Is Fox "News" a news organization?

[bascule]

While there are other things I would take issue with Pangloss, the most pressing concern is this:

 

Failing to substantiate his opinion does not make him a troll.

 

While that's true, demanding others do so while he doesn't himself makes him a hypocrite.

 

These are science forums, and I feel people should be held responsible for what they say, regardless of which forum it's in.

 

I suppose politics should be given a special exemption, but you can be sure I will be extra vigilant about whatever jryan says subforums on science-related topics and making use of that triangle button, given his track record.

 

And as long as you aren't against people voicing your opinions, I think the political predisposition of certain moderators of the politics forum have affected said individuals moderation skills, now and in the past. But that's just my opinion... an unsubstantiated opinion, but my opinion nonetheless. You recently expressed that people are allowed to state their opinions, even if they're unsubstantiated.

Edited February 17, 2010 by bascule

[toastywombel]

Sure all news networks are bias to some degree, but I don't know how it is not obvious to everyone that Fox takes the cake. No other network has a one sided line-up like Fox: Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Cavuto, Gretchen, Kelly I mean really.

 

Check this out, the time is 4:30 AM Mountain (US). I just visited the Fox Politics site right now, and this is the featured story on there:

 

"President Obama's new envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain, is at the center of a controversy over remarks attributed to him defending a man who later pleaded guilty to conspiring to aid a terrorist group"

 

As opposed to CNN's featured political story at the same time:

 

"Washington (CNN) -- The fight over health care reform burst back into public view Tuesday as four Democratic senators asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to hold a vote on a government-run public insurance option."

 

Or MSNBC's top political story:

 

"WASHINGTON - Senator Evan Bayh’s comments this week about a dysfunctional Congress reflected a complaint being directed at Washington with increasing frequency, and there is broad agreement among critics about Exhibit A: The unwillingness of the two parties to compromise to control a national debt that is rising to dangerous heights. "

 

Which one of these seems like the most partisan/ least important story?

 

I wanted to, initially, avoid commenting on this, but bascule is right people have to be accountable for what they say. Opinions should be allowed, but I think it is important to let everyone else on the forum know if someone's opinion is a complete misinterpretation of reality.

 

But since un-substantiated opinions are allowed I would just like to say that I somewhat agree with this one:

 

"And as long as you aren't against people voicing your opinions, I think the political predisposition of certain moderators of the politics forum have affected said individuals moderation skills, now and in the past. But that's just my opinion... an unsubstantiated opinion, but my opinion nonetheless. You recently expressed that people are allowed to state their opinions, even if they're unsubstantiated."

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, so long as we're playing the opinion game, here's mine:

"It is my opinion that unsubstantiated opinions are essentially meaningless."

[Phi for All]

And as long as you aren't against people voicing your opinions, I think the political predisposition of certain moderators of the politics forum have affected said individuals moderation skills, now and in the past. But that's just my opinion... an unsubstantiated opinion, but my opinion nonetheless. You recently expressed that people are allowed to state their opinions, even if they're unsubstantiated.

Personally, I can't think of anybody else on staff (or in the general membership, for that matter) who is more qualified and capable of handling this most sensitive of sub-forums. Pangloss does an admirable job of keeping an even keel on a ship that tends to list to port.

 

If you would like to keep honing your political opinions against opposing views, you're going to need those who hold those views to stay on board long enough to post them, and here at SFN that often takes a steersman who has to shove a little harder to starboard than he would like. I would hate participating on this forum if all I heard was opinions echoing my own.

 

So let's scupper this mutiny right now, ye scabrous dog! Leave it fer the bilges, get that mainsail taut and put yer back into it! Arrrrrrr!

[jryan]

Certainly, as I'm not like certain members of this forum who may or may not be quoted in this post right above this sentence and whose nicknames start with the letter after "i" who like to leverage unsubstantiated claims and never provide supporting evidence, here are a few examples:

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0910/04/sotu.01.html

 

 

 

$100-200 BILLION DOLLARS SAVED! Citation free! Much like the overwhelming majority of "arguments" of a certain member of these forums who may or may not be quoted at the top of this post.

 

So what does the CBO say about Jon Kyl's claims?

 

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=389

 

And CNN's response?

 

Do you want some more? Well here's some more...

 

So does CNN call Democrats to task on their claims that are not supported by the CBO? How is this different than Democrats claim that the Health Care bill would be paid for with "$500 billion saved in Medicare fraud over 10 years" and other pie in the sky predictions?

 

Also, that CBO blog is reporting an $11 billion reduction in gross US health care cost in 2009 while the $54 billion over 10 years is in the federal budget deficit savings due to cost reduction in Medicare and Medicaid alone. Those are two different numbers entirely.

 

What is the CBO estimate on the total cost savings in the US health care industry over 10 years? Absent that number we can multiply $11 billion x 10 to get $110 billion which is within range of John Kyl's claim. It may not be perfect but it's at least a direct comparison. I could also easily assume that if tort reform reduces federal health care expense $54 billion over 10 years then the cost reduction over the entire health care industry would be far more than $54 billion.

