Your "liberal" media

I imagine that their height, weight, and eye and hair color is similarly easy to measure - and they have equal relevance in this discussion.That tired old survey is the media equivalent of the drunk who loses his contact lens in the alley and goes to look for it under the streetlight, because the light is better there. The fact that it's easier to measure is irrelevant considering that it doesn't measure what we're talking about. But, yet, no more likely to hold liberal positions. You see, you're ignoring the neat little trick the conservative media pulled where they turned "liberal" into a dirty word. A significant number of Americans hold liberal positions but refuse to use the word "liberal" to describe them - but the national media consistently describes those positions, held by a majority of Americans, as "the left-wing" or even "fringe." It's irrelevant. It's like saying that global warming is consistent with the decline in high seas piracy since the 1700's. It's neither consistent nor inconsistent - it's irrelevant. Done and done. Indeed, I proposed several such explanations before the survey was even presented, presciently predicting as I did that someone would drop this tired old chestnut as though it settled the issue.So my obligation was met. Do you have a response, or not? You seem to be pretending like that message doesn't even exist. Why is that? It's odd that you don't think your assumptions merit examination. And it's odd that despite complaining about being asked to explain your faulty reasoning, you still don't explain anything.You've just repeated the assertion that an individual reporter's political position is going to necessarily result in systematic editorial bias in favor of that position, without saying why. It's still an unwarranted leap of logic. And you haven't yet addressed the major inconsistency with your view - reporters don't set editorial policy. It would be no more relevant than the tired material you've already presented. You're simply barking up the wrong tree with this stuff. Where? You've simply repeated your assertions - you haven't defended them. Is it just that you don't know what a defense would look like?

quote:

---

You see, you're ignoring the neat little trick the conservative media pulled where they turned "liberal" into a dirty word. A significant number of Americans hold liberal positions but refuse to use the word "liberal" to describe them - but the national media consistently describes those positions, held by a majority of Americans, as "the left-wing" or even "fringe."

---

Yeah, sounds familiar.When asked if they are "feminists" most American people say no.When asked if they support a number of typical feminist positions when those positions aren't identified as such, most American people (more women than men) say yes.The conservatives have made the term "feminist" into a dirty word, and they have done the same thing with the word "liberal".

The AP story:

quote:

---

Obama warns of 'quiet riot' among blacks

​

HAMPTON, Va. (AP) -- Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Tuesday that the Bush administration has done nothing to defuse a "quiet riot" among blacks that threatens to erupt just as riots in Los Angeles did 15 years ago.

​

The first-term Illinois senator said that with black people from New Orleans and the Gulf Coast still displaced 20 months after Hurricane Katrina, frustration and resentments are building explosively as they did before the 1992 riots.

---

The actual speech:

quote:

---

Many of the folks in this room know just where they were when the riot in Los Angeles started and tragedy struck the corner of Florence and Normandy. And most of the ministers here know that those riots didn't erupt over night; there had been a "quiet riot" building up in Los Angeles and across this country for years.

​

If you had gone to any street corner in Chicago or Baton Rouge or Hampton -- you would have found the same young men and women without hope, without miracles, and without a sense of destiny other than life on the edge -- the edge of the law, the edge of the economy, the edge of family structures and communities.

​

Those "quiet riots" that take place every day are born from the same place as the fires and the destruction and the police decked out in riot gear and the deaths. They happen when a sense of disconnect settles in and hope dissipates. Despair takes hold and young people all across this country look at the way the world is and believe that things are never going to get any better. You tell yourself, my school will always be second rate. You tell yourself, there will never be a good job waiting for me to excel at. You tell yourself, I will never be able to afford a place that I can be proud of and call my home. That despair quietly simmers and makes it impossible to build strong communities and neighborhoods. And then one afternoon a jury says, "Not guilty" -- or a hurricane hits New Orleans -- and that despair is revealed for the world to see.

---

Absolutely breathtakingly mendacious "reporting" (more like distorting) on the part of the AP. No webpage found at provided URL: http://tinyurl.com/39dsvu

I don't recall making any assertions, clothed, bare or otherwise.It is not I who began with a "base premise" and then used a few anecdotes to refute it. Frog stated the base premise, then some quotes, then declared the premise dead. I was only pointing out that, despite the few quotes given, he had not refuted the base premise he asserted.I see a "You didn't agree so you're against us," attitude here.

I'm not under any obligation to find evidence against premises that haven't been supported.Or did you forget how it works? The onus of evidence is on those who assert that there is liberal bias in the media. That position has never been adequately defended.One single counterexample refutes an assertion that has been defended with zero evidence. It's the push that knocks down the house of cards.

Then why did you feel it necessary to give evidence against the premise you stated in the OP?From the OP: No. But, you seem to have forgotten your OP.You advance the notion that there exists the premise of a "liberal media." I understand you believe the premise is false. This makes no difference.You give a few anecdotes then say the premise should be abandoned.Your anecdotes do not belie the premise. They may be merely examples of exceptions to the premise.Whether the premise is true or not, supported or not, I don’t really give a flying flip. But, if you think your few anecdotes killed the idea of some liberal media in this country you are sadly mistaken.

