"Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Watching Norm on Saturday, I noticed his TS is Right Tilt. Funny, I would
> have thought he leaned more toward the left.
>
A guy that is in the pocket of the big lumbering delta porter-cable
corporation lean to the left? No way, it is pure capitalism around the NYW.
Frank
You use what you like, I guess. Exploit its strengths, work around its
weaknesses.
Now PBS as a whole does tilt left....
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Old School
>
> "Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Watching Norm on Saturday, I noticed his TS is Right Tilt. Funny, I
would
> > have thought he leaned more toward the left.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >
>
>
ROTFLMAO!!
"Agki Strodon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > You use what you like, I guess. Exploit its strengths, work around its
> > weaknesses.
> >
> > Now PBS as a whole does tilt left....
>
> Actually, PBS news shows have a more right wing color.
Interestingly, PBS commentators on the radio and TV refer to the members of
the Communist Party of Russia as "right-wingers." I thought maybe they
just didn't know the historical origin of the left/right orientation, and
were trying to tar with a familiar brush, but now that you mention it, they
would have to look right on the spectrum to see Communists....
.
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Who defined "liberal" and "conservative"? Was it left to the minds of the
> judges?
>
>
You're joking, right? Overthrowing those in power hardly qualifies them as
preservers of the status quo.
I guess my experiences living and traveling with the folks from the evil
empire just bent my mind right. You obviously have a different tilt.
"Ian Dodd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > >
>
> Or not so inteestingly. It is not only PBS commentators who use this
> nomenclature. It has become standard practice, in case you hadn't
> noticed, to refer to members of the old guard (the Communists in
> Russia, in this case) as "right-wingers". Historically (as you
> suggest), right-wing means refers to conservatives, meaning having "a
> disposition in politics to preserve what is established".
>
> Seems to me it is you, George, who is trying to tar with a familiar
> brush when you try to paint PBS commentators as being left of the
> Communists. I hope you've got your shop apron on before you get some
> on yourself.
"Agki Strodon" wrote in message ...
>
> "George" wrote in message
>
> > You use what you like, I guess. Exploit its strengths, work around its
> > weaknesses.
> >
> > Now PBS as a whole does tilt left....
>
> Actually, PBS news shows have a more right wing color.
Well, if you're far enough one way or other, you can claim the opposite
about anything.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/15/04
"George" <george@least> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Interestingly, PBS commentators on the radio and TV refer to the members of
> the Communist Party of Russia as "right-wingers." I thought maybe they
> just didn't know the historical origin of the left/right orientation, and
> were trying to tar with a familiar brush, but now that you mention it, they
> would have to look right on the spectrum to see Communists....
> .
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Who defined "liberal" and "conservative"? Was it left to the minds of the
> > judges?
> >
> >
Or not so inteestingly. It is not only PBS commentators who use this
nomenclature. It has become standard practice, in case you hadn't
noticed, to refer to members of the old guard (the Communists in
Russia, in this case) as "right-wingers". Historically (as you
suggest), right-wing means refers to conservatives, meaning having "a
disposition in politics to preserve what is established".
Seems to me it is you, George, who is trying to tar with a familiar
brush when you try to paint PBS commentators as being left of the
Communists. I hope you've got your shop apron on before you get some
on yourself.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Agki Strodon" wrote in message
>
> > > > Actually, PBS news shows have a more right wing color.
> > >
> > > Well, if you're far enough one way or other, you can claim the
opposite
> > > about anything.
>
> > So what's your problem?
> > You seem to say that the panelists could have biased the results
> > deliberately.
>
> How about that Teddy Kennedy likely appears on the "right" to Fidel Castro
> ... meaning your entire rant is based solely on perspective, which
> invalidates it totally for any useful purpose.
>
> --
Man, what school did you ever graduate from? I present a well controlled
scientific study to you (in terms that can hardly be described as a "rant")
and your best response is this crap? Are you at all familiar with the term
"Argument from Ignorance"? How about "Argument from Personal Incredulity"?
Do you know the meaning of the word "fallacy"? Do you know anything about
formal or informal logic? Obviously not.
Agkistrodon
all this over whether or not Norms saw is left or right tilt...... sad..
