| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
Comments:
<0> glock21: i wear a tinfoil hat when watching fox news, there will be no re-education for me.
<1> Damn tin foil!
<2> i tell ya, when anyone quotes for a newsource other than foxnews.. i'm sick of this 'but fox news says...".. as if the whole ****ing world revolves around what foxnews does
<1> okay back to my movie...
<0> fox news isn't bad, i try and watch a bit every day.
<0> i was genuinely impressed with o'reilly's interview with rumsfeld.
<0> a few softballs, but also alot of curves and fastballs.
<0> i don't even think wolf blitzer would get that rough on a guest.
<0> wb loco
<0> but i do notice trends in the stories fox opts to run
<3> like what
<2> overall, Brit Hume is the most effective critic of the whitehouse
<3> "even" wolf blitzer? wolf blitzer is a mega-liberal, so he would never be tough
<2> lol.. is this the Wolf "So poor.. so black..." blitzer?
<0> usually fox mirrors the current message of the administration. yesterday, before and after the president's speech, fox ran an OBL story and terrorist story.
<3> lol
<3> well your intuitions abotu this are wrong
<2> oh no! they should have ran a story about that broad in aruba, eh?
<0> also fox opts to use specific wording when describing events, insurgents are terrorists: to reinforce the terrorism/iraq connect. suicide bombers are homocide bombers. warrently wiretaps versus domestic spying.
<3> the rigorous study has been done
<3> and found the media to be liebral-biased overall
<0> panini: my intuitions are my own, therefore they cannot be wrong
<3> they certainly can
<2> yea.. calling people who bomb and kill women and children "terrorists" and "homocide bombers".. so evil
<4> Renea: well.. suicide bombers do blow themselves up to kill civilians....
<3> in fact i'd say most of your intuitions are wrong
<0> panini: because you have a different opinion? yours a right? what-eva.
<5> just because something is based on intuition; doesn't mean it is a matter of opinion Renea
<3> Renea: no, because your intuitions conflict with facts
<0> panini: you're right, i'm right, and we disagree. that's how it works.
<5> many people decide on matters of fact based soly on intuition
<5> reality is not subjective
<3> Renea: wrong. not all opinions are equally valid, as you apparently think
<5> saying "it is true because that's how I see it" doesn't work
<2> renea: seriously, you have a problem with calling someone who commmits suicide, blowing up women and children.. a "terrorist" and a "suicide bomber" or "homocide bomber"?
<0> panini: fox news is biased, and that's a ****ing fact.
<5> all opinions are equally valid... IF they concern a MATTER OF OPINION :)
<2> renea: yea.. great supporting facts.. *rolls eyes*
<5> but they are not, if they concern a matter of fact
<4> renea is a nut, that is a ****ing fact
<3> Renea: nope. fox turned out to be the LEAST biased in the rigorous study I mentioned earlier. Another example of where your intuition totally conflicts with the facts...
<0> lupine: ah, so it's okay for you to argue the wording of a gun article, but not me when i criticize fox news? snicker.
<4> saying that america is occupying texas
<2> renea: if you were dry-fisted by a huge man.. would you have a problem if the media reported it as "a minor non-***ual incident"?
<0> panini: cite me this study
<4> lol 'dry-fisted'?
<4> as opposed to 'wet-fisted'?
<2> renea: the wording of the article was 100% wrong, factually incorrect. But I think its safe to say, someone who intentionally blows up innocent women and children in a suicide bombing are "suicide bombers", or "homocide bombers", or "terrorists"
<2> rcane: you are right.. I wrongly ***umed she wouldn't self lubricate out of pleasure
<0> kobushi: reality is not real, the only thing that is real is unreal.
<0> lupine: obvious i missed something because i had rcane ingored
<3> Renea: gladly... "A Measure of Media Bias", Groseclose, Milyo, UCLA 2003
<2> panini: I thought of specific shows, McNeil Lehrer was lease biased, followed up by brit hume
<0> lupine: nice you respond to my comment with a personal attack
<2> renea: what personal attack?
