Stupid pro-Obama media never gives McCain a break.

[il Padrino Ute]

The instance I cited with McCain is one of countless instances where the media hasn't fully covered a story that would be harmful to McCain.

Links? You said it. Now prove it.

There are also countless instances of where they have done the same with Obama. If you think it is all one-sided, other than the single instance noted above, you are listening to too much Sean Hannity and seeing only what you want to see.

I don't waste my time listening to an political talk radio. It bores me. I just know what I read in various papers online from around the country.

And I'm seeing only what I want to see? This from the board Obama sycophant? LOL!

[UtahDan]

I think that the media consuming public is more savvy that perhaps they are getting credit for here. I think that the average person understands that people who work in the media, individually and collectively, by and large would like to see Obama in the White House. But this was also true of Al Gore and particularly John Kerry. Neither of them got to be President.

In other words, I think that people know the appropriate amount of salt with which to consume media products. If Obama becomes President, it is not going to be because NBC and the New York Times are in his pocket.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

A single left-wing blogger "Too Hardcore for The American Prospect" disputes the findings. Big deal.

What sociological study doesn't have detractors, eh? Now that would be news.

Attacking the source. See what I said about how you find a way to work a logical fallacy into each post?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You're citing public opinion to "prove" that the media is more biased for Obama? Do you go out of your way to use logical fallacies in your posts?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Attacking the source. See what I said about how you find a way to work a logical fallacy into each post?

The problem is your persistent reading comprehension problem, not my supposed logical fallacies. I didn't attack the source. I didn't say the guy was wrong or misinformed, lying or uneducated, or any of the other cute tricks you pull.

In this equation, bias is in the eye of the beholder. Conclusively "proving" media bias is difficult, if not impossible. Instead, we speak in terms of opinion and perception. The UCLA study used metrics it thought reliable to measure bias (metrics which your blogger disputes). Rasmussen polls indicated people by large margins believe the media is out to elect Obama, figures (I guess) you dispute. Bernie Goldberg wrote a controversial book on this, filled with anecdote and study, which some folks disputed.

None of this is "proof." It's educated guessing. Until each reporter, producer, and editor actually comes forth and says "I'm biased for Obama," we're simply arguing perception. And the perception is, your insignificant little Huffington Post piece aside, the media is in the tank for your "personal Jesus."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The problem is your persistent reading comprehension problem, not my supposed logical fallacies. I didn't attack the source. I didn't say the guy was wrong or misinformed, lying or uneducated, or any of the other cute tricks you pull.

In this equation, bias is in the eye of the beholder. Conclusively "proving" media bias is difficult, if not impossible. Instead, we speak in terms of opinion and perception. The UCLA study used metrics it thought reliable to measure bias (metrics which your blogger disputes). Rasmussen polls indicated people by large margins believe the media is out to elect Obama, figures (I guess) you dispute. Bernie Goldberg wrote a controversial book on this, filled with anecdote and study, which some folks disputed.

None of this is "proof." It's educated guessing. Until each reporter, producer, and editor actually comes forth and says "I'm biased for Obama," we're simply arguing perception. And the perception is, your insignificant little Huffington Post piece aside, the media is in the tank for your "personal Jesus."

Well that was a waste of time. You said the link was written by a "single left-wing blogger," which is your way of diminishing the importance of his figures. His post isn't an "editorial," it is a scientific explanation for why the study you cited may be flawed and inaccurate. I doubt you bothered to read any of it, and I doubt you know anything about the poster (other than your assumption that he is a "left wing blogger"). In other words, you attacked the source. If the man had simply said, "I think this is wrong," and left it at that, you could attack his credentials because there wouldn't have been much else to focus on. He provided plenty of arguments and you didn't read them or comment on them. Logical fallacy #1.

You then noted that most people think the media is biased. Does that show that the media is biased? You certainly presented it as if it should help us conclude that the media is biased. This is an appeal to popularity, which is logical fallacy #2 for Tex in one thread. The media may be biased. If they are, I would think you could come up with something better than 2 logical fallacies to show it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Well that was a waste of time. You said the link was written by a "single left-wing blogger," which is your way of diminishing the importance of his figures. His post isn't an "editorial," it is a scientific explanation for why the study you cited may be flawed and inaccurate. I doubt you bothered to read any of it, and I doubt you know anything about the poster (other than your assumption that he is a "left wing blogger"). In other words, you attacked the source. If the man had simply said, "I think this is wrong," and left it at that, you could attack his credentials because there wouldn't have been much else to focus on. He provided plenty of arguments and you didn't read them or comment on them. Logical fallacy #1.

Bah, this is nonsense. His blog entry is as much opinion as it is "science," or do you think he "proved" that the Heritage Foundation is a "prototypical faux-technocratic think tank" that "aped the tropes of the center-left establishment (such as fellows and closed memberships) while discarding their commitment to technocratic scholarship."

Give me a freakin' break. He's welcome to his opinion, but that all that it is. The UCLA guys even disputed his complaints (which he then responded to again). Welcome to the social sciences, Cali.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You then noted that most people think the media is biased. Does that show that the media is biased? You certainly presented it as if it should help us conclude that the media is biased. This is an appeal to popularity, which is logical fallacy #2 for Tex in one thread. The media may be biased. If they are, I would think you could come up with something better than 2 logical fallacies to show it.

As I said, it's in the eye of the beholder. There's no conclusive answer or "proof" because everyone looks at it a little differently. Thus public opinion polls are instructive in gauging perception.

If there's a logical fallacy at work here, it's your silly "Prove It!" red herring.

[Tex]

Here's a breakdown of media campaign donations. Don't believe polls, then follow the money ...



That's 10-1, for those who are counting.

An Investor's Business Daily report via Powerline.

[MikeWaters]

MSNBC is in the can for the Republicans.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Here's a breakdown of media campaign donations. Don't believe polls, then follow the money ...



That's 10-1, for those who are counting.

An Investor's Business Daily report via Powerline.

This is a much better attempt than the garbage you have posted so far. It doesn't show any sort of correlation between donations and personal belief or between personal belief and journalistic bias, though. They could be donating, as many corporations do, to the party that is most likely to win. It doesn't necessarily mean anything about their personal beliefs. Even if they do hold personally liberal viewpoints, that also doesn't mean their journalism is per se slanted towards liberal thought, either.

Nonetheless, at least it is a step forward for you. Bravo. 11 more steps and we may be somewhere in this discussion.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Bah, this is nonsense. His blog entry is as much opinion as it is "science," or do you think he "proved" that the Heritage Foundation is a "prototypical faux-technocratic think tank" that "aped the tropes of the center-left establishment (such as fellows and closed memberships) while discarding their commitment to technocratic scholarship."

Give me a freakin' break. He's welcome to his opinion, but that all that it is. The UCLA guys even disputed his complaints (which he then responded to again). Welcome to the social sciences, Cali.



As I said, it's in the eye of the beholder. There's no conclusive answer or "proof" because everyone looks at it a little differently. Thus public opinion polls are instructive in gauging perception.

If there's a logical fallacy at work here, it's your silly "Prove It!" red herring.

Of course the guy interjects his opinion. The point isn't that his post is bereft of opinion, it is that it is also full of substance that can be measured and tested. You want to throw it all out because he is a "single left wing blogger" which is the exact definition of a fallacious argument.

I will bookmark your post where you suggested that saying "prove it" is a logical fallacy. I honestly laughed out loud when I saw that. For those keeping score at home, logic and analogies are not Tex's strong points.