Monday, November 21, 2011

Unfair and Unbalanced

I am often accused of not being fair and balanced, to which I reply, "Thank you for noticing."

I am a man of the right, so when I draw comparisons and examples, of course I am going to feature outrages of the left. I don’t need to constantly criticize the right; there is already a whole industry devoted to that: It’s called the Mainstream Media.

No conspiracy; just a group of people who are biased to the left, as evidenced by their own avowed beliefs, voting patterns, and the preponderance of campaign cash from this group going to Democrats.
These statistics suggest that journalists, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district in the country. For instance, in the Ninth California district, which includes Berkeley, twelve percent voted for Bush in 1992, nearly double the rate of journalists. In the Eighth Massachusetts district, which includes Cambridge, nineteen percent voted for Bush, approximately triple the rate of journalists. (A Measure of Media Bias)
Remember reporters not just interviewing tea partiers, but debating them and pushing back? Remember how such interviews turned into verbal wrestling matches, with journalists striving to pin sign-wielding grannies to the intellectual mat? Where are those reporters now? Why are they not challenging the OWS people in the same way? Is it really about the truth, or is it about reinforcing preconceived notions and advancing an agenda?
The press eats this propaganda up and spreads it like manure, where a thousand liberal fantasies bloom. No argumentation, no logic examinations, just channeling the emotion.  (Silverfiddle - Is this a protest or a debate?)
I wrote a criticism of reporters and the left awhile back over at Ontological Angst entitled, Is this a protest or a debate?  In it I explore the use of logic, and contra logic, the meta-narrative.  I invite you to check it out.

66 comments:

jez said...

American news journalism is, as far as this non-resident can see, pathetic. Sorry to lapse into the sneering foreigner stereotype, but it's just how it comes across.
Your complaints are identical to the ones that Jon Stewart makes every day.

Lots of US commentators lump the BBC with their biased networks. This is a mistake in my opinion.

Partisan news is worse than no news.

Fredd said...

Jez is right. Partisan news is not news. It's propaganda.

Much like news coming from the old Soviet 'newspapers' Pravda and Izvestia, the actual news provided by those outlets had about 1% accuracy. If that.

Ducky's here said...

Silverfiddle, would you point to an outlet you feel does a responsible job of reporting.

Once you join the fringe using the "left wing media" descriptor you only demonstrate that you aren't willing to discuss the problem, and there is a problem.

But again, is anyone doing a good job of reporting?

Jack Camwell said...

Considering that you dismiss all, or at least a huge portion, of the Left's criticism of the Right, I invite you to start criticizing your own group.

It's not like the GOP, modern conservatives, the right, or whatever you want to call it, are not hypocritical and don't fall into their own logical fallacies and contradictory beliefs.

Killing is wrong unless the state does it. You should be free to live your life as you please so long as you're not Muslim or gay. Constitutional rights only apply to US citizens. Torture is wrong unless it's waterboarding and it's not our guys being waterboarded. We need to lower taxes because the Bush era tax cuts obviously worked.

Ducky's here said...

... we need to invade Iraq because Hussein has WMD.

Silverfiddle said...

Jack: You'll notice I spend very little time defending conservatives, or people in "my camp" when they come under attack. That's because I see almost all of it is legitimate debate, which is what a healthy democracy needs.

So, there's already a steady industry that examines and criticizes the right and the small government advocates. Why do I need to jump in when one of them commits a logical fallacy or spouts an inconsistency?

And Jack, you should add to your list: Go bankrupt unless you have politicians in your pocket, pay taxes unless you're friends with the president...

Interesting you only plucked out the worn out liberal lines...

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: You ask an excellent question. I think CBS news on-line has done a fairly decent job.

Overall, I think the best reporters and commentators are those who are self-aware enough to admit they have biases, and who are brave enough to explore the other side's argument and engage in debate.

I'll shock you by saying I like Kevin Drum and Ezra Klein, for example, because they do explore ideas and they debate with candor and intellectual honesty.

Silverfiddle said...

Jez: My only problem with BBC is that they start out with preconceived notions, and that leads to agenda reporting. Not that they are lying, but they know what they are looking for and they go find that and report on it, reinforcing preconceived biases and agendas.

