14%

[FromWayDowntown]

Of course you have to reach beyond what is supposed to be "objective" news reporting into the opinion-based blogosphere and talk radio in order to support your hypothesis.

That you had to do that tells me you believe "legitimate" news organizations -- how did you say it? -- "reached a partisan equilibrium when it comes to coverage" through the self-imposition of talk radio and the blogosphere (neither of which pretend not to be ideologically or politically biased).

No, I'm just disputing the notion that the only reporting on political scandal comes from those you believe to be left-leaning. It's no longer an out, I think, to say that the media is entirely left-leaning or predominantly left-leaning, because the unabashedly partisan blogosphere and talkophiles are undoubtedly part of today's political media. Indeed, a large majority of items that you post here are drawn from just those sources.

I'd generally dispute the notion that the mainstream media is decidedly partisan in the way it does its business. I'm certain that some columnists and commentators within that milieu are partisan, but I'm also certain that there is near equilibrium among those opinions. In any event, I'm not trying to make any point about the composition of the mainstream media; I'm just saying that even if you are 100% correct, you cannot say that coverage of scandal is somehow tilted because of the ideological composition of the media. The media is a far more inclusive term than just the old guard mainstream sources. Your own posts around this forum, which frequently cite to bloggers and such for facts, are proof positive of that truth.

Let me know when the News Departments at CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, PBS, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, etc...reach a partisan equilibrium with right-leaning news organizations and you might have a point.

What difference does that make? Are you saying the blogosphere is credible and worth relying upon except when admitting to that doesn't aid your argument?

[Yonivore]

No, I'm just disputing the notion that the only reporting on political scandal comes from those you believe to be left-leaning. It's no longer an out, I think, to say that the media is entirely left-leaning or predominantly left-leaning, because the unabashedly partisan blogosphere and talkophiles are undoubtedly part of today's political media. Indeed, a large majority of items that you post here are drawn from just those sources.

The HUGE difference (and flaw in your argument) is that News Organizations pretend to be unbiased and objective when that is patently false and Talk Radio and the Blogosphere put their partisanships and ideologies right out front.

You act as though the News-based organizations and Opinion-based organizations are (and should) be treated with the same amount of credulity. In many respects you're right but, to argue that kind of discounts the whole object of News Reporting, don't you think?

I'd generally dispute the notion that the mainstream media is decidedly partisan in the way it does its business. I'm certain that some columnists and commentators within that milieu are partisan, but I'm also certain that there is near equilibrium among those opinions.

Because of Opinion-based Talk Radio and the Blogosphere?

In any event, I'm not trying to make any point about the composition of the mainstream media; I'm just saying that even if you are 100% correct, you cannot say that coverage of scandal is somehow tilted because of the ideological composition of the media.

Sure I can, 9-1.

The media is a far more inclusive term than just the old guard mainstream sources. Your own posts around this forum, which frequently cite to bloggers and such for facts, are proof positive of that truth.

So, you're claiming the job of the Opinion-based Blogosphere and Talk Radio is to balance the admittedly biased and partisan News Organizations?

Clear that up for me, will ya?

What difference does that make? Are you saying the blogosphere is credible and worth relying upon except when admitting to that doesn't aid your argument?

No, I'm saying the Blogosphere and Talk Radio are admittedly and unabashedly partisan and opinionated. That doesn't make what they report true or false. It makes what they report informed by their biases and opinions.

It makes what I post in here informed by my biases and opinions.

But, you see, neither I nor the blogs nor talk radio have the obligation to report both sides of a story. We're not obligated to make your argument for you.

News Organizations don't (and shouldn't) have that luxury.

[Yonivore]

Got it. So anyone you use as a source has never had their credbility questioned?

Those that have and get proved wrong due to a blind bias, I cease to follow or source.

Got it.

Good.

I would assume that if they had credibility questions in the past I suspect you would hold them to the same standards you put on the media you don't like.

That's correct.

So anyone who contributes to a political camp loses all resemblence of objectivity.

In direct violation of the ethical standards of their profession? Yep.

Got it.

Good.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The HUGE difference (and flaw in your argument) is that News Organizations pretend to be unbiased and objective when that is patently false and Talk Radio and the Blogosphere put their partisanships and ideologies right out front.

You act as though the News-based organizations and Opinion-based organizations are (and should) be treated with the same amount of credulity. In many respects you're right but, to argue that kind of discounts the whole object of News Reporting, don't you think?


Because of Opinion-based Talk Radio and the Blogosphere?


Sure I can, 9-1.


So, you're claiming the job of the Opinion-based Blogosphere and Talk Radio is to balance the admittedly biased and partisan News Organizations?

Clear that up for me, will ya?


No, I'm saying the Blogosphere and Talk Radio are admittedly and unabashedly partisan and opinionated. That doesn't make what they report true or false. It makes what they report informed by their biases and opinions.

It makes what I post in here informed by my biases and opinions.

