Donahue.... CANCELLED!

[Almaci]

Originally posted by Stone
Stereotypical of what? How the hell am I going to avoid being stereotypical when I'm making a statement about "most of the people on the left"?

"an logical argument against Almaci's links" - What links? Almaci wrote about "Typical CNN Headlines" - I'm not willing to trust him on his summation of "typical" anything, given the way that he summarized articles in the other thread.

He's said that the essence of being public makes publicly funded news networks less biased than privately-funded (business-funded) news networks. That's idiotic. Pravda was publicly-funded, too. Being publicly-funded isn't any different from being privately-funded, except you're getting your money from governments instead of from businesses driven by individual actors (consumers). I'll trust the propulsion of individual consumers over some government if I'm looking for truth, anyday.


Almaci didn't back up his theory that public funding is better than private funding if you're looking for truth in journalism - do I now have to write some paper on market economics to prove that? Should I just claim that anyone who "understand the system of market economics" would agree with me? Should I write about typical BBC (or typical Pravda) headlines, or misinterpret actual CNN headlines and hope no one actually checks the documents?




I did share with you, in the other thread - remember that list of BBC headlines that you yanked off of the front page, either misreading or willfully misinterpreting each one in your description of the topic?

Tsk tsk, I never once uttered the words public funding, I talked about INDEPENDANT.
Now im smart enough to know that public funding doesnt always equel INDEPENDANT, thats why I made the distinction of mentioning those that are not profit driven(BBC news for instance is getting little public funding, it sells its exlusives to the highest bidder, yes the rest comes from the main BBC sites wich are publicly funded but the BBC international news service is independant and doesnt have to turn a profit to keep stockholders happy like CNN or Newscorp(Fox) do) AND independant.

A distinction you wilfully refuse to make in order to further attack the argument I made.

[Jimmy Carter]

To say that CNN isn't liberal is massively incorrect. One simply has to turn to the station and you'll hear everything with a liberal spin. If you doubt that, tough. It's the truth. I can't stand CNN whatsoever.

Just look at the people in charge of CNN and their shows; if you cannot see the bias then you're quite simply not looking very hard. Connie Chung? Liberal. Larry King? Liberal. The owners are liberal. The management is liberal. CNN is liberal biased. No problem with that.

And Fox, on the other hand, is obviously conservative leaning.

Bias exists no matter where one goes in news. CNN for liberals, Fox for conservatives.

[Almaci]

Originally posted by Stone
What would you qualify as serious coverage? Their showing of coverage on the war is hardly incompatible with left wing bias. Look, they know their clientele, and this is still the US - if they stuck with a BBC-type schedule of news reporting hardly anyone would watch. I don't think that necessarily shields them from the argument that they're biased towards the left - do you? The amount of "bias" is gradated. Do you need me to actually produce individual quotes from news anchors that seem to imply left-wing bias?



Truly unbiased news coverage, I'd argue, doesn't exist - truly unbiased news coverage would be random, with a report on weapons violations on the front page one day and a report on Ms. Whiskerbee's lost cat on the front page the next. We could talk about whether CNN or Fox is further away from the center of US politics, that might be interesting.

And, as far as Almaci goes, which arguments?

Hahahaha, keep it up, I love it.
Oh and I already pre empted you, I did say that despite the fact that a lot of media(and indeed Hollywood etcetera) has liberal figureheads who make liberal statements but that despite that the bussuines is as conservative as they come and so are the agendas they push.

[Stone]

Originally posted by Almaci
Tsk tsk, I never once uttered the words public funding, I talked about INDEPENDANT.
Now im smart enough to know that public funding doesnt always equel INDEPENDANT, thats why I made the distinction of mentioning those that are not profit driven(BBC news for instance is getting little public funding, it sells its exlusives to the highest bidder, yes the rest comes from the main BBC sites wich are publicly funded but the BBC international news service is independant and doesnt have to turn a profit to keep stockholders happy like CNN or Newscorp(Fox) do) AND independant.

A distinction you wilfully refuse to make in order to further attack the argument I made.

Hah. Look. Money comes from one of two sources: private, or public. You can be 0% public and 100% private, or 100% private and 0% public.

Who do they sell their exclusives to?

There's no distinction to be made - public money has the capability to pollute news just as much as private money does, ie, the source of money for news reporting, if you're dealing on a large scale (not like say, when R. Emmell what's his name was running American Spectator), has nothing to do with making the news more or less biased.

Whatever the division between public and private funding, you've got at least equal opportunity for political bias.

And, look:

A distinction you wilfully refuse to make in order to further attack the argument I made.

