Obama vs Fox News; does the US media have a left wing bias?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by saturn5, Oct 25, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    While that was very witty, it didn't answer the question: Why is the MSM avoiding this story?
  2. Lord_Hydronium Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 11, 2002
    star 5
    As I said, because there's no story. The fact that the conservative sphere has latched onto it like a lamprey to confirm their existing biases doesn't actually make it a story.

    Some dude used the word "trick" to talk about a way of presenting data. Shock! The modern Watergate, it is.
  3. Rogue_Follower Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 12, 2003
    star 6
    They're not. You are not looking hard enough, are simply repeating a talking point, or have an interesting definition of "avoiding".

    I have personally seen stories about the hack at CNN, BBC, the New York Times (registration required, unfortunately), Reuters, Time magazine, and the Economist. Plus, of course, Fox News. As far as I know, all major news organizations have covered the scandal. And many, many professional blogs (e.g. the Economist's Democracy in America), which could be considered a part of the MSM or one step removed from the MSM, have been discussing it at length.

    The story is not being ignored.
  4. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 6
    Fox News is the biggest cable news channel out there in terms of ratings. The "MSM" isn't avoiding this story since Fox is covering it. I get sick of the assumption that somehow Fox is exempt from mainstream status despite being larger than CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, CNN Headline, and a host of other outlets. I've also seen this story covered in the local newspaper (My main source of news, not being one who likes their information delivered via video), courtesy of AP - the company that is arguably the definition of mainstream.

    Furthermore the credibility of how radically this rocks the actual scientific community at large is shaky at best - very few scientists in the field of environmental studies have come forward saying this is somehow a watershed. It's mostly being described as such by politicians and the blogosphere who really have no idea what they're talking about in the first place.
  5. Game3525 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2008
    star 4
    This quote basically sums it up for me.

    "Another in a series of ******** non-stories that have zero effect on the troops, the war or anything in the real world -- or, as Fox calls it, "Breaking News."-Bill Maher.

  6. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    You really need to separate what's actually news and what isn't. This isn't news. Despite how deeply you want it to be.
  7. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Well you guys have a strange view of "covering a story." A quick mention and out. Hell thay spent more time covering Amnesty International calling Gitmo a gulag than they did with this story.

    And Hell, AI admitted they exagerated for effect. But that wasn't really covered as part of the story.

    Hmmmm....
  8. Game3525 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2008
    star 4
    No, I just think most of us know that this isn't news.
  9. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    On the flip side...how isn't this news? It's not news because you don't think it's important? J-Rod apparently thinks it's important. Fire_Ice_Death--I thought we just went over the fact that most news outlets report stuff for ratings. So of course they're reporting this because many people think it is news. News is a report of previously unknown information. Did you know about this information? Of course no one is speaking that literally so what it boils down to is that you just don't like it. Good for you. :)

    The fact is that whether or not you think it's a noteworthy story--Fox News has reported on it more than other networks. They often report on issues that other networks don't--it's part of what sets them apart. They often report on most of what the other networks report on, but then they go further. It's probably part of the reason why they have such good ratings. Stupid or not, perhaps other networks should actually follow suit if they want better ratings.

    However, other networks have been reporting on the story since it broke. From CBS news:

    They show that some of the field's most prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data ("have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots"), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

    Sounds like great science there. source
  10. Game3525 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2008
    star 4
    Not really, they just report news that conservatives want to hear, regardless of facts, importance etc.
  11. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    Great response. You just decided to say "not really" in general without actually addressing anything. :)

    Notice that I just quoted not Fox News? I suppose blind rage towards a news network is the right choice though. I don't boycott MSNBC just because I think they pander to leftist thinkers. However, if I did that, I'd probably have to stop watching and reading most American news. How dare a major American news network have a right slant!
  12. Game3525 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2008
    star 4
    Seeing how I bolded the part I was referring too, I don't see your point.
  13. Game3525 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2008
    star 4
    And that is why I find it difficult to take you seriously, no offense. "The Liberal Media" is so 1990's.

  14. Rouge77 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2005
    star 5
    News corporations having "biases" isn't in my opinion really a problem as a)the corporation
    in question hasn't got a de facto control of the media to a large extent, like Berlusconi has
    in Italy and b)as long as it is clearly brought out that the corporation in question or some
    commentator on it's program isn't an objective outsider commenting news, but having a political
    agenda of their own.

