PMSNBC

PMSNBC (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> PMSNBC (11/3/2012 4:00:40 AM)
If you always thought so, you were right... MSNBC really is more biassed Than Fox, according to Pew study ON MSNBC, the ratio of negative to positive stories on GOP candidate Mitt Romney was 71 to 3... That's not a news channel. That's a propaganda machine... I thought show host Sean Hannity of Fox News defined party propagandist. But while his channel was bad, it wasn't as bad-boy biased as MSNBC. The ratio of negative to positive stories in Fox's coverage of President Obama was 46 to 6. [image]http://www.journalism.org/sites/journalism.org/files/u29/5-Alternate_Narratives_on_MSNBC_and_FOX.png[/image] K.

Edwynn -> RE: PMSNBC (11/3/2012 4:30:04 AM)
There might be a fact-based and/or performance-based reason for that. Just a thought.

DaddySatyr -> RE: PMSNBC (11/3/2012 4:40:54 AM)
While I'm positive that *every* political campaign has some negativity, I don't know that entities that claim to be news organizations should become part of campaigns. Sure, each outlet has an editorial voice but the actual reporting or news is supposed to be just the facts with no editorial slant. Is Sean Hannity a partisan whore? Of course he is. He also doesn't claim to be a journalist nor does he appear on Fox's news programs (except in editorial segments). I don't know - and I would be interested in finding out - if these numbers are from the news portion of the channels or not. Assuming that these numbers are to be believed at face value, the answer is simple, if I can regress to my first phrase: While I'm positive that *every* political campaign has some negativity, I believe that if the president had a record to run on, MSNBC would promote that (job growth, economic recovery, that kind of thing). They can't do too much promotion because the president's record is a dismal one, at best. He promised us he could do better than the previous eight years and he hasn't. Compared to what's going on today, 2004 looks like a boom year. He's had almost four full years, two of those with a democrapic majority in both houses and he has yet to come even close to the kind of recovery he promised he could deliver. He has failed. His way doesn't work. It's time to take this turtle off the post. The poor bastard will starve and dry out up there, if we don't. Peace and comfort, Michael

captive4ever -> RE: PMSNBC (11/3/2012 4:48:29 AM)
It's true that MSNBC is more biased than Fox, the difference is that MSNBC does pretend to be neutral where Fox makes a big deal of how balanced they are when they are obviously biased towards the GOP. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata If you always thought so, you were right... MSNBC really is more biassed Than Fox, according to Pew study ON MSNBC, the ratio of negative to positive stories on GOP candidate Mitt Romney was 71 to 3... That's not a news channel. That's a propaganda machine... I thought show host Sean Hannity of Fox News defined party propagandist. But while his channel was bad, it wasn't as bad-boy biased as MSNBC. The ratio of negative to positive stories in Fox's coverage of President Obama was 46 to 6. [image]http://www.journalism.org/sites/journalism.org/files/u29/5-Alternate_Narratives_on_MSNBC_and_FOX.png[/image] K.

vincentML -> RE: PMSNBC (11/3/2012 6:11:44 AM)
quote: He promised us he could do better than the previous eight years and he hasn't It's what he hasn't done that needs touting. Hasn't allowed a major attack on the homeland, hasn't involved us into two new ground wars, hasn't crashed the housing and stock markets. All the great accomplishments of the previous eight years. SNORT!!!

DaddySatyr -> RE: PMSNBC (11/3/2012 6:17:04 AM)
I *was* touting the things he hasn't done. Where's our economic recovery? Where's our jobs? Where's our "healing the country"? I said, months ago, that his best strategy was to say something like: "I didn't realize the magnitude of the job, when I was campaigning, 4 years ago. I do now and I have a better handle on what will work." Instead, what we've gotten is: "It's Bush's fault". Bush hasn't been in office for almost four years and this ineffectual loser is still blaming him. He hasn't done any of the things he promised he'd do. He lied to the American people. He apologizes to everyone else. Why not us? Peace and comfort, Michael ETA: He also said he'd have us out of BOTH wars by now (only one is ended) and there was that nagging thing about ... what was it ... Oh yeah! We were going to close Gitmo. How's that proceding?

mnottertail -> RE: PMSNBC (11/3/2012 6:27:09 AM)
ONe cannot compare bias by using the Faux Nuze bias as the codex. Sort of like using the average wholesale price of gasoline to measure penis length.

