Are You Serious?

[AWK]

Chad, -

Been out of this one a while. Actually busy with the business traveling the last 2 weeks. Anyway...my points were just THIS:

1. Never said Foxnews wasnt biased some to the right. I just said they are doing nothing worse than the others have been doing for the last 50 years. Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokenjaw, Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Peter Jennings (RIP), Bryant Gumbel, and you could go on with liberal on air personalities. Foxnews - I can honestly peg a handful as hard right, registered GOPs - Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Megyn Kelly, Shepherd Smith, Brit Hume. Don't even say Karl Rove - he is a contributor. Dick Morris (former Clintonite) is also a contributor. JAD tried to make an idiot from another board we used to be on understand what a "contributor" was. Foxnews also has regulars from the left side as well - Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren (yes, she is a liberal), Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Mark Lamont Hill......Besides Lou Dobbs, who did CNN ever have not on the left? All Im saying is at best, they are a wash. I know Foxnews leans right. The other 4-5 lean left. Done. No crime on Foxnews' part.

2. I agree with JAD on the experiencing life part. - my views were much like yours at that age. I am mid 30's now and I can't believe how much my perception in life changed from 22 to 34. At 22, 25, 27 - whatever - everything looks good in a theory, or on paper. Not saying you have or havent actually been hit in the face with things - but the likelihood of it is less. That is the very reason many of my views changed. I saw how policy affected me. I saw how economics affected me and mostly how elected officials affected my wallet. And unfortunately in our society, thats what it takes most of the time - to actually get hit in the wallet and live paycheck to paycheck for several years by no fault of your own to sometimes "wake up".

3.  I will never defend GWB so dont even bring him into an argument. I cant stand him and NO - I dont miss him. I just dislike Obama more. So shove it up your ass AWK. And good job trying to be a mind reader. I dislike Obama because I THINK he's a commie who is taking the country down the toliet. I thought the same of GWB.

I can think of more fruitful things to shove up my ass than the truth.

[Vandy Vol]

Chad, -

Been out of this one a while. Actually busy with the business traveling the last 2 weeks. Anyway...my points were just THIS:

1. Never said Foxnews wasnt biased some to the right. I just said they are doing nothing worse than the others have been doing for the last 50 years. Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokenjaw, Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Peter Jennings (RIP), Bryant Gumbel, and you could go on with liberal on air personalities. Foxnews - I can honestly peg a handful as hard right, registered GOPs - Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Megyn Kelly, Shepherd Smith, Brit Hume. Don't even say Karl Rove - he is a contributor. Dick Morris (former Clintonite) is also a contributor. JAD tried to make an idiot from another board we used to be on understand what a "contributor" was. Foxnews also has regulars from the left side as well - Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren (yes, she is a liberal), Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Mark Lamont Hill......Besides Lou Dobbs, who did CNN ever have not on the left? All Im saying is at best, they are a wash. I know Foxnews leans right. The other 4-5 lean left. Done. No crime on Foxnews' part.

2. I agree with JAD on the experiencing life part. - my views were much like yours at that age. I am mid 30's now and I can't believe how much my perception in life changed from 22 to 34. At 22, 25, 27 - whatever - everything looks good in a theory, or on paper. Not saying you have or havent actually been hit in the face with things - but the likelihood of it is less. That is the very reason many of my views changed. I saw how policy affected me. I saw how economics affected me and mostly how elected officials affected my wallet. And unfortunately in our society, thats what it takes most of the time - to actually get hit in the wallet and live paycheck to paycheck for several years by no fault of your own to sometimes "wake up".

3.  I will never defend GWB so dont even bring him into an argument. I cant stand him and NO - I dont miss him. I just dislike Obama more. So shove it up your ass AWK. And good job trying to be a mind reader. I dislike Obama because I THINK he's a commie who is taking the country down the toliet. I thought the same of GWB.

The study shows that Fox has more of a Republican slant than other stations have a Democratic slant.  It's not a huge difference, but it is noticeable.  Based upon those studies, saying that Fox doesn't have any more of a slant is incorrect.  Additionally, while other stations have Democratic/liberal personalities, the study also shows that Fox journalists tended to give their personal opinions more often than journalists at other stations.

