s got a great theory there. At least until the documentation arrives showing 95% or something of the media leaning and voting left.
Yow.
Lisa argues a point that even they would not.
Yow.
So, Lisa, it goes without saying that you are an emminently retarded piece of shit, but I’ll give you an opportunity anyway, knowing full well that epic failure on your part is inevitable.
Show us where someone from the MSM did an in-depth investigation into ANY of the following issues: Tony Rezko and the Obama’s land deal. Obamas relationship with known pedophile and admitted communist Frank Marshall Davis. Obama stint as a director of the Joyce Foundation, and the attempt to “buy” a law review so as to place numerous articles denying that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Who did Obama associate with while at Columbia? How about just a list of Obama friends who are not communist/Marxist/radical/terrorist/black liberation theology thugs? Anyone?
We’ll wait.
This is all pretend what would we talk about if we were for real journalists talk I think.
I am with happyfeet. They gave up their right to have this conversation when they shred the last pretense of objectivity. Fuckers.
I think we are very near the time when institutional media will be every bit as relevant to everyday life as the condition of your buggy whip.
I can’t remember the last time I looked at my buggy whip and thought, “Hey, it’s about worn out, I’d better go to the buggy whip store and buy a new one.
Institutional media? It’s about worn out, but I ain’t buying a new one of those either.
But, Jeff, explain this to me.
Wouldn’t a mainstream press that surrendered the veneer of objectivity and labeled its biases clearly be basically worthless? At the point where they admit their subjectivity, isn’t each and every report by said media suspect-hell, more than suspect, junk?
Maybe it’s not possible, as you have at least suggested, to weed out bias from journalism. Maybe objectivity is a “myth,” but to abandon the pursuit of it seems, in my mind, to make what passes for journalism simply worthless.
I will go to my grave insisting that ideals are worth pursuing just because they are ideals.
Before radio, and then TV, ate into the market for newspapers, there were indeed multiple dailies in most markets, and even in smaller towns the bias was blatant. How many papers do you know of that are named “Democrat” or “Republican”, just for the most obvious?
You speak as though all “ideals” are equally worthy of pursuit, Cowboy, though I doubt you mean that. Seems to me you’d have to have a way of sorting out worthy ideals from un-worthy, which in turn (that way of sorting) ought to be the thing to pursue, no?
…and while I’ve got the cyber-floor, I am so disappointed in Pajamas Media, not because they’re a bunch of sell-outs (which may very well be the case), but because the essence of what JG and others do is radical–in the very best sense of the word.
And instead of acknowledging and embracing the radical nature of this media, they fell back to the conventional.
They have chosen to go all Dan Rather when they could have stepped up to Goldstein–and they will regret it.
Sdferr:
Good point. Wouldn’t you say, though, that for a journalist objectivity has been and ought still be the ideal worthy of pursuit? Sure, it’s probably impossible, as Jeff has said, but there is more than a modicum of honor in chasing after something you know you can never attain.
who?-who me?
what?-whatever the f*ck i say it is
when?-when the moon reaches the seven stars
where?-nowhere man/somewhere over the rainbow
why?-oh- i think you know why
A-how?-it’s easy/once i get thru my rigorous fact-checkers and layers of editors
B-how?-is that some filthy native american insult?
I’m not sure about “…knowing you can never attain something…” Guessing, surmising ok, maybe. But as you say, pursue nevertheless, apropos of which see this, h/t Derbyshire at NRO, and follow the link to Hilberg’s speech in translation.
See also, my rant linked upthread for my current opinion of journalism. They can do much better than they are doing. But they must choose. Meantime, I’ll distrust their every move.
“Comment by Lisa on 11/11 @ 4:24 pm #
Dash my side has a thousand reasons why the “corporate media†is a bunch of authoritarian autobot stenographers for the Reichwing(!!!!)”
Yeah, we got Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
It’s to laugh.
They don’t get to have this conversation. Game over, journalist fags. You abdicated. Fuck off.
Turtles, too.
Not you, ‘feets, but ‘butt.
Careful, Sd. You are treading dangerously close to being “judgemental.” In the Age of O!(TM), to be considered “judgemental” is almost as bad as being “racist.” Or maybe worse. All the redactions on this memo from O!quarters make it hard to read. But trust me! Don’t do it! It’s a terrible thing. Just ask Lisa.
Lisa for you to blatantly dismiss what you see in every grocery isle in America because nutjobs on the left want to make up 911 style corporate conspiracy theories is laughable.
Just walk down a grocery store isle and tell me if you see Rush Limbaugh or George Bush portrayed favorably on any magazine you see. Throw out all the bs about spotting it in a newspaper, I think you’re far too ideologically left to do anything but agree with what you read.
Personally I would not mind bias so long as it was restricted to the editorial pages. I do mind bias in the news sections of the media.
I also do not support the media getting a coverup to give us more unsourced stories. If you can’t back up what you say responsibly with the source of your story, then we really cannot depend on it being true at all. For me to believe what you write, I need to be able to say that the information came from a reliable source and I can believe what was said. If you are covered by not having to give sources, then unless your profession has some way to enforce standards of reliabity as the Bar association or the Medical association or even the Cosmetology association or the CPA does, then I see no reason why you should get coverage from having to prove the truth of what you write when the judges demand it. You can give them the source in private so that the judge can know where the information came from or if it is a security situation you can have the court case held in camera, but without those standards being in place I don’t see that the media deserves any more protection than the rest of the population; in fact it deserves less since we do not have access to places where that kind of information is known.
As to the nonsense that Lisa is trying to peddle, cut me a break. That dog has not been in the hunt since Walter Cronkite was active and that was 40 years ago – and he was lying then.
News bloggers are generally opining on current events, so they are de facto editorials. The better ones provide links to the essay’s background stories…
The real problem is when the alleged “hard news” outfits alter the story, usually through omission of facts, but in the worst cases by reporting non-facts, in order to shape to have the narrative arc, or spin, that the writer desires…
OK, these reporters are not Jesus effin’ Christ; they need to just deliver the facts and not try to speak in social justice parables. If they want to do so, stick to editorials, otherwise STFU!
The media has been biased my entire adult life; since the 1970’s. This time, they merely were sloppier about keeping up an objective pretense…
Best Wishes…
i used to say that to my opponent friends[political]
i would say-name me one-ONE nice thing the msm ever said about george bush in eight years?
