Fair and Balanced? Bull!

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

Not at all, Karl. You just keep missing the point. For many people it has been obvious for years that Fox was the mouthpiece for a political activist.

The question is whether YOU (and your brethern) have had an epiphany.

For you, at least, it appears not. Do you still believe Fox is "fair and balanced?

Compared to what?

And who died and made you knowledgeable to what I believe? You cannot ask me if I "still believe" something that you have no idea if I ever believed.

[Civicsman]

Compared to what?

And who died and made you knowledgeable to what I believe? You cannot ask me if I "still believe" something that you have no idea if I ever believed.

Never answer a question. He was born to be a politician.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

Not at all, Karl. You just keep missing the point. For many people it has been obvious for years that Fox was the mouthpiece for a political activist.

The question is whether YOU (and your brethern) have had an epiphany.

For you, at least, it appears not. Do you still believe Fox is "fair and balanced?

Originally Posted by Civicsman

Never answer a question. He was born to be a politician.

Okay, I'll make it simple. You lied in the post where you asked me if I still believe if Fox is fair and balanced.

And you did not answer my question, but instead made yet another rant without substance.

[Civicsman]

Okay, I'll make it simple. You lied in the post where you asked me if I still believe if Fox is fair and balanced.

And you did not answer my question, but instead made yet another rant without substance.

I fully realize that you use your own personal definitions for English words, but for the rest of us;

Lie:
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

You are correct that you did not state that you believe Fox is "fair and balanced". This is an admission on my part that I made a statement that was not sufficiently precise. Note how I say that YOU are correct. Feel free to copy the format if you should ever think that you might be wrong yourself.

However, a person reading your continuing defense of Fox, taking the opposite position from mine, would reasonably infer that you do now believe Fox is fair and balanced, and believed so in the past as well. Obviously, there was no attempt on my part, deliberate or otherwise, to deceive or give a wrong impression about your beliefs regarding Fox. Call it a "lie" if you want, but that's an exaggeration, at best.

Of course, you could have cleared up the misconception (if there was one), simply by saying "I never considered Fox as fair and balanced", or "I do not now consider Fox as fair and balanced", but this would require you to commit to a position. Instead, you respond in a way that provides you with plausible deniability. Politicians are famous for doing this.

As for your "compared to what" question, my answer is "in the absolute". It's like asking "Land of the free and home of the brave"? Compared to what? "Fair and balanced" doesn't need to be parsed, or re-stated as "kinda fair and balanced compared to some other sources".

So, Karl, are you claiming that Fox is "fair and balanced", or are you just arguing in your spare time?

[Gihgehls]

Originally Posted by KSagal

You posted many times that you dislike their news channel, and have said so for years. This is just one more chance for you bloviate about your prejudice.

That's not what prejudice means. I'll spare you the details, but prejudice means pre-judging, or judging before any facts have been observed. Judging a station for lying about their stance when there is proff on the table, is not pre-judging, it is regular judging.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

I fully realize that you use your own personal definitions for English words, but for the rest of us;

Lie:
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

You are correct that you did not state that you believe Fox is "fair and balanced". This is an admission on my part that I made a statement that was not sufficiently precise. Note how I say that YOU are correct. Feel free to copy the format if you should ever think that you might be wrong yourself.

However, a person reading your continuing defense of Fox, taking the opposite position from mine, would reasonably infer that you do now believe Fox is fair and balanced, and believed so in the past as well. Obviously, there was no attempt on my part, deliberate or otherwise, to deceive or give a wrong impression about your beliefs regarding Fox. Call it a "lie" if you want, but that's an exaggeration, at best.

...

I will include some posts made directly responding to another thread where Civicsman showed his prejudiced against Fox news. It does not matter what they say, he has already determined them to be wrong.


This quote is part of a response to a comment from Civicsman, on the Wisconsin Billboard thread, post# 26, posted on 4-28 of this year.

"I do not care to try to justify everything said on FOX news, and you cannot and should not put me in that position, simply because I listen to many news sources, and you guys are fanatics about hating FOXnews and Republicans and I am not...

Your own words do far more to prove your bias than anything I could say... Some will agree with you, some will not, but no person with cognitive capacity would read your words and not realize you have a bias against FOX News..."