I understand and agree about the life experience bit.  However, my point was that this debate involves something that can be proven objectively.  A 70 year old is not in a better position to tell you how many people watched the last season of Lost simply because of his age.  He's going to have to resort to pointing out hard facts if he wants to procure an answer for that.  To me, the political slant of a news station is objectively verifiable.  You can look to the number of Republicans that watch, the number of Republican journalists and editors, the number of times personal opinions are inserted by journalists, etc.  Life experience doesn't automatically give you those answers.

[Kaos]

The study shows that Fox has more of a Republican slant than other stations have a Democratic slant.  It's not a huge difference, but it is noticeable.  Based upon those studies, saying that Fox doesn't have any more of a slant is incorrect.  Additionally, while other stations have Democratic/liberal personalities, the study also shows that Fox journalists tended to give their personal opinions more often than journalists at other stations.

I understand and agree about the life experience bit.  However, my point was that this debate involves something that can be proven objectively.  A 70 year old is not in a better position to tell you how many people watched the last season of Lost simply because of his age.  He's going to have to resort to pointing out hard facts if he wants to procure an answer for that.  To me, the political slant of a news station is objectively verifiable.  You can look to the number of Republicans that watch, the number of Republican journalists and editors, the number of times personal opinions are inserted by journalists, etc.  Life experience doesn't automatically give you those answers.

Anything you said after this is wasted.  "The study" can be tweaked to show anything one wants it to.  "The study" will reflect the biases of whoever is doing "the study." 

To suggest that anyone at Fox or any other news station is as biased or slanted as Keith Olbermann or the lesbian hag on MSNBC or Joy "Bitch" Behar on CNN is patently absurd. 

Your head is permanently affixed to the inner walls of your ass no matter how many words you use to explain otherwise. 

[CCTAU]

The study shows that Fox has more of a Republican slant than other stations have a Democratic slant.

Really? republican slant or CONSERVATIVE slant? Many independents are conservative. The others have a more LIBRUL slant. Not many independents are librul. And that is what rubs the left the wrong way. They can't even keep ONE left wing radio station going so they try to attack the one major TV station that is most conservative. But to say Fox is extreme is just librul drivel.

[GarMan]

Really? republican slant or CONSERVATIVE slant? Many independents are conservative. The others have a more LIBRUL slant. Not many independents are librul. And that is what rubs the left the wrong way. They can't even keep ONE left wing radio station going so they try to attack the one major TV station that is most conservative. But to say Fox is extreme is just librul drivel. 

Be careful there...  I've already brought all of this up, but these so-called "studies" are the final word and cannot be challenged or even questioned in this thread. 

[Vandy Vol]

Anything you said after this is wasted.  "The study" can be tweaked to show anything one wants it to.  "The study" will reflect the biases of whoever is doing "the study."

There was more than one study cited, and I have yet to hear anyone give a valid reason as to why the study or the researchers involved in the study were biased.  As of right now, you seem to be rejecting the study simply because it doesn't reflect your personal views; that doesn't make it tweaked.

To suggest that anyone at Fox or any other news station is as biased or slanted as Keith Olbermann or the lesbian hag on MSNBC or Joy "Bitch" Behar on CNN is patently absurd.

I never said that individual journalists/hosts were more or less slanted.  The studies deal with the news networks as a whole.

[Vandy Vol]

Really? republican slant or CONSERVATIVE slant? Many independents are conservative. The others have a more LIBRUL slant. Not many independents are librul. And that is what rubs the left the wrong way. They can't even keep ONE left wing radio station going so they try to attack the one major TV station that is most conservative. But to say Fox is extreme is just librul drivel.

You could have answered your own question if you would have either read the studies or my posts relating to the studies.  They quantify the number of Republican viewers, journalists, guests, etc., as well as other statistics, such as how many times journalists insert their personal opinions on stories.  And nothing said that it was "extreme;" it just showed that there was more of a Republican slant at Fox News than any slant at other stations.