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Flatley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > An interesting side note to the discussion on media bias is the failure
of
> > the "Liberal Talk Radio Network." They didn't pay their bills, they
> didn't
> > pay their employees and could not attract a listening audience large
> enough
> > to support the advertisers they needed. Maybe failed is too strong a
> word;
> > they may have just made an adjustment to their strategy. Some folks
have
> > wondered if the liberal philosophy would withstand the heat of talk
radio.
> >
>
> Well, it may not be a failure yet but the writing on the wall is clear.
> Actually it was clear from the start that it would ultimately fail. Radio
> is a tough market and the shows that fail far outweigh the ones that
> succeed. Going lock stock and barrel with all day left wing programming
was
> indeed a long shot (as any network devoted to any one subject would be).
>
> Frank
>
>
Anyone who has traveled or lived in West Texas might have trouble believing
the earth is round. (or mostly round.) However, folks who read the New York
Times can clearly see and understand the liberal bias in the reporting,
editorial and opinion sections. (Even though there is a token conservative
columnist to sit by the door.)
Your story of the news evaluators leaves a question unasked and unanswered.
You do not mention a baseline of relative facts on which to judge the bias
of a story. For example; years ago a friend and I played golf every weekend.
We tried to play many different golf courses. My friend loved to talk and
one day he was entertaining a group in the club house. He said, "The last
time I play Panama City..." As I listened to his tale, I was the only
person at the table that knew that the last time he played that golf course
was also the first time and the only time he played that golf course. What
he said was true but biased to make himself seem more traveled than he was.
The group did not have the same baseline of facts that I did. How you say
something is as important as what you say.
The conservative columnist Thomas Sowell makes an interesting point in a
recent piece which appeared in my local paper today. He suggests that the
media's liberal bias is MORE in evidence in the stories NOT covered as
compared to the WAY that stories are covered. He cites several examples.
Did the news evaluators you refer to study the stories not covered.
An interesting side note to the discussion on media bias is the failure of
the "Liberal Talk Radio Network." They didn't pay their bills, they didn't
pay their employees and could not attract a listening audience large enough
to support the advertisers they needed. Maybe failed is too strong a word;
they may have just made an adjustment to their strategy. Some folks have
wondered if the liberal philosophy would withstand the heat of talk radio.
Jack Flatley
"Agki Strodon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:E%[email protected]...
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Agki Strodon" wrote in message ...
> > >
> > > "George" wrote in message
> > >
> > > > You use what you like, I guess. Exploit its strengths, work around
> its
> > > > weaknesses.
> > > >
> > > > Now PBS as a whole does tilt left....
> > >
> > > Actually, PBS news shows have a more right wing color.
> >
> > Well, if you're far enough one way or other, you can claim the opposite
> > about anything.
> >
> > --
>
> So what's your problem? It seems that the experiment was well controlled
> and statistically valid. There's no good reason to doubt the results...
> unless you just plain don't want to accept the results and your attitude
is
> colored by your own prejudices. Anybody can make up any kind of
> rationalization they want about anything. Someone may look at it and come
up
> with some other explanation but without evidence against a null
hypothesis,
> it is accepted. In cases of adequate experimental design where the null
> hypothesis is accepted, there's not much that can be said about the
> connection between cause and effect, or lack of one in such cases.
>
> The fact (whether believers in media bias like it or not) remains that
when
> a panel of equal numbers of evaluators from the political left, right, and
> middle determined that although the news reports were predominantly from
> liberal journalists, there was no liberal bias in the reporting itself.
> The panel did not know the politics of who wrote or produced a particular
> report and reports from liberal and conservative journalists were
presented
> to them. They found no liberal bias nor did they find a conservative bias
> either.
>
> You seem to say that the panelists could have biased the results
> deliberately. I assume you mean that liberals could have ranked a
"liberal"
> piece as non-biased to skew the data. That doesn't seem at all reasonable
> but more a reflection of your own prejudices because conservative
panelists
> could have done the opposite. Blinding the panelists certainly took that
> effect away. Such a problem was not encountered in the study and the
> conclusions stand until someone repeats the study and finds a bias.