 

But it's not like CNN doesn't treat those on the left with kid gloves....

 

How about last September's interview with Hugo Chavez? Read the spew that is coming from Hugo Chavez and the limp responses from King.

 

or

 

In this transcript you have Dean making claims about the reaosn for Health care reform while Blitzer asks no meaningful questions on Dean's assertions.

 

And I will admit that my two examples and your two examples mean nothing.. but as I stated, your call of bull on Kyl's claim and your evidence to the contrary don't sync up.

 

America's great healthcare system, destroyed by a slippery slope into oblivion! Will CNN let this blatant logical fallacy stand?

 

Which is funny because health care reform is sold on the very same sort of fatalism. The economy will be destroyed without reform.

 

But as far as Hatch's claim, it is hard to argue against his point given that Obama, Barney Frank and other leading Democrats have expressed interest in working towards a single payer system, and there is a large portion of the Democrats base that strongly advocates the same.

 

 

Hrmm, CNN might start by asking about the population of the United States (hint: it's not 330 million). And the number of uninsured people in America... it's between 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 people, give or take the value of the original estimate. What?

 

CNN's response?

 

 

 

Awfully fair of you CNN, when the person you're giving the CNN mouthpiece to just cited a range the size of the lower bound, and misquoted the population of the US by about 25 million people, while at the same time claiming the number of uninsured was a "very small percentage".

 

So what do government statistics say?

 

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/Reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm

 

By your own HHS figure you can cut 5.6 million off the top of that misleading 45.8 million as they are illegal aliens.. that reduces the figure to 40.2 million.

 

A further 6.9 of those uninsured declined health care coverage... so 33.3 million, really....

 

Further from the HHS 46% of that 45.8 million worked full time and make an average of $63,000 annually. Assuming all of those families are working full time in jobs that offer no health benefits, the can go to http://www.ehealthinsurance.com and do a quick pricing for insurance for their family. I did a quick search for me (family of 4) in my area and found numerous plans available for under $200 a month, less than $7 a day (with a daily wage of $172.48.

 

(by the way, using that handy tool I found that a 20 year old college student can get a policy from Aetna for $49.00 a month! Or $149/month for 0 deductible/ $0/office visit)

 

At this point lack of insurance becomes a choice. I don't think that they should count in the uninsured since it is by choice. That would leave my estimate at 17.98 million uninsured using your HHS statistics.

 

That is a hell of a lot closer to the 10 million than the 45.8 million figure you are claiming. I could even claim overlap in those groups and do a straight 50% reduction, (22.9 million) rather than an aggregate 61%, and the 5,000,000 claim by Kyl is STILL closer than your 45.8 claim.

 

Or, if you look at the break down of a claim made by Fred Thompson at factcheck.org you will see that claiming the 45.8 million is not at all accurate when your interest is in the chronically, rather than willfully, uninsured. Note also that a full 9.1 million of the 45.8 million have family incomes over $75,000. according the FactCheck.

 

 

Yes, the "number that keeps changing" is 15.7%, that's a "very small percentage"... and 5-10 million is only off by a factor of 9-18, so somewhere between a smidgin away from an order of magnitude and an order of magnitude.

 

This is using your entirely non-critical evaluation of the 45.8 million. As you can see from the actual numbers the 45.8 million can easily be found to be at least double the actual number of chronically uninsured.

 

 

Great, poisoning the well about my political bias after defending Fox News and lambasting CNN. That's not hypocritical of you whatsoever, jryan. Surely there's no political bias in any of your statements.

 

I haven't forgiven Fox news, I only argued that it was inevitable and that the net effect was news agencies more aware of their own biases.

 

All pretenses aside jryan: you do the same thing these Republicans are doing. You are unconcerned about facts so much as advancing your narrative. You don't cite reputable sources. You don't defend your claims. You make slippery slope arguments. You make ad hominem arguments. You poison the well. And you don't care.

 

As was already stated, this is opinion, but I do provide sources I find to be reputable, and I even admit when I have misread a source. The trouble is, no debate can happen when only one side gets to determine what is and isn't a reputable source. All that is is controlling the message.

 

I do question sources when I think there is a valid reason to do so, but I do provide documentation for why I question the source.

 

That makes you a troll. I've defended my claims. Please defend yours. Stop using logical fallacies. Cite sources... real sources, not just blogs which echo your own personal narrative. Stop trying to just advance your narrative and be objective.

 

I do defend my claims, Bascule. I also comment on your claims. Thta is what debate is. But if I make a statement and get 3 or 4 responses don't be surprised if I don't comment on all of them, or if one of yours is lost in the shuffle.

 

I have tried to back track and respond to posts when it is pointed out to me that a statement has gone unanswered... even when that person makes the argumentative and wholly incorrect assertion that I am avoiding their question on the grounds of it's unquestionable and unassailable logic.

