Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

by **Urge** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:25 pm

I just did a study on this and it shows 100% of IT professionals don't give a crap and I should get off the internet and back to work.

by **wrveres** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 6:25 pm

Absolutely Adequate wrote:http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/Res ... rs/R25.pdf

here's a study that "proves" that there is a conservative bias. Do I buy this one? Nope.

The media has a bias towards making money. They do this by reporting sensationalistic reports that get the public watching. How often is something about Scott Peterson on Fox? How is this really news?

Here's a good site that updates pretty much daily: http://www.prwatch.org/spin/

and Wkelly: Are you seriously arguing that the owners of the media have no say in what's reported or how those things are reported? Without irony?

well I am not going to get into this, but anybody with common sense can see the bias towards the left. And yes Cornbread, I did read the article .....

AA what is the fasinanation with the Blue ducks? 8-o

by **Absolutely Adequate** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:52 pm

Fair enough, wrveres. You prove your points with "common sense" and I'll prove mine with facts, figures, and statistics. Kind of like that "does clutch exist" argument.

I'm not fascinated by blue ducks, big guy. I don't know what you're talking about.

by **wkelly91** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:03 pm

Absolutely Adequate wrote:Fair enough, wrveres. You prove your points with "common sense" and I'll prove mine with facts, figures, and statistics. Kind of like that "does clutch exist" argument.

Here's some fact:

http://www.mrc.org/campaign/04/worst/worst20040622.asp

by **wkelly91** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:26 pm

If the media isn't bias, why hasn't this story gotten more play? :-?

I think because it supports President Bush in his decision to invade Iraq.

Fact:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jun18.html

by **Absolutely Adequate** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:34 pm

To answer the questions in the two links you provided.

In the first one, your source assumes that the 9/11 commission finding contacts is the same as having a close relationship. I've had some contacts with Tony Gwynn, but I wouldn't say we're close. Since we only met once and all the interest was coming from my side. The same thing applies here. There was "no collabrative relationship." If you rely on the Media Research Center for your unbiased news, then I don't know how to talk to you.

The reason the 2nd link isn't getting more airtime is because both Russia and the United States say - clearly in your article - that the information Russia had was far too vague to justify war. They said it and we said it. Considering how shaky our justification was in the first place, I can't imagine how vague this information was.

In the end, your examples give more of a view of your bias than the media's bias.

by **wkelly91** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:54 pm

Here's my point:

You told wrvres that he had his "common sense" and you had "facts". Facts are what they are...like stats in baseball. You come up with a link, I come up with a link. You say yours are facts, I say mine are facts. You say mine are bias, I say yours are bias.

You do not have exclusivity when it comes to facts.