Slashdot Mirror

I'll see your politicalcompass.org and raise you:
http://hotair.com/archives/201...
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro...
http://insider.foxnews.com/201...
http://archive.mrc.org/biasbas...

I thought that about carabou but info on it seems to be mixed on an ideological basis.

Here's some links on it.
Government
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/ind...
Herds have declined a lot.

Hunters
http://www.adn.com/article/201...
Herds have declined a lot.

Liberals
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...
Disaster! Woe is me! Caribous going extinct!

Conservatives
http://www.mrc.org/news/alaska...
One herd has increased!

Conservatives
http://www.heritage.org/resear...
Mmmm. Pipelines good! Jobs jobs jobs! Pipelines good!

The MRC seems to paint a good picture but then you see it has cherry picked one particular herd, the Central Arctic caribou herd, and ignored a huge decline in other carabou herds!

"In 1977, as the Prudhoe region started delivering oil to America's southern 48 states, the Central Arctic caribou herd numbered 6,000; it has since grown to 27,128. "

It seems to me that the pipeline's benefit to carabou is a conservative fiction. Grrr. I used to be very conservative from 1980 to 1992. It upsets me that so many religious people lie by commission or omission on the conservative side.

His stat was not correct, it was 89%. Here's the source http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
--------
"In April 1996, the Freedom Forum published a report by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich titled, “Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media.” Buried in Appendix D was the real news for those concerned about media bias: Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush."

- 89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot.

- Asked “How would you characterize your political orientation?” 61 percent said “liberal” or “liberal to moderate.” Only nine percent labeled themselves “conservative” or “moderate to conservative.”

- Fifty-nine percent dismissed the Republican’s 1994 Contract with America “an election-year campaign ploy.” Just three percent considered it “a serious reform proposal.”

Actually, my favorite comments are at the right-wing rag Daily Caller. Every single comment thread devolves into one party accusing the other party of being closet democrats.

More relevant to the topic at hand is this story about the Global Warming hysteria spun from the latest IPCC report. Did you know that if all the heat "caused by" CO2 and retained by the oceans had "gone into the atmosphere" then air temperatures would be 212 degrees?

<blink> 212 DEGREES!!!!!!1</blink> herp derp

How can we expect our lay discourse on science to be anything other than a heinous cacophony when people are fed that crap all day?

Science ruins science. Science used to advance controversial agendas, exaggerated by partisans, unchallenged because the "scientists" are paid tools of the policy makers and have pissed away their credibility.

Allegations are cheap. Facts are more worthwhile.

What Really Happened in the U.S. Attorneys Mess

Nets Ignored Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Fret Over Bush's 8

If he were an (R), it would be right up front. Don't fool yourself, that's how it works.

Plus, since we're talking about a very small amount, it would not hurt all of the retirees who were suckered into 401ks and Roth IRAs instead of proper pensions.

Suckered? I wasn't suckered into anything. I was left with no choice. My company, and 1000's of others, are discontinuing traditional pensions, and replacing them with yearly contributions to employee's 401k plans. It won't be long before the only people left with pension plans are Union Workers. Read More Here: http://www.utne.com/archives/TheMysteryoftheDisappearingPension.aspx And here's a view from the other side: http://www.mrc.org/bmi/news/2006/_Pension_Promises_the_Death_of_the_American_Dream_.html

You can read all about The Times at Timeswatch for free.

"She should have made up some news."

Maybe she can go to work for Briebart.com, home of TFA.

http://www.mrc.org/press/releases/2010/20100729124244.aspx

The internet is killing the news *business*.

Political bias and dishonesty killed journalism a long time ago.

The Constitution can guarantee a free press, unfortunately it can't guarantee an honest press; the people must do that.

As an example, the broadcast news networks still aren't covering the global warming scandal:
http://mrc.org/press/releases/2009/20091204124643.aspx [Media Research Center]

Presumably, photos of spectacular truck collisions that have been doctored is OK. I don't seem to remember hearing about AP cutting off images from NBC News....

And I guess images of faked memos are also perfectly OK because I don't remember the AP cutting off CBS News from submitting images, either.

Wait a minute... OK, I get it now. If it makes a Rebublican, or a business, or the military, look bad it's OK. But if it makes one of the above look good....

Well! We just cannot have that!

Honestly I can't even remember who Condit or Levy were, much less Scarborough, and I really don't feel like doing the research on it.

Sure, sure. Why not try and compare a few articles from Media Matters, here's a good one, to Media Research Council, the right wing's attempt at showing media bias. Or just skim MRC and then try watching this clip - still think media bias is a matter of he said/she said with no way to determine who's right?

Is it just me or is anyone else sick of the politically skewing and destruction of information from both the left and right of politics?

Here ya go douche: http://www.mrc.org
Read up.

For example: it has been estimated that several thousand civilians died in the first few days of the war (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/). You would think that this was a major tragedy and worth talking about. What was reported? Little. Where were the pictures of the effects of the war, the analysis?

Both NBCs Dan Rather http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,717097 ,00.html and NPR's Morning Edition host Bob Edwards http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030423.as p#3 have questioned the propaganda that they (the media) delivered to us. Dan Rather called it "patriotism run amok" and said that it was in danger of trampling freedom of the press.

Another example: why did the woman who photographed soldier's coffins returning lose her job? Because the war news is being controlled by spin doctors, not being reported in the sense that you and I think of reporting.

There have been a number of different surveys that support his point, although not in the exact terms he stated:

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#how

Keep in mind that the Media Research Center is a conservative organization, so they have their own axe to grind. But, this should give you enough references that you can find the data for yourself and decide if their spin is justified.

