* My grandparents aren't and never were loggers.
** My father isn't either, and never has been, but he did work in a sawmill once.

That directly contradicts the proven fact that all Canadians are lumberjacks, therefore, you must either not be Canadian or are hiding your family's lumberjackery.

-AbyssDragon

LexyBitch wrote:

*Isn't it interesting that our newscasters still refer to Bill as President Clinton, but Dubya is often just Bush or Mr. Bush?

Yep, I've been noticing that for some time. Aside from being vastly disrespectful to the current President not to at least prepend "former" to Slick Willy's old title, I think it shows a rank bias in that there are many in the media who probably never wanted Bill to leave office. Nobody sucked up to the media like he did, and I think they miss that. So, Bill Clinton is still referred to, incorrectly, as President and not Former President, because in theiir minds he should still be.

Lummox JR

Lummox JR wrote:

LexyBitch wrote:

*Isn't it interesting that our newscasters still refer to Bill as President Clinton, but Dubya is often just Bush or Mr. Bush?

Yep, I've been noticing that for some time. Aside from being vastly disrespectful to the current President not to at least prepend "former" to Slick Willy's old title, I think it shows a rank bias in that there are many in the media who probably never wanted Bill to leave office. Nobody sucked up to the media like he did, and I think they miss that. So, Bill Clinton is still referred to, incorrectly, as President and not Former President, because in theiir minds he should still be.

Lummox JR

I believe it speaks more of Clinton's personal presence vs. Bush's. Note that I'm not Bush-bashing, suggesting that Clinton's a better person or president than he is, or anything like that. Presence is something that one can have or not. Rasputin had it, for instance. Did that make him a good leader?

I also think that the "liberal bias" of the news media is one of the biggest myths of our day. Why is it, exactly, that people outside of Arkansas know Clinton's nickname is Slick Willy? Was that part of a campaign slogan of his I missed? Or did we hear it being bandied around by reporters? Which institution was it exactly that fixated on Clinton's exploits, sexual and non, while he was in office? Was it the schools? Major league sports? Or was it the media? Sure, not every reporter or columnist called for his head on a platter... but since when is failing to call for a head on a platter a sign of bias? Report facts, let the people clamor for a head on a platter, if that's what they want.

You know who I see talking about the liberal bias of the media all the time? Syndicated columnists. Talking heads on CNN and MSNBC. Radioshow hosts. What the freak is up with that? What does Rush Limbaugh think he is, a clergyman? A firefighter? I'd stop short of calling him a journalist, but he's certainly part of the media establishment.

LexyBitch wrote:

I believe it speaks more of Clinton's personal presence vs. Bush's. Note that I'm not Bush-bashing, suggesting that Clinton's a better person or president than he is, or anything like that. Presence is something that one can have or not. Rasputin had it, for instance. Did that make him a good leader?

Well, Clinton does have presence. I'll give him that.

I also think that the "liberal bias" of the news media is one of the biggest myths of our day.

Heh. That's so ridiculous I don't know where to begin. If one takes a look at both sides of an issue and watches media coverage (as well as pop-culture treatment) with an eye to language and airtime, it's pretty easy to see that the liberal bent gets a lot more play, and wording is usually subtly skewed in its favor. The bias is there, and it's pretty darn huge.

So far I've found Fox News to be less biased, as others have already reported and I've confirmed from my own observations. I doubt complete objectivity is really achievable, but so far I haven't been able to pick up on a general slant to the network. There seems to be a pretty good balance there.

Why is it, exactly, that people outside of Arkansas know Clinton's nickname is Slick Willy? Was that part of a campaign slogan of his I missed? Or did we hear it being bandied around by reporters? Which institution was it exactly that fixated on Clinton's exploits, sexual and non, while he was in office? Was it the schools? Major league sports? Or was it the media? Sure, not every reporter or columnist called for his head on a platter... but since when is failing to call for a head on a platter a sign of bias? Report facts, let the people clamor for a head on a platter, if that's what they want.

"Slick Willy" was a common nickname that spread as a byword among Clinton's detractors. As for who covered the Monica story, bear in mind that the media was kind of forced into dealing with it because it was so tabloid-juicy. Yet they went out of their way to avoid calling attention to other scandals. To name a few: The Vince Foster "suicide", Al Gore's campaign funding improprieties in '92 (suspiciously absent from common reporting during the 2000 election year), Janet Reno's stubborn reluctance to investigate same. The list goes on a lot longer than even I know.
The media picked this particular scandal because they had to cover one of them in depth sometime, and this one had Sweeps Week written all over it. The mainstream press giving serious coverage to this one was the exception, not the rule; one might even say the exception that proves the rule.

