Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[cunt]

1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

I believe he meant the politicians themselves in this part.

But I would say the Iraq war is a good example, everyone disregarded the facts.

Yes, I also believe he's attempting to get away from the original point because he realises how full of shit he is. The broader point that "politicians lie" is much more defensible.

You're missing my point - I'm not saying Fox News doesn't skew conservative, they do. I'm saying that, according to research, almost all of the other mainstream news organizations skew liberal.

Yes, and how do they skew conservative? By totally ignoring the facts!

[Remick]

Im also not convinced by the "corporate media" argument (someone else here argued this point), corporations aren't inherently conservative and in fact many of them (GE, Facebook, Apple) lean decidedly to the left (and they have reasons for doing so).

lmao

Agree, is this a joke? You clearly don't understand what is meant by 'corporate media'. Apple leans left? On what planet? They use sweatshop labor and tax havens to avoid paying taxes on 60-70% of their profits, just because leftists like and use their products doesn't mean Apple itself is leftist. Popular in Hollywood != left leaning.

[deLurch]

Opelia:

It gets crazier every day. You would think it couldn’t, but it does.

You know, Ophelia, in your case we would think it could.
http://www.freezepage.com/1370428535KOUZBJDCCY

So let me get this straight. If I write an entirely scathing insult towards Ophelia and post it here in the pit, Ophelia will repeat it for me on her own blog?!?! It reminds me of the little games kids play to try and get someone to say they are stupid or something else insulting about themselves.

[Al Stefanelli]

If you are a woman and you feel save and loved you are part of the problem. Shut up and listen.

Something like that, yes. Apparently women are divided into two groups, the one who have been raped and the ones who haven't been raped .... yet

It's very telling how they immediately go into hyperbole mode and use rape as an analogy in order to cause an emotional impact and preemptively paint other people as rape apologists. It's so obvious I don't know how some people out there don't see it's a strategy.

Apparently these people think rape is like crashing a motorcycle. It's not a matter of if it will happen, but when.

[cunt]

Im also not convinced by the "corporate media" argument (someone else here argued this point), corporations aren't inherently conservative and in fact many of them (GE, Facebook, Apple) lean decidedly to the left (and they have reasons for doing so).

lmao

Agree, is this a joke? You clearly don't understand what is meant by 'corporate media'. Apple leans left? On what planet? They use sweatshop labor and tax havens to avoid paying taxes on 60-70% of their profits, just because leftists like and use their products doesn't mean Apple itself is leftist. Popular in Hollywood != left leaning.

General Electric is a leftist organisation now, and how dare you suggest that someone has gamed the ref!

[Remick]

1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

I believe he meant the politicians themselves in this part.

But I would say the Iraq war is a good example, everyone disregarded the facts.

Yes, I also believe he's attempting to get away from the original point because he realises how full of shit he is. The broader point that "politicians lie" is much more defensible.

You're missing my point - I'm not saying Fox News doesn't skew conservative, they do. I'm saying that, according to research, almost all of the other mainstream news organizations skew liberal.

If you want an example of a left-leaning news organization ignoring facts to report a story damaging to conservatives, here's one: Dan Rather in 2004 and the fake document scandal.

Just saying 'research' doesn't absolve you from providing it. Link? I have a feeling that I've already explained why this 'research' is faulty without reading it, but I will still read it and see if I am mistaken.

[Gefan]

Im also not convinced by the "corporate media" argument (someone else here argued this point), corporations aren't inherently conservative and in fact many of them (GE, Facebook, Apple) lean decidedly to the left (and they have reasons for doing so).

lmao

Agree, is this a joke? You clearly don't understand what is meant by 'corporate media'. Apple leans left? On what planet? They use sweatshop labor and tax havens to avoid paying taxes on 60-70% of their profits, just because leftists like and use their products doesn't mean Apple itself is leftist. Popular in Hollywood != left leaning.

General Electric is a leftist organisation now, and how dare you suggest that someone has gamed the ref!

Hey, I can quote media studies too! This is fun!

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/cr

You know, the funny thing is, after all this, according to the Baboon narrative we're still all Glen Beck fans.

[Mark Thomas]

Yes, and how do they skew conservative? By totally ignoring the facts!

The no true Scotsman fallacy in all it's glory :)

[cunt]

Yes, and how do they skew conservative? By totally ignoring the facts!

The no true Scotsman fallacy in all it's glory :)

That doesn't even make sense, not even as an ironic rebuttal or anything. You are an idiot.