[Kaos]

There was more than one study cited, and I have yet to hear anyone give a valid reason as to why the study or the researchers involved in the study were biased.  As of right now, you seem to be rejecting the study simply because it doesn't reflect your personal views; that doesn't make it tweaked.

I never said that individual journalists/hosts were more or less slanted.  The studies deal with the news networks as a whole.

People who know nothing about what they discuss rely on "studies." 

"Studies" are useless regardless of which position they claim to support.   "Studies" are garbage. 

[Vandy Vol]

People who know nothing about what they discuss rely on "studies." 

"Studies" are useless regardless of which position they claim to support.   "Studies" are garbage. 

So if I were to ask you how many people watched Lost last season, you would rather pull a number out of your ass than refer to a study on the topic?

[Kaos]

So if I were to ask you how many people watched Lost last season, you would rather pull a number out of your ass than refer to a study on the topic?

Your definition of "study" is bizarre. 

A ratings system is not a "study." 

[Vandy Vol]

Your definition of "study" is bizarre. 

A ratings system is not a "study." 

Doing a study which polls how many Republicans watch Fox News is not any different than a ratings system which polls how many people watch Lost.  If one is considered a study, so is the other.

[Kaos]

Doing a study which polls how many Republicans watch Fox News is not any different than a ratings system which polls how many people watch Lost.  If one is considered a study, so is the other.

Are you being purposely dim?

No, one "study" is not as good as another.  It depends on the conditions under which the study was conducted, the historical accuracy of the firm conducting the study, the parameters of the study itself. 

The Nielsen ratings utilize a combination of electronic monitoring devices and paper surveys to determine a representative quantity of viewers for a particular television show.  The ratings system is not designed, nor does it intend, to determine the value or position of the shows.  It is a tabulation system more than a survey and as such is not nearly as likely to be influenced by the personal bias of the person(s) managing the system.  The Nielsen ratings also have a long track record of relative accuracy. 

The moment you introduce personal bias into the equation, you have a completely different animal.  It's ignorant to pretend otherwise.  If an interviewer asks you "Do you watch Psych on USA?" Your answer is a simple yes or no. It's not subject to any other factors.  If an interviewer asks you to identify your political preference, any answer you give thereafter will be treated differently. 

A poll that tells me how many people watch Fox News has the chance to be objectively measured.  One which purports to tell me how many Republicans watch the same channel is hopelessly flawed. 

I can tell you how many people attend a game at Jordan Hare Stadium on Saturday.  Identifying how many attend because they like the color orange, because they enjoy watching the eagle fly, because they are fans of the opposing team, etc -- all subjective and impossible to accurately quantify.

[Vandy Vol]

No, one "study" is not as good as another.  It depends on the conditions under which the study was conducted, the historical accuracy of the firm conducting the study, the parameters of the study itself.

My statement was not that one study was as good as another.  My statement was that if counting the number of Republican viewers is a study in your eyes, then counting the number of viewers of Lost is also a study.

The moment you introduce personal bias into the equation, you have a completely different animal.  It's ignorant to pretend otherwise.  If an interviewer asks you "Do you watch Psych on USA?" Your answer is a simple yes or no. It's not subject to any other factors.  If an interviewer asks you to identify your political preference, any answer you give thereafter will be treated differently.

You're assuming that they have treated your answers differently.  If they ask you if you are a Republican or a Democrat, then you give an answer.  If they ask you what television show you watch, then you give an answer.  The ask and answer process is not different simply because we're dealing with politics.  You've assumed that this study is tweaked simply because it deals with politics, yet the questions they ask have very clear and quantifiable answers.

[Kaos]

My statement was not that one study was as good as another.  My statement was that if counting the number of Republican viewers is a study in your eyes, then counting the number of viewers of Lost is also a study.

Damn lawyers. 

All studies are not created equal.  Your example of counting the number of viewers on Lost as being a study bears no resemblance whatsoever to a study that divines political affiliation.  One is a tabulation, the other a survey.

The objectives are entirely different. 

This is like saying "well, since grizzly bears and kittens are both animals, then I should be able to cuddle with a grizzly.  It is, after all an animal." 

