bin laden died, obama...played cards...

[arnisador]

Everyone keeps saying...when will we get past the issue of race...welll things like this movie are meant to keep us from getting past the issue of race...

You don't think the producers might have had a capitalist angle in making the movie?

 

[arnisador]

The problem is the image...

Then smart people like us shouldn't worry about it. The substance is that he made a risky call to greenlight an operation that might well have come up empty--no OBL--embarrassing him and his administration and further straining relations with Pakistan. Where he sat doesn't matter. I was watching Teenage Mutant Ninjas 3 while I sat beside my wife who had been in labor all day long with our second child. (My wife was drifting off between contractions by that point in the day.) I still love both her and the Turtles (and she knows about this story).

 

[arnisador]

So you think its ok for the media to play Favorites?[...]I guess the better question should be do you think there is a bias at all?

I think many of us see a lot less favoritism than the right-wingers do: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

 

[ballen0351]

I think many of us see a lot less favoritism than the right-wingers do: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

I understand people that people have a natural bias and most journalist are more left leaning then right but that's not really an excuse not to do a good job. I'm a right winger but I don't go around hunting for and stopping cars with Obama stickers. A job is a job you leave personal feelings at home.

 

[arnisador]

I understand people that people have a natural bias and most journalist are more left leaning then right but that's not really an excuse not to do a good job. I'm a right winger but I don't go around hunting for and stopping cars with Obama stickers. A job is a job you leave personal feelings at home.

I don't penalize my Christian students even though I find their views anti-scientific; if they can do the exam, they get the credit.

But I believe the reporters are trying to be objective and what they see as objective is seen as bias by the right wing. Consider it: It could be that they're being as neutral as they can manage as human beings and those on the far right incorrectly and unfairly see that as bias.

 

[ballen0351]

I don't penalize my Christian students even though I find their views anti-scientific; if they can do the exam, they get the credit.

But I believe the reporters are trying to be objective and what they see as objective is seen as bias by the right wing. Consider it: It could be that they're being as neutral as they can manage as human beings and those on the far right incorrectly and unfairly see that as bias.

So in your opinion the media is just as critical of Obama as they were on Bush?

 

[James Kovacich]

So you think its ok for the media to play Favorites? How can the consumer know there is a problem if they trust the news to report news not agenda? You dont know what you dont know.

Edit
I guess the better question should be do you think there is a bias at all?

American TV is what it is. I do watch network news but I also watch PBS, BBC and other non partisan sources to look through the "worlds eyes". And stay clear of anything far right or far left.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[arnisador]

So in your opinion the media is just as critical of Obama as they were on Bush?

I'm not suggesting no bias--I'm suggesting much less than the right-wingers believe they see. It's a fact that Fox News viewers are less well informed than those who watch other, or no, news channels. So I think the perception of bias is swamping what actual unavoidable bias may exist.

 

[ballen0351]

I'm not suggesting no bias--I'm suggesting much less than the right-wingers believe they see. It's a fact that Fox News viewers are less well informed than those who watch other, or no, news channels. So I think the perception of bias is swamping what actual unavoidable bias may exist.

Fair enough. I dont agree with you but thats not a shock.
I did just read an article from Media Matters saying the media is way harder on Obama then they ever were on Bush so I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder

 

[James Kovacich]

I think the public in general is way harder on Obama than Bush.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ballen0351]

I think the public in general is way harder on Obama than Bush.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

I dont know I think this more vocal oppisition started under Bush and keeps growing. I think more people are just fed up in general with Govt. then they ever were and regardless of who won things will keep getting worse.

 

[Steve]

So you think its ok for the media to play Favorites? How can the consumer know there is a problem if they trust the news to report news not agenda? You dont know what you dont know.

Edit
I guess the better question should be do you think there is a bias at all?

I think that some media is motivated by money. I think other media is motivated by agenda. Unlike you, I don't see any difference between agenda driven media that is liberal or that is conservative. Either way, they play favorites, and as you have said in the past, it's up to the buyer to beware. Your words; not mine, if I remember correctly.

Since you think it is wrong for liberal media to play favorites, Why is it okay for conservative media to play favorites?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Steve]

So in your opinion the media is just as critical of Obama as they were on Bush?

Unless you're on team Obama. We see what we look for. If you're on team bush, he is a hapless victim of media bias because you see what you expect to see. If you're on team Obama, you will probably see him as the victim.

I just don't understand why this is a radical idea to some here. It just seems self apparent to me. Obvious, really. But, for some, politics is a religion, I guess.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[billc]

It's a fact that Fox News viewers are less well informed than those who watch other, or no, news channels.

Say it enough and you can pretend it's true...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/are-fox-news-viewers-least-informed/

Are Fox News Viewers Least Informed?



JAMES JOYNER · MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2011 · 33 COMMENTS

Jon Stewart told Chris Wallace that Fox News viewers are consistently the least informed. It’s actually not true.
PolitFact looks at a number of surveys on the subject

and finds that Fox viewers do relatively well–indeed, Fox outperforms CNN and MSNBC–although not nearly as well as viewers of the Daily Show or listeners to Rush Limbaugh.