You know who I see talking about the liberal bias of the media all the time? Syndicated columnists. Talking heads on CNN and MSNBC. Radioshow hosts. What the freak is up with that? What does Rush Limbaugh think he is, a clergyman? A firefighter? I'd stop short of calling him a journalist, but he's certainly part of the media establishment.

Rush Limbaugh is indeed a journalist. Not all journalists or press establishments are biased to the liberal side, but the overwhelming majority are. TV news is dominated by liberalism, and newspapers too are not innocent: The New York Times and Washington Post are both extremely bent in that direction. The reason columnists are more inclined to talk about the bias than news reporters is simply because such columns are one of the rare places the conservative voice appears with any kind of prominence.

Of course it's probably obvious that I'm a conservative. Nevertheless, conservatives find press bias ridiculously easy to spot. It's not surprising that a liberal wouldn't; after all, the language employed in most broadcasts and mainstream columns is theirs. It's a lot like trying to stargaze through light pollution, or not seeing the forest for the trees; those outside the proverbial forest can see it just fine.

Lummox JR

Lummox JR wrote:

LexyBitch wrote:

I believe it speaks more of Clinton's personal presence vs. Bush's. Note that I'm not Bush-bashing, suggesting that Clinton's a better person or president than he is, or anything like that. Presence is something that one can have or not. Rasputin had it, for instance. Did that make him a good leader?

Well, Clinton does have presence. I'll give him that.

I also think that the "liberal bias" of the news media is one of the biggest myths of our day.

Heh. That's so ridiculous I don't know where to begin. If one takes a look at both sides of an issue and watches media coverage (as well as pop-culture treatment) with an eye to language and airtime, it's pretty easy to see that the liberal bent gets a lot more play, and wording is usually subtly skewed in its favor. The bias is there, and it's pretty darn huge.

So far I've found Fox News to be less biased, as others have already reported and I've confirmed from my own observations. I doubt complete objectivity is really achievable, but so far I haven't been able to pick up on a general slant to the network. There seems to be a pretty good balance there.

Why is it, exactly, that people outside of Arkansas know Clinton's nickname is Slick Willy? Was that part of a campaign slogan of his I missed? Or did we hear it being bandied around by reporters? Which institution was it exactly that fixated on Clinton's exploits, sexual and non, while he was in office? Was it the schools? Major league sports? Or was it the media? Sure, not every reporter or columnist called for his head on a platter... but since when is failing to call for a head on a platter a sign of bias? Report facts, let the people clamor for a head on a platter, if that's what they want.

To name a few: The Vince Foster "suicide", Al Gore's campaign funding improprieties in '92 (suspiciously absent from common reporting during the 2000 election year), Janet Reno's stubborn reluctance to investigate same. The list goes on a lot longer than even I know.

How exactly do you know about any of those things? Did you bug the White House? Probe the minds of Clinton's closest followers with your alien mind control satellites? Read tarot cards and tea leaves? I'm curious to know exactly what source of information you turned to in order to learn of even the hint of existence of any of these things.

The media picked this particular scandal because they had to cover one of them in depth sometime, and this one had Sweeps Week written all over it. The mainstream press giving serious coverage to this one was the exception, not the rule; one might even say the exception that proves the rule.

The only thing that the Monica thing proved is that the press is capable of doing their own pandering. The press mentioned the other things listed above... received a lukewarm reaction, so moved on to other things. The press mentioned Monica, got a huge reaction, so malingered on. It's not the press's fault that the public was more interested in the president's trivial personal failings than any actual wrongdoings. If Lex Luthor were alive and real in the world today, the public would be more concerned about his sinister intentions for Lois Lane than his intentions for the world's supply of Nabezium, I'm sure.

You know who I see talking about the liberal bias of the media all the time? Syndicated columnists. Talking heads on CNN and MSNBC. Radioshow hosts. What the freak is up with that? What does Rush Limbaugh think he is, a clergyman? A firefighter? I'd stop short of calling him a journalist, but he's certainly part of the media establishment.

Rush Limbaugh is indeed a journalist. Not all journalists or press establishments are biased to the liberal side, but the overwhelming majority are. TV news is dominated by liberalism, and newspapers too are not innocent: The New York Times and Washington Post are both extremely bent in that direction. The reason columnists are more inclined to talk about the bias than news reporters is simply because such columns are one of the rare places the conservative voice appears with any kind of prominence.

Actually, it's because columnists (and talk show hosts) are in a submedia where expressing strong opinions is favored, as opposed to straight reporting, which should ideally be neutral in tone.

Of course it's probably obvious that I'm a conservative. Nevertheless, conservatives find press bias ridiculously easy to spot. It's not surprising that a liberal wouldn't; after all, the language employed in most broadcasts and mainstream columns is theirs. It's a lot like trying to stargaze through light pollution, or not seeing the forest for the trees; those outside the proverbial forest can see it just fine.

