Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
[BLOG] It's only bias when they like a Democrat
I Read This
May 24, 2018, 05:52:02 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New here? Read our voting instructions and rules
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32
  Print  
Author Topic: [BLOG] It's only bias when they like a Democrat  (Read 47240 times)
John
Talking Head
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 529


WWW
« on: July 25, 2008, 05:24:34 EDT »

The Article.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Although I've watched a couple of recent Daily Show episodes (after giving it a miss during the strike) and I see John Stewart is basically saying the same thing. Of course, he's also criticising the conservative (at least, I ASSUME they're conservatives) media as well. So he's criticising both equally Wink

But yeah, its pretty amazing to hear about the liberal media after 8 years of Bush. The media isn't itself inherently liberal or conservative, there are outlets that cater to both (although not any that cater to others like libertarians or the REAL conservatives, rather then the republican-conservatives which believes in big government and policing the world).

Quote
Shut up and stop whining, McCain people and cartoonists. Seriously. It's pathetic.
This implies cartoonists aren't people, although I guess DC should know Tongue
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 22:35:59 EDT by Felix J. Lockhart » Logged
Manufacturing Dissent
Survivor of a year in France
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2008, 08:36:06 EDT »

The idea of a liberal media is very important to neo-cons and their allies.  It allows moderate possitions to be portrayed as left-wing, allows "balance" in reporting to be presented (as often as not) as right-wing vs. extreme right-wing, and to allow a general dismissal of facts as being "biased" or "just a theory".
Logged

"If it had not been for the discontent of a few fellows who had not been satisfied with their conditions, you would still be living in caves. Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization.

Progress is born of agitation. It is agitation or stagnation."
     -Eugene Debs (1855- 1926)
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2008, 10:17:55 EDT »

I think the Dad part the seem to allude Liberal Eagle, is it meant to Portraying the him as the "out for our best entrests" and who the media should be "paying attention too. like a good girl"

Personally I think the best thing for McCain is that media is basically ignoring him, as he making as many "gafts" as Bush Jr does on a foreign trip, on home terf. were as mainstream media has basical outright said the looking for any gaft Obama might make.

the Lack of coverage on McCain allow his early good impression stay intact
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
joshbrenton
Active Libertarian
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2008, 13:09:47 EDT »

The idea of a liberal media is very important to neo-cons and their allies.  It allows moderate possitions to be portrayed as left-wing, allows "balance" in reporting to be presented (as often as not) as right-wing vs. extreme right-wing, and to allow a general dismissal of facts as being "biased" or "just a theory".

If you're a liberal, the media has a right-wing bias. If you're a conservative, the media has a left-wing bias. All news is biased. We simply interpret the slant to fit our own political viewpoints.

Now I can say with certainty that the media is definitely biased against libertarians. How much press coverage is Bob Barr getting? Huh, huh?
Logged
Manufacturing Dissent
Survivor of a year in France
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2008, 13:47:26 EDT »

The idea of a liberal media is very important to neo-cons and their allies.  It allows moderate possitions to be portrayed as left-wing, allows "balance" in reporting to be presented (as often as not) as right-wing vs. extreme right-wing, and to allow a general dismissal of facts as being "biased" or "just a theory".

If you're a liberal, the media has a right-wing bias. If you're a conservative, the media has a left-wing bias. All news is biased. We simply interpret the slant to fit our own political viewpoints.

Now I can say with certainty that the media is definitely biased against libertarians. How much press coverage is Bob Barr getting? Huh, huh?

There is no need to be rude, you can ask your question without the provoking phrase at the end.

And there certainly are several sources for balanced news.  I personally find Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS to be an excellently done program.  While it is definately biased towards the left, Moyer's makes a point of inviting guests of all political stripes on his show, including libertarians.

In the end, though, one only need to look at the biased coverage of the 2000 and 2004 elections, the lack of dissent in 2003 during the march to war, and many other countless examples to see that there is indeed a right-wing editorial bias that is present in the American media.
Logged

"If it had not been for the discontent of a few fellows who had not been satisfied with their conditions, you would still be living in caves. Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization.

