The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

I completely agree that this is played everywhere by everyone.

As far as the Boxer comment, there are people who make decisions for me every day in government that do not feel the effect of those decisions. We have a single female governor here in AZ. Would it be appropriate to tell her she really shouldn't participate in making educational decisions because she has no family and no children that will feel the effects of those decisions?

I will open my insight into what she must have been thinking (that is spoken quite sarcastically, for clarification - of course I cannot know), but I stand by what I think her motivation was.

[Alex]

Neither am I offended by those questions of qualification.

I disagree that appropriate empathy requires direct experience but a lot of people disagree with me on that ("how can George Bush effectively set policy when he doesn't know how much a gallong of milk costs" was, if I recall, a real world example) and to raise the issue is neither outrageous nor, in my view, particularly controversial.

[sleepyjeff]

Maybe Fox News really is fairest of them all...........

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/...dia.Bias.8.htm

Fox News’ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks’ evening news broadcasts.

[scaeagles]

SACRILEGE! SACRILEGE, SLEEPY! How dare you! There must be something sinister about the person who conducted that!

I've posted that before. That's basically what was said, so I thought I'd post it first.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

SACRILEGE! SACRILEGE, SLEEPY! How dare you! There must be something sinister about the person who conducted that!

Depends on what you mean by sinister.

None of the outlets that reported on the study mentioned that the authors have previously received funding from the three premier conservative think tanks in the United States: the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace.

More about this flawed study here.

[wendybeth]

Now, there you go ruining all the cons fun again, MBC.

[sleepyjeff]

^^^How Republican of you conduting that pre-emptive strike

[innerSpaceman]

Where is anyone getting that there should be a politically "centered" bias in journalism? I thought the idea was to bring as much objectivity as humanly possible to investigations that go where facts lead?

I don't think we ought be shocked when there's an intelligence bias in the press. Journalists should be among the smart people if they are going to ferret out news and information. With all due respect to intelligent people on all sides of the political spectrum, it's hard for me not to equate "smart" with "progressive."

But that's just reporters. I think, by and large, they have a liberal bent. Their masters who control their output to the public, however, are staunchly conservative corporate interests. I would think it would balance out ... if not be outright tilted towards corporate interests.

But I'll admit to have zero personal knowledge of Fox News.

[scaeagles]

Like I said, Sleepy....those libs are extraordinarily easy to predict. Don't like the results? Try to discredit those who did the study.

I agree with a lot of what ISM said (the primary exception being the equating of smart and progressive ). It is simply not possible for a "journalist" to keep their opinion out of what they are reporting on. Voice inflection, body language, choice of adjectives....it all comes into play no matter what their political slant is. I can live with that.

What I can't live with is the high and mighty condescension of the holier than thou journalists who claim to have no bias and are always objective in their reporting. Just admit you have a bias and get on with it, whatever that bias may be.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Like I said, Sleepy....those libs are extraordinarily easy to predict. Don't like the results? Try to discredit those who did the study.

I think a study with so many glaring flaws deserves to be discredited.

* National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a 45.9, making it "conservative" -- but just barely.

* RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization (motto: "OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.") with strong ties to the Defense Department, scored a 60.4, making it a "liberal" group.

* Council on Foreign Relations, whose tagline is "A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis" (its current president is a former Bush administration official; its board includes prominent Democrats and Republicans from the foreign policy establishment) scored a 60.2, making it a "liberal" group.

* American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), bête noire of the right, scored a 49.8, putting it just on the "conservative" side of the ledger.

* Center for Responsive Politics, a group whose primary purpose is the maintenance of databases on political contributions, scored a 66.9, making it highly "liberal."

* Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense policy think tank whose board of directors is currently chaired by former Representative Dave McCurdy (D-OK), scored a 33.9, making it more "conservative" than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union.