Bias in the Media, LOL

[GabonX]

Fox news takes a lot of heat because it is the ONLY conservative leaning news network. This also results in Fox having the greatest viewership and hence the most power of any individual network

On the right we have Fox News and AM radio. On the left we have MSNBC, CNN, NPR, and a great deal of subversive youthful popular culture.

Yes, depending on what show you are watching, Fox does portray news objectively and without bias. It's interesting that a couple of the liberal posters here choose to reference Fox News anchors when it supports their views but still denounce the network absolutely.

MSNBC is as bad, if not worse than Fox when it comes to objective reporting and I've provided examples of this.

[GabonX]

I love it how conservatives wave away data.

If they don't like the science, then it's biased, and the same with news.

"I'm right you're not blahblahblah."

"Then why do all the scientists, news, statistics, etc, say you're wrong?"

"uh... uh... Those are biased."

... Generalization, Simon. Be spefific, cite examples.

Global warming

Evolution

Conservative bias in the general media

Effects of pollution on our kids

effects of oil drilling on our marine life

etc.

Just picked some of the really BIG ticket items.

Global warming: I agree that this is probably a legitimate issue, but conservatives are correct in asserting that the idea that the debate should not be treated as though it is over. The left acts as if there is no dissent in the scientific community and this is not the case.


Evolution: This is a matter of faith and frankly shouldn't be an issue. I have more respect for someone who takes a stand and says "I believe what is written in the Bible" than someone who is lukewarm and says "I believe in the Bible, just not what is actually written in it."
??
Seriously, this is a ridiculously stupid position to take. Yes, it is more stupid than denying evolution.

Conservative bias in the general media: If you want to ignore the data I've provided that's your choice, but then you're the one who is being unscientific

Effects of pollution on our kids: Conservatives deny that pollution has an effect on children?

effects of oil drilling on our marine life: Why should I care about marine life? I don't think this should place on the list of the top 100 most important issues. In all honesty I don't see how fish in the ocean have an affect on my life one way or the other.

Can you explain how my life would change if every fish in the ocean were to die tomorrow other than that I wouldn't be able to eat them anymore?

[PLAYER57832]

I love it how conservatives wave away data.

If they don't like the science, then it's biased, and the same with news.

"I'm right you're not blahblahblah."

"Then why do all the scientists, news, statistics, etc, say you're wrong?"

"uh... uh... Those are biased."

... Generalization, Simon. Be spefific, cite examples.

Global warming.

Theory... not proven, has been known to be occurring on other planets...

The cause is not 100% proven, but that it is occuring is fact. Even so, theories relating it to human causes are hardly garbage science, either, as Bush labeled it. Also, a recent consortium of scientists came together, the largest group ever to assert that global warming is definitely occuring and does seem to have a human cause. Many conservatives (George W. Bush most notably) denied that.

Conservative bias in the general media

[color=#0000FF]Bull shit! The general media has a liberal bias.

Here is why your statement is and always will be wrong.

The media is heavily dependent upon advertising. Advertising like some controversy, sure...about which star does what, etc. But, when it gets down to the real heart of news, people are just not going to watch anything that disagrees heavily with what they say. For this reason alone, the media is pretty conservative (as in "maintaining the status quo").

IN fact, if you go back about 30-40 years, you can see a very concerted effort to label the media as liberal. But, guess what? If you insert "Jewish dominated" or "Commie" for "liberal".. then you get mirrors of the attitudes that brought about black lists in the 50s. THAT is why you need to think pretty hard about throwing any kind of label around.

etc.

Just picked some of the really BIG ticket items.

By big ticket items, you, of course, mean the ones that you are most biased about!

You agreed with on over half and yet you still claim I am the "most biased" about these issues? Interesting assertion, that!

[TheProwler]

Can you explain how my life would change if every fish in the ocean were to die tomorrow other than that I wouldn't be able to eat them anymore?

We'd be in trouble if all marine (including plants) life died, that is a big "for sure". Something to do with balance and oxygen and us breathing and shit like that. But I will defer to the liberal expert in the crowd.

[GabonX]

All right, I'll concede that we should not recklessly destroy marine eco systems, but I also don't think they are as important as some people make them out to be.

The DoDo is extinct and I'm fine.
The Tazmanian Tiger is extinct and I'm fine.
The Ivory Billed Wood Pecker may or may not be extinct, either way I'm fine.