Or we could say it's like living one's entire life in a dark cave, where any amount of light would be blinding. Most of the evidence of "liberal bias" I see pointed out is actually just a lack of conservative bias. If the local newspaper here reports, for instance:

"According to a recent poll, there is a growing support for [liberal agenda item X] among Americans among the [important demographic Y]. What could this mean for America? According to supporters, blah blah blah blah. But not everyone shares this enthusiasm. [conservative mouthpiece Z], of the Family [whatever] [whatever], says bleeh bleeh bleeh bleeh bleeh."

it will be inundated by indignant letters asking effectively, why it bothered to report the statistic at all, or why it presented the facts without commenting on the serious moral implications of [liberal agenda item X].

Commentary injected or not, it still might seem that the newspapers print more liberal-oriented news than conservative-oriented. There's a reason for this. A style of thinking which favors stability (or stagnation, depending on your point of view) generates very little news. Conservativism assumes that many things are the way it is for a reason, that the best methods are time-tested, tried, and true, and that simplicity is itself a desirable end.* What kind of news stories, exactly, do you think that will come up with? "Local tycoon's family values remain the same, twenty-fifth year running" is not news. It's olds.

And for the record, I don't recall if it's you or Gug who mentioned the so-called "popular media." To clarify, I am speaking of the news media. Of course the popular media is liberally biased... it's where the conservative's "free market" dumped gays, Jews, and people with the temerity to associate with the likes thereof for decades. The line between the two might be blurry, but it's distinct enough for purposes of discussing the two in general tersm.

*At least one or two of you reading this actually will manage to find some judgement being passed on conservativism in that statement. I take this, more than anything else, as evidence that the liberal bias is a figment of your imagination.

LexyBitch wrote:

To name a few: The Vince Foster "suicide", Al Gore's campaign funding improprieties in '92 (suspiciously absent from common reporting during the 2000 election year), Janet Reno's stubborn reluctance to investigate same. The list goes on a lot longer than even I know.

How exactly do you know about any of those things? Did you bug the White House? Probe the minds of Clinton's closest followers with your alien mind control satellites? Read tarot cards and tea leaves? I'm curious to know exactly what source of information you turned to in order to learn of even the hint of existence of any of these things.

If you mean that I'm implying the mainstream media never covered these things.... No, they did. However they gave these issues maybe a mention or two and then went silent. Most of what I know of this comes through more conservative media sources.

The media picked this particular scandal because they had to cover one of them in depth sometime, and this one had Sweeps Week written all over it. The mainstream press giving serious coverage to this one was the exception, not the rule; one might even say the exception that proves the rule.

The only thing that the Monica thing proved is that the press is capable of doing their own pandering. The press mentioned the other things listed above... received a lukewarm reaction, so moved on to other things. The press mentioned Monica, got a huge reaction, so malingered on. It's not the press's fault that the public was more interested in the president's trivial personal failings than any actual wrongdoings. If Lex Luthor were alive and real in the world today, the public would be more concerned about his sinister intentions for Lois Lane than his intentions for the world's supply of Nabezium, I'm sure.

This is of course true, but I think only to an extent. I think it's also possible to make a story less interesting by its delivery. Was America really all that shocked about Monica Lewinski, when we knew of Clinton's previous affairs? On the other hand, mention that an administration official most people aren't familiar with has committed suicide, and people might shrug it off; mention it alongside the suspicious phenomena related to the story, and it grows a lot more interesting. It is entirely possible that stories are delivered in such a way as to make these important matters seem trivial. In most cases I'm sure that subtle double-standard delivery is unintentional, but it can and should be avoided.

Rush Limbaugh is indeed a journalist. Not all journalists or press establishments are biased to the liberal side, but the overwhelming majority are. TV news is dominated by liberalism, and newspapers too are not innocent: The New York Times and Washington Post are both extremely bent in that direction. The reason columnists are more inclined to talk about the bias than news reporters is simply because such columns are one of the rare places the conservative voice appears with any kind of prominence.

Actually, it's because columnists (and talk show hosts) are in a submedia where expressing strong opinions is favored, as opposed to straight reporting, which should ideally be neutral in tone.

Point taken.

Of course it's probably obvious that I'm a conservative. Nevertheless, conservatives find press bias ridiculously easy to spot. It's not surprising that a liberal wouldn't; after all, the language employed in most broadcasts and mainstream columns is theirs. It's a lot like trying to stargaze through light pollution, or not seeing the forest for the trees; those outside the proverbial forest can see it just fine.