Progress is born of agitation. It is agitation or stagnation."
     -Eugene Debs (1855- 1926)
Liberal Seagull
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1247



WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2008, 13:58:15 EDT »

Now I can say with certainty that the media is definitely biased against libertarians. How much press coverage is Bob Barr getting? Huh, huh?

About as much as is justified, given the likelihood that he'll win?

Third party candidates do get coverage if they show signs of attracting significant support.  Ross Perot, for example.
Logged

Disclaimer:
For external use only.  Seek medical attention if effects last more than 48 hours.  Do not mix with bleach.  Do not cross the streams.  If the plug does not fit your outlet, consult an electrician.  Side effects may include: Panic belching, excessive consumption of french fries, webbed feet, exploding uvula syndrome, temporary relocation to the 8th dimension, and the condition known as "bratwurst finger."  Disconnect all power before servicing.  Do not use while sleeping.  The electrons used in this message are in every measurable respect identical to electrons in other users' messages, and no claim to the contrary is implied.
joshbrenton
Active Libertarian
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2008, 14:42:26 EDT »


There is no need to be rude, you can ask your question without the provoking phrase at the end.

And there certainly are several sources for balanced news.  I personally find Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS to be an excellently done program.  While it is definately biased towards the left, Moyer's makes a point of inviting guests of all political stripes on his show, including libertarians.

In the end, though, one only need to look at the biased coverage of the 2000 and 2004 elections, the lack of dissent in 2003 during the march to war, and many other countless examples to see that there is indeed a right-wing editorial bias that is present in the American media.

Dude, relax. I wasn't directing that at anyone here, and I wasn't trying to be rude. I was just pointing out that the media is ignoring Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party.

Also, regarding the "biased" coverage, I again think that depends on which sources you were getting the news from. Some were slanted towards Gore & Kerry, some were slanted towards Bush. You don't have to agree with me, but that's how I saw it.
Logged
Darkeforce
Banned
Political Thinktank
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7509


Forum's Punching Bag


« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2008, 20:45:29 EDT »

The idea of a liberal media is very important to neo-cons and their allies.  It allows moderate possitions to be portrayed as left-wing, allows "balance" in reporting to be presented (as often as not) as right-wing vs. extreme right-wing, and to allow a general dismissal of facts as being "biased" or "just a theory".

If you're a liberal, the media has a right-wing bias. If you're a conservative, the media has a left-wing bias. All news is biased. We simply interpret the slant to fit our own political viewpoints.

Now I can say with certainty that the media is definitely biased against libertarians. How much press coverage is Bob Barr getting? Huh, huh?

I think the Media was best described by someone here on the board (Current?). It's the Corporate Media — it's dedicated to fulfilling the goals of its corporate masters. That is, turn a profit, and shape the world to be more friendly toward corporations and their owners, who just happen to be predominantly conservatives.
Logged

"Going to War for Peace,
is like Screwing for Virginity."

"Politics. It's like having evil cake, and eating it, too" - Torg - Sluggy Freelance
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2008, 18:10:06 EDT »

hmm, I ran across an interesting post by the Tyndall report (don't see any particular sign of conservative or liberal bias, more general interest.).

"Hi guys. Sorry to be behind in my posting. I am working through the weekend to catch up. For those who need an update on the latest disparity in coverage between that media phenomenon and that mere Presidential candidate, here are the numbers. In the seven weeks since the primary season ended (04jun08-23jul08), John McCain has logged 67 minutes on the three broadcast networks' weekday nightly newscasts, Barack Obama 166. Do not construe this as undercoverage of McCain. For the record McCain '08 in the first six months (Jan-Jun) logged 203 minutes. That is plenty. It is more for the first two quarters than any other candidate in the previous five cycles: more than Bush '88 (167), Perot '92 (161), Clinton '92 (158), Kerry '04 (157), Bush '04 (133), Dole '96 (130), Bush '00 (111) and so on. McCain is getting plenty of coverage, judged as an historical candidate. Yet Obama, in the first six months of 2008, just broke the mold: 389 minutes. Obama gets more positive coverage, more negative coverage and more trivial coverage. Who else has stories filed about them on how he shakes hands with his wife? Or whether Jesse Jackson wants to castrate him? Or how he is lampooned on the cover of The New Yorker? The way the networks are covering this race, it is not a contest between Obama and McCain, it is a referendum on Obama. Obama's every last tic and subclause is hyperanalyzed to see if he is qualified to be President. The implicit message of the coverage is that if he is qualified, he wins. If not, McCain is President by default."