[Mark Thomas]

[quote="Remick"
Just saying 'research' doesn't absolve you from providing it. Link? I have a feeling that I've already explained why this 'research' is faulty without reading it, but I will still read it and see if I am mistaken.[/quote]
http://www.timgroseclose.com/

[Ericb]

On most issues Obama is about as "left wing" as Eisenhower. The Conservative Movement has swung the US's political discourse much further to the right since Eisenhowers' time when taxes were significantly higher than they are now and such things as the Federal government building things like the interstate highway system were uncontroversial.

[AnimalAndy]

I watched the Jim Norton/Lindy West debate and I liked it a lot. Norton really made a few excellent points.

In discussing this with friends a few asked:"She seems to be okay with Holocaust jokes, because, you know, it's not as bad as rape jokes" (which in itself I find problematic). An answer I repeatedly heard was: "You can tackle all the problems at once, you have to focus, this is a distributed effort."

This seems to be a common defense every time you call someone out on omitting half the story, e.g. complaining about tropes vs. women in video games and disregarding tropes vs. men, animals, black people, etc. Or talking about domestic violence in a way that portrays men as the sole perpetrators of abuse, while conveniently leaving out the other gender.

I wonder what you can do except call bullshit. While I agree that you can't address everything at once there still seems to be something intellectually dishonest about this approach.

I would have criticized shitty comics in general instead of male comics who make rape jokes. Or lazy computer game companies that will rather recycle the same old and tried plot than come up with something truly new.

[Remick]

Im also not convinced by the "corporate media" argument (someone else here argued this point), corporations aren't inherently conservative and in fact many of them (GE, Facebook, Apple) lean decidedly to the left (and they have reasons for doing so).

lmao

Agree, is this a joke? You clearly don't understand what is meant by 'corporate media'. Apple leans left? On what planet? They use sweatshop labor and tax havens to avoid paying taxes on 60-70% of their profits, just because leftists like and use their products doesn't mean Apple itself is leftist. Popular in Hollywood != left leaning.

General Electric is a leftist organisation now, and how dare you suggest that someone has gamed the ref!

Hey, I can quote media studies too! This is fun!

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/cr

You know, the funny thing is, after all this, according to the Baboon narrative we're still all Glen Beck fans.

Glenn beck is the greatest Poe ever.

[AnimalAndy]

Dammit:

You CAN'T tackle all the problems at once, you have to focus, this is a distributed effort.

[welch]

So Nugent will respond, and no doubt he will “make a stand” and agree with Sub Man that my blog post about “Skep tickle” is like the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935. Either he will disinvite me from the conference, or I will be forced to withdraw, because the slime pit will do whatever it takes to hound me out.

Emphasis mine.

She's already setting up her flounce strategy. Even if Nugent doesn't tell her to bugger off she'll skip the conference and claim that we "forced" her to do so.

Bingo. Smells like TAM 2012. Waiting for the breathless email warning her to be safe that pushes her over the edge.

[Submariner]

To be honest Subman. I also thought your comparison to the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935 was ever so slightly... well no, actually it was fucking ridiculous.

Thanks cunt, I appreciate that you resisted the urge to water down your opinion out of a sense of tribalism. Good on ya.

[treestump]

Ophie

So Nugent will respond, and no doubt he will “make a stand” and agree with Sub Man that my blog post about “Skep tickle” is like the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935. Either he will disinvite me from the conference, or I will be forced to withdraw, because the slime pit will do whatever it takes to hound me out.

The very model of a modern armchair general:
June 5, 2013 at 11:50 am

"I’m going to be cautiously optimistic, maybe naively so, and say that I think Nugent will take your side. I spoke to him about his “structured dialogue” project the other day, and he said that he agrees with the FtB side on all the substantive points. Maybe he has some disagreements about strategy and tone, but I wouldn’t expect him to disinvite you just for that."

[Remick]

[quote="Remick"
Just saying 'research' doesn't absolve you from providing it. Link? I have a feeling that I've already explained why this 'research' is faulty without reading it, but I will still read it and see if I am mistaken.

http://www.timgroseclose.com/[/quote]

Other than that site just being an advertisement to buy his book the author states


"An SQ of “0″ means that the outlet sounds approximately as conservative as a speech by Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) or Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). An SQ of “100″ means that the outlet sounds approximately as liberal as a speech by Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) or Barney Frank (D-Mass.)"

So exactly as I stated, he considers the mid point to simply be inbetween where the current parties are today. Which is complete horse shit. The more right the conservative side gets, the more "liberal" people in the former middle appear. I stated this before you linked it, yet you still did.

