Extremes? I post three studies showing that Fox News has a Republican slant. You take it upon yourself to go on a warpath by railing on studies in general as being biased and, in many instances, fabricated by Democrats as a means to brainwash the public. It's not my fault that you went to the extreme of denouncing all studies only to later admit that you don't disagree with the studies cited.
Calling bullshit, by the way, is no different than calling it a lie. Afterall, what you're doing by calling bullshit is saying that the statement made is not true. Something that is not true = lie.
Using opinions and surveys as "stats" for something that is subjective is extremely unreliable, especially when you cannot establish a mutually agreeable point of reference (aka "The Center"). Of course, you're going to argue that it's about Republicans versus Democrats, but today's Republican isn't anything like the Republican of yesterday. Bush-41 was a NeoCon... Bush-43 was essentially a RINO, if not a borderline Socialist with his prescription drug plan, "head start" program and bailout v.1. There is no frame of reference that is fixed unless you're willing to talk ideologies, but even there, you'll find a degree of evolution...
I've already addressed this, but I'll do it again for old time's sake.
These polls were not taken in the 1800's. Additionally, no one from the 1800's was alive to take these polls. Thus, yesterday's concept of being a Republican is irrelevant. Furthermore, the polls did not base the subjects' political allegiances upon questions asking if they were liberal, conservative, libertarian, communist, socialist, etc. Nor did they try to classify people by asking what they think about X issue and then identifying them as having A, B or C political ideology. They asked them to identify themselves as Republican or Democrat. Regardless of what your "actual" political views classify you as in regard to the vast array of evolved political ideologies, most people identify themselves as "Democrat" or "Republican." In fact, we have this whole two party system in which people actually register to vote as a Republican or Democrat in primaries.
My point is that you can be a fucking way out in left field nut job liberal politician and be registered as a Republican, assuming the party accepts you. It doesn't matter what you subjectively consider to be your political ideology; you're objectively registered and identified as a Republican (not
you, but rather a hypothetical politician or voter). Now, in all likelihood, you're not going to join a party or vote for a party if their views are completely different from yours. Regardless, there will be a variation from Republican to Republican in regard to political ideologies.
Despite all of this, my point still stands that you can quantify the number of self proposed Republican viewers. You can quantify the number of Republican politicians who appear as guests. You can quantify the number of points of view presented. You can quantify the number of journalists and editors who are self proposed Republicans. You can quantify the number of times a journalist gives his or her opinion during the course of stories. That is what the studies quantified, and those are not opinions. All of this is one effective way to determine whether a station has a Republican slant. This doesn't mean that the station is loyal to some vague, subjective notion of conservative ideologies from the 1800's or from today; it merely means that they have a particular slant toward the Republican party. The Republican party, despite how it may have changed or how many actual political ideologies are present within the party, is an identifiable entity, not a vague political ideology. Thus, it is completely within the realm of possibilities to objectively determine a station's slant toward a political party based upon the collected data mentioned above.
135 Replies
25086 Views