[except after 911 when he came to u unfiltered]
i would name the speech he gave at the national cathedral/his kick-ass bullhorn speech[ speech?-that’s my ring-tone btw-
i hear u…
the rest of the world hears u…
and the people who knocked these buildings down-will here All of us soon!-USA-USA-oh how i love to have people listen to that when i get a phone call!-
i also say to them-why do they demagogue[sp] rush limbaugh?-it’s always-this guy/that guy-rush-blah- blah?
why u moron?-it’s propaganda!cuz if u listen to him you’ll change your perspective
not all the way-but you will definitely look at the world-in a different light
[sorry 4 spelling]
That was kickass, pdbuttons, pure kickass, spelling or no (and I didn’t see anything spilled wrang.)
What Cowboy said re: PJM. You’ve gone stagnant, PJM. Do something about it.
u can download it off you tube-i believe it’s 1;26 seconds in/
i believe its [the quote] a lil over 20 secs long
and thats why if it takes me so long to answer my phone
i’m waving it in someones face[my phone that is]
another funny-i had pants on-with the side pockets
and my friends[nice peopl] they know i like rush
so iuse to keep two little american flags in them-
and we’d be having a conversation- and suddenly i’d whip the flags out and say
‘DON’T QUESTION MY PATRIOTISM!”-laughing the whole time
i like to laugh btw
but to see their faces scrunch up!
lil usa flags-[made in china] 59 cents
pants with side pockets-19 dollah
to see my friends pissed off-price-less!
guerrila warfare w/ a smile
4-4-4?
say to a feminist phyllis schafly
does this make me a maschocist?
or just an OUTLAW?
turtle warfare w/ a soup
COMMA BETWEEN FEM , AND PHYL
What’s a 4-4-4? Sounds like a fertilizer nic.
Oh shit Pink, just because your guy doesn’t get portrayed favorably does not mean there is bias. It could be because your guy is a dimwitted jackass. Sometimes someone is an incompetent and there is no other side to the story. But the default wound-licking position for the recently trounced is “the media fucked us up the ass!”
4-4-4 is four button ones in a row. You have to hold your breath.
Even paranoiacs have enemies sometimes, they say Lisa. Could be on occasion the media does do harm. Just ask anyone interviewed on a subject matter they have deep familiarity with how the media have treated the subtle truth the interviewee has wished to convey. The most common response I’ve heard to such questions is, “ugh, they fucked me.”
I adore you, pd. :(
Question: Since when did the Corpratocracy have a specifically right-wing leaning?
#56-THANK U
i think everyone on this site is hilarious!
[happyfeet-i’m looking at you]
it’s nice to be nice to like minded funny peeps
i used to read alot of blogs-but i noticed that sometime in june,or so.alot of them went peggy noonan
i read pw-patterico/gateway
malkin[tho here commentators are SO …let’s put it this way-they’re no goldstein]
and powerline[who have turned into a bunch of my three sons-the david brooks addition!]
ace of spades has banned me! [i hope it’s cuz i’m silly!]
any other suggestions on where else that i could go?
Jeez I must be dumb on this one, I still don’t get it hf. Four button ones in a row? Hold your breath? Help!
neo-neocon ‘buttons, here. http://neoneocon.com/
“Comment by Lisa on 11/11 @ 8:00 pm #
Oh shit Pink, just because your guy doesn’t get portrayed favorably does not mean there is bias. It could be because your guy is a dimwitted jackass.”
Do you mean McCain?
One does not become a fighter pilot or a fighter bomber pilot by being a “dimwitted jackass”.
c.f. George Bush.
“…[i}n the immortal words of LBJ, Councilman Steve Lipski was in the tent pissing in,….”
Sounds like thor, don’t it?
pell
i just bought a computer and i type w/one hand like a chicken eating seed
but did u frown at me?
please/i’m stupid-so if u don’t like my schtick
skip it
or insult me
or say
night buttons…
did u close ALL your drawers?
and as u leave the room-mutter under your breath….closet doors open…
The problem isn’t “bias”, as such.
Provided you give me the data, I don’t care what your “spin” is. Look, dammit, “journalism” began as people writing letters to the Prince of the realm next door, telling him what was going on. One step toward the light from spying. The Prince (or, more likely, the Minister) who read those reports knew the journalist was a human being, with biases and opinions, and read them in that light — but if the journalist got caught making things up, or leaving things out on purpose, in order to manipulate his audience, zzzt! across the carotid. We still have such people, but since the name’s been appropriated they’re called something else: attaché.
When the printing press was invented, one of the first uses it was put to was for broadsides and handbills. Some of it was advertising, but more was polemic and propaganda. Walk down a street in the late 1600s through the 1700s, and you’d be constantly offered leaflets and the like, and the content of some of ’em would curl the hair of people with modern sensibilities.
Modern journalism, so-called, is descended from a combination of both tendencies, and if it’s to work both components have to be there — that is, the “what really happened” bit of the original journalist, plus the rabble-rousing of the pamphleteer. The latter is necessary because you have to attract people’s eye; the first is the meat of the nut, what makes the effort worthwhile.
But collecting facts is hard, expensive, and not prestigious. The corporate officers of the companies who run the papers and news programs are interested in the bottom line, revenues minus expenses, and if they can reduce expenses, the bottom line gets fatter. A real reporter in Iraq, for instance, probably costs something like ten or twenty grand a week — not just salary and the cost of a hotel room, but bodyguards, transportation, bribes to informants… A pundit, on the other hand, sits at a desk in the building and maybe buys dinner for a leaker now and again. You can pay him, or her, six figures without coming up to half what the reporter costs you; maybe not a quarter.
Titillation attracts an audience. One of the hoary traditions of the news business is the “scoop”, something so juicy that everybody’s gotta hear about it and only the one organization “has” (that is, knows about). News has to be exciting, or nobody cares. But it’s real easy for the bean-counters to decide that that’s all that counts. Mcgruder, you didn’t come up with anything exciting this week. Scare the proles good before the end of the month, or you’re gonna be looking for other work. Digging up background? That’s boring, man. Get us some sizzle. From the point of view of Corporate, the ideal news organization would consist of people who never left their desks but produced output that constantly excited readers — high demand, low costs, the perfect B-school prescription.