[TheProwler]

The cause is not 100% proven, but that it is occuring is fact. Even so, theories relating it to human causes are hardly garbage science, either, as Bush labeled it. Also, a recent consortium of scientists came together, the largest group ever to assert that global warming is definitely occuring and does seem to have a human cause. Many conservatives (George W. Bush most notably) denied that.

Wow. Do you really think that anyone agrees with each and every thing GWB said?

The people you are arguing with use their heads and don't follow blindly. I think you have a real hard time with this concept.

Not everything is black and white. Not everyone choose a "team" and then agrees on each and every topic.

Do you agree with everything Obama has ever said or done? That is a "Yes/No" question. Please don't disappoint me. I fully expect you to avoid it.

[GabonX]

The media is heavily dependent upon advertising. Advertising like some controversy, sure...about which star does what, etc. But, when it gets down to the real heart of news, people are just not going to watch anything that disagrees heavily with what they say. For this reason alone, the media is pretty conservative (as in "maintaining the status quo").

IN fact, if you go back about 30-40 years, you can see a very concerted effort to label the media as liberal. But, guess what? If you insert "Jewish dominated" or "Commie" for "liberal".. then you get mirrors of the attitudes that brought about black lists in the 50s. THAT is why you need to think pretty hard about throwing any kind of label around.

As a historian I have no idea what you are talking about. As an observer who watches every bit of media he can put his eyes on, I assure that there is a net left slant in the general media. Conservative bias is limited to one network and AM radio. The rest is leftist, and I've provided numerous examples of the worst of this (ie branding people who disagree with issues of policy as "red necks" and "racist").

Neo McCarthyism from the left:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... -president

[TheProwler]

All right, I'll concede that we should not recklessly destroy marine eco systems, but I also don't think they are as important as some people make them out to be.

I'll meet you half way. I actually do think they are very important, indeed, vital, to our existence. But, I also don't think they are as fragile as some people make them out to be.

[thegreekdog]

Was I asking you?

Apparently not.

[PLAYER57832]

And now, for the surprise of the day!!!!

A. I am not wrong.

Hahaha!!

Cut off most of a quote and you can make it seem as if anyone said anything.. doesn't make it true.

(and yes, the media does have a conservative bias)

Global warming. caused by increased solar activity?

Not even close.

Evolution

Where'd that Missing Link disappear to?

museums.

But here are just a few easy links:
On trasition fossils specifically: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

On more general evolution issues:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html
http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurri ... nsense.pdf

Denying that transition fossils exist would be funny, if so many people didn't believe it true.

effects of oil drilling on our marine life The ocean is home to the most important ecosystem on the planet.

Exactly.

[Snorri1234]

All right, I'll concede that we should not recklessly destroy marine eco systems, but I also don't think they are as important as some people make them out to be.

The DoDo is extinct and I'm fine.
The Tazmanian Tiger is extinct and I'm fine.
The Ivory Billed Wood Pecker may or may not be extinct, either way I'm fine.

Indeed. Single species are basically the same as entire ecosystems.

[thegreekdog]

All right, I'll concede that we should not recklessly destroy marine eco systems, but I also don't think they are as important as some people make them out to be.

The DoDo is extinct and I'm fine.
The Tazmanian Tiger is extinct and I'm fine.
The Ivory Billed Wood Pecker may or may not be extinct, either way I'm fine.

Indeed. Single species are basically the same as entire ecosystems.

Let's agree that we don't want to recklessly destroy marine ecosystems. Are we destroying marine ecosystems? Are we doing it at such a fast pace that something needs to be done now? If so, what should we be doing to ensure that we don't do that? Government regulation and control? Boycotts of industries and companies that help destroy maring ecosystems? I think the answers to these questions are what liberals and conservatives disagree on.

[PLAYER57832]

All right, I'll concede that we should not recklessly destroy marine eco systems, but I also don't think they are as important as some people make them out to be.

The DoDo is extinct and I'm fine.
The Tazmanian Tiger is extinct and I'm fine.
The Ivory Billed Wood Pecker may or may not be extinct, either way I'm fine.

Aldo Leopold said it best: "The first rule to intelligent tinkering is to keep all the parts".

Do we need the Dodo? Apparently not. Are you smart enough to know exactly which species we need and which ones we don't?