Another quote from me, in direct response to Civicsman’s bias against Fox:

"I am not saying if your bias is fair or appropriate or not, just that it is clearly there..."


Considering the fact that Civicsman has previously read and responded to these posts, then later said that "However, a person reading your continuing defense of Fox, taking the opposite position from mine, would reasonably infer that you do now believe Fox is fair and balanced, and believed so in the past as well. " is clearly not only not the truth, but a

"Lie:
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression."

It is quite possible for rational people to know that I feel you are biased against Fox, and that I do not respect your opinions, and that it does not necessarily have anything to do with my belief of Fox's marketing slogan.

[Civicsman]

I will include some posts made directly responding to another thread where Civicsman showed his prejudiced against Fox news. It does not matter what they say, he has already determined them to be wrong.

*sigh*

Weasel-words.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

*sigh*

Weasel-words.

Point. And Match.

[Civicsman]

How did the conservatives on SC miss this article?

Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
08/27/10 3:45 PM EDT

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.

Disclosure of the heavily Democratic contributions by influential employees of the three major broadcast networks follows on the heels of controversy last week when it was learned that media baron Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.

The News Corp. donation prompted Nathan Daschle, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association and son of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, to demand in a letter to Fox News chairman Roger Ailes that the cable news outlet include a disclaimer in its coverage of gubernatorial campaigns. Fox News is owned by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.

The data on contributions by broadcast network employees was compiled by CRP at the request of The Examiner and included all 2008 contributions by individuals who identified their employer as one of the three networks or subsidiaries. The data does not include contributions by employees of the three networks who did not identify their employer.

The CRP is the organization behind OpenSecrets.org, the web site that for more than a decade has put campaign finance data within reach of anybody with an Internet connection.

President Obama received 710 such contributions worth a total of $461,898, for an average contribution of $651 from the network employees. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain received only 39 contributions totaling $26,926, for an average donation of $709.

Ninety-six contributions by broadcast network employees to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senate and House campaign committees totaled $217,881.

Thirty-eight contributions by broadcast network employees to the Republican National Committee and the Republican Senate and House campaign committees totaled $23,805.

Among the individuals in the data are ABC News president Lloyd Braun, who contributed $1,000 to the Our Common Values PAC, which is associated with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and ABC Radio Networks president Jim Robinson, who gave $250 to GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson.

Other individual givers found in the data include ABC reporters Sarah Amos, who gave $1,285 to Democratic presidential aspirant Bill Richardson, Clarisa Ward, who gave $500 to President Obama, and Kristina Wong, who gave $400 to the Democratic Party of Virginia.

Notable contributors found in the CBS data include "journalist" Seth Davis, who gave $2,750 to Obama, CBS Corporation vice president and editor-in-chief Jane Goldman, who contributed $250 to Obama, CBS Radio "host" Mike Omeara, who gave $1,471 to Obama, and "journalist" Beverly Williams, who donated $200 to Obama.

Among NBC contributors were Saturday Night Live producer Jeffrey Ross, who contributed $500 to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CN, former NBC Today Show weatherman Willard Scott. who gave $500 to the Republican National Committee, NBC Universal CFO Jennifer Cabalquinto, whose donations to Obama totaled $1,200, and NBC Universal "editor" David Mack, with $250 to Obama and $2,300 McCain. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...101668063.html

A couple notes:

Mark Tapscott is the founder of the Heritage Foundation's Center for Media and Public Policy. The Heritage Foundation is about as far right as one can go and still be "mainstream", and that is with respect to the Republican base, where the conservative volume is already set to "11" compared to the country as a whole. Thus, one might expect Mr. Tapscott to have a somewhat right-wing view of things.

In the same light, other news media people who make contributions to particular candidates, parties, or causes are also suspect, and their writings should be scrutinized carefully for bias. This article purports to be doing just that.

In this case, a little further assessment is useful.

1. The article refers to contributions to Dems and Republicans by individuals at NBC, CBS, and ABC. No similar information is provided for individuals contributing at Fox. It would have been illuminating, but might not have been useful in supporting the author's perspective.