Journalists, especially J-school graduates, go along with it because it fits their self-image. The pecking order in the newsroom has always been librarian, researcher, reporter, pundit, editor, publisher, in ascending order (this is not to say that people don’t have multiple rolés, or that the definitions don’t have fuzzy edges). If everybody’s giving opinion, then they’re all pundits, which is higher in the food chain than mere garbage-grubbing reporters; and librarians and researchers, faugh. Cheap and dispensible.
Unfortunately the result is what we have now. The “news” has become almost totally content-free. Walter Cronkite at least sometimes told us what was happening before he told us what to think about it. His successors are all Durantys, careful to omit whatever doesn’t match the recommended opinion — and their output is therefore useless. Their opinion(s) might actually be informed and valuable, but there’s no way to tell because there isn’t any verifiable data appended. They’re so busy giving us excited speculation they haven’t the time or the energy to do anything else. They shouldn’t be called “journalists” at all, because the original point of journalism — telling the Prince, and later the readers, what was going on has become not only too expensive but too declassé to be expected.
They aren’t journalists. They’re pamphleteers, with the difference that they expect people to pay — either in cash, or by investing their time sitting through the Depends and Viagra ads. The original pamphleteers made no such attempt. They might ask for contributions, but they didn’t charge for their fulminations — which was good, because people aren’t disposed to pay for it. Opinion is cheap (hey, you’re getting one free, here) and there’s no reason to pay for it.
NBCBCNNYTimes could make money providing data. A news outlet that provided information would be valuable to a lot of people. Somebody, somewhere, is gonna notice that and reinvent “journalism”. It won’t be the present bunch, who are going down the tubes, and it couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.
Regards,
Ric
Come on you guys, don’t leave me hanging like this. 5-10-5? 0-14-0? 6-8-6? fertilizer.
but what the heck is 4-4-4?
#65
No. Lisa. But there were and are some real issues with your mans past dealings that the MSM seemed to think the public didn’t need to know about. That, plus the medias own admission they were warm in crotch for Obama.
Other than the fact he’s black, what is so compelling about the man that you can ignore his history?
buttons sometimes gets 4 comments in a row. It doesn’t always happen. Sometimes it’s just three and it’s sorta like the moose at front says park’s closed. He won’t try again usually. It helps if you hold your breath though.
Ah, thanks hf. so sort of like four for four then? I hadn’t noticed and should pay more attention to what is right in front of my nose. No promises though.
i will type slow so u will get the gist of my meaning
and since a success[sp] has a thousand fathers
here u go daddy
i was typing on this site on a certain thread-checking it to see if anyone had commented…
and if no one hadn’t in awhile..
i’d post another…
so by the time i got to the fourth non-response-i figured out people had gone onto a different thread
i would check Jeffs home base[remember-i’m comp/slow] and see that he had a new thread with…8-12-23-56-comments on it so i would want to rush over there…
but since i had three comments in a row
i said=fuck it- let’s go 4- 4
and i play hockey
[heres where it goes tangent]
and i was in a hurry to get to the new thread
i would post
number 4-bobby orr!
if u don’t know who bobby orr was- well-
just the greatest hockey player in history!
so 4-4-4 means to me…go to another thread
that’s my story-and i’m sticking to it!
thank you
4-4-4 is a yard engine, a little pufferbelly useful for humping boxcars and making up strings. You don’t push it on the mainline.
Regards,
Ric
and thank you. And Bobby Orr the goal scoring defenseman, who played on despite his aching knees. And Mickey Mantle too.
cliff notes
if u get three comments in a row/and no response
as a tribute to me
could u make #4 say
“number 4-bobby orr!'”
and then
skee-daddle
As a tribute if you wish, I could, but then I’d have to [kill you] find a way to get the first three, skee?
tip
try to get wicked drunk and make no sense
people will avoid you
then the # 4 is easy!
i just seen reindeers are cool poem
and i like to shoot poems outta my helicopter
let’s go to new thread!
“if u don’t know who bobby orr was- well-
just the greatest hockey player in history!”
Saw him play.
Bobby Clarke was better.Just ask Valeri Kharlamov.
I still have the program from the first Flyers-Soviet game.
Greg Mitchell needs to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up. What? That wasn’t Greg Mitchell? Well, that doesn’t really change anything.
Good essay, Ric.
It’s not that one recognizes that bias will always exist, it’s what one does with it that matters. I had this debate with a reporter at the STL Post-Dispatch. We agreed that perfect objectivity is impossible, but he took it as license to write whatever he pleased with little regard for the facts, whereas I thought it should be treated as a challenge; to asymptotically approach perfect objectivity.
Oh, and a few weeks after we had that debate, I caught him openly lying about a source within the FBI and statistics the FBI had on a topic we were discussing on his online forum.
4 is Brett Farv-ruh
Uh, Lou Gehrig, no?
Ric is a mental enema for those overstuffed lefties.
any of u fucks post a 4-4-4?
i’m the champ!
bryan trottier[ny i] was purty good
ur philly phllyers can thank us 4
reggie leach
bernie parent
someday[not tday]
i will tell u how great b. orr is
but i’m drunk
lefleur, esposito, dryden
shultz would beat your face
but what the heck is 4-4-4?
Obviously, a defense (excuse me, defence) scheme in Canadian football.
article translation: “The interwebs are doing it, why can’t we?!!? Shut up you ignorant flyover hicks, we’re educated.”
has there ever really been a journalist who has been objective? I guess that is one question to think about. But it’s true in this election for sure, the liberal illuminati have definitely gained the support of a majority of the media. i am not sure that is a good thing but it sure what a good think for Obama!
Where I come from, we call this “navel gazing.” A particular empty and vapid form of introspection, usually leading to nothing more than a trickle of drool down your chin as you pick lint from the aforementioned orifice.
The idea that the MSM will be having any sort of collective awakening, an ephiphany that, oh, hey, maybe we’ve become a tad, what’s the work, partisan? And that this will lead to any meaningful change in editorial policy or a reduction in intellectual gatekeeping?
Yeah. And Obama has my best interests at heart. Really.