 

I'd really like to see it but given your history on these forums I sincerely doubt you're capable.

 

Ad hominem.

Edited February 17, 2010 by jryan

[The Bear's Key]

That's the great thing about America, we don't have state-run media outlets shoving propaganda down our throats. Yes there is spin, but it's up to us as citizens to make the decisions on where to get our info and how to interpret it.

Well, many citizens decide to get their info from news. And if a station is mislabeling itself as news....

 

 

No, they may teach you in school that you can invent your own facts, spelling, opinion, or whatever, but the world doesn't care what you think. When you jump off a cliff believing you can fly, the same will happen as when you believe you will fall -- though in the latter case you might be sensible enough to have a parachute. No, what's in the eye of the beholder is how he judges things -- subjective or unclear things depend on who is judging it.

+1. An insightful explanation.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC#Allegations_of_political_bias

 

Then we can agree that neither organizations actually cover the news, correct?

Indeed, but MSNBC flaunts itself as being for politics -- which by definition isn't news. I'll agree that its politics section is now mostly the opposition to FOX News, but that's only misleading by labeling it "The Place For Politics", when in reality it's usually a single politics, i.e. not all.

 

At least MSNBC doesn't call their political segment news, and their website is just msnbc.com alone (compare that with the foxnews.com address).

 

 

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/08/20/msnbc-lie-to-perpetuate-racial-tensions/

 

Are you still under the false assumption that MSNBC has never lied?

On the same page you linked to...

 

We complain about Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, but they engage in opinion journalism, so we expect to get wild arguments and leg tingles. What they don’t do is deliberately distort source material in a manner this blatantly dishonest in order to artificially inflame racial tensions. Opinion journalism is legitimate; this is nothing but propaganda.

A person at MSNBC lied, and it's entirely wrong/asinine the manner her team did it. But obviously the entire station isn't like the one worker.

 

 

I wish I had the attribution to the quote, but there was a news editor back in the 70s who once said "There are 4 billion people and only 3 hours of daily news, we can't report on all of them".

So why does news focus on a handful of people, repeatedly for days on end?

 

 

well all of Olbermann -- who is probably the most frothing and hatefull of the bunch.

Qualify.

 

 

Because of this, you will also find journalists gravitating to jobs where they are comfortable and where they feel their voice will be heard.

You've seen this?

 

(and often?)

 

 

In 1997, a study done by the American Society of Newspaper Editors found that 61% of print journalists considered themselves Democrats to 15% Republican. This is part of a longer trend.

Main source: The Freedom Forum? A "nonpartisan" joke. Ironic also that a supposedly "liberal" paper wrote the article.

 

 

The split has gone from 61/15 to 40/25 according to a recent article at journalism.org.

This from your article...

 

only 17% of the public characterized themselves as leaning leftward, and 41% identified themselves as tilting to the right.

On what planet? The land of Middle East?

 

I seriously doubt the entirety of their accuracy.

 

Heck, let's just take data from other sources as well. But, unlike yours, these seem quite well documented and explains the methodoly beyond what's usual...

 

Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim

 

6/1/98

........

• On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.

 

• Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.

 

• The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.

 

• Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst.

But even if your premise were true, bias means nothing in thought and everything in action. What specifically have the majority of reporters done that's biased? What are most of the reports on? Corruption from high society? Tons of reports on blacks involved with crime?

 

I've seen newspaper "accounts" of people I know who did small crimes, and the news version was too often distorted in a much anti-liberal way. i.e. guilty before proven innocent.

 

 

Oh, I'm not saying Fox's bias is coincidence, I think it was specifically founded for the purpose of giving conservative journalists a voice.

More for the purpose of giving liars and tricksters a voice. Fox provided a haven and niche for people with illegitimate methods and honed lying skills.

 

False conservatives, not real ones.

 

 

My point was that you are saying that you watch biased non-news in a thread discuss whether a new organization is in fact news.

 

It would be like me saying I don't read news papers, I get my print journalism from the Onion.

Not really. I feel the same as Mr Skeptic does with news in general. If you can only learn about the world by news, especially in the information age, that might create a problem for understanding reality.

 

 

Now, here's something for you and whoever desires to examine.

 

Instead of just saying who's more biased, let's do a critical examination of reality. That's our strength. It's the reason false "conservatives" likely hate Wikipedia, stats, records, anything that can a bright shine light on their invented reality.

 

Onward. Below are links to Google searches of certain political words on the major news websites, for us to examine the search results and compare how each news website promotes their supposed ideological bias.

 

Also, for quickness you can read just the brief snipets of each website for a quick preview, without clicking on it, but if something looks incriminating, then do open the link to make sure it's not from the reader comments section.

 

How do each of the networks report on supposedly "favorite" political ideologies? For liberals, you'd expect them to defend, promote, and be in favor of strikes, public assistance, regulations, keynesian thought, peace, intervention, and of course -- the word liberal. And more importantly, how do each of the major networks treat the political keywords of their supposed "opposition"?