>
>
>
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Agki Strodon" wrote in message ...
> >
> > "George" wrote in message
> >
> > > You use what you like, I guess. Exploit its strengths, work around
its
> > > weaknesses.
> > >
> > > Now PBS as a whole does tilt left....
> >
> > Actually, PBS news shows have a more right wing color.
>
> Well, if you're far enough one way or other, you can claim the opposite
> about anything.
>
> --
So what's your problem? It seems that the experiment was well controlled
and statistically valid. There's no good reason to doubt the results...
unless you just plain don't want to accept the results and your attitude is
colored by your own prejudices. Anybody can make up any kind of
rationalization they want about anything. Someone may look at it and come up
with some other explanation but without evidence against a null hypothesis,
it is accepted. In cases of adequate experimental design where the null
hypothesis is accepted, there's not much that can be said about the
connection between cause and effect, or lack of one in such cases.
The fact (whether believers in media bias like it or not) remains that when
a panel of equal numbers of evaluators from the political left, right, and
middle determined that although the news reports were predominantly from
liberal journalists, there was no liberal bias in the reporting itself.
The panel did not know the politics of who wrote or produced a particular
report and reports from liberal and conservative journalists were presented
to them. They found no liberal bias nor did they find a conservative bias
either.
You seem to say that the panelists could have biased the results
deliberately. I assume you mean that liberals could have ranked a "liberal"
piece as non-biased to skew the data. That doesn't seem at all reasonable
but more a reflection of your own prejudices because conservative panelists
could have done the opposite. Blinding the panelists certainly took that
effect away. Such a problem was not encountered in the study and the
conclusions stand until someone repeats the study and finds a bias.
"Agki Strodon" wrote in message
> > > Actually, PBS news shows have a more right wing color.
> >
> > Well, if you're far enough one way or other, you can claim the opposite
> > about anything.
> So what's your problem?
> You seem to say that the panelists could have biased the results
> deliberately.
How about that Teddy Kennedy likely appears on the "right" to Fidel Castro
... meaning your entire rant is based solely on perspective, which
invalidates it totally for any useful purpose.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/15/04
"Agki Strodon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:E%[email protected]...
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Agki Strodon" wrote in message ...
> > >
> > > "George" wrote in message
> > >
> > > > You use what you like, I guess. Exploit its strengths, work around
> its
> > > > weaknesses.
> > > >
> So what's your problem? It seems that the experiment was well controlled
> and statistically valid. There's no good reason to doubt the results...
(snip)
> The fact (whether believers in media bias like it or not) remains that
when
> a panel of equal numbers of evaluators from the political left, right, and
> middle determined that although the news reports were predominantly from
> liberal journalists, there was no liberal bias in the reporting itself.
> The panel did not know the politics of who wrote or produced a particular
> report and reports from liberal and conservative journalists were
presented
> to them. They found no liberal bias nor did they find a conservative bias
> either.
(snip)
> conclusions stand until someone repeats the study and finds a bias.
Disclaimers:
1. On balance, I am moderate to slightly liberal.
2. I don't necessarily agree that reportage is biased, but if it is, I doubt
that there is a truly unbiased source.
That said, the study has a few flaws, the primary being that it is not
really statistical. It is based upon a panel's subjective evaluation of news
stories rather than a rigorous numerical analysis. No matter how many
stories were surveyed, the judgments were filtered through the panel
members' individual sensibilities rather than those of a computer.
Also, you cite the "numerous" stories evaluated. How many? What was their
source(s)? Who selected them?What were the subjects of the stories? In
short, how were controls emplaced to eliminate selection bias?
Who defined "liberal" and "conservative"? Was it left to the minds of the
judges?
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ROTFLMAO!!
>
At what? That The News Hour has more conservatives than liberals as guests?
That's a simple matter of counting them up and it has demonstrated the exact
point I made. It's been done. Conservatives outnumber liberals as guests
on that show.
Are you laughing at the idea that TNBR is rightish? I think you ought to
take a look at the show. It's pro-big business down the line. Of course,
we all know that Big Business is liberal.... well, in the 17th and 18th
Centuries it was.
If you want to refute the data, bring up some evidence.
