Olbermann on Clinton

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Professor X wrote:

They are baised in their tone in the news they give. For instance, from today:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216417,00.html

In that entire article, there are no words that associate his opinion with his own accusations. Overall, the entire tone of the article seems to be agreeing with the republican stance on the issue, even down the title they gave the article. “Bush Goes On Offensive Against ‘Cut and Run’ Democrats”. [/quote]

Be serious. That article was as plain vanilla as they come. And the title was not biased. What is slanted about saying that Bush went on the offensive - which he did - against ‘Cut and Run’ Democrats - which is clearly demarcated as his own words because of the quotes? And half of the article is merely repeating quotes of the President’s speech - and that is reporting.

And if it was so biased, why add Pelosi’s and Emanuel’s comments?

I don’t care for FOX news and I don’t get my information from them. But you’ll have to better than that to show this bias you seem so proud of indentifying.

[quote]You would essentially have to be extremely biased yourself to see no difference between that and:

from the Associated Press which specifically gives where “cut and run” came from and who said it…instead of using the term in the title like it is the new terminology for all democrats.[/quote]

Assuming you can read, the title of the FOX piece makes it clear who used the phrase ‘Cut and Run’ by use of the quotes. That is basic syntax 101. If FOX wanted to truly characterize the Democrats as cut and run types, they wouldn’t have put it in quotes. The quotes are used for exactly the purpose of attaching them to Bush.

And this is an ordinary convention in any headline reporting. Another example:

Kerry blasts ‘reckless’ Bush on Iraq

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1095718215483&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

Almost the exact same title. So is this evidence that the Toronto Star is a left-wing, abortion-loving, anti-war, hippie-dippie outfit?

Nope. Note the quotes: does any human being who has received at least an 8th grade education in English actually think that the reporter is characterizing Bush as ‘reckless’ and not Kerry?

Please.

Again, I don’t care for FOX. But you didn’t prove anything here.

22

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Assuming you can read, the title of the FOX piece makes it clear who used the phrase ‘Cut and Run’ by use of the quotes. That is basic syntax 101.[/quote]

Are you implying that the majority of Americans have an above average education and have even gone to a “101” class of ANYTHING and paid attention?

An educated eye will be able to tell bullshit immediately, even if they are biased on one position themselves. However, if we are talking about AVERAGE, which title do you think implies that Democrats ARE “cut and run” and which one tells immediately who made the quote and left it at that?

The issue isn’t what scientifically is. The issue is what is perceived by that average American with average intelligence who works the cash register at Walmart.

23

[quote]Professor X wrote:

The issue isn’t what scientifically is. The issue is what is perceived by that average American with average intelligence who works the cash register at Walmart.[/quote]

So, let’s assume you are right - does that mean the Toronto Star is biased to the left?

24

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

The issue isn’t what scientifically is. The issue is what is perceived by that average American with average intelligence who works the cash register at Walmart.

So, let’s assume you are right - does that mean the Toronto Star is biased to the left?

[/quote]

You are assuming I even know a thing about The Toronto Star. Post an article. If this was meant to be funny…aha. Ahem.

25

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You are assuming I even know a thing about The Toronto Star. Post an article. If this was meant to be funny…aha. Ahem. [/quote]

Try actually reading my posts. You will see above, in a previous post, from the Toronto Star, a title I lifted that reads almost exactly like your ‘biased’ one you presented from FOX with the accompanying link to the article.

You will notice I asked the exact same question regarding the Toronto Star in that post, which you never addressed. Further proof you don’t pay attention.

Reposted here:

"And this is an ordinary convention in any headline reporting. Another example:

Kerry blasts ‘reckless’ Bush on Iraq

http://www.thestar.com/...ol=968350060724

Almost the exact same title. So is this evidence that the Toronto Star is a left-wing, abortion-loving, anti-war, hippie-dippie outfit?"

26

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Yeah. And Fox News is biased.

We know.

examples? don’t give me o’reilly and hannity either. i’ll give you chris matthews and keith olbermann. those are opinion shows (even though it’s not ‘matthews and gingerich’ or olbermann and buchanan’ as it is with ‘hannity and COLMES’ on the biased fox news).

give examples of how fox NEWS is biased in their presentation of straight news.

believe me. i see more liberals on fox than i see conservatives on CNN. i see that freaking nut bobby kennedy jr. every week. pelosi’s on when she’s not out stumping for abortions at mcdonalds and free dynamite for terrorists.