    And that's the problem with Fox for example: They are giving a far-right view and at the same
    time claiming to present a truthful picture, and thus they distort the more naive of their
    vievers view of political questions and events.

    Of course, in the US you can't really find much in the way of true leftwing views in
    the mainstream media, just in the small independent media. This is of course nothing
    new, but even these main media corporations have been drifting more in the right so
    that what goes as political centre in mainstream media is solidly in the rightwing now.
  15. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 6
    Scientists aren't people! How dare they try to have strong feelings on a subject![face_talk_hand]

    Seriously, jack **** of that has anything to do with the findings themselves. Musing about preventing publication and actually preventing publication are two different things. To say nothing of the fact that scientists are highly competitive. My own research group would prefer if dissenting opinions never ended up published since they weaken our arguments and lead to competition in funding, but since we're all chemists it's apparently not important that we think that without acting on it. No single group actually has the power to prevent another group from being published.

    However, I anticipate you will somehow attempt to backup your reasoning using pseudo-science, a demonstration of poor knowledge as to how research groups function, and one or more smilies.
  16. Game3525 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2008
    star 4
    That is a fair point.......
  17. Rouge77 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2005
    star 5
    Today basically any kind of paper, now matter how rotten the science, will get
    published if one just wants to. And if through some miracle one wouldn't get
    a paper in some pay-to-be-published magazine or in an internet's non-peer-reviewed
    publications, one can just make a website of their own and put it all in the
    internet. It's impossible to silence anyone at this age, as much as one might
    regret that when it comes to individuals with more deranged ideas.

    And when it comes to big media, being a bit of a loony with an outlandish idea
    is a better way of getting time from them to bring your ideas to a large audience
    than being a good scientist doing good, but orthodox work, especially if there
    are no pretty pictures or animations to showcase your work.
  18. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    I don't know why people keep saying that. I don't care if you take me seriously or not--I hardly know you. I'm just here to learn and discuss. Statistics say you're wrong by the way. Most Americans journalists are left of the center. The only reason you're even fighting against the idea of left-slant in the media is because you slant to the left. So don't start jumping on the intellectual high-horse when you and I both know that our own personal slants are already major deciding factors in any true debate here. You aren't offering studies of any kind to prove that the media isn't slanted to the left. Even then, we've already gone over the fact that even in the face of such studies and individual can simply claim that the study itself is flawed. So please, stop worrying about "taking me seriously" or even suggesting it. Just be respectful.


    I love how you just say it doesn't have to with the findings themselves, as if that point actually means something in response.

    No single group actually has the power to prevent another group from being published.

    What basis if any do you have for this statement?

    My own research group would prefer if dissenting opinions never ended up published

    That's great science--lovely preference.

    However, I anticipate you will somehow attempt to backup your reasoning using pseudo-science, a demonstration of poor knowledge as to how research groups function, and one or more smilies.

    I'll give you a trinity of smilies. :):):)

    Here's some psuedo-science for you: they plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

    Notice the difference between the word "plot" and "prefer."

    Considering how political "global warming" has become--this is incredibly significant news--surprisingly even if you don't think so!
  19. Game3525 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2008
    star 4
    Yeah, I remember the statistic you brought up, and it didn't prove anything. Are you that caught up in this that you think that a vast majority of journalist are going to push their agenda through their work? Maybe the problem is your so far right, that everything else looks left.
  20. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 6
    The huge number of publications out there? The fact that you can now actually self-publish? Scientists aren't some massive cabal... as far as you know :p

    Seriously, any alleged plotting that occurred has been blown out of proportion, and could easily, easily have been sarcastic in nature.

    Way to miss the point completely, Asterix. Go work in scientific research, and get back to me after a year. People prefer to remain the top choice for funding - period. Scientists are people who need to earn money in order to live. They don't like people disagreeing with their research because being thoroughly disproved can ruin your career and your funding - it's not that hard to understand. Furthermore, the same line follows with competitors - folks are also striving to be published faster, with more conclusive evidence, than rivals - even those that agree with you.

    To reiterate my main point - scientists are people. They have human reactions to events, even if they would prefer they didn't. They're just as prone to pettiness and frustration as everyone else - the difference is it's not some big storm of baloney if this surfaces for someone else.