#27. No, movies like Transformers don’t break the narrative; instead, they present the alternative: “Gee, if we just lived in a world with giant robots the military could be heroic; too bad that world and everything in it (including the heroic military) are just a fantasy.” Nuance!
There’s a guy named Charles Walston in Atlanta who used to write for the AJC. He was one hard bitten cynical bastard, who also played in an incredible band called the Vidalias. Just wanted to mention the Vidalia’s.
Doesn’t matter — that’s part of that realm we call the real world. Lisa, et. al. live in the world created by constantly repeating the same assertions over and over and over, until they’re reflexively believed.
Thus, Bush is a moron in consensus world.
“I agree. Never has been – never will be. Bias in the media is the rallying cry of the loser. “It is not that I lost fair and square or because everyone thinks my ideas fucking stink….it is Teh Bias!—
What a dumb comment. Bias was obvious and commented on constantly, even when Bush won, Lisa. For a serious thinker, you don’t seriously think at times.
Doesn’t matter  that’s part of that realm we call the real world. Lisa, et. al. live in the world created by constantly repeating the same assertions over and over and over, until they’re reflexively believed.
Projecting much? I know that shit works well for you, but for me? Hmmm…not so much. I need a little more empirical evidence of teh duncehood – which was generously provided by Our Glorious Leader.
What a dumb comment. Bias was obvious and commented on constantly, even when Bush won, Lisa. For a serious thinker, you don’t seriously think at times.
Yeah yeah. Because you say it is so, then it must be so. If you insist it is so then anyone who is skeptical is an idiot. You, sir are a man whose talent for persuasion is unrivaled.
RE Outlawed Media Criticism:
Michael Crichton’s video stash contains lots of chewy, outlawed goodness.
Crichton ages well, pour yourself a glass. Because it is forbidden it tastes better!
Lisa, you’ve never read Protein Wisdom before, have you? Your penchant for shallow commenting is great, though.
Is this the Obama bounce?
How many 300 point drops can the Dow take in one week?
It appears Europeans are repatriating their funds right now. Every financial counselor around the world is asking the same question: Why keep my client’s money in America’s markets if Washington DC is about to adopt Europe’s punitive tax, environmental and labor laws?
Scared yet?
Lisa will never admit that there is any sort of bias, but when shown it she will just say “well they just suck they deserved it”. Read her comments on this one thread if you do not believe me. If you can convince her there there is you probably could make a good living selling icemakers to eskimos.
I think Hillary Clinton’s line “willing suspension of disbelief” would fit aptly here.
Lisa is not a serious thinker. She’s a herd follower. She manages to be civil most of the time, but occasionally cuts loose and admits she thinks we’re all a bunch of Klansmen.
Hell it is funny people on the left can see advocacy only on Fox news, but yet do not take the 2 braincells required to ask themselves the next question “well maybe that is just because I agree with everything I hear on the other stations?” Lisa imagine living in a world where every news outlet except CNN is an exact copy of Fox news, and every newspaper you read is the WallStreet Journal. I know it sounds like a creepy Twilight Zone episode but you should try it out.
She manages to be civil most of the time, but occasionally cuts loose and admits she thinks we’re all a bunch of Klansmen.
Ah fuck Rob. Don’t you ever get tired of it? You just can’t browbeat me on your favorite topic of race. Get over it and over yourself as well. You grief about race more than Farrakahn, Sharpton, and Jackson put togeher.
Lisa will never admit that there is any sort of bias, but when shown it she will just say “well they just suck they deserved itâ€Â.
True.
Bias is an annoying, whiney topic.
Well Lisa until the government mandates special preferences for hiring Rob over you due simply to the skin color of your respective parents I think Rob should be given free rein to bitch as much as he wants.
Ah fuck Rob. Don’t you ever get tired of it? You just can’t browbeat me on your favorite topic of race. Get over it and over yourself as well. You grief about race more than Farrakahn, Sharpton, and Jackson put togeher.
I forgot to add: “, bitch.” at the end of the last sentence.
“Bias is an annoying, whiney topic.”
Lisa have you ever thought to complain about media bias? Have you ever once whined about it? Mabye that should tell you something. Whatever I can leave all the breadcrumbs on the ground I want to you still won’t find your way toward any sort of common ground.
Well, pardon the fuck out of me for noticing a pattern. I’ll try to avoid that in the future.
Another gem from the founder of Cunts for Obama!
Since in our system of government the people are sovereign they need to have the basics of a sovereign. Information about the real state of things and a means of acting on that information. This sovereignty is expressed through a separate, more diffuse, yet more powerful shadow of the US Government.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights set up the US Government and order it to be subservient to the shadow. The First Amendment is the protection for the “Spy” agency of this shadow. Elections are the “State Department” for diplomatic solutions to conflicts. The Second Amendment is the, to use the old term, “War Department” which serves as the enforcement backup to “State” and assures that diplomatic solutions can and will be made to stand.
Having the “Spy” agency deliver propaganda instead of facts is ok if they do so openly and deliver all types and sides of propaganda. Saying they are factual while delivering propaganda is not. It distorts the whole system and could lead to a breakdown.
Well Lisa until the government mandates special preferences for hiring Rob over you due simply to the skin color of your respective parents I think Rob should be given free rein to bitch as much as he wants.
Hell yes it is a free country. Bitch away. But I get to make fun of it.
It plays to her advantage — leaving her in a comfortable cocoon of never having to confront her own beliefs — so she won’t follow the trail, regardless of how attractive it is.
Cunts for Obama
That is devastatingly clever. You draw blood with your rapier wit.
So you do. And we get to point out that you’re an ignoramous while you’re doing so.
Yes you do, and I get to make fun of you for not addressing anyones arguments while playing hide the sausage with the strawman behind the DJ booth.
Actually, Lisa, I regret making that comment. It was made in haste, ill-considered, and is rude and undeserved.
You have no reason to accept my apology, but I’m offering it.
It plays to her advantage  leaving her in a comfortable cocoon of never having to confront her own beliefs  so she won’t follow the trail, regardless of how attractive it is.
That’s me, comfortable in my cocoon. I continue to be flattered by your obsessive analysis of me. Just don’t try to shoot a president or something to get my attention. That would be creepy.
I accept your apology. That was kind of you, Lord Crawford.