<6> Renea : what the study doesn't say or speak to is how narrow the focus is
<5> Renea nihilism is so 1900s
<6> of the media generally, esp of cable tv
<2> timur: remember, someone who intentionally blows up innocent women and children are not "terrorists".. [ according to renea ]
<5> anyway, here is a link : http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=media+bias+study ... various oogle articles to sites that mention the media bias study, both sites which herald it as fact, and those which attempt to debunk it as poor statistics
<0> kobushi: i was thinking more like that greek
<0> lupine: i didn't say that dumb***
<6> Lup: of course they are, it's definitional, but that's another issue. :)
<2> <0> also fox opts to use specific wording when describing events, insurgents are terrorists: to reinforce the terrorism/iraq connect. suicide bombers are homocide bombers. warrently wiretaps versus domestic spying.
<2> and then you compared that to a gun "accidently firing".
<0> lupine: a suicide bomber is a suicide bomber, they don't need called a homocide bomber to reinforce a projected opinion on the viewer. an insurgent is the proper term for those who are opposing us forces in iraq, not terrorist, to make the broad connection between the war on terror and iraq.
<6> many insurgents are terrorists but not all, I think that's the distinction she's drawing
<2> when the gun "accidently firing" is 99.9999% to be BS.. and the reporter couldn't even know it was an accidental firing by the gun, even if it was.
<6> unfortunately most are
<5> Renea why does it matter which term is used?
<3> In that study, Fox News Special Report had a rating of .503 (.5 is perfectly unbiased). In contrast the NY Times had a rating of .79 (highly liberal-biased)
<6> for us and for them
<6> panini: eh, there are problems with that study
<2> renea: eh? homocide bombing has alot less negativity than 'suicide bomber"
<0> lupine: no, i'm comparing your right to object to word choice to my right to object to word choice.
<4> Timur: she is also saying that guns accidently go off on there own all the time
<7> any one here
<2> renea: it is nto "word choice", it is WRONGLY worded. something that is factually incorrect
<0> kobushi: it matters because it projects a specific meaning to the audience
<0> lupine: calling all insurgents, terrorists is factually incorrect
<2> renea: what if the reporter said "the kids backpack accidently went off".. when it didn't? that would be factually wrong.
<5> Renea and audiences are incapable of decerning meanings?
<6> http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001169.html
<2> renea: i'm not aware of having done that
<6> is a good critique of that study
<2> now, I have not seen any evidence of any actual iraqi insurgents since al sadr stopped
<6> Renea: but if 80%, say, of the insurgents are terrorists, then it's not totally innaccurate, just partially
<2> timur: right, and to object to the use of terrorist at all.. is wrong
<5> wow
<2> you are then playing the odds, etc
<6> Kob: largely yes, when they have little prior knowledge of situations
<0> lupine: nobody is objecting to the use
<6> Lup: ok
<5> Meixco City is testing 500 hybrid civics as a taxi platform
<2> but a gun accidently going off? you have a greater chance of winning the lottery (*) ***uming we're not talking about 18th century black powder guns, etc
<6> anyway, that study is flawed
<2> no, the kid accidently fired the gun.. the gun did what it was designed to: pull the trigger, it goes bang
<2> ALL studies are flawed, it just depends to what degree :-)
<0> Groseclose and Milyo didn't consider other Fox shows, since they say they were interested "strictly in the news stories of the outlets," the ***umption being that a station can run wall-to-wall O'Reilly without being accused of being biased. Take that report and stick it in the trash where it belongs.
<6> it's deeply flawed :)
<6> Renea: yep
<2> timur: here are several good tests: 1) are they consistent on how they describe tax cuts or tax increases. for example, MANY use the bias of tax-increases as percentages, but tax cuts as absolute dollar amount.
<3> Timur: it's the critique which is flawed. Here is Groseclose & Milyo's response to that critique: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001301.html
<2> timur: well, that isn't a flaw, if the study only is for the news portion, and specifically states that.
<2> my arguement would be: the boundary which seperates editorials have been lowered, and contaminates the news reporting
<6> Suffice it to say that Nunberg could not have read our study carefully, as his methodological criticisms are directed only at what we repeatedly describe as our "back-of-the-envelope" method and not the procedure upon which we base our conclusions.
<3> Timur: as the response made clear, Nunberg didn't even read the paper carefully; he appear to have just skimmed it
<2> timur: ANOTHER excellent test 2) do they only report the facts of a tax cut/increase.. and let the reader to decide if it is "too much" "too little".. cl***ic example: "tax cut for the rich" is highly biased.
