Well, for one thing, this thread isn't about bias in the news, it's about a claim, now proved false, that a newspaper sold ad space at reduced rates for certain groups that were not available to others, but to address the issue of bias in the news I will bring in what we used to call in the news business, facts. A news reporter attempting to report a story will not use facts as plug-ins, he or she will build the story from what he or she has been told is true and has verified with other sources as being factual.
A sure way to remove bias from your reporting is to face facts.
You do this often enough and you build the public's trust in your ability to the report the news, not from a slanted point of view, but from the facts.
If, on the other hand, you consistently attempt to herd or promote a peculiar point of view in your news coverage
- I am not talking here about editorials, they can be as POV'ed as you want- you run the risk that, at some point, reality will have diverged so far from your bias that your reporting of the news is instantly recognized as full of falsity and mis-leading comments, not facts.
And people pick up some other paper or they watch another news source.
People are funny that way, they really like being told the truth.
Joe(How is
FoxNews doing these days?)Nation
Interesting little tidbit. Sorry if it's been posted in another thread.
Quote:
Black and White and Re(a)d All Over:
The Conservative Advantage in Syndicated Op-Ed Columns
This project did something that has never been done before: It amassed data on the syndicated columnists published by nearly every daily newspaper in the country. While a few publications, most notably Editor & Publisher, cover the syndicated newspaper industry, no one has attempted to comprehensively assemble this information prior to now. Because the syndicates refuse to reveal to the public exactly where their columnists are published, when Media Matters for America set out to make a systematic assessment of the syndicated columnist landscape, we had no choice but to contact each paper individually and ask which syndicated columnists are published on their op-ed pages.
The results show that in paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, conservative syndicated columnists get more space than their progressive counterparts.
...
http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/report
How else could such a series of almost daily debacles go on?
blah, blahh. blah-blah-blah. LIBERALS THIS!!!blah, blah..blah, blah,blah-blah..blah,blah.blah, blahh. blah-blah-blah. blah, blah..blah, blah,blah-blah..LIBERALS THAT!!!blah,blah.blah, blahh. blah-blah-blah. blah, blah..blah, blah,blah-blah..blah,blah.HOW DARE THEY??? blah, blahh. blah-MAINSTREAM MEDIA LEFTEST COMMIE PINKOSblah-blah. blah, blah..blah, blah,blah-blah..THEY HAAAAATTTTE 'MERICA!!! blah,blah.blah, blahh. OH GAWDDD-UH! SAVE 'MERICA FROM LIBRULLSSSS! blah-blah-blah. blah, blah..blah, blah,blah-blah..LIBERALS THAT!!!LIBERALS THAT!!!blah,blah.blah, blahh. blah-blah-blah. blah, blah.. LIBERALS THIS!!!blah, LIBRULLSSSS!blah,blah-blah..blah,blah.blah, blahh. blah-blah-blah. blah, blah..blah, blah,blah-blah..blah,blah LIBERALS THIS!!!.blah, blahh. blah-blah-blah. blah, blah..blah, blah,blah-blah..blah,blah.blah, blahh. blah- LIBERALS THIS!!!blah-blah. blah, blah..blah, blah,blah-blah..blah,blah.blah, blahh. blah-blah-blah. blah, LIBERALS THAT!!!blah..blah, blah,blah-blah..blah,blah.LIBRULLSSSS!LIBRULLSSSS!LIBRULLSSSS!LIBRULLSSSS!LIBRULLSSSS!LIBRULLSSSS!LIBRULLSSSS!LIBRULLSSSS!LIBRULLSSSS!LIBRULLSSSS!LIBRULLSSSS!LIBRULLSSSS!LIBRULLSSSS!LIBRULLSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
borrrrr-innnnnggggg
But they love to bore themselves -- trouble is they also like to come onto a public forum and bore us as well.