    ... Also, do you realize the irony in complaining about a lack of coverage as you quote yet another mainstream news source?
  21. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    Human reactions such as moving to prevent other scientific research from surfacing are not inherent. Such feelings are not necessary--but if you and your team often feel like that, then I'm sorry that you feel that way--you don't have to. However, there is a difference between feeling and plotting.

    With regard to lack of coverage--I actually pointed out myself that CBS covered it. I think it has been reported on more by Fox News, but it is not exclusive to Fox News.

    Game the opposite could be said of you being far-left. That argument is pointless. Therefore one of the few things we have to rely on are statistics and even then, they are obviously disputable based on the issue of political alignment.

    I'm waiting to hear Quix's thoughts on the study I offered him if he ever really wants to read through the massive thing. You're all welcome to it as well--it's near the top of the page, a UCLA study.
  22. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 6
    You miss the point yet again, I see. It's not the drive to prevent other research from surfacing - it's the competitive drive, which is inherent in humans. Competition among scientists manifests itself, and I'm sorry that you have trouble accepting this.

    On topic (Sort of) - Fox News is the only news station in the Top Ten Cable Channels ratings. That would tend to indicate it's mainstream. So... why do they insist they aren't?
  23. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    Do they insist they aren't? Why are they rated so high? I didn't actually believe them when they said they were #1.

    Also, again, I really don't think "competition" necessitates jealousy or specific thoughts about preventing others to get their research published. Really, don't think that part about not wanting others to get published is necessary. Ever hear of a good sport? Being competitive doesn't mean you need to wish for another to fail. It might mean that you simply wish to win--there is a difference. Science, of all things, should not be a field where bodies of work are simply bullied out of the ring.

    It's alight Darthramza, honestly, I know I'm not that bright, but I really don't understand what you're saying...or perhaps I understand it, I just don't know why or how you can stand by it--not that it's a big deal.
  24. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 6
    They do imply that they aren't. Citing an earlier FIDo... citation.

    Implicit in the assertion that the mainstream media has failed is that they are not a member of the mainstream media... Despite having higher viewer counts than CNN or MSNBC combined. I find this a decidedly odd position to take up.

    And the doctrine of being a good sport is rarely followed. Good sportsmanship is a facade governing interactions between competitors - one scientists absolutely practice "face to face". But like everyone else - Sorry if my perception of human nature is a bit pessimistic - they don't actually mean it, at least on some level. In sum - I'm really not surprised that these emails say they dislike the dissenters. I'm sure the dissenters have emails to a similar effect that just haven't been leaked. It's a universal scenario.

    Also, Asterix, it's entirely possible I'm not conveying my point properly. It wouldn't be the first time.[face_blush]
  25. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Also, again, I really don't think "competition" necessitates jealousy or specific thoughts about preventing others to get their research published. Really, don't think that part about not wanting others to get published is necessary. Ever hear of a good sport? Being competitive doesn't mean you need to wish for another to fail. It might mean that you simply wish to win--there is a difference. Science, of all things, should not be a field where bodies of work are simply bullied out of the ring.

    I'm sorry, but was this ever done?

    From what I've read, the hacked emails cover something to the order to TEN YEARS worth of correspondance. Perhaps an even greater period than that.

    Within this large amount of data, ONE email has been found SUGGESTING that something not be published. Was he ever responded to? Doesn't seem likely since there's only one email and you'd think anyone covering this story would have looked straight away to the 'RE:' fields for his subject heading to see if there was evidence of an actual correspondance on the subject. There's been no such evidence.

    So what we have so far is that one guy out of a large body sent an email one day over at least ten years that MAYBE suggested something untoward that nobody as yet seems to have responded to. So how is this headline news? A news item? Yeah, sure... but front-page news?

    Well I suppose it would be front-page news if you wanted to suggest people read into it: Secrets being kept by... someone... scientists who cannot be trusted... as mentioned before, a cabal of neo-Freemasons influincing data for thier own ends. Although why they would purposely fudge figures in FAVOR of climate change seems particularly odd since it doesn't seem that they would get anything out of that scenario. One would think if anything they'd be motivated to show findings AGAINST climate change since I'm sure a number of companies might offer substantial incentives to move findings against climate change. If there are any equivlant comapanies or other agencies with vast monetary resources that want the world to think Climate Change is real and a threat when it's neither -- well, I'm pretty unaware of it's existnace. Perhaps the diabolical folks over at the World Wildlife Fund?

    But then, for the motive of the players in this story to make logical sense is perhaps not the primary function of the story's 'importance' here.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.