or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook. - Page 280

post #4186 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

They might be covering it, somewhat, but based on the NPR article it's not in a positive manner.

 

I purposefully provided a cross-section of articles, so I wouldn't be accused of cherry picking. On the other hand, you admit to reading only 1 of the 5 articles and then proceed to make a conclusion about the entire media based on your take on just the one article you read.

 

At least make an attempt to read the articles before jumping to a conclusion about the entire media. Hell, you may even find more gems hidden in there to support the liberal media bias argument. 

 

It's pretty rare to have an argument where anybody is going to be 100% right. If you're trying to make a point, it's a lot more effective to look at the whole story, concede what ain't so great for your point, and then attack everything else. If all you do is attack, it just appears like you're trying to fit a preconceived narrative.

post #4187 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

The Repubs shoot themselves in the foot all the time with race relations but the MSM never gives them credit when they get it right either.

 

Um ... have you not been watching or reading the news for the last few weeks? The media can't get enough of the Republicans who have supported removing state-sponsored Confederate flags in South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, etc.

post #4188 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbromer View Post

I purposefully provided a cross-section of articles, so I wouldn't be accused of cherry picking. On the other hand, you admit to reading only 1 of the 5 articles and then proceed to make a conclusion about the entire media based on your take on just the one article you read.

At least make an attempt to read the articles before jumping to a conclusion about the entire media. Hell, you may even find more gems hidden in there to support the liberal media bias argument. 

It's pretty rare to have an argument where anybody is going to be 100% right. If you're trying to make a point, it's a lot more effective to look at the whole story, concede what ain't so great for your point, and then attack everything else. If all you do is attack, it just appears like you're trying to fit a preconceived narrative.

I was honest about how much research I was willing to do on this...

So I clicked the first link. That little link isn't really helping to overcome the concept that the MSM is not trumpeting diversity. A few minor blurbs are not above the fold headlines on a regular basis.
post #4189 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbromer View Post

Um ... have you not been watching or reading the news for the last few weeks? The media can't get enough of the Republicans who have supported removing state-sponsored Confederate flags in South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, etc.

I actually tuned out about that when the Dukes were removed off TV but that doesn't go back in time and give the Repubs, and Bush in particular, for all his high level, non-white male appointments.
post #4190 of 5454
This is my point. If you're going to critique the entirety of the media, you have to consume the media in its entirety. You can't just pick and choose when you find an article a few articles that fit your argument and conveniently stop reading when the articles stop supporting your argument.

As for TV Land pulling the Dukes of Hazzard, I'm not sure what it has to do with the media's coverage of Republicans, but it was a clever little red herring to get us all thinking about an example of PC run amok.

And as for the media's coverage of Bush's cabinet diversity, you're off base. The media frequently acknowledged his diverse selections. Just a few examples.

The NY Times was trumpeting his diverse cabinet before he took office:
"[H]e has announced his choices fairly quickly, creating a government notable for its gender and ethnic diversity, its depth of experience and its inclination toward social conservatives."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/03/us/the-43rd-president-the-team-democrat-chosen-as-bush-completes-cabinet-selection.html

Your favorite source, NPR, even got in the game:
"If there's one thing Democrats and Republicans can agree on, it might be that President Bush has succeeded in selecting a diverse cabinet."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4227245
post #4191 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbromer View Post


As for TV Land pulling the Dukes of Hazzard, I'm not sure what it has to do with the media's coverage of Republicans, but it was a clever little red herring to get us all thinking about an example of PC run amok.

No, you asked me if I'd not been following the situation. I told you the honest truth that I personally tuned out at that point.

Yes, you are going to find instances where the media talks of the things I'm saying are not part of their meta-narrative. Random data points don't create the meta-narrative though.
post #4192 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

No, you asked me if I'd not been following the situation. I told you the honest Yes, you are going to find instances where the media talks of the things I'm saying are not part of their meta-narrative. Random data points don't create the meta-narrative though.

Beyond the fact that you would have had over a week of seeing the media praise Republicans in one of the biggest national stories of the past several months if you didn't stop following until after the Dukes of Hazzard announcement, the point remains. You can't criticize the media for "never" giving Republicans credit when they get it right on race relations, if you admit that you don't pay attention when the media actually does give credit.

Sure, random data points have limited utility. I'm not sure what else you want. Should I post 500 links? 1,000? At what point is it not random? Even if you assume they are merely random, they still have more utility than just spouting off a contention with zero supporting data. That's just an empty and meaningless talking point.
post #4193 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbromer View Post

Beyond the fact that you would have had over a week of seeing the media praise Republicans in one of the biggest national stories of the past several months if you didn't stop following until after the Dukes of Hazzard announcement, the point remains. You can't criticize the media for "never" giving Republicans credit when they get it right on race relations, if you admit that you don't pay attention when the media actually does give credit.

Sure, random data points have limited utility. I'm not sure what else you want. Should I post 500 links? 1,000? At what point is it not random? Even if you assume they are merely random, they still have more utility than just spouting off a contention with zero supporting data. That's just an empty and meaningless talking point.

Z, you make some goods points (as usual).