They are biased in their tone in the news they give. For instance, from today:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216417,00.html

In that entire article, there are no words that associate his opinion with his own accusations. Overall, the entire tone of the article seems to be agreeing with the republican stance on the issue, even down to the title they gave the article. “Bush Goes On Offensive Against ‘Cut and Run’ Democrats”. You would essentially have to be extremely biased yourself to see no difference between that and:

from the Associated Press which specifically gives where “cut and run” came from and who said it…instead of using the term in the title like it is the new terminology for all democrats.

Also, notice the use of words like “accused” and “counterpunched” in the AP article. That seperates HIS opinion from others and notes that he is the one who came up with these terms.

When it comes to scanning an article, like many people do on the way to work, which of the two seems accusatory to democrats and which one seems to be simply getting a story across as it happened?

If you can’t see it, then don’t bother asking anymore questions. You never will.[/quote]

dude! what does this prove? what tone? you don’t see your liberal slant so you see a conservative one.

get over it.

27

[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

Assuming you can read, the title of the FOX piece makes it clear who used the phrase ‘Cut and Run’ by use of the quotes. That is basic syntax 101.

Are you implying that the majority of Americans have an above average education and have even gone to a “101” class of ANYTHING and paid attention?

An educated eye will be able to tell bullshit immediately, even if they are biased on one position themselves. However, if we are talking about AVERAGE, which title do you think implies that Democrats ARE “cut and run” and which one tells immediately who made the quote and left it at that?

The issue isn’t what scientifically is. The issue is what is perceived by that average American with average intelligence who works the cash register at Walmart.[/quote]

total nonsense. maybe the idea of quotations seems advanced to you. but i’m pretty sure the walmar cashier knows what they mean. and while that walmart cashier, noble as she may be, MIGHT be the personification of the ‘average american’ in YOUR world, thanks god she’s not in most.

28

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

Assuming you can read, the title of the FOX piece makes it clear who used the phrase ‘Cut and Run’ by use of the quotes. That is basic syntax 101.

Are you implying that the majority of Americans have an above average education and have even gone to a “101” class of ANYTHING and paid attention?

An educated eye will be able to tell bullshit immediately, even if they are biased on one position themselves. However, if we are talking about AVERAGE, which title do you think implies that Democrats ARE “cut and run” and which one tells immediately who made the quote and left it at that?

The issue isn’t what scientifically is. The issue is what is perceived by that average American with average intelligence who works the cash register at Walmart.

total nonsense. maybe the idea of quotations seems advanced to you. but i’m pretty sure the walmar cashier knows what they mean. and while that walmart cashier, noble as she may be, MIGHT be the personification of the ‘average american’ in YOUR world, thanks god she’s not in most.[/quote]

Please describe for me then who the average American is. College educated with at least two degrees? We might be getting there, but I doubt we are there now.

29

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

You are assuming I even know a thing about The Toronto Star. Post an article. If this was meant to be funny…aha. Ahem.

Try actually reading my posts. You will see above, in a previous post, from the Toronto Star, a title I lifted that reads almost exactly like your ‘biased’ one you presented from FOX with the accompanying link to the article.

You will notice I asked the exact same question regarding the Toronto Star in that post, which you never addressed. Further proof you don’t pay attention.

Reposted here:

"And this is an ordinary convention in any headline reporting. Another example:

Kerry blasts ‘reckless’ Bush on Iraq

http://www.thestar.com/...ol=968350060724

Almost the exact same title. So is this evidence that the Toronto Star is a left-wing, abortion-loving, anti-war, hippie-dippie outfit?"[/quote]

Not by itself. Perhaps if we added in several “info-news-talk shows” (who, of course no one takes as truth according to you…except for Doogie when discussing Rush) it would push them over the edge.

30

[quote]knewsom wrote:
that thing called factual information.