Lightwizard wrote:But they love to bore themselves -- trouble is they also like to come onto a public forum and bore us as well.
i used to wonder why. but i think i've figured it out.
it occured to me last night that with the exception of 4 years from 1977-1981 and 8 years from 1993-2001 (equaling 12 years, and not in succession), the u.s. has had republican presidents since january of 1969.
nearly 40 years. minus 12 is 28 years of republican presidency.
add to that, a republican controlled congress from 1994 to january of 2007 equalling +/- 13 years of majority status; the last 7 constituting a total republican lock on the exec and legislative on federal government.
also there was a republican lock on state gubernatorial seats for 7 years.
think that everything's been just swell during the last 40 years? naw, me either.
but it's so much easier to run around shrieking about liberals, gays, abortion, religious oppression ( now that one's a real whopper) and just about anything else than to do the one honest thing;
accept responsibility for the failures of the party you voted for.
Lightwizard wrote:But they love to bore themselves -- trouble is they also like to come onto a public forum and bore us as well.
Thanks LW, this is funny in so many ways.
"But they love to bore themselves..."
Now all sorts of nasty things have been said about folks on the Left and on the Right in this forum, but this has to be one of the most ridiculous.
They love to bore themselves?
"trouble is they also like to come onto a public forum and bore us as well..."
Even better!
What did you and DTOM think this thread was about when you voluntarily chose to participate in it?
Since you don't have to read or participate in these
borrrrr-innnnnggggg topics, could it be...could it be that you love to bore yourselves!
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Lightwizard wrote:But they love to bore themselves -- trouble is they also like to come onto a public forum and bore us as well.
Thanks LW, this is funny in so many ways.
"But they love to bore themselves..."
Now all sorts of nasty things have been said about folks on the Left and on the Right in this forum, but this has to be one of the most ridiculous.
They love to bore themselves?
"trouble is they also like to come onto a public forum and bore us as well..."
Even better!
What did you and DTOM think this thread was about when you voluntarily chose to participate in it?
Since you don't have to read or participate in these
borrrrr-innnnnggggg topics, could it be...could it be that you love to bore yourselves!
Aha, yes, yes, yes....as expected....but did you happen to have a comment on the meat of the thread?
dlowan wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:Lightwizard wrote:But they love to bore themselves -- trouble is they also like to come onto a public forum and bore us as well.
Thanks LW, this is funny in so many ways.
"But they love to bore themselves..."
Now all sorts of nasty things have been said about folks on the Left and on the Right in this forum, but this has to be one of the most ridiculous.
They love to bore themselves?
"trouble is they also like to come onto a public forum and bore us as well..."
Even better!
What did you and DTOM think this thread was about when you voluntarily chose to participate in it?
Since you don't have to read or participate in these
borrrrr-innnnnggggg topics, could it be...could it be that you love to bore yourselves!
Aha, yes, yes, yes....as expected....but did you happen to have a comment on the meat of the thread?
Yes - page backwards.
You really need to keep up if you are going to try and be cutting.
That wasn't "the meat" of the thread -- maybe some kind of dessert, like...Jello?
That this particular thread is just another shot in the dark with a ridiculous assumption based on the placement of an ad which has since been debunked, well, the horse had already died almost half way through the thread. That's typical.
I think it turned out to be 80% soybean and 10% beef.
Lightwizard wrote:... 10% beef.
in any case, there's some percentage of
bull involved.
and of course there's absolutely zero bias from the murdoch media outlets, townhall, weekly standard etc.
apparently the nyt gave equal deference to moveon and rudy.
so what's the real complaint ?
some people
just didn't like the message that moveon put out there.
too bad.
where's that love of the first amendment, that republicans seem to think they have sole ownership of btw, now? or is it that free speech is only good when you like what is said?
what about that respect for service men and women ?
don't dare to question patraeus, but it's okay for that idiot schmidt to label murtha a coward ?
oh, don't you dare question bush's record, but give full backing to o'neill and his allegations against kerry? that's okay, right?
hell, that's better than okay, he deserves it. jesus, just look at the guy.. he looks so effin'
french..
yeah. that's
real logical. and fair. and balanced.
john mcain= good. max cleland= bad.
it's okay. i
get it. politics is a dirty, and getting dirtier business. you like your guys and don't like the other guys. that's what makes a horse race.
what's not cool is pretending that the whole realm of spin, tilt or any other media manipulation is the sole property of any one party or demographic.
contrex wrote:parados wrote:So I assume we can expect apologies from the conservatives now about the accusations they made.
