55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 12:13 pm
@Debra Law,
heh, heh, heh... he really is a strange little guy.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 12:15 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
Alas, my confidence in Glenn Beck as the great messiah of the right wing conservatism has been shattered.


Really, Debra. Why? He's a lot like Foxy, Ican and Okie. Hell, he even parrots some of the things they say.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 12:17 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

heh, heh, heh... he really is a strange little guy.


I'm so glad, when Glenn Beck was showing the communist art in the Rockefeller Plaza to his wife, and explaining it to her in detail, that she didn't question his sanity. It doesn't take much to cause Glenn Beck to fly into a murderous rage.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 12:19 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Alas, my confidence in Glenn Beck as the great messiah of the right wing conservatism has been shattered.


Really, Debra. Why? He's a lot like Foxy, Ican and Okie. Hell, he even parrots some of the things they say.


Perhaps all of them will end up in the same therapy group. Perhaps they can weave baskets together at the asylum.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 12:20 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

i have always freely stated that msnbc is very liberal for the most part in their political analysis. they are the 180 to fox. no argument.

the rest of the alphabets? the regular 6pm news? i don't see much bias there.

but let's say for a second that they are horribly biased to the left. if they were truly putting out the minority view on network television (versus cable only outlets like msnbc and fox), and 75% of the public disliked their coverage, do you think they would have survived for the 50 or 60 years they have been around?

i don't. so maybe the mainstream media is exactly what that phrase implies; that they are the outlets that "Mainstream Americans" prefer and trust.

this theory may or may not be born out by the glaring lack of a regular television evening news broadcast from Fox. over here at 6, fox usually runs something like the simpsons or that 70's show.

can you show me any hard proof that mrc is more honest that mmfa?

i don't mind an opposing pov. i've said it before that i think it's good to have both conservative and liberal voices.

but i have to say that it takes real brass to say this to me after 8 years of the bush white house;

Foxfyre wrote:
What has happened to so many Americans that they are willing to shut down their brains and just accept what they are fed by their chosen leaders? How did so many Americans become so spineless that they no longer think for themselves, observe for themselves, or demand evidence before they believe?


Well first, such outlets haven't been around for 50 or 60 years. We didn't see unrepentent blatant and unadulterated mainstream media bias like we have now until the 1980's and it didn't become overwhelming until the 90's. When I was in journalism school, no reporter on radio, television, or in the print media was allowed, much less tolerated to show any personal bias. Any who did so would be subject to severe censure and probable firing for unprofessionalism and for undermining the integrity of the media source.

The Fox network is a far different animal than Fox News Channel which more closely resembles a CNN format. You did know that didn't you?

The fact that you don't see much if any bias in ABC, CBS, NBC etc. reinforces my opinion that many liberals have simply shut off their brains and stopped thinking or being able to see critically when it comes to ideology. You (generic you) dutifully parrot the Democrat talking points and bring up the same old distractions and divesions from the subject that all are being trained to do, but you (generic you) seem to be unable to perceive any different point of view as even possibly having any validity.

The current Democrat talking point/diversionary tactic is to reference the Bush administration as if that absolves the current administration from all mistakes, wrong thinking, error, sin, or improper behavior. Don't allow any serious discussion of the present administration that must be trusted, worshipped, appreciated, and promoted mindlessly and you can accomplish that by accusing your opposition of having never criticized the Bush administration which is absurd on the face of it. Don't consider the substance of what a Glenn Beck or Brent Bozell says. Just focus on making others believe they are crazy or so far out of the mainstream that only crazy people would consider anything they say.

