What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2012 Elections in 3-D!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Kepler said:
Depends what you're talking about. If you Google climate change, well yeah, you're going to get 10 (or 100, or 1000) sources "parroting the liberal view of things" because that's an objectively measurable subject and the quote conservative unquote view is a fraud. On matters of actual opinion the sites are going to follow the money, and with the country split 50/50 the red meat will split 50/50 too -- Capitalism 101.

If you want a relatively balanced source of political news, I would recommend RCP. It feels to me like it's about 2:1 right wing, which means it's probably about 50/50. It's just like watching a hockey game: the officials always seem to call it tighter against you than your opponent. Everybody feels like that. Selective perception FTW.
Click to expand...
I'm just talking about regular news stories. You look at google, and there are a few conservative news outlets referenced regularly, Fox, Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor come to mind. Then you've got a few that fall somewhere in the middle, like Reuters and AP. Then you've got a legion of liberal leaning (to various extents) outlets like CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, Huffington Post, NY Times, Washington Post, UK and most other international news outlets, most local newspapers, and on and on. It's simple math.

Yes, we all have selective perception, but the fact that we have that is unrelated to whether there is in fact an overall tilt in the media one way or another. Our selective perception just makes it more challenging to discern where the overall tilts are. Funny how conservatives don't have a problem conceding that talk radio tilts their way, but liberals freak out if anyone claims other parts of the media tilt their way. Pot, meet kettle.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Bob Gray said:
Hey, I call them the way I see them. But, I guess recognizing that the media isn't perfect and is biased makes me a wacko in this black-is-white and white-is-black nation we now live in. So be it.
Click to expand...

I have for one have never seen anyone prove by evidence the existence of consistent liberal bias in terms of hard and consistent from NBC, CBS, CNN, etc. No one segment from Dan Rather in 1997 does not count as consistent bias.

Never seen it.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Once we start talking about the internet, it's sort of necessary to recognize that we're dealing with a global marketplace of ideas - not a national one. I'm not sure the bias against American conservatism on the internet is all that extreme. Because, globally, it isn't all that prevalent.

The real bias is probably against political ideas that are popular with the masses (however defined) in China and India.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

5mn_Major said:
I have for one have never seen anyone prove by evidence the existence of consistent liberal bias in terms of hard and consistent from NBC, CBS, CNN, etc. No one segment from Dan Rather in 1997 does not count as consistent bias.

Never seen it.
Click to expand...
Probably never will. Inherently there are very different perceptions of a lot of this. When a conservative hears the media saying overly nice things about Obama, a liberal just hears the media reporting the way Obama is.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Bob Gray said:
Inherently there are very different perceptions of a lot of this. When anybody else hears the media saying Obama may not actually be the literal anti-Christ, a conservative hears scandalous liberal bias.
Click to expand...

Your post. It is fixed now.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

5mn_Major said:
I have for one have never seen anyone prove by evidence the existence of consistent liberal bias in terms of hard and consistent from NBC, CBS, CNN, etc. No one segment from Dan Rather in 1997 does not count as consistent bias.

Never seen it.
Click to expand...

You haven't seen Katie "bad hair" Couric in action, have you? Matt Lauer used to be bad as well, but has become a little less biased in his time on that show.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Bob Gray said:
Hey, I call them the way I see them. But, I guess recognizing that the media isn't perfect and is biased makes me a wacko in this black-is-white and white-is-black nation we now live in. So be it.
Click to expand...
NPR did a really interesting piece last yr where they looked at the research on percieved media bias. It was snowing and during indoor track season but I can't be clear enough when to find the actual podcast. It talked about the how people hear reporting dependent on what they expect the particular outlet to say. One amusing thing they did was have stories rated by different polically leaning subjects. It was absolutely fascinating. People heard some really interesting stuff that was never said (both sides).

They looked at research done by an independent place (I think it was a university study) that rated the outlets by the positive v negative stuff reported/covered (or not covered). NPR is a 'liberal' outlet to the GOP but actually had more positive stuff about the GOP than they did about the Dems although it was fairly close. It also had more neg than pos stories about Obama.

They did a thing where they had subjects keep diaries of their reactions to stories and then interviewed them for clarification. The one I remember the most was a story where the reporter asked questions to clarify why a political person had made a decision (the decision was a conservative one.) They played the tape of the interview and I thought it was a harmless, non-inflammatory question that one would expect a reporter to ask. It wasn't confrontational, it seemed part of the 'conversation' and the person answering it didn't seem the slightest put out by answering it. In fact he did a very good job of doing so even it I didn't agree with his conclusion it made sense he could think that way. The 'subject' thought asking the question was inflammatory and showed the reporters bias. When asked why he thought so it was because the story was on an outlet he percieved as liberal and was attacking the viewpoint of the person rather than just respecting it. They found the same for the other side as well.

Very eye opening for me to hear that viewpoint. It made me make a concerted effort to listen to things without being as reactive and assuming preconceived notions of what is going to be said. (well except the really crazy people like Rush which aren't real journalists anyway) The frustrating thing when I really listened is that no one wants people to ask any hard questions. Some of the stuff said is so blatantly biased and false it scares me that people don't hear what is actually being said.