 

Does the news report on the events? Or do they consistently promote favorites and bash the opposition?

 

 

 

welfare

 

FOX news

ABC news

MSNBC news

CNN news

 

 

public assistance

 

FOX news

ABC news

MSNBC news

CNN news

 

 

milton friedman

 

FOX news

MSNBC news

 

 

strike

 

FOX news

ABC news

MSNBC news

CNN news

 

 

mises

 

FOX news

MSNBC news

 

 

regulations

 

FOX news

ABC news

MSNBC news

CNN news

 

 

regulation

 

FOX news

ABC news

MSNBC news

CNN news

 

 

peace

 

ABC news

MSNBC news

CNN news

 

 

keynes

 

ABC news

MSNBC news

CNN news

 

 

keynesian

 

ABC news

MSNBC news

CNN news

 

 

intervention

 

FOX news

ABC news

 

 

church state

 

FOX news

ABC news

MSNBC news

CNN news

 

 

liberal

 

FOX news

ABC news

MSNBC news

CNN news

 

 

conservative

 

FOX news

ABC news

CNN news

CNN news

 

 

You can do your own searches and comparisons. Type a keyword followed by....

 

site:http://

 

and the appropriate website.

 

For example....

 

keyword site:http://scienceforums.net

 

And that simple.

 

 

 

I wanna return to this, just to make a funny...

 

only 17% of the public characterized themselves as leaning leftward

Probably includes the 14% below...

 

Also, 14% of the people in a recent Pew poll said that FOX News is "mostly liberal."

Edited February 18, 2010 by The Bear's Key
chop

[bascule]

Personally, I can't think of anybody else on staff (or in the general membership, for that matter) who is more qualified and capable of handling this most sensitive of sub-forums. Pangloss does an admirable job of keeping an even keel on a ship that tends to list to port.

 

If you would like to keep honing your political opinions against opposing views, you're going to need those who hold those views to stay on board long enough to post them, and here at SFN that often takes a steersman who has to shove a little harder to starboard than he would like. I would hate participating on this forum if all I heard was opinions echoing my own.

 

So let's scupper this mutiny right now, ye scabrous dog! Leave it fer the bilges, get that mainsail taut and put yer back into it! Arrrrrrr!

 

Yeah, no hard feelings Pangloss, I was just trying to illustrate that "let people say whatever they want so long as it's their opinion" is probably a bad policy.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

[Endless stream of follow up questions after I found citations to defend my position]

 

You know jryan, really, I don't care. I stated that CNN lets conservatives get away with saying some pretty retarded sh1t. You asked me to back that up, and I did. I don't really care about your followup concerns.

 

If you have issues with CNN, perhaps you could Google through transcripts.cnn.com yourself and dig them up. I'm not going to do that work for you.

 

I hope you will at least agree with me at this point that CNN has let conservatives get away with saying patent falsehoods and then not questioning them whatsoever.

 

But you won't agree with me, and that's your bias showing. Also, that's not an ad hominem. When you claim GISTEMP results are suspect because you don't like James Hansen, that's an ad hominem. When I say I think you're incapable of higher reasoning skills, that's called an "insult".

[Pangloss]

Thanks. We don't disagree by much, you know, and I appreciate the feedback.

[Mr Skeptic]

Main source: The Freedom Forum? A "nonpartisan" joke. Ironic also that a supposedly "liberal" paper wrote the article.

 

Eh? A very cursory examination of mine didn't show them to be badly biased. Why do you think they are a joke?

[jryan]

So why does news focus on a handful of people, repeatedly for days on end?

 

Because, as I said, the editors find them interesting or their story important. As such, an editor's story sense, informed by his own beliefs, lead to biased reporting. I am sure given the choice between a CEO imbezzeling $20million and a discovery of $20 million in welfare fraud many editors will run the story that best supports their world view.

 

Anyone would. If you had to choose which of those stories to lead with which would you choose?

 

Qualify.

 

For now I will let Jon Stewart do the work.

 

Ok, I'll also throw in this clip of the slimeball smirking his way through an attack on a 17 year old girl.

 

You've seen this?

 

(and often?)

 

Yes, as I said, it's called "Fox News"... heard of it?

 

 

Main source: The Freedom Forum? A "nonpartisan" joke. Ironic also that a supposedly "liberal" paper wrote the article.

 

Qualify.

 

 

 

This from your article...

 

only 17% of the public characterized themselves as leaning leftward, and 41% identified themselves as tilting to the right.

On what planet? The land of Middle East?

 

On this planet in 1992. It has only changed slightly since then.

 

As of October of last year it was 40% Conservative and 20% Liberal.

 

I seriously doubt the entirety of their accuracy.

 

Because you don't like the 41/17 split?

 

Heck, let's just take data from other sources as well. But, unlike yours, these seem quite well documented and explains the methodoly beyond what's usual...

 

Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim

 

6/1/98

........

• On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.

 

• Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.

 

• The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.

 

• Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst.

