Andy Rooney Admits CBS Left bias

[Bingo]

You're like one of those dolls ... you pull a string on your back and venom just pours out. How can you be so angry all the time? Honestly?

1.You're so full of crap it isn't even funny
2.You're an opinionated SOB just like the rest of us
3.relish in an opportunity to rub your opinion in the face of those who disagree with you
4.a smug holier than thou attitude
5.love to blow smoke up the readers skirt to appear balanced
6.you don't have a clue about the media down here
7.You also display zero understanding of where the average Joe is getting their information

Seven somewhat personal attacks in one post Lanny? Do you honestly not understand what keeping it inpersonal means, or do you just not care?

I've made it clear from the start, and maybe it's the clearness that frustrates you the most, and I guess that makes sense. Someone as emotional as yourself on pretty much every topic must be driven crazy by somewhat that just calmly sticks to his guns and doesn't waiver all that much.

The media elite as a definition isn't mine. It's a well known concept in media circles believed by some and admonished by others. You don't have to buy into it, in fact I told you that weeks ago when you said you were going to school me on the topic, but many, many do believe it to be true.

Like I said ... disagree all you like, but get a grip man.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Nov 23 2004, 02:33 PM
Running things against the president was popular on all networks when Clinton was president too. It's sensationalism and all networks do it.

Still, I fully admit that most networks either lean left or are just easier on the left. You have to think though, from a philosophical point of view, people like journalists who are reasonably educated, travel the world and witness the things they do; will tend to lean left.

At least they are not as agressive and belligerent in their politcal leanings like FOX.

I think a lot of journalists had a certain world-view lo-o-o-o-o-ng before they got into journalism. That's the reason many of them were drawn to the profession in the first place. Can you think of a profession that has a greater influence on the way people think and live?

One has to be careful and always question what people in the media pass off a news.

I DO think the CBC must be pretty close to being just as aggressive and belligerent as Fox. It's just that they're at other ends of the left/right pendulum from each other.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Nov 24 2004, 01:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Nov 24 2004, 01:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-northernflame@Nov 24 2004, 12:10 PM

By the way noth Stocwell Day and Stephen Harper are educated in those artsy disciplines. They don't appear to have a left wing bias to me.

Stockwell Day is not an educated person.

A few years ago I was reading his official online biography and his "university education" was couched in some pretty shifty language so I wrote them an e-mail asking "what year did Stockwell graduate from UVic and what was his major" and the response was "Stockwell did attend the university but never took a degree".

He wasn't there for long. Why a fundamentalist dumbbell like him would pick that school I'll never understand. It's like Steven Jay Gould going to Bob Jones University.[/b][/quote]
There's nothing dumb about Stockwell Day. He is a very bright man. Don't under-estimate the man.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 25 2004, 04:16 AM
You're like one of those dolls ... you pull a string on your back and venom just pours out. How can you be so angry all the time? Honestly?

1.You're so full of crap it isn't even funny
2.You're an opinionated SOB just like the rest of us
3.relish in an opportunity to rub your opinion in the face of those who disagree with you
4.a smug holier than thou attitude
5.love to blow smoke up the readers skirt to appear balanced
6.you don't have a clue about the media down here
7.You also display zero understanding of where the average Joe is getting their information

Seven somewhat personal attacks in one post Lanny? Do you honestly not understand what keeping it inpersonal means, or do you just not care?

I've made it clear from the start, and maybe it's the clearness that frustrates you the most, and I guess that makes sense. Someone as emotional as yourself on pretty much every topic must be driven crazy by somewhat that just calmly sticks to his guns and doesn't waiver all that much.

The media elite as a definition isn't mine. It's a well known concept in media circles believed by some and admonished by others. You don't have to buy into it, in fact I told you that weeks ago when you said you were going to school me on the topic, but many, many do believe it to be true.

Like I said ... disagree all you like, but get a grip man.

