NationStates Jolt Archive

In a poll released today by the AP (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=3&u=/ap/20041021/ap_on_el_pr/president_ap_poll), Kerry and Bush are described to be in a dead heat. The dead heat is Kerry-Edwards 49% and Bush-Cheney 46%.

In a poll released today by Reuters (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20041021/pl_nm/campaign_poll_thursday_dc), Bush is given a "slight lead." His lead? One point, 46-45.

The simple fact is that both leads are statistically insignificant, since both are inside the margin of error, and more importantly, they're measuring a race that will never occur, namely, a nationwide direct election. I'm not suggesting that reporters ought to include an explanation of polling statistics and the ramifications of the electoral college system every time they report on a poll, but can we at least be consistent? If a one point lead for Bush is a lead, then a three point lead for Kerry should be more than a dead heat.

And if we can't get consistency, can we at least kill off this myth of the "liberal media" once and for all?

And if we can't get consistency, can we at least kill off this myth of the "liberal media" once and for all?
Yeah, I don't see what's so liberal about your media. I think it's a Republican smear campaign. One guy put it best:

Scorched-Earth Politics: The Right's Assault on Liberalism

Two polls suddenly disprove the idea of the liberal media?

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

Two polls suddenly disprove the idea of the liberal media?

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/
No--the preponderance of evidence over the last twenty years disproves the idea of the liberal media. This is one of my pet peeves, and I've posted on it more times than I can remember.

I should note--again--that I don't think the media is conservative either, at least not ideologically so (except in some notable cases). It's corporate, which means it's concerned first and foremost about the bottom line. The end result is that they're cheap when it comes to actual investigative reporting, and they're sloppy when it comes to fact-checking. In the last twenty years or so, that consequence, when combined with a conservative push to control their message, a lack of message discipline from liberals/progressives, and media ownership's general support of corporate friendly tax policy pushed largely by Republicans has resulted in a media that lately may seem ideologically biased toward the right.

I don't think they are--except for Fox. I think they're favoring the people who help their bottom line. If that party became the Democrats, they'd probably switch around again. Either way, they've left their true responsibility behind in favor of the pursuit of profit.

The vast majority of financial contributions from all major networks except FOX go to Democrats. I'll go hunting for statistics if you really don't believe that.

The vast majority of financial contributions from all major networks except FOX go to Democrats. I'll go hunting for statistics if you really don't believe that.
I'd be interested in seeing that. Are we talking about corporate contributions only, or are we including contributions from CEOs of media groups, journalists, editors, and the like?

The vast majority of financial contributions from all major networks except FOX go to Democrats. I'll go hunting for statistics if you really don't believe that.


Why are they contributing to any political party??? Strange system.

The vast majority of financial contributions from all major networks except FOX go to Democrats. I'll go hunting for statistics if you really don't believe that.
Yeah let's see it. Since I happen to know that six companies own ALL of the media in the US, and most of them are defense contractors and right-wing, let's have this discussion... Rupert Murdoch, GE, Viacom, Disney...

I'd be interested in seeing that. Are we talking about corporate contributions only, or are we including contributions from CEOs of media groups, journalists, editors, and the like?
I've been looking, but can't find a good site one way or the other. From what I understand, the vast majority of reporters, journalists, anchors, etc., support Democrats financially, and CEOs and such go for Republicans. But the most raw money goes to Democrats, because of good ol' John McCain.

I've been looking, but can't find a good site one way or the other. From what I understand, the vast majority of reporters, journalists, anchors, etc., support Democrats financially, and CEOs and such go for Republicans. But the most raw money goes to Democrats, because of good ol' John McCain.
So you've been pulling statistics out of your arse. Thanks for having the gall to admit it.

So you've been pulling statistics out of your arse. Thanks for having the gall to admit it.
No I haven't. If I'm wrong, then surely you can find statistics to refute me?