But even if your premise were true, bias means nothing in thought and everything in action. What specifically have the majority of reporters done that's biased? What are most of the reports on? Corruption from high society? Tons of reports on blacks involved with crime?

 

I've seen newspaper "accounts" of people I know who did small crimes, and the news version was too often distorted in a much anti-liberal way. i.e. guilty before proven innocent.

 

 

So you knock me for a NYT article that reports on a Freedom Forum study and then throw in a Fair.org article?

 

Here is the Washington Post, five days after the election, admits it gave Obama an easy ride. Gee, thanks!

 

Do a similar search on "NYT admits bias" and you will see numerous stories in just this past election cycle where the NYT admits they made questionable decisions not running ACORN stories, failed to report on known issues with Van Jones, giving a special price to MoveOn.org in it's page ad.. and that their initial defense was also wrong (it wasn't a standby ad).

 

John Carroll, former editor of the Los Angeles Times sure thinks his paper has a bias problem.

 

And so on. Save for Carroll, these aren't self discoveries, but rather obvious signs of omission bias that they eventually have to answer to.

 

More for the purpose of giving liars and tricksters a voice. Fox provided a haven and niche for people with illegitimate methods and honed lying skills.

 

Qualify.

 

False conservatives, not real ones.

 

Qualify.

 

 

Not really. I feel the same as Mr Skeptic does with news in general. If you can only learn about the world by news, especially in the information age, that might create a problem for understanding reality.

 

So you get better news by not reading any news? Are you engaging in intellectual alchemy?

 

 

Now, here's something for you and whoever desires to examine.

 

(long list of Google Links)

 

Are those positive or negative comments? Are they from news stories or pundits? A simple google serach like that, while time consuming I am sure, is pretty worthless in proving bias or lack-there-of.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You know jryan, really, I don't care. I stated that CNN lets conservatives get away with saying some pretty retarded sh1t. You asked me to back that up, and I did. I don't really care about your followup concerns.

 

How strange. you last post is slamming me for not following up on arguments... then your very next post is "I'm not going to follow up on your arguments".

 

If you have issues with CNN, perhaps you could Google through transcripts.cnn.com yourself and dig them up. I'm not going to do that work for you.

 

I simply addressed your transcripts that you looked up to help your point and provided transcripts of my own. I asked you to go find examples of CNN being too forgiving to conservatives because your initial claim had no coroborating evidence. You would have asked no less of me.

 

Come to think of it you actually ridiculed me for not providing evidence in your last post, too.

 

I hope you will at least agree with me at this point that CNN has let conservatives get away with saying patent falsehoods and then not questioning them whatsoever.

 

Not based on the evidence you provided, no. Would you say they let Democrats get away with falsehoods?

 

But you won't agree with me, and that's your bias showing. Also, that's not an ad hominem. When you claim GISTEMP results are suspect because you don't like James Hansen, that's an ad hominem. When I say I think you're incapable of higher reasoning skills, that's called an "insult".

 

No, I provided the reasons why I question Hanson in the GISSTEMP thread. There are even more developments on Hanson since then, by the way.

 

And no, I won't accept your CNN assertion becuase you followed up a gratuitous assertion with faulty evidence... why on Earth would I accept your assertions under this conditions?

[bascule]

How strange. you last post is slamming me for not following up on arguments... then your very next post is "I'm not going to follow up on your arguments".

 

Let's just rewind and look at my last post, shall we:

 

I'm not like ... EDIT: jryan who likes[/b'] to leverage unsubstantiated claims and never provide supporting evidence

 

Yeah, my issue is you make claims then don't support them with evidence, not that you don't provide follow up posts. Anyone can provide a follow up post. My issue is your posts tend not to be, shall we say, grounded in things like facts and reality. You seem to have no trouble providing your opinion, as unsubstantiated and ungrounded in reality as it may be.

 

I simply addressed your transcripts that you looked up to help your point and provided transcripts of my own. [...] Come to think of it you actually ridiculed me for not providing evidence in your last post, too.

 

No you didn't, and yes I did, because no you didn't. What did you do? You played go fish again, providing links but not citing the relevant material. Again, I don't play that game. If there's material of interest you want to present in the forums, please quote the relevant text instead of just throwing the link out there with the assumption I'm going to review the linked content in its totality and determine what's relevant. I cited the relevant text for you. Please return the favor. Until you do that, you're just being an asshole, sorry.

Edited February 18, 2010 by bascule

[Mr Skeptic]

So you get better news by not reading any news? Are you engaging in intellectual alchemy?

 

Do you get better arguments by not reading what you are responding to (or ignoring facts to take cheap-shots)? Is this the sort of argumentation skills you learned from Fox? I particularly like your accusation of not reading news as a response to our expressed preference for written media over TV.

[jryan]

Do you get better arguments by not reading what you are responding to (or ignoring facts to take cheap-shots)? Is this the sort of argumentation skills you learned from Fox? I particularly like your accusation of not reading news as a response to our expressed preference for written media over TV.

