Pharmaceutical Exec: Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's Disease

[rexlunae]

Fox is backing Trump, CNN is backing Clinton. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

MSNBC is backing Clinton. CNN is just happy if they can have an unending round-table panel of activists screaming at each other on TV. It's the WWE of news. The point isn't who's right or wrong, it isn't about clarity, it's about the spectacle of the never-ending fight.

 

[rexlunae]

Stephens said Hannity was the dumbest anchor at FOX, and when Hannity responded predictably, Stephens went on to call Hannity one of "Trump's media munchkins." :chuckle:

I don't watch FOX anymore except when I'm visiting my mom, so I haven't seen Hannity in action but it doesn't surprise me to hear he's neither fair nor balanced.

Generally speaking, I like to listen to a variety of opinions. I watched the DNC convention on Fox in part, and I've flipped to them a few times to find out what they're saying. I'm used to Hannity running with some pretty ridiculous things, but his panel discussion about Clinton's supposed health problems really takes the cake. There's something really cynical about it.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

MSNBC is backing Clinton. CNN is just happy if they can have an unending round-table panel of activists screaming at each other on TV. It's the WWE of news.

Surely you're not implying that CNN's big 3 (Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon) are neutral?

 

[rexlunae]

Surely you're not implying that CNN's big 3 (Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon) are neutral?

Not neutral. But also not driven by a political ideology. And it's actually not so much about them as it is the people making the decisions about what they talk about. Why do you think their airwaves have become nearly all-Trump all the time? It's not individual reporters making that decision. It's someone looking at ratings in near-real-time.

CNN has some good journalists. But the business is increasingly not about journalism. For that matter, Fox has some good journalists.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Not neutral. But also not driven by a political ideology...

Do an internet search on media bias sometime. Here's what you'll find:

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the “media elite” were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article “Media and Business Elites.” The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothman’s subsequent book, The Media Elite, became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.
http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

People are fed up with the MSM and it's because it's run predominately by liberals.

 

[rexlunae]

Do an internet search on media bias sometime. Here's what you'll find:

I'm well acquainted with the fact that conservatives think the media is always biased against them. Sometimes, it's probably true. I tend to think that more often, the facts are biased against them, but the story of bias makes for a good defensive rationalization.

The right-wing media has spent much of the last thirty years teaching that lesson to its followers, and Trump is the natural result of that process. He's a candidate truly independent of facts or verification. He lies freely and without consequence and none of his followers care because they've been taught to reflexively assume that you can't trust the press, and if a reporter tries to point out that anything he says isn't true, he just whips up the crowd with another complaint about how unfair the media are to him or to conservatives in general. It's completely a no-win situation for reporters.

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the “media elite” were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article “Media and Business Elites.” The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothman’s subsequent book, The Media Elite, became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.
http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

That study is almost as old as I am. It predates Fox News by more than a decade. But, ok, say it's true, and it very well may be to some extent. Why do you suppose that would be? What makes journalists so overwhelmingly liberal?

People are fed up with the MSM and it's because it's run predominately by liberals.

Journalism isn't about political ideology. There is good journalism and bad journalism, and if your complaint about a journalist isn't ultimately about their journalism, it's hard to see where it's much of a point. You think the media is biased against you? It should be easy to find the flaws in the reporting, if that's true. If you just complain that they're all liberals, and therefore they're mean to you, and expect that to matter without some actual evidence of unfairness, they you're just a whiner.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Do an internet search on media bias sometime. Here's what you'll find:

I'm well acquainted with the fact that conservatives think the media is always biased against them. Sometimes, it's probably true. I tend to think that more often, the facts are biased against them, but the story of bias makes for a good defensive rationalization. The right-wing media has spent much of the last thirty years teaching that lesson to its followers,

I look for the truth and don't see the left wing media reporting it. At the end of this post I'll paste a link to a thread and invite you to join me there and I'll point out dozens and dozens of cases where the leftwing media has been silent or out and out lied.

and Trump is the natural result of that process. He's a candidate truly independent of facts or verification. He lies freely and without consequence and none of his followers care because they've been taught to reflexively assume that you can't trust the press, and if a reporter tries to point out that anything he says isn't true, he just whips up the crowd with another complaint about how unfair the media are to him or to conservatives in general. It's completely a no-win situation for reporters.

Donald Trump is a liberal, if the media (including Fox News, which is pro republican, not pro conservative) were reporting the truth, instead of showing his circus freak show act they should have been showing the American public the liberal ideology that he's embraced for decades. Believe me, if the truth had been shown, Donald Trump would not be the Republican candidate for President.

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the “media elite” were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article “Media and Business Elites.” The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues...

That study is almost as old as I am. It predates Fox News by more than a decade. But, ok, say it's true, and it very well may be to some extent. Why do you suppose that would be? What makes journalists so overwhelmingly liberal?