…really the only comparisons that one can draw between him and O’Reilly, is their use of childish insults. He called Wallace a “monkey”, which I think only hurt KO’s credibility. I think he’d come off stronger without using silly childish insults, and sticking to the facts.

The thing is, he brought up some very valid points, and this is honestly the best thing I’ve heard come from him.

Rather than focus on his silly childish insults and character attacks, why not try to refute the main points of his argument instead?[/quote]

This is funny. Everyone is putting forth their version of “factual information”. Everyone, to some extent provides this “factual information” with at least some slant.

It’s called spin.

And as far as “valid points” go, what you consider a valid point can be wildly different from someone else. I submit to you jlesk and JTF as exibits A and B. These guys hold some fairly wild ideas as “valid”. Whatever, it’s a free country.

But if we have to look past Olbermanns childish insults and character attacks in the name of entertainmant and ratings just to get to his “valid points”, then we have to also include Rush, Hannity, Coulter, etc., and start arguing their “valid points”. You can’t have it both ways.

Or are you willing to say that these pundits have no valid points?

I think they do. Just with a heavy slant.

31

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

Assuming you can read, the title of the FOX piece makes it clear who used the phrase ‘Cut and Run’ by use of the quotes. That is basic syntax 101.

Are you implying that the majority of Americans have an above average education and have even gone to a “101” class of ANYTHING and paid attention?

An educated eye will be able to tell bullshit immediately, even if they are biased on one position themselves. However, if we are talking about AVERAGE, which title do you think implies that Democrats ARE “cut and run” and which one tells immediately who made the quote and left it at that?

The issue isn’t what scientifically is. The issue is what is perceived by that average American with average intelligence who works the cash register at Walmart.

total nonsense. maybe the idea of quotations seems advanced to you. but i’m pretty sure the walmar cashier knows what they mean. and while that walmart cashier, noble as she may be, MIGHT be the personification of the ‘average american’ in YOUR world, thanks god she’s not in most.

Please describe for me then who the average American is. College educated with at least two degrees? We might be getting there, but I doubt we are there now.[/quote]

i don’t know about their educational status or income. average is what? 25-30K these days? i DO know putting something in quotations is not beyond the reading comprehension ability of average americans. my dad worked in a factory for 40 years. never made more th an 40K. i’d say he’s average (in educucation…above average as a role model, father, person). he sure as hell knows what quotatations indicate.

32

It’s okay to use quotes in headlines. You see the country is so polarized that it helps to do so. How else are people suppposed to know what they want to read. A biased person who doesn’t want to learn anything only reads what he thinks will affirm his own beliefs.
These headlines help the reader tune in to his beliefs.

Its called feeding the sheep.

33

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Not by itself. Perhaps if we added in several “info-news-talk shows” (who, of course no one takes as truth according to you…except for Doogie when discussing Rush) it would push them over the edge. [/quote]

Figures. You claim that an article is biased by making a huge deal out of the way its headline is stated. Then I find a headline that basically states something the same way, and suddenly your rule no longer applies.

Amazing how that works. Of course, your little misdirection is foolish - the FOX article with the biased headline doesn’t ‘add any info-news-talk shows’.

If the FOX headline was enough ‘by itself’ to show bias, why isn’t the Toronto Star’s?

34

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Not by itself. Perhaps if we added in several “info-news-talk shows” (who, of course no one takes as truth according to you…except for Doogie when discussing Rush) it would push them over the edge.

Figures. You claim that an article is biased by making a huge deal out of the way its headline is stated. Then I find a headline that basically states something the same way, and suddenly your rule no longer applies.

Amazing how that works. Of course, your little misdirection is foolish - the FOX article with the biased headline doesn’t ‘add any info-news-talk shows’.

If the FOX headline was enough ‘by itself’ to show bias, why isn’t the Toronto Star’s?[/quote]

Because we are talking about the entire network, not just one article. Excuse me for not taking the next month off to find you specific examples for everyday hence. The poster before you asked for one example and I gave him one that I felt showed it. The rest of my opinion is formed from the types of programs they show including their news morning show. You, of course, act as if none of those shows count even though people in your own camp go straight to Rush as a reliable source of news. So, either they can also represent a network’s values or they can’t. Either people DO rely on shows like that for their news or they don’t.

