Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Geoff332 · Sep 12, 2003, 02:19 am

Somehow treating entertainers as political experts is the same as a dislike of people making money out of supply necessities. OK, it doesn't really make sense to me, but this is your story. I won't comment on the rather obvious irony of that position given the current situation in California.

I'm not really worried about measuring things. But then I've never said that I only consider measurable things to be important (or worth worrying about). Since this is the main criteria for knowledge within your self-espoused philosophy, I assumed that you would be able to give me an answer. Still we can't ask for too much now, can we.

Let me give you an opinion of my own.

The media is not dominated by liberals. Here's a fairly comprehensive survey of journalists. The key findings are summarised at the start, but basically say that the journalists are predominantly to the centre and more conservative than the general public. Those who do not adopt a central position are more likely to end up on the right economically and on the left socially. Here's another article, from the same site, on how to detect bias in the media. Elsewhere they comment that most newspapers, since 1932 have supported republican candidates, over their democratic opposition (with the exception of two elections).

Here's another study that looks at how the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' are used in the media. This one shows the reverse bias favouring conservatives. There is a lot of other evidence debunking the claim of liberal bias in the media -- usually based on economic positions reported, on people interviewed on labels attached to people. Most indicate a central position and those that don't indicate a conservative bias. There may have been some historical bias, but this claim is dubious at best -- based on one or two figures like Spiro Agnew.

The bulk of my position was based on the coverage I got from US sources regarding the war in Iraq. Particularly, the lack of critical analysis, challenges when mistakes were made and the overall impression I got of cheerleading, rather than reporting, the war. I consider this a pro-Bush bias, rather than a liberal or conservative bias. In particular, the under-reporting of the demonstrably false claim linking Iraq to African nuclear material and the lack of critical analysis of the claimed links between Al-Qaida and Iraq -- claims which most other nation's media I've encountered consider to be at best vague and circumstantial (and, at worst, deliberately manufactured).

From this, and given my stated belief that a critical media is an important part of a democratic society, I asked it the US media was doing its job. I still believe it is not.

Sep 12, 2003, 02:19 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Somehow treating entertainers as political experts is the same as a dislike of people making money out of supply necessities. OK, it doesn't really make sense to me, but this is your story. I won't comment on the rather obvious irony of that position given the current situation in California. I'm not really worried about measuring things. But then I've never said that I only consider measurable things to be important (or worth worrying about). Since this is the main criteria for knowledge within your self-espoused philosophy, I assumed that you would be able to give me an answer. Still we can't ask for too much now, can we. Let me give you an opinion of my own. The media is not dominated by liberals. Here's a fairly comprehensive survey of journalists. The key findings are summarised at the start, but basically say that the journalists are predominantly to the centre and more conservative than the general public. Those who do not adopt a central position are more likely to end up on the right economically and on the left socially. Here's another article, from the same site, on how to detect bias in the media. Elsewhere they comment that most newspapers, since 1932 have supported republican candidates, over their democratic opposition (with the exception of two elections). Here's another study that looks at how the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' are used in the media. This one shows the reverse bias favouring conservatives. There is a lot of other evidence debunking the claim of liberal bias in the media -- usually based on economic positions reported, on people interviewed on labels attached to people. Most indicate a central position and those that don't indicate a conservative bias. There may have been some historical bias, but this claim is dubious at best -- based on one or two figures like Spiro Agnew. The bulk of my position was based on the coverage I got from US sources regarding the war in Iraq. Particularly, the lack of critical analysis, challenges when mistakes were made and the overall impression I got of cheerleading, rather than reporting, the war. I consider this a pro-Bush bias, rather than a liberal or conservative bias. In particular, the under-reporting of the demonstrably false claim linking Iraq to African nuclear material and the lack of critical analysis of the claimed links between Al-Qaida and Iraq -- claims which most other nation's media I've encountered consider to be at best vague and circumstantial (and, at worst, deliberately manufactured). From this, and given my stated belief that a critical media is an important part of a democratic society, I asked it the US media was doing its job. I still believe it is not.