On 4/22/2011 6:49 AM, David R. Birch wrote:

Yet the lefty media seem to spend a lot of time complaining about
the righty media not being fair and balanced, and imply by doing
so that the lefty media are.

Maybe you think so but that doesn't make it so. If I say Bernie
Madoff is a thief that doesn't imply I'm one too, does it?

A better analogy would be to say "If I say Bernie Madoff
is a thief that implies I'm NOT one.

No that wouldn't. Pointing out the obvious, that Bernie Madoff is a
thief, doesn't imply anything about the person making the observation.
To imply something that isn't there is creating it on your own, and that
is far from objective. So saying Madoff is a thief would not imply you
are not one. It says nothing about you.


It's clear that Fox is very biased toward the republican party but
they claim they aren't. I don't think making that observation says
anything about who made it. After all it is true so pointing that
out doesn't imply anything.

It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

There's a matter of degree here. The worst offender in the biased media
network belongs to Foxnews. They're blatantly pro republican. Many of
the other media networks to one degree or another favor the Democrats.
But none of them is like Fox. So once again, pointing out the truth
about Fox isn't the same thing as saying all the other networks are the
same but biased to the left. There is a big difference in degree.


As you righties like to point out, the mainstream media is all
made up of liberal people so it's no wonder they are biased to
the left.

Sorry, guy, but you establishment lefties are quite a bit to the
right of me.

So you're saying your an extreme left leaning liberal?

Nope, too much self respect to be liberal. More like an Adams-Trotsky
Constitutional Revolutionary.

Hmmm, can't find that one anywhere. Made up a party for yourself, huh?
That's novel. Unfortunately, a few minutes taken answering some
political questions and you would find that you fit nicely in one of the
more common categories. But then having your own makes you special,
doesn't it? You and Charlie Sheen are special.



Just be fair and admit the same thing about Fox.

Can't say, I've never actually watched Fox network news, the local
Fox station doesn't carry it.

So you're ignorant about Fox and how they operate having no personal
experience with the network? Then where did you get your information
about the station?

And you know so much about their programming because that's what you watch?

Of course I've watched it, plenty. If I hadn't I wouldn't be qualified
to comment on it.


Or do you just watch the MSM uncritically and believe what they want you
to?

Since I just said I watch Fox that means I don't just watch the MSM. I'm
also critical of everything I see or hear in the media, whether you
believe it or not is irrelevant.

I watch Katie Couric because I guess someone should, alas, soon to
be replaced by another newsclown.

What is that supposed to mean? You can't believe what she says on
the news? Or can you?


With all sources, I believe little of what I see and look for the part
of the story not being told. I realize it's hard for you to understand
that all media must be viewed critically, so much easier for you to
trust them to know what you need to know.

Your believing I don't view things critically is just an obvious error
on your part due to ignorance. If anything I am more critical of the
media than you are. The difference is that it doesn't matter to me what
the political leaning of the source is. I treat what they put on the air
the same. I use the same exacting standards no matter the source.


If you think she's not telling you the facts about the days events
then why would you keep watching?

She's telling some of the facts, I don't rely on one source.



Everyone working there, or damn near everyone working there is a
registered republican or a libertarian.

You say that like you consider libertarians to to be conservative.
Are you really that ignorant?

It's not me that considers libertarians to be conservative. The
consensus among political scientists is that they are.

Really? Would that be your own group of bar buddies? Can you direct me
to a source that shows this consensus?

Any chart showing where the different political views fall on the
political spectrum can show you that. Libertarianism has always been on
the far right of the spectrum. Just because there are some newer methods
of categorization that have a north south libertarian/authoritarian
element to them doesn't change where libertarianism has traditionally
been on the normal left right spectrum.


So what is your idea? You think libertarianism is a political
position that is on the left side of the political spectrum?

YES! You ARE that ignorant! Libertarian/Authoritarian is a totally
different axis from liberal/conservative or left/right.

Check these out:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

This one might tax your short attention span:

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi


I'm sorry, I forgot for a moment who I was responding to. Yes, you
are that ignorant.

Compared to whom?

You actually think politics is only a Left/Right division and you can
ask that? It is to laugh.

Is that right? Sorry to burst your bubble but I'm well aware of the
authoritarian/libertarian axis. Did you know that before that axis was
invented there was still a place on the older left/right spectrum where
Libertarianism sat? Apparently you didn't. If you did you would know
where Libertarianism had its traditional place. That's way to the right
end of the scale.



You think you're an expert in politics? What makes you think so? Got
any credentials?

Sure, 61 years of paying attention to what's going on. Try it some time.

Ha, that's a good one. I'll see your 61 years of paying attention and
raise it by a college education in the field. So you lose.


So by the same logic that makes CBS liberal that makes Fox right
wing. Just admit it and be done with it.

That would require me to care.

No it wouldn't. All it would require from you is that you have an
interest in fairness. Do you think you're a fair minded person? If
you do then you would believe that what's good for the goose is good
for the gander.

Sure fine whatever. The point was that neither is fair or balanced. One
is lying about it by statement, one is lying by implication.

You may not see that as a difference but I do. I compare that to a
married Christian man cheating on his wife compared to a single atheist
having sex outside of marriage. Both are having sex outside of marriage.
One made a big deal about it. He's a hypocrite.

Fox is the most biased station and makes a show about being fair and
balanced. The MSM may well be biased too but at least they aren't
pretending to be something they're not. Besides, the other stations
aren't all as biased as Fox is. Some are but not all of them.



But they keep pretending they are "fair and balanced". Which is
bull****.

Of course, what else do you expect from the left/right media?

Since that's about the only media there is I expect to get the facts
from them.

Why? Have you ever been involved in a local news event that went
national? Have you noticed that the further it gets away from the local,
the more distorted the story gets?

As a matter of fact I have. You're right. Every story that goes into the
newspaper has things wrong with it. There are always things the
reporters get wrong. They make mistakes. I've seen it when they wrote
stories about people I personally knew. Actually, they get a lot wrong.
But that is why you don't take what you see on TV or in the papers as
gospel. At least I don't.

I sure don't think blogs or the internet is where the facts lie. But
if you don't expect fair and balanced from the left/right media then
where would one find it?

I have no answer that would work for you, since it requires the ability
to examine critically what you're told.


That's very humorous coming from someone like you. Even if you could
examine something critically you couldn't say anything about it that was
objective. You probably think Obama was born in Kenya too, right?

Hawke