Fair and balanced? Um ... no

[Riot]

I love giving you a taste of your own medicine.

But you didn't. You made up a moronically stupid straw man, simply ignoring the two times I clarified my meaning to be the opposite of what you say.

Epic fail.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

But you didn't. You made up a moronically stupid straw man, simply ignoring the two times I clarified my meaning to be the opposite of what you say.

Epic fail.

What do you mean? That is exactly what you did. You claimed that I think Bin-Laden represents "all" Muslims when I have said just the opposite.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What do you mean? That is exactly what you did. You claimed that I think Bin-Laden represents "all" Muslims when I have said just the opposite.

Nope. Fail again. Nice try at changing the subject, though.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Epic fail.

^^^

going to be the title of your autobiography

[ArlJim78]

the Murdoch contribution was very public, but lets not forget that up and down the line, ALL of the other media companies donate full tilt to the Democrats. generally its in the form of personal contributions but nonetheless if you add it all up its a large number.

In addition, if you were to estimate the value of the on-air in-kind support that the MSM offers for the progressive agenda, you'd find a staggering number. If you had to pay for the ridiculous ass kissing that goes on every day it would be a pretty penny.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

the Murdoch contribution was very public, but lets not forget that up and down the line, ALL of the other media companies donate full tilt to the Democrats. generally its in the form of personal contributions but nonetheless if you add it all up its a large number.

In addition, if you were to estimate the value of the on-air in-kind support that the MSM offers for the progressive agenda, you'd find a staggering number. If you had to pay for the ridiculous ass kissing that goes on every day it would be a pretty penny.

Yes, that is exactly right. Approximately 90% of the mainstream media idenitifies themselves as liberal democrats. But I guess that doesn't make any difference. I guess the the 90% of journalists that are liberal stay totally objective and don't allow their bias to affect their reporting. But the 10% of journalists that are republicans are not objective at all. They are totally biased and they let their bias affect their reporting.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, that is exactly right. Approximately 90% of the mainstream media idenitifies themselves as liberal democrats. But I guess that doesn't make any difference. I guess the the 90% of journalists that are liberal stay totally objective and don't allow their bias to affect their reporting. But the 10% of journalists that are republicans are not objective at all. They are totally biased and they let their bias affect their reporting.

90% of Riots brain is biased and not objective.

the other 10% just doesnt work at all.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

90% of Riots brain is biased and not objective.

the other 10% just doesnt work at all.

If only what you said mattered

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, that is exactly right. Approximately 90% of the mainstream media idenitifies themselves as liberal democrats. But I guess that doesn't make any difference. I guess the the 90% of journalists that are liberal stay totally objective and don't allow their bias to affect their reporting. But the 10% of journalists that are republicans are not objective at all. They are totally biased and they let their bias affect their reporting.

Why don't you pull some historical figures from one of the watchdog websites?
You know, show us all how true that is.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Why don't you pull some historical figures from one of the watchdog websites?
You know, show us all how true that is.

Here you go:

An academic study cited frequently showing a liberal media bias in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.

The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

And here is a snippet from one of the best studies ever done on media bias. It was done by UCLA: It was an absolutely exhaustive review (where objective measures were used) of whether a liberal bias exists in the media. Here is a snippet of what they found: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample."

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f...dia.Bias.8.htm

[clyde]

Puptent!!






Shut up!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here you go:

An academic study cited frequently showing a liberal media bias in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.

The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

And here is a snippet from one of the best studies ever done on media bias. It was done by UCLA: It was an absolutely exhaustive review (where objective measures were used) of whether a liberal bias exists in the media. Here is a snippet of what they found: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample."

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f...dia.Bias.8.htm

all that work rupe, and no gold trophy in return. you must be disappointed.

[Riot]

I like the UCLA study, but comparing "left" and "right" to "the average member of Congress" as the benchmark definition?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

the Murdoch contribution was very public, but lets not forget that up and down the line, ALL of the other media companies donate full tilt to the Democrats. generally its in the form of personal contributions but nonetheless if you add it all up its a large number.

Can you show us that large number? As all corporate contributions are public and readily available on the internet, where other news organizations have donated only to the Democrats?

We are not talking about "personal" donations, we are talking about news corporations donating. Not private people. Private donations do not count. Private citizens may donate to whomever they wish within election law. Who cares?

And for extra impact, are any other of those news orgs major owners Saudi Muslims, as News Corp is?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Can you show us that large number? As all corporate contributions are public and readily available on the internet, where other news organizations have donated only to the Democrats?

We are not talking about "personal" donations, we are talking about news corporations donating. Not private people. Private donations do not count. Private citizens may donate to whomever they wish within election law. Who cares?

And for extra impact, are any other of those news orgs major owners Saudi Muslims, as News Corp is?

i thought companies could also donate to whomever they wished?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i thought companies could also donate to whomever they wished?

Sure. Nobody said it was illegal. Do you think it's ethical for a news organization to donate to political parties? How about the Associated Press - is it okay for that company to donate to a political party?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sure. Nobody said it was illegal. Do you think it's ethical for a news organization to donate to political parties? How about the Associated Press - is it okay for that company to donate to a political party?

i don't see what ethics has to do with it. it might show a conflict of interest-but everyone knows rupert murdoch is a conservative, so i don't see why his giving money would be an issue or a surprise. if his shareholders and board members, assuming they exist, don't care, why should anyone else? i'd imagine a lot of corporations will choose to do this. after all, why use your own personal fortune if you can write it off on the biz's books?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sure. Nobody said it was illegal. Do you think it's ethical for a news organization to donate to political parties? How about the Associated Press - is it okay for that company to donate to a political party?

News Corp.’s million-dollar donation to the Republican Governors Association in June may have received a wave of press and critics yelling, “Told ya so.” But the company, owned by conservative Rupert Murdoch, has not been the only corporate conglomerate featuring prominent television media organizations to have donated big money to politics.


The parent companies of six major media outlets have all donated anywhere from five to seven figures to political organizations during the 2010 election cycle alone, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.


The corporations include:
•News Corp. (Fox News Channel, FX, FUEL TV, others)
•General Electric (NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Telemundo, USA, Bravo, others)
•National Amusements (CBS Corp. and Viacom)
•Comcast Corp. (G4, E!, others)
•Time Warner (CNN, TBS, Cinemax, TNT, Warner Bros./CW, others)
•Walt Disney Co. (ABC, ESPN, others)


These organizations have -- either through corporate treasuries, sponsored political action committees or both -- donated almost $7 million to political action committees and so-called “527 committees” during 2009 and 2010 and nearly $38 million since the 1990 election cycle.


These figures do not reflect additional money donated by individuals who work for the companies.