If this is something you accept as valid "research", kindly register so I can put you on ignore, or just fuck off(not a greeting this time)

[Submariner]

To be honest Subman. I also thought your comparison to the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935 was ever so slightly... well no, actually it was fucking ridiculous.

See, this above comment is what the people who claim (of the pit) monolithic adherence to a particular set of opinions and ideas fails to see.

[cunt]

To be honest Subman. I also thought your comparison to the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935 was ever so slightly... well no, actually it was fucking ridiculous.

Thanks cunt, I appreciate that you resisted the urge to water down your opinion out of a sense of tribalism. Good on ya.

Constructive criticism anyway.

[Mark Thomas]

Im also not convinced by the "corporate media" argument (someone else here argued this point), corporations aren't inherently conservative and in fact many of them (GE, Facebook, Apple) lean decidedly to the left (and they have reasons for doing so).

lmao

Agree, is this a joke? You clearly don't understand what is meant by 'corporate media'. Apple leans left? On what planet? They use sweatshop labor and tax havens to avoid paying taxes on 60-70% of their profits, just because leftists like and use their products doesn't mean Apple itself is leftist. Popular in Hollywood != left leaning.

Apple Computer employee campaign contributions 1999-present
http://www.campaignmoney.com/apple_computer.asp
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans $228,640 (16% of total)
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats $938,623 (68% of total)

Actually I was wrong about GE, they are more balanced:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/general_electric.asp
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans $2,359,236 (20% of total)
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats $1,933,300 (17% of total)

And while I'm at it, here is the NYT. Significantly less money, but relatively more skewed to the left.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/new_york_times.asp
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans $9,700 (15% of total)
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats $51,521 (81% of total)

I should probably have included Google as an example:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162- ... heir-cash/

The point remains - corporations aren't inherently conservative.

[welch]

1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

I believe he meant the politicians themselves in this part.

But I would say the Iraq war is a good example, everyone disregarded the facts.

Yes, I also believe he's attempting to get away from the original point because he realises how full of shit he is. The broader point that "politicians lie" is much more defensible.

You're missing my point - I'm not saying Fox News doesn't skew conservative, they do. I'm saying that, according to research, almost all of the other mainstream news organizations skew liberal.

If you want an example of a left-leaning news organization ignoring facts to report a story damaging to conservatives, here's one: Dan Rather in 2004 and the fake document scandal.

you mean the one that lead to multiple firings and clear admissions of error on the part of CBS and staff? The story that was aired on 8 september 2004, and the first apology/repudiation came on 20 September? Like this?

As a growing number of independent document examiners and competing news outlets reported their findings about the documents, CBS News stopped defending the documents and began to report on the problems with their story. On September 20 they reported that their source, Bill Burkett, "admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."[99][100] While the network did not state that the memos were forgeries, CBS News President Andrew Heyward said,

"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[13][14]

Dan Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now — I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."[13]

In an interview with Dan Rather, Burkett admitted that he misled CBS about the source of the documents, and then claimed that the documents came to him from "Lucy Ramirez", whom CBS was unable to contact or identify as an actual person. Burkett said he then made copies at the local Kinko's and burned the original documents.[36][101]

On September 21, CBS News addressed the contact with the Kerry campaign in its statement: "It is obviously against CBS News standards and those of every other reputable news organization to be associated with any political agenda."[76] The next day the network announced it was forming an independent review panel to perform an internal investigation

It's funny how when you read up on the entire thing, it's not quite what you make it out to be. Funny that.

[Remick]

Im also not convinced by the "corporate media" argument (someone else here argued this point), corporations aren't inherently conservative and in fact many of them (GE, Facebook, Apple) lean decidedly to the left (and they have reasons for doing so).

lmao

Agree, is this a joke? You clearly don't understand what is meant by 'corporate media'. Apple leans left? On what planet? They use sweatshop labor and tax havens to avoid paying taxes on 60-70% of their profits, just because leftists like and use their products doesn't mean Apple itself is leftist. Popular in Hollywood != left leaning.

Apple Computer employee campaign contributions 1999-present
http://www.campaignmoney.com/apple_computer.asp
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans $228,640 (16% of total)
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats $938,623 (68% of total)

Actually I was wrong about GE, they are more balanced:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/general_electric.asp
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans $2,359,236 (20% of total)
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats $1,933,300 (17% of total)

And while I'm at it, here is the NYT. Significantly less money, but relatively more skewed to the left.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/new_york_times.asp
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans $9,700 (15% of total)
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats $51,521 (81% of total)

I should probably have included Google as an example:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162- ... heir-cash/

The point remains - corporations aren't inherently conservative.

So, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Are you claiming that individuals who are employed by Apple lean left? If so, it means fucking nothing, true or not. Apple as a Corp ACTS more conservative. Who fucking cares if Electrical engineer # 6643 voted for Gore in 2000? What the fuck does that mean?

[Git]

1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

[welch]

Im also not convinced by the "corporate media" argument (someone else here argued this point), corporations aren't inherently conservative and in fact many of them (GE, Facebook, Apple) lean decidedly to the left (and they have reasons for doing so).

lmao

Agree, is this a joke? You clearly don't understand what is meant by 'corporate media'. Apple leans left? On what planet? They use sweatshop labor and tax havens to avoid paying taxes on 60-70% of their profits, just because leftists like and use their products doesn't mean Apple itself is leftist. Popular in Hollywood != left leaning.

You know what's funny about that?

How many Foxconn workers are pissed at Apple, because thanks to all their reforms, they can't get as much overtime as they used to, which makes it harder for them to save money so they can leave the assembly line and go back home.

[Remick]

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

I believe he meant the politicians themselves in this part.

But I would say the Iraq war is a good example, everyone disregarded the facts.

Yes, I also believe he's attempting to get away from the original point because he realises how full of shit he is. The broader point that "politicians lie" is much more defensible.

You're missing my point - I'm not saying Fox News doesn't skew conservative, they do. I'm saying that, according to research, almost all of the other mainstream news organizations skew liberal.

If you want an example of a left-leaning news organization ignoring facts to report a story damaging to conservatives, here's one: Dan Rather in 2004 and the fake document scandal.

you mean the one that lead to multiple firings and clear admissions of error on the part of CBS and staff? The story that was aired on 8 september 2004, and the first apology/repudiation came on 20 September? Like this?

As a growing number of independent document examiners and competing news outlets reported their findings about the documents, CBS News stopped defending the documents and began to report on the problems with their story. On September 20 they reported that their source, Bill Burkett, "admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."[99][100] While the network did not state that the memos were forgeries, CBS News President Andrew Heyward said,

"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[13][14]

Dan Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now — I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."[13]

In an interview with Dan Rather, Burkett admitted that he misled CBS about the source of the documents, and then claimed that the documents came to him from "Lucy Ramirez", whom CBS was unable to contact or identify as an actual person. Burkett said he then made copies at the local Kinko's and burned the original documents.[36][101]

On September 21, CBS News addressed the contact with the Kerry campaign in its statement: "It is obviously against CBS News standards and those of every other reputable news organization to be associated with any political agenda."[76] The next day the network announced it was forming an independent review panel to perform an internal investigation

It's funny how when you read up on the entire thing, it's not quite what you make it out to be. Funny that.

Reading Comprehension seems to be a weak spot for our new buddy Mark

[bovarchist]

Has anybody noticed that the word 'Boob' is an orthographic diagram of actual boobs?

[cunt]

1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

I didn't ask for names, dickhead. I asked for examples of a left-wing news organisation that distorted and ignored the facts on the issue to suit their ideology. So, go on, there's been a lot of false shit in the left wing media about Nuclear, GMO, Immigration and Islam.

[Remick]

1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

I didn't ask for names, dickhead. I asked for examples of a left-wing news organisation that distorted and ignored the facts on the issue to suit their ideology. So, go on, there's been a lot of false shit in the left wing media about Nuclear, GMO, Immigration and Islam.

They are so prevalant that Git will have no issue providing numerous examples for each case, where the stories weren't retracted or corrected.

[sacha]

Oh, I would like to thank Sacha for the very valuable infos she gave me about managing a young, almost untrained dog.

Cheers!

my pleasure

I learned a thing or two after 14 years of working with dogs.

[Mykeru]

I would have to take your word for it, since I'm not really familiar with the lot of 'em. Actually, most of the time I still can't really believe that such a bunch of whining, entitled cissies shares the planet with me.

Well, I was joking. But not by much.

[welch]

Just saying 'research' doesn't absolve you from providing it. Link? I have a feeling that I've already explained why this 'research' is faulty without reading it, but I will still read it and see if I am mistaken.

http://www.timgroseclose.com/

You're used to arguing with morons, aren't you.