As for perceptions of media bias, here is an excellent essay for anybody who can still read and comprehend:
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-new-evidence-of-liberal-media-bias-november-a/

And one more time--this has been posted several times now--here is that UCLA study that validated my perceptions of media bias as it is rarely done though Pew has done some good research in this area too:

Quote:

Media Bias Is Real, Findsa UCLA-Led Study

Of the 20 major media outlets studied,18 scored left of center

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co-author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low-population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants - most of them college students - to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets - Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets - "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report - were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op-Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government-funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias - or the appearance of same - in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity - politicians."
http://www.contactomagazine.com/mediabias031606.htm





parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 12:28 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
A president who violates the Constituion is adhering to those enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, who seek to replace the constitutional republic of the United States with a collectivist, statist, socialist, communist, fascist, or a nazist dictatorship.


What the constitution actually says..

Quote:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


Even if someone violates your version of the constitution ican, it still doesn't provide evidence of an overt act of giving aid and comfort. There is nothing overt in giving aid and comfort when there is no contact with those enemies.

Disagreeing with the US government doesn't make an overt act of treason even if the person disagreeing might agree with the enemies of the US, does it ican?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 12:31 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

The Stimulus Bill signed by President Obama, transfers federal tax revenues to persons not employees of the federal government and are not contractors of the federal government, and therefore violates the Constitution, "the supreme law of the land."

That raises a lot of issues ican.
If the government gives money to a bank for making loans is that a violation of the US constitution?
If the government guarantees a loan at a bank is that a violation of the US constitution?
If the government pays off a guaranteed loan that was defaulted on is that a violation of the US constitution?
DontTreadOnMe
 
  4  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 12:31 pm
@Foxfyre,
out of all of that;

yes, foxy. of course i know that fox network is different from fox cable news.

and what i said was that fox network did not have evening news like the other alphabets.

now, for all of the snarkiness about the MSM, doesn't seem strange to you that all of these other outlets, all of them, are called liberal biased and only fox news tells the truth?

everybody else is wrong??

hah! which one is out of the mainstream. you do know what "mainstream" means, don't you?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 12:57 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
I watch the evening news on Fox network quite often. They have two hours of it just like everybody else but put it back to back from 9 to 11 MDT instead of one hour at 6 and 10 (MDT) like other networks.

And where in all that did you find ANYBODY saying that only Fox News tells the truth and everybody else is wrong? That is all you got out of all that--something that isn't even there? I swear there is a kind of blinders that some wear that allows them to see only what they want to see even if they have to make it up.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 01:00 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I watch the evening news on Fox network quite often. They have two hours of it just like everybody else but put it back to back from 9 to 11 MDT instead of one hour at 6 and 10 (MDT) like other networks.


Those are local news broadcasts, not national news programs like the other networks have on. Right?

Quote:
And where in all that did you find ANYBODY saying that only Fox News tells the truth and everybody else is wrong? That is all you got out of all that--something that isn't even there? I swear there is a kind of blinders that some wear that allows them to see only what they want to see even if they have to make it up.


I think this whole thing started, b/c of the pretense on the part of some that Fox News isn't part of the MSM. Of course it is.

Cycloptichorn
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 01:07 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I swear there is a kind of blinders that some wear that allows them to see only what they want to see even if they have to make it up.


Those damn blinder-wearing commie, fascist, lefty liberals! I swear that they're not open-minded like the conservative messiah, Glenn Beck. Even if he busts blood vessels during his murderous outbursts, at least Glenn Beck can open his eyes and see the cornucopia of progressive conspiracies hidden in plain sight.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 01:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
No I don't think Fox network features a half hour national news only program as other networks do, but after carefully watching all the News only channels, Fox does the better job of reporting all the news, not just political news, and so it probably all balances out. Why would Fox network want to compete with its Cable news affiliate who is racking up better ratings than all the others combined?

And the only ones presuming that Fox network or Fox News are not mainstream media are some from your side.
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 01:15 pm
Quote:
Dow Jones and Co. response to UCLA media bias study

The Wall Street Journal's news coverage is relentlessly neutral. Of that, we are confident.

By contrast, the research technique used in this study hardly inspires confidence. In fact, it is logically suspect and simply baffling in some of its details.