Edwynn -> RE: PMSNBC (11/3/2012 7:13:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Compared to what's going on today, 2004 looks like a boom year. Michael[/color] Sorry you missed it (that must have been a well decorated and very comfortable cave you were living in at the time), but 2004 was in fact a boom year, no comparison to today needed, so was 2005, 2006, 200...., ohy, woops. "You mean, we actually have to take account of fraud accounting and fraud rating agency ratings and fraud ponzi scheme securitization now? Whut up with that?" Tell you what Saytr, how about if Obama just gives you a credit default swap for whatever ails you, or the country? to advise one party v. another, That's what Clinton, Bush, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Phil Gramm, et al. did and Greenspan did, and it made 2004 a booming year, don't you remember? How come they just don't hand out those default swaps to homeowners who saw their equity vanish, then go to negative, even just sitting there and not doing any house flipping? Not even a re-fi. Just sitting there in retirement. You know, just as the banks are about to foreclose, let's just toss them a default swap and say "here ya go, chap!" "I'm defaulting, but I'll trade that for a 'credit,' just like you guys did with the government. That works, don't it? Whaatt? You mean it doesn't work that way for me?" Yeah, well, if you like that program, by all means, vote for the party that threw this particular party. Be a true party member of that party;crash the house, then complain about the maid service the next day, that's the ticket. Shunning responsibility is the name of the game, here. I'm too disgusted

DarkSteven -> RE: PMSNBC (11/3/2012 8:59:38 AM)
I tried to read the Pew article but couldn't. I figure there are two ways bias can occur. 1. Bias in selection which story to run. 2. Bias in how the story is presented. The Pew article did not even state how the presence of bias was detected. Without that, the article has no legitimacy. It also didn't specify which kind of bias was alleged to be present. Fox has been caught stating untruths on-air, and those untruths are not bipartisan. I could see that as showing bias. But that perceived bias was not mentioned in the Pew article, nor was any reasoning given for alleging MSNBC bias.

Kirata -> RE: PMSNBC (11/3/2012 11:01:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I tried to read the Pew article but couldn't... The Pew article did not even state how the presence of bias was detected. I'm not sure how to make sense of this. You couldn't read it, but you know what it said? Here is the link to the PEW study. Information on its methodology is at the end. K.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: PMSNBC (11/4/2012 3:13:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: captive4ever It's true that MSNBC is more biased than Fox, the difference is that MSNBC does pretend to be neutral where Fox makes a big deal of how balanced they are when they are obviously biased towards the GOP. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata If you always thought so, you were right... MSNBC really is more biassed Than Fox, according to Pew study ON MSNBC, the ratio of negative to positive stories on GOP candidate Mitt Romney was 71 to 3... That's not a news channel. That's a propaganda machine... I thought show host Sean Hannity of Fox News defined party propagandist. But while his channel was bad, it wasn't as bad-boy biased as MSNBC. The ratio of negative to positive stories in Fox's coverage of President Obama was 46 to 6. [image]http://www.journalism.org/sites/journalism.org/files/u29/5-Alternate_Narratives_on_MSNBC_and_FOX.png[/image] K. "neutral" (not one over another) means the same thing as "balanced" (equal/weighted).

