Dr Winston O'Boogie;1860264 wrote:Sleeper was condescending and insulting. I'm not trying to be either. I come on here to debate and have a little fun in doing so. If someone disagrees with my point of view, that's fine. That doesn't make them an ass or dumbass or whatever. We disagree. So what. What fun is a political forum if everyone held the exact same opinions in lockstep? That'd be boring as hell.

Good post Doc. I have stated in the past that anybody can find a link and post it that agrees with their personal opinions. Who is to judge which links are the most accurate? If someone can find me a link to a totally unbiased news source I would be eternally grateful.

All that really needs said on the subject is that everyone and everything essentially has an inherent bias. I'd say that the mainstream outlets tend to lean a bit left, while there are a lot of other outlets that lean a bit right (or more in some cases on either side). As to how much of a lean/bias there is...well, that's up to people to decide for themselves. No way I'd be listening to the takes of people on a right-wing dominant site loaded with "look at the goofy lefties!!!!" posts and threads if I was looking for an actual valid opinion on the matter.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1860241 wrote:I am not arguing whether or not the media is biased. In my view, it's not something that can truly be objectively measured. Studies to do that are criticized almost like the media outlets they attempt to measure.

I found this article which does a better job of laying out this point than I do: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-biased-is-the-media-really/2012/04/27/gIQA9jYLmT_story.html?utm_term=.b697740547a2

My original point is that you claimed the media was "asleep" during Obama's presidency. I don't agree. From my admittedly subjective perspective, I saw him constantly being criticized. Because of my political leanings, I thought the coverage was biased and unfair at times. You could have looked at the same coverage and come to the very opposite conclusion. Ultimately this perception is a subjective thing.

unreal

Well watch the media do a 180 on the Russia story now that there is absolutely no evidence on it regarding Trump......on the contrary all the evidence is now about how Obama and his WH covered it all up. Basically what they covered up was how corrupt the Dem party and Hiliary are.

Then we will know how biased the media is.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/government-websites-hacked-pro-islamic-state-rant-48271354

There is no doubt that hacking is going on. The question is how deep and by whom. It is sad that so many of the United States populace can be so easily manipulated. So many people will only believe what they feel meets their personal biases. The truth lies somewhere in the middle but so few are willing to look at both sides of an issue.

ppaw1999;1860275 wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/government-websites-hacked-pro-islamic-state-rant-48271354

There is no doubt that hacking is going on. The question is how deep and by whom. It is sad that so many of the United States populace can be so easily manipulated. So many people will only believe what they feel meets their personal biases. The truth lies somewhere in the middle but so few are willing to look at both sides of an issue.

This particular hack seems benign. But it speaks to the potential. Getting into the power grid, for example, could really hold a lot of parts of our society hostage. I have no idea who committed this hack on Kasich's site. My guess is Russia, China or some other state supported intelligence group. I just don't believe ISIS is sophisticated enough to do stuff like this - at least in its present form.

Spock;1860273 wrote:Well watch the media do a 180 on the Russia story now that there is absolutely no evidence on it regarding Trump......on the contrary all the evidence is now about how Obama and his WH covered it all up. Basically what they covered up was how corrupt the Dem party and Hiliary are.

Then we will know how biased the media is.

Let me try and make my point in another way...

Look at this Gallop survey result.


Take the results from the ideology section. 11% of liberals, 40% of moderates and 73% of conservatives think the media is "too liberal". 26% of liberals, 15% of moderates and 8% of conservatives say the media is "too conservative". My point has nothing to do with the fact that more people may regard the the media as being too liberal as opposed to too conservative or "just right". My point is those results show that people from all ideologies can look at the exact same thing - in this case the mainstream media - and come away without consensus (even within their same ideological group). This is the reason I believe it isn't possible to quantifiably measure an something that's ultimately an impression and feeling.

Let's say somehow through divine mind reading, you knew that 80% of the total population who listens to rock and roll loves the Beatles, and 20% hate them. And then someone comes along and says "The Beatles music is good. A survey confirmed it." Regardless of the survey though, if you put on Sgt Pepper, the 80% will think it's great and the 20% will think it sucks. Two groups of people listening to the exact same thing see it (or in this case hear it) completely different. Just because there are more people like it than not doesn't mean it is "good." To the people who hate it, the percentages make no difference.

That may not be a good analogy, but it's what came to mind. Also, I love the Beatles, hence my screen name.

