WHY AREN'T THERE MORE LIBERALS ON TV?

trespassers said:

Consider tax cuts. Suppose someone proposes a 1% cut across the board in marginal tax rates. Every taxpayer will see his or her rate cut by 1%. Report it that way, and it sounds fair and even-handed. Now, focus your report instead on the inescapable mathematical reality that 1% of what a high wage earner makes is going to be more money than 1% of what a low wage earner makes, by stating that the tax cut will save high wage earners far more than it will low wage earners, and you've painted a very different, though still factually accurate, picture.

And this is all I'm talking about.

0 Replies

Personally, I find the consideration of using tax cuts to benefit those who do not pay taxes, and the notion that it is somehow unfair that tax relief benefit be in proportion to tax contribution a bit ludicrous. But then, maybe that's just me.

timber

0 Replies

trespassers: your disregard for facts degrades your argument, you willingly indicate homeless mothers at 5%:In 1998, the Chicago Department of Human Services reported that there were 15,237 homeless individuals in Chicago. Mothers and children comprised about 45 percent of Chicago's homeless population (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1998).

0 Replies

and a large portion of these homeless work hard just to scrap enough in a days time to feed themselves and children while finding a place to sleep for the night - hopefully a shelter.

Being homeless is not fun and it is a trap that is hard to get out of. Class warfare may be the next war in America. How many gated communities are going up in your neighborhood?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

trespassers: your disregard for facts degrades your argument, you willingly indicate homeless mothers at 5%:In 1998, the Chicago Department of Human Services reported that there were 15,237 homeless individuals in Chicago. Mothers and children comprised about 45 percent of Chicago's homeless population (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1998).

Dys - To use your over-reaching term... you willingly misrepresent what I wrote. Here's the quote that would have shown this had you chosen to use it:

trespassers will wrote:

Likewise, if reporters covering stories on the homeless select single mothers with children to interview in 90% of their stories, when single mothers with children probably represent less than 5% of the homeless...

I think that "probably" should indicate that I am going by my gut here; that was certainly why I used it. I was not consulting any statistics or data, and if I am wrong, so be it. If we assume your data for Chicago are accurate, and that they are representative of the entire nation, it still means that a 90% sampling for news reports (again, my hypothetical for the purposes of my illustration) would be misleading and would not represent the real picture.

As an aside, I also suspect that the samples you and I are considering are not the same. I wrote of "single mothers with children" which would count a mother and two children as a single datum, since it is the mother I am considering. Your claim regarding "mothers and children" counts each individual in the family. (This latter clearly makes more sense if you are trying to count homeless people, but my intent was to express my guess at what percentage of the time you find a single mother with children among the homeless.)

If anyone thought I was trying to put forward anything other than an off-the-cuff example, I did not intend to mislead you. I thought it was clear I was creating a hypothetical.

====

Now, to offer an alternative viewpoint on (purportedly) actual numbers...

Quote:

Advocates for the homeless, meanwhile, were the hands-down winners at pushing their census agenda.

They persuaded the Census Bureau to withhold a detailed count of states' and cities' homeless populations, arguing that homeless people are too difficult to count because of their transient nature.

Therefore, the advocates said, a specific count would be inherently inaccurate and could be used to reduce services for homeless people. The non-partisan Urban Institute has estimated 800,000 people are homeless at any time, although the Census Bureau found just 280,257 in its national head count.

America the Countable

34% of the nation's homeless in 1991 were families with children (disproportionately single-mother families)...
http://www.parthenia.com/nation.htm

This means that at least 18% of this statistic involved counting single mothers and their children. ("Disproportionately" indicates to me that it is far more than slightly better than half, but I'm trying to be conservative with my assumptions here.)

Quote:

The typical homeless family in the United States is composed of a single mother, about thirty years old, with between two and three children averaging five years in age.

http://www.stjosephsvilla.net/html/reference_stats.htm#home

Being conservative and using the lower number of children, 2, this would put the % of single mothers with children 6-8% (without taking the time to do the math), which would make my guess far closer to reality than your data suggest.