Rob I have found a pretty sure-fire way to figure out if I was full of shit on a given topic. If there is no possible way for me to be proven wrong, that is a pretty sure sign. Lisa is there any way you can possibly admit people have a point when “complaining” about bias? I mean wtf would you have to see to agree?
You totally threw me off of that my trolling rhythm with that one, Crawford.
Damn your eyes!!!!!
I think Lisa could see the editors and reporters of the NYTimes and CNN burn McCain effigys in Central Park and just say “what stop complaining guys”.
Well, yeah.
Prove me wrong. Try out some of the thought experiments Mr. Pink has suggested. Try not to be an ass.
Hell, let go of the caricature of President Bush that you use as a substitute for an informed opinion of him.
Bias per se doesn’t bother me. For the first time in my memory the supposedly impartial media degenerated into sheer advocacy and rank dishonesty. It is hard to tell if Lisa is being disingenuous or is simply a moron but as someone who takes some liberal bias as a fact of life that isn’t worth having a cow over I can’t believe anyone would try to rationalize their conduct in this election cycle.
Lisa is not a hairpie.
Did anyone other than the WSJ notice that Treasury has reversed itself 180° from it’s selling position on the TARP, namely that it initially proposed to buy at auction otherwise unmarketable so-called “troubled assets”? Treasury now says no plan to implement any purchase of these “bad loan” instruments (ie, MBS’s or even whole mortgage loans) will be undertaken. So $700+billon, only half of which has been made available to Treasury thus far and of which only $65B remains unspent, will now be put to other purposes, mostly cash injections to stem insolvencies, which in and of itself isn’t a bad thing necessarily, it is just that this reveals how little Treasury understood the problem it was painting from the beginning. And then sold the Congress on that hollow bill-of-goods. Not exactly the best means of engendering trust going forward.
Lisa when even the Russians say our media was biased toward one side we have a serious problem. Hey though WTF do I know I am not on your ideological side so therefore my opinion means absolutely nothing and this is just me “bitching” or “whining”.
If there is no possible way for me to be proven wrong, that is a pretty sure sign. You can’t prove something as subjective as “bias” right or wrong. I just think it is a stupid, pointless topic. Why not advocate for more independent media (rather than the pile of corporate owned dogshit we have now) rather than worrying about whether Andrea Mitchell is nice to Governor Palin or not?
Okay I will admit this: I am an elitist when it comes to this topic. I was raised to read the WSJ and the NYT every day. As a family we also read the Sacramento Bee and the Sacramento Union. THEN we decided what WE thought about a given topic. I don’t expect the full story to be spoon fed to me. Now I realize that the Sacramento Union is all gone, so there is cause to be concerned that the only paper in town is the traditionally “liberal” one – this shit is happening to local papers all over the country – one swallows the other. That sucks. I totally admit that. I don’t know what to do to reverse that.
But I still don’t give a shit about whether there are more Keither Olbermanns and Rachel Maddows than Neil Cavutos and Lou Dobbs. I. Don’t. Care. I have never felt that it was possible to get a perfectly balanced story out of television media. There is too much that goes on even in the decision to run a story or not that doesn’t make any damned sense and never will (ABC gives a story 30 seconds while CBS spends 10 minutes – who knows why they do what they do and who cares).
Mr. Pink, is your real name Mark McGrew?
(rather than the pile of corporate owned dogshit we have now)
Didn’t you just make fun of people that pointed to corporate conspiracies upthread? Gimme a second I will give you a more detailed thought but that was what first jumped out at me.
I think Lisa and her ilk are loathe to acknowledge what is exceedingly clear to us because doing so tacitly admits that they have become The Man. The Establishment. Legislative and the Executive, alphabet soup media and majority of newspapers, universities, etc. Pure conservatism in many sects is samizdat, authors like Goldberg denounced but never read simply because they are contrary to the establishment.
The real prolbem for liberals though, is, like any good lib knows, that whenever there is an Establishment, there needs to be a counter-establishment, a conservative summer of love of sorts, in essence the next Reagan-esque force in conservatism. For them to acknowledge the obvious bias is for them to give implicit support to the counterweight to it. Or something.
You’ve done it now, Lisa. Like a moose that strays into Sarah Palin’s backyard, they’re going to make elitny burgers out of ya.
Maybe it is because this so-called bias is in favor of my ideological bent that I think it is a dumb topic. However, I never much cared for the “the press are a bunch of stenographers for the Bush Whitehouse” meme either. Call me snotty, but the information was out there that the Iraq war would likely turn out to be a clusterfuck from day one. My side blames Judy Miller and the White House Stenographic Corps for biased coverage during the runup. I call bullshit on that one. People make their own decisions about things. They need to own that shit.
I am not just being contemptuous on this subject for no reason. I default to “if you were uninformed or misinformed, it is because you are a lazy, ignorant motherfucker” not “the media told me Teh Wrong Thing”.
I have admitted here on ths website that I discovered things about Palin that I would never have known by watching ANY cable news network. But, they were easily available in the print media. Maybe it is worthwhile to try to make the media as sober as a half an hour with Brian Lamb on CSPAN every morning. But I don’t see Turner or Murdoch going for that model any time soon. I see more blondes, more Stoopid, and more “talking points” masquerading as “news” in our future.
You know what, I doubt it will matter at all what I put down here. I was going to put alot of links in and actually try to “prove” something. What is the freakin point I think you will dismiss links at random if they do not come from ideologically pure sites you approve from, and also I think you will just go back to the “well they deserved their bad coverage because they were losing” line as a last defense as you did upthread. I am not a good enough salesman to sell you on what the majority of Americans agree on, that there was a O! bias this entire election cycle. My personal opinion was that it rose to the level of straight up advocacy.
Let me just ask you this, is there anything at all that would convince you that the majority of news networks in this country by an overwhelming margin were biased toward this guy? If you can pinpoint one thing that would convince you I would do my best to try to find it. I think this is a waste of time though. I honestly think you will continue to be completely disengenous and flip back and forth between “no bias to see here you are all just whining” and “well they are biased against them cause they sucked” lines at will. There is no way that I can see to prove you wrong if I look at your past comments.
You’ve done it now, Lisa. Like a moose that strays into Sarah Palin’s backyard, they’re going to make elitny burgers out of ya.
