Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Damn, Trask, turn that trash off. You'll find more educational value in your 'Hefty Hookers - Part 73' DVD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 10, 2003 Author Share Posted January 10, 2003 Damn, Trask, turn that trash off. You'll find more educational value in your 'Hefty Hookers - Part 73' DVD. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 you's funny jackson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 In response to  Poster: MtnGoat Subject: Re: Free Press  For a rickety abacus, my designer did pretty well holding off the likes of the competition I see here.  If you want to drive your tank to work, by all means do so. You may be assessed weight fees like a semi, and additional user fees may be necessary if you damage the pavement more than is costed for when doing road maintainance tax costing for normal vehicles.   Competition? You don't believe a damn word of what you say; it simply provides a platform from which you can argue. I think the reason you found Libertarianism attractive is cuz it was the most antagonistic philosophy, suiting your personality to a tee. The only reason I say this is because your arguments above prove your position to be entirely irrevelevant and short-sighted. This is why Libertarianism will continue to be only a marginalized sect, devoid of any powers of influence (in a positive sense), except on the already marginalized. Sorry if I sound harsh, but I think it's readily apparent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Oh, and I should have offered a warning, as in "Incoming!", Or "Here we go again....", or at least "Sorry!". Â Better late than never? Â And mtgoat, nothing personal above, I've never even met you; I think you know that. I just really think the philosophy you espouse is terribly naive and idealistic, disregarding all ramifications in favor of its trumpet-call: The Individual Above All! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Trask's post at 10:09 on 1/8 does have an element of truth to it. Your reply to him at 10:39 asked for some examples. At the risk of sounding "Goatish" I merely provided three examples. All were given with enough detail that an interested party could research them. Your response was in essence to ask for a review of the entire US Media. Without a doubt this is impossible on this thread. Can MG or PP provide a detail documented analysis all the US media? Certainly not. I took such a response to be a bit smart alecy and proof that you were forcing the structure of the discourse into design that benefits you. (Don't take that as an insult) I chose (because I read it often) to use the NYT as an example of a new paper with a liberal bias and provided three diverse examples that would support my contention. There is a difference between providing an example and providing a detailed explanation. So much for my "defense" Â Do you feel that your recitation of headlines and editorial summaries would be considered proof of non-bias if our positions were reverse? I think not. Especially after your comments regarding my examples - particularly the growth rate example. Thus I can only conclude that you are creating an argument by volume not logic. At best the pot is calling the kettle black. Â My beer comment was meant to indicate that I was joking around; I didn't mean to be condescending in an personally insulting way. My apologies. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Can MG or PP provide a detail documented analysis all the US media? Certainly not.  Precisely. How can you then assert there is a systematic liberal bias in the media when you could not quote a single reliable piece to that effect.  you want a comprehensive analysis as to where journalists stand politically? here it goes:  Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage  David Croteau Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Sociology and Anthropology © June 1998  Executive Summary  The conservative critique of the news media rests on two general propositions: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the public, and (2) journalists frame news content in a way that accentuates these left perspectives. Previous research has revealed persuasive evidence against the latter claim, but the validity of the former claim has often been taken for granted. This research project examined the supposed left orientation of media personnel by surveying Washington-based journalists who cover national politics and/or economic policy at US outlets.  The findings include:   On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.  Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.  The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.  http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html  case closed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 mattp said There has been little coverage about the suffering in Iraq that follows our bombing or results from the sanctions, there has been little follow up on what is happening in Afghanistan now... I agree with you abt no liberal cov'g of post-Afganistan...but interestingly there was a guy being interviewed yesterday or the day before, doing relief work in advance, about past and likely-upcoming effects of war on the Iraqi people. He did an effective job, since he wasn't too bleeding-heart about it. Â I know that mattp and others are pulling our collective leg to some extent with their "no real liberal coverage" theme. But for you real lefties, there will never be a mainstream news organization that you call "liberal," since your definition is so hard-over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 j_b, Â I'm originally a Virginian, and I can tell you that unless VCU added to their library of coloring books, they are not my idea of a bastion of knowledge about anything...except art maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 10, 2003 Author Share Posted January 10, 2003 PP- I might go for your "pot calling the kettle black" analogy, except that early in the thread, I DID provide examples of stories that I thought were slanted and I stated in what manner it was that I thought they were slanted. Nobody, including yourself, has asked for any further discussion of these examples. You, on the other hand, thrust three "examples" but are too busy to explain how they exemplify anything. Â I agree that my review of the web page headlines the last two days is certainly not proof of anything but I believe it is illustrative of the point that, on the surface at least, there is no obvious bias in the last couple days' headlines. Â Again, PP, do you mind fillin me in on how the Augusta story proves ANYTHING? You apparently have the answer to this question, and I would guess that it would not take more than a single sentence to describe your reasoning, but you are utterly unwilling to disclose it. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 instead of criticizing a university based on your personal outlook, why don't you discuss the paper. It describes methods, give results and presents the analysis; it's all there for your perusal. Then we might be able to have a discussion about its worth but I am confident you'd find it quite impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 J_B who once suggested an Israeli professor who taught in a Palestinian University was an "Average" Israeli - Â Here is Mattp's response to Trask that I took referenced up above. Â Trask: can you cite a single example of an issue that the TV and the Seattle newspapers have concistently presented with a "liberal" slant? I honestly can't. Â I brought up the NYT. I never argued for the existence of a generally liberal biased media in the US. Since I have restricted my argument to a specific paper, the validity of your study does not reduce my argument in any manner. Your study, however, does not conclusively prove your position at all. Although I am glad to see that you agree (in your advice to RobBob) that it is up to the reader here on CC.com to actively research links provided. Oddly you have chosen not to heed your own advice and provided any analysis how my examples were in error despite your assertion that they are. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Such as... the systematic misrepresentation of the second amendment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 PP does make a point. I don't know it that specific study does look at the NYT. But there are other works such as "Through the Looking Glass" which does a good criticial analysis of our media including the NYT. Â On a broader note you might consider how may "liberal" columnists are employed by the Wall Street Journal for the editorial page - that's easy - none. VS how many "conservative columnists are in the NYT - some big guns such as William Safire and Thomas Friedman. So at least there is a mix of opinion in the NYT. Â I would still argure that our media is so lame that the NYT is a left rag only in comparision with the typical righty media of the US. Even Israel has a wider range of press than we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Got to go so I am responding in this manner. Maaa Maaaaa I feel like a goat. Although he is a better writer than me.  PP- I might go for your "pot calling the kettle black" analogy, except that early in the thread, I DID provide examples of stories that I thought were slanted and I stated in what manner it was that I thought they were slanted. So Mattp a thief who is honest once is not a thief?  Nobody, including yourself, has asked for any further discussion of these examples. You, on the other hand, thrust three "examples" but are too busy to explain how they exemplify anything. Again I was responding to your query to Trask referenced above. Certainly you can't believe it incumbent upon me to discuss any example of a conservatively biased press you might bring up when it has no relationship to my argument.  I agree that my review of the web page headlines the last two days is certainly not proof of anything but I believe it is illustrative of the point that, on the surface at least, there is no obvious bias in the last couple days' headlines. See my earlier replies concerning "bias" and your own refutation of the headline approach. Your refutation however applies completely to yoru use of headlines. My use somewhat avoided your refutation by providing comparative headlines.  Again, PP, do you mind fillin me in on how the Augusta story proves ANYTHING? You apparently have the answer to this question, and I would guess that it would not take more than a single sentence to describe your reasoning, but you are utterly unwilling to disclose it. Actually it would. But it would be easy for you to research  PP who is off work and outta here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Well heh SC, any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 PP who spent several threads demonizing arabs and under duress may have acknowledged small defects with israeli "democracy". (actually I don't think you acknowledged anything despite mass evidence) Â Your study, however, does not conclusively prove your position at all. Â and what is my position? Â Oddly you have chosen not to heed your own advice and provided any analysis how my examples were in error despite your assertion that they are. Â I read the NYT every day and I rarely find a progressive slant to their stories, on the contrary, on bottom line issues such as the economy and foreign policy the differences with the rest of the conservative press are minimal especially if one accounts for the entire political spectrum. So to be frank, I don't take your examples too seriously. Anyhow I was not specifically discussing your examples but your unability to present a comprehensive analysis of the NYT or the press in general and yet you still claim the existence of a liberal bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregm Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 one approach to this debate might be to simply poll the u.s. population and see if most people think there is a leftist media bias. that is, does the media perspective differ from that of the general population, or is the media simply reflecting the political views of the average citizen. some research seems to show that there isn't a clear consensus about media bias. while americans do, on balance, see the media as biased, they don't agree about which party the media favors. there is a lot of new conservative media to balance the old liberal media. but among americans who really do see a media bias, they are only somewhat more likely to think the media favors democrats:     source  more on what media people believe is based on the own political preference. scroll down to media credibility ratings.  disclaimer: the source is an organization headed by madeline albright, so it is probably a liberal organization.   