====

Lastly, I would like to challenge anyone to do a little research on the issue of how many people are homeless in America, and see if you do not reach the conclusion that nobody knows for sure, and many who are involved with homeless advocacy spout numbers without citing any scientific method for reaching those numbers.

0 Replies

I'm wondering how come their aren't more liberals in Congress, the Senate, News commentators, in America?

0 Replies

BillW wrote:

and a large portion of these homeless work hard just to scrap enough in a days time to feed themselves and children while finding a place to sleep for the night - hopefully a shelter.

Women with children who have left an abusive relationship (usually not a husband, by the way) make up a big portion of the number of "single mothers with children" who are considered homeless. Likewise, as with the term "poor", many "homeless" are people who are briefly without a residence. A woman with children who decides to flee an abusive boyfriend without prior preparation meets the definition of "homeless" during the time it takes her to establish a residence of her own. Of course, by the time she is moving into an apartment or moving in with relatives, another woman has likewise fled an abusive partner. Those who are intractably homeless are almost exclusively drug addicts or mentally ill.

Interestingly enough the Bush administration's plan to end chronic homelessness in 10 years has gotten very little press. Seems like the kind of thing liberals in the media would delight in trumpeting. While I know this shows my own bias, I am forced to wonder how differently the media would have treated this news had it come out of the previous administration.
Google Search on "Bush Administration's 'Chronic Homelessness' Initiative"

Further, it is fascinating to me to once again see homelessness being discussed in America. It seemed a very important topic during Reagan and Bush I, but suddenly disappeared from the media's radar during both Clinton terms, despite the fact that the number of homeless in America went up during Clinton's Presidency. Now that we find ourselves with a Republican in the White House, the media seems to have suddenly rediscovered homelessness as an issue, yet seems oddly silent on the administration's efforts to reduce homelessness.

0 Replies

trespassers will wrote:

BillW wrote:
Further, it is fascinating to me to once again see homelessness being discussed in America. It seemed a very important topic during Reagan and Bush I, but suddenly disappeared from the media's radar during both Clinton terms, despite the fact that the number of homeless in America went up during Clinton's Presidency. Now that we find ourselves with a Republican in the White House, the media seems to have suddenly rediscovered homelessness as an issue, yet seems oddly silent on the administration's efforts to reduce homelessness.

You noticed that too, huh?

timber

0 Replies

This is all interesting but really needs a forum discussion of its own -- I still don't know if there aren't enough liberals on TV. In fact, I'd be cautious talking about how many there are -- one might find their wishes come true.

0 Replies

"Likewise, if reporters covering stories on the homeless select single mothers with children to interview in 90% of their stories, when single mothers with children probably represent less than 5% of the homeless, would that not effectively educate bias news consumers to believe that single mothers with children are common among the homeless?"[/quote]

my statement was regarding your "gut feeling" of 5% of mothers with children along with "90%" are selected to interview is highly indicative of your own bias. you did not use figures to substantiate your thesis, you used "gut feelings" you may very well critique what Bush 41/Bush 43/or Clinton have done but the topic at hand is your contention of liberal bias in reporting while you offer conservative bias in your reporting.

0 Replies

I contend again "The Left" gets all the media exposure the market chooses to pay for. There is less a "Conservative Bias" than a currently less profitable "Liberal Viewpoint". However folks may vote, they seem not to "Buy" as much "Liberal Media" at the moment. Given that there is such close division of public political sentiment in The Nation, a narrow swing to one side or the other is bound to alarm the unfavored population ... its not as though we had multiple options from among which we could choose positions. We generally are presented with "This" or "That", exclusively. The perception of bias is relative, and in fact transitory. Whether The Left or The Right is ascendent in The Media at any given time is more a gauge of public sentiment than a guide to it.

timber

0 Replies

timber

Yes, it is so ridiculously undefinable and unmeasurable that any pontificating claim that there is 'a liberal media' or 'a conservative media' tells us nothing about the media but a whole lot about the person making the claim.