I read quite a bit of British press, because they almost always have details and information that is uniformly not reported in most American press.

We all have biases, but in the British press, they pretty much admit it, so you know where they are coming from and can evaluate what they say accordingly.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: Nowhere did I use the formulation, "left wing media"

Are your glasses broken?

I stated a proposition, "the press is biased to the left," and then provided you a study and some anecdotal evidence to back it up.

I don't allege a conspiracy or malfeasance. I just think that journalism tends to attract liberals for some reason.

Ducky's here said...

I don’t need to constantly criticize the right; there is already a whole industry devoted to that: It’s called the Mainstream Media.
-----------

Your intent is clear.

Silverfiddle said...

Your intent is clear.

Thank you. That is what I strive for.

jez said...

"My only problem with BBC is that they start out with preconceived notions, and that leads to agenda reporting."

I'm sure this does happen, but not sure how important it is -- do you have an example in mind?

Silverfiddle said...

Global warming is one example. The warmist scientists are presented as the settled status quo, while those still investigating and not yet drawing dogmatic conclusions (a very scientific thing to do) are presented as flat earthers.

BBC also did some excellent (from a propagandistic standpoint) photo-journalism in Iraq, complete with crying children cowering in front of American combat troops at a check point, their parent's blood spattering the concrete after another misunderstanding gone horrible wrong.

I'm not even blaming the press so much as I am lamenting that so many consumers unthinkingly ingest whatever their favorite font of information spews out.

Jack Camwell said...

I plucked out the conservative inconsistencies because that was the purpose of my response.

I wasn't trying to say that the liberals are all completely ideologically consistent.

It's better to attack, analyze, or deconstruct your own ideas as much as someone else's rather than only point out the flaws in those you disagree with.

Silverfiddle said...

It's better to attack, analyze, or deconstruct your own ideas as much as someone else's rather than only point out the flaws in those you disagree with.

As I said previously, there is already an entire industry devoted to attacking conservatism.

Engaging in advocacy demands that you first analyze and deconstruct your own ideas, otherwise, the opposition will make tatters of them.

So the logical analysis, deconstruction and eventual construction of the argument is done in private, because it is messy and would be boring to others.

From that process you advance your argument and open it up to rebuttal and criticism.

So, do you see how honestly advancing an argument is actually opening it up to deconstruction, attack and analysis?

Ducky's here said...

Silverfiddle. why didn't you chose Limbaugh for the person on the articles logo?

This becomes an issue like "activist judge". You don't agree with the judges ruling, the judge is an "activist".

You don't agree with the commentators opinion (reporters are becoming few and far between), the commentator is "left wing".

This has produced a conversation so freaking demented that Obummer is called a socialist.

Z said...

I have lived in Europe and have seen bias at the BBC but not like our bias. By the way, CNN INternational has an even more liberal bent in Europe than ours does; it's really quite amazing.

Having said that, living in Germany, we'd watch the news, and I'd ask Mr. Z "So whose side are they ON?" And he'd respond "They're not showing a side, they're just giving the news" It was pretty similar in Paris.
I'd forgotten what that was like, and I believe this country here would be better served if we went back to an hour of news in the morning, another at noon, another two hours at dinner time and "Film at eleven"
No screaming heads dissecting every little word of any quote by a politician, no lying or covering up information, no exposing information that should be kept confidential just to sell ad space..........NO MORE. It's not healthy and it's pulling us apart.

What happened to the journalism classes which taught WHO? WHAT? WHEN? WHERE? and WHY? and now add MISINFORM IF IT BETTER SUITS YOUR AGENDA.

Z said...

By the way, Canada's print news seems quite even handed to me; many have been exposing liberal AND conservative American faux pas, so maybe our leftwingers look at them as conservative?

Ducky's here said...

An example I won't forget, Silverfiddle.

I called in to a show hosted by occasional poster here and was asked about my news sources. I said that I do read conservative publications such as The Economist and that was immediately scoffed at. Now if that isn't a centrist or right center publication then we have moved so far into a right wing fairy land that about all that is left is trading insults. Reason has been abandoned.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Ducky: Silverfiddle. why didn't you chose Limbaugh for the person on the articles logo?

Again, (explaining slowly and patiently) I am a man of the right. There are thousands of screaming Rush haters, so I'll leave that to them.