Here we go. "Are you so angry all the time?" More hand waving and accusations I see (second time in this thread when someone calls you out on a weak ass argument). All while ignoring the points that hammer you where you live. I should expect nothing less from someone who considers Bill O'Reilly a journalistic stalwart. You've learned to apply the tricks of his trade very well. I think from this point forward I shall just refer to you as Billgo.



Oh, and yes, you have been very clear. You have stated that the media is left wing, with zero to back it up in a historical or measurable way. Andy Rooney said that CBS is left leaning, so it is undeniable (and I have agreed that CBS is the most left of all the old media) and it is wrong of them to even be on the air. But you seem to have completely lost the point that has been made all along and that is, to what extent is their left leaning and where exactly is center, failing to even point out where the median point would be let alone the average? You like to say that FoxNews "leans" right, but in reality they are extremely right wing and extremely biased. Just how many of the other networks are run by those who used to work for Democrats in office? How many of those networks have senior staff who are affiliated and work directly with far left think tanks and political organizations? None. They are so far right that is makes everyone else appear to be on the extreme left. The "old media" has continued to attempt to abide by the Fair Play doctrine that Reagan struck down, which was put in place to ensure that media outlets were fair and balanced, something that FoxNews and the new media has not. I mean if you don't understand that completely blows the crap out of your media argument, well you don't have much comprehension of the subject matter.

You love to hold yourself up as the voice of someone who "calmly sticks to his guns and doesn't waiver that much". News flash. Your approach does not make your stance any more substantial in any way. It makes all the sense in the world that you backed Bush. He's another guy that "calmly sticks to his guns and doesn't waiver that much". Even when he's dead wrong and can't produce anything to back up his argument either. How many more inaccuracies and flaws in your argument have to be pointed out to you before you realize you're just like your buddy Bush and out of your element? Do yourself a favor. Get a grip on the subject matter!

I'll try and put it into terms you can understand. You continue to spew this line of BS that "old media" is still the powerful media elite that controls much of what people think about politics and the state of the country. And you continue to ignore the power and place of the "new media" in setting public opinion. Look at your own situation and what hardcore Flames fans feel is the place to get their information. The established media just doesn't cut it anymore for most fans (those that have a serious unterest and have an impact on the support of the game because of their enthusiasm) and they come to CalgaryPuck for that very reason. Of course CalgaryPuck also tells the reader what they want to hear, which sells a helluva lot better than the established media (we've all whined about their negativity in the past and wanting a more positive message that aligns with our values which is what CalgaryPuck provides). This is the same way the new media works, playing to the emotions of the viewer and getting them hooked on the skewed view of things rather than reality. Its a big seller, especially in a country that is polarized and slit down the middle. I hope this will sink home for you. Maybe you'll figure it out when you find that The Drudge Report gets more hits in a day than ABC News and has a viewership larger than any of the networks hit prime time shows. The new media is not just TV. It is a combination of TV, radio, print, multimedia, education and social engineering that sets a new standard for the established media to follow. The center line has been moved and the bar has been raised. The "old media" hasn't even begun to get a grip on the changes that have taken place and the left (the Democrats) just realized how badly they have have fallen behind because of it. Starting to figure it out?

[Bingo]

Buddy the proof of my calmness is in my ability to discuss things with you without losing it and calling you names. that's black and white. You can scream from the mountain tops about what I'm really doing but the proof is in the pudding.

You berate, insult and belittle people all the time. Nobody would debate that.

I don't run for the corner and hide, but I keep it on topic and avoid such dust ups.

That's the difference man.

I said from the beginning that the media bias issue was a debateable one with views on both sides. You were the one that called your side "right" and stated you would debunk the other side.

Guess what ... you haven't.

Now some issues with your post (since you say I don't deal with the points).

1. I never called Bill O'Reilly a stalwart jounalist. In fact I've never come close. Look it up. I said he's very entertaining and I love the fact that he hammers people for waffling. The rest is your imagination. Maybe I should call you NostraLannus because you tend to just make things up with very little to support what you claim.