0 Replies

timber has got it -- CNN discerned that the cable watching audience wanted more conservative viewpoints, ignoring whether there was actually an overbearing liberal viewpoint presented in their news. Compared to FOX, of course it looks that way. So they gave the conservative commentators more exposure. It's a game -- some of the commentators which we regularly see all day write their own stuff -- none of the news reporting staff writes their own. How it gets passed by an editorial staff is something to be curious and suspicious about. It's fired at the viewer in a barrage of sound bites and I don't find the commentary on either side as being particularly useful. It often become redundant to the point of Chinese water torture to be truthful.

MSNBC as far as commentators is more directly liberal which is rather strange considering Bill Gates is the consummate capitalist. Well, he does give away a lot of money and could be due for the title of the king of philanthropists.

I still don't see the paranoia over newscasters on broadcast TV especially (and they don't write the text of their newscast). It's like they're all the boogieman who is convincing people we don't want to be convinced that the liberal or the conservative viewpoint is right. Consider that is the responsibility of the viewer to process what they are hearing and decide what is the right and what is wrong. I think we have too many frustrated control freaks loose.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

I still don't see the paranoia over newscasters on broadcast TV especially (and they don't write the text of their newscast).

LOL! Ya got that right. "Air Talent" can read off 90-second printed paragraphs one after another with excellent diction and phrasing, apparent appropriate emotion, and unshakeable conviction. They also will have no idea what it is they are reading.

Quote:

It's like they're all the boogieman who is convincing people we don't want to be convinced that the liberal or the conservative viewpoint is right. Consider that is the responsibility of the viewer to process what they are hearing and decide what is the right and what is wrong. I think we have too many frustrated control freaks loose.

I see that to be precisely the point.

timber

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

my statement was regarding your "gut feeling" of 5% of mothers with children along with "90%" are selected to interview is highly indicative of your own bias.

No, it's highly indicative of the fact that I was trying to make my point as clear as possible by intentionally choosing a large hypothetical disparity--5% VS. 90%. (One side of which turns out to look pretty close to reality, despite your claim to the contrary.)

Yet here you are charging forth in your shining armor to protect the sanctity of fact from an admittedly fictional scenario. Um.... Hello??? What part of "hypothetical" don't you understand? (What do you do when you're not on-line, write letters to Disney berating them for claiming that animals can talk and dance?) :wink:

Now, if you are really determined to engage me on the issue underlying my hypothetical example... I also recall offering some data which seems to suggest that your figures for Chicago are considerably further off the actual mark than was my guess. So, how about creating a discussion dedicated to the question of how trustworthy data and reporting on homelessness in America is, and we'll have some fun, okay?

I'll look forward to it.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Yes, it is so ridiculously undefinable and unmeasurable that any pontificating claim that there is 'a liberal media' or 'a conservative media' tells us nothing about the media but a whole lot about the person making the claim.

You're free to think that, but there are plenty of people all across the political spectrum that recognize bias in reporting when they see or hear it. Bias involves what is covered and what is not as well as how those things that do get covered are covered.

Here's a specific, factual case that I believe shows a pervasive media bias:

In October 2001, within weeks of 9/11 and with airport security a big hot-button news item, the lead van in Senator Hillary Clinton's entourage ran down an airport security guard as they attempted to circumvent a security barrier or checkpoint. (This is from memory, but I can find you a link if you like.) The guard was taken to the emergency room for his injuries.

This news story involved:

1) Hillary Clinton - big news
2) Airport security immediately after 9/11 - big news
3) The "politicians think the rules don't apply to them" angle - big news

Now, did you hear about it? Most people I've asked hadn't. I have a sister and brother-in-law who work for a newspaper who defied me to prove it was true, and when I did, both shrugged it off.