From: http://www.timgroseclose.com/biography/

I was born on that day in Tulsa. To this day, I consider Goldwater one of my political heroes. Four others are Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Four other heroes, in addition to being successful politicians, are true scholars: Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, and Dick Cheney.

and his requisite "I don't actually know what the Constitution says beyond what I find convenient for my views" bit:

For instance, I favor lower taxes, less government regulation in the economy, a stronger military, and fewer restrictions on guns. I believe that “Roe vs. Wade” was unconstitutional—namely, it violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves abortion-law decisions for the states.

Although it is based only on casual observation, I believe that if you conducted a systematic study, you’d find that my views are to the right of Bill O’Reilly’s, while left of Sean Hannity’s.

No, no, no agenda there at all. Why in fact, he states he had no ulterior motive for writing this book:

But on another level my views and background do matter. As I will explain, the topics that journalists choose depend partly upon their political views and the views of the people who surround them. So let me admit, I don’t think I would have written a book about media bias if I weren’t conservative or if my parents hadn’t instilled Central Time Zone values in me.

Oh wait, oops.

and of course, his footnote is one of the stupidest appeals to authority and Erdos ever. The erdos number thing is fucking stupid. Having a low Erdos number no more makes you smart than being within six degrees of Kevin Bacon makes you famous. Point in fact: i am actually within six degrees of Kevin Bacon. I've met Judd Nelson, who was in St. Elmo's Fire with Demi Moore who was in A Few Good Men with Kevin bacon. I also hung out with Wil Wheaton, who was in Stand By Me with Kiefer Sutherland who was in A few Good Men with Kevin Bacon.

This makes me...nothing special at all. Unless you're Paul Erdos, who gives a fuck about your Erdos number.

He also shows he knows nothing about statistics or programming, or that he thinks his readers are fucking stupid:

Is this book biased? On one level, it matters not a whit where I was born or what my political views are. The methods that I use to measure media bias are completely objective—indeed, a computer executes them.

Except for bias in data collection, data entry, data formatting, coding, output formatting and presentation, IT'S COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.

and let us not forget his personal recommendations for reading, by such famed supporters of unbiased reporting like:

Glenn Beck
Fox & Friends
Karl Rove


The fact he's not full on tea party doesn't make him even vaguely unbiased, and his blatant misrepresentation of computer data analysis shows him to be stupid or a liar.

[Git]

1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

I didn't ask for names, dickhead. I asked for examples of a left-wing news organisation that distorted and ignored the facts on the issue to suit their ideology. So, go on, there's been a lot of false shit in the left wing media about Nuclear, GMO, Immigration and Islam.

BBC, C4, MSNBC. There's three for starters. Just as bad as Fox is.

[Mykeru]

If you are a woman and you feel save and loved you are part of the problem. Shut up and listen.

Something like that, yes. Apparently women are divided into two groups, the one who have been raped and the ones who haven't been raped .... yet

It's very telling how they immediately go into hyperbole mode and use rape as an analogy in order to cause an emotional impact and preemptively paint other people as rape apologists. It's so obvious I don't know how some people out there don't see it's a strategy.

We need to come up with a term for that. It seems the Rad's always immediately jump to "rape" like some people make comparisons to Hitler or Nazi's. Maybe "Wastoning"

IAATV (It's All About The Vag)

[cunt]

1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

I didn't ask for names, dickhead. I asked for examples of a left-wing news organisation that distorted and ignored the facts on the issue to suit their ideology. So, go on, there's been a lot of false shit in the left wing media about Nuclear, GMO, Immigration and Islam.

BBC, C4, MSNBC. There's three for starters. Just as bad as Fox is.

Nope. Oh, well that fucked your argument right there.

[welch]

I believe he meant the politicians themselves in this part.

But I would say the Iraq war is a good example, everyone disregarded the facts.

Yes, I also believe he's attempting to get away from the original point because he realises how full of shit he is. The broader point that "politicians lie" is much more defensible.

You're missing my point - I'm not saying Fox News doesn't skew conservative, they do. I'm saying that, according to research, almost all of the other mainstream news organizations skew liberal.

If you want an example of a left-leaning news organization ignoring facts to report a story damaging to conservatives, here's one: Dan Rather in 2004 and the fake document scandal.

you mean the one that lead to multiple firings and clear admissions of error on the part of CBS and staff? The story that was aired on 8 september 2004, and the first apology/repudiation came on 20 September? Like this?