The yew tree (pacific northwest conifer) was pretty much a "garbage" tree. Then someone discovered it produced an ingredient effective in fighting childhood leukemia. Suddenly, biologists were scurrying to find it. After a time, the chemists were able to duplicate it. HOWEVER, without that original blueprint, the search might never have found it. Is every species going to have such a story? Probably not (though a surprising number DO.. there is good reason why pharmaceutical companies have been sending biologists and anthropologists to remote regions in search of new plants). The point is do you know which ones we can safely eradicate?

Also, remember this. The ocean is huge. You may dismiss "a bit of fish for supper", but many people, whole cultures and societies depend upon our ocean. Collapse of fisheries would devastate world economies, make no mistake. Collapse of even certain segmants has had phenomenal impacts on societies already. And, stocks are in far worse shape than most people want to realize. Fish keep coming to market because fishing techniques get better and better, but the ocean doesn't produce more. Farming fish in the ocean works in some instances, but has its own problems.

Finally, when we talk about the ocean, we should really be talking about the world's water. Every pollutant on land, every mineral, etc. all wind up in the water eventually. For reasons that take some explaining, aquatic animals are usually far more sensitive to these things than us. If it hurts the fish, it might not hurt us YET, but it will, in time. Fish, our streams are "canaries" for the world.

[GabonX]

All right, I'll concede that we should not recklessly destroy marine eco systems, but I also don't think they are as important as some people make them out to be.

The DoDo is extinct and I'm fine.
The Tazmanian Tiger is extinct and I'm fine.
The Ivory Billed Wood Pecker may or may not be extinct, either way I'm fine.

Indeed. Single species are basically the same as entire ecosystems.

But if a species becomes extinct, the entire eco systems collapses!!

Player, outside of Fox news, can you provide any empirical evidance that there is a net conservative bias?

It's pretty ridiculous that you've stated that you are unfamiliar with the leftist network with greatest slant and also the highest ratings (MSNBC), and still claim that you have a valid position. It's like if I said that I knew more about geology than you but provided no evidance when you provided a wealth of knowledge to the contrary.

Still, I'm willing to humor you. Can you demonstrate this conservative bias outside of a single network? There are only a handful of conservative pundits outside of Fox or AM radio (which you really have to look for in order to find, ie you have to want it) and they are usualy countered by an exceeding number of liberal pundits.

[PLAYER57832]

All right, I'll concede that we should not recklessly destroy marine eco systems, but I also don't think they are as important as some people make them out to be.

The DoDo is extinct and I'm fine.
The Tazmanian Tiger is extinct and I'm fine.
The Ivory Billed Wood Pecker may or may not be extinct, either way I'm fine.

Indeed. Single species are basically the same as entire ecosystems.

But if a species becomes extinct, the entire eco systems collapses!!

Player, outside of Fox news, can you provide any empirical evidance that there is a net conservative bias?

It's pretty ridiculous that you've stated that you are unfamiliar with the leftist network with greatest slant and also the highest ratings (MSNBC), and still claim that you have a valid position. It's like if I said that I knew more about geology than you.

Still, I'm willing to humor you. Can you demonstrate this conservative bias outside of a single network? There are only a handful of conservative pundits outside of Fox or AM radio (which you really have to look for in order to find, ie you have to want it) and they are usualy countered by an exceeding number of liberal pundits.

I am not sure why that makes my position that the media in general has a conservative bias. It is a pretty new network, if you say it is "liberal".. I won't dispute it.

As for the other, I am not referring to the past 5 years or 10 years, by a long stretch. more like 40.

in my case, I am old enough to have seen it happen. However, here is a professor who stakes his career discussing the ideas.
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases ... koff.shtml

Fox, by the way is beyond conservative. The general media is conservative.

[Snorri1234]

All right, I'll concede that we should not recklessly destroy marine eco systems, but I also don't think they are as important as some people make them out to be.

The DoDo is extinct and I'm fine.
The Tazmanian Tiger is extinct and I'm fine.
The Ivory Billed Wood Pecker may or may not be extinct, either way I'm fine.

Indeed. Single species are basically the same as entire ecosystems.

Let's agree that we don't want to recklessly destroy marine ecosystems.

