[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Katie Couric: Perky and Liberally Biased - (Couric Bias by Topic) -  Media Research Center

Ah, I'm so glad that the Media Research Center has made another appearance. I know I always get my impartial analysis from groups that know what answer they are trying to get before they even start their research.

[smacintush]

Let's see, she's a relatively inexperienced politician who is controversial, she is considered a joke those politically opposed to her views, she is a charismatic speaker and personality that despite what the opposition says MANY MANY people like very much, she came from humble beginnings…nah. How in the world would someone like that EVER be elected President?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How exactly does your tongue "slip" from 50 to 57? Answer: it doesn't.

At best, his brain was skipping, which seems to be the norm for him and his chosen VP. Especially when they don't have the luxury of telepromptors and prepared statements.

I don't even know what to say. Congrats on being worthless.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Ah, I'm so glad that the Media Research Center has made another appearance. I know I always get my impartial analysis from groups that know what answer they are trying to get before they even start their research.

If that standard is good enough for the likes of "climate scientists" I'm guessing it's good enough for media analysis.

IOW...yeah, they know from the get go they are looking for liberal bias that pervades most of the mainstream media. When they find it, you can choose to defend the material in question, or decline. Attacking the messenger doesn't hold much water.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Let's see, she's a relatively inexperienced politician who is controversial, she is considered a joke those politically opposed to her views, she is a charismatic speaker and personality that despite what the opposition says MANY MANY people like very much, she came from humble beginnings…nah. How in the world would someone like that EVER be elected President?

Hitler?

[Doofy]

I've just GISed "Playgirl" to see what the fuss is about.

Is this the mag in which all the blokes with small todgers hang out or what?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If that standard is good enough for the likes of "climate scientists" I'm guessing it's good enough for media analysis.

Not my position. Are you saying that both climate scientists and the Media Research Center are hopelessly biased?

IOW...yeah, they know from the get go they are looking for liberal bias that pervades most of the mainstream media. When they find it, you can choose to defend the material in question, or decline. Attacking the messenger doesn't hold much water.

You fall back on this "attacking the messenger!" crutch often, but you forget that what I am attacking is not some irrelevant aspect of the Media Research Center like the fact that they are "conservative." I am attacking the very relevant issue of their methodology which they say is to try to go beyond "anecdotal evidence" in order to "prove a liberal agenda." However, their primary projects appear overwhelmingly anecdotal: they monitor news media and publish collections of "the most biased quotes [sic] from journalists." Because the amount of material to monitor is always growing, it is impossible to falsify their hypothesis with this method -- the approach necessarily leads to the selection of quotations that most fulfill the viewpoint they started out with.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Someone on the right or left will always be freaking out. We need a thread entitled:
Palin shoots Oprah
Then everyone can be amazed upon reading the thread that Palin really didn't shoot Oprah, like with a moose rifle.

On the other hand, think of the ratings.

[The Final Dakar]

besson, yes, playgirl is porn. However the term porn isn't necessarily restricted to people having sex. That's why we have distinctions like soft and hardcore.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think that Bob Dole, Sara Palin and a host of other conservatives she's rabidly gone after will disagree with your assessment.

Katie Couric: Perky and Liberally Biased - (Couric Bias by Topic) -  Media Research Center

Media Research Center is run by a conservative group.

A conservative bias group exposing bias with its own bias?

NewsBusters.org, the official blog of the Media Research Center


Why Katie Couric is liberally biased.

Believes global warming.
Believes in evolution.
Went to college.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

YouTube - SARAH PALIN SWIMSUIT COMPETITION!! Miss Alaska Pageant 1984 ...

In some countries, that's considered obscene and pornographic.

Then again, Christian conservatives are the biggest consumers of porn in the US.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Then again, Christian conservatives are the biggest consumers of porn in the US.

Links and facts, please.

-t

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Links and facts, please.

-t

Baylor University || Counseling Center - Pornography || Christians
Internet Pornography Statistics 2009 - TopTenREVIEWS

Though I'd be more interested in reading the actual surveys and studies mentioned in the articles.

[hyteckit]

Porn in the USA: Conservatives Are Biggest Consumers - ABC News

Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers - science-in-society - 27 February 2009 - New Scientist

Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers

8 of Top 10 Porn Consuming states voted Republican in 2008 Presidential Election

[The Final Dakar]

The only reason Christians 'buy' more porn is because they make more money than us mommy government tit-sucking liberals. Obviously we steal more.

[turtle777]

Ok, so you equated "Christian Conservatives" with Conservatives.

I'd object that there are some differences, but that would just be a fruitless discussion.

-t

[besson3c]

What is Playgirl like? Turtle?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Ok, so you equated "Christian Conservatives" with Conservatives.

I'd object that there are some differences, but that would just be a fruitless discussion.

-t

Because most Conservatives in the US are Muslims?

Don't you know over 78% of the US are Christians?

[besson3c]

We need some venn diagrams here!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Don't you know over 78% of the US are Christians?

By confession and conviction ? No.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is Playgirl like?

Your momma.

-t

[besson3c]

Reported.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Reported.

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I don't even know what to say. Congrats on being worthless.

Right back atcha, and thanks for the contribution!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Not my position. Are you saying that both climate scientists and the Media Research Center are hopelessly biased?

I'm saying that both are looking for something specific at the outset, and usually find it.

You fall back on this "attacking the messenger!" crutch often, but you forget that what I am attacking is not some irrelevant aspect of the Media Research Center like the fact that they are "conservative." I am attacking the very relevant issue of their methodology which they say is to try to go beyond "anecdotal evidence" in order to "prove a liberal agenda."

Well then, you'd actually rebut with a valid criticism of all the evidence showing Couric engaging in hard hitting news reporting for conservatives, and softballs for her fellow left-wingers.

However, their primary projects appear overwhelmingly anecdotal: they monitor news media and publish collections of "the most biased quotes [sic] from journalists." Because the amount of material to monitor is always growing, it is impossible to falsify their hypothesis with this method -- the approach necessarily leads to the selection of quotations that most fulfill the viewpoint they started out with.

If there are selections of quotations that show a liberal bias, then they show this. Either the quotations in question reveal what they claim, or they don't.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Media Research Center is run by a conservative group.

A conservative bias group exposing bias with its own bias?

NewsBusters.org, the official blog of the Media Research Center


Why Katie Couric is liberally biased.

Believes global warming.
Believes in evolution.
Went to college.

That would be funny if that where the extent of their critique. Given that it's not, you've been good for a couple more laughs!

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Someone on the right or left will always be freaking out. We need a thread entitled:
Palin shoots Oprah
Then everyone can be amazed upon reading the thread that Palin really didn't shoot Oprah, like with a moose rifle.

I would recommend she tries an elephant gun.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Baylor University || Counseling Center - Pornography || Christians

This link managed to repeat that there are no appreciable differences between Christians and non-Christians 4 times In 4 paragraphs.

• but all too often the problem is as significant for Christians as non-Christians.
• but they still struggle with the same pornographic issues.
• Apparently pornography does not show bias toward one's religious affiliation or lack thereof.
• However, Christians still seem to have all the same issues with pornography non-Christians experience.

Internet Pornography Statistics 2009 - TopTenREVIEWS
Though I'd be more interested in reading the actual surveys and studies mentioned in the articles.

I'd recommend it.

[hyteckit]

Wow. I should get into the porn business. No fools. Selling pornography, not star in one.

I wonder how China generates $27.40 Billion a year from pornography, since pornography is illegal in China and Chinese people don't really pay for retail for media such as music, movies, and software. China exports about $6.7 billion annually in sex toys and novelties according to the link:

http://internet-filter-review.topten...und-world.html

[besson3c]

hyteckit: I'm looking for a reliable and fair dealer for my sex tapes (yes, I have more than one)... PM me if you'd like to discuss some business privately.

[besson3c]

Here he is!

[besson3c]

His armpit hair is pretty weird and clumpy.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

hyteckit: I'm looking for a reliable and fair dealer for my sex tapes (yes, I have more than one)... PM me if you'd like to discuss some business privately.

Yeah. You didn't have to ask. I already had you in mind. You rank #1 on google for 'besson3c sex tape'.

[besson3c]

Perhaps I should make a sex tape with Levi and sell that?

He should do something about that armpit hair first though.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

His armpit hair is pretty weird and clumpy.

He's in a shower. All hair clumps when it's wet.

[besson3c]

Where's the water then? I figured it was one of those fake showers designed to add sexiness.

[hyteckit]

My new company will focus on shower porn.

All kinds of shower including golden showers.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Porn in the USA: Conservatives Are Biggest Consumers - ABC News

Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers - science-in-society - 27 February 2009 - New Scientist

Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers

8 of Top 10 Porn Consuming states voted Republican in 2008 Presidential Election

Both links above are the exact same article.

Let's see if I got this straight;

• For example, at mean values of other variables considered, a $1,000 increase in average household income in a zip code is associated with a 0.36 percent increase in subscriptions.
• subscriptions are particularly widespread where young people are prevalent.
• A 1 percent increase in residents aged 15–24 (as a proportion of zip code population) yields a 0.19 percent increase in subscriptions at this adult entertainment service. Conversely, the elderly are less likely to subscribe: a 1 percent increase in residents of age 65 or older (as a proportion of zip code population) yields a 0.13 percent reduction in subscriptions.
• When a zip code hosts a higher proportion of people with college degrees, that zip code has slightly more subscribers to these adult entertainment sites: a 1 percent increase in college graduates is associated with a 0.12 percent increase in subscribers.
• adult entertainment subscriptions are most prevalent in urban areas. Controlling for broadband, we see that subscriptions are 38 percent more prevalent in urban areas
• The fourth column reports that in regions where more people report regularly attending religious services (per National Election Studies 2004), overall subscription rates are not statistically significantly different from subscriptions elsewhere (p 􏰃 0.848).
• I obtain DDB Life Style Survey data from 1991 to 1998 on consumers in 340 metropolitan areas, and I form a social capital index based on prevalence of people donating blood, engaging in volunteer activities, or participating in community projects. In a region where 1 percent more people participate in these activities, subscriptions to the adult entertainment service are 0.09 percent more widespread.

Edelman wraps up with this conclusion;
On the whole, these adult entertainment subscription patterns show a remarkable consistency: all but eleven states have between two and three subscribers to this service per thousand broadband households, and all but four have between 1.5 and 3.5. With interest in online adult entertainment relatively constant across regions, there’s little sign of a major divide.

You'd think the purveyors of the title Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers would show a little more shame when hacking the results of a study that cites no statistical difference. Besides, I've been told repeatedly here that religious people are old and generally uneducated when it is the young and college educated in urban areas consuming the most porn. Doesn't that make the biggest consumers of porn shhhhh... liberal?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm saying that both are looking for something specific at the outset, and usually find it.

Okay, well your remark suggested that you believe that climate scientists are biased. So I have to assume from this statement that you acknowledge the Media Research Center's bias.

Well then, you'd actually rebut with a valid criticism of all the evidence showing Couric engaging in hard hitting news reporting for conservatives, and softballs for her fellow left-wingers.

If there are selections of quotations that show a liberal bias, then they show this. Either the quotations in question reveal what they claim, or they don't.

No, I'm not going to engage you in a game of who can find the most quotations, because that's exactly my point. It's easy to collect anecdotal evidence to fit a preconceived view. That's what the Media Research Center is doing, in contradiction to their supposed mission to be "scientific.". It doesn't prove a "liberal agenda" any more than me cherry-picking Chris Wallace quotations would prove a "conservative agenda."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Okay, well your remark suggested that you believe that climate scientists are biased.

I would assume many are, but I'm not going to brand them all that way. It's a pretty common occurrence for scientists to try and "discover" things that they know would keep their payroll going, designing their research in a way that they discover exactly what they want.

There would be a lot fewer "climate scientists" if there wasn't an "emergency" to deal with for instance. More and more, scientists whose livelihood is NOT tied to there being a oncoming climate disaster are looking at the data and trying to talk sense into the rest who have a conflict of interest in the matter to the point where we no longer talk about "global warming" but rather "climate change."

Climate scientists are going to search for evidence of catastrophic climate change. Organizations charged with investigating liberal bias are going to look for liberal bias. Both are biased in that they are looking for evidence of specific areas of investigation and not really looking for something they have no interest in.

No, I'm not going to engage you in a game of who can find the most quotations, because that's exactly my point. It's easy to collect anecdotal evidence to fit a preconceived view.

It's not really anecdotal if you can take someone's words right out of their mouth and show that they've engaged in unprofessional bias. Either the quotations in quest show bias or they don't. Either she took sides and promoted one side over the other or she didn't. Either she handled politicians of one political persuasion better than the other or she didn't. You are welcome to argue that all of that evidence I provided doesn't show that Ms. Couric has engaged in biased, "gotcha" journalism, but you can't just dismiss the source and expect that to stand as a rebuttal to an argument.

That's what the Media Research Center is doing, in contradiction to their supposed mission to be "scientific.". It doesn't prove a "liberal agenda" any more than me cherry-picking Chris Wallace quotations would prove a "conservative agenda."

The thing is, a search for bias requires you to just discover where there is bias shown. It doesn't require you to examine each and every word uttered since you don't have to engage in bias every time you report in order to be guilty of it.

Now, if someone did as you said and JUST "cherry picked" comments that proved their point when there was evidence that the person in question didn't just take one side, but rather engaged interviewees from both sides, then you'd have a point. Are you really suggesting that there are a bunch of quotations from Katie Couric that have been ignored where she took the conservative side of an issue, or attacked a liberal idea in the way she has conservative ones?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I would assume many are, but I'm not going to brand them all that way. It's a pretty common occurrence for scientists to try and "discover" things that they know would keep their payroll going, designing their research in a way that they discover exactly what they want.