The Economist is a good magazine, but it has lost some of its centrist shine over the past decade.

Who's the occasional poster here who has his/her own radio show?

Jack Camwell said...

I understand what you're saying. Perhaps I've fallen into the trap of my own mind in thinking that you should automatically agree with the things that I think are contradictory or fallacious.

But really, aren't there plenty of commentators out there crapping on the left? I mean c'mon, Fox News has as much of a conservative bent as CNN has liberal. There are probably just as many liberal-bashing personalities as there are conservative-bashers.

Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Riley, Glenn Beck. They're all mouthpieces for what you're doing. Not to mention there's dillions of conservative blogs that are doing the same thing.

Here's a question: with all the criticism flying around, does either side ever listen to the other?

The real purpose for any of us in Blogostan should be to criticize *everything* that's ridiculous in a way that people haven't thought of it before. That's the only way you reach people, rather than giving them the same tired arguments over and over again. I'm not saying that I've achieved that, but that's what I've been trying to do.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jack: But really, aren't there plenty of commentators out there crapping on the left?

Sure there are! And just as those on the left, I say more power to them. The more debate, the better.

I don't have time to criticize "everything," so I write about what interests me, and I hope my arguments aren't the same, old and tired.

Ducky's here said...

@Jack Camwell - Here's a question: with all the criticism flying around, does either side ever listen to the other?
--------

Does one side listen to the other?

Maybe some of the right wing posters can answer that. I do occasionally listen to right wing radio and find it really beyond the pale.

Does PBS count as "left wing" these days? I see it as pretty centrist.

I read National Review fairly often. A lot more often than z listens to Democracy Now!

Don't have any hesitation to state that the "left" is far more likely to have a wider spectrum of news, to the extent you can find solid news these days.

I'm quite certain there are right wingers who consider it a sin to pick up a copy of "The New York Review of Books" or "The Nation".

Mark Adams said...

Pretty obvious this is getting some strong disagreements of whether the MSM is bias left or right.
So to through in my two cents, I look at what the rest of America says about the media and it's bias reporting.

As of 9/22/2011, Gallop poll shows that :
-The 44% of Americans who have a great deal or fair amount of trust and the 55% who have little or no trust remain among the most negative views Gallup has measured.

-The majority of Americans (60%) also continue to perceive bias, with 47% saying the media are too liberal and 13% saying they are too conservative, on par with what Gallup found last year. The percentage of Americans who say the media are "just about right" edged up to 36% this year but remains in the range Gallup has found historically.

Infidel de Manahatta said...

I have not problem with the media being biased and selling propaganda.

Just don't try and tell me you're impartial. The MSM isn't. They are smug idiots who see themselves as the privileged ruling class in the new socialist utopia.

Jack Camwell said...

By listen I don't mean the simple act of reading or physically listening to other news outlets.

What I meant was, whenever one side points out a logical fallacy of the other side, does the other side actually listen, ie. process it and admit that they're wrong?

I don't think many people do that anymore. I mean did any of the Tea Partiers listen when people told them they were crazy for bringing guns to town hall meetings? Do any Democrats listen when you tell them there actually are welfare lifers out there cheating the system? (Although since the system allows for them to be welfare lifers, it can't technically be considered "cheating").

Some conservatives say that this is a "Christian Nation" and that we need to get back to our Judeo-Christian roots. Some liberals say that we should remove the mention of God from every public edifice because that's what the Founders wanted.

That's a case in which neither side sees how wrong they are, but it's not like you can tell any of them that.

Anonymous said...

` ... Have some wine,' the March Hare said in an encouraging tone.

Alice looked all round the table, but there was nothing on it but tea. `I don't see any wine,' she remarked.

`There isn't any,' said the March Hare.

`Then it wasn't very civil of you to offer it,' said Alice angrily.

`It wasn't very civil of you to sit down without being invited,' said the March Hare.

`I didn't know it was your table,' said Alice; `it's laid for a great many more than three.'

`Your hair wants cutting,' said the Hatter. He had been looking at Alice for some time with great curiosity, and this was his first speech.

`You should learn not to make personal remarks,' Alice said with some severity; `it's very rude.'