You're assuming that they have treated your answers differently.  If they ask you if you are a Republican or a Democrat, then you give an answer.  If they ask you what television show you watch, then you give an answer.  The ask and answer process is not different simply because we're dealing with politics.  You've assumed that this study is tweaked simply because it deals with politics, yet the questions they ask have very clear and quantifiable answers.

You don't know how the questions were framed.  The fact that there is the potential for bias renders one study less valid than the other. 

As before, the objectives are clearly different. 

One seeks to quantify. 

One seeks to qualify. 

Pretend otherwise if you will, but your position is patently absurd here.

[Vandy Vol]

All studies are not created equal.  Your example of counting the number of viewers on Lost as being a study bears no resemblance whatsoever to a study that divines political affiliation.  One is a tabulation, the other a survey.

There is no divination of responses.  The question is asked, people respond, and tabulations are made.  Unless you're suggesting that people are too stupid to give a response that identifies them as a Democrat or Republican, I'm not sure how the question would be faulty.

You don't know how the questions were framed.  The fact that there is the potential for bias renders one study less valid than the other.

Neither do you, so you're simply assuming that they are biased.  Nonetheless, the questions from all of their polls are included on their website.

Regardless, I'm a little perplexed that so many people are outraged at the alleged bias/absurdity of these studies when they agree that Fox News has a Republican slant.  The initial purpose of posting these studies was to refute someone's statement that Fox had no slant, yet this has somehow evolved into people believing that the assertion made was that Fox has an extreme slant; no such claim was ever made.

[GH2001]

Defining a network to be X amount Conservative is very qualitative and intangible - more of something you have to see and judge. Very subjective and opinion based - like most "studies" are - its just someone's opinion. As it is here.

Counting the number of viewers who watched Lost or American "Crap" Idol is purely quantitative and can be finitely measured in numbers. It is not subjective. There is a right answer in the form of a fact (ie - a number) and is not an opinion.

This is where they are different. Sorry , but your logic was flawed here in your comparison.

[AUTiger1]

There is no divination of responses.  The question is asked, people respond, and tabulations are made.  Unless you're suggesting that people are too stupid to give a response that identifies them as a Democrat or Republican, I'm not sure how the question would be faulty.

Neither do you, so you're simply assuming that they are biased.  Nonetheless, the questions from all of their polls are included on their website.

Regardless, I'm a little perplexed that so many people are outraged at the alleged bias/absurdity of these studies when they agree that Fox News has a Republican slant.  The initial purpose of posting these studies was to refute someone's statement that Fox had no slant, yet this has somehow evolved into people believing that the assertion made was that Fox has an extreme slant; no such claim was ever made.

Fox News is extremely biased. Much moreso than any of the other outlets you mentioned lean to the left.

[GH2001]

     

[Vandy Vol]

OH NO! HE OWNED ME! ...by quoting someone else:

Fox News is extremely biased. Much moreso than any of the other outlets you mentioned lean to the left.

I haven't stated that Fox has an "extreme" bias, yet multiple people continue to argue with me as if I had made the statement.  As I stated, the initial purpose of me introducing the studies was to show that Fox News did have a slant, because the statement was made that Fox News had no slant.

[Vandy Vol]

Defining a network to be X amount Conservative is very qualitative and intangible - more of something you have to see and judge. Very subjective and opinion based - like most "studies" are - its just someone's opinion. As it is here.

Counting the number of viewers who watched Lost or American "Crap" Idol is purely quantitative and can be finitely measured in numbers. It is not subjective. There is a right answer in the form of a fact (ie - a number) and is not an opinion.

This is where they are different. Sorry , but your logic was flawed here in your comparison.

You can count the number of people who say that they are Republican.  You can count the number of journalists who are registered Republican or who have stated they are Republican.  You can count the number of times that a journalist gives a personal opinion on a story.  Your logic is flawed in assuming that these things can't be quantified.  It is not an opinion as to how many people who said they were Republicans also said they watch Fox News.  It is not an opinion as to how many editors, writers, etc. came from administrations of Republican presidents, especially from the Bush administration.  It's not an opinion as to how many of the officers, board members, etc. of Fox are publicly self proposed Republicans.  These can all be quantified.