Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on May 27, 2009 By Draginol In Politics

A very interesting video on media bias.

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_/The_Cost_of_Media_Bias/1736/6337/


Comments (Page 2)
on May 29, 2009

Inverse8


> There is a reason why FOX continues to dominate.
Isn't there something bizarre about conservatives' complaints that the News media is giving democrats a 15-point lead in the polls, but then those same conservatives love to turn around and laud the fact that FOX news has so many viewers?  Sorry, but if the conservative-biased FOX news is so popular, then you can't seriously claim that the liberal-news has that much control over votes.  You're essentially arguing that FOX dominates viewer ratings, but the minority news media STILL manages to have not only more power over people's opinions, but can pull-out a 15-point lead because they are so much more powerful than FOX.  Yeah, right.
The modus operandi of the right-wing media is to find and exaggerate stories of their own victimization.  It's a great way to stir-up anger, make people emotional and irrational.  It all plays into their control of the people.  We don't buy your stories of false persecution.

Now to this thought process. It is possible for Fox to dominate in a certain age bracket or to dominate in general but not to control the whole pie. For the pieces my be smaller but when they come together they can be larger than the piece of pie Fox has.

This happens in business all the time.  That's why you see number 2 rated companies merging with number 3 or 3s merging with 4/5 whatever (examples sprint/nextel or at&t/singular).  The reason is because they want to control more of the pie.

Since there are more liberal leaning TV media outlets than conservative their message does have the potential of being and heard and possible viewed as being unbiased since they're all saying the same thing it must be true!

One final note, all governments have some variering control over the media.  That same goes in the States.  The government/military obviously at times feel that we do not need to know certain information.

Similarly to what Leauki does I like do as well which is to go to the source.  Example, instead of relying on the media coverage of the Iraq war I have talked to a lot of military personal, a slew of people that live over there on a range of typics from how's it going over there to WMD.

Another example is the Detroit situation.  Detroit has always had high unemployment but when you talk to them you soon find out that the same dunderheads that are in their government are the same dunderheads that have a large affiliation with auto industry.  Now, you could argue that this is their largest employer ect ect but you should not allow it to monopolize you whole goverment.

 

on May 29, 2009

The modus operandi of the right-wing media is to find and exaggerate stories of their own victimization. It's a great way to stir-up anger, make people emotional and irrational. It all plays into their control of the people. We don't buy your stories of false persecuti

Sir your kool-aid stock must be through the roof. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I just have to turn on MSNBC to hear it...that saves you some typing.

As for Palin, if you consider she has had more experience in government than Obama (with two of his 4 years in the Senate on the campaign trail) your point is hollow. Don't worry, you're in good company. The left only likes women and minorities if they are liberal. Strong, self-reliant types from either group scare the left, unless they entertain, like the current president. He'll do his part to keep the poor on entitlement programs....throw them a few peanuts to keep the votes coming.

You've shown nothing in your posts besides the liberal talking points, that would support your claims. I realize the amount of man-love for Obama out there, and great if that's what it takes to fill your sensibilities. I had a lot of problems with Bush, and Clinton before him, but at least they spread the items I had issue with out over 8 years apiece. Obama must be trying to squash his ignorance and lack of experience into his first few months.

I highly recommend DU if you're looking for views similar to your own. You'll have to step up your game here as other liberal JU members have, and there are some spirited liberals here. - Cheers

on May 29, 2009

"Journalists are better informed. That's why most of them vote for the Democrats."

Liberals will agree.

"Journalists are biased. They favour the Democrats."

Liberals will disagree.

Nut, meet Shell.

However, "Journalists believe they are better informed" might be more accurate.

on May 29, 2009

However, "Journalists believe they are better informed" might be more accurate.However, "Journalists believe they are better informed" might be more accurate.

The two statements were not supposed to be accurate but example statements with which liberals might agree or disagree.

 

on May 29, 2009

The two statements were not supposed to be accurate but example statements with which liberals might agree or disagree.

'Twas understood.  Just tweakin' noses (not yours).  I think they'd agree with my version, too, though.

on May 29, 2009

'Twas understood.  Just tweakin' noses (not yours).  I think they'd agree with my version, too, though.

Yes, but your version does not show the complete and utter appearance of complete opposites that the two statements that really describe the same situation can have.

 

on May 29, 2009

Semantics guys... the majority of the MSM sucks. If I want an opinion, I'll tune into an opinion show, but when I want news, I just want the facts, I can formulate my own opinion based on that. Too many networks want to do that "small favor" for me.

on May 29, 2009

Well Nitro most of the MSM think the average person is a neonate.  Since us ninnyhammers are unable to analytically think they serve us a nice ultra fatty steak leaving us wondering 'WHERE'S THE BEEF!'

This problem goes back to education. Most schools (elementary, middle, high school, and even Universities) in this country (the United States) don't teach people how to think on their own (also known as the socratic method). People get forced feed the answer or how to do something.

I actually found grad school semi challenging because it wasn't always about regurgitating back the information.  I also spent some time at university overseas that had the socratic method.

If I could do it overagain, I would have gone to an University in another country (probably one that didn't speak English for an even greater challenge).  Daiwa, is it you who is looking at Universities? Well take look at Universities overseas.

