08-18-2010, 10:24 PM | #11 | |
Glides a lot, talks more...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pelham, NH, USA.
Posts: 10,356
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Karl Ian Sagal To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "Well done is better than well said." (Ben Franklin) Bene factum melior bene dictum Proud past President of SEG America and member of the First Premier Segway Enthusiasts Group and subsequent ones as well. |
|
08-18-2010, 10:57 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Freedonia!
Posts: 1,703
|
Quote:
Last edited by Civicsman; 08-18-2010 at 11:12 PM.. |
|
08-19-2010, 10:06 PM | #13 | |
Glides a lot, talks more...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pelham, NH, USA.
Posts: 10,356
|
Quote:
And you did not answer my question, but instead made yet another rant without substance.
__________________
Karl Ian Sagal To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "Well done is better than well said." (Ben Franklin) Bene factum melior bene dictum Proud past President of SEG America and member of the First Premier Segway Enthusiasts Group and subsequent ones as well. |
|
08-19-2010, 11:59 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Freedonia!
Posts: 1,703
|
Quote:
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? |
|
08-20-2010, 05:20 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 2,086
|
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.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "...if you insist on being imprecise in use and unique in definition, you should hardly be surprised that your attempts at communication are poorly understood." -a wise man |
08-22-2010, 12:24 AM | #16 | |
Glides a lot, talks more...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pelham, NH, USA.
Posts: 10,356
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Karl Ian Sagal To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "Well done is better than well said." (Ben Franklin) Bene factum melior bene dictum Proud past President of SEG America and member of the First Premier Segway Enthusiasts Group and subsequent ones as well. |
|
08-23-2010, 08:13 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Freedonia!
Posts: 1,703
|
Quote:
Weasel-words. |
|
08-23-2010, 10:01 PM | #18 |
Glides a lot, talks more...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pelham, NH, USA.
Posts: 10,356
|
__________________
Karl Ian Sagal To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "Well done is better than well said." (Ben Franklin) Bene factum melior bene dictum Proud past President of SEG America and member of the First Premier Segway Enthusiasts Group and subsequent ones as well. |
08-31-2010, 01:05 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Freedonia!
Posts: 1,703
|
How did the conservatives on SC miss this article?
Quote:
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"? Last edited by Civicsman; 08-31-2010 at 01:12 PM.. |
|
08-31-2010, 03:03 PM | #20 |
Glides a lot, talks more...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pelham, NH, USA.
Posts: 10,356
|
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.
__________________
Karl Ian Sagal To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "Well done is better than well said." (Ben Franklin) Bene factum melior bene dictum Proud past President of SEG America and member of the First Premier Segway Enthusiasts Group and subsequent ones as well. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|