Agkistrodon
Old School
"Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Watching Norm on Saturday, I noticed his TS is Right Tilt. Funny, I would
> have thought he leaned more toward the left.
>
> Gary
>
>
Mike Patterson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:10:08 GMT, "Agki Strodon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>
> I've been following this for a bit, and I'll just note that unless I
> missed a post somewhere, you haven't presented a single cite for your
> allegation of an impartial study having been done.
Nope, I didn't. One point of taking this stuff this far (without a
citation) was to see if anyone would actually make the effort to do
any research of their own either to gather information from sources
outside their own prejudices or to find the report and falsify it.
>
> Can you do so? I'd like to see it. Sounds interesting.
I'll see if I can find the original paper. I recall it was a paper
published by some journalism school professors in a sociology journal.
I will look it up.
>
> You certainly seem to be a bit prickly on this issue. Your last post
> seems to be dipping down into shrill personal insult because someone
> is daring to disagree with you.
I felt insulted myself. But what really got me was the clear
rejection of the notion that the actual news reporting could be
without a "Liberal bias" even though the authors may have been card
carrying members of the ACLU. The real kicker was that no one had
anything to offer beyond the Argument from Personal Incredulity.
>
> Take a slow breath...let it out...relax...better? :-)
How about everybody else... I've taken my Prozac for tthe day...
actually, I took enough for tomorrow, too.
Agkistrodon
Oh, yeah, BTW, I am distinctly NOT a liberal.
No, I got the original post, apparently mine went over your head however.
:)
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "js" wrote in message ...
> > all this over whether or not Norms saw is left or right tilt...... sad..
>
> ... only if the irony in the original post went over your head.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 5/15/04
>
>
> >>snip
> >> --
> >s
> >Man, what school did you ever graduate from? I present a well controlled
> >scientific study to you (in terms that can hardly be described as a
"rant")
> >and your best response is this crap? Are you at all familiar with the
term
> >"Argument from Ignorance"? How about "Argument from Personal
Incredulity"?
> >Do you know the meaning of the word "fallacy"? Do you know anything about
> >formal or informal logic? Obviously not.
> >
> >Agkistrodon
> >
>
Chill Agki, it was only a joke. Perhaps your superior vocabulary
compensates for a lack of sense of humor?
Here in Virginia, "if walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck", we call
it a duck. An operation that thrives on tax dollars and public charity and
its public good is primarily to entertain us, I'd say that is a liberal
program.
One last comment, what the heck does this have to do with woodworking?
Sorry...
Gary
"John Flatley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> An interesting side note to the discussion on media bias is the failure of
> the "Liberal Talk Radio Network." They didn't pay their bills, they
didn't
> pay their employees and could not attract a listening audience large
enough
> to support the advertisers they needed. Maybe failed is too strong a
word;
> they may have just made an adjustment to their strategy. Some folks have
> wondered if the liberal philosophy would withstand the heat of talk radio.
>
Well, it may not be a failure yet but the writing on the wall is clear.
Actually it was clear from the start that it would ultimately fail. Radio
is a tough market and the shows that fail far outweigh the ones that
succeed. Going lock stock and barrel with all day left wing programming was
indeed a long shot (as any network devoted to any one subject would be).
Frank
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:10:08 GMT, "Agki Strodon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Agki Strodon" wrote in message
>>
>> > > > Actually, PBS news shows have a more right wing color.
>> > >
>> > > Well, if you're far enough one way or other, you can claim the
>opposite
>> > > about anything.
>>
>> > So what's your problem?
>> > You seem to say that the panelists could have biased the results
>> > deliberately.
>>
>> How about that Teddy Kennedy likely appears on the "right" to Fidel Castro
>> ... meaning your entire rant is based solely on perspective, which
>> invalidates it totally for any useful purpose.
>>
>> --
>
>Man, what school did you ever graduate from? I present a well controlled
>scientific study to you (in terms that can hardly be described as a "rant")
>and your best response is this crap? Are you at all familiar with the term
>"Argument from Ignorance"? How about "Argument from Personal Incredulity"?
>Do you know the meaning of the word "fallacy"? Do you know anything about
>formal or informal logic? Obviously not.