First, its measure of media bias consists entirely of counting the number of mentions of, or quotes from, various think tanks that the researchers determine to be "liberal" or “conservative." By this logic, a mention of Al Qaeda in a story suggests the newspaper endorses its views, which is obviously not the case. And if a think tank is explicitly labeled “liberal” or “conservative” within a story to provide context to readers, that example doesn’t count at all. The researchers simply threw out such mentions.

Second, the universe of think tanks and policy groups in the study hardly covers the universe of institutions with which Wall Street Journal reporters come into contact. What are we to make of the validity of a list of important policy groups that doesn’t include, say, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the AFL-CIO or the Concord Coalition, but that does include People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? Moreover, the ranking the study gives to some of the groups on the list is simply bizarre. How seriously are we to take a system that ranks the American Civil Liberties Union slightly to the right of center, and that ranks the RAND Corp. as more liberal than Amnesty International? Indeed, the more frequently a media outlet quotes the ACLU in this study, the more conservative its alleged bias.

Third, the reader of this report has to travel all the way Table III on page 57 to discover that the researchers’ "study" of the content of The Wall Street Journal covers exactly FOUR MONTHS in 2002, while the period examined for CBS News covers more than 12 years, and National Public Radio’s content is examined for more than 11 years. This huge analytical flaw results in an assessment based on comparative citings during vastly differing time periods, when the relative newsworthiness of various institutions could vary widely. Thus, Time magazine is “studied” for about two years, while U.S. News and World Report is examined for eight years. Indeed, the periods of time covered for the Journal, the Washington Post and the Washington Times are so brief that as to suggest that they were simply thrown into the mix as an afterthought. Yet the researchers provide those findings the same weight as all the others, without bothering to explain that in any meaningful way to the study’s readers.

Suffice it to say that “research” of this variety would be unlikely to warrant a mention at all in any Wall Street Journal story.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 01:19 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
And the only ones presuming [this or] that . . . are some from your side.


Foxy: You forgot to add this handy elementary school chant to your rebuttal: "Neener, neener, neener." If you want to educate the childish masses about the evils of progress, you must employ effective linguistic phrases.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 02:38 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
...
And the only ones presuming that Fox network or Fox News are not mainstream media are some from your side.


wha??? you consistently rant about the mainstream media and it's liberal bias while holding up fox news as the place to get the truth. you are being disingenuously coy about this.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 02:41 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Even if someone violates your version of the constitution ican, it still doesn't provide evidence of an overt act of giving aid and comfort. There is nothing overt in giving aid and comfort when there is no contact with those enemies.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article III.
Section 3.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Obama was and is in frequent contact with those enemies of the USA whose objective is the replacement of our constitutional republic by a dictatorship. Many of them are among his more than 3 dozen "czars" who he appointed without the approval of Congress. The rest consist of his Chicago mentors, or are part of the Soros gang.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 02:48 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
Obama was and is in frequent contact with those enemies of the USA whose objective is the replacement of our constitutional republic by a dictatorship. Many of them are among his more than 3 dozen "czars" who he appointed without the approval of Congress. The rest consist of his Chicago mentors, or are part of the Soros gang.

You are saying that US citizens are enemies of the US?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 02:51 pm
@parados,
Yes, Parados, the FDIC is unconstitutional when making loans or insuring loans for people who are neither federal government employees or contractors to the federal government.

That is unconstitutional because no where in the Constitution is the federal government explicitly or implicitly granted the power to make or secure the loans of people who are neither federal government employees or contractors to the federal government.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 02:58 pm
@parados,
No Parados, I am not saying ALL US citizens are the enemies of the US. I am saying that those US citizens, whose objective is the replacement of the US Constitutional Republic by a dictatorship, are enemies of the US Constitutional Republic.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 03:08 pm
@ican711nm,
Oh, so you are accusing them of treason?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 10:49:16