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 "Competition? You don't believe a damn word of what you say; it simply provides a platform from which you can argue. I think the reason you found Libertarianism attractive is cuz it was the most antagonistic philosophy, suiting your personality to a tee." Â thus the elite speaks, and you know what someone else "really" means or believes. Just how is it you are so sure no one else can actually believe they don't want you dictating their lives? When I debate you, I give you the respect you deserve and at least figure you hold your position honestly, even when I don't like it. You aren't doing that. I must be lying, right? So who is it respecting the personal views of others, here? Â Of course you find it antagonistic, because a) you insist on divining what I "really" mean, and b), it provides little outlet for your seeming need to fix everything, for everyone elses own good, to your standards. There is little way a philosophy which does not support your use of others, for your personal ends, would be anything but antagonistic to you, because it stands in the way of your plans for everyone. Â Here we have a situation where your philosophy justifies your proxies in my face, with threats, in so many inescapable areas of my life, and you say *I'm* antagonistic! ......At the same time, while you defend your intent to order my life, and I refuse to do the same thing to you. It's odd to say the least. Who is the antagonist, really? Â "The only reason I say this is because your arguments above prove your position to be entirely irrevelevant and short-sighted." Â Instead of rebuttal of content, the rebuttal is just "they're irrelevant". I cannot see anything more short sighted than insisting "people" or "society" want something they don't already choose on their own. Further, I fail to see why protecting individuals means they will not care about their decisions and their effects. If this was true, you wouldn't take others into account in decisions which are not legislated for you, but I'll bet you do because you obviously care. Why assume that merely because you are not forced to care, that you won't? Â "This is why Libertarianism will continue to be only a marginalized sect, devoid of any powers of influence (in a positive sense), except on the already marginalized." Â It's already the third largest party with the largest number of elected officials outside the big two. Â If you can't see past your own desire to use so many people for so many reasons you justify, I can't explain it to you. IMO you stand for false "democracy", where people who will not do what they claim to value on their own, use the short cut of threats to get others to do so. Hardly a basis for compassion or respect. Â IMO, everyone knows morality cannot be forced, then many set right out to do so. Everyone knows change must come from within by people who truly respect each other, but then we ignore that and set right out to force change by external means. In each case the results are poisoned by the means folks already know deep down inside don't work, but it seems so noble. Â "Sorry if I sound harsh, but I think it's readily apparent." Â No worries, I'll bounce right back as you've seen. Have at it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 (edited) "I just really think the philosophy you espouse is terribly naive and idealistic, disregarding all ramifications in favor of its trumpet-call: The Individual Above All!" Â So you think "society above all" is less naive and less idealistic? What about disregarding the ramifications of that? Â How can a society be fulfilling if the individuals are not happy? "society" is not a person, "society" has no feelings, no one can ever know "society" as anything but a construct? But we *can* know what makes individual people happy, because they are we and we each define it for ourselves. Think about it... how can anybody truly be happy if they are not able to follow the dictates of what they value? It's impossible to force values on people. They may obey coercion where it is unavoidable, but in all the other actions where it's not visible, they do what they want anyway. Â I think may be mistaking basic principles as outlined by me here, as arguing for absolute and total adherence to these. Of course that is not the case, adjustments must be made. But these organizing ideas are no less pie in the sky than any other unreachable ideals which form the basis of other ideologies, such as the quest for perfect equality, perfect distribution of employment by race, or anything else. Still, the basic but unreachable ideals point the way, and it seems to me you are following your own set of ideals you would also admit are unreachable. Edited January 11, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 (edited) moved reply to proper thread Edited January 11, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 (edited) ditto Edited January 11, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 I do truly believe tanks should not be allowed on public streets, meaning: I believe it should be (which I think it is) illegal, punishable (yes, coercion!) by law. How about that for an infringement on your personal freedoms! Â I think the tank example shows, quite accurately, the differences between us: You think anything goes; I think we can collectively (as individuals with individual voices!) decide what is acceptable and what isn't. Pretty basic, really. We collectively decide that murder isn't allowed, because it's an impingement on other indivuals' rights. In the same vein, we can decide that SUVs must be regulated (and tanks!), because they are an impingement on other individuals' rights. I think this stance has a constitutional basis; pretty simple really. Â So you think "society above all" is less naive and less idealistic? What about disregarding the ramifications of that? Â Out of all your responses, this I singled out, because it I think encapsulates the root of our disagreements most completely. You assume that since I believe the individual's actions must be curtailed in certain instances, I automatically support your assertion above. Hah! Nice troll, gotta go. Have a nice weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 "On a broader note you might consider how may "liberal" columnists are employed by the Wall Street Journal for the editorial page - that's easy - none." Â The WSJ differs from the NYT in that it has never pretended to be impartial in its editorial coverage, and they restate the philosophy that underpins their editorials in print every so often. See Below... Â "Looking back over this history, the surprise is not the change of views over the years but the constancy of them. (See "Journal Editorials and the Common Man.") They are united by the mantra "free markets and free people," the principles, if you will, marked in the watershed year of 1776 by Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations." So over the past century and into the next, the Journal stands for free trade and sound money. Against the interference of taxes and ukases by kings and other collectivists. For the defense of individual autonomy against dictators, bullies and even the tempers of momentary majorities. If these principles sound unexceptionable in theory, applying them to current issues is often unfashionable and controversial." Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.