The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he said was, `Why is a raven like a writing-desk?'

`Come, we shall have some fun now!' thought Alice. `I'm glad they've begun asking riddles.--I believe I can guess that,' she added aloud.

`Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?' said the March Hare.

`Exactly so,' said Alice.

`Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.

`I do,' Alice hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.'

`Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter...."


~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-0

Maybe the column makes the Economist terribly left wing?

"But we will never all agree. Refractory disagreement is a bedrock fact of liberal society. As is, I would add, the darkly utopian idea Mr Sanchez identifies: the notion that disagreement is a product of malign, illegitimate, external influence. We are much too confident in our political beliefs, and our over-confidence is sustained in part by just-so stories about why others fail to see things our way. The liberal media! Right-wing think tanks! The socialist indoctrination camps known as "colleges"! George Soros! The Koch brothers! The Bilderbergers! Corporations! The state! The military-industrial complex!

There is something profoundly satisfying about believing that one's own team alone has seen through the fog of disinformation and propaganda to the real truth about the treacherous interests that stand between our condition and the reign of justice."

Leticia said...

I couldn't agree more on how biased the MSM and BBC and NPR are. They don't care about facts or truth they just want to make sure that their opinions are considered and completely omit any conservative views.

I find it rather loathsome how they enjoy twisting news topics until it is unrecognizable.

Can't trust the media.

Ducky's here said...

Exhibit 1:

Leticia, who posted the video of Politi-chicks with her example of in depth journalism, Victoria Jackson.

Clearly, Leticia has found the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: Your last post was a gratuitous attack, on Leticia and Victoria Jackson. What makes Rachael Maddow superior to either Leticia or Victoria? Because she puts on serious looking eyeglasses and channels Walter Cronkite?

Your statement before that was a profound one. Refractory disagreement is a bedrock fact of a liberal democracy. We will never agree on everything, which is an excellent argument for wrenching our private lives back out of the grimy, sweaty clutches of the federal government. They should perform their constitutionally enumerated powers, and no more.

Leaving the rest to the states and the people will go a long way towards quenching the flames of anger, hatred and resentment in this country.

Ducky's here said...

Go watch the Politi-chicks clip with Victoria going on about the smiley face on the birth certificate. This is the woman who believes Obama is a communist but Leticia thinks this is a fount of fact and truth.

Frankly, it's deranged and anyone who accepts it as solid political commentary and goes off on "the left" for not caring about facts and truth is in a much more likely position to be called gratuitous.

You post up Victoria Jackson and then accuse BBC and PBS of spinning the truth? Please.

Silverfiddle said...

So Ducky, why haven't we seen reporters debating and interrogating OWS people the way they did tea partiers?

liberaldude said...

I listen to Fox News and within 5 minutes I've heard more lies than I can count. It amazes me there are people out there with so many lies flying around in their heads. Of course it's to lly their hate and fear of others and complex issues they don't understand.

The average Fox watcher has the same capacity for tolerance and critical thinking skills as a 5 year old.

So, they feel they have to go after Keith to keep others from learning the truth and when you ask them to point out a single lie, they can't Hmm.

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, journalists may be liberal, but their employers usually aren't.

The media is not nearly as "liberal" as you think. They may be more socially liberal - as that would bring the broadest spectrum of consumers - but they are not economically, politically liberal. You'd be either a fool, or to the very extreme far right to think otherwise.

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

No Jersey, a fool is one who refuses to face facts, even when I spoon feed them to him.

@Libdude: and when you ask them to point out a single lie, they can't Hmm.

Yeah! Speaking of that, please list for us all those lies you heard in 5 minutes on FOX.

Ducky's here said...

So Ducky, why haven't we seen reporters debating and interrogating OWS people the way they did tea partiers?

---------------

I have seen plenty of negative coverage of Occupy. Almost exclusively negative on network TV.

There are plenty of opportunistic interviews with stoners available on Youtube. I'm not sure you can find any interviews of the Bagger gun loons who came strapped but try.

If you want some positive coverage of #Occupy you'd have to listen to something like Democracy Now! or selected shows on MSNBC and we know they are biased liberal sources so why bother.

Isn't that the way it goes?

Finntann said...

Bah, they're all biased.