To knock down the house of cards. Many people believe what is asserted but never contradicted. Are we reading the same thread? The purpose here is to debunk the narrative of a liberal media - a narrative the media promotes to give cover to their conservative-friendly manipulations. I'm certainly not advancing the notion of a liberal media. Quite the opposite. I don't understand how you could have been so confused. They're examples of my contention - that, under the cover of "the liberal media", the media misrepresents the facts to privilege conservatives.Do I think I've closed the book on the issue? No, of course not. The tools don't exist to measure "bias in the media." But intelligent people can observe coverage of politics in this country and draw their own conclusions. Apparently, you don't think anyone should draw any conclusions at all. If the only people who object to my premise are people who don't really follow media issues, or are concerned about how the media frames issues and presents politics, then I don't see that I have anything to worry about. Your apathy refutes your arguments for me.

That's not my attitude.I was pointing out that the conservative complaints of liberal bias in the media are bare assertions, supported only by anecdotes.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Frog, please read the English. I did not say you advance the notion of a liberal media. I said you advance the notion that there exists a premise of such. If the distinction is lost on you then I am sorry for you.I think in your emotional attachment to this subject you have lost your otherwise clear ability to read. You have assumed too much. You know nothing of my views on this issue because I have not expressed any.You are seeing my objection to your logic (outside the details of whatever premise you support or oppose) as an attack on you personally and as support for an issue with which you disagree.This means neither that I oppose your position nor that I am apathetic to the issue.What it means, Frog, is that, in my opinion, you have reached too far in assuming you have accomplished your goal in your OP. And that is the extent of it, nothing more. And I really don't give a flip whatever the issue may or may not be. The logic needs improvement.Sheesh, you're being touchy. Go eat some flies or something. Maybe you'll feel better. And for god's sake, frog, read the words not your emotions.

You were abundantly clear the first time, Paul, as I thought I was. No, I don't advance the notion that there's a liberal media. I advance the exact opposite. Conservatives are the ones advancing the notion of a "liberal media", and if you're unaware of that, it's only because this is an issue on which you've already admitted to complete ignorance. I'm sorry for you if you think you're in a position, here, to snipe at arguments you know nothing about from a blind of not taking a position.Nothing could be more ridiculous. The idea that you can attack a position without advancing one of your own is just nonsense. Have you made an objection to my logic? Not that I can see. You've simply used your complete ignorance on the issue to portray the whole thing as something that exists in my head. You're not personally aware of any debate on the fairness of the media; therefore, there is no debate.Is there anything more ridiculous, honestly, than your argument from ignorance here? Because I can't show you scientific measurement of something that we don't yet have the tools to measure? Because I'm looking for the contact lens in the place it was dropped instead of where the light is best?Nonsense. If you think you've leveled any sort of coherent objection you're 100% mistaken.

Don't mean to get too into the debate, if anything at all I agree with omnivorious' and your position on this issue, Crash, but I just wanted to ask or clear up a possible misconception on my part.This confusion stems from the belief that I think Paul may be right. You seem to be advancing the postion but not asserting it; in other words, you advance the belief of a liberal media but do not believe, support, or claim a liberal bias in the media to be true.Is this right? or am I simply confused.

...what? How can I advance a position that I'm arguing against? You're not making any sense to me. You and me both, at this point.

Hmm, I guess I'm wrong. I was under the false impression that an argument can be advanced but not believed to be true, or in other words, asserted.For instance, you would be "advancing" the position of your opponent just to show what the position of your opponent was, what position you were arguing against, but not to actually support it.Brain fart.

Good god. How damn dense can one frog be.AZPaul3: Now, on a 10-year-old’s level.You advance the notion that the premise exists out there and you disagree with it.You believe that others hold the premise that there is a liberal media.Frog: The only thing clear here is your inability to comprehend some simple English.Frog: If you think because someone chooses not to state a position on some specific issue this equates to ignorance or apathy then you are denser than you presently look. I’ll just chalk this up to your reading comprehension problem.

How many times do I have to tell you? No, I don't advance the notion. Conservatives advance the notion.If you had to hear from me that people complain about a liberal media, then you're simply too ignorant of American media issues to participate in this thread. I don't have to believe anything, Paul. They come right out and say it. If you're not aware that "liberal bias" is the most commonly-heard accusation against the American mainstream media, then like I said - you literally have no idea what we're talking about. You're too ignorant of this issue to participate meaningfully. If you had to hear from me that people think the media is liberally biased, then there's an essential context of these arguments that you're fundamentally unaware of - and can't be made aware in the space alotted in a forum post. My comprehension of your English is just fine. What I can't comprehend is why you think your complete and total ignorance of this issue constitutes a basis for you to participate in this thread. If you didn't even know that conservatives accuse the mainstream media of being liberally biased, what could you possibly have to offer to the discussion?