We both know people do. You just have yet to admit it.

35

[quote]Professor X wrote:
We both know people do. You just have yet to admit it.[/quote]

Bullshit. Prove it with something besides your opinion. Show some stats that prove everyone that watches Fox are that stupid. Surely if it is that obvious you would have no problem showing some tangible proof.

It must be a nice dream-world you have made up in your head where your opinion is fact, and no one asks you to prove anything.

36

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
We both know people do. You just have yet to admit it.

Bullshit. Prove it with something besides your opinion. Show some stats that prove everyone that watches Fox are that stupid. Surely if it is that obvious you would have no problem showing some tangible proof.

It must be a nice dream-world you have made up in your head where your opinion is fact, and no one asks you to prove anything. [/quote]

Why would I need stats to show that people take that form of news as NEWS? Doogie just got done quoting Rush as a legit source of news days ago. There’s your proof.

People look for news that enforces what they already believe or what they want to believe. I honestly can’t understand anyone pretending as if no one in this country actually listens to those shows and believes what they hear.

37

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Because we are talking about the entire network, not just one article.[/quote]

No we weren’t - we were talking the article, you remember, the one that proved bias because of its headline?

Now you are moving the goal posts and changing the subject.

I don’t need all that, nor did I ask for it - you claimed that the headline showed that the article was biased. I offer something that, using your standard of using quotes, would make the Toronto Star a left-wing outfit, and it’s suddenly like you never mentioned any headline as proof of bias…

Yes, and I am saying it was no such proof.

The poster before asked for a specific example of bias in news reporting, not whether or not the network’s infotainment shows had a point of view. They all do, of course, and there are plenty of left-leaning ones.

38

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Because we are talking about the entire network, not just one article.

No we weren’t - we were talking the article, you remember, the one that proved bias because of its headline?[/quote]

Gee, no we weren’t. I was asked by someone else for an example…which I provided. You weren’t even part of the debate until after I was asked to show one. This isn’t about one article but the perception that the NETWORK is biased. How did you miss that?

[quote]

Now you are moving the goal posts and changing the subject.[/quote]

No, the subject was about how FOX is biased. There is no other subject.

[quote]

Excuse me for not taking the next month off to find you specific examples for everyday hence.

I don’t need all that, nor did I ask for it - you claimed that the headline showed that the article was biased. I offer something that, using your standard of using quotes, would make the Toronto Star a left-wing outfit, and it’s suddenly like you never mentioned any headline as proof of bias… [/quote]

That isn’t all I claimed. I stated that the entire TONE of the article was biased. You are the only one focused on just the title.

[quote]

The poster before you asked for one example and I gave him one that I felt showed it.

Yes, and I am saying it was no such proof.

The poster before asked for a specific example of bias in news reporting, not whether or not the network’s infotainment shows had a point of view. They all do, of course, and there are plenty of left-leaning ones.[/quote]

If people do go to sources like that for news, you can NOT discount them when discussing how the network itself is represented as far as NEWS COVERAGE.

39

[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
We both know people do. You just have yet to admit it.

Bullshit. Prove it with something besides your opinion. Show some stats that prove everyone that watches Fox are that stupid. Surely if it is that obvious you would have no problem showing some tangible proof.

It must be a nice dream-world you have made up in your head where your opinion is fact, and no one asks you to prove anything.

Why would I need stats to show that people take that form of news as NEWS? Doogie just got done quoting Rush as a legit source of news days ago. There’s your proof.

People look for news that enforces what they already believe or what they want to believe. I honestly can’t understand anyone pretending as if no one in this country actually listens to those shows and believes what they hear. [/quote]

I quoted Rush quoting Richard Clark. Clark’s words were the legitimate source, not Rush’s commentary.

40

[quote]Professor X wrote:
People look for news that enforces what they already believe or what they want to believe. I honestly can’t understand anyone pretending as if no one in this country actually listens to those shows and believes what they hear. [/quote]

Once again - that is an opinion you have made up in your head that I am supposed to take as fact.

Until you can prve your baseless position - maybe you should quit trying to ram it down everyone’s throat in lieu of a real position.

It’s old. It’s baseless. And you have yet to do anything but demand that your opinion be taken as fact.