2. Median point. I don't know where that is ... either do you. But forgive me for casting a little doubt on a left leaning web fighter thinking a left leaning news station is central. What a shock. Would you take Rush Limbaugh seriously if he told you he thought Fox was in the middle? One of the biggest points made by writers that support liberal bias in the media is the fact that they feel the journalists are so surrounded by like thinking people that they actually believe they are in the middle.

3. Backing it up. You've tried that before ... check this string out. Near the end, I came up with 9 in a few minutes. There's proof both ways Lanny, I've seen it.Old String

4. Fox ... why keep bringing it up? Do we really disagree? I know they lean right ... to keep saying so is pointless. These are not mutually exclusive events. CBS, NBC, and ABC can all lean left while Fox leans right. It's not one or the other.

5. Get a grip on the subject matter. Lanny ... just because you scream something at the top of your lungs doesn't make you any more right. Who's kicking flaws in my arguments? None of these things WILL be worked out in a message board. There's too much evidence both ways. I just happen to realize there's another side to it. You should give that a shot.

6. Insults ... "I'll try and put it into terms you can understand". So now I'm stupid? You just can't handle these things without attacking people can you? I'm almost feeling sorry for you.

7. Old versus New media. On this you are completely wrong, and putting words in my mouth. I've always maintained the liberal left (establishment) is losing ground in this war so you're not schooling me by pointing it out again. CNN took market share, Fox took more, and of course the internet and talk radio have carved out chunks as well. The only real debate here is where the fulcrum sits now if you look at the whole picture? I'm not sure myself, and I know I won't find an answer. I know you think you know, but then why would that come as a shock?

So once again ...

Have your opinion, I have no problem with it. We disagree. But stop the insults ... I won't ban you for insulting me as that wouldn't seem very objective, but it has to quit man. You've been warned about 100 times in the last five years.

I am calm about this ... really. You don't have to believe me. In fact I couldn't care less if you do. Unlike this debate (where you can easily find proof on both sides), I hold the hammer on what I'm actually thinking.

[transplant99]

You continue to spew this line of BS that "old media" is still the powerful media elite that controls much of what people think about politics and the state of the country. And you continue to ignore the power and place of the "new media" in setting public opinion.

The new media is not just TV. It is a combination of TV, radio, print, multimedia, education and social engineering that sets a new standard for the established media to follow.

I actually agree with the sentiment in this post, that the way people get their information has changed over the last 2 decades or so. I started wondering just how much, and stumbled across this chart while looking for an answer. This was specifically about the recent campaign, but i have to believe it's representative of how people get info on everything else as well.



Clearly, the vast majority of Americans still get most of their information from the network/cable / local news TV programs.
I thought the number would be much lower in this area. The internet was much lower than i thought it would be as well.

Though this has nothing to do with showing media bias, it does tend to point to a couple things.

The "old" media is still alive and kicking....and very much influential on the general public.

Also that "talk radio" is not nearly as big a factor as some believe. As has been mentioned on this site many times, the people that tune in to the Limbaugh/Franken type radio shows, are ones that already have a decided slant towards that particular persons beliefs already. So their is really VERY little influence by these types of media sources on what is going on in the world.

[Bingo]

And those numbers really start to some up for the establishment when you think of how much of ...

a) local TV news is getting their national stories from their larger network cores
B) local newspapers are getting their national stories from newspapers like the LA Times, New York Times and the Washington Post.

It trickles down to a pretty large margin for the establishment.

But it's erroding.

[transplant99]

This paragraph from the same site the graph is on says that BOTH sides believe their is bias among media...

Compared with 2000 a much larger number of Democrats believe that coverage of the campaign is tilted in favor of the Republicans (29% now, 19% in 2000). But Republicans continue to see more bias in campaign coverage than do Democrats. More than four-in-ten Republicans (42%) see news coverage of the campaign as biased in favor of Democrats; that compares with 37% in 2000. Among independents there also has been a significant decline in the percentage who say election news is free of bias (43% now, 51% then), though independents remain divided over whether the coverage favors Democrats or Republicans.

Which indicates that the media is mostly down the middle, again as has been said repeatedly on this site.

Also, a breakdown of how each side gets their info.




Pew research center.