Wednesday, June 2, 2004 8:43:07 AM
Uh oh, he did 'resurch` for a class! Spread out everyone!
The Herman-Chomsky model is, at best, only a reasonable model for explaining why the media isn`t voraciously extremist and would certainly not explain away a more mainstream liberal bias. The model also does not indicate a reliance on right-wing think tanks, but rather a dependence on established sources. I merely disagree with that point; you`ve totally misrepresented it.
Friday, May 28, 2004 9:54:44 PM
I think the point about commentators is that there happen to be a lot fewer on the other side. Liberal has become a stigma for some reason.
"Conservatives complain about liberal bias in reporters, not commentators."
They also do so without cause, and don't tell me I`m wrong on this one, because I did the resurch for class. Conservitive`s claim there is left wing bias with no agreed apon model of why that should be, only the idea that reporters are liberals. They also have scant few long-term studies, most of which show only that Republicans were identified as Republicans more often then Democrats as Democrats. On the left side, in claiming bias towards the right, there is a reasonable model for why this should be the Herman-Chomsky Model, and several long term studies, which show, among other things the mainstream media`s reliance on right wing think tanks as sources.
It definitely shows patches of blue in a sea of red. The whole point to this map is the divide between rural and urban America. We all already know the vote was close, and the map as never intended to show otherwise.
Next, the media bias one. I am familiar with all of the people pictured except Paula Zahn. Let`s count her as a straight reporter. So now you`ve got 14 commentators and one reporter and this is supposed to show how the media is dominated by conservatives. Guess what -- commentators are supposed to be biased! The whole point to a commentator is to give their opinion. Conservatives complain about liberal bias in reporters, not commentators. Reporters are supposed to give the facts without interjecting their opinion.
Friday, May 28, 2004 1:44:46 PM
"It is therefore necessary to replace that artificial red-blue map that was obtained by rounding 49% down to zero and 50% to one hundred by a more accurate map that reflects how the voters actually voted. I have created such a map by simply mixing red, blue and green for each state, with the ratios equal to the percentage that Bush, Gore and Nader received in the 2000 election."
Um. . . That's how. And if it whent for bush it`s more red then blue. . . We`s your neighbors. You`s our neighbors. It sort of means that this house it less devided then we`ve been lead to belive. That`s kind of a good thing you know. . .