But this is an artifact of selection bias, not the information quality of the programs.

We asked Michael Dimock, Pew’s associate director for research, what he thought Pew’s data meant for Stewart’s claim. He said it’s crucial to understand that different news sources appeal to different types of people — and that highly political programming of any type attracts regular readers and viewers “who are, most likely, already highly knowledgeable prior to their exposure to those particular sources. Separating what knowledge they bring with them from what they learn while reading or watching is virtually impossible.”

By contrast, Dimock said, for media outlets with a much broader reach — including Fox — “the average regular consumer of these sources is less informed than the more niche audiences, because these sources, by design, reach and appeal to a broader cross-section of the public. In most of our studies, the regular readers and viewers of these broad-based news sources are not significantly more or less informed than the average American, and there is no systematic pattern showing one broad-based source has a more knowledgeable audience than any other.”


​

Presumably, Stewart was basing his survey on a December study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. But David Zurawik correctly points out that the questions were absurdly biased and, indeed, sometimes treated liberal opinion as fact.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d8d_1321970922

Here, the range of results was much wider. Once again, Fox News was
just about at the national average -- 19 percent of Fox viewers scored
in the high knowledge category, compared to 18 percent of all
respondents -- but this time a handful of news outlets scored lower than
Fox did. With scores ranging from 17 percent all the way down to 9
percent, they were CNBC, local television news, network news, morning
news shows, television newsmagazines, personality magazines, religious
radio, the Weather Channel, CBS News, Access Hollywood and similar
shows, and in last place, the National Enquirer.



And once again, particular Fox shows scored well above the average. Hannity & Colmes was one of only four choices to exceed 40 percent -- the others were the New Yorker/the Atlantic, NPR and MSNBC’s Hardball -- while The O’Reilly Factor scored 28 percent, or 10 points above the national average. (Hannity & Colmes even exceeded Stewart’s Daily Show in this poll, 42 percent to 30 percent.)

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/05/24/fox-news-viewers-least-informed-hardly/

I read this story about Farleigh Dickinson’s latest “study” which claims viewers of the Fox News Channel are the “least-informed” national audience and let out an audible chuckle. Seriously?I suppose if the measure of how well informed someone might be is based on how well they recite liberal talking points, then the study might have a case. But how informed are Fox viewers compared to others when it comes to issues that actually matter?Take for instance the lawsuits filed by various Catholic groups against the ObamaCare contraception mandates. If you’re a Fox News viewer, you’ve undoubtedly heard about this piece of news — arguably one of the biggest stories on the defense of religious freedom against an encroaching federal government in U.S. history. But how much do viewers of other networks know — how “well-informed” are they on this topic?The May 21 editions of ABC’s World News and NBC’s Nightly News failed to report the story altogether and CBS Evening News gave this historic news story a mere 19 seconds of air time.​

http://www.examiner.com/article/jon...ws-viewers-most-consistently-uninformed-false

We found two polling organizations that have produced periodic “knowledge” surveys differentiated by the respondent’s frequent news sources. One is the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, and the other is worldpublicopinion.org, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland…
Viewers of at least one show on Fox scored quite well – The O’Reilly Factor, of whom 51 percent made it into the high knowledge group. That made it equal to National Public Radio — a longtime target of conservative complaints about liberalmedia bias — and only three percentage points behind Stewart’s own show, at 54 percent…
​

After explaining a number of polls and the methodology used in each, Politifactreports:

So we have three Pew studies that superficially rank Fox viewers low on the well-informed list, but in several of the surveys, Fox isn’t the lowest, and other general-interest media outlets -- such as network news shows, network morning shows and even the other cable news networks -- often score similarly low. Meanwhile, particular Fox shows -- such as The O’Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity’s show -- actually score consistently well, occasionally even outpacing Stewart’s own audience.
​

But the bottom line for Politifact is that Stewart was wrong in his assertion - something that doesn't surprise most who are center-right:

 

[billc]

Of course the ones doing the surveys...hmmm...any bias there...of course there is...but again...keep telling yourself fox viewers are dumb...and you will believe it...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/31348

Dana Loesch at BigJournalism

haspointed out one problem with the study: that it was in part funded by George Soros. Soros is known forfunding all sorts of projects and companies, including Media Matters, that further his own personal agenda and beliefs.

Loesch discovered

that the UMD study was run with fundingfrom the Tides Foundation, which counts Soros as a major funder. Blogger Warner Todd Houston foundthat the study was also funded by “such far left-wing organizations as the Ben and Jerry’s Foundation, the Ploughshares Fund, [and] the United States Institute of Peace.”

Of course, merely having a left-wing billionaire involved in the funding of a study does not automatically make it flawed.

What makes a study flawed is bad methodology. And this study has plenty of that.

Twelve of the study’s 43 questions asked were not released to the public in the study’s formal Questionnaire with Findings and Methodology. Instead, each question was marked to be “released separately.” It is unclear where or when those questions will be released. The missing questions make up over a quarter of the entire study.

Of the questions that were made publicly available, however, there are obvious flaws. The study partially addresses these flaws, but they are still problematic if we are to take the study seriously.

