so much anger...

[epeemike81]

I am a true "center of the road" the most dangerous place to be.

clearly, we're on different roads. if you think that there is "far more" left bias than right in the media, then you are right of what most define as center.

here's the best argument of all for NPR:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16892

-m

[jeff]

And of course, many if not most of us self-identify as in the middle. After all, whereever our opinions are, that's the obviously correct balanced opinion!

[epeemike81]

And of course, many if not most of us self-identify as in the middle. After all, whereever our opinions are, that's the obviously correct balanced opinion!

true.

for the record, though, I recognize that I'm fairly far left of center. I personally think this recognition shows that I'm more likely to know where the "center" is than somebody expressing views that the majority of people on this board think are right of center saying that he is smack dab in the middle.

-m

[Soldier]

Or, we could quit insisting on who's right or left or wrong since all of our views are so obviously skewed anyway, and agree or disagree with people on individual points.
O'Reilly, for example:

1. I agree with him that Bush is not a moron who only got in through a virtual coup d'etat.

2. I agree with him that the war in Iraq is a good thing, the same in Afghanistan. We definitely need to get out and give control back in Iraq, but I don't know if now's the time yet. What I've heard (in general) from people returning from Iraq, is that they are not yet stable enough, and most of the Iraqis think so as well.

3. I agree with him that we really need to start closing down our southern borders.

4. I disagree with him that we should use the US military to that end.

5. I disagree with the way he calls himself a good Catholic, and yet says the only reason he's never used a prostitute is because of ego (having to pay for it).

6. I agree with him that the specific lack of reaction, especially on the part of the governor, to a high school in Georgia holding an all-white prom was deplorable.

See how it goes?

[jeff]

6. I agree with him that the specific lack of reaction, especially on the part of the governor, to a high school in Georgia holding an all-white prom was deplorable.

See how it goes?

Huh? I missed that one. Is this recent? What's the story?

[Soldier]

It happened during prom season (March-April-May-ish) last year. A high school held an all-white prom...and nobody said a word. Until O'Reilly started making a big deal of it, and then he got some more criticism of the obvious racism. The governor, however, specifically refused to comment on it, even as O'Reilly continually brought the matter to his attention.

[Tireur]

clearly, we're on different roads. if you think that there is "far more" left bias than right in the media, then you are right of what most define as center.

here's the best argument of all for NPR:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16892

-m

That's odd you should say that, since in a recent (non-Fox) poll of journalists, the vast majority self-described themselves as "liberal".

[Tireur]

clearly, we're on different roads. if you think that there is "far more" left bias than right in the media, then you are right of what most define as center.-m

Maybe, just maybe, you're further left of center than what most define as center..............

Just maybe. Of course, I'm sure it's me, but, maybe.........

[jeff]

Soldier: thanks for the info. What year is it - 2004 or 1954? Sheesh... The less civilised South, I guess.

Re: liberal vs. conservative identify. It's too complex just for that. For example, I'm liberal on social issues (no surprise), fiscally more conservative (but not the style that the official right wants, with lower taxes to "starve the beast"), anti-Communist/pro-Democracy (hence my fights with that pimple Charred Phoenix), pro strong defence (but not pro boondoggle or needless belligerance).

Funny thing: if you go far enough to the right, you get the libertarians, who want to remove most legal and social restrictions in favor of pure social liberties (eg: remove the anti-drug laws). If you sail off the end of the earth right-ward, you want up coming back from the left (or do I push the metaphor too hard)....

[Tireur]

Soldier: thanks for the info. What year is it - 2004 or 1954? Sheesh... The less civilised South, I guess..

Hey! Watch it, Yankee (note smiley)


I saw something about that segregated prom. Not enuf to really get the whole story. I wasn't sure if it was a school sponsored event or not. Or, whether both (or all three) groups held their own, segregated, events.

You'd think if it was a school event the governor would know better since this all blew up last year, too.

If not, I have no problem with individuals having their own private parties.

If they don't want to invite certain people, it's no one else's business.

You can't stop people from being bigots, but, you can (should) stop the government from sponsoring it.

[a517dogg]

Just to get back to the original idea of the thread, Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard and his show is mastubatory nonsense, and anybody who thinks otherwise needs to get over themselves.

OK, back to your discussion (haven't read the 2nd or 3rd pages of this thread).