Generally I start with MSNBC, move on to BBC, perhaps CBC, and go from there looking at multiple sources for news stories I am interested in.

I'm the type of person who will watch a presidential address and turn it off when he's done speaking, I have no need or desire for some talking head to translate for me.

In the car I'll bounce around BBC World Service, NPR, Patriot, POTUS, and Sirius Left.

Generally, I'd have to say that I've found the least bias in the major network news radio stations. Of course being extremely time constrained they are more in the habit of just spitting out facts rather than opinion.

Overall I find there is very little news presented without opinion attached.

Prior to cable and satellite radio there was intense competition between stations leading to a more mainstream presentation format. The stations wanted the most listeners and thus presented in a broadly appealling fashion. Subsequent to cable/satellite and the great diversification of channels it has become less about broad appeal and more about market segment. The broadcasts are targeted for specific audiences with specific sponsors. They don't care if their right of center broadcast offends those left of center and vice versa.

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, you do not own a spoon that could feed me. The obvious fact of the matter is that very large, powerful, commercial interests largely control the media. They tend to pander to the masses, because that's where the money is, and so they as well pander to narrow, specific demographics and interests as well, as that's where the ad money comes in.

Please tell me none of this is new to you.

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

The obvious fact of the matter is that very large, powerful, commercial interests largely control the media.

No kidding. I thought it was controlled by Santa's elves.

Any other obvious comments you want to make?

dmarks said...

Jersey said: "Silver, you do not own a spoon that could feed me. The obvious fact of the matter is that very large, powerful, commercial interests largely control the media."

This is not only not a fact, but why would anyone even think this?

There are thousands of voices in the media. Even in TV news, the trend is over the years to more and more voices. A long term decentralization trend.

Silver: you are correct to mock what Jersey is saying. There's no truth to it at all.

Ducky's here said...

"There are thousands of voices in the media."

Yeah, all controlled by about eight corporations and all spouting the same party line.

How much of the media is controlled by Rupert Murdoch? Any of his outlets offer a liberal view.

Do a little research DMarks. The left is here to help you reach clarity.

In many areas of the country PBS is the only free outlet giving you anything like a balanced view.

Silverfiddle said...

Free? PBS is paid for with confiscated money. Fox News costs you less...

Ducky's here said...

@Finntann -- Subsequent to cable/satellite and the great diversification of channels it has become less about broad appeal and more about market segment.
--------------

Worthy o discussion. It's true that music has become segregated again. Back in the day you had a lot of progressive stations that would mix rock, acoustic, soul, jazz, country ... a lot of us were listening to the same thing. Probably the healthiest pop culture has been in some time.

Now, without satellite radio you get rock and rap. There are virtually no commercial jazz, classical or world music stations. And the right wants to eliminate NPR to make the situation worse.
The satellite offerings aren't that great either.

News for most people has become the same uniform blah mix that music radio has become. People are going to stick with the outlet that reinforces their opinions. They purchase satellite radio to get Howard Stearn.
But it's highly segregated and we seldom get a mix of opinions.

Yes, news is seldom purely objective. If it were it would be pretty dull. Try making a documentary that doesn't take a point of view. You'll produce utter boredom.

Anonymous said...

"The Mock Turtle sighed deeply, and drew the back of one flapper across his eyes. He looked at Alice, and tried to speak, but for a minute or two sobs choked his voice. `Same as if he had a bone in his throat,' said the Gryphon: and it set to work shaking him and punching him in the back.

At last the Mock Turtle recovered his voice, and, with tears running down his cheeks, he went on again:--
`You may not have lived much under the sea--' (`I haven't,' said Alice)-- `and perhaps you were never even introduced to a lobster--' (Alice began to say `I once tasted--' but checked herself hastily, and said `No, never') `--so you can have no idea what a delightful thing a Lobster Quadrille is!'

`No, indeed,' said Alice. `What sort of a dance is it?'

`Why,' said the Gryphon, `you first form into a line along the sea-shore--'

`Two lines!' cried the Mock Turtle. `Seals, turtles, salmon, and so on; then, when you've cleared all the jelly-fish out of the way--'

`That generally takes some time,' interrupted the Gryphon.

`--you advance twice--'

`Each with a lobster as a partner!' cried the Gryphon.