In short, Obama gets twice as much coverage of types both positive, negative, and neutral, then McCain does, but McCain is still receiving more coverage than any candidate in past elections has received.  This seems to correlate to what I see on the news, which can't shut up about Obama, whether its to insult him or congratulate him.

Course, the reason why there is so much coverage is because he is a new and distinctive candidate who breaks the mold, while McCain is an 71 year old representative of the establishment, maverick or not.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Laserlips
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2008, 18:56:48 EDT »

Is there something inherently wrong with turning a profit, without any regard to how that profit is used?  I don't believe that Corporations or Profit are inherently evil things.  If you look at the world around you, including the Internet we're writing in, basically all the nice things in the world came from people who were trying to make money from them.  The only exception, and far too infrequent an exception for my tastes, is religion.

In any case, I tend to agree with the poster above who said it's a matter of perspective--"If they don't agree with my side, they must be working for the other one."

On the other hand, I read somewhere that when the press was polled, they gave Obama something like a 95% approval rating... which, if true, would almost certainly come through in the stories they write.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Mormons for Romney kind of sounds like it might be a palindrome, but it isn't.
Eon
The Cute and Fuzzy Author of Eon's Comic
Talking Head
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 628


I like vixens!


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2008, 19:34:56 EDT »

Now I can say with certainty that the media is definitely biased against libertarians. How much press coverage is Bob Barr getting? Huh, huh?

About as much as is justified, given the likelihood that he'll win?

Third party candidates do get coverage if they show signs of attracting significant support.  Ross Perot, for example.


Ross Perot. My dad and my uncle helped him get his boat out of the water while I was on holiday in Bermuda in the summer of 1996. Of course I had no idea who he was at the time.
Logged


Darkeforce
Banned
Political Thinktank
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7509


Forum's Punching Bag


« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2008, 21:02:56 EDT »

Is there something inherently wrong with turning a profit, without any regard to how that profit is used?  I don't believe that Corporations or Profit are inherently evil things.  If you look at the world around you, including the Internet we're writing in, basically all the nice things in the world came from people who were trying to make money from them.  The only exception, and far too infrequent an exception for my tastes, is religion.

In any case, I tend to agree with the poster above who said it's a matter of perspective--"If they don't agree with my side, they must be working for the other one."

On the other hand, I read somewhere that when the press was polled, they gave Obama something like a 95% approval rating... which, if true, would almost certainly come through in the stories they write.

The problem isn't them turning a profit, it's them turning a profit, at the expense of X; X being one of any number of social and economic groups that are not the richest 1% of the population. Maybe if that 1% actually paid anything near their fair load of taxes, I might not be so snippy about them siphoning money out of people who can scarcely afford it; people who pay more than their fair share of taxes. People should benefit from society to the extent that they actually support said society.
Logged

"Going to War for Peace,
is like Screwing for Virginity."

"Politics. It's like having evil cake, and eating it, too" - Torg - Sluggy Freelance
Laserlips
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2008, 21:20:06 EDT »

If you're on the side of the people who pay more than their share of taxes, then you've turned into a Dubya Republican without telling anyone.

Let's look at the numbers, shall we? 

Quote
"The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

As you can see, this is from November 2007, just eight months ago.

And you know what's even better?  So much better, in fact, that it's delicious to me, like an orange?