As a growing number of independent document examiners and competing news outlets reported their findings about the documents, CBS News stopped defending the documents and began to report on the problems with their story. On September 20 they reported that their source, Bill Burkett, "admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."[99][100] While the network did not state that the memos were forgeries, CBS News President Andrew Heyward said,

"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[13][14]

Dan Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now — I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."[13]

In an interview with Dan Rather, Burkett admitted that he misled CBS about the source of the documents, and then claimed that the documents came to him from "Lucy Ramirez", whom CBS was unable to contact or identify as an actual person. Burkett said he then made copies at the local Kinko's and burned the original documents.[36][101]

On September 21, CBS News addressed the contact with the Kerry campaign in its statement: "It is obviously against CBS News standards and those of every other reputable news organization to be associated with any political agenda."[76] The next day the network announced it was forming an independent review panel to perform an internal investigation

It's funny how when you read up on the entire thing, it's not quite what you make it out to be. Funny that.

Reading Comprehension seems to be a weak spot for our new buddy Mark

No, he pulls a common trick. he assumes no one will check his sources, because after all, he cited them. What more can you expect?

[welch]

1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

I didn't ask for names, dickhead. I asked for examples of a left-wing news organisation that distorted and ignored the facts on the issue to suit their ideology. So, go on, there's been a lot of false shit in the left wing media about Nuclear, GMO, Immigration and Islam.

BBC, C4, MSNBC. There's three for starters. Just as bad as Fox is.

Those don't appear to be specific examples.

[Remick]

Just saying 'research' doesn't absolve you from providing it. Link? I have a feeling that I've already explained why this 'research' is faulty without reading it, but I will still read it and see if I am mistaken.

http://www.timgroseclose.com/

You're used to arguing with morons, aren't you.

From: http://www.timgroseclose.com/biography/

I was born on that day in Tulsa. To this day, I consider Goldwater one of my political heroes. Four others are Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Four other heroes, in addition to being successful politicians, are true scholars: Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, and Dick Cheney.

and his requisite "I don't actually know what the Constitution says beyond what I find convenient for my views" bit:

For instance, I favor lower taxes, less government regulation in the economy, a stronger military, and fewer restrictions on guns. I believe that “Roe vs. Wade” was unconstitutional—namely, it violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves abortion-law decisions for the states.

Although it is based only on casual observation, I believe that if you conducted a systematic study, you’d find that my views are to the right of Bill O’Reilly’s, while left of Sean Hannity’s.

No, no, no agenda there at all. Why in fact, he states he had no ulterior motive for writing this book:

But on another level my views and background do matter. As I will explain, the topics that journalists choose depend partly upon their political views and the views of the people who surround them. So let me admit, I don’t think I would have written a book about media bias if I weren’t conservative or if my parents hadn’t instilled Central Time Zone values in me.

Oh wait, oops.

and of course, his footnote is one of the stupidest appeals to authority and Erdos ever. The erdos number thing is fucking stupid. Having a low Erdos number no more makes you smart than being within six degrees of Kevin Bacon makes you famous. Point in fact: i am actually within six degrees of Kevin Bacon. I've met Judd Nelson, who was in St. Elmo's Fire with Demi Moore who was in A Few Good Men with Kevin bacon. I also hung out with Wil Wheaton, who was in Stand By Me with Kiefer Sutherland who was in A few Good Men with Kevin Bacon.

This makes me...nothing special at all. Unless you're Paul Erdos, who gives a fuck about your Erdos number.

He also shows he knows nothing about statistics or programming, or that he thinks his readers are fucking stupid:

Is this book biased? On one level, it matters not a whit where I was born or what my political views are. The methods that I use to measure media bias are completely objective—indeed, a computer executes them.

Except for bias in data collection, data entry, data formatting, coding, output formatting and presentation, IT'S COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.

and let us not forget his personal recommendations for reading, by such famed supporters of unbiased reporting like:

Glenn Beck
Fox & Friends
Karl Rove


The fact he's not full on tea party doesn't make him even vaguely unbiased, and his blatant misrepresentation of computer data analysis shows him to be stupid or a liar.

LOL, thanks Welch, I couldn't be bothered with that site beyond looking at his "rating system". Nothing you stated is a surprise, but good to see it none the less.

Mark probably thinks that in order to be neutral, a news org must say an equal number of positive and negative things about republicans and democrats every day! Vomit.

Tell me Mark, which party and politicians are responsible for the majority of the US Debt over the last 20-30 years?

[Git]

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

I didn't ask for names, dickhead. I asked for examples of a left-wing news organisation that distorted and ignored the facts on the issue to suit their ideology. So, go on, there's been a lot of false shit in the left wing media about Nuclear, GMO, Immigration and Islam.