LookieNoNookie -> RE: PMSNBC (11/4/2012 3:19:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Compared to what's going on today, 2004 looks like a boom year. Michael Sorry you missed it (that must have been a well decorated and very comfortable cave you were living in at the time), but 2004 was in fact a boom year, no comparison to today needed, so was 2005, 2006, 200...., ohy, woops. "You mean, we actually have to take account of fraud accounting and fraud rating agency ratings and fraud ponzi scheme securitization now? Whut up with that?" Tell you what Saytr, how about if Obama just gives you a credit default swap for whatever ails you, or the country? to advise one party v. another, That's what Clinton, Bush, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Phil Gramm, et al. did and Greenspan did, and it made 2004 a booming year, don't you remember? How come they just don't hand out those default swaps to homeowners who saw their equity vanish, then go to negative, even just sitting there and not doing any house flipping? Not even a re-fi. Just sitting there in retirement. You know, just as the banks are about to foreclose, let's just toss them a default swap and say "here ya go, chap!" "I'm defaulting, but I'll trade that for a 'credit,' just like you guys did with the government. That works, don't it? Whaatt? You mean it doesn't work that way for me?" Yeah, well, if you like that program, by all means, vote for the party that threw this particular party. Be a true party member of that party;crash the house, then complain about the maid service the next day, that's the ticket. Shunning responsibility is the name of the game, here. I'm too disgusted 1995, 1996 and 1997 were boom years, 2004, 2005 and 2006 were not. The only thing growing exceptionally well in 2004 - 2006 were housing prices. Wages fell. They rose in 1995, 1996 and 1997. Shunning responsibility isn't the name of the game "here", a lack of the most basic knowledge about history is.

naimIMGI -> RE: PMSNBC (11/4/2012 3:56:22 AM)
Ooooops

IanB214 -> RE: PMSNBC (11/4/2012 4:10:32 AM)
As a foreigner, I'm somewhat loathe to interject here, but to be fair to "MSNBC" is it actually possible for an independent, intelligent news media to find anything positive to say about a candidate for the highest office that thinks global warming is a "myth", believes in "intelligent design", wants to start WW3 by attacking Iran & believes a bronze age fairy tale figure will return to Earth in Jerusalem & rule the Earth from Missouri I'm just a Brit, but is that the best candidate they could come up with ?

DarkSteven -> RE: PMSNBC (11/4/2012 5:00:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I tried to read the Pew article but couldn't... The Pew article did not even state how the presence of bias was detected. I'm not sure how to make sense of this. You couldn't read it, but you know what it said? Here is the link to the PEW study. Information on its methodology is at the end. K. Let me be clearer. I don't know what mechanism was used to determine the presence of bias in a given article. Watching a show or reading an article, what constitutes "bias" for the purpose of stating it exists? When I said I couldn't read it, I meant that I read the words, but they didn't make sense to me because they spent so much time discussing bias without defining it.

Kirata -> RE: PMSNBC (11/4/2012 7:07:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I don't know what mechanism was used to determine the presence of bias in a given article. A combination of hand-coding and automated coding... http://www.journalism.org/about_news_index/methodology http://www.crimsonhexagon.com/ Extensive testing by Crimson Hexagon has demonstrated that the tool is 97% reliable, that is, in 97% of cases analyzed, the technology's coding has been shown to match human coding. PEJ spent more than 12 months testing CH, and our own tests comparing coding by humans and the software came up with similar results. In addition to validity tests of the platform itself, PEJ conducted separate examinations of human intercoder reliability to show that the training process for complex concepts is replicable. The first test had five researchers each code the same 30 stories which resulted in an agreement of 85%. A second test had each of the five researchers build their own separate monitors to see how the results compared. This test involved not only testing coder agreement, but also how the algorithm handles various examinations of the same content when different human trainers are working on the same subject. The five separate monitors came up with results that were within 85% of each other. Unlike polling data, the results from the CH tool do not have a sampling margin of error since there is no sampling involved. For the algorithmic tool, reliability tested at 97% meets the highest standards of academic rigor. Is PMSNBC really that much of a sacred cow for you? K.

DarkSteven -> RE: PMSNBC (11/4/2012 7:40:13 AM)
PMSNBC is not a sacred cow for me. Nate Silver's stuff is, but nothing else. I'm approaching this as a data guy. Your links showed how the articles were selected. But did not address my point regarding bias. Lemme try this again, one last time. There are two forms of bias: 1. Bias in selection which story to run. 2. Bias in how the story is presented. I cannot conceive of any way to detect the first kind of bias. Period. Detection of both kinds of bias would require some way to determine what is UNBiased first, and then measuring variations from that. I have no idea how to determine what is unbiased. The article simply glosses over this fact, and I don't see how it even could be done. Without an unbiased standard, the entire concept of detecting/determining bias is unsupportable. Does that make it clearer?

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125