Boogie, your chart kind of proves that the media is most definitely liberal biased. The whole confirmation bias on the liberal responses vs conservative responses. The liberals, on average, feel the media is "just right, not too liberal, not too conservative" and they trust the media.

The conservatives don't trust the media, overwhelmingly believe it is too biased towards liberals, and hardly none think the media is too conservative.

The moderates even believe the media is too liberal (vs conservative).

That wasn't the best chart to try to prove your point that it is subjective, it really proved everyone else's point that the MSM has a liberal bias.

The media self-identifies as liberal/democrat by about a 90-10 ratio.


That is about all you need to know.

superman;1860259 wrote:I wish when Sleeper left, he would have taken all of his accounts.

Sleeper actually left?

Haha, I hadn't really noticed. Now that you mention it, seems like Isadore hasn't been posting, either.

jmog;1860306 wrote:Boogie, your chart kind of proves that the media is most definitely liberal biased. The whole confirmation bias on the liberal responses vs conservative responses. The liberals, on average, feel the media is "just right, not too liberal, not too conservative" and they trust the media.

The conservatives don't trust the media, overwhelmingly believe it is too biased towards liberals, and hardly none think the media is too conservative.

The moderates even believe the media is too liberal (vs conservative).

That wasn't the best chart to try to prove your point that it is subjective, it really proved everyone else's point that the MSM has a liberal bias.

I guess I haven't done a very good job of making my point. I used this chart for a reason. The chart shows a high percentage of conservatives think the media is biased toward liberals and that a lower percentage of liberals think the media is biased toward conservatives. Although this chart doesn't show it, I'll go a step further and assume that more people in general (across the entire population) think the media leans more left than right. Those things measure the opinions of people. So if you use them to say, "Factually proven, the media leans left", that would be untrue to whatever portion of the population sees it the opposite way - even if its a minority. A study that "proves" media bias is proof only to those who agree with its outcome. Those who do not would say that the study is wrong. Assuming there will always be significant numbers of people who are on both sides of this, no study then can ever be accepted at proof of anything.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1860333 wrote:So if you use them to say, "Factually proven, the media leans left", that would be untrue to whatever portion of the population sees it the opposite way - even if its a minority.

No, it would not make it untrue, just at odds with those people's opinion or perception. Just like if you are to the left of most media, then you probably will not think the media is left leaning at all - it just means you have chosen a reference point that is inherently biased.

Again, this has been tested/studied many times. I don't care what people's own bias or uninformed opinion is, the research says the media leans left.

gut;1860335 wrote:No, it would not make it untrue, just at odds with those people's opinion or perception. Just like if you are to the left of most media, then you probably will not think the media is left leaning at all - it just means you have chosen a reference point that is inherently biased.

Again, this has been tested/studied many times. I don't care what people's own bias or uninformed opinion is, the research says the media leans left.

Say I surveyed 100 people and asked them whether the weather in Cleveland is good or bad in the wintertime. The survey comes back 75-25 in favor of bad. This does not prove the weather in Cleveland is bad. It proves that more people perceive it as bad than good. That is different than saying it is a fact that the weather in Cleveland in the winter is bad. That can never be proven because there is nothing to prove. It is a perception that is trying to be measured.

gut;1860327 wrote:Sleeper actually left?

Haha, I hadn't really noticed. Now that you mention it, seems like Isadore hasn't been posting, either.

Ahh man you've go to the HS football forum and check out the Marion Local thread. Its troll vs. troll. Isaderp is arguing with cheifly (who is also skank btw). Classic lols

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1860336 wrote:It is a perception that is trying to be measured.

No it's not. It's something that can be objectively examined and assumptions for comparison debated. Just because people may have perceptions that are not objective does not make it an impossible task.

Extreme temperatures, above average precipitation, below normal sunny days, etc....all can be measured objectively and factually as a basis for comparison. People in CLE can like or hate their weather, but that wouldn't mean most people in the country would agree according to commonly held views about what constitutes "good" weather.

You're simply rejecting the idea there are fair and objective criteria as a basis for measurement because that measurement doesn't fit your preconceived view.

gut;1860344 wrote:No it's not. It's something that can be objectively examined and assumptions for comparison debated. Just because people may have perceptions that are not objective does not make it an impossible task.