`Of course,' the Mock Turtle said: `advance twice, set to partners--'

`--change lobsters, and retire in same order,' continued the Gryphon.

`Then, you know,' the Mock Turtle went on, `you throw the--'

`The lobsters!' shouted the Gryphon, with a bound into the air.

`--as far out to sea as you can--'

`Swim after them!' screamed the Gryphon.

`Turn a somersault in the sea!' cried the Mock Turtle, capering wildly about.

`Change lobster's again!' yelled the Gryphon at the top of its voice.

`Back to land again, and that's all the first figure,' said the Mock Turtle, suddenly dropping his voice; and the two creatures, who had been jumping about like mad things all this time, sat down again very sadly and quietly, and looked at Alice.

`It must be a very pretty dance,' said Alice timidly.

`Would you like to see a little of it?' said the Mock Turtle.

`Very much indeed,' said Alice. ..."



~ FreeThinke

KP said...

<< It's true that music has become segregated again. Back in the day you had a lot of progressive stations that would mix rock, acoustic, soul, jazz, country ... a lot of us were listening to the same thing. Probably the healthiest pop culture has been in some time. >>

That is true. Radio was different. Fortunately, with today's technology, we can find real high quality music from around the globe that might be somebody else's local music and enjoy it at home.

In a way, politics is similar but it seems to take additional effort to maintain a broad source of input as it isn't always as fun (albeit interesting) as music. Sounds like you put out the effort and seek it out.

I like to handle magazines, books and papers. Don't want to gives those up for convenience! As well, thumbs up on the string quartets and Debussy.

Finntann said...

While I do enjoy at times listening to it, I would hardly classify PBS/NPR as balanced.

It serve a purpose of sometimes bringing forth worthy content that would not find a market in other segments.

While I will admit that satellite radio is highly segregated, you do get a mix of opinions, you simply need to change the channel.

Cheers!

jez said...

How much exposure do the global warming deniers merit?
If you believe the huge majority of mainstream scientists, almost none. This is a point the deniers would concede, since one of their complaints is a conspiracy among warmist scientists to exclude their work.
So surely here your quarrel isn't with the BBC. It would be quite dangerous for unqualified journalists to decide, against scientific advice, to give equal time to some maverick theory. We know this is dangerous, because it has happened: have you heard of the MMR/autism nonsense that was big news over here in the UK?

Photo journalism -- get my news from the radio. I'm sure the temptation is to skew towards the sensational, but on the other hand you wouldn't want to release only sanitised images.

You've all seen Paddy Chayefsky's Network, of course?

Ducky's here said...

Stunning:

"Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don't watch any news, according to a new poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University.

The poll surveyed New Jersey residents about the uprisings in Egypt and the Middle East, and where they get their news sources. The study, which controlled for demographic factors like education and partisanship, found that "people who watch Fox News are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government" and "6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government" compared to those who watch no news.

Overall, 53% of all respondents knew that Egyptians successfully overthrew Hosni Mubarak and 48% knew that Syrians have yet to overthrow their government. "

Ducky's here said...

have you heard of the MMR/autism nonsense that was big news over here in the UK?

-------------

That was al over the U.S. Don Imus on his rabies radio show was a big source of this crap.

There were also a number of celebrity pushers.

Little was said once the faked research was flushed down the memory hole and you still have large numbers who won't vaccinate their children.

Anonymous said...

VERSE

Reuben, Reuben, I've been thinking
Said his wifey dear
Now that all is peaceful and calm
The boys will soon be back on the farm
Mister Reuben started winking and slowly rubbed his chin
He pulled his chair up close to mother
And he asked her with a grin


CHORUS

How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
After they've seen Paree'
How ya gonna keep 'em away from Broadway
Jazzin around and paintin' the town
How ya gonna keep 'em away from harm, that's a mystery
They'll never want to see a rake or plow
And who the deuce can parleyvous a cow?
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
After they've seen Paree'


VERSE

"Rueben, Rueben, you're mistaken
Said his wifey dear
Once a farmer, always a jay
And farmers always stick to the hay
Mother Reuben, I'm not fakin
Tho you may think it strange
But wine and women play the mischief
With a boy who's loose with change"


CHORUS

How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
After they've seen Paree'
How ya gonna keep 'em away from Broadway
Jazzin around and paintin' the town
How ya gonna keep 'em away from harm, that's a mystery
Imagine Reuben when he meets his Pa
He'll kiss his cheek and holler "OO-LA-LA!
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
After they've seen Paree'?