THe best thing we have where I am is a local radio show that seems to cover both the GOP and the Dems impartially. They ask tough stuff to everyone and don't seem to focus on the negative doo-da that is the flavor of the day. Too bad it is only local and on at 3PM. :(
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

leswp1 said:
NPR did a really interesting piece last yr where they looked at the research on percieved media bias. It was snowing and during indoor track season but I can't be clear enough when to find the actual podcast. It talked about the how people hear reporting dependent on what they expect the particular outlet to say. One amusing thing they did was have stories rated by different polically leaning subjects. It was absolutely fascinating. People heard some really interesting stuff that was never said (both sides).

They looked at research done by an independent place (I think it was a university study) that rated the outlets by the positive v negative stuff reported/covered (or not covered). NPR is a 'liberal' outlet to the GOP but actually had more positive stuff about the GOP than they did about the Dems although it was fairly close. It also had more neg than pos stories about Obama.

They did a thing where they had subjects keep diaries of their reactions to stories and then interviewed them for clarification. The one I remember the most was a story where the reporter asked questions to clarify why a political person had made a decision (the decision was a conservative one.) They played the tape of the interview and I thought it was a harmless, non-inflammatory question that one would expect a reporter to ask. It wasn't confrontational, it seemed part of the 'conversation' and the person answering it didn't seem the slightest put out by answering it. In fact he did a very good job of doing so even it I didn't agree with his conclusion it made sense he could think that way. The 'subject' thought asking the question was inflammatory and showed the reporters bias. When asked why he thought so it was because the story was on an outlet he percieved as liberal and was attacking the viewpoint of the person rather than just respecting it. They found the same for the other side as well.

Very eye opening for me to hear that viewpoint. It made me make a concerted effort to listen to things without being as reactive and assuming preconceived notions of what is going to be said. (well except the really crazy people like Rush which aren't real journalists anyway) The frustrating thing when I really listened is that no one wants people to ask any hard questions. Some of the stuff said is so blatantly biased and false it scares me that people don't hear what is actually being said.

THe best thing we have where I am is a local radio show that seems to cover both the GOP and the Dems impartially. They ask tough stuff to everyone and don't seem to focus on the negative doo-da that is the flavor of the day. Too bad it is only local and on at 3PM. :(
Click to expand...
Yah, it is a fascinating subject, though hard to nail down as there are so many different perspectives on it. A lot of it is very nuances also, with a word or two one way or the other putting a real, or perceived, different angle on things. I actually listen to NPR a good bit driving to and from work. They have a lot of good stories. I just flip the channel when they get onto political stuff, as from my perception they are quite tilted in how they talk about things. Same with a news outlet like CNN. Some stuff they put out is ok and seems balanced, other stuff not so much. Some of which comes down to the individual reporters, who have varying skill levels and abilities to be non-biased.

Agreed on asking hard questions. The real hard questioning on substantive issues is almost nonexistent. Hard to say whose fault it is though, the media outlets or the public, many of whom want to be spoon fed things that fit their preconceived notions. I dream of the day a report nails a major politician to the wall on the national debt and how the parties have grossly failed to be honest about it or deal with it.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

FlagDUDE08 said:
2008 Vice Presidential debates. I rest my case when it comes to bias.
Click to expand...
Hyperchicken.jpg


Judge Whitey: Counselor, what evidence do you offer for this new plea of insanity?
FlagDUDE08: Well, for one, they done hired me to represent them.
Judge Whitey: Insanity plea is accepted.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Bob Gray said:
Yah, it is a fascinating subject, though hard to nail down as there are so many different perspectives on it. A lot of it is very nuances also, with a word or two one way or the other putting a real, or perceived, different angle on things. I actually listen to NPR a good bit driving to and from work. They have a lot of good stories. I just flip the channel when they get onto political stuff, as from my perception they are quite tilted in how they talk about things. Same with a news outlet like CNN. Some stuff they put out is ok and seems balanced, other stuff not so much. Some of which comes down to the individual reporters, who have varying skill levels and abilities to be non-biased.

Agreed on asking hard questions. The real hard questioning on substantive issues is almost nonexistent. Hard to say whose fault it is though, the media outlets or the public, many of whom want to be spoon fed things that fit their preconceived notions. I dream of the day a report nails a major politician to the wall on the national debt and how the parties have grossly failed to be honest about it or deal with it.
Click to expand...
The people that are honest get drummed out of town. Anyone who wants to try to do anything is held hostage by the other party and parts of their own. The voters do not want honesty. They want people to tell them stupid stuff that is not practical or realistic and blames the other side. If that fails they start talking about social issues which are the largest red herrings ever and have nothing to do with who should be managing the budget of the country..
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Say Hello to senator Pingree, that makes me want to vomit
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

walrus said:
Say Hello to senator Pingree, that makes me want to vomit
Click to expand...

Lots of directions that could go. I think the Democratic Party may have learned a lot from the Libby Mitchell debacle regarding the palatability of Portland liberals anywhere outside the 1st district. Steve Rowe would be a decent candidate, Matt Dunlap is already in, but neither have great name recognition. Baldacci is shot, I'm not sure anyone particularly likes Mike Michaud.

My dream candidate would probably be Emily Cain, but that might be a bit out of her league right now. How tough would it be for Cutler to get on the ballot as an independent?

I have no idea who the Republicans will nominate other than the two goofballs they already have running, and the bunch that lost to LePage in the gubernatorial primary. Maybe Kevin Raye runs for Senate instead of Michaud's seat?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top