Liberals own the media, they hire people with common ideology.

If you need a newer study, here's one from UCLA from 11 years ago:

Media bias is real, finds UCLA political scientist

Dec. 14, 2005

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than the New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

People are fed up with the MSM and it's because it's run predominately by liberals.

Journalism isn't about political ideology.

It shouldn't be, but as I've shown and will show when you join me in the thread below, the MSM isn't interested in the truth, they're interested in promoting a leftwing political agenda.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?112309-Why-Homosexuality-MUST-Be-Recriminalized!-Part-4

Oh and rex: If you don't show I'll suspect that you're just a whiner and not interested in the truth.

 

[rexlunae]

Media bias is real, finds UCLA political scientist

Dec. 14, 2005

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than the New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664

So, the problem with this study is that it buys into the relativism at the heart of modern conservative activism. They take a metric created by the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) to apply to lawmakers, and they use that to compare citations in those lawmakers' speeches to citations in the mass media. So, the first thing to notice here is that the basis of comparison is members of Congress. So, there's already a baseline assumption that I think it dubious.

But the more fundamental problem, I think, is that if I'm understanding their methodology right, they assume that all think tanks are of equal journalistic value, and that all citations are supportive. Both of those assumptions are, I think, quite unlikely to hold. This lead to clearly erroneous results like the claim the the Drudge report has a liberal bias. Go read it, I dare you, and tell me that you think it's a liberal page. Go on, I dare you. http://www.drudgereport.com/

In fact, how would this article that you posted about the study rate? It cites the ADA, which calls itself a liberal organization. So, although I can't calculate the score that it would have, I have to conclude that they'd come out with it having a liberal bias.

Or, how about this. If Sean Hanity cites a claim made by the NAACP as fuel for 20-minute rant about the NAACP, my understanding of the methodology is that they would count that as a liberal bias because the NAACP is "liberal".

It isn't bias that causes news outlets to avoid citing the Heritage Foundation, it's reality. And that's what this study misses. In 2001, Heritage used "dynamic scoring" to predict that the Bush tax cuts would allow the US to pay off its debt by 2010. What happened instead? By 2008, a nearly unprecedented surplus had become an absolutely unprecedented deficit, as the debt expanded rapidly. It's not bias that lead journalists to give this prediction by Heritage less credit than it got in Congress. It's reality. It's that thing that undergirds actual journalism that isn't subject to the relative to and fro of politics. And the study doesn't consider it at all.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...mic-impact-of-president-bushs-tax-relief-plan

It shouldn't be, but as I've shown and will show when you join me in the thread below, the MSM isn't interested in the truth, they're interested in promoting a leftwing political agenda.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?112309-Why-Homosexuality-MUST-Be-Recriminalized!-Part-4

Oh and rex: If you don't show I'll suspect that you're just a whiner and not interested in the truth.

Considering that I only just took you off of ignore last night (congratulation!!!), and I'm ready to put you back on if need be, I don't really care if you think I'm a whiner. But isn't that just your thread trying to justify recriminalizing homosexuality? I don't see how this discussion belongs there, and I don't see anything relevant to this discussion there right now. I'm not going to start cross-posting between this thread and that one.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

So, the problem with this study is that it buys into the relativism at the heart of modern conservative activism.

UCLA isn't known as a right wing institution of higher learning.

Considering that I only just took you off of ignore last night (congratulation!!!), and I'm ready to put you back on if need be,...

I had no idea that the truth in my posts had such a devastating effect on you rex. Let me guess: sleepless nights, headaches, clenched jaw syndrome, etc. etc. etc.

Since you don't seem to be taking me up on my offer, I'll move on and allow you to continue to wallow in liberal la la land.

 

[Crucible]

Roosevelt had polio, and it wasn't something universally known. As in, they didn't talk about it or make it obvious during public speeches or taking photographs.
It was seen as a sign of weakness- the President being physically handicapped.

 

[rexlunae]

UCLA isn't known as a right wing institution of higher learning.

Now that's bias (and actually a pretty good illustration of one of the article's major flaws). Does what UCLA is "known as" determine what this article does?

I had no idea that the truth in my posts had such a devastating effect on you rex. Let me guess: sleepless nights, headaches, clenched jaw syndrome, etc. etc. etc.

Since you don't seem to be taking me up on my offer, I'll move on and allow you to continue to wallow in liberal la la land.

There's simply nothing there relevant to the discussion. I don't know what you expect me to do, post in there something like "hi"?

But sure, run away because I won't allow you to dictate the venue of the discussion. I'm sure that will help you save face, at least in your mind.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Now that's bias. Does what UCLA is "known as" determine what this article does?

You seem to have a problem with the two studies which showed that the MSM is biased in favor of liberals.