Don't hold your breath...
I've turned quite purple waiting to hear from the lads.
ehBeth wrote:I've turned quite purple waiting to hear from the lads.
I'm sure glad you stopped before you turned green and smelly.
Quote:...Generals are, for the most part, a gigantic pain in the ass and we usually accomplish our military objectives despite their chaos-inducing presence. There are a few good generals here and there but most of them are an embarrassment. Here's a couple of reasons why that is so:
- Generals are dishonest. This is a tricky charge to throw out, but it's the sad truth. I've seen more out-and-out lies from general officers than any other people in the military. In a weird way, they are just like professional politicians in this regard. They act like the main character from "Memento", they can't remember a @#$% thing they said or wrote older than 15 minutes ago. If it wasn't so frustrating, it might be funny. Once again, just compare anything Clark says now to anything that came out of his mouth one year ago. Weird, huh?
Jonah Goldberg
Jan 2004
writing in the National Review Online
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmZlMzRjYTQ2ZWFmNzM5MjhkZWE3MmVlMWM4NmI3NjQ=
blatham wrote:Quote:...Generals are, for the most part, a gigantic pain in the ass and we usually accomplish our military objectives despite their chaos-inducing presence. There are a few good generals here and there but most of them are an embarrassment. Here's a couple of reasons why that is so:
- Generals are dishonest. This is a tricky charge to throw out, but it's the sad truth. I've seen more out-and-out lies from general officers than any other people in the military. In a weird way, they are just like professional politicians in this regard. They act like the main character from "Memento", they can't remember a @#$% thing they said or wrote older than 15 minutes ago. If it wasn't so frustrating, it might be funny. Once again, just compare anything Clark says now to anything that came out of his mouth one year ago. Weird, huh?
Jonah Goldberg
Jan 2004
writing in the National Review Online
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmZlMzRjYTQ2ZWFmNzM5MjhkZWE3MmVlMWM4NmI3NjQ=
goldberg again, my oh my.
redux post, sans mouse
Come hither to observe the take down on the paste-eating doughboy. and put down your coffee mug least you destroy your keyboard. tboggs.com had a Koufax Award nomination for it.... after "Flowers for Algernon"
http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2005/05/flowers-for-goldberg-nro-post-day-one.html
bernie, i know you only posted the doughboy's words to show the Right's constant political hypocrisy, but jonah is so retarded that it isn't fair.
While I dont know about the particular ad you are arguing about, I do know of at least one incident where the NYTimes has showed bias.
They did that by allowing an article written by Maureen Dowd to stand as she wrote it.
THe article contained a quote by Bush, one that Dowd knowingly and intentionally left some words out of, with the goal of making the president look bad.
I am curious why the NYTimes allowed that to stand.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/greenberg061003.asp
Its also mentioned here..
http://mediamythbusters.com/index.php?title=Fabrications/Lying#Maureen_Dowd.2C_New_York_Times_.282003.29_-_Misquoting_President_Bush
Actually,you can find all kind of media lies,fabrications,and outright dishonesty at this site...
http://mediamythbusters.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
Dowd doesn't write articles. She writes opinion columns. Assuming that MM is right about her changing Bush's words, why would she bother? It is so easy to make Bush look bad without resorting to tricks. In fact, he does the job for you.
Advocate wrote:Dowd doesn't write articles. She writes opinion columns. Assuming that MM is right about her changing Bush's words, why would she bother? It is so easy to make Bush look bad without resorting to tricks. In fact, he does the job for you.
Dont take my word for it,look at the links I posted.
But since she writes opinion columns,its ok for her to change statements made by others, or to totally eliminate whole sentences, just to try and make a point?
