The "Liberal" Media

And on NPR, where I first heard it. Also saw it later on a bumper sticker.You cannot expect him to use it once and only once. For example, there's the Robin Williams joke suggesting to women that when they get breast implants they should think of their men and have squeekers installed; men are so easily amused. I first saw him use it at the end of Man of the Year and again in a recent comedy show. Can't expect him to use it only once and then never again.

The vast majority of traditional scientists are evolutionists.Is it any wonder that the other side feels there is a bias?The whole job of a scientist is to find out accurate facts about science. When they notice that all creationist talking points are crap, then not only are they going to reject the talking points, they're going to think that if there was any merit at all to creationism they'd have some talking points that weren't crap.The whole job of a political journalist is to find out accurate facts about politics. When they notice that (let's be fair) 95% of conservative talking points are crap, then not only are they going to reject the talking points, they're going to think that if there was any merit at all to conservatism they'd have some talking points that weren't crap.This leaves you with non-"traditional" not-really-journalists like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, who don't feel any obligation to find out the facts and probably wouldn't be able to if they wanted to --- the Duanes Gish and Kents Hovind of the media.

Nice analogy, but it fails miserably. This would be true if those political journalists were unbiased. Clearly they are not. 80% or more of them vote Democrat and are well left of center. The mainstream media culture as a whole is left of center.Perhaps those of you who also are left of center assume that your's is the only correct position, and that you are mainstream. This is not accurate.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Coyote, you haven't demonstrated bias. You've posted the voting patterns of so-called "media elites," but you haven't even attempted to present evidence that there is bias in their reporting at all.What specific evidence do you have that shows that the media injects bias into their reporting? If you can't show bias in the actual journalism, your point is completely invalid - voting habits are irrelevant if the actual news reports are accurate and objective. What observations convinced you that there is a liberal bias in the American media?

That elides those figures in the media that don't vote at all. Moreover, it's not immediately clear that voting patterns are a reliable guide to actual bias; why would it be a form of bias, for instance, for sports writers to primarily vote Democratic? Style-section reporters? Financial analysts?Even if voting patterns were indicative of bias in political reporting, why would it matter to other subjects?And are you going to respond to the point that by defining the "traditional media" as "non-conservative journalists", you're simply assuming what you intend to prove?

Do say why. And 99% or more of archaeologists are old-Earthers. Does that mean that the profession is biased and that we should ignore what you have to say until 50% of you are YECs?Or does it rather indicate that people who go digging for facts will find them? "Perhaps those of you who are old-Earthers assume that yours is the only correct position, and that you are mainstream. This is not accurate."Rightism is sustained by a set of factual inaccuracies which do not stand up to scrutiny. The job of a political journalist is to scrutinize those precise facts. Which way are they going to vote?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

In the Another example of right wing evil thread, Taz links to a NY Daily News article:http://articles.nydailynews.com/...s-activists-homosexuality

quote:

---

'Don't say gay' bill passes in Tennessee Senate, would ban teachers from discussing homosexuality

​

The Tennessee Senate passed a bill on Friday that would bar teachers from discussing homosexuality with elementary and middle school students.

​

Under the legislation, dubbed by critics as the "don't say gay" bill, any instruction in public classrooms will be "limited exclusively to age-appropriate natural human reproduction science."

​

Republican Stacey Campfield, the bill's sponsor, says "homosexuals don't naturally reproduce" and has argued families should decide when its appropriate to talk with their children about homosexuality.

​

But gay rights activists are blasting the legislation, which passed 6-3, as a form of discrimination.

---

I think this article is biased to the left because what it says the bill says is not what the bill says and they're making it look worse. They misrepresent the bill along side some quote mine from the sponsor that doesn't really have anything to do with the bill. The bill is an amendment to:

quote:

---

2010 Tennessee Code
Title 49 - Education
Chapter 6 - Elementary and Secondary Education
Part 10 - Curriculum Generally
49-6-1005 - Sex education.

---

To add an additional section that says:

quote:

---

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 49-6-1005, is amended by adding the following as new subsection (c) and by relettering the existing subsection (c) accordingly:

​

(c)

​

(1) The general assembly recognizes the sensitivity of particular subjects that are best explained and discussed in the home. Human sexuality is a complex subject with societal, scientific, psychological, and historical implications; those implications are best understood by children with sufficient maturity to grasp their complexity.

​

(2) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.

---

The linked article has mislead the OP to complain about these things: From Message 1.But none of that is remotely possible from the passing of this bill. This law only pertains to sexual education class.This article, and its liberal bias, has tricked the poster into thinking the bill was completely terrible and one of the "most evil" things from the Right.

Where does it say it only pertains the sex ed classes?Never mind...I see it now.I'm still not sure, however, how you see this as anything other than a completely homophobic addition to existing "law" introduced by a bigoted ass.Edited by FliesOnly, : found what I was looking for.

Running here to hide doesn't change the fact that I gave you a link to the interview.Unless you are now claiming that reality has a liberal bias and that Conservatives can't be trusted to speak their own words in their own context.I guess you have your own unique concept of "fair and balanced".

This is the discriminatory part. If they can't provide any instruction or material that discusses homosexuality, then they should not be able to provide any instruction or material that discusses heterosexuality.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

While clearly I'm an opponent of this law (check the other thread so see me railing), I don't think that this makes sense.Obviously there is a need for sexual education.If I recall how it went when I was in school:Step One: Some point in grade school (4th grade? 5th?), "Welcome to puberty" -- mostly about "your body is changing". I suspect that there is some extremely basic sexual education in here. "Babies come out of this part."I doubt there's any reason to mention homosexuality in anything but the briefest "Sarah has two mommies" context in Step One. And there's NO EVIDENCE that anyone is doing anything more than that in Tenn.Step Two: Basic Sex-Ed -- Jr high -- mostly dispelling myths and setting the record straight. Urging the kids to wait until they are ready and going over the basics. "No, Asian girls do not have sidewise vaginas", "No you will not go blind if you keep doing that."Perfect place for it. Not graphic discussion of sex acts, but a frank discussion to dispel misinformation. "You can't catch gay".Step Three: Advanced Sex-Ed - High School -- diseases, pregnancy, condom use, etcAnd, while this part isn't covered in the specific law, this is a great place for more detail about safety.

opponent?Unless you are a resident of Tennessee, why be a opponent or a proponent of this legislation? It doesn't effect other people in other states,wtf? I agree with all of that. So what is the problem?

Excuse me!? I posted this here two days ago and you gave me that link yesterday. Again, there's no need to vilify me. Stoppit!

---

The topic here is on left-bias in the media. Discussions about the bill, itself, should go in the other thread, Another example of right wing evil.Does the article accurately represent the bill? Does the article have a left-bias?My position is no and yes, respectively, and has been expounded in Message 142.Aaannnd... Go!

My point is that if one sex pref is to be taught, then all should, if one isn't than none should. The other point is what you brought up that just general points be brought up in grade school whereas, I feel that all sexual prefs and the problems with each should be taught in Jr High.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

character assassination is all the left has when confronted by evidence in a logical fashion, you should know this by now