<0> well, i've had enough of #Politics for today. =P
<6> forget it, I'm not playing the game. The media isn't as biased as is purported, but it is narrower in focus and in outlook than most acknowledge. I'm not going to get into a comparison of validity with you on this.
<0> i still like you loopy
<6> panini: well, there you go
<0> bye rcane, i'll unignore you next time.
<2> timur: yes, just meekly run away
<6> For this reason, we believe Nunberg has lied when he implies that he has read the study carefully. This is a harsh criticism, but the alternative would be less charitable, as it would mean that Nunberg actually did read the study carefully, but purposely chose to misrepresent our work in order to undermine our credibility. Regardless, by taking on the guise of an informed and careful critic, Nunberg has misled many others who may have t
<6> Lup: no, I'm saving time by not further engaging in a pointless circularity.
<6> wait, that undermines this whole chan. ;) well, I choose not to discuss this particular topic.
<2> timur: well, do you agree that intentionally being inconsistant on how one reports tax increases/cuts is a bias?
<2> other biased statements that piss me off "repeal the tax cut" instead of "increase the taxes"
<3> the bottom line is: yes, the media IS biased as we all believed before. It's just been proven now. Deal with it.
<2> i just love how all the blow hard democrats on the judiciary committe.. can criticize *anyone* for not being for individual rights.. yet blantly act as if the 2nd amendment did not exist
<2> oh well.. at least god will sodomize them for all eternity in the afterlife
<8> Porn Spammer
<6> Lup: not necessarily, and if it can be, it's not necessarily indicative.
<2> timur: well, next time you read about it.. notice what they seem to do 99% of the time.
<2> tax increases are given in percentages.. "the top bracket will be increased by 1%".. but tax cuts are given in absolute dollars "the top bracket will save over $150,000"
<2> it's like a 5% off coupon. it's all the SAME rate.. but if you buy a $1 item, you save .05 if you buy a $100 item, you save $5.0
<3> lupine points out a very clear and common example of bias
<2> but they want to bias it.. tax increases, they wnat the reader to say " oh, that's not so bad.. its only 1%".. tax cuts? What? They are getting a $150,000 tax cut! that's evil and wrong! [ never mind, the media didn't point out that guy was already paying $50million in taxes ]
<2> ANOTHER bias is.. the news "reporter" saying the tax cut is too big, too little, for the rich, for the poor
<6> I do notice the appellations the media tends to use, but I don't ascribe much significance to it
<2> No, tell us what the tax cuts are "15% bracket has been cut by 33% to be 10%"
<2> timur: ah, perhaps you should ask yourself.. why is it always done in such a consistent manner...
<2> ANOTHER thing that bugs the **** out of me, reporters "summerizing".. instead of actually quoting
<8> Bah, The stock market ****ed today, Nothing moved for me. like reading yesterdays newspaper.
<2> first story on NY times
<2> Republicans and Democrats on the committee offered starkly different views of the nominee today, with Republicans calling him superbly qualified in terms of intellect and integrity - "a towering legal figure," as Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, put it - and Democrats describing him as favoring governmental power over individual rights and big business over working-cl*** people.
<2> no ****ing mr "david stout".. don't tell me what YOU think they were saying.. QUOTE them
<8> The good news is my most recent aquisitions are holding. Indicating I bought them at a true bottom..
<5> FreeTrade at least you didn't loose on all of your investments today :) they at least stayed static
<8> usually if not they keep going down.
<2> hopefully there is a journalistic god, who'll sodomize the NY Times reporter David Stout for bad bad journalism
<6> Lup: there are other measures, and the greatest measure of significance to me is the breadth and depth of stories covered, which is lacking in both regards.
<8> These are maintaining their value which I bought at 52 week lows.
<2> ah, so if its a wide and deep barrel of bull****.. who cares about the bias?
<8> I buy when people sell, I sell when people buy
<8> ;)
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#microsoft
WRT54GX4 problem copy file
#windows
APP_ENG.DLL
#windows
SNL Star wars outtakes Kevin Spacey
#politics
#online
#linuxhelp
#linux-noob
|
|