I know. They can add that to my militant whitey-hating Marxist street cred. LOL.
Love the moose metaphor.
“I have admitted here on ths website that I discovered things about Palin that I would never have known by watching ANY cable news network. But, they were easily available in the print media.”
The argument was never that there was no place to find information, the argument was that the main sources of information in this country are incredibly biased toward your ideological viewpoint. When did the argument change?
“Maybe it is because this so-called bias is in favor of my ideological bent that I think it is a dumb topic.”
I agree.
I think Lisa and her ilk are loathe to acknowledge what is exceedingly clear to us because doing so tacitly admits that they have become The Man. The Establishment. Legislative and the Executive, alphabet soup media and majority of newspapers, universities, etc. Pure conservatism in many sects is samizdat, authors like Goldberg denounced but never read simply because they are contrary to the establishment.
You are still using the sixties model liberal to argue with. That model went out of commission with the acquisition of PhDs, tudor homes, Volvos, and tenured positions. Liberals have been “the man” for a long time. Update your stereotype (include Priuses, iPones, and stock options) then get back to me, sonny.
“if you were uninformed or misinformed, it is because you are a lazy, ignorant motherfuckerâ€Â
Well yea, we would all love for the voting populace to become more informed through means other than t.v. news, although the guy who gets home from work at 5, takes his kid to practice or whatever relies on the nightly news, trusts them as sources as objectivity, has no idea who Soros is, etc think they are well informed from watching meet the press or CNN. Far from being lazy motherfuckers, they see the collective admiration of Obama and say “he must be a decent guy,” or some when wingnut starts talking about the Woods foundation or CAC, they say, well that’s just preposterous, Obama wouldn’t do that. Its like Jeff said, hiding partisanship behind the veneer of objectivity is a terribly insidious development for society.
“You are still using the sixties model liberal to argue with”
Well I’m not at all convinced the 60’s model has vanished, rather it has morphed into the current Pelosi-Reid “Bush lied people died” meme, surrender at all costs, Michael Moore equating terrorists to freedom fighters, etc. The methods of the 60’s may have died, but the intent remains the same, cf. Billy Ayers and his transformation from change through terror to change through education.
Yeah Pink I think it is a pointless argument. We might as well agree to disagree. I just can’t get it out of my head that “media bias” is just an excuse to cover one’s ass when you regret your war cheerleading, your prior support for someone who turned out to be a dunce, or to explain why you got your ass handed to you.
“Yeah Pink I think it is a pointless argument. We might as well agree to disagree. I just can’t get it out of my head that “media bias†is just an excuse to cover one’s ass when you regret your war cheerleading, your prior support for someone who turned out to be a dunce, or to explain why you got your ass handed to you.”
I’m sure there a lot of things you can’t get out of your head which are equally garbage.
Huh? So you think media bias arguments only started this election cycle? Give me a freakin break. I guess when you agree with everything you see or read unless you look at one of those truly “biased” sources such as Fix news or the WallStreet journal any opinion is possible. It is hilarious though when you write how you look at Fox news or the WSJ. You seem observe them like a scientist watching hyenas in the wild.
“I just can’t get it out of my head that “media bias†is just an excuse to cover one’s ass when you regret your war cheerleading, your prior support for someone who turned out to be a dunce, or to explain why you got your ass handed to you.â€Â
Did thor write that for you Lisa?
While I am sympathetic to the guy who works until 5 and takes his kid to practice and then relies on the TV as a primary source of information, the generations before us worked harder, longer and managed to be more informed than we are with less to choose from. I am not letting us off that easy.
Pink try telling the truth for a change. I never said I ever watch Fox News.
Not EVER.
Argument over. You don’t even read what I say. You look at my posts and see “commiecommieliberalblahblahblah”.
Thanks for that. I will know now to just ignore you. You are talking to yourself anyway.
That is a completely different argument Lisa.
Hahahha funny stuff. So instead of viewing it like a hyena in the wild you view it like a vampire views a cross. Nice.
Maybe the reference to Fox news was a little over the top but coming from most of your ideological brethren it seems to be SOP. You did mention the WSJ as a counterbalance to the NYT so I just took liberties from there. How about we put it in the same catagory as you saying I view you as a commie and go from there?
i have sympathy for the working man
and the past generations who built this country did yeomans work
but..
let’s destroy it!
yes we can!
“While I am sympathetic to the guy who works until 5 and takes his kid to practice and then relies on the TV as a primary source of information, the generations before us worked harder, longer and managed to be more informed than we are with less to choose from. I am not letting us off that easy.”
Hmmm. I thought Americans today were working harder for less money. Get your left-wing agitprop themes straight. It is also undeniably true that in the past there were far more core assumptions which most Americans, and both parties, held in common so being politically well-informed in the past scarcely amounted to what it requires of someone today.
Nope. She can’t do it. She simply cannot reconsider her cartoon view of President Bush.
What a pity to be so blinded.
I think I insulted her to the core when I suggested she may have watched Fox news. OMG Fox news never!!!11!!!!
See we can all admit that Fox news is a piece of shit enterprise that noone should ever watch, but all the other outlets on my television are perfectly fine. Even if the majority of their viewers say they are biased towards O!, screw it we are all just dumb or whiney. Ok I got it let us get back to making fun of how dumb Bush or Palin are. Yes we can.
By the way thor you watch Fox news all day. I bet you are Bill Oreilly’s number one fan.
Get your left-wing agitprop themes straight.
Ah projection.
Get your left-wing agitprop themes straight.
Ah projection.
Nope. She can’t do it. She simply cannot reconsider her cartoon view of President Bush.
Lord Crawford. Yes, I am referring to Bush, but also those people who allegedly used to support Clinton but found him to be a disappointing turd/idiot/fool/reprobate/whoreson.
Look, I understand that Bush is a human being with complex motivations for his actions. If you want me to start referring to him as human-being-with-complex-motivations-for-his-actions-and-whose-actions-I-happen-to-find-destructive-and-thoughtless then…..well don’t hold your breath. That is too much goddamned shit to type. I am sure that in the coming years, your varied, multi-faceted opinion of Obama’s actions will best be expressed by one or two colorful words. I won’t hold it against you or assume that you haven’t thought deeply about the Obama presidency. But that is just me. But I will call you a thoughtless hive-minded roachboy just to be fair and balanced, if you like.