>
>Agkistrodon
>
I've been following this for a bit, and I'll just note that unless I
missed a post somewhere, you haven't presented a single cite for your
allegation of an impartial study having been done.
Can you do so? I'd like to see it. Sounds interesting.
You certainly seem to be a bit prickly on this issue. Your last post
seems to be dipping down into shrill personal insult because someone
is daring to disagree with you.
Take a slow breath...let it out...relax...better? :-)
Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
"I always wanted to be somebody. I should have been more specific..."
BUB 209 wrote:
> Gee....doesn't anybody have anything to
> say about the political leanings of the
> personnel on the Weather Channel? I
> heard Bill Kennealy's pop was a member
> of the Weather Underground.
Actually he was unsure of his leanings and therefore joined the Whether
Underground. Oooooooo, that smarts.
yuk,
j4
I have friend who is "conservative". He is constantly amazed at how
"conservative" my views are because he considers me as a "liberal". In
reality I'm "so left I'm right", and think he is the liberal.
Swingman wrote:
> "Agki Strodon" wrote in message
>
>
>>>>Actually, PBS news shows have a more right wing color.
>>>
>>>Well, if you're far enough one way or other, you can claim the opposite
>>>about anything.
>
>
>>So what's your problem?
>>You seem to say that the panelists could have biased the results
>>deliberately.
>
>
> How about that Teddy Kennedy likely appears on the "right" to Fidel Castro
> ... meaning your entire rant is based solely on perspective, which
> invalidates it totally for any useful purpose.
>
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You use what you like, I guess. Exploit its strengths, work around its
> weaknesses.
>
> Now PBS as a whole does tilt left....
Actually, PBS news shows have a more right wing color. The Nightly Business
Report and the News Hour are more right than left. Guests and commentators
on the latter show are most frequently conservative with weak and infrequent
liberals thrown in. Others, like Frontline (not a news show) may be leftish
or they may merely be reporting on things people don't want to hear about
and it is perceived as leftish.
Much of this attitude about the media (in general) having a liberal bias is
a result of a book published some years ago that "studied" the political
views of journalists and concluded they were mostly liberal and then
extended the conclusion (without testing it) to a bias in the reporting.
The fact is that most journalists, journalism professors, and academics are
liberals. The lifestyle and the professions attract liberal people more
than conservative people but that seems to be about all.
Whether journalists actually write or present pieces that are biased has
been tested. A fairly large number of newspaper, radio, and TV news stories
were given to a panel of people whose political backgrounds and attitudes
were balanced. They also came from several different professions They
evaluated the reporting without knowledge of the name of the reporter or his
politics. They scored each article on a bias scale and the results
analyzed. The results indicated that there was no political bias _in the
reporting_ even though liberals did most of it.
But, to return, if you recall, someone once commented that Gerald Ford was
not so bright because he had taken too many hits on the head when he played
football at Michigan. LBJ set the whole thing in perspective when he said
that Ford's brain was fine but his perception wrong. Ford had played center
for Michigan and was used to looking at the world upside down, backwards,
and through his legs.
In this context, Norm's TS tilts left if you look at it from the back.
Agkistrodon
"Agki Strodon" wrote in message
> > > > > Actually, PBS news shows have a more right wing color.
> > > >
> > > > Well, if you're far enough one way or other, you can claim the
> opposite
> > > > about anything.
> >
> > > So what's your problem?
> > > You seem to say that the panelists could have biased the results
> > > deliberately.
> >
> > How about that Teddy Kennedy likely appears on the "right" to Fidel
Castro
> > ... meaning your entire rant is based solely on perspective, which
> > invalidates it totally for any useful purpose.
> Man, what school did you ever graduate from? I present a well controlled
> scientific study to you (in terms that can hardly be described as a
"rant")
> and your best response is this crap? Are you at all familiar with the
term
> "Argument from Ignorance"? How about "Argument from Personal
Incredulity"?
> Do you know the meaning of the word "fallacy"? Do you know anything about
> formal or informal logic? Obviously not.
Logic? What you are doing is confusing subjective spin with logic ... I am
thinking it is you who needs the refresher course.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/15/04