I once actually bothered to do some research, and then more importantly, research on the research. Several years ago the topic of media bias came up big and initial research indicated the MSM covered both Repubs and Dems about equally. Wow, we were all wrong. Then the research on the research showed that while incidence of coverage was about equal the character of the coverage was not. Dems were very lopsidedly covered in a positive fashion and Repubs were mildly weighted towards negative coverage. This research, and I'm sorry I don't have it to hand, went so far as to catalogue things like positive vs. negative modifiers, nature of the story, etc.

Now, I admit this probably leaves me open to various errors, but once I research something and come to a conclusion, it takes a body of fresh evidence to convince me the situation is changed. It might have changed, but when I put the effort initially into finding data to form an opinion, the data was pretty clear. I do not revisit these things endlessly, as really they have little impact on my daily life, so I'll stick with my POV until presented with organized data to the contrary.
post #4194 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Then the research on the research showed that while incidence of coverage was about equal the character of the coverage was not. Dems were very lopsidedly covered in a positive fashion and Repubs were mildly weighted towards negative coverage. This research, and I'm sorry I don't have it to hand, went so far as to catalogue things like positive vs. negative modifiers, nature of the story, etc.

 

It is fair to begin any discussion about mainstream media bias by acknowledging that it exists. It also is fair to continue that discussion with a recognition that a large chunk of the mainstream media is so hyperaware about the bias perception that it can have a tendency to overcompensate.This is not meant to be a completely unqualified statement. There are many exceptions. However, what happens very frequently when discussing this topic is that conservatives tend to overemphasize the bias, while liberals tend to overemphasize the compensation.

 

One prominent example of this is the 2012 presidential election. Just look at the stark differences between the perception of the media coverage according to party affiliation. This is according to Pew Research:

 

 

Republicans thought coverage was too tough on Romney vs. Obama by a 45% to 3% split.

Democrats thought coverage was too tough on Romney vs. Obama by a 5% to 25% split.

 

However, according to non-partisan research of the actual coverage, the positive and negative coverage of Romney and Obama was almost identical. Perception of the coverage was actually way off from the reality of the coverage.

 

Pew not only looked at perception, but it examined actual media coverage. "An examination of the dominant or master narratives in the press about the character and record of presidential contenders finds that 72% of this coverage has been negative for Barack Obama and 71% has been negative for Mitt Romney. The study, conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, examined the personal portrayal of the candidate in 50 major news outlets over a 10-week period."

http://www.journalism.org/2012/08/23/2012-campaign-character-narratives/

 

This was echoed by scholarly research on the same topic. "Ultimately, when we looked at the average across the entire fall campaign (and the same was true in the summer), we found that the tone of the coverage of the two candidates was almost exactly the same.  Neither was covered much more positively or negatively than the other."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/10/14/media-coverage-of-the-2012-election-was-fair-and-balanced-after-all/

post #4195 of 5454
Dammit, Z, I might have to change my opinion now.
post #4196 of 5454
Reading through your first link. Interesting point here:
Quote:
Journalists themselves now play a smaller role in shaping these media narratives than they once did. Journalists are the source for about half as much of the statements about the candidates as was the case 12 years go. The campaigns, by contrast, have come to play an ever larger role in shaping these narratives. The candidates and their partisan allies are the source for nearly a third more of the personal narrative about the candidates than in 2000.
post #4197 of 5454
11698592_881661925260196_1585147529387815816_n.jpg?oh=c8bea3092b479c8c46fdee7c609feb27&oe=56106147

I don't have a lot of time to dig into this, but my gut reaction on this is bullshit. Below is from the article associated with the image.

Quote:
New CDC data shows 43 percent drop in obesity rates among children 2 to 5

New federal data published Tuesday show a 43 percent drop in obesity rates among children ages 2 to 5 during the past decade, providing another encouraging sign in the fight against one of the country’s leading public health problems, officials said.

The finding comes from a government study considered a gold standard to measure public-health trends. Researchers found that just over 8 percent of children 2 to 5 were obese in 2011-2012, down from nearly 14 percent in 2003-2004. Although the drop was significant, federal health officials noted that obesity rates for the broader population remain unchanged, and for women older than 60, obesity rates rose about 21 percent during that period.

First, the data is about 2-5 year-olds... I'm not quite sure if they are listening to the First Lady's message. It may be working on parents, but I'm sure this a correlation at best.

Second, no other group saw a decrease. Therefore, I don't think it is her message working on the parents.

Third, I just hate when articles use large percentage changes for relatively small percentages. This isn't unique to this article, but the obesity rate was 14 percentage points and fell to 8 percentage points. I know it is a headline and it is common practice, but it just instantly makes me suspicious.
post #4198 of 5454
Of course there's another POV to take there: food insecurity now leading to lower early childhood weights.
post #4199 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I actually tuned out about that when the Dukes were removed off TV but that doesn't go back in time and give the Repubs, and Bush in particular, for all his high level, non-white male appointments.

I did too. At that point, I was too embarrassed for the media and corporate America to watch. Like watching a business colleague making a fool of herself at the Christmas party.
post #4200 of 5454
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.