It doesn't take a study to show that these moral degenerates don't tell the truth.

There's simply nothing there relevant to the discussion. I don't know what you expect me to do, post in there something like "hi"?

You can enter the thread that I linked and say something like "Show me the evidence proving that the MSM is biased in favor of liberals" and I'll do the rest of the work.

For instance: This is one link that I'll provide:


http://americansfortruth.com/2007/0...recruits-at-homosexual-journalists-confernce/

Remember that Fox News is suppose to be the 'conservative voice' in the MSM.

I have more, but I don't want you to endure sleepless night, headaches and clenching jaw syndrome again because of me.

 

[rexlunae]

You seem to have a problem with the two studies which showed that the MSM is biased in favor of liberals.

I explained my reasoning. If you want to take that on, please go ahead. But you don't seem to have a substantive answer.

You can enter the thread that I linked and say something like "Show me the evidence proving that the MSM is biased in favor of liberals" and I'll do the rest of the work.

I have no interest in entering a thread about homosexuality.

For instance: This is one link that I'll provide:


http://americansfortruth.com/2007/0...recruits-at-homosexual-journalists-confernce/

Remember that Fox News is suppose to be the 'conservative voice' in the MSM.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove. That Fox isn't really conservative because they hire gay people?

I have more, but I don't want you to endure sleepless night, headaches and clenching jaw syndrome again because of me.

Oh gee, thanks for your concern.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You seem to have a problem with the two studies which showed that the MSM is biased in favor of liberals.

I explained my reasoning. If you want to take that on, please go ahead. But you don't seem to have a substantive answer.

Oh look, here's another, and from Harvard University of all places (Harvard isn't known for being a right wing institution of higher learning either).


Harvard Study Confirms Liberal Media Bias
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922725/posts

You're going to be a busy little liberal having to make up excuses as to why these studies aren't valid if I continue to post them.


Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

You can enter the thread that I linked and say something like "Show me the evidence proving that the MSM is biased in favor of liberals" and I'll do the rest of the work.

I have no interest in entering a thread about homosexuality.

Me kinda getz the feelun that the thread we're talking about is the reason you had me on ignore. Besides, it's not all about homosexuality. I show liberal media bias in places like the CDC and other government institutions.

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

For instance: This is one link that I'll provide:


http://americansfortruth.com/2007/09...sts-confernce/

Remember that Fox News is suppose to be the 'conservative voice' in the MSM.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove. That Fox isn't really conservative because they hire gay people?

I see that you didn't bother to read the article (Megyn Kelly is far from being a lesbian). Journalists from various news organizations are sent to pro homosexual meetings and conventions.


Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

I have more, but I don't want you to endure sleepless night, headaches and clenching jaw syndrome again because of me.

Oh gee, thanks for your concern.

You liberals have enough problems without me adding to them.

Not that it hasn't been fun, but my allotted time that I give myself to close minded liberals (which is redundant term) is up.

 

[rexlunae]

Harvard Study Confirms Liberal Media Bias
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922725/posts

Where's the actual study? There doesn't appear to be a link or a citation in the article, and I can't seem to find it.

You're going to be a busy little liberal having to make up excuses as to why these studies aren't valid if I continue to post them.

Bring it on.

Me kinda getz the feelun that the thread we're talking about is the reason you had me on ignore. Besides, it's not all about homosexuality. I show liberal media bias in places like the CDC and other government institutions.

I don't think so. I mostly drop people in the bit bucket if they say things routinely that I don't care to see without thinking about it.

But I honestly don't recall the specific reason in your case. It's a trial basis. We'll see how you do.

http://americansfortruth.com/2007/09...sts-confernce/

Do you have a link that works?

Remember that Fox News is suppose to be the 'conservative voice' in the MSM.

Ok. What of it? It certainly is relative to the current American political understanding, which is what any of these studies are going to be based upon.

I see that you didn't bother to read the article (Megyn Kelly is far from being a lesbian). Journalists from various news organizations are sent to pro homosexual meetings and conventions.

I skimmed it. I guess I don't see what point you're making with it, then. Can you elaborate?

I have more, but I don't want you to endure sleepless night, headaches and clenching jaw syndrome again because of me.

If they aren't actually studies that I can get to, it won't take long for me to deal with them.

 

[patrick jane]

We need a MAN for President - Trump

 

[ok doser]

not an elderly woman with hidden health problems

 

[annabenedetti]

not an elderly woman with hidden health problems

:chuckle: She's younger than Trump.

 

[patrick jane]

:chuckle: She's younger than Trump.

But Trump has a billionaire's doctor and health, Hillary only has a multi millionaires health care :chuckle:

 

[fool]

I hate Hillary with a passion but I'm not electing a Pres based on stair climbing ability. They could be in a wheelchair with an Oxygen tank for all I care.