Bullshit on that last bit.
But, hey, whatever lets you look at your face in the mirror.
Oh now the Clinton reference pops up so you can say “hey look I pointed fingers at both sides”. I agree with Rob and call bullshit.
“Get your left-wing agitprop themes straight.
Ah projection.”
That doesn’t even make any sense.
It doesn’t have to make sense. Just like her denying what we have all seen with our own eyes for the last 2 years during this election doesn’t make sense either. She will keep it up though watch, her world view prevents her conceeding a point regardless of how well proven.
I am sorry but isn’t part of arguing in good faith keeping an open mind and a willingness to be proven wrong? Maybe she missed that part. Hell I wish she could prove me wrong, the fact is she is not even trying though. She is sounding alot like thor on this thread.
Racists
Bullshit on that last bit.
Again, I am fascinated by your deep, insightful analysis of my troubled psyche. Who said conservatives aren’t touchy-feely psychoanalysts who make the political into the personal?
Hi JDizzle.
Kinda hard not to call bullshit when your arguments go round and round like something I flush down the toilet. Even when confronted with any “proof” persay you just brush it off with “well they sucked so they deserved bias” and then revert back to whatever it was you were saying before. Or you misconstrue what the entire point of this thread is by blaiming it on the people for not digesting enough sources of news, as if anyone would argue against that.
If you are offended by someone saying “thats bullshit” to you, I have to say that people probably get offended when you say their arguments are “whining” when from what I see they are not. So you would be being a hypoctrite to get offended when someone says that. IMHO Whatever though just keep mumbling about corporations owning all our media outlets and being indignant for me daring to suggest you watch Fox news.
Lord Crawford and I have been having a fascinating back and forth about media bias. I have also received a great deal of free psychoanalysis. I think we are approaching a breakthrough here. Tommorrow we will talk about taxes and my possible daddy issues.
Lisa – Please tell your fellow Dems to spend my tax dollars wisely. Kthanx.
And we all still await linky proof of the sugartits ;-)
“Who said conservatives aren’t touchy-feely psychoanalysts who make the political into the personal?”
Well, I hate to break this to you but in the voluminous research which left-wing academics have engaged in to psychoanalyze conservatives, one conclusion has been that we understand how you think a lot better than vice versa. It is pretty creepy that these efforts have been made in the spirit of figuring out how to manipulate people into buying into the causes of the left, but I can’t disagree with the conclusion that we have a better grasp on your mindsets. That’s part of why it is hilarious when someone like yourself suggests we’re projecting.
I am sorry Pink, continue your crazy rants with your imaginary liberal friend.
I am not offended at Rob calling bullshit at all. Opining that something might be bullshit when having a conversation about politics is quite common – particularly when talking to someone whith a divergent opinion. You should probably calm down and take a Xanax though.
(You should probably calm down and take a Xanax though.)
In the spirit of handing out free medical advice.
one conclusion has been that we understand how you think a lot better than vice versa
Way to pull that one out of your ass.
LOL. That’s funny.
Lisa – Please tell your fellow Dems to spend my tax dollars wisely. Kthanx.
I will. I will be sure to run the Department of Redistribution with unparallelled efficiency.
There is no media bias F it Lisa convinced me. You are all just whining cause you lost this latest election. I have never heard anyone complain about it before, wtf, oh wait I forgot people complained there was a bias against Clinton in the 90’s but never mind that he did lie under oath and commit perjury. If there is bias it is because Republicans suck and generally get bad press coverage because they deserve it.
If only people looked at more sources of information like me and Lisa. I read both the WSJ and the NYT but find NPR the most fair and informative. If people were like me bias wouldn’t be a problem. That is it is the peoples own fault if they get persuaded by bias. Wait a minute did I just admit there was bias no I did not just all outlets are biased in one way or another because people are but but but uh yeah just look at more sources yeah. There is no bias you guys are just whining cause you lost.
That is pretty much what I have read of your arguments Lisa just on this thread (cept the NPR bit). Do not get me wrong, my arguments suck too, but at least mine are intellectually consistant. Feel free to dismiss all this as psychoanalysis though.
Hand me a Zanax by the way my job sucks.
“Way to pull that one out of your ass.
LOL. That’s funny.”
I’m sure the last thing you pulled out of your ass was a strap-on, but here’s a link for you. Do a search there for submissions in the week following the Republican convention when the left was in full panic mode. I’m not going to do the work for you but it is somewhere on that site for your your pea brain to absorb.
Do a s
Damn Abe I can understand getting frustrated when people will not conceed even the slightest point and argue in bat faith(yet want you to “stop whining”), but the dildo comments are probably not the best way to proceed. IMHO
I guess that’s all we can hope for.
“bad faith” damn I suck carry let me cling to my batfaith and my guns.
Pink, I hear ya but I don’t take kindly to being told I pulled something out of MY ass. Especially not by a clown. LOL.
You are all just whining cause you lost this latest election.
Correct. All the other shit you just nattered on about is bullshit. My argument is that it doesn’t really matter if there is or if there isn’t. I don’t think that everytime the news cycle is not favorable to your ideals it is a result of media bias. I know this bias meme has been around for at least 3 decades too so it is not new. I am not sure there ever was an objective media or when someone figured out that complaining about the media would be a political winner for the Disgruntled Masses.
All of the other issues I have discussed are factors that led me to this irritating, snotty, and dismissive opinion. But I accept your charge that I am intellectually inconsistent. I will drunkenly mull that over tonight at the pub. I am a woman of great introspection and intense, navel-gazing self-regard.
i listened to npr once in my car-but the slow mono-tones put me to sleep and i had
“crack -up”
I’m sure the last thing you pulled out of your ass was a strap-on, but here’s a link for you. Do a search there for submissions in the week following the Republican convention when the left was in full panic mode. I’m not going to do the work for you but it is somewhere on that site for your your pea brain to absorb.
I like this place because people argue voiciferously, mockery and snark are rampant, and rhetorical spankings are par for the course. But that is just lame, buddy – totally not up to PW standards.