I've been looking, but can't find a good site one way or the other. From what I understand, the vast majority of reporters, journalists, anchors, etc., support Democrats financially, and CEOs and such go for Republicans. But the most raw money goes to Democrats, because of good ol' John McCain.
Well, I have seen data that shows that journalists are more socially liberal--or libertarian--than conservative. These are working level journalists--reporters mainly. But reporters don't get to choose what stories they cover, or where they appear in the paper, or when or if they appear on tv. Editors and producers do that, and they're under pressure from those higher up in the corporate chain.

And of course, people change their minds as well. The president of Viacom (owner of CBS), for instance, just said a week or two ago that he was going to vote for ans support Bush because he's voting what's good for Viacom. Now that's fine for him personally, but if he's using his position as CEO to affect what CBS News does in their reporting, then the media is no longer the watchdog it was envisioned as being by Jefferson. That's why the corporatization of the news media bothers me so much--because they're so deeply in bed with government that they're no longer keeping government honest.

No I haven't. If I'm wrong, then surely you can find statistics to refute me?
I didn't make the claim. Provide statistics to support your claim.

I didn't make the claim. Provide statistics to support your claim.
You're claiming I'm making them up, and giving no justification for doing so. You could settle this by finding statistics for either side of the argument, as I am trying to do. Or you could just make a stupid ad-hominum attack and not add anything to this discussion.

You're claiming I'm making them up, and giving no justification for doing so. You could settle this by finding statistics for either side of the argument, as I am trying to do. Or you could just make a stupid ad-hominum attack and not add anything to this discussion.

You claimed the statistics

You back them out.

That's how things go, dear.

I should note--again--that I don't think the media is conservative either, at least not ideologically so (except in some notable cases). It's corporate, which means it's concerned first and foremost about the bottom line. The end result is that they're cheap when it comes to actual investigative reporting, and they're sloppy when it comes to fact-checking. In the last twenty years or so, that consequence, when combined with a conservative push to control their message, a lack of message discipline from liberals/progressives, and media ownership's general support of corporate friendly tax policy pushed largely by Republicans has resulted in a media that lately may seem ideologically biased toward the right.

I don't think they are--except for Fox. I think they're favoring the people who help their bottom line. If that party became the Democrats, they'd probably switch around again. Either way, they've left their true responsibility behind in favor of the pursuit of profit.
The news organizations are interested first and foremost in making money. The CBS National Guard flop? That was sloppy reporting, not cause they sat down and said, "This will be a good idea to discredit the president" but because they knew it would be a big salacious story. Thus the media's fascination with politicians' sex lives, drug lives, etc.

Reporters and lowlevel people in the business probably are liberal, it's no more a concerted conspiracy than the reason all Nascar drivers vote Republican. Certain people are just drawn into certain fields.

The so-called liberal media is the response of conservatives who feel the news organizations aren't conservative enough for their tastes.

You're claiming I'm making them up, and giving no justification for doing so. You could settle this by finding statistics for either side of the argument, as I am trying to do. Or you could just make a stupid ad-hominum attack and not add anything to this discussion.

Fine, so basically you've already admitted you made the statement without complete (or apparently, any) evidence in hand to base your opinion

So may I present the following statistic to totally own this debate.

88% of US Media corporations' donations end up in the Republican party coffers.

Now by your logic, you now have to go and refute that.

Also of interesting note

55% of Republicans enjoy frequent anal sex

46% want world domination by sex-toy production corporations

55% of Republicans enjoy frequent anal sexAs tops or bottoms?

You're claiming I'm making them up, and giving no justification for doing so. You could settle this by finding statistics for either side of the argument, as I am trying to do. Or you could just make a stupid ad-hominum attack and not add anything to this discussion.
Definition:

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.

Examples:

(i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
(ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad
hominem circumstantial)
(iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem
circumstantial)
(iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)


Nope, not argument ad hominem. I'm attacking your lack of a source, not you.