BBC, C4, MSNBC. There's three for starters. Just as bad as Fox is.

Nope. Oh, well that fucked your argument right there.

What exactly is my argument, o mind reader?

(by American standards, I'd be a Clinton Democrat, but I fucking hate leftists who confuse values and facts).

[cunt]

Channel 4. Everything they show on channel 4.

*grumpily crosses arms and farts*

[Remick]

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

I didn't ask for names, dickhead. I asked for examples of a left-wing news organisation that distorted and ignored the facts on the issue to suit their ideology. So, go on, there's been a lot of false shit in the left wing media about Nuclear, GMO, Immigration and Islam.

BBC, C4, MSNBC. There's three for starters. Just as bad as Fox is.

Nope. Oh, well that fucked your argument right there.

Reading Rainbow, GI: JOE, M. Night Shaymalan, Did I get it right?

Thank you Cunt for quoting Git and reminding me why I have him on ignore.

[cunt]

Counterpoint: Shameless, The 10'Clock Show, Peep Show. Channel 4 News. Yeah. Seeing a pattern yet, lefties?!

[Dave]

Is this book biased? On one level, it matters not a whit where I was born or what my political views are. The methods that I use to measure media bias are completely objective—indeed, a computer executes them.

Except for bias in data collection, data entry, data formatting, coding, output formatting and presentation, IT'S COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.

Indeed, the Reinhart and Rogoff analysis was obviously COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE, INDEED IT WAS DONE IN EXCEL!!!!111!

BTW, you can trust me, my Bacon number equals my Erdos number.

[Git]

http://bbcwatch.org/ and http://cifwatch.com are just two websites collecting examples of how (mainly) leftist media lie their heads off time and time again.

The posters above (like their fellow liberals) are the prime reason I refuse to call myself a liberal, despite probably having many policy positions in common with them. Here's a fucking great big hint: I'll never be as fucking sanctimonious and arrogant as they.

[Git]

Remick has me on ignore? Good fucking riddance. He/she is the spitting image of Peezus, Watson, Marcotte and the rest of the leftist entryist rabble.

[ReneeHendricks]

Damn it. I stop by the 'pit during my break and it's all about politics. Or lots of wings. Birds. Or maybe BBQ with dipping sauce? Feh.

Though the random post about boobs made me smile.

[cunt]

http://bbcwatch.org/ and http://cifwatch.com are just two websites collecting examples of how (mainly) leftist media lie their heads off time and time again.

Of course bbcwatch.org and cifwatch.com are independent, objective sites with no ideological bias. Nah, probably not, but they do tell Git what he really wants to hear. Its BBC and Guardian who are un-not-objective!

[cunt]

Damn it. I stop by the 'pit during my break and it's all about politics. Or lots of wings. Birds. Or maybe BBQ with dipping sauce? Feh.

Fuck you.

[SkepticalCat]

So let me get this straight. If I write an entirely scathing insult towards Ophelia and post it here in the pit, Ophelia will repeat it for me on her own blog?!?!

Yes, and if you do a funny photoshop of her, she'll also repost it (without asking permission) on her blog. I am hoping you'll do a funny photoshop. :D

[ReneeHendricks]

Damn it. I stop by the 'pit during my break and it's all about politics. Or lots of wings. Birds. Or maybe BBQ with dipping sauce? Feh.

Fuck you.

I shall take that up for discussion with my guy. I'm sure he'll be happy to oblige :D

[cunt]

Damn it. I stop by the 'pit during my break and it's all about politics. Or lots of wings. Birds. Or maybe BBQ with dipping sauce? Feh.

Fuck you.

I shall take that up for discussion with my guy. I'm sure he'll be happy to oblige :D

You guys are rich, right?

[ReneeHendricks]

Damn it. I stop by the 'pit during my break and it's all about politics. Or lots of wings. Birds. Or maybe BBQ with dipping sauce? Feh.

Fuck you.

I shall take that up for discussion with my guy. I'm sure he'll be happy to oblige :D

You guys are rich, right?

Not sure where you're going with this but I'll roll with it - no, we are not. Why do you ask?

[dogen]

So Nugent will respond, and no doubt he will “make a stand” and agree with Sub Man that my blog post about “Skep tickle” is like the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935. Either he will disinvite me from the conference, or I will be forced to withdraw, because the slime pit will do whatever it takes to hound me out.

Emphasis mine.

She's already setting up her flounce strategy. Even if Nugent doesn't tell her to bugger off she'll skip the conference and claim that we "forced" her to do so.