 

I was making a joke, man. But going back to your news habbits I would suggest broadening your horizons a bit. You get good information even from sources you hate, and you should know about some things even if they don't particularly interest you.

[bascule]

Glenn Beck fancies himself a libertarian, but Ron Paul supports terrorism:

 

xnWlghe8reg

[toastywombel]

Jryan, it seem rather unfair to lecture us on the left about reading the news, when it seems as if people who agree with your views support characters such as Palin.

 

Furthermore, on that more people are conservative (politically): Then tell me why does the Democratic Party have more registered voters than the GOP, and why does the GOP seem to historically fear high voter turnout. It is a political common sense that high voter-turnouts favor the Democrats.

 

And as far as broadening one's horizons on news: It is kind of hard to broaden the news content I look at when four companies essentially control the worlds news. That is capitalism at its finest, oligopoly.

Edited February 21, 2010 by toastywombel

[jackson33]

toasty; Not answering for Jryan, or does he need anyone to, you have raised a couple interesting points.....

 

Jryan, it seem rather unfair to lecture us on the left about reading the news, when it seems as if people who agree with your views support characters such as Palin.[/Quote]

 

The natural comeback, would likely be, people with your views support such characters as Obama. Palin, smaller Federal Government, free enterprise, State Rights, lower taxes, on and on....Obama, MUCH larger government, take over or regulate ALL business, force States to accept stimulus money, taxing not important (yet), just spend, on and on...

 

 

Furthermore, on that more people are conservative (politically): Then tell me why does the Democratic Party have more registered voters than the GOP, and why does the GOP seem to historically fear high voter turnout. It is a political common sense that high voter-turnouts favor the Democrats.[/Quote]

 

Most people in the US today claim to be 'Independent', than either Democrat or Republican. however when asked if Conservative or Liberal, will say Conservative, including a good deal of Democrats. Seems, when it comes to Religion, Marriage, Education, fiscal responsibility, most folks are Conservative. Note; I've been noticing an increased interest in getting back adherence to the Federal Constitution, teabaggers.

 

And as far as broadening one's horizons on news: It is kind of hard to broaden the news content I look at when four companies essentially control the worlds news. That is capitalism at its finest, oligopoly.[/Quote]

 

I don't think the BBC (British), CBC (Canadian), Russia or maybe any industrialized Nation, would agree. Factually however, of the 6.7 Billion people on this planet, China, India, the Middle East, Africa or anyplace where government controls media or religion is a factor (Hindu/Muslim/Catholic) is where most the worlds people live. No Fox or Sky News (Fox European affiliate, owned by Newscorp), short of the computer. It's also probable, your local news broadcast, will be based on local bias, not their network affiliation.

[Pangloss]

Yes, there are traditionally more registered Democrats than Republicans in this country, but that fact misses the key element of American politics -- independents. This 2004 chart is from the Wikipedia:

 

 

In addition to registered independents, a minority number of voters registered in each of the parties are also willing to sometimes vote for candidates from the other party. A figure you commonly hear in political discourse is that 60-80% of the country votes for the same party each election, with around half of that die-hard vote going to each party. These are what I like to call "the irrelevant voters", because their votes are not carefully considered by their owners. They think they're participating in the process, and they do play a small role, but it's not a very important one.

 

Also, note that recent disenfranchised Republicans haven't exactly flocked to the Democratic rolls -- what they've done is become independent. Independents are the fastest-growing political orientation in the country. (source) They may be the fastest-growing political orientation in American history.

 

Back in 1954, only 22% of voters identified themselves as independents, according to the American National Election Survey. Fifty years later the number was nearly double. Now, two out of five Americans can't name anything they like about the Democrats, and 50% say the same about Republicans.

 

And amongst younger voters the lack of connection with the traditional parties is even more stark -- 40% of them already proclaim themselves independent, and half refuse to identify with any traditional ideological label. (from a recent Harvard study cited in the same source as above)

 

Which is why the real power in this country rests with those with OPEN minds. NOT those who have decided that Republicans or Democrats specifically are the root of our problems. And, in my opinion, the unilateral condemnation of one party or ideology is pointless and immature.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Pangloss

[jackson33]

Pangloss; Think you will find in the US, 40% of the electorate, by polling say they are Independent. Using your 2004 figures of 169 million registered voters, 40% would be 67.6 Million and feel sure some came from the democratic ranks. Your chart or any current chart for actual registered, may be misleading. In many States, in order to participate in the Primary/Caucus system, you must be registered to that party.

 

This is an exciting and challenging time for independent voters and for the independent movement. Independents are now 40% of the electorate. Polls show that 41% of college students consider themselves indies as do 35% of African Americans under the age of 30. Independents played an integral role in shaping the presidential season via open primaries and caucuses in 33 states as well as in recent contests in NJ, VA and MA.[/Quote]

 

http://www.independentvoting.org/?gclid=CP3irdSjhKACFVcB4wodZUdviQ

 

I'm reluctant to argue the power, but would suggest the perceived economy near the time of any election, sways the vote 90% of the time. Open minds are fine, but economic conditions along with a standard definitions of liberal/conservative, as to the candidates is very important. 2008, had two perceived moderates, whether this perception was correct or not, but the economy was definitely heading down, the results...incumbent party out.