~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: Why must you demean yourself? Being a goosestepping tools is so unbecoming.

A man of your intelligence takes a skewed poll and uncritically runs with it, puking it all over Right Blogistan? C'mon that's a role better played by Liberal Dude or the other useful idiot automatons on the left...


As for Stewart's "every poll" claim, that's not true, either -- other surveys have used less prejudiced questions to try to test the public's knowledge, and rate Fox News viewers as among the most informed. In 2008, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press asked respondents to identify which party held the majority in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister of Britain, and the current Secretary of State. Unlike the PIPA study, these were genuinely fact-based questions without ideological baggage.

Just under a fifth of those polled (18%) could answer all three questions, while a third (33%) couldn't answer any of them. But among those who exceeded the national average were viewers of FNC's Hannity & Colmes and The O'Reilly Factor -- as well as viewers of Stewart's The Daily Show and Comedy Central's The Colbert Report.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2011/06/20/jon-stewart-slams-fox-viewers-most-misinformed-hes-ignorant-one#ixzz1eRyaLLgV


You toss a media matters bomb, I return a newsbusters one. Ho hum...


Here's more confirmation that you are full of crap. It comes from Atlantic, hardly a righwing rag:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2011/06/actually-fox-news-viewers-arent-most-consistently-misinformed/39064/


You're a willfully naive tool, Ducky. Let me give you some advice. When you see crap like this echoed all over one end of the spectrum but not the other, it is probably a meme, and smart people do some critical thinking before polluting a conversation thread with it.

Anonymous said...

This sums it up perfectly:

" ... Partisan news is not news. It's propaganda. ..."

Thank you, Fredd.

The "rub," however, lies in the definition of "partisan."

For several decades we experienced an almost complete blackout of Conservative thought and opinion. The established organs of news and information dissemination were so dominated by Liberal-Progressive-Cultural Marxist thinking that the nation was hoodwinked into accepting this point of view as "normal."

Then along came Bill Buckley who was so patrician, so exotic, so high above and so far removed from the hoi polloi that he was tolerated, probably because no one in the Liberal Media Establishment could imagine his views catching on.

Then brash, whimsical, iconoclastic, tongue-in-cheek, hyper-articulate Rush Limbaugh, who most certainly had the "Common Touch" Bill Buckley lacked, came along and almost singlehandedly upset the Liberal Applecart. A host of followers and imitators ensued, and a few newspapers (a moribund medium anyway) arose to challenge the Absolute Lock on Absolute Power the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times and the post-Luce Time Magazine, Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report once possessed.

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, this has not led to a Renaissance of Enlightened Thinking and much needed Reform, but instead to Deadlock between bitterly opposing forces which are in fact Mirror Images of one another. So now we have twice as much ugliness, distortion, corruption and tendentious fabrication as we did before -- and it's coming at us now from all sides.

Quoting Lewis Carroll could surely be no less helpful than any of the narrow-minded, ill-natured, formulaic, grimly partisan rhetoric in which we currently indulge.

When Reality becomes intolerable, there seems no defense but to retreat into a world of fantasy.

R.D. Laing, the once-famous Scottish psychiatrist, claimed insanity as the the only possible way of adjusting to a manifestly insane world.

Perhaps so!

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

When all is said and dine, w may be grateful that God is more powerful than Man -- even though God may see fit to destroy His most fractious, self-defeatingly disobedient creation.

~ FreeThinke

liberaldude said...

Lol, this study just out today:

Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: Study

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-less-informed-people-fairleigh-dickinson_n_1106305.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Silverfiddle said...

Libdude: You're a little slow on the uptake, and you therefor make a poor propaganda virus vector for the lefties, but you're trying. Go read a few comments up. Already brought up, and shot downn

I find it hilarious when mindless morons unquestioningly gobble up whatever the progressive overlords tell them.

You know what's even funnier about this tailor-made Soros-funded poll?