There would be a lot fewer "climate scientists" if there wasn't an "emergency" to deal with for instance. More and more, scientists whose livelihood is NOT tied to there being a oncoming climate disaster are looking at the data and trying to talk sense into the rest who have a conflict of interest in the matter to the point where we no longer talk about "global warming" but rather "climate change."

Climate scientists are going to search for evidence of catastrophic climate change. Organizations charged with investigating liberal bias are going to look for liberal bias. Both are biased in that they are looking for evidence of specific areas of investigation and not really looking for something they have no interest in.

I see. So you think that this bias as it applies to climate science means that we're often not being given the full picture, but for some reason you're not making the logical leap to say that this bias as it applies to media analysis means that organizations like the Media Research Center might also not be giving us the full picture.

Stay classy, stupendousman.

It's not really anecdotal if you can take someone's words right out of their mouth and show that they've engaged in unprofessional bias. Either the quotations in quest show bias or they don't. Either she took sides and promoted one side over the other or she didn't. Either she handled politicians of one political persuasion better than the other or she didn't. You are welcome to argue that all of that evidence I provided doesn't show that Ms. Couric has engaged in biased, "gotcha" journalism, but you can't just dismiss the source and expect that to stand as a rebuttal to an argument.

The thing is, a search for bias requires you to just discover where there is bias shown. It doesn't require you to examine each and every word uttered since you don't have to engage in bias every time you report in order to be guilty of it.

Now, if someone did as you said and JUST "cherry picked" comments that proved their point when there was evidence that the person in question didn't just take one side, but rather engaged interviewees from both sides, then you'd have a point. Are you really suggesting that there are a bunch of quotations from Katie Couric that have been ignored where she took the conservative side of an issue, or attacked a liberal idea in the way she has conservative ones?

I think you may be unfamiliar with the term "anecdotal." Anecdotal evidence is factual, but not necessarily typical. If your argument is that Couric is consistently biased, then simply a list of 10 or 50 or 100 quotations may bolster your argument, but it is not "proof," in the "scientific" way that the Media Research Center wants to claim, of a "liberal agenda." There might be "a bunch of quotations from Katie Couric that have been ignored where she took the conservative side of an issue, or attacked a liberal idea in the way she has conservative ones," but it appears that the Media Research Center is not interested in looking for them. Thus it seems foolish to rely on the MRC for an honest evaluation of Couric's supposed biases.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You'd think the purveyors of the title Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers would show a little more shame when hacking the results of a study that cites no statistical difference. Besides, I've been told repeatedly here that religious people are old and generally uneducated when it is the young and college educated in urban areas consuming the most porn. Doesn't that make the biggest consumers of porn shhhhh... liberal?

In other words, Christian Conservatives are the biggest consumers of porn, knowing that over 78% of the US population are Christians and conservatives double the size of liberals.

[Chuckit]

It's like the statistic that most crashes happen close to home. It doesn't mean your home emits a magic danger field — people just drive there way more often.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's like the statistic that most crashes happen close to home. It doesn't mean your home emits a magic danger field — people just drive there way more often.

So you're saying that I moved for nothing?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

So you're saying that I moved for nothing?

I wouldn't say that. Your former neighbors still got a benefit...

-t

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I wouldn't say that. Your former neighbors still got a benefit...

-t

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I see. So you think that this bias as it applies to climate science means that we're often not being given the full picture, but for some reason you're not making the logical leap to say that this bias as it applies to media analysis means that organizations like the Media Research Center might also not be giving us the full picture.

No. Neither may be giving us the full picture. I'm not the one though whose argument is based on whether or not a clear picture is being given.

You are simply claiming that the latter isn't giving us a clear picture without actually refuting what they say or providing evidence that they have left out something. You are just giving a "poisoning the well" logical fallacy (among others) to infer that because the organization is conservative, that their evidence does not show bias.

I think you may be unfamiliar with the term "anecdotal." Anecdotal evidence is factual, but not necessarily typical. If your argument is that Couric is consistently biased, then simply a list of 10 or 50 or 100 quotations may bolster your argument, but it is not "proof," in the "scientific" way that the Media Research Center wants to claim, of a "liberal agenda."

My point was that you don't have to show X percent of bias X amount of the time in order to show that someone is biased in how they have reported the news. There is no requirement for them to come out and shamelessly show their bias each and every time they are on the air for their bias they do have to be uncovered.

There might be "a bunch of quotations from Katie Couric that have been ignored where she took the conservative side of an issue, or attacked a liberal idea in the way she has conservative ones," but it appears that the Media Research Center is not interested in looking for them. Thus it seems foolish to rely on the MRC for an honest evaluation of Couric's supposed biases.

The fact is that that MRC will often highlight and share when a news anchor or reporter does this.