[Zipperfish]

Voyager wrote:

Ish wrote:

[...]
It seems pointless to debate whether the media is, on balance, bias toward the left or the right. People will tune in to different news outlets depending on their own ideological predispositions. Even if there is a wide-spread liberal media bias, as you charge, do you think that it could distort people's fundamental political beliefs?
[...]

It prevents people from effectively questioning those fundamental beliefs. When all sources of incomming data are corrupt, then one has little choice but to rely upon one's own biases and preconceptions.

How can we be post-partisan when we can't believe anything anyone says?

Well, in response, I'll tell the joke about the statistician who goes hunting one day. He sees a big moose. He shoots and hits a tree five feet to the right of the moose. He shoots again and hits a tree five feet to the left of the moose. Then he raises his arms and yells out "Got 'im."

[hwacker]

Zipperfish wrote:

JPK wrote:

Fox news has had the closest to "Fair and Balanced" coverage of the run.

Have you ever consdiered that it's perhaps your own bias that makes you see Fox News as neutral?

No there are media groups that make that claim and

Have you ever considered that it's perhaps your own bias that makes you go to left leaning web sites that make shit up and post blatant lies.

[roger-roger]

From what I have seen Fox is anything but close to center.

[Scape]

Dole is goin down in flames...

[roger-roger]

Both of them are idiots.

[Voyager]

Zipperfish wrote:

Voyager wrote:

Ish wrote:

[...]
It seems pointless to debate whether the media is, on balance, bias toward the left or the right. People will tune in to different news outlets depending on their own ideological predispositions. Even if there is a wide-spread liberal media bias, as you charge, do you think that it could distort people's fundamental political beliefs?
[...]

It prevents people from effectively questioning those fundamental beliefs. When all sources of incomming data are corrupt, then one has little choice but to rely upon one's own biases and preconceptions.

How can we be post-partisan when we can't believe anything anyone says?

Well, in response, I'll tell the joke about the statistician who goes hunting one day. He sees a big moose. He shoots and hits a tree five feet to the right of the moose. He shoots again and hits a tree five feet to the left of the moose. Then he raises his arms and yells out "Got 'im."

And if the second shot was the tree ten feet to the left, would he have still "gotten" him? Guassian's are only the results of accidents; intent produces a bulk shift, and even if the errors all add up into a normal, if the floor floods the data, you still get nothing but noise.

[Zipperfish]

hwacker wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

JPK wrote:

Fox news has had the closest to "Fair and Balanced" coverage of the run.

Have you ever consdiered that it's perhaps your own bias that makes you see Fox News as neutral?

No there are media groups that make that claim and

Have you ever considered that it's perhaps your own bias that makes you go to left leaning web sites that make shit up and post blatant lies.

Oh "there are groups that make that claim." Well, it must be true then. You're a lightweight.

[Scape]

Eisensapper wrote:

Both of them are idiots.

Yeah, bad and flaming dumpster bad. All over atheists when they could have really stood up and made something out of this that the people would have gravitated toward instead of recycling the same inane, trite talking points that make Ann Coulter look well read.

[Psudo]

Everyone sees the center as the mathematical average of all the positions they've seen. The problem is no one sees anything close to all of the opinions in the country. Thus, everyone's idea of 'the center' is hardly more than an arbitrary guess.

It seems to me that the nation is divided about into thirds: About a third of the country thinks Fox News is neutral and balanced; About a third thinks the other TV networks are neutral and balanced; and the remaining third thinks everyone's a bunch of liars and looking for "fair and balanced" is an exercise in irritation and failure.

I belong to the latter third. Look for "well-researched" instead of "unbaised". Since it's relative, it's achievable.

[bootlegga]

Scape wrote:

[Scape]

KO Donates $100 for Every Palin Lie



Pat Roberton Law School Staffs 150 Bush White House Staff



Fox on Obama



I know these have an air of comedy to them but they raise very serious and salient points. All of them are very much independently verifiable and and blatant examples of what is wrong with the political process and the MSM when both are give a free pass.

[Voyager]

For the hell of it, I have now recieved adds both for, and against California's Proposition 8, both of which claim the support of Barack Obama. How exactly can one be both for and against the same prop. I mean, what is this; Schrodinger's Ballot Initiative?

[xerxes]

Voyager wrote:

Ish wrote:

[...]
It seems pointless to debate whether the media is, on balance, bias toward the left or the right. People will tune in to different news outlets depending on their own ideological predispositions. Even if there is a wide-spread liberal media bias, as you charge, do you think that it could distort people's fundamental political beliefs?
[...]

It prevents people from effectively questioning those fundamental beliefs. When all sources of incomming data are corrupt, then one has little choice but to rely upon one's own biases and preconceptions.

How can we be post-partisan when we can't believe anything anyone says?

We can't. IMO, what we should strive for is being perceptive enough to recognize media bias when we see it and to be aware of our own biases as well.