As an example, take the following questions:

Q15. How do you think economists viewed the TARP bank bailout[?]

Q21. What is your impression of how ECONOMISTS viewed the idea of stimulating the economy in this way?
Here, the study is asking for perceptions about economists generally. Yet, the studydoes not count economists generally: the study counts the official findings of government agencies as though they represent all economists. Examine the following from the study’s overview (emphasis added):
Voters’ misinformation included beliefs at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.

• Though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the stimulus legislation has saved or created 2.0-5.2 million jobs, only 8% of voters thought most economists who had studied it concluded that the stimulus legislation had created or saved several million jobs. Most (68%) believed that economists estimate that it only created or saved a few jobs and 20% even believed that it resulted in job losses.
• Though the CBO concluded that the health reform law would reduce the budget deficit, 53% of voters thought most economists have concluded that health reform will increase the deficit.
• Though the Department of Commerce says that the US economy began to recover from recession in the third quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then, only 44% of voters thought the economy is starting to recover, while 55% thought the economy is still getting worse.

In other words, voters were considered “misinformed” if they held “beliefs at odds with the conclusions of government agencies.”

Just because the people behind this studymay believe government agencies to be immune to partisan influence, doesn’t mean they are. And even if they are, it is misleading to ask about economists generally, but then only count economists who are employees of government agencies.

 

[billc]

And on promoting false memes through the movie "The Butler," to damage Republicans...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/08/16/top-5-butler-inaccuracies

One of the false memes...

The Butler disliked President Reagan: The real Eugene Allen has expressed affection for all the presidents he served, noting he voted for each when they were inhabiting the White House. A framed picture of the Reagans was displayed on Allen's living room wall, and he noted that Nancy Reagan gave him a warm hug when he finally retired. Hardly sounds like the character in the movie, played by Forest Whitaker, who appeared to be fed up with the Reagans and quit for that very reason.

 

[billc]

I also watch PBS, BBC and other non partisan sources

Your definition of "non-partisan," may need some work...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...ely-to-Air-Liberal-Leaning-Stories-Says-Study

The new study by the Centre for Policy Studies, a London-based, center-right think tank, says that it has compiled enough statistics to show the BBC's left-wing bias.
"Our results suggest the BBC exhibits a left-of-centre bias in both the amount of coverage it gives to different opinions and the way in which these voices are represented," said Oliver Latham, author of the Bias at the Beeb report.
The study, to be released in September, compared the BBC’s coverage of what has appeared in the Daily Telegraph, which is considered Britain's Right wing paper, and that of the left-leaning Guardian. The report found that the BBC covered seven out of ten stories that appeared in the left-wing paper while only covering three out of ten from the right-wing paper.
But the more telling detail is how the BBC treats its sources.
Latham found that when the BBC quotes left-wing organizations or think tanks as its "experts" in a story, the information is usually presented without caveat. But when right of center organizations are cited the BBC issues what Latham calls "a health warning." All too often, Latham found, the right of center organizations are noted as such and viewers are warned accordingly.
"In other words, the BBC seems to treat right-of-centre views as being more 'extreme' and in need of caveats than roughly equivalent left-of-centre views," Latham said in theSunday Times.
Latham also found that left-wing groups are often described in BBC news reports as "independent."
"The implication seems to be that the BBC sees left-of-centre views as being more reliable than right-of-centre ones. Overall, the picture is that the existing accusations of bias at the BBC are supported by a more dispassionate, quantitative analysis" Latham said.

PBS...really? Non-partisan...really?

 

[Steve]

Your definition of "non-partisan," may need some work...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...ely-to-Air-Liberal-Leaning-Stories-Says-Study



PBS...really? Non-partisan...really?

Quoting breitbart. Hah. You are hilarious

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ballen0351]

I think that some media is motivated by money. I think other media is motivated by agenda. Unlike you, I don't see any difference between agenda driven media that is liberal or that is conservative. Either way, they play favorites, and as you have said in the past, it's up to the buyer to beware. Your words; not mine, if I remember correctly.

Certain things shouldnt be buyer beware certain professions shouldnt let political, religious, or other personal beliefs enter their work. Like Arni said he shouldnt be grading one kid differently because of his religious differences, I should target cars with Obama stickers, or refuse to remove protesters from Abortion clinic, my job is my jobs and I can seperate the from other parts of my life and News reporters should report news equally. I have no issue with them being hard on Bush or Clinton or any president in fact thats their jobs and why we have freedom of the press to keep watch on the Govt, I have issue with them when they are not hard on everyone and choose sides. that goes fior all news conservative and liberal. News should be just news.

Since you think it is wrong for liberal media to play favorites, Why is it okay for conservative media to play favorites?

When did I say it was?

 

[ballen0351]

Unless you're on team Obama. We see what we look for. If you're on team bush, he is a hapless victim of media bias because you see what you expect to see. If you're on team Obama, you will probably see him as the victim.

I just don't understand why this is a radical idea to some here. It just seems self apparent to me. Obvious, really. But, for some, politics is a religion, I guess.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I was asking his personal opinion on the topic not what team hes on. Im not on either team I voted 3rd party in 2012