Taken from here

Chung: "Mrs. Gingrich, what has Newt told you about President Clinton?"
Kathleen: "Nothing. And I can't tell you what he said about Hillary."
Chung: "You can't?"
Kathleen: "I can't."
Chung, leaning forward: "Why don't you just whisper it to me. Just between you and me."
Kathleen, leaning in and whispering: "âShe's a bitch.â(TM)"
Chung: "Really? That's the only thing he ever said about her."
Kathleen: "That's the only thing he ever said about her. I think they had some meeting, she takes over."
Chung: "She does?"
Kathleen: "Oh Yeah, yeah. But when Newtie's there, she can't."

For some odd reason, she was fired, not the producer of the segment. The page has a link to a realplayer clip if you care.

Mrs. Gingritch was very naive, to say the least, after all, she was talking to the wife of Maury Povitch!

Step 1: Demand liberal-biased news reporting.
Step 2: Supply liberal-biased news reporting.
Step 3: Profit.

Conservative reaction: whine,whine,whine. So I propose that just as soon as the usual conservative moran's shut up about the myth of liberal media bias, liberals will shut up about the dominance of conservative funded television.

Their daily report shows plenty of examples of media bias.

FAIR is a joke. Try Media Research Center. They actually give concrete examples.

Big Media

Big Tobacco

Big Oil

Big deal.

This column would get moderated down as a toothless, ad hominem attack -- it claims to tarnish an entity (in this case, by making the ridiculous assertion that outlets like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times conspire to Keep the Man Down) simply because they exist in the mainstream, and, therefore, are recognizable.

Mister Katz takes this argument to the epitome of lunacy, arguing that media is undergoing "corporatization" (defined as organizations associating freely, but not to Mr. Katz's taste) and that you, me, and my neighbor should care -- it "ought to be a hot political issue." In fact, one could infer that the reason why Mr. Katz's column appears not in The Washington Post but rather an online rag has much to do with a "Big Media" conspiracy to keep his opinion out of the public view.

And he does this by calling newspapers of both good and poor quality one name -- "Big Media." Say it with me now: "Big Media" controls your thoughts. "Big Media" will take over the world. "Big Media" must be stopped.

This makes a column? Sadly, yes. Quoth Katz:
The process that has essentially homogenized the popular press and made it irrelevant to anybody under 50 is spreading online, unopposed by regulators or by the Netizens who ought to be up in arms about the creation of a monstrous entity like AOL Time-Warner.

The ridiculousness of such a passage is astonishing. "Essentially homogenized?" Check out http://www.fair.org/ or the Media Research Center, both of whom strive to point out media bias, FAIR being liberal, the MRC being conservative. And they are not creatures of the web -- both were founded in the mid-1980s! Oh, and Brill's Content often runs two news articles side by side that, apparently, cover the same story, but come out w/the opposite headlines. Homogonized?

The idea that any newspaper or news station is "irrelevent to anybody under 50" is not only wrong, it shines of ignorance. C-SPAN callers come from all walks of life. CNN, FoxNews, etc. get decent if not fantastic demographics from the 25-54 age group. OpinionJournal.com, which echoes WSJ editorials, wouldn't work at all if it only appealed to AARP members. And if a doughnut was valued more than a copy of the New York Times, the commuter rail to Grand Central would be littered with crumbs, not the "House & Home" section.

But no! The notion that people may not care if media is "Big" or "monstrous" or, erroneously, "homogonized" is impossible! Why? Because, asserts Mr. Katz, things that are "Big" or "monstrous" or having to do with corporations or conglomerates or other things are ipso facto evil! Perish the thought that people may not care because they weren't reading Suck or Salon or Inside.com anyway -- out of personal preference -- and instead wished to continue reading the Chicago Tribune -- but did so via an AOL dialup.

When reality does not support your political motives, it works to call your enemies names. If anything is homogonized about media, that's what it is -- and Mr. Katz has shown that he is willing to add his name to that milk carton.

I'd mod you up another point. The good thing about Slashdot is that -- unlike Fight Censorship and some other places where the overly-political like Jamie can try to cram crap down our throats with relatively-little consequences -- the readers can slap back. Look at the top comment, and yours, and we all see that Jamie just got intellectually-slam-dunked.

Just think of what would be possible if this happened to Dan Rather, whenever he injected leftwing bias into a story! There'd be no more need for the right-wing MRC, a compendium of bias these days. There'd also be little need for the far-less-relevant (um, the problem is not FOX, it's how bad NBC, ABC, CBS & CNN suck as journalists-of-the-left at being rational) but-at-least-they-TRY left-wing group "FAIR." As an interesting experiment, do what I've done, and subscribe to both sites' email alerts. While the MRC (and FAIR, come to think of it...) have a blind eye to stories about the tax-and-spend war on (some) drugs, the MRC makes a generally better logical case for leftist bias in the media, despite things like a repetitive format & slightly-worse editing.

You may not want to insult journalism, but you've not lived in my shoes for the last 48 hours. I think an insult or two might help matters, but I'll stick to facts if I can. Journalism ISN'T all that hard of a job to do correctly. Actually, sitting around and writing "professionally" can be pretty cushy. I know, because I've done it (right) before, sometimes in my spare time. (We can start with duh-file crap like reading a story BEFORE attempting to write an accurate headline, but on second thought, don't get me started).

Slashdot is an incredible site, and the moderation system - albeit imperfect - makes it an incredibly interesting phenomenon, but your comment and others demonstrate that Slashdot editors lack even a shadow of the ideological diversity of their audience. Higher salaries won't cure that, different hiring policies (and possibly LOWER salaries) might (and no, I'm not available to write Slashdot stories or anything else, if that's what you think I mean).

Anyway, the bottom line is that your comment is a well-spoken one, and I encourage moderators to note your admirable logic-over-emotionalism. Thanks.
JMR

Speaking, as always, for myself.