MSNBC viewers scored even lower!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/


Here's an antidote to the socialist propaganda:

http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/shocking-soros-funded-university-poll-says-fox-news-viewers-most-misinformed-politically/

Finntann said...

Jez.

1. Science is not a democracy

2. There are many scientific theories now discredited that were once considered mainstream:

Luminiferous aether: The medium through which light propagates

Miasma theory of disease: Bad air anyone?

Phlogiston: The substance in combustible materials which burns.

Not to be limited to the distant past... Global Cooling. All the rage in the 70's.

I don't dispute the possibility of climate change, however I do not believe the issue is settled. There are also many economic and political factors influencing statements.

3. The majority of scientists are not climatologists. The endorsement of say the American Chemical Society is pretty much irrelevant.

There are many groups jumping on the bandwagon that can't even play the instruments.

Cheers!

Leticia said...

Ducky, there is truth in everything I post and sorry to burst your bubble, but you are incapable of handling the truth so you decide to lash out at those who post it and speak it. Victoria Jackson, is witty, funny and intelligent, are you intimidated?

Thanks, Silver!

MK said...

You should be as unbalanced and unfair as you feel like, this is your blog and you don't owe anyone anything.

If people don't like it, they can start their own blog if they have the balls, and run it in a fair and balanced way or whatever they wish.

jez said...

Finntann:

I basically agree with each of your points.

1) agreed, however expertise is not worthless. We're talking about the BBC here, now what do you recommend a non-technical journalist should do with a maverick theory. Let's assume he is unequipped to tackle the theory directly; how should he report it? Should he give more or less weight to mainstream science?

2) Sure, science is a good way of rejecting theories, not a good way of generating them. Thank you for noticing. But please note that global cooling didn't have nearly the same traction in scientific circles as global warming now does. The evidence is on a different order of magnitude.

3) Agreed, but please also note that censure from a non-climatologist is similarly close to irrelevance.
(Actually, climatology is multi-disciplinary so quite a lot of scientists have some relevant skills, but often only for small corners of it: physicists, chemists, geologists, computer scientists, statisticians etc. are all relevant.)

"There are also many economic and political factors influencing statements."
Please don't ignore the frankly much grander economic influence towards continued oil reliance. If I were motivated by greed, I know which interest I'd be shilling for.

dmarks said...

Fredd said: "Jez is right. Partisan news is not news. It's propaganda."

"Propaganda" in these discussions tends to be a meaningless word. An insult hurled at facts/opinions that the person using the word happens to dislike.

Realize that all news is partisan. Some hide it better than others.

And as you have shown, whether or not it is propaganda has to do with whether or not you like what is being expressed.

dmarks said...

Jez said: "Lots of US commentators lump the BBC with their biased networks."

Remember the BBC is the official news organ of the British government. As someone who favors a free press, I dislike governments having any role in the media. One way the US is way ahead of so many nations is that the ruling elites have little involvement in the media (PBS and NPR and VOA, pretty much).

KP said...

Finntann ...

Aut Vincam // Aut Periam

jez said...

Dmarks: The BBC is publicly funded, but is editorially independent. That independence has been tested (eg. Hutton Inquiry) but by and large it is not particularly deferential towards the government -- do you have any examples in mind?

Compared to commercial news, which is often deferential to its owners / sponsors. Eg., is there any good journalistic reason for the Murdoch papers' silence with respect to the Leveson inquiry?

dmarks said...

Jez: The BBC is government funded, yes. But the independence is just part of how the government chooses to manage it. It's still part of the government, just like the United States Supreme Court is also part of the government, despite its "independence".

The government control of the BBC does manifest itself in different ways despite independence, such as the policy during the 'troubles" in N. Ireland concerning the coverage of that.

NPR, the government radio organ of the US, has much worse examples. They tilt left/Democrat quite strongly, as the Dems write them the checks.

I even heard NPR airing specific advertisements urging listeners to contact their Congressman to vote to give NPR more money.

The supposed "independence" of government media organs is at the whim of the government. It's be far better if NPR and BBC were completely privatized. No government involvement.

jez said...

Can you give a more specific example about the BBC mis-coverage of the troubles?

"It's be far better if ... BBC were completely privatized."

I'm struggling to think of any superior private network. Which do you have in mind?