The reason the rich pay more taxes than they did before... is the Bush tax cuts.

Quote
The latest IRS data show an increase of more than $100 billion in tax payments from the wealthy by 2005 alone. The number of tax filers who claimed taxable income of more than $1 million increased from approximately 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. The total taxes paid by these millionaire households rose by about 80 percent in two years, from $132 billion to $236 billion.

Same site.  Read it; there's a lot more.

The reason for all of this is called the "Laffer Curve."  The legend goes that, during his administration, Reagan was eating lunch with an economist by the name of Laffer, as well as other notables like Rumsfeld and Cheney.  Laffer explained that tax rates were so high that they were a disincentive to make money; he grabbed a napkin (it may have been Cheney's) and drew a curve on it, showing that tax cuts would encourage more people to make more money, which would increase government revenue.

The idea behind supply-side economics is that when taxes on the rich are high, they won't work as hard to be rich--and so the amount they pay will be lower.

In short, there are more rich people because they aren't punished as much for being rich--and because there are more rich people, the amount of taxes collected by the government increases.

President Bush's tax cuts have squeezed more money out of the rich.  I told you it would be delicious.  Ah, sweet irony.

(So, are you still on the side of people who pay more than their share of taxes?)
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Mormons for Romney kind of sounds like it might be a palindrome, but it isn't.
Darkeforce
Banned
Political Thinktank
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7509


Forum's Punching Bag


« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2008, 21:50:08 EDT »

If you're on the side of the people who pay more than their share of taxes, then you've turned into a Dubya Republican without telling anyone.

Let's look at the numbers, shall we? 

Quote
"The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

Ah, no. Current numbers say the top 1% earn 40% of all income, and the percentage they pay is much, much lower. It doesn't matter how much in actual funds they pay; what matters is how much of their gross income they pay.

Quote
(So, are you still on the side of people who pay more than their share of taxes?)

Yes, because I and my friends are in that group; unlike your insinuation that the "poor ol' rich people" are carrying America. America is carried by the taxes of the middle class.
Logged

"Going to War for Peace,
is like Screwing for Virginity."

"Politics. It's like having evil cake, and eating it, too" - Torg - Sluggy Freelance
purplecat
Mad Scientist
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3499



« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2008, 21:57:06 EDT »

There are a couple of things about that analysis that make it highly misleading.

Firstly, it only covers the federal income tax, which is the most progressive part of the tax system. Payroll taxes are capped, so those on the highest incomes end up paying a lower effective rate on their incomes. Property taxes and sales taxes bear little relationship to ability to pay, which again means that those on the highest incomes pay a lower percentage of income on them.

The second thing that it does not mention is what type of income is involved here. I know rather little about the American tax system, but I gather that investment income is treated differently to employment income. Significantly, investment income is not subject to payroll taxes, and the figures quoted in the "percentage of the income" section may refer to employment income only. Investment income is distributed much more unequally than employment income.

The third thing is much more subtle. The unspoken assumption in those figures is that if a segment of the population earns X% of the money, it would be fair for them to pay X% of the income tax. This is not true due to the marginal value of income. Simply put, when a person's income is below the poverty line, the effect of paying 10% of their income in taxes is much greater than the effect on a person whose income is $50,000 a year. In order for the tax system to take an equal value from each person, tax rates on high incomes where the marginal value of the money earned is low need to be higher than the rates paid on low incomes where the marginal value of $1 is much larger. I can't find the link right now, but a study in the UK showed that the marginal value of income above £30,000 a year had negligible marginal value.

Finally, the laffer curve is more than somewhat suspect. It has only two known points. Those being the special cases of a 100% tax rate, and a 0% tax rate, where no revenue at all will be collected. It's impossible to assume the shape of the line between these two points by extrapolating from there. A complex tax system will produce a complex line, with possibly many maxima and minima.
Logged

Purplecat: Keeper of the political compass thread. Want to be on the graph? post your results here

Me: (No, seriously, this entire forum has the attention span of an..... oooh! shiny!)
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!