Letters to the Editor
-
Schlafly's remarkable definition of "liberal media bias"
This is at best only vaguely on topic, but I can't resist. In Conservapedia, Andrew Schlafly writes that:
"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, such that no liberals would equate to zero liberal bias
So even Fox is liberally biased since it does feature the odd liberal (e.g. Colmes). The only way to be "unbiased" is to exclude liberals altogether. It's really very telling of how these people think.
Source:
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&oldid=90876#_note-8
-
ARRGHHHH
So if Imus and some of Glenn's smaller victories over the MSM show that reader/citizen pressure on advertisers can have an effect- is there a concerted effort to campaign against these head-clowns? I mean, polling data aside- this is what the Baker-Hamilton commission recommended- how can these buffoons get away with this??
Glenn: You forgot to link to the point you made earlier this month, about Gingrich's trip to China during the Clinton administration, and how his behavior was much more radical than anything Pelosi did- it fits nicely in the paragraph comparing the two speakers' approval ratings.
-
that poll is amazing
I was reading it last night. It's even better news for the Democrats than I had imagined.
Pelosi is a better speaker than I had expected or even hoped.
Also in that poll, 49% of Americans strongly disapprove of the Job George W. Bush is doing as president. We're 1 point from a majority of the nation strongly disