Fair and Balanced

[thefinalsql]

Which story is better reporting?

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/02/news/economy/jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1



It's too early to bust out the champagne though. The unemployment rate fell for two reasons: yes, more Americans got jobs, but at the same time, even more people gave up on their job searches altogether.


Vs

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/02/unemployment-rate-falls-to-86-percent-lowest-since-march-200/


The Labor Department said Friday that employers added 120,000 jobs last month. With that, the unemployment rate dropped to the lowest level in more than two and a half years. But a key reason for the sharp drop was that about 315,000 people had stopped looking for work -- for the Labor Department's purposes, they were not counted as unemployed.

In either case I think to be qualified as unemployed you have to file for unemployment is a stupid criteria and does not paint an accurate picture of our dire straits.

[matclone]

I wouldn't say either reporting is obviously better than the other? What's your view?

There are plenty of measures for what you call dire straits, including Labor Dept measures (I'm sure you could find them at their web site). The specific measure your cite, which does not include people who have given up looking, or who aren't interested, is a standard one, and has been used for a long, long time. Not sure why you're complaining about it.

[Corrie]

Unemployment numbers have always been skewed hugely this way. It has even more of an affect on the numbers when in a recession and large numbers of people simply give up on actively looking for work because it's been so long.

Saying that jobs were ADDED becuase more people got entirely out of the employment pool than became unemployed is a pretty fucked up way of looking at things, but I've seen worse from Fox.

[Oldster]

I quit watching CNN 15 years ago when they reported how much more dangerous an 'assault rifle' was than a standard bolt action in the same caliber.

I kid you not, it was an anti-gun police chief that conspired in the lie. 2 cinder blocks were placed out on the range. The caliber was the Russian 7.62x39.

With the assault rifle in SEMI automatic mode (you have to pull the trigger for each round) he shot the block which of course broke, then broke each smaller piece with following shots.

With the bolt action rifle, same caliber, he proceeded to shoot and miss the block each and EVERY time showing how much safer the bolt action was than the semi auto rifle. CNN and the anti-gun police chief conspired in this obviously public disinformation of those absolutely retarded enough to not understand what just happened. Dumbfounded I waited to hear the punchline of the joke which did not come. It was reported as factual and was replayed over and over during the day.

I have not watched CNN since and question the intelligence of anyone who does.

[thefinalsql]

I wouldn't say either reporting is obviously better than the other? What's your view?

There are plenty of measures for what you call dire straits, including Labor Dept measures (I'm sure you could find them at their web site). The specific measure your cite, which does not include people who have given up looking, or who aren't interested, is a standard one, and has been used for a long, long time. Not sure why you're complaining about it.

Well for one, Fox News reported how many people quit looking. CNN did not.

[Caje]

Unemployment numbers have always been skewed hugely this way. It has even more of an affect on the numbers when in a recession and large numbers of people simply give up on actively looking for work because it's been so long.

Saying that jobs were ADDED because more people got entirely out of the employment pool than became unemployed is a pretty fucked up way of looking at things, but I've seen worse from Fox.

Just looking at the quoted part the Fox article isn't saying jobs were added because unemployment went down. It is saying 120,000 jobs were added BUT the reason unemployment mostly fell was because 315,000 people stopped looking for jobs.

[Rusty9]

I cant say either of them is very good. However, I did read the commentary on the one from cnn and it was kind of funny that people were complaining about how they and their friends couldnt find work for the last two years and that the only thing they were being offered was jobs in the 20-30k range. Sorry to tell those people but if you haven't been working for two years its because you didnt properly valuate your services and are now a non-skilled worker, tuff titty. They need to suck it up get back in the workforce as menial workers and continue their search for better employment and quit being a drain on the economy and bitching about how its everyone elses fault. Besides employers dont want to hire some bum who has been out of work for two years and is still asking the going rate for the industry as they were probably laid off for a reason, there services weren't worth the dollar they were getting paid. Everyone I know who wants to be working is. Some of these people aren't making the dollars they would be like to be making but they tighten up their spending and make do while pursuing better positions.

[Robert Beckett]

Well for one, Fox News reported how many people quit looking. CNN did not.

Including a raw number without context doesn't necessarily equal good reporting.

By my crude calculations, around 300,000 Americans turned 65 in November of 2011. Are they counted in the 487,000 who left the labor force, or not? It makes a big difference, but the Fox News story doesn't say. It just says that this 487,000 was "a key reason" for unemployment rate drop, without comparing November's 487K to other months, or explaining how many of the 487K are retirees. It might be that 487K is actually an improvement compared to recent months, but without context, we don't know. Maybe it wasn't a big change, and that's why CNN didn't report it.

So maybe Fox News included this noncontextualized detail out of journalistic integrity. Or then again, maybe the reporter saw the factoid "487,000 people left the labor force" and thought that including a big 6-digit figure and arbitrarily describing it as a "key reason" for the drop would be damning for Obama.

[matclone]

Including a raw number without context doesn't necessarily equal good reporting.

By my crude calculations, around 300,000 Americans turned 65 in November of 2011. Are they counted in the 487,000 who left the labor force, or not? It makes a big difference, but the Fox News story doesn't say. It just says that this 487,000 was "a key reason" for unemployment rate drop, without comparing November's 487K to other months, or explaining how many of the 487K are retirees. It might be that 487K is actually an improvement compared to recent months, but without context, we don't know. Maybe it wasn't a big change, and that's why CNN didn't report it.

So maybe Fox News included this noncontextualized detail out of journalistic integrity. Or then again, maybe the reporter saw the factoid "487,000 people left the labor force" and thought that including a big 6-digit figure and arbitrarily describing it as a "key reason" for the drop would be damning for Obama.

Excellent analysis, Robert. I've long thought Fox News (and to some extent other cable channels including CNN) follow the KISS principle in reporting news. Keep it simple and stupid. I remember, years ago, in the face some unpleasant labor statistic, watching Neil Cavuto ask Vice President Cheney if the lost jobs were "burger flippers".

[Oran]

Isn't deciding which is the better reporting in your examples similar to deciding who's the tallest midget?

[Lee]

I was actually pleasantly surprised by both. Much better than Drudge's "315,000 Americans leave work force..." , right below: "HO HO HO: UNEMPLOY RATE 8.6%..." (which I'm unsure if Drudge is saying 8.6% is bad or good tbh). Really surprised Fox News isn't hammering home the 15% or so underemployment figure.

[Robert Beckett]

Isn't deciding which is the better reporting in your examples similar to deciding who's the tallest midget?

It's still a useful exercise. The catastrophic success of the Roger Ailes propaganda-as-journalism model requires that we be vigilant about this kind of thing.

BTW Oran, where do you get your news? (asking seriously, not a challenge)

[stonerider]

In either case I think to be qualified as unemployed you have to file for unemployment is a stupid criteria and does not paint an accurate picture of our dire straits.

how else would you suggest doing it?

[sappbe]

I, for one, feel it is the job of a journalist to present the data and inform the public just what that data means. If the data is inconclusive, they should state such. Providing possible meanings not presented as possibility, not fact, is acceptable. Presenting a portion of the data, with spin, to push an agenda (any agenda) is fucking bullshit. The unfair and biased reporting schtick has defeated my will to give a shit, however.

[DoctorWho]

Here is a question for both Fox and MSNBC haters and watchers. Omitting the opinion shows (Maddow, O'Reilly, etc.), is the stuff that is supposed to be straight news skewed?

[Mark E. Hurling]

It's still a useful exercise. The catastrophic success of the Roger Ailes propaganda-as-journalism model requires that we be vigilant about this kind of thing.

Oh absolutely. Because those folks at ABC/CBS/CNN/NBC/NPR have the real unvarnished truth with no slant at all. Better we should all get broadsheets posted at the town square than (horrors!) be exposed to some other view than the Obamabot talking heads. It's that damn pesky freedom of speech and proliferation of news sources that are the problem after all.

[Scrofula]

Well for one, Fox News reported how many people quit looking. CNN did not.

Interestingly, the current version of Fox's article has changed the number:

But a key reason for the sharp drop was that hundreds of thousands of people had stopped looking for work. The report showed 487,000 people left the labor force in November -- for the Labor Department's purposes, they were not counted as unemployed.
I do like to see the raw numbers, but not if they're wrong.

That said, I'm not a fan of either Fox or CNN.

[Oran]

It's still a useful exercise. The catastrophic success of the Roger Ailes propaganda-as-journalism model requires that we be vigilant about this kind of thing.

BTW Oran, where do you get your news? (asking seriously, not a challenge)

At the risk of sounding pretentious, usually FT and The Economist. I actually think NPR does a pretty good job of news reporting, too (The opinion shows can be a wreck, though).

[matclone]

Here is a question for both Fox and MSNBC haters and watchers. Omitting the opinion shows (Maddow, O'Reilly, etc.), is the stuff that is supposed to be straight news skewed?

I'm not understanding your question.

[Oran]

"Here is a question for both Fox and MSNBC haters and watchers. Omitting the opinion shows (Maddow, O'Reilly, etc.), is the stuff that is supposed to be straight news skewed?"

I don't think completely objective news reporting exists. But that doesn't mean that there isn't good and bad reporting out there.

[DoctorWho]

"Here is a question for both Fox and MSNBC haters and watchers. Omitting the opinion shows (Maddow, O'Reilly, etc.), is the stuff that is supposed to be straight news skewed?"

I don't think completely objective news reporting exists. But that doesn't mean that there isn't good and bad reporting out there.

Agreed. The WSJ blog opinionjournal often cites news wire news reports that have editorial comments tucked in. I don't watch tv news, but I know that the right hates msnbc and the left hates fox, but I always wondered whether the actual news was unduly biased or policitical bias was all in the opinion shows, where you expect to have one side advocated.

[Lee]

NPR provides the single best news reporting imo. There is indeed a left slant, but they almost always at least present the opposing critics argument and provide meaningful, accurate evidence of why they feel that way. And then they will actually correct themselves if they misstate something important.

If Fox News was a conservative leaning version of NPR, there wouldn't be issues with it. Sadly, it is not. And that goes for both the public at large and conservatives. The transition from William F. Buckley to the Fox News-brand conservative is actually very disconcerting. They have widened the brand, but have also damaged the credibility of it.

[Corrie]

Here is a question for both Fox and MSNBC haters and watchers. Omitting the opinion shows (Maddow, O'Reilly, etc.), is the stuff that is supposed to be straight news skewed?

EVERYTHING in the mainstream media is skewed.

If you want at least a little taste of something real go to the internet or watch al jazeera, and even then you have to be extremely skeptical.

[Steve Hill]

Unemployment numbers have always been skewed hugely this way. It has even more of an affect on the numbers when in a recession and large numbers of people simply give up on actively looking for work because it's been so long.

Saying that jobs were ADDED becuase more people got entirely out of the employment pool than became unemployed is a pretty fucked up way of looking at things, but I've seen worse from Fox.

I think you need to re-read the Fox article. It says 120k jobs were added. They were. Also, 315k people stopped looking for work. The two cause the unemployment rate to drop.

[Corrie]

I think you need to re-read the Fox article. It says 120k jobs were added. They were. Also, 315k people stopped looking for work. The two cause the unemployment rate to drop.

Well yeah, that's what I'm contending. I think it's disingenuous the way they calculate the unemployment rate. When more people leave the work pool than join the work force it shouldn't be a drop in unemployment.

[Robert Beckett]

Oh absolutely. Because those folks at ABC/CBS/CNN/NBC/NPR have the real unvarnished truth with no slant at all. Better we should all get broadsheets posted at the town square than (horrors!) be exposed to some other view than the Obamabot talking heads. It's that damn pesky freedom of speech and proliferation of news sources that are the problem after all.

Freedom of speech and proliferation of news sources is a good thing. But that doesn't mean that all news sources are created equal. Would you say that there is an equivalent level of partisan bias and intentional misinformation between Fox News and, say, NPR? (I admit that I don't generally watch or give mouse-clicks to Fox, but my conservative friends send the occasional "gotcha" link my way every now and again).

Also, what would you consider a good right-leaning source of news (relatively free of bias, informative, etc)? Again, not a challenge, asking for my information


At the risk of sounding pretentious, usually FT and The Economist. I actually think NPR does a pretty good job of news reporting, too (The opinion shows can be a wreck, though).

Sorry, what is FT?

For the record, I get news from the Economist, the NY Times, NPR and the WSJ. Also I like Fareed Zakaria (Global Public Square")

[Oran]

Financial Times. Fareed is awesome. WSJ used to be wonderful, but the News Corp. influence has been seeping in. And I don't mean conservative bias, since it's always had that, I mean it's being dumbed down.

[Mark E. Hurling]

The transition from William F. Buckley to the Fox News-brand conservative is actually very disconcerting. They have widened the brand, but have also damaged the credibility of it.

Boy is that amusing to read. Buckley was reviled at every turn his whole career by the rest of the left leaning media. He and Jack Kemp are only mentioned these days by those with non-conservative views to use as a club over the head of conservatives about how much better they used to be. Except the leftists hated them back then too. So spare me the "good old days" of how conservatives used to be better trope.


Freedom of speech and proliferation of news sources is a good thing. But that doesn't mean that all news sources are created equal. Would you say that there is an equivalent level of partisan bias and intentional misinformation between Fox News and, say, NPR? (I admit that I don't generally watch or give mouse-clicks to Fox, but my conservative friends send the occasional "gotcha" link my way every now and again).

Despite what others here have said, I find NPR not at all "neutral" which is to say not in the slightest, through news selection of what they decide to report and how they report it. Granted they do display a fig leaf with some counter observations but barely a lick and a promise. Fox does better than that with respect to contrarian views in my opinion. On the whole while I concede that Fox slants less left, it appears far right mainly by comparison to the tinted hues the rest present from.

[DoctorWho]

I hope this gets testy. Just please try to differentiate between the straight news and the shows that are supposed to be biased (Maddow, O'Reilly, etc.), like the distinction between the NYT news stories (which are supposed to play it straight) and the editorial page (which are supposed to be opinion).

[Mark E. Hurling]

I hope this gets testy.

It could, but so far everyone who I disagree with has not been over the top or disagreeable about their opinions. So absent any talking point incivility this may disappoint you.

[Oran]

Despite what others here have said, I find NPR not at all "neutral" which is to say not in the slightest, through news selection of what they decide to report and how they report it. Granted they do display a fig leaf with some counter observations but barely a lick and a promise. Fox does better than that with respect to contrarian views in my opinion. On the whole while I concede that Fox slants less left, it appears far right mainly by comparison to the tinted hues the rest present from.
I agree that NPR has a liberal bias, I just think that their journalism is of a much higher quality than Fox News. NPR is smart and uses strong logic and support, Fox News seems to play to a much lower common denominator. That has nothing to do with right or left, just with the quality of their reporting. I think it has a lot more to do with their structure (not having to rely as much on advertisers) than it does their politics.

[matclone]

Boy is that amusing to read. Buckley was reviled at every turn his whole career by the rest of the left leaning media.

Is that why Firing Line (WFB's long-standing show) was on public TV?


He and Jack Kemp are only mentioned these days by those with non-conservative views to use as a club over the head of conservatives about how much better they used to be. Except the leftists hated them back then too. So spare me the "good old days" of how conservatives used to be better trope.