No, because that is something everyone agrees with. I want to know why Gabon thinks marine ecosystems aren't a big deal. like why they aren't vitally important.

Are we destroying marine ecosystems?

Yes.

Are we doing it at such a fast pace that something needs to be done now?

That's a ridiculous question. Something needed to be done 20 years ago, somethign will need to be done in 20 years. Just because it is possible to wait some time before acting doesn't mean it's wise. Every problem needs to be handled as soon as possible.

If so, what should we be doing to ensure that we don't do that? Government regulation and control? Boycotts of industries and companies that help destroy maring ecosystems?

We should trust companies to cut their profits by ensuring the safety of something which doesn't directly affect them. Big companies have always shown that they are protective of the environment, even when it means less profit. Ofcourse we need regulation and control.

Conservatives may disagree with this, but that's because they are morons.

[Snorri1234]

All right, I'll concede that we should not recklessly destroy marine eco systems, but I also don't think they are as important as some people make them out to be.

The DoDo is extinct and I'm fine.
The Tazmanian Tiger is extinct and I'm fine.
The Ivory Billed Wood Pecker may or may not be extinct, either way I'm fine.

Indeed. Single species are basically the same as entire ecosystems.

But if a species becomes extinct, the entire eco systems collapses!!

Depends on the species. Whoever said that anyway?

[GabonX]

It seems to be the general attitude.

I've already conceded that we should not recklessly destroy marine eco systems. Rather I was just annoyed that Player brought up the topic to denounce drilling with out explaining why we need them.

I do believe that there is a lot of life in the ocean which is completely disconnected from my own life. Lets leave it at that.

[Neoteny]

Most of the life in the ocean is directly connected to your life. It's just that you can't see them. Sure, we don't really need whales, but if they start dying out, that's an indicator that the things they're feeding on might not be doing so hot, and the things they're feeding on. Eventually, we get to stuff that we do need. It's complex, and like someone said, we shouldn't be too rash about taking action.

Of course, that doesn't apply to climate change, because we need to act now on that.

[GabonX]

But if a species becomes extinct, the entire eco systems collapses!!

Depends on the species. Whoever said that anyway?

It seems to be the general attitude.

Most of the life in the ocean is directly connected to your life. It's just that you can't see them. Sure, we don't really need whales, but if they start dying out, that's an indicator that the things they're feeding on might not be doing so hot, and the things they're feeding on. Eventually, we get to stuff that we do need. It's complex, and like someone said, we shouldn't be too rash about taking action.

Of course, that doesn't apply to climate change, because we need to act now on that.

[Snorri1234]

It seems to be the general attitude.

I've already conceded that we should not recklessly destroy marine eco systems.

Yes. And if you concede that the sky is blue that is equally unimportant. Recklessly destroying anything is stupid.

I do believe that there is a lot of life in the ocean which is completely disconnected from my own life. Lets leave it at that.

No, let's not leave it at that. If I say "I believe germans are genetically programmed to commit violent crimes, let's leave it at that" I would be wrong and people would call me on it. Just because you don't want to discuss your ignorant views doesn't mean you can just act like it's unimportant. If you refuse to back up your viewpoints with reasons and proof, you're being an ignorant moron.

The fact that you refuse to argue and just spout your ignorant shit in every single thread infuriates me no end. Stop refusing to back up your viewpoints!

[thegreekdog]

That's a ridiculous question. Something needed to be done 20 years ago, somethign will need to be done in 20 years. Just because it is possible to wait some time before acting doesn't mean it's wise. Every problem needs to be handled as soon as possible.

It probably was a ridiculous question. The point of the question was to bridge the first question with the next question. Sorry for the confusion.

We should trust companies to cut their profits by ensuring the safety of something which doesn't directly affect them. Big companies have always shown that they are protective of the environment, even when it means less profit. Ofcourse we need regulation and control.

There are big companies that do a lot to protect the environment that are unrelated to government regulations. For example, companies have begun to build wind mills and nuclear power plants. In any event, let's assume big companies are completely selfish and have no interest in helping the environment. Let's also assume that helping the environment and making money are mutually exclusive (they aren't, but let's say they are).

What regulations should we throw down? Do we not do enough now? Do we need to do more, environmentally? Should we close all coal plants? What do we do with the people who work at the coal plants? Do we give them government-sponsored reeducation programs? If so, who pays for that? Does the company that previously employed them pay for that or do you and I pay for it?