Or we could say it's like living one's entire life in a dark cave, where any amount of light would be blinding. Most of the evidence of "liberal bias" I see pointed out is actually just a lack of conservative bias. If the local newspaper here reports, for instance:

"According to a recent poll, there is a growing support for [liberal agenda item X] among Americans among the [important demographic Y]. What could this mean for America? According to supporters, blah blah blah blah. But not everyone shares this enthusiasm. [conservative mouthpiece Z], of the Family [whatever] [whatever], says bleeh bleeh bleeh bleeh bleeh."

it will be inundated by indignant letters asking effectively, why it bothered to report the statistic at all, or why it presented the facts without commenting on the serious moral implications of [liberal agenda item X].

And there is one form of the bias to which I'm referring. The majority of such stories follow exactly the political lines you're talking about; the media gives us a sound bite about the results of a poll with a liberal interpretation to its results. Usually the reasons presented for dissent, if presented at all, are not the most important reasons. It also bears noting that the construction of a poll--and who backs it--tends to dramatically influence the results. Wording in a poll question can be a tricky matter; usually the results tend to be more significant if the poll is deliberately constructed to one cant but the results show great support for the opposite agenda.

For example, suppose a hypothetical poll reported that 84% of Americans favored gun control in some form. The real meat of the results would really be in which forms of control were favored. (It's also clear that in this type of poll, question wording is key.) Perhaps 40% of respondents picked choice D, that everyone should be able to own a gun except convicted felons or anyone convicted of gun-related crime. Say maybe 30% opted for a licensing scheme, the assumption behind such schemes usually being that a license is 1) reasonably priced, and 2) reasonably simple for a law-abiding person to obtain. These are completely made-up statistics of course, but it's typical media behavior to report the 84% that favors the liberal agenda, not the leftover 14% that might be the hard line that really agrees with it.

Commentary injected or not, it still might seem that the newspapers print more liberal-oriented news than conservative-oriented. There's a reason for this. A style of thinking which favors stability (or stagnation, depending on your point of view) generates very little news. Conservativism assumes that many things are the way it is for a reason, that the best methods are time-tested, tried, and true, and that simplicity is itself a desirable end.* What kind of news stories, exactly, do you think that will come up with? "Local tycoon's family values remain the same, twenty-fifth year running" is not news. It's olds.

In politics and in the world, there's always news. There are still conservative papers that do well for themselves. What's more accurate really is to say that newspapers have long been famous for having a political bent one way or the other. I just happen to think that many more of them (specifically some prestigious ones) are bent in the liberal direction.

And for the record, I don't recall if it's you or Gug who mentioned the so-called "popular media." To clarify, I am speaking of the news media. Of course the popular media is liberally biased... it's where the conservative's "free market" dumped gays, Jews, and people with the temerity to associate with the likes thereof for decades. The line between the two might be blurry, but it's distinct enough for purposes of discussing the two in general tersm.

I'm not entirely clear on what you mean by that, so I'll refrain from comment.

*At least one or two of you reading this actually will manage to find some judgement being passed on conservativism in that statement. I take this, more than anything else, as evidence that the liberal bias is a figment of your imagination.

I'd disagree there. A person with one political viewpoint or another will naturally find flaws in the opposite viewpoint.
Still I didn't see that particular statement as a judgment on conservatism so much as a description of it. Not an entirely accurate description, I would think, but not made in a condemning tone.

For a more accurate description of conservatism vs. liberalism in the government (not social) arena, I'd say the main defining difference is that conservatives believe in keeping government small (the old Thomas Jefferson states' rights perspective), while liberals believe in an expanded Federal government.

Lummox JR

I can't even tell if this is supposed to be irony, or sarcasm, or what, so I'm just not going to respond.

It was clearly a hortatory exegesis.

Just kidding, of course. Though I didn't write it with an explicit category in mind, I imagine it was something akin to sarcasm; my suspicion is corroborated by the fact that sarcasm isn't usually very funny. At the very least, I should have put a smiley at the end of it.

Actually in this country, the title "President" is a life-time title. They do not say "Former President Jimmy Carter," they actually say "President Jimmy Carter." Or at least they're supposed to.

I believe its true that they're supposed to by tradition, but upon thinking about it, it doesn't make any sense. What exactly is it Carter and Clinton are presiding over?

-AbyssDragon

AbyssDragon wrote:

Actually in this country, the title "President" is a life-time title. They do not say "Former President Jimmy Carter," they actually say "President Jimmy Carter." Or at least they're supposed to.

I believe its true that they're supposed to by tradition, but upon thinking about it, it doesn't make any sense. What exactly is it Carter and Clinton are presiding over?

-AbyssDragon

Honorary Title: Holding a title or place without rendering service or receiving reward.

Quite common, actually, and not limited to presidency.