Naw, Lee (and Oran describing changes in the WSJ) hit it on the head: the brand has widened, and the discourse has cheapened. Speaking of branding, your labeling of everything as left-this, right-that, didn't used to be the norm at all (the terms were used, but not so proliferatively or vociferately). It's a legacy of talk radio and cable TV (but a handful of media corporations), that have been around for no more than 25 years old--that have been marketing the brand hard (us conservative, them liberal) all that time.



Despite what others here have said, I find NPR not at all "neutral" which is to say not in the slightest, through news selection of what they decide to report and how they report it. Granted they do display a fig leaf with some counter observations but barely a lick and a promise. Fox does better than that with respect to contrarian views in my opinion. On the whole while I concede that Fox slants less left, it appears far right mainly by comparison to the tinted hues the rest present from.

I was listening to NPR a week or so ago, and heard them doing some shorts on what they called "great thinkers" or big thinkers, or something. Their exclusive list of subjects? Hayek, Ayn Rand, and Keynes.

[Mark E. Hurling]

Is that why Firing Line (WFB's long-standing show) was on public TV?

Once upon a time, PBS was not the entity with the slant it has now. I used to watch that show on WTTW when I was a teenager. Things changed at PBS when they hired the likes of Bill Moyer who has never missed an opportunity to bemoan conservative anything. Even now. Buckley was long gone from their airwaves by then. The only token conservative voice I saw thereafter was Hugh Hewitt on a local LA PBS outlet, and he was surrounded in typical mainstream media fashion by five other liberals. Context and time frame tell a different story when you look at the details.


Naw, Lee (and Oran describing changes in the WSJ) hit it on the head: the brand has widened, and the discourse has cheapened. Speaking of branding, your labeling of everything as left-this, right-that, didn't used to be the norm at all (the terms were used, but not so proliferatively or vociferately). It's a legacy of talk radio and cable TV (but a handful of media corporations), that have been around for no more than 25 years old--that have been marketing the brand hard (us conservative, them liberal) all that time.

What you call cheapening of the discourse started earlier than you think. Since you want to pursue the Buckley theme, have you ever seen the vitriolic exchange the Gore Vidal started with Buckely in the 1968 Democrat Convention in Chicago? I saw it live on TV when I was 17. I also saw a young Dan Rather sharpening his budding fangs on the convention floor about Daley and getting roughed up and unceremoniously ejected by some of Boss Daley's Aldermen. Methinks you use the term cheapen because you don't like what conservatives say. In the case of the likes of Ann Coulter, I quite agree. But there are not that many like her, and the one of her is too many. The only thing that is different about the "cheapening of discourse" is that it has transcended the newspapers that engaged in such things since Jefferson and Adams and is now broadcast over the airwaves. It seems jarring because there is no monolith of broadcast opinion any more. It might be instructive some time to listen to Limbaugh when he composites David Gregory, Brian Williams, et. al. all using the same groupthink phrase like gravitas or towel snap to describe someone conservative. Like Cheney or Bush.


I was listening to NPR a week or so ago, and heard them doing some shorts on what they called "great thinkers" or big thinkers, or something. Their exclusive list of subjects? Hayek, Ayn Rand, and Keynes.

Hm, two conservatives and a tax and spend liberal. Impressive. Normally the ratio is reversed.

[bowdirk]

I agree that NPR has a liberal bias, I just think that their journalism is of a much higher quality than Fox News. NPR is smart and uses strong logic and support, Fox News seems to play to a much lower common denominator. That has nothing to do with right or left, just with the quality of their reporting. I think it has a lot more to do with their structure (not having to rely as much on advertisers) than it does their politics.

Yeah, repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the accepted 'truth'. I have been hearing about how liberal NPR is all my life and it is simply not true.

Fox is just entertainment, much like pro wrestling. The unfortunate part is that many of the people who watch Fox and pro wrestling think they are watching something real.

Anyone who is the least bit skeptical and informed can't help but call BS on them both. FOX viewers are usually to cowardly to question what the FOX readers tell them, and buy the lies hook, line, and sinker, not because there is any truth to what they say, but because it fits into the warped world view and victim mentality of the FOX watcher.

[Mark E. Hurling]

Yeah, repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the accepted 'truth'. I have been hearing about how liberal NPR is all my life and it is simply not true.

Fox is just entertainment, much like pro wrestling. The unfortunate part is that many of the people who watch Fox and pro wrestling think they are watching something real.

Anyone who is the least bit skeptical and informed can't help but call BS on them both. FOX viewers are usually to cowardly to question what the FOX readers tell them, and buy the lies hook, line, and sinker, not because there is any truth to what they say, but because it fits into the warped world view and victim mentality of the FOX watcher.

Yet you only call BS on cowardly Fox viewers. After have compared (just) Fox news to pro wrestling and use the word lie in association with (just) Fox news. For someone who constantly proclaims themselves middle of the road and moderate, you only use loaded language like that when you speak of conservative points of view. I guess that's the privilege of being so skeptical and informed. Just only in one direction. You really need to get this cognitive dissonance resolved. Statement against interest analysis 101.

[matclone]

(earlier)
Boy is that amusing to read. Buckley was reviled at every turn his whole career by the rest of the left leaning media.


(later)Once upon a time [presumably referring to Buckley's era], PBS was not the entity with the slant it has now.

You should try to be more consistent.


I used to watch that show on WTTW when I was a teenager. Things changed at PBS when they hired the likes of Bill Moyer who has never missed an opportunity to bemoan conservative anything.

You mean the Bill Moyers who has had the likes of Pete Peterson and Grover Norquist as guests on his program?



Even now. Buckley was long gone from their airwaves by then.

I believe he retired at some point.


The only token conservative voice I saw thereafter was Hugh Hewitt on a local LA PBS outlet, and he was surrounded in typical mainstream media fashion by five other liberals. Context and time frame tell a different story when you look at the details.

Poor guy, the media is against you.



What you call cheapening of the discourse started earlier than you think. Since you want to pursue the Buckley theme, have you ever seen the vitriolic exchange the Gore Vidal started with Buckely in the 1968 Democrat Convention in Chicago?

No, I didn't. Does Gore Vidal have a show? Rush Limbaugh has been on the air since about 1987.


Methinks you use the term cheapen because you don't like what conservatives say.

Only if conservative = deception.
...


Hm, two conservatives and a tax and spend liberal. Impressive. Normally the ratio is reversed.

Ayn Rand was not a conservative, and she would tell you so in no uncertain terms. She famously fought with Buckley. You should shake your left vs. right paradigm. It cheapens the discourse nearly every time.

[Patrick]

I have not watched CNN since and question the intelligence of anyone who does.

I watch CNN. Wanna compare IQs or were you just being hyperbolic?

[stonerider]

iq =/= intelligence

but if you were smart, you'd know that

[DoctorWho]

I don't see the decline in the WSJ. Daniel Henninger, Walter Mossberg, the legal reporting, the light marketplace section, are second to none. The opinion columns seem to me to be pro-free market, but not in the tank for republicans. They were pretty hard on Bush in the end, for example. I also don't see the rabid red meat anywhere, like Krugman, for example. Nor do I see editorial comments inserted into news stories, as the WSJ's opinionjournal blog often points out.

Before Mark Hurling makes the analogy, there is great democratic respect for Reagan and Goldwater, but it is all revisionist.

[Steve Hill]

It could, but so far everyone who I disagree with has not been over the top or disagreeable about their opinions. So absent any talking point incivility this may disappoint you.

Hurling: they're being polite, but they all think you're a fucking moron.


/game on

:8

[Mark E. Hurling]

You should try to be more consistent.

No inconsistency at all, as PBS leaned left they squeezed WFB out and off the air. It became inconvenient having him dissect their darlings so his program got disappeared.


You mean the Bill Moyers who has had the likes of Pete Peterson and Grover Norquist as guests on his program?

So because he had them on that changes his inherent far left bias? Have you heard the hate, shit, and discontent he talks about anyone in media who is to the right of him?


I believe he retired at some point.

So he retired. What does that have to do with the legacy he left behind and the atmosphere that hired him in the first place?


Poor guy, the media is against you.

Not just me, anyone who does think like they do. If they can dominate the airwaves, dissenting conservative opinion gets crowded out.


No, I didn't. Does Gore Vidal have a show? Rush Limbaugh has been on the air since about 1987.

The point was implied that Buckley was one of the "good" and "revered" conservatives by all. Not at all. The left talked shit about him the whole time. Vidal is part of the farthest left there is. He was stuck with a writing career after his rant made him radioactive in broadcast media. His printed word was much like that of Lillian Hellman of whom it said "Everything she writes is a lie, including 'and' as well as 'the.'" So your point is that only broadcast leftism counts in this?


Only if conservative = deception.

So how does deception enter into it? You don't seem at all cognizant that the mainstream media might be deceptive. Maybe because you agree with them.


Ayn Rand was not a conservative, and she would tell you so in no uncertain terms. She famously fought with Buckley. You should shake your left vs. right paradigm. It cheapens the discourse nearly every time.

OK then, a left wing economist, a third rate writer with some poorly explicated conservative ideas that have actually do have some merit, and a conservative economist. How's that?

[Mark E. Hurling]

Before Mark Hurling makes the analogy, there is great democratic respect for Reagan and Goldwater, but it is all revisionist.

Sho' 'nuff true. Just like with Buckley and Kemp. I guess the only good conservative is a dead conservative.


Hurling: they're being polite, but they all think you're a fucking moron.

Oh, I know. All conservatives are morons. Otherwise they'd be intelligent liberals. A corollary to this is, conservatives think liberals are wrong. Liberals think conservatives are the embodiment of EVIL. As for the polite part, I think it's beginning to wear a little thin with matclone. Like most of those with his beliefs, the veil of civility becomes progressively more transparent when the other party doesn't throw in the towel and surrender.

[matclone]

Thanks for reminding me how irrational partisans can be. If someone made the simple assertion that "water is wet" you'd probably claim they were trying to drown you (the martyr angle), and that water and buckets (not heretofore part of the conversation) were liberal constructions, wrong for existing, and designed only for flooding the earth.

[Oldster]

I watch CNN. Wanna compare IQs or were you just being hyperbolic?
Do you actually believe them?

[Mark E. Hurling]

Thanks for reminding me how irrational partisans can be. If someone made the simple assertion that "water is wet" you'd probably claim they were trying to drown you (the martyr angle), and that water and buckets (not heretofore part of the conversation) were liberal constructions, wrong for existing, and designed only for flooding the earth.

Always good talking to someone who considers them self the smartest person in the room. See Steve, once you keep at them, the civility goes by the board. The name calling begins. First implied stupidity, then irrationality. With a little practice at condescension I too can breathe the same rarified air as you and bowdirk. Thanks for giving me that goal to shoot for.

[DoctorWho]

Would the people who believe in no liberal media bias care to explain the difference in treatment between the personal lives of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich and, on the other hand, John Edwards and Jesse Jackson? Journolist does not bother you at all? Negative stories, many made up out of whole cloth and then repeated, about the tea party's racism compared with long-time silence on OWS members frequent outbursts of anti-semitism? The overwhelming percentages of democrats and liberals in the MSM doesn't skew what the newspaper people think are reasonable arguments?

I think the MSM media bias tends to be overblown, but is there really a doubt it exists?

Mickey Kaus (a democrat) has the theory that because reporters are overwhelmingly liberal, they believe that they are being impartial when they slant stories against the right. And even though they think of themselves as above it, they love America and will eventually turn on a badly behaving candidate if they believe it is in the best interest of the country. Hence ignoring the John Edwards situation as no harm, no foul until it looked like he might get the democratic presidential nomination.

[Patman]

Would the people who believe in no liberal media bias care to explain the difference in treatment between the personal lives of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich and, on the other hand, John Edwards and Jesse Jackson? Journolist does not bother you at all? Negative stories, many made up out of whole cloth and then repeated, about the tea party's racism compared with long-time silence on OWS members frequent outbursts of anti-semitism? The overwhelming percentages of democrats and liberals in the MSM doesn't skew what the newspaper people think are reasonable arguments?

I think the MSM media bias tends to be overblown, but is there really a doubt it exists?

Mickey Kaus (a democrat) has the theory that because reporters are overwhelmingly liberal, they believe that they are being impartial when they slant stories against the right. And even though they think of themselves as above it, they love America and will eventually turn on a badly behaving candidate if they believe it is in the best interest of the country. Hence ignoring the John Edwards situation as no harm, no foul until it looked like he might get the democratic presidential nomination.

they often view their slant as truth because they are smart, others who reinforce the idea are smart, therefore it must be reasonable and true. Also note that "how they cover" and "what they cover" are two important dynamics.

If you want to go deep into it... look how steadfastly assured we were that the Tea Party was a group of people teetering on the edge of some explosive rage and would get violent given the proper spark. Meanwhile, OWS and their ilk (before and after the existance of OWS), often espouse violent eliminationist rhetoric at certain approved targets... the media constructed this "civility" meme after the Loughner disaster and then proceeded to violate it over and over and over and over and over again because they are righteous. To point this out, how many times have lefties talked about how much they want to hate-f--- Palin, Coulter, Bachmann, Ingrham, Malkin, etc. for having the temerity to thinking a way that lefties consider them evil.

To realize how the left operates is that they almost always operate out of a sense of duty and righteousness... not that the right and the religious right isn't immune... but you have to realize that liberals consider themselves the makers of society and those appointed truthfully righteous persons who work to bring good. This is why their high-minded but often unrealistic ideals are so demanded and why they are, and are allowed to be, so viciously strident. After all, if you disagree with them it isn't just a mere difference of opinion but you stand in the way of the betterment of all (as they see it). How dare you get in the way of the good and righteous?

The media themselves, they see themselves of the vanguard of the truth and protecting society against the heathen at the gates (us). Take that with how they (wrongfully) believe the world to be it starts to make sense. Their job is to protect what they believe to be important from the rest of us and to promote what they feel is important to help us.

I've always said that the ideal reporter/journalist is one with an insatiable desire to know what is going on. The problem is that those who go into that business almost inevitably get into it because they feel they have an interest or stake in the outcomes of government and society and they want to use those tools to the end that they feel betters society... their political slant... and since kids are overwhelmingly liberal (indoctrination via tv, schooling, high-mindedness of youth, or otherwise) its inevitable that most of your reporters are looking to better society and protect it from the leftward view of life. Likewise, once they leave school they anchor themselves harder into their belief systems which now become a hard-to-shake definition of themselves and their life's purpose. So, they don't go into it just because they want to know what's going on in the halls and decision making of government and then reporting back what they've seen... they feel that their existence in the industry and society gives them a unique stake to help it out (as they believe it should).

[Patman]

An interesting point on OWS came from and extreme-left person who sees OWS as person who are not so much the hardworking lower class rising up... but those who failed to become part of the governing ruling class whom they've been told from a very young age that they would be if they acquired certain degrees and worked on certain pursuits... the remaining then are the usual protesting class (same as it ever was), the rich who are playing a variant of the white man going to the noble savages, and the homeless. These guys aren't so much upset that the rich make money... its that they aren't the rich who are making the money... or more to the point, that they aren't part of the upper-middle class who are part of the rule making class leading to the better of society. Instead they are living a life of mediocre jobs after being given false promises. Instead of blaming the builders of false expectation they rally against their trained source of hate... the group they've been trained from where hurt originates from in society.

OWS's main gripe, though unstated, is that they are not part of the governing class they constructed their lives to be because they are chasing limited spots... those spots which they were told if they followed a certain path they would become these things... they did and it didn't happen.

[DoctorWho]

Patman, holding those views you must be a lonely man in Arlington, VA, but at least it's not Bethesda.

[stronger]

I was unfortunately raised on NPR. I finally got to a point where if I heard one more breathless NPR reporter with a British accent and whiny intonation that ended every sentence as if it were a question tell a story of some off-the-beaten-path co-op garden in Seattle that was using sustainable manure from a struggling farm in Bangladesh I was going to lose my mind

[MDR2]

This has to do with the origional topic.

Currently I am working on job funded 2/3 by federal grants. The government has tables and lists of what each activity is called (concrete pourer, rebar bender, tower stacker, radio programmer, crane operator, whatever-the-fuck-er) and how much each different activity earns. According to their rules, if I was to do (example) 5 of those different jobs in my regular, already employed, 40 hour work week, then I would count for 5 jobs being created. Hell, if I were to show up on the job site, place some rebar in the ground for the concrete, pour the concrete a bit later that day, do some electrical work, some low voltage work, and program the routers inside the building onsite, then go home, each one of those different things that I did counts as one more job created. And that's only me, by myself for one day, working for the company who Iam already employed by! This is a big time government scam.

Not to mention my boss almost gave back all the grant money because of all the hoops he had to jump though to actually get it after it was awarded to him, and almost went on national news exposing how big of a fraud the whole thing was, but that's a different story (that I don't know enough details about to accurately share). I've always heard how inefficient the Feds are when doing this or that, but now that it's in my face there is absolutely no doubt about it.

[Mark E. Hurling]

they often view their slant as truth because they are smart, others who reinforce the idea are smart, therefore it must be reasonable and true. Also note that "how they cover" and "what they cover" are two important dynamics.

This selection and filtering process are the most frequent way the news gets slanted.


If you want to go deep into it... look how steadfastly assured we were that the Tea Party was a group of people teetering on the edge of some explosive rage and would get violent given the proper spark. Meanwhile, OWS and their ilk (before and after the existance of OWS), often espouse violent eliminationist rhetoric at certain approved targets... the media constructed this "civility" meme after the Loughner disaster and then proceeded to violate it over and over and over and over and over again because they are righteous. To point this out, how many times have lefties talked about how much they want to hate-f--- Palin, Coulter, Bachmann, Ingrham, Malkin, etc. for having the temerity to thinking a way that lefties consider them evil.

Yep. Stupid and evil. In Coulter's case, they may be onto something.


To realize how the left operates is that they almost always operate out of a sense of duty and righteousness... not that the right and the religious right isn't immune... but you have to realize that liberals consider themselves the makers of society and those appointed truthfully righteous persons who work to bring good. This is why their high-minded but often unrealistic ideals are so demanded and why they are, and are allowed to be, so viciously strident. After all, if you disagree with them it isn't just a mere difference of opinion but you stand in the way of the betterment of all (as they see it). How dare you get in the way of the good and righteous?

When you are a jihadi for the enlightened left bringing the torch of liberalism to the benighted rest, any infidel who stands in the way must be at least demonized for the djinn they are. If not destroyed.


The media themselves, they see themselves of the vanguard of the truth and protecting society against the heathen at the gates (us). Take that with how they (wrongfully) believe the world to be it starts to make sense. Their job is to protect what they believe to be important from the rest of us and to promote what they feel is important to help us.


I've always said that the ideal reporter/journalist is one with an insatiable desire to know what is going on. The problem is that those who go into that business almost inevitably get into it because they feel they have an interest or stake in the outcomes of government and society and they want to use those tools to the end that they feel betters society... their political slant... and since kids are overwhelmingly liberal (indoctrination via tv, schooling, high-mindedness of youth, or otherwise) its inevitable that most of your reporters are looking to better society and protect it from the leftward view of life.

A very good description of the Dreiser school of "journalism." It isn't about the truth or the facts, it's how to advance the agenda. I might add Patman, your description of the Occupants rings true as well. Kind of the Gen-Xers reduxed when they complained about the Boomers having gotten all the good jobs.


I was unfortunately raised on NPR. I finally got to a point where if I heard one more breathless NPR reporter with a British accent and whiny intonation that ended every sentence as if it were a question tell a story of some off-the-beaten-path co-op garden in Seattle that was using sustainable manure from a struggling farm in Bangladesh I was going to lose my mind

This. Yes, absolutely so on target. It sounds like most of the coverage I have heard on NPR. I just wish I could have described it so well. Nicely done stronger.

[stronger]

thanks MEH, but I'm still bearing the scars, obviously

[matclone]

Would the people who believe in no liberal media bias care to explain the difference in treatment between the personal lives of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich and, on the other hand, John Edwards and Jesse Jackson?

Obviously you've preordained a conclusion.


Journolist does not bother you at all? Negative stories, many made up out of whole cloth and then repeated, about the tea party's racism compared with long-time silence on OWS members frequent outbursts of anti-semitism? The overwhelming percentages of democrats and liberals in the MSM doesn't skew what the newspaper people think are reasonable arguments?

Again.


I think the MSM media bias tends to be overblown, but is there really a doubt it exists?

Bias, yes. "Liberal bias"? As in, one camp or another (there being two and two only)? You good media consumer, you. Rush and everyother talk radio (main stream media) personage repeat this nonsense daily.



Mickey Kaus (a democrat) has the theory that because reporters are overwhelmingly liberal, they believe that they are being impartial when they slant stories against the right. And even though they think of themselves as above it, they love America and will eventually turn on a badly behaving candidate if they believe it is in the best interest of the country. Hence ignoring the John Edwards situation as no harm, no foul until it looked like he might get the democratic presidential nomination.

I don't know who Micky Kaus is, but another theory holds that owners of media corp's tend to be politcially to the right, and that their values are reflected in their product.

[bob g]

This has to do with the origional topic.

Currently I am working on job funded 2/3 by federal grants. The government has tables and lists of what each activity is called (concrete pourer, rebar bender, tower stacker, radio programmer, crane operator, whatever-the-fuck-er) and how much each different activity earns. According to their rules, if I was to do (example) 5 of those different jobs in my regular, already employed, 40 hour work week, then I would count for 5 jobs being created. Hell, if I were to show up on the job site, place some rebar in the ground for the concrete, pour the concrete a bit later that day, do some electrical work, some low voltage work, and program the routers inside the building onsite, then go home, each one of those different things that I did counts as one more job created. And that's only me, by myself for one day, working for the company who Iam already employed by! This is a big time government scam.

Not to mention my boss almost gave back all the grant money because of all the hoops he had to jump though to actually get it after it was awarded to him, and almost went on national news exposing how big of a fraud the whole thing was, but that's a different story (that I don't know enough details about to accurately share). I've always heard how inefficient the Feds are when doing this or that, but now that it's in my face there is absolutely no doubt about it.

So, let me get this right. Your company had one of the rare real shovel ready jobs. Your management jumped through all of the hoops the government puts in front of all contractors and got the bid. After you started the job and did the mandatory paperwork compliance thing you discovered that currently employed people were required to be counted multiple times as "created" jobs simply because of the tasks they did in the course of a routine workday?

For fuck's sake, the politcos are all bruised from slapping each other on the back when these labor reports come in and these inflated numbers still don't move the unemployment needle. This goes beyond bureaucratic ineptitude, this is craven and obvious fraud designed to cook the books. Shit. I sure don't see CNN or Fox or NPR raising a stink about this type of regulatory asshattery.

[MDR2]

So, let me get this right. Your company had one of the rare real shovel ready jobs. Your management jumped through all of the hoops the government puts in front of all contractors and got the bid. After you started the job and did the mandatory paperwork compliance thing you discovered that currently employed people were required to be counted multiple times as "created" jobs simply because of the tasks they did in the course of a routine workday?