I AM willfully refusing to make a distinction between public and private funding - that was the point of my post. Do you not understand the content of the posts that I'm making? Is my writing unclear (anyone?)?

[Jimmy Carter]

Originally posted by Stone
I AM willfully refusing to make a distinction between public and private funding - that was the point of my post. Do you not understand the content of the posts that I'm making? Is my writing unclear (anyone?)?

Clear as a bell. You're one of the few posters who seems to be perfectly capable of making a point and sounding intelligent on such issues.

[Stone]

Originally posted by Almaci
Hahahaha, keep it up, I love it.
Oh and I already pre empted you, I did say that despite the fact that a lot of media(and indeed Hollywood etcetera) has liberal figureheads who make liberal statements but that despite that the bussuines is as conservative as they come and so are the agendas they push.

THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.

Look. I'm getting shit from a couple of people for not engaging the content of Almaci's posts. How the fuck do you engage this?

First, please, please, please copy edit your posts before you make them, Almaci. "that despite the fact that a lot of media(and indeed Hollywood etcetera) has liberal figureheads who make liberal statements but that despite that the bussuines is as conservative as they come and" - "That despite the fact...but that despite that", and so on. You're hardly even communicating in English, right now.

You're misusing "pre empted".

And, now, for the content of the post - he's saying that despite liberal figureheads, the business is still conservative.

Almaci, the million-dollar question:

WHY?

Why, despite the liberal figureheads, is the business still conservative? Because it's private, and you need to have a funding structure like the BBC to not be conservatively biased? Because CNN still covers the war? Because CNN's headlines don't look like your summaries of BBC's headlines?

[Jeremy]

Seeing Donahue cancelled isn't too shocking, since MSNBC's in the shitter and might be gone by the end of next year. More likely than not, the plug will be pulled on the network if Ventura's show doesn't cause ratings to improve.

[Jimmy Carter]

I spent 4 years with the man as governor and he ran us unto $5 billion debt, ruined much of our credibility as a state and endorsed the XFL. I anticipate he will be just as much a distaster for MSNBC as he was for us.

[Stone]

Now, to turn those comments against myself, lets look at a couple of the posts I've made in this thread:

This is like listening to Noam Chomsky rant about how Jimmy Carter isn't liberal. If you're far enough to the left, then everything else is going to look right-wing.

I think that statement speaks for itself, because it claims nothing more than that someone's placement on the political spectrum is relative to other placements on the SAME spectrum.

Someone 25% left of center will be to the right (politically) of someone who is 75% left of center:

25%
75%

Maybe it's an attack, whatever, but at least it's a self-contained, logical statement that makes an obvious comparison and doesn't rely on any sort of historical synthesis or cognitive long jump.

The BBC IS quite, quite liberal, and CNN is definitely left-of-center. I guess I could go to one of those sites that lists various left-leaning quotes that have been made by CNN journalists, if you'd like. I don't see the point.

My position, then, is that most people on the left are fairly blind to media bias. Almaci, you seem to be blind to a whole lot of things, considering your interpretation of those headlines that you brought up in the other thread.

The first paragraph is basically unverifiable. We'd come down to a competition of quote throwing, basically what Sleeveboy mentioned. I think I clarified whatever my first post implied by using the words "left-of-center", which holds for something.

As far as the second statement goes, I should've clarified that more. I guess I'd claim that since I'm making the supposition that most journalistic sources are concentrated left-of-center, the general left-winger has become inured to the idea of bias in some sense. You get used to having media towards your side, and you inevitably get a sort of false re-centering of the political mean. To really argue about the left-wing bias of most journalists, I think I'd have to go into some sort of philosophical argument on what sort of careers/lifestyles drive which political beliefs, but that wouldn't be interesting to anyone.

If anything, I still think it's a fairer statement than:

If you honestly belief that CNN is LIBERAL in its reporting just becouse its former crackpot CEO is you dont understand the system of market economics behind the news INDUSTRY wich despite liberal figureheads is as conservative as can be.

or

Over here oure news services are NOT comercial entities, the BBC works independently and its NOT profit driven, neither are France2, VRt, ZDF or any other so no dilution of the message and fairer reporting.

[elBeardoAlwaysWins]

LOL!!!

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
To say that CNN isn't liberal is massively incorrect. One simply has to turn to the station and you'll hear everything with a liberal spin. If you doubt that, tough. It's the truth. I can't stand CNN whatsoever.

Example???

Where are your facts? Who owns CNN and why would they lean to the so-called liberal side of things?