If that happens, maybe Justin could step in as a replacement speaker?

[sacha]

Ironically, I think this has to do with Skep being a woman. She's not hated by all of us, who just must be misogynists, so she must be an uncle tom a chill girl because otherwise Ms. Benson's problems just might be about Ms. Benson.

Look at who they have targeted:

Steff McGraw,
Abbie Smith,
Mallorie Nasrallah,
Harriet Hall,
Sarah Mayhew,
Wooly Bumblebee,
Zenbuffy,

as well as several of the regulars here at the slymepit.

And now Skep tickle.
If anything the treatment meeted out to women they oppose is far more vindictive and nasty than that faced by men.

when I say I'm a lifelong gender traitor, I mean it. women and girls have always been malicious and repugnant towards other women

just in the last week, three different women, from three different companies, treated my benign inquires with contempt. Absolutely atrocious behaviour.

I've had this experience so often, with so many women throughout my life, and I go out of my way to be extra polite and friendly to women, I complement them, I smile, I tell them, it's okay, do whatever you need to do, I can wait...
right up until the time they are rude and obnoxious, and they expect me to be intimidated.

When I am extra polite and friendly to men (even on the telephone where they can't see me) I am almost always not only treated with respect, but kindness.

[cunt]

Damn it. I stop by the 'pit during my break and it's all about politics. Or lots of wings. Birds. Or maybe BBQ with dipping sauce? Feh.

Fuck you.

I shall take that up for discussion with my guy. I'm sure he'll be happy to oblige :D

You guys are rich, right?

Not sure where you're going with this but I'll roll with it - no, we are not. Why do you ask?

So you can fly me over, obviously.

[welch]

http://bbcwatch.org/ and http://cifwatch.com are just two websites collecting examples of how (mainly) leftist media lie their heads off time and time again.

The posters above (like their fellow liberals) are the prime reason I refuse to call myself a liberal, despite probably having many policy positions in common with them. Here's a fucking great big hint: I'll never be as fucking sanctimonious and arrogant as they.

Okay, who had less than five posts for Git to crusade for israel again? I picked 8, so I lost.

[Gobshite 5]

Channel 4 is certainly not on par with Fox. There is I think no broadcast equivalent of Fox of the Left. MSNBC is the closest, and still skirts far closer to reality than Fox & Friends.

However.

There is an asymmetry between the right and left in the media channels they use. Conservaties, almost by definition, seem tied to old-skool broadcast media such as TV, Radio and Newspapers. The left - "progressives" - embrace new media like the Huffington Post, Alternet or at the far end of the scale, Natural News and similar logical disasters. They also embrace YouTube and other social broadcast media more than the right, or are certainly more succesful at influencing the mainstream and reaching an audience in this medium. It is here we see the heartland of anti GMO, anti-nuclear and movements, which at the far end drifts into woo. Yes, there are right-wing blogs and YouTubers, but they don't seem to have the resonance that the left wing ones do and seem to be scarcer (perhaps I am mistaken here, for I am only going on my own experience).

This is reflected in the ham-fisted and facepalmy approach by the Right when attempting to use the web for political campaigns, on both sides of the Atlantic. In this domain, the Left are far more sophisticated. The Right's online campaigns reminds me of Saddam Hussein's "Comical Ali".

[ReneeHendricks]

Fuck you.

I shall take that up for discussion with my guy. I'm sure he'll be happy to oblige :D

You guys are rich, right?

Not sure where you're going with this but I'll roll with it - no, we are not. Why do you ask?

So you can fly me over, obviously.

Um, to watch him oblige the "fuck you" request? Hmmm, yeah I'm thinking we just don't have enough in the "rainy day" fund for that :D

[Remick]

Remick has me on ignore? Good fucking riddance. He/she is the spitting image of Peezus, Watson, Marcotte and the rest of the leftist entryist rabble.

I don't actually have you on ignore, I just ignore you, like I usually ignore Steersman's posts(just don't find them that interesting or worth the time, no offense) I am sure we all have posters we ignore sometimes or all the time. Suddenly I am teh Peezus, because I find you a self righteous prick.

You are just as self righteous and arrogant as Cunt is, but at least he can see it and admit it about himself. You have already made your mind up about everything, why would I bother engaging you?

Your latest posts today have all failed to give Cunt the evidence he asked for, is this his fault? No, it is yours. Your position is so well founded an unchangable you can't even find decent evidence to support it. It definitely sounds like I am missing out :roll:

[cunt]

I'd also like to add that besides being self righteous and arrogant. I am right.