[Pangloss]

You seem to be offering that opinion in rebuttal of my post, but I'm unclear how any of that disputes what I just said.

[jackson33]

Pangloss; Not really arguing, discussing, not meant as conflict, then no problem. I suggested to toasty, there were more Independents and want to further explain that point.

[Pangloss]

Oh I see, thanks.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Columnist Thomas Friedman in today's New York Times:

 

Mr. Obama won the election because he was able to “rent” a significant number of independent voters — including Republican business types who had never voted for a Democrat in their lives — because they knew in their guts that the country was on the wrong track and was desperately in need of nation-building at home and that John McCain was not the man to do it.

 

Alas, though, instead of making nation-building in America his overarching narrative and then fitting health care, energy, educational reform, infrastructure, competitiveness and deficit reduction under that rubric, the president has pursued each separately. This made each initiative appear to be just some stand-alone liberal obsession to pay off a Democratic constituency — not an essential ingredient of a nation-building strategy — and, therefore, they have proved to be easily obstructed, picked off or delegitimized by opponents and lobbyists.

 

So “Obamism” feels at worst like a hodgepodge, at best like a to-do list — one that got way too dominated by health care instead of innovation and jobs — and not the least like a big, aspirational project that can bring out America’s still vast potential for greatness.

 

The president needs to persuade the country to invest in the future and pay for the past — past profligacy — all at the same time. We have to pay for more new schools and infrastructure than ever, while accepting more entitlement cuts than ever, when public trust in government is lower than ever.

 

It comes back to us: We have to demand the truth from our politicians and be ready to accept it ourselves. We simply do not have another presidency to waste. There are no more fat years to eat through. If Obama fails, we all fail.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/opinion/21friedman.html?em

[jryan]

If it means anything, I am an independent. But I am a conservative independent.

 

I think that we are drifting away from party politics and toward a greater reliance on ideological politics. But then it's easy for me to admit that because more of the country is conservative than liberal.

[Pangloss]

Fair enough. To quote Kurt Vonnegut, I believe that people are what they say that they are, so we should be careful what we say that we are.

[bascule]

Which is why the real power in this country rests with those with OPEN minds. NOT those who have decided that Republicans or Democrats specifically are the root of our problems. And, in my opinion, the unilateral condemnation of one party or ideology is pointless and immature.

 

That said, how about I bash both sides, and do it within the context of this thread? I think Fox versus the other networks provides a relatively apt microcosm of the US in general:

 

Fox is more concerned with belief and personal narrative than they are with an accurate depiction of reality. Those Fox News personalities who are routinely and often unduly critical of Democrats and liberals garner large audiences among conservatives.

 

The other networks are generally more concerned with an accurate depiction of reality and do not have a strong, unifying narrative. This generally makes them less effective than Fox in a number of fronts. Their viewers are far less loyal and pay less attention as they're looking for news, not narrative, and it only takes about 15 minutes of watching Headline News to get that. Viewers of other networks don't constantly need their own beliefs re-enforced because they're more predisposed to change them as new facts emerge. A desire for knowledge, not opinion, is what drives them to these networks in the first place.

 

In cases where these networks do employ liberal commentators who are routinely and often unduly critical of Republicans, they do not garner large audiences. There simply isn't as much demand for this sort of thing among liberals. While Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck are household names, can your average Joe even name one liberal political radio host? Air America declared bankrupcy, due to what can only be described as a lack of interest. Sure, there's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, but the audiences they command are a fraction of the size of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck's audiences on Fox News.

 

I agree there's a certain amount of debate as to how much a desire for reenforcement of personal narrative is at play versus liberals' preference for new media. Not to make a gross generalization, but liberals like change and change their media habits, while conservatives prefer things to stay the same and will still listen to the radio because it's old and familiar. I think both desire for reenforcement of a personal narrative and a preference for older forms of media play into the overwhelming conservative dominance of political opinion programming on radio and cable television. The liberals? You're more apt to find them using new media, particularly leveraging social networks on the Internet. They're blogging, Twittering, and Facebooking away, organizing themselves online instead of passively tuning into old media talking heads.

 

All that said: this dichotomy is reflected in their leadership. Democrats don't really have a unified narrative to offer. Their leadership is fractured. This makes them ineffectual at getting things done. Their constituency has varying opinions about what legislation should be enacted. I think you'll find there are far more conservative Democrats than there are liberal Republicans. The "Big Tent" is both a blessing and a curse. Sure, the Democratic party is bigger, but the more people you attract, the more cooks you have concocting the legislation, and you run into the "too many cooks" problem. It certainly shows in the healthcare bill. Watching the healthcare bill evolve, it's as if the Democrats have ADD, the bill is one thing one moment and completely changes the next. Public option? No public option? They can't decide. Different Democrats want different things.

