Venom Development wrote:
Silk, what is your response to this?: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/ media-bias-repo.html

My response is that you've just admitted to the existence of an overwhelmingly liberal media! If you're willing accept the CMPA as a credible source, then you'll find that it demonstrates that the media is extremely liberal, and has been for a long time.

Heck, go read the most recent report from the CMPA! 62% positive for Obama, vs 32% for McCain.

Also notice that during the particular timeframe you pointed out, Obama received 50% more coverage than McCain. Fifty percent! Even in the outlier report that you've held up, Obama received much more press than McCain.


The media is on Obama's side, and that's just the reality of how things are.
SilkWizard wrote:
Venom Development wrote:
Silk, what is your response to this?: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/ media-bias-repo.html

My response is that you've just admitted to the existence of an overwhelmingly liberal media! If you're willing accept the CMPA as a credible source, then you'll find that it demonstrates that the media is extremely liberal, and has been for a long time.

Heck, go read the most recent report from the CMPA! 62% positive for Obama, vs 32% for McCain.

Also notice that during the particular timeframe you pointed out, Obama received 50% more coverage than McCain. Fifty percent! Even in the outlier report that you've held up, Obama received much more press than McCain.


The media is on Obama's side, and that's just the reality of how things are.

Did you read the article even? Obama got a lot more negative coverage, and this is from a source that believes that the Media is inherently liberal. Your thesis is that the media is treating Obama like a superstar, and I refuted it. You can't just claim "Libruhl Media" when even those in Academia who agree with you on that point will concede that McCain has had less negative coverage.
Venom Development wrote:
Academia who agree with you on that point will concede that McCain has had less negative coverage.

Go click on the links I posted, read the reports, then go sit in the corner for five minutes and think about what you've done. The very reports you cite as proof of your claim actually refute what you're saying. Yikes.
SilkWizard wrote:
Venom Development wrote:
Academia who agree with you on that point will concede that McCain has had less negative coverage.

Go click on the links I posted, read the reports, then go sit in the corner for five minutes and think about what you've done. The very reports you cite as proof of your claim actually refute what you're saying. Yikes.

What is your problem?

"Robert Lichter, director of the Center for Media and Politics, has been scrambling from interview to interview to explain and defend his research, which showed that the three broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS and NBC -- and the Fox Special Report made more negative statements about Obama than about McCain from June 8 through July 21."

Facts:
Robert Licter believes the Media is biased towards liberals.

Licter later released a study that said over the period of time studied, that the media had said twice as many negative things about Obama than McCain.

Conservative Hacks, such as O'reily loved Licter's reports that concluded there was a liberal bias towards the democrats in 2006.

The same Hacks, now believe that Licter is wrong.
Alright Venom, you're starting to sound like a robot again.

I don't care what O'Reilly believes. We're talking about you. You specifically referenced Lichter's studies, so you believe them to be accurate and reliable. You're pointing to one 6-week period in which there were more negative things said about Obama, and acting like it negates every other study from the same source -- the majority of which conclude that Obama has been strongly favored.

Ignoring reality isn't going to make it go away. Take off your blinders, because this is a debate that you can't win.
You know what Silk? I'm giving you what you want.

After this, I will not post anything on your blog again.

You can go on believing that it is the media's fault that John S. McCain will remain a senator next year, even though the obvious reality is that a combination of his Campaign's incompetence, whining about the media,Backlash from the Bush presidency, His blatant Lying, and the recent economic meltdown caused his campaign to implode.

Its fine, You can ignore the fact that Licter's studies that would help your point were done in 2006, because it is a free country.

You are also free to call me blind, and proclaim victory, despite the fact that you probably only watch conservative news, and have the echo chamber effect.

I can type this with a smile on my face.

Do you know why?

Its because McCain is going to lose.

And Obama is going to be a hell of a president.

And I'll get to watch the Neo-Cons like you whine and cry for all 8 years that he is likely to serve out.
Haha Silk I guess you're a Neo-Con now :P
"Even though McCain is basically evil, he kind of looks like a cute puppy." -Elation

Best - quote - ever.
Venom Development wrote:
And I'll get to watch the Neo-Cons like you whine and cry for all 8 years that he is likely to serve out.

Translated: I'm wrong and I can't properly argue my points, but my guy is going to win anyway, so Neener Neener Neener!!!

Nice talk we've had.
Jaredoggy wrote:
Haha Silk I guess you're a Neo-Con now :P

To a DNC robot, anyone who doesn't share their point of view is a Neo-Con. Sad, really.
Jaredoggy wrote:
Haha Silk I guess you're a Neo-Con now :P

I definitely LOLed with that, if Silk is a NeoCon, then that makes Venom a Libertarian Democrat?

SuperAntx wrote:
"Even though McCain is basically evil, he kind of looks like a cute puppy." -Elation

Best - quote - ever.


Isn't Elation the English kid who was obsessed with Jared and I a couple years back? I remember him being a loser, and this quote certainly doesn't do anything to contradict that memory.

SilkWizard wrote:
Isn't Elation the English kid who was obsessed with Jared and I a couple years back? I remember him being a loser, and this quote certainly doesn't do anything to contradict that memory.

Who cares? It's still a funny quote.

You shouldn't judge people so much.
SuperAntx wrote:
You shouldn't judge people so much.

By not judging people, you're giving them a moral blank check in the hopes that they'll give you one in return. I try very hard to be understanding of people, but don't abstain from judging anyone.
SilkWizard wrote:
By not judging people, you're giving them a moral blank check in the hopes that they'll give you one in return. I try very hard to be understanding of people, but don't abstain from judging anyone.

So you're racist?
SuperAntx wrote:
SilkWizard wrote:
By not judging people, you're giving them a moral blank check in the hopes that they'll give you one in return. I try very hard to be understanding of people, but don't abstain from judging anyone.

So you're racist collectivist?

Fixed.

SuperAntx wrote:
So you're racist?


Ummm, what? That came out of left field!

Are you saying that judging people = racism... or something?
Bootyboy wrote:
So you're racist collectivist?

Fixed.

yes massa

ima go eat sum o mai peasant food nao
Page: 1 2