[Inquartata]

here's the best argument of all for NPR:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16892

-m

Er...leaving aside for the moment the question of whether any argument touted by an outlet sponsored by the likes of Move On can be considered likely to be "the best" of anything, I wonder whether the conclusions of the study cited aren't missing the point. The conclusion seems to be that Fox causes its viewers to be mistaken on the war, while PBS/NPR causes its viewers to be more accurately informed. Isn't it equally likely, though, that the direction of causality is the reverse: that more intelligent, curious and information-seeking viewers seek out the in-depth coverage in places like PBS and NPR while the less motivated and the less likely to care about precision "settle" for the easier diet of network news? In other words whatever the correlations the study may have found, even if accurate they may well imply zero causation...

[Inquartata]

And of course, many if not most of us self-identify as in the middle. After all, whereever our opinions are, that's the obviously correct balanced opinion!

Just so. We in America especially seem to imbibe with our mothers' milk some cultural drive to consider ourselves "average" in many ways, notably in political views and social class, even as we think ourselves far above average in other ways. Remarkable...

[fencingguy]

Just so. We in America especially seem to imbibe with our mothers' milk some cultural drive to consider ourselves "average" in many ways, notably in political views and social class, even as we think ourselves far above average in other ways. Remarkable...

Thats a really interesting point, I think that we have been indoctrinated into the belief that we shouldn't be too far to the left or we're commies, or too far to the right or we're fascists. The result isn't necessarily that we don't, as individuals, feel that way, but that we vehemently deny any association with words like "liberal" or "socialist" or... funny, I can't think of right leaning words we shy away from... Obviously "fascist" but we certainly seem to embrace being a "conservative."

[jeff]

Hey! Watch it, Yankee (note smiley)

That was to distinguish it from your part of the South, which I trust to be more civilised! (and a smiley from me, too)

[epeemike81]

Maybe, just maybe, you're further left of center than what most define as center..............

Just maybe. Of course, I'm sure it's me, but, maybe.........

I already acknowledged that I'm left of center! pretty decently left, actually. I'm DEFINING Center as well to my right. THAT is what I'm judging the media against, and most of it is centrist.

-m

[epeemike81]

Er...leaving aside for the moment the question of whether any argument touted by an outlet sponsored by the likes of Move On can be considered likely to be "the best" of anything, I wonder whether the conclusions of the study cited aren't missing the point. The conclusion seems to be that Fox causes its viewers to be mistaken on the war, while PBS/NPR causes its viewers to be more accurately informed. Isn't it equally likely, though, that the direction of causality is the reverse: that more intelligent, curious and information-seeking viewers seek out the in-depth coverage in places like PBS and NPR while the less motivated and the less likely to care about precision "settle" for the easier diet of network news? In other words whatever the correlations the study may have found, even if accurate they may well imply zero causation...

the aspect of the study which implies causality is that they also asked how often people get news, and found that among Fox viewers, the more they watched, the more likely they were to hold misconceptions. again, that's not proof, but certainly suggests causality.

I'm certain, however, that the intelligent/curious choice aspect plays in as well and makes the difference more dramatic.

And as for the source, I'm considering the source to be the University that did the study, not the website I found it reported on. I actually first heard about it somewhere else, and then googled it to find a copy to link to.

-m

[epeemike81]

Just so. We in America especially seem to imbibe with our mothers' milk some cultural drive to consider ourselves "average" in many ways, notably in political views and social class, even as we think ourselves far above average in other ways. Remarkable...

It does seem that way. let me state again, though, that I am NOT in the center. I'm very solidly to the left of center.

-m

[Tireur]

Er...leaving aside for the moment the question of whether any argument touted by an outlet sponsored by the likes of Move On can be considered likely to be "the best" of anything,

Perhaps it is their "best". I also checked out their "store" (how capitalist) and found a book about Bush's lies, but none about Kerry's, or any other democrats ( I guess they don't lie). Doesn't seem balanced to me. Not to a group who wants you to have all the tools you need to "force social change".

This could be like all duelling studies. One college come out with a study "proving" something and before the ink is dry another comes out "proving" the opposite.

Everybody can find a "study" "proving" their side of an argument.

[a517dogg]

Perhaps it is their "best". I also checked out their "store" (how capitalist) and found a book about Bush's lies, but none about Kerry's, or any other democrats ( I guess they don't lie). Doesn't seem balanced to me. Not to a group who wants you to have all the tools you need to "force social change".

This could be like all duelling studies. One college come out with a study "proving" something and before the ink is dry another comes out "proving" the opposite.

Everybody can find a "study" "proving" their side of an argument.

Good thing it was evaluated by such a fair and balanced observer.