2. The author suggests that NBC, CBS, and ABC are populated by Dems. However, the data is "raw". That is, we see only the results, not the reasoning. It may be that there are a lot of Republicans at those three media outlets, but that they were disheartened (in 2008) at the direction of the Republican party, and perhaps particularly at who the party nominated for Pres./Vice Pres. Perhaps they were not in a mood to contribute. One may recall that the Democrats completely clobbered the Republicans in fund raising in that election year, and the contributions at media companies may well be nothing more than a reflection of the poor fund raising results of the Republicans. The Examiner did not provide this comparative information, so this article is just not very useful in drawing the intended conclusion.

3. It is worth noting that the article names only FOUR people at ABC News who contributed. Presumably these individuals are the only ones with positions that are significant enough to be mentioned. These individuals contributed a total of $3,185 to Democrats. One of those is President of ABC News, an influential position. However, the President of ABC Radio Networks, another influential position, contributed to the GOP.


4. Only FOUR people were named at CBS. They contributed $4,671, and included one Vice President, an influential position.

5. At NBC, only FOUR people are named. One is the Chief Financial Officer of NBC Universal. The CFO of any company is not an influential position with respect to driving company policy. The second person named is a weather personality who gave money to the Republicans, but is again, a position not particularly well suited for driving company policy. An "editor" gave money to Obama, but much more to McCain. Finally (and laughably), the Examiner names a producer of Saturday Night Live, a well known source of independent reporting of news events, who apparently gave money to a Democratic senator.

The article is a political piece intended to quell the outrage regarding News Corp's (Fox) contribution of $1 million to the Republican National Committee, but it comes up miserably short.

The suggestion is that ABC, NBC, and CBS are bastions of support for Democrats, but the data is limited and does not go far enough to support any such conclusions. There are no statistics that allow us to compare contributions for those organizations against the population as a whole. Perhaps the contributions reflect nothing more than what was happening nationwide.

Conspiracy theorists will point to the specific contributions and claim, "LIBERAL MEDIA!". Truly, some people at those media companies are apparently Democrats, and perhaps liberals. However, the best effort of the Washington Examiner turned up so amazing FEW contributors of importance that one can not possibly draw a conclusion (from that data) that those media outlets are liberal-biased, by direction.

The real intention of the Examiner article is to deflect attention from the comparison that should be made. Individuals at ABC, NBC, and CBS made contributions to their causes of interest, while News Corp made a very large contribution on behalf of the company itself. Shamelessly, News Corp followed with a press release that said the company, "actively supports organizations that advocate a pro-job, low tax, economic growth agenda."

On one hand we have a few individuals (some admittedly influential) who contribute to Democrats. On the other hand, we have a news media company who contributes to Republicans on behalf of the company itself, and has a company policy to support a particular point of view. With such a policy from the top of the company, one has to consider what News Corp will do, beyond the contribution of $1 million, to "support" a particular point of view.

Given the two possibilities, which type of news media is truly likely to be "fair and balanced"?

[KSagal]

Hmmm, Lets see...

YOU post the article, then tear it apart. If it was not newsworthy, or was biased, why did you post it? To further your position. Why did no other post it? Because... Well, I don't know, but neither do I care.

You say that it is flawed because it includes NBC, CBS, and ABC, but does not include News Corp. Good for you. It also does not include CNN, MSNBC or a whole slew of other cable networks, because that is not what the article was about. Nice of you to compare the three networks included in the article, and then add the News Corp bit, but YOU ALSO did not include a fair assortment of media.

I have an idea as to why this is not news. Saying the media is overwhelmingly left and supporters of the Democrat party is like telling people it is news that the surface of the sun is hot. Well Duh!

If you do the math on the contributions, you see that they are speaking of many contributions, yet they specify 4 contributions from each network. In my mind, this is an effort to example fairly, and even included contributions to the GOP as well as the Democrat party. You used the token 4 from each to say that it was significant as a number, which it is not. They could have used 4 or 14 or 24 from each network, and made their point the same, but you could not have done that with your manipulation of how "article names only FOUR people at ABC" "At NBC, only FOUR people are named" "Only FOUR people were named at CBS." Yes, I can see how it was unfair to use the same number of examples from each network.

I really cannot get past the fact that you post the article, then tell us all that it is flawed, and a tool to incite. It is you who are doing that. Good for you. I wish you success.

Have a nice day.