The experience alone would be great.

on May 29, 2009

Critical thinking is not easily "taught."  It has to be demonstrated through repeated examples and gradually understood.  You don't learn it in a one-semester course titled "How to Think Critically" - it's acquired in the course of a lot of seemingly unrelated work and must be nurtured by others with the ability.  It used to be a highly valuable skill.

on May 29, 2009

Neither show is a news program. Both consistently have opposing views. The fact that you mention 'Hanity and Colmes" tells me you haven't watched it for at least four months (Colmes left for his own radio show, but is a regular guest on O'Reily). Neither has had, to my knowledge, a tingle up their leg about any candidate, as some host on other news channel programs have.

O'Reily is currently criticizing Arnold the governator (a Republican), and disagreeing with Laura Ingram, a right wing radio host. Most of the haters never watch the shows, only repeat their parties talking points.

I don't have a problem with liberal shows, just don't deny the bias, is that too much to ask? I know the two mentioned are conservatives, but they have liberals and independents on all the time. Two liberals, stroking each other, like Garafalo and Oberman doesn't even pretend to be inclusive.

 

Regardless, they considered themselves journalist and they still are not balanced. Sorry, but if you're biased, you're biased. If I am going to watch a commentator - i expect them to lay everything on the table, and not lie about shit or get their facts "accidently" wrong. Good for O'Reilly, but it doesn't cover up the fact that he shouts down people who disagree and is ambiguous with his facts.

Commentate...yes, I get that, but commentate with intelligence, you know?

 

Btw, I actually have watched it since then; I said H/C to emphasize my point.

on May 29, 2009

Critical thinking is not easily "taught." It has to be demonstrated through repeated examples and gradually understood. You don't learn it in a one-semester course titled "How to Think Critically" - it's acquired in the course of a lot of seemingly unrelated work and must be nurtured by others with the ability. It used to be a highly valuable skill.

Speaking of the media...

on May 29, 2009

two wrongs don't make a right... "you have no right to complain because "your side" has biased news reporters too" is a bullshit argument. Besides, as the good guys doing the tea party explained to the CNN reporter (off the air), its not so much a republican vs democrat issue as both are extremely corrupt right now.

on May 29, 2009

Regardless, they considered themselves journalist

Not true, I've often heard O'Reily state that he is a commentator, and his show is not a news program. Journalists research and find out the facts for a story. Commentators talk about events as they are reported. They may have been journalist at one time, but I don't see them passing themselves off as that on their shows.

Funny I never hear anyone mention the actual news programs like Special Report w/ Bret Baier(first half, second half has commentary) and the Fox Report w/ Sheppard Smith.

on May 30, 2009

Critical thinking is not easily "taught."  It has to be demonstrated through repeated examples and gradually understood.  You don't learn it in a one-semester course titled "How to Think Critically" - it's acquired in the course of a lot of seemingly unrelated work and must be nurtured by others with the ability.  It used to be a highly valuable skill.

Yes this is true. In the past 20 years education has been 'revolutionizing'.  For example, its no longer just audiotory learning. A lot of educator are using hands on (its not just science experiments) and visual aids.

Most things need to be demonstrated and most people need this. Yet by early middle school to late elementary children start forming there own ideas.  They start thinking for themselves.  In Middle School and High School its mostly force feeding learning (at least I was. Actually in elementary (I went to a poopy innercity) I wasn't taught phonics. A side story: One of my degrees is in elementary education.  That's when I learned my phonics. Yes, I knew some but noy fully.  When I saw the schwa sound I was like 'WHAT? WHAT IS THAT' I immediately thought of 'Scwiiiiiiiiing!'

It does have to be demonstrated to an extent but most kids don't need their hands held onto tightly.

AldericJourdain



Commentate...yes, I get that, but commentate with intelligence, you know?

 

Intelligence is not a concrete thing (unless you're talking about IQ then it is kind of concrete) as its relative.  What a persons says can be seen as very intelligent to one person and another person can take what said as the person speaking as a foolish mortal.  An example is the President, some people think of him as a wise intelligent constitutional guy (especially when he has his telepompter) while other's think that he's just some lepton. 

Now if you're talking about IQ.  I think O'Reily (I don't watch him that often so can't say for sure) has a high IQ.  He did go to Harvard (I don't think he was rich and he's white, so he had to use his brains).  I will say this about O'Reily sometimes he says stuff that I'm like 'man, did he just say that?' but from the few times I've watched him his DISCUSSION are fairly logical.

Nitro, I was just stating that he was a reporter/journalist in his past.  I wasn't saying that he is reporting the news now.  His show is a commentary.  I like Sheppard Smith.  He is very articulate and seems smart.


Well I shouldn't be typing this nor should I be on the computer considering what day this.

on May 30, 2009

Ugh. That video made me sick... The CNN reporter's attitude regarding the peoples on the street really was... as far away as you could have a real reporter. Seriously, what's the deal?

Now, I understand that one reporter's complete bias for the issue will angry a lot of people (rightly so). And also, I understand the waryness of conservatives when they learn that the majority of journalist depict themselves as liberal. But I think it's underestimating the professionalism of these journalists. I am sure that the ones having a lapse are far from being a major part of the journalistic community.

I think that there had been a problem with Obama's representation in the medias, but I doubt it was because of the political opinions of the reporters. The problem probably stemmed from Report Inertia. The more people want to hear about some news, the more news there is about it. Obama happened to be very charismatic and very good-looking on camera, and media go where the money is. The same thing happened to Sarah Palin when she surged into the field, and until people started to deriding her (she really screwed up those interviews), she actually offered a proper contest of image to Obama, something the papers could sell, and the Republican started coming up in polls.

I think the Report Inertia is a big problem in the United States. Your media as a whole are so biaised regarding the USA vs RestOfTheWorld. Sadly, it's a problem that feeds itself.