The story was reported by the local Westchester NY news (News12 - the link on their site is dead) and in the Washington Times. Here's the Washington Times' lead-in to the story:

Quote:

Published on October 16, 2001, The Washington Times
Sen. Clinton's van drives past security checkpoint
NEW YORK - A black van carrying Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and driven by a U.S. Secret Service agent reportedly talking on his cell phone rolled through a checkpoint at Westchester County airport Sunday, injuring a policeman who tried to stop them - first by shouting and then by banging on the side of the moving vehicle.Law enforcement officials called it "a misunderstanding."Police Officer Ernest Dymond, a 19-year veteran of the force, was one of three uniformed...

[URL="http://nl3.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WT&p_theme=wt&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0="Police%20AND%20Officer%20AND%20Ernest%20AND%20Dymond"&s_dispstring="Police%20Officer%20Ernest%20Dymond"%20AND%20date(2001)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=2001&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no"]Link[/URL] (You have to pay to read the entire 468 word article.)

Now, why wasn't this story a major headline everywhere?

I think the answer is that a lot of editors looked at it and decided they'd rather not run it, because they knew it would make Hillary look bad. I certainly don't think you could claim that any editor looked at the story and thought it wasn't newsworthy, certainly not any editor with a pulse. I also don't think any of them thought they were doing the public a disservice by choosing to not run the story. I disagree, but I tend to think they made the decision with the best of intentions. I am not attempting to describe a conspiracy, I am attempting to describe what happens when real people with real political opinions choose what does and does not get reported.

Of course, I recognize that conservative media may likewise gloss over stories that are bad for conservatives, but they are clearly not most of the media. In the case I present here, most of the media never reported the story. Heck, major papers in New York--where it happened and whose junior senator was involved--didn't even touch it.

Personally, I am fine with the bias. It is helping drive the growth in alternative conservative media, which I believe is good for everyone. And of course, the more people have a chance to see something other than the biased mainstream news, the more they will begin to recognize the bias, because they'll have something with which to compare it. But claiming there's no such thing is like a fish asking, "what water?". :wink:

*Apparently this link is too long to be rendered correctly. Anyone who wants to check it will have to copy and paste it into his or her browser.

0 Replies

Trespass: I'm going to get you an internship at a local TV news station or on a mid-size city newspaper. Each day the news director/editor has the job of looking at stories and deciding which will be aired. (See gatekeeper therory) You said

Quote:

In October 2001, within weeks of 9/11 and with airport security a big hot-button news item, the lead van in Senator Hillary Clinton's entourage ran down an airport security guard as they attempted to circumvent a security barrier or checkpoint

The story said:

Quote:

A black van carrying Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and driven by a U.S. Secret Service agent reportedly talking on his cell phone rolled through a checkpoint at Westchester County airport Sunday, injuring a policeman who tried to stop them -

Now let's bring your story to the news director:

"Hillary's van ran down a cop trying to break through an airport checkpoint!"
"Wow! Hold page one. Was she driving?"
"Uh. no, secret service was and the victim's at the emergency room!"
"They ran him down?"
"Well, he was on the side of the van when they tried to circumvent the security barrier."
"Well, was she like screaming at the driver to get through?"
"Well, no. Like he was on his cell and talking to somebody and the cop was yelling at them to stop and when he beat on the side of the van he tripped or lost his footing or something."
"So Hillary wasn't really involved except that she was in a car driven by another jerk with a cellphone who wasn't paying attention to where he was driving."
"Um"
" Sounds like a really good sidestory to a cellphone safety series, but does it say anything about the Senator, other than she's been given a lousy agent for a driver?"
"But it was a black van!"
"Kid, here at the Daily Planet we try to print facts, but then we're a fictional newspaper, so take your 'Hillary smashs through airport security to the New York Daily News."

And even the Daily News didn't run it.

Joe Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation and Lightwizard write excellent 'last words' on this topic.

0 Replies

I make my livin' off the evenin' news
Give me somethin', somethin' i can use . . .

. . . There's a bubble-headed bleach-blond
Comes on at five
She can talk about a plane crash
With a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die
Give me dirty laundry.

0 Replies

I sorta figured Don Henley would get in here somewhere. Good job, Setanta.

timber

0 Replies

WHY AREN'T THERE MORE LIBERALS ON TV?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know