By the way Lisa if I was going to have a full on argument with my imaginary liberal friends I would be telling you that you’re a chickenhawk for not rushing over to your nearest recruiting station and signing up to go fight the good wars now that they are fought by good people. So go sign up now that killing brown people is in the name of FREEDOM!!!!111!!!!. You know, For Teh Children and Onward Marxist Soldiers and all that nonsense.
There nothing supporting your assertion that there is one conclusion has been that we understand how you think a lot better than vice versa. I looked.
The scientific term for that would be “Traho is ex vestri ass.”
No, let me correct you Pink. I am a chickenhawk for not throwing myself in front of an Israeli bulldozer or going to Fallujah to help build mosques for the Sunnis or something. Get it straight, sucker.
That Isreali bulldozer will be of no use against O!’s brownshirt civilian task force Lisa. Too bad they will not be able to fight our wars for us and it will be left to people like me. Lisa wanna see something funny in the coming months? Watch our soldiers go from baby killing, air-raiding, Abu Gharib torturing, spreading democracy at the point of a gun monsters in the matter of seconds. Trust me it will happen, Change!!11!!
Lisa said take a Xanax. They’re not breath mints you Pinko idiot. Someone’s gonna have their stomach pumped just like Rod Stewart did. Didn’t ya Momma ever tell you sperm and pills don’t mix?
I think that the balance would force the papers to agree at least on the facts. The rest they can do with as they please, provided we are getting the necessary raw material to make informed decisions.
It’s a form or market correction, I guess.
Sorry if that was said somewhere upthread, by the way. I haven’t had a chance to read through much of this one, given that I was off being labeled an asshole poser without scruples whose goal in life is to damage the reputations of the GOOD!
That Isreali bulldozer will be of no use against O!’s brownshirt civilian task force Lisa. Too bad they will not be able to fight our wars for us and it will be left to people like me. Lisa wanna see something funny in the coming months? Watch our soldiers go from baby killing, air-raiding, Abu Gharib torturing, spreading democracy at the point of a gun monsters in the matter of seconds. Trust me it will happen, Change!!11!!
Awesome. That is Change I Can Believe In.
The reason for pretending that media bias is not a problem, and that those pointing at it are whining buffoons, is easy to discern.
If the Prog movement hopes to continue to tweak the “news” in order to spook flocks of voters into its camp, it is essential that its media organs retain their authority to craft said “news.” And since this crafting authority is borne from rote repeated assertion of its primacy in the first place – and not from real contested merit, its defense (as revealed in Lisa’s logarrhaea) similarly rests on repeated denial that any bias exists. As it must.
If you consider that the “news” medium has become a trendy urban, televized sketch, you will understand just thin the ice is under our obfuscant’s feet.
‘Hic!’ And that’s a darn fine Chardonnay.
My definite articles are the first to go.
#141
I am not just being contemptuous on this subject for no reason. I default to “if you were uninformed or misinformed, it is because you are a lazy, ignorant motherfucker†not “the media told me Teh Wrong Thingâ€Â.
From this I can conclude that you approve of BHO, knowing his background and associates?It would then follow that there would be no media bias either in favor of BHO or diminishing McCain.
Forgive me,but I’m just trying to jibe your decision with your obvious intelligence.
Again. What about BHO is so compelling other than his skin color?
It was not so much “him” that was compelling as his unapologetic articulation of liberalism as a force for good. I am a lifelong liberal Democrat and I have often been sad to see candidates apologize for our party platform while campaigning for office – trying hard to sound as much like a Republican as possible while running as the Democratic opposition. No, he doesn’t have the experience Hillary has, but Hillary ran on “not being a Democratic Democrat” which was more of the same mealy mouthed, obsequious bullshit that we have been trotting out trying to capture Joe SixPack (and failing miserably). Obama managed to get Joe SixPack to at least listen for a minute to the real Democratic priorities and consider him without pretending to be Grover Norquist.
And promptly had his minions squash Joe Six Pack for asking a tough question…what? Oh, Joe the Plumber. Whatev.
Major John: Not to morally equivocate (okay yes, to morally equivocate) we have this atmosphere of deep suspicion of any regular person who might be outspoken in opposition or defense of something. They are immediately tagged as an “operative” and a “plant” or a “stunt” and descended upon. Poor Joe is not the first to be “investigated” by bloggers (then the media, if the “investigation” is juicy or yields humiliating or salacious fruits) for having an opinion. I remember more than one outspoken critic of the Iraq war – and even some kid that was used as an example for a disputed healthcare scheme for children – being clobbered and piled on very nastily. No excuse for Joe, but no new ground was broken when he got knocked around. He has plenty of company, sadly.
Poor Joe is not the first to be “investigated†by bloggers (then the media…
And by the Government?
OK. Thanks Lisa. You ignored all the bad shit and voted for him because he was a liberal democrat. Fair enough. You know though that he’s already doing some major backpedaling on issues.
Rham Emmanual is not your friend.
Yeah I see Rusty. I expected a little “moderation” in tone. It is pretty standard, post election. Still, if you start from the default of liberal Democrat, you are doing better than the person who starts from the default position of Democrat-trying-really-hard-to-pass-him/herself-off-as-a-Republican.
I just didn’t view “all the bad shit” as bad shit. His pastor was a problem, but not a dealbreaker. And the whole Ayers thing: I took him at his word. All that pained, dot-connecting that the good people of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists were doing was bullshit. Same old “Clinton-was-in-Oslo/Kerry-was-in-Hanoi-giving-aid-and-comfort-to-the-enemy bullshit. So, in my opinion, he has some negatives, but not enough to be classified as me “ignoring all the bad shit”. Yeah, I ignored the spittlefrothed paranoia, if that is what you mean. It was bullshit. Still is.
Yer a class act kiddo, but I think, before this is over, he’s gonna break your heart.
Lisa, what is so liberal about mandatory civil service, political correctness, and confiscatory tax policies?
I think the “L” word is being grossly misused these days. I can’t say as I blame you, though. Professional pundits and journalists have modeled the word’s misuse for us so regularly, that its no surprise that even smarties like us don’t know its meaning anymore.
Rusty, my ex-boyfriend tells me the same thing. On election night he text messaged me “Oh you’re all fluttery now, but it will all end in tears.”
LOL. I consider myself forwarned by at least two good men.
I’ll be in my bunk.