 

Would Democrats be better if they had a unified narrative that everyone could fall in line with? It'd certainly make them more effectual at getting legislation passed, and that alone would keep them from losing the independent vote. Democrats' ineffectiveness at accomplishing the "change" that was promised in the past election will certainly cost them votes this year. Like the Democrats, swing voter independents can't decide if it's better for Republicans to jam through bad legislation and get things done, or deal with a bunch of blundering, disorganized Democrats that can't decide what they want to do.

 

So which is better: a party that operates according to their distorted narrative instead of reality, or a party that's a disorganized morass and can't decide what it wants to do? Either way America loses. Sadly, that's the position we're stuck in. I keep rooting for the Democrats hoping that eventually they'll get it together, but much like America's independents, they've lost my confidence, and I feel the only reason I continue voting for them is not because I'm encouraged by what they're accomplishing but simply because I feel the alternative is so much worse. That's not a good position for any of us to be in.

Edited February 22, 2010 by bascule

[Pangloss]

First, let me just say that I think that's a very astute analysis. That was an interesting post, and one I largely agree with. I will contend one point, but mainly by the way of supporting the rest of your argument.

 

The other networks are more concerned with an accurate depiction of reality and do not have a strong, unifying narrative.

 

Well... maybe not so much of an overtly political one, true. But I think there is a narrative, and it's one that consistently sticks a thorn in the side of many of us that reside to the right side of the political aisle. It's much more subtle and familiar, and it's more accurately rooted with the real lessons this country has learned over its history (yes, I'm saying that the mainstream media's politically-correct viewpoint has more common sense and lessons-learned behind it). It's generalizations are more likely to show up on Oprah or The View or Larry King, and are generally utilized in an apolitical sense, as "good advice", or "smart thinking".

 

But just because a talking point is utilized in an apolitical manner does not mean that it does not have political ramifications. They call it "the culture war" for a reason. Watch "Rick's List" some afternoon on CNN. I've been picking up a little time on it here and there because it's coming on during my lunch break, and it's pretty revolting. Ironically, Rick Sanchez cut his teeth on a local Fox affiliate here in South Florida that prided itself on "edgy" newscasting, with lots of bells and whistles and ambulance chasing and helicopter police chases and not so much accuracy or truth. I think he would fit right in at Fox News -- in fact I would go so far as to say that aside from the specific narrative he's supporting, with its less-political aspect we agree on, I don't see any difference between him and a Fox News talking head like Shepherd Smith at all.

 

I do think the politically correct crowd is getting better at being less remonstrative of conservatives. These days it's less about punishing people for their voting habits, and more about reaching out on the issues. There's still often a difficult-to-swallow undertone of progressive ideology, but a lot more objectivity and listening going on. Conservative conserns are being heard, not just dismissed. This is important, and a good step.

 

But anyway, getting back to Fox, yes I agree that it's different, and Fox News' political narrative is obvious to any objective observer. They don't even try to hide it, they just "balance" it and call it a day, two wrongs making a right as if that should silence any critic. They're wrong, they'd damaging this country every hour they're on the air, and the only thing worse would be to silence them. (Not that you were suggesting such.)

 

You mentioned that they don't get large audiences for similar shows, and let me just expand that point -- I regularly watch ABC's "This Week" (sadly in decline following George Stephanopoulos' bizarre departure to Good Morning America), and I think that's a good example. They're "round table" generally consists of one or two "conservatives" and one or two "liberals", usually intended to balance each other out. But the dialog is completely different. It's respectful, they speak at a level well above popular demagoguery, and they make strong, intelligent points and acknowledge each other's valid arguments. In a way it's much like the difference between DemocraticUnderground.com and our discussions here. NBC's Meet the Press and CBS's Face the Nation are similar in nature, and I think this illustrates your point nicely.

 

This is a particularly interesting point, btw:

 

Not to make a gross generalization, but liberals like change and change their media habits, while conservatives prefer things to stay the same and will still listen to the radio because it's old and familiar.

 

I think you may be on to something there. Obviously it's not just conservatives, and may be driven more by real-world concerns and generational differences than ideologies, but as trends go I think you're probably right. (I'm 44, and more than half of my friends still have 4:3 televisions and no digital sound. About half are on Facebook. If the sampling wasn't so small I'd say that I'm on some kind of technology cusp.)

 

Also worth considering here is young conservatives who are actively political and extremely well connected with technology. While they have been overwhelmingly Democratic in their registrations, they don't seem to like the guiding ideologies of their elders very much. There were reports in late 2008 of large numbers of youths from the religious right who were voting for Obama, for example, but even the liberal ones seem to be more in tune and empathetic with conservative concerns than previous generations. They may want marijuana legalized, but they want their guns, too. Maybe it's that video game influence.

 

Good post.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Pangloss