For fuck's sake, the politcos are all bruised from slapping each other on the back when these labor reports come in and these inflated numbers still don't move the unemployment needle. This goes beyond bureaucratic ineptitude, this is craven and obvious fraud designed to cook the books. Shit. I sure don't see CNN or Fox or NPR raising a stink about this type of regulatory asshattery.


Exactly right.

Now just to be clear, I don't believe doing 5 different things in a day, then repeating for 5 days counts as 25 jobs, but this is where my understanding of the details stops. Maybe I'll ask my boss more about it when I see him later today.

[JM3]

Patman, holding those views you must be a lonely man in Arlington, VA, but at least it's not Bethesda.


HA ha... I was just marveling at Patmans insights. Im not politically conservative. I worship earth, pussy and make art- so it wouldnt work. But Patman is spot on about liberals. And you are spot on about Bethesda. Kids being raised by nannies on cell phones. Martial arts classes where you dont hit. I see angry men in the future. Plus - the country clubs feed the bands baloney sandwiches.. fucking metaphor if there ever was one.

[DoctorWho]

HA ha... I was just marveling at Patmans insights. Im not politically conservative. I worship earth, pussy and make art- so it wouldnt work. But Patman is spot on about liberals. And you are spot on about Bethesda. Kids being raised by nannies on cell phones. Martial arts classes where you dont hit. I see angry men in the future. Plus - the country clubs feed the bands baloney sandwiches.. fucking metaphor if there ever was one.

Priorities are about right.

[DoctorWho]

Obviously you've preordained a conclusion.



Again.



Bias, yes. "Liberal bias"? As in, one camp or another (there being two and two only)? You good media consumer, you. Rush and everyother talk radio (main stream media) personage repeat this nonsense daily.




I don't know who Micky Kaus is, but another theory holds that owners of media corp's tend to be politcially to the right, and that their values are reflected in their product.

I note only that you did not even try to rebut the arguments, just accused me of having a closed mind. Is there an objective reason for the disparate treatment mentioned?

What evidence is there that corporations are on the right? Before your echo chamber explodes, look at corporate donations by party. Also note that established businesses often favor a big bureaucracy because it makes barriers to entry.

I don't think criticisms about OPINION journalists are valid. It shouldn't matter what the EDITORIAL pages of the NYT or WSJ say. Only whether the news is skewed.

[Mark E. Hurling]

Have you noticed the non-responsive passive-aggressive current in mat's posts on this Doc? I don't really care that he is liberal because although I disagree with a few ardent liberals here they are at least honest and engage when you discuss things with them. Those who pretend to be moderate and yet only manage to criticize conservative points of view are so deep in their hypocrisy I frankly wonder why they bother to keep up the pretense. I happen to think they do it because it makes them feel superior and like the smartest person in the room. Of course he isn't the only one who does this. Why can't we all just be honest about what we happen to believe and hold important?

[DoctorWho]

Have you noticed the non-responsive passive-aggressive current in mat's posts on this Doc? I don't really care that he is liberal because although I disagree with a few ardent liberals here they are at least honest and engage when you discuss things with them. Those who pretend to be moderate and yet only manage to criticize conservative points of view are so deep in their hypocrisy I frankly wonder why they bother to keep up the pretense. I happen to think they do it because it makes them feel superior and like the smartest person in the room. Of course he isn't the only one who does this. Why can't we all just be honest about what we happen to believe and hold important?

Yes. But of course conservatives have a closed mind, so there is probably no use in engaging them, unless they are from the south and then they are stupid. Everybody knows that Cain, Justice Thomas, Palin, Perry, etc. are all hacks who deserve to be disregarded. Once some dirt is found on Paul Ryan and other tax cutters, then we can start a laughing narrative about him too.

There is a theory that seems right to me, that all this Ezra Klein / journolist stuff is counterproductive because a conservative politician has to run a gauntlet of reflexive negative press, but guys like Kerry don't get challenged until Fox, talk radio, and (increasingly) blogs get focused. The conservatives get tested, but the Ds seem surprised because they get a pass until it is too late. The point isn't that the slant doesn't count, but rather that it's drawback is almost as important.

[Mark E. Hurling]

The conservatives get tested, but the Ds seem surprised because they get a pass until it is too late. The point isn't that the slant doesn't count, but rather that it's drawback is almost as important.

A very good point that I hadn't considered. It's a variation of something commentators like Krauthammer have said about the more rigorous intellectual underpinnings of conservatism that it's adherents follow and are subject to. With liberals it's all about the emotions and good intentions. With self proclaimed moderates it's what sounds trendy and popular in the cafeteria today. Like say arugula.

[Patrick]

iq =/= intelligence

but if you were smart, you'd know that

I am aware that different words mean different things, that's why I bothered to learn at least fourteen of them. Of course, I bet you knew that and didn't actually think I conflated the only available metric of intelligence with some sort of omniscient, perfect measure of intelligence. I bet you're just trolling -- or just stupid, if you come clean on it. If you were uncertain, let me make it explicit: if there is a way to measure intelligence, and Oldster actually questions that quality I would be happy to subject myself to an assessment of it so that Oldster might either admit he never had such a stupid thought as the one he enunciated, or was actually as stupid as his very own volitional comments made him seem to appear.

Clear enough?

EDIT - My dirty secret? I don't think Oldster is stupid -- I think he's actually quite smart -- but I believe he thinks and speaks with his dick and ego, and I don't think he's clever enough to get by on that because no one is clever enough to outsmart his own balls -- he talks out of his ass when stroking his ego is his goal, and I think he does that a good bit more than he suspects.

[matclone]

Have you noticed the non-responsive passive-aggressive current in mat's posts on this Doc? I don't really care that he is liberal because although I disagree with a few ardent liberals here they are at least honest and engage when you discuss things with them. Those who pretend to be moderate and yet only manage to criticize conservative points of view are so deep in their hypocrisy I frankly wonder why they bother to keep up the pretense. I happen to think they do it because it makes them feel superior and like the smartest person in the room. Of course he isn't the only one who does this. Why can't we all just be honest about what we happen to believe and hold important?

Aw, did I ruffle your feathers, by criticizing your ridiculous liberal vs. conserative paradigm (that you still cling to), such that you had to make up an entire post about me?

[matclone]

Yes. But of course conservatives have a closed mind..

Oh? Who said that?

Were you born a "conservative" or something? You keeping talking like there are only two types of people in the world. Conservatives and liberals. One right, one wrong. One to be admired. One to be despised. One to be at war with. One to protect from the arrows, even when they're not flying. I played a similar game when I was a kid. We called it cowboys and indians.

[Mark E. Hurling]

Oh? Who said that?

Were you born a "conservative" or something? You keeping talking like there are only two types of people in the world. Conservatives and liberals. One right, one wrong. One to be admired. One to be despised. One to be at war with. One to protect from the arrows, even when they're not flying. I played a similar game when I was a kid. We called it cowboys and indians.

My error, no condescension here. It must be just marvelous to be you. Reminds me of Art Devaney and his own self worship.

[DoctorWho]

Oh? Who said that?

Were you born a "conservative" or something? You keeping talking like there are only two types of people in the world. Conservatives and liberals. One right, one wrong. One to be admired. One to be despised. One to be at war with. One to protect from the arrows, even when they're not flying. I played a similar game when I was a kid. We called it cowboys and indians.

Like you said, "Who said that?" I do not even consider myself a conservative. The point I made was about media bias of the MSM, which you have yet to respond to.

I don't mind opinion pieces from principled liberals or conservatives (Nat Hentoff, Christopher Hitchens, Jonah Goldberg, Krauthammer). I dislike slanted news or slanted focuses that masquerade as straight news. But my real beef is with "journalists" who are in the tank for one party or another (Ezra Klein).

[Mark E. Hurling]

But my real beef is with "journalists" who are in the tank for one party or another.

The same could be said of a few other non-journalists who post here. Really though Doc, you don't consider yourself a conservative? Because you come off to me as just a little more center right than I am. I'm not out Atilla the Hun territory myself (I think anyway) but I know I'm at least a click further right than what I pick up from your own posts. Another failing of mine I guess, too much emphasis on labels. Maybe I should just align with the No Labels crowd, that thinly disguised bunch of liberals.

[matclone]

Like you said, "Who said that?" I do not even consider myself a conservative. The point I made was about media bias of the MSM, which you have yet to respond to.

I did respond. Just not in the manner you wanted. You posed a series of loaded questions, evidently either for the purpose of soliciting support for your preconceived point of view that there is a "liberal" bias in the mainstream media <or> to provoke. You didn't define liberal or conservative, or make any distinction between types of media--just treating it as a great monolith. If you think Herman Cain got a raw deal because of "the" media's bias, so be it. Who am I to dispute that?

[matclone]

I don't mind opinion pieces from principled liberals or conservatives (Nat Hentoff, Christopher Hitchens, Jonah Goldberg, Krauthammer). I dislike slanted news or slanted focuses that masquerade as straight news. But my real beef is with "journalists" who are in the tank for one party or another (Ezra Klein).

Didn't Goldberg write a book called Liberal Fascism? Sounds like an appeal to ignorance to me.

[DoctorWho]

The same could be said of a few other non-journalists who post here. Really though Doc, you don't consider yourself a conservative? Because you come off to me as just a little more center right than I am. I'm not out Atilla the Hun territory myself (I think anyway) but I know I'm at least a click further right than what I pick up from your own posts. Another failing of mine I guess, too much emphasis on labels. Maybe I should just align with the No Labels crowd, that thinly disguised bunch of liberals.

I would say I am fiscally conservative, but more accurately anti-tyranny and pro-freedom. Socially, you and and I probably want the most of the same things, but would use different means. For example, addiction to illegal drugs and the whole drug world is a bad thing, we agree. And I am anti-recreational drugs for me and my family. I would get the government out of it as much as practically possible because we have a system that militarizes the police, encourages people to commit felonies where the only "victim" consents (with lots of exceptions here), makes thugs (and in South America, leftists) rich, turns lots of young knuckleheads into hardened criminals, destabilizes other governments, and by the way doesn't seem to be working too well.

I think flag burning should remain legal so I know who the despicable people are. Other than those, I don't have strong feelings about things conventional conservatives care about. Except I think owning a gun is a civil rights issue.

[Mark E. Hurling]

I would say I am fiscally conservative, but more accurately anti-tyranny and pro-freedom. Socially, you and and I probably want the most of the same things, but would use different means. For example, addiction to illegal drugs and the whole drug world is a bad thing, we agree. And I am anti-recreational drugs for me and my family. I would get the government out of it as much as practically possible because we have a system that militarizes the police, encourages people to commit felonies where the only "victim" consents (with lots of exceptions here), makes thugs (and in South America, leftists) rich, turns lots of young knuckleheads into hardened criminals, destabilizes other governments, and by the way doesn't seem to be working too well.

I think flag burning should remain legal so I know who the despicable people are. Other than those, I don't have strong feelings about things conventional conservatives care about. Except I think owning a gun is a civil rights issue.

Other than the flag burning, I don't see much daylight between us. The drug war is a tough one to deal with. I wanted to do the DEA cowboy thing in the worst way as a younger man. But after seeing what it did to Ralph Brandon and Carl McClain who did stuff like that for a while, I'm glad I didn't. Both dead and by their own hands. Although I'm sure there are some other social issues we might differ on. No big deal. Honesty and transparency are always better than Gollum-like lurking about in the shadows with slinker fighting with stinker as he talks to himself.

[Mark E. Hurling]

Didn't Goldberg write a book called Liberal Fascism? Sounds like an appeal to ignorance to me.

Have you read the book? Obviously not, because what conservative has anything worth saying, right? His account of Woodrow Wilson alone was worth the price of the book. But then again, it's only conservatives whose minds are closed. Not yours though, you are open to all manner of alternative thinking as you are illustrating all too well.

[matclone]

But then again, it's only conservatives whose minds are closed.

Then, again, who said only conservatives have closed minds? Yes, you and Who. Nice straw man. Irrevelant to anything anyone has said here too.

[matclone]

Have you read the book?

No, I haven't read the book, although I have read articles by the author. Contrary to the popular adage, sometimes you can tell the content from the cover of the book. Liberal Fascism is one of them. The business world might say, Goldberg is "pushing the brand".

[DoctorWho]

No, I haven't read the book, although I have read articles by the author. Contrary to the popular adage, sometimes you []can[/I] tell the content from the cover of the book. Liberal Fascism is one of them. The business world might say, Goldberg is "pushing the brand".

Yes. Exactly what opinion authors columnists are SUPPOSED to do. Same with, say, every columnist at the NYT except David Brooks does from the left.

It's probably best that you don't read it.

[Mark E. Hurling]

No, I haven't read the book, although I have read articles by the author. Contrary to the popular adage, sometimes you can tell the content from the cover of the book. Liberal Fascism is one of them. The business world might say, Goldberg is "pushing the brand".

Hey the cover was funny! I bought the soft cover. It was red and had a big smiley face with little black moustache on it. Really, if nothing else read the chapters and references to Wilson. He did things even Obama lacks the cojones to do. He was a virulent racist, he instituted the Alien and Sedition Acts' mass deportations of anyone who disagreed with him, he enshrined Comstock as a guardian of morals in the post office and movies. Let's not forget his piece de resistance the League of Nations or his institution of the income tax. Then there was his private militia of volunteers that the Stasi of East Germany would envy for the informing that they elicited of one neighbor against another. Still, Wilson is a revered liberal icon. No point in looking at history though I suppose. It might lead to some re-examination of preciously held assumptions.

[matclone]

By all means, don't look at history. It might reveal something about the ideas of liberalism, and fascism (including their historical context), and how they are different from each other. It's best not to think too hard about such matters. Better to swallow wholesale (or retail) best-seller conflations of such matters and to continue to despise all the bad guys.

[matclone]

I would say I am fiscally conservative, but more accurately anti-tyranny and pro-freedom.

I've always wanted to meet someone from the pro-tyranny, anti-freedom factions of the country. Rumor has it, they're hiding behind some tree--maybe in the same place where the boogeyman is known to hang out.

[matclone]

Yes. Exactly what opinion authors columnists are SUPPOSED to do. Same with, say, every columnist at the NYT except David Brooks does from the left.

It's probably best that you don't read it.

I won't. But I think Goldberg's book would be a good one for you to read if you need to add to your list of loathsome and despicable people. Someone's always out to do you wrong, you know.

[Mark E. Hurling]

By all means, don't look at history. It might reveal something about the ideas of liberalism, and fascism (including their historical context), and how they are different from each other. It's best not to think too hard about such matters. Better to swallow wholesale (or retail) best-seller conflations of such matters and to continue to despise all the bad guys.

So you are denying that the deportations took place, or that Comstock was a real home grown Goebbels, that there is in fact no income tax, etc? This stuff all was promulgated by Wilson but you are so blinkered you contend that none of it took place? If so, I can think of a some folks and governments who could use your skills in PR. Like say Turkey and their conduct toward the Armenians, or lets say those millions of Jews that just vanished in the 30s and 40s. Do you realize how absurd you are making your position sound.

[matclone]

You should burn your straw men. They've outlived their usefulness.

[Roy]

Well for one, Fox News reported how many people quit looking. CNN did not.

Well your snippet also didn't show CNN reporting how many jobs were added either so it's not a great example.

[Mark E. Hurling]

You should burn your straw men. They've outlived their usefulness.

There is such a phrase in the real world inhabited by the rest of us. It does not appear you what it's actual meaning is in the bizarro world you seem most comfortable in.

[matclone]

Your ad hominems aren't all that impressive either.

[DoctorWho]

I've always wanted to meet someone from the pro-tyranny, anti-freedom factions of the country. Rumor has it, they're hiding behind some tree--maybe in the same place where the boogeyman is known to hang out.

A person does not have to be pro-tyranny or anti-freedom in order to be not anti-tyranny and pro-freedom. Just like the opposite of anti-abortion does not mean that a person thinks abortion is just great in all circumstances.

I think Bill Buckley called himself anti-tyranny to describe his foreign policy. It excludes black bloc types, people who value "people over profits", realpolitik types from both parties who've propped up dictators, etc.

[DoctorWho]

I won't. But I think Goldberg's book would be a good one for you to read if you need to add to your list of loathsome and despicable people. Someone's always out to do you wrong, you know.

I'd like to read it but it's way down the list. But I don't understand the rest of your comment. I agree that the left and right media by their natures are both professional anxiety raisers, if that's what you mean.

[matclone]

A person does not have to be pro-tyranny or anti-freedom in order to be not anti-tyranny and pro-freedom. Just like the opposite of anti-abortion does not mean that a person thinks abortion is just great in all circumstances.

When people say they're for freedom, it implies there are people who are not. I've never met those people.


I think Bill Buckley called himself anti-tyranny to describe his foreign policy. It excludes black bloc types, people who value "people over profits", realpolitik types from both parties who've propped up dictators, etc.

Well, there's the tyranny of dictators and kings, and then there's the tyranny spoken of by ideologues (e.g., libertarians) , who somehow think life in the U.S. is terribly oppressive. I was just reading another thread, where a poster was railing against the prohibition of alcohol, which I think ended 80 years ago.

[matclone]

I'd like to read it but it's way down the list. But I don't understand the rest of your comment. I agree that the left and right media by their natures are both professional anxiety raisers, if that's what you mean.

That's more or less what I mean. Not everyone in the media does this, but there are plenty who do (Jonah Goldberg being one example). There's money to be made from fear (and sex). I think Maslow had something to say about this.

[DoctorWho]

When people say they're for freedom, it implies there are people who are not. I've never met those people.

.

How about someone who wants to ban all handguns, enforce strictest campus speech codes, expand harassment law to encompass hurt feelings by targeted groups. I'd say those people are against the freedoms set out in the bill of rights. How about people who wanted to pull out of Iraq after we broke the country but before we fixed it, leaving it essentially to the Iranians. Or people who see only the evil in Israel but ignore the anti-gay, anti-woman views of Hamas. I'd say those people deep down are ambivalent to freedom, as I am using that term.

But I also disagree with your statement that "When people say they're for freedom, it implies there are people who are not." If I am pro-kindness it does not mean that there has to be a side that who are not for kindness, only that I elevate kindness to top importance.

[DoctorWho]

That's more or less what I mean. Not everyone in the media does this, but there are plenty who do (Jonah Goldberg being one example). There's money to be made from fear (and sex). I think Maslow had something to say about this.
Disagree about Goldberg. Anybody who uses so much humor, I just can't dislike very much.

[matclone]

How about someone who wants to ban all handguns, enforce strictest campus speech codes, expand harassment law to encompass hurt feelings by targeted groups. I'd say those people are against the freedoms set out in the bill of rights. How about people who wanted to pull out of Iraq after we broke the country but before we fixed it, leaving it essentially to the Iranians. Or people who see only the evil in Israel but ignore the anti-gay, anti-woman views of Hamas. I'd say those people deep down are ambivalent to freedom, as I am using that term.

But I also disagree with your statement that "When people say they're for freedom, it implies there are people who are not." If I am pro-kindness it does not mean that there has to be a side that who are not for kindness, only that I elevate kindness to top importance.

Well, it all depends on the context. Most of the time, when someone says they're "for freedom" it's a political statment and it amounts to rhetorical bullshit.

[matclone]

Disagree about Goldberg. Anybody who uses so much humor, I just can't dislike very much.

Some people think Rush Limbaugh is funny too.

[DoctorWho]

Well, it all depends on the context. Most of the time, when someone says they're "for freedom" it's a political statment and it amounts to rhetorical bullshit.

Disagree, citing my examples above. What's your support?

WAIT: forgot my favorite. Environmentalists who are so invested in anthropogenic global warming that they want tight CO2 controls, essentially dooming underdeveloped countries to staying underdeveloped.

[matclone]

Disagree, citing my examples above. What's your support?

Support for my statement that claims for "freedom" need to be put in context? I'm not going to argue about it. Once again, you're insincere.

[DoctorWho]

Support for my statement that claims for "freedom" need to be put in context? I'm not going to argue about it. Once again, you're insincere.

I take your silence on the merits to be inability to rebut on the merits, again. I'm confident that me and Bill Buckley are on the right side of this. Especially since I don't know what you are arguing. I get that you believe I am insincere, but the posts above speak for themselves.

[matclone]

How about someone who wants to ban all handguns, enforce strictest campus speech codes, expand harassment law to encompass hurt feelings by targeted groups. I'd say those people are against the freedoms set out in the bill of rights.


Why ask questions, when you already hold the answers?

[DoctorWho]

Why ask questions, when you already hold the answers?

I am puzzled. The first and second amendments are what people refer to as freedoms. I list things that the supreme court and a majority of Americans (I think) say violate those amendments, even though there are lots of people who are on the other side. I do this to rebut that you have never met someone like I describe. After asking you to explain, you give me a robotic answer that essentially says that I am closed minded, after one that says I am insincere. I don't recall you addressing the merits at all.

If Hurling would have asked the questions, I would have given examples of guys on the right who put freedom too low in importance. But I assume you are on the left, so I gave answers that would rebut your statement that you don't know people who are not for freedom. On the issues above, they are not "for freedom" as defined in the constitution.

[matclone]

I am puzzled. The first and second amendments are what people refer to as freedoms.

Ah, some context. That always helps when someone claims they are "for freedom" or that someone else is not.


I list things that the supreme court and a majority of Americans (I think) say violate those amendments, even though there are lots of people who are on the other side.

No. You posed a series of rhetorical questions (i.e., in which the question contains the answer)


I do this to rebut that you have never met someone like I describe.

I said essentially that I've never met a person who was not for freedom. I'm not at all persuaded by your claim that you know a bunch of people who are not for freedom.


After asking you to explain, you give me a robotic answer that essentially says that I am closed minded

I never said you were closed minded. This is the second or third time you've brought up this straw man.


, after one that says I am insincere.

I did, indeed, say you were insincere.

[DoctorWho]

Ah, some context. That always helps when someone claims they are "for freedom" or that someone else is not.

I never said you were closed minded. This is the second or third time you've brought up this straw man.

On the first quote, I note again that you do not rebut, just disagreed.

For closed minded parts:
I wrote:
Would the people who believe in no liberal media bias care to explain the difference in treatment between the personal lives of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich and, on the other hand, John Edwards and Jesse Jackson?

You wrote:
Obviously you've preordained a conclusion.

I wrote:
Journolist does not bother you at all? Negative stories, many made up out of whole cloth and then repeated, about the tea party's racism compared with long-time silence on OWS members frequent outbursts of anti-semitism? The overwhelming percentages of democrats and liberals in the MSM doesn't skew what the newspaper people think are reasonable arguments?

You wrote:
Again (which I assumes means to repeat that you are stating that I've a preordained conclusion).


Not only is it fair to say that the above should be interpreted as referring to my "closed mind" on the topic, but I am still waiting for a rebuttal on the merits. Thanks for reminding me.

[Mark E. Hurling]

Doc, you're wasting your time. We've discovered mstrofbass the 2nd. Except although his lengthy arguments could get tiresome he at least engaged in good faith.