But, you see, neither I nor the blogs nor talk radio have the obligation to report both sides of a story. We're not obligated to make your argument for you.

News Organizations don't (and shouldn't) have that luxury.

Sure I can, 9-1.

So anyone who donates to a political cause/party automaticalluy loses any sense of objectivity?

In direct violation of the ethical standards of their profession? Yep.

Anyone who 'violates' ethical standards loses any sense of objectivity.

I actually want you on record for this because I will now research your sources periodically and call you on it..

[FromWayDowntown]

But, you see, neither I nor the blogs nor talk radio have the obligation to report both sides of a story. We're not obligated to make your argument for you.

If news organizations are, based upon their biases, disregarding stories about corruption or unethical behavior among Democrats -- or if there is a perceived over-reporting of corruption and unethical behavior about Republicans -- those concerns should now be balanced out rather significantly by unabashedly partisan blogs and talk radio. It's not as if there is some vacuum of investigation into the foibles of Democrats. Thus, to contend that it is easier to find stories about Republicans than Democrats is, to me, a cannard. Assuming that your numbers about the mainstream media to be unassailable for the sake of argument, you might have a point if the only reporting going on was the reporting done by the mainstream media -- but that's no longer the case. Whether the reporting is biased or not, my point is that there is a relative equilibrium among the sources providing news; it's no longer reasonable, I think, to contend that the unavailability of reports about one side is a consequence of bias aimed to support that side.

In any event, I'm not sure what any of this discussion has to do with this thread.

[Yonivore]

So anyone who donates to a political cause/party automaticalluy loses any sense of objectivity?

They lose the luxury of being viewed as objective. Absolutely. They've certainly aligned themselves with the political ideology of the recipient of their donation and against the person/position against which their beneficiary is running.

That's why news organizations generally frown on the practice and many outright prohibit it.

Are you suggesting anyone in the blogosphere or on talk radio enjoys a characterization of being objective by someone who is ideologically opposed to them?

Anyone who 'violates' ethical standards loses any sense of objectivity.

Anyone who violates the ethical standards of their chosen profession loses the ability to claim they are working for the stated purpose of that profession and, in the case of news, it is objectivity.

I actually want you on record for this because I will now research your sources periodically and call you on it..

Boy, you have way more time than I do; but, have fun with that.

[Yonivore]

If news organizations are, based upon their biases, disregarding stories about corruption or unethical behavior among Democrats -- or if there is a perceived over-reporting of corruption and unethical behavior about Republicans -- those concerns should now be balanced out rather significantly by unabashedly partisan blogs and talk radio.

I know you two aren't stupid. What exactly are you not understanding about how the two en ies you claim "balance" each other out put themselves out there for the public?

News Organizations claime to be unbiased and objective -- they're not.

Blogs and Talk Radio make no such claim.

It's not as if there is some vacuum of investigation into the foibles of Democrats. Thus, to contend that it is easier to find stories about Republicans than Democrats is, to me, a cannard. Assuming that your numbers about the mainstream media to be unassailable for the sake of argument, you might have a point if the only reporting going on was the reporting done by the mainstream media -- but that's no longer the case.

On television and in print, it is. Not everyone is an internet junkie like us.

Whether the reporting is biased or not, my point is that there is a relative equilibrium among the sources providing news; it's no longer reasonable, I think, to contend that the unavailability of reports about one side is a consequence of bias aimed to support that side.

Except that those on the left (and the right) may discount "news" provided by the blogosphere and talk radio as being biased and, therefore, not credible. And, this can be done with relatively little room to argue from either side.

You shouldn't be able to have the same argument about news organizations...yet, here we are.

In any event, I'm not sure what any of this discussion has to do with this thread.

I could be flippant and say this Congress' numbers would be much lower if it weren't for the press propping them up and not railing on their indiscretions; and, Republican's numbers would be much higher if not for the press being complicit with Democrats in constantly bashing them.

But, somewhere in that statement is some truth.

[Yonivore]

So, FWD, what does Kucinich wanting to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and the Clinton-Boxer cabal wanting to legislate Talk Radio portend for your "balance" in the media?

[clambake]

So, FWD, what does Kucinich wanting to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and the Clinton-Boxer cabal wanting to legislate Talk Radio portend for your "balance" in the media?

If people are so stupid to believe everything they hear and read, why would you want them on your side? Just to sucker them for their vote?

That's how everything got ed up to begin with.

[ChumpDumper]

Yonivore was against polls before he was for them.

[Yonivore]

If people are so stupid to believe everything they hear and read, why would you want them on your side? Just to sucker them for their vote?

That's how everything got ed up to begin with.

What the does that mean?

[clambake]

77% of the population now realize they got duped.

[Yonivore]

77% of the population now realize they got duped.

Or, have been successfully led to believe they were duped by a disingenious media and treacherous left.

[ChumpDumper]

Yonivore was against polls before he was for them before he was against them again.