Extreme temperatures, above average precipitation, below normal sunny days, etc....all can be measured objectively and factually as a basis for comparison. People in CLE can like or hate their weather, but that wouldn't mean most people in the country would agree according to commonly held views about what constitutes "good" weather.

You're simply rejecting the idea there are fair and objective criteria as a basis for measurement because that measurement doesn't fit your preconceived view.

I appreciate the discussion.

You can measure things said in the media for sure. Maybe you use a list of certain words or phrases that you believe suggest bias in your study and then measure their frequency. That can be found with certainty, no doubt about it. But such a list will always be incomplete until every single user of the media has the opportunity to provide input - an impossibility. Therefore, you're measuring with an "incomplete" list. It could be said of your study that all it did was find the frequency of some words in the news media. It could also say that most people believe that those words suggest bias and therefore most people believe the media is biased. Most people believing the media is biased can be proven with a high degree of certainty. That is different than saying media is biased. Most people believing something doesn't make it a fact on its own.

Using my analagy: let's say 90% of people say that when the temperature goes below 20 degrees, that constitutes "bad" weather. What that has proved is that most people think <20 is bad, not that < is bad. For the latter, there is now way to every prove it because its an arbitrary thing.

Spock;1860215 wrote:Winston isn't really intelligent if he posts that and believed it

You commenting on someone not being really intelligent. Oh, the irony!

Spock;1860273 wrote:Well watch the media .

Fox News or some online Rush Hannity video?

superman;1860338 wrote:Ahh man you've go to the HS football forum and check out the Marion Local thread. Its troll vs. troll. Isaderp is arguing with cheifly (who is also skank btw). Classic lols

I went there briefly. The sheer amount of retardation going on there is legitimately mind-boggling.

Heretic;1860351 wrote:I went there briefly. The sheer amount of retardation going on there is legitimately mind-boggling.

It's hilarious

Heretic;1860351 wrote:I went there briefly. The sheer amount of retardation going on there is legitimately mind-boggling.

+1. Even if it is trolling, these are grown men with apparently NOTHING better to do than argue over high school football.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1860345 wrote: You can measure things said in the media for sure. Maybe you use a list of certain words or phrases that you believe suggest bias in your study and then measure their frequency. That can be found with certainty, no doubt about it. But such a list will always be incomplete until every single user of the media has the opportunity to provide input

Garbage. That's not a reasonable standard, and it's not how research is done. You define your assumptions based on commonly accepted criteria, i.e. "sunny weather is better than cloudy weather".

Debate the assumptions and methodology. But don't reject a result you don't like because they didn't ask everyone under the sun for input - that's not an argument with merit, much less an academic one.

Quit trying to argue semantics. The media is biased. This is pretty widely accepted, and only the left and right wingnuts think one side is biased and the other isn't. Heck, about half the shows on Fox and CNN are opinion shows (much higher on MSNBC), and opinion pieces are, almost by definition, biased.

Speaking of CNN, I heard on a local radio show that CNN has stated an official apology and two of their journalists have resigned. Haven't taken the time to look it up yet.
As much as I'm disgusted with CNN lately, I think it's the correct step for them to take.

gut;1860389 wrote:Garbage. That's not a reasonable standard, and it's not how research is done. You define your assumptions based on commonly accepted criteria, i.e. "sunny weather is better than cloudy weather".

Debate the assumptions and methodology. But don't reject a result you don't like because they didn't ask everyone under the sun for input - that's not an argument with merit, much less an academic one.

Quit trying to argue semantics. The media is biased. This is pretty widely accepted, and only the left and right wingnuts think one side is biased and the other isn't. Heck, about half the shows on Fox and CNN are opinion shows (much higher on MSNBC), and opinion pieces are, almost by definition, biased.

I never contended the media isn't biased. I believe the mainstream media leans left. That was not my point.

LMAO, the venerable and "unbiased" CNN admitting it's basically fake news:


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-27/cnn-exposed-undercover-sting-producer-admits-russia-story-fake-news-pushed-ratings[INDENT]

PV Journalist: Why is CNN constantly like "Russia this, Russia that?"


Bonifield: Because it's ratings. Our ratings are incredible right now....But all the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school, you're just like, that's adorable. That's adorable. This is a business.

[/INDENT]

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1860415 wrote:I never contended the media is biased. I believe the mainstream media leans left. That was not my point.

LOL, then what have you been arguing for the last two pages?

What IS your point? An academic discussion on how not to do academic research?