Personally, I think we need to encourage free enterprise that will have a positive effect on the environment. Admittedly, I know little about how best to do this.

[Neoteny]

Don't be using what I said in your favor, Gabon; what I typed was intended to demonstrate an effect on multiple species. Poorly, I might add, but the intent was there. So I'm a dog in that respect, rather than a sheep-wolf.

To clarify, whales eat many different species that feed on many other different species. A cause that has an effect large enough to affect whales, is obviously harming many species, rather than just the obvious one.

[Snorri1234]

But if a species becomes extinct, the entire eco systems collapses!!

Depends on the species. Whoever said that anyway?

It seems to be the general attitude.

Most of the life in the ocean is directly connected to your life. It's just that you can't see them. Sure, we don't really need whales, but if they start dying out, that's an indicator that the things they're feeding on might not be doing so hot, and the things they're feeding on. Eventually, we get to stuff that we do need. It's complex, and like someone said, we shouldn't be too rash about taking action.

Of course, that doesn't apply to climate change, because we need to act now on that.

And he's completely right. A species becoming extinct can be very bad because there might be a worrying cause for it which could destroy the balance in an ecosystem. For example, if you wipe out the only natural predator of a species, that species will become dominant and possibly block out all other species on it's level which damages biodiversity and therefore the ecosystem.

[PLAYER57832]

Several have weighed in, so I won't quote them all, I will just add this point.

In about 1989, the American Fisheries society published an article title "how to destroy a resource". It outlined how U.S. policy has divided control and legislation over our water resources to the point it is a wonder we have anything left.

Marine resources are probably the worst. Coasts are controlled by a variety of municipalities and agencies. Teh overal science study is given to National Marine Fisheries Service (under NOAA/Department of Commerce -- which should give you an idea of their directives). Endangered species are left up to the Fish and Wildlife service. Regulation of the fisheries is generally left up to a series of combined committees. States, Native American Tribes, Commercial Fishermen's groups, Business, etc. etc. .. ALL have independent stakes and all fight each other. Enforcement is left up to the Coast Gaurd, which, of course puts tackling errant fishermen up at the very top of its list!

Land is not much better. Every state is different, but typically you have one agency in charge of the species (sometimes fish or fish/crustaceans get one agency and other animals, amphibians, etc get another), another in charge of the water itself (often multiple agencies depending on whether it is a dam, natural stream, modified stream or canal. The Forest service controls land (and some water) on its lands. (BLM, National Park Service, Corps of Engineers etc. all do same on their lands). States generally control private lands, unless its an Indian reservation and then its tribal or federal jurisdiction. Endangered species are again Fish and Wildlife. Enforcement isn spread out among multiple agencies. And that is NOT a full listing of the compexity.

That was 20 years ago. Some things have actually improved since then. Some international commissions have functioned reasonably well to allocate fisheries. Other stocks are in far worse shape and perhaps may never recover.

Two big points, though. When it comes to fisheries, you have to think "Tragedy of the Commons". (famous paper.. look it up). The name comes from the old English "commons". Essentially the idea is that when no one owns it, then no one really takes care the way they do if its their own property. Some of the better attempts have tried to give fisherment, for example a better stake. Bristol Bay fishing rights, for example were sold. It worked well for a while. (have not kept up on it ... don't know if it still succeeds or not, but they also had some unrelated fishery collapses compounding and there was debate over whether the ownership rights came too late). In the east, limits seem to be more the fashion. They have not worked so well. (these things change yearly, so what's currently happening, what has happened in the past 8 years or so I don't know).

Anyway, the thing is that fisheries HAS to be controlled internationally. It does no good for the US to cease whaling if Japan can take as many as they wish, willy-nilly. (they still take a few now in "scientific whaling" expeditions, but not the scale of former times)

Water is historically one of the main reasons FOR government regulation. Because if you dump sewage in your stream or dam it so you can water your fields, it affects me. Wars were literally faught over these rights. Governance of free flowing waters is historically federal jurisdiction (navigable waters), though the reasons were mostly to do with navigation and commerce. Still, now those same laws are helping to protect the water we drink and, in the sense of the "canary in the mine", protect our general health and well-being. These things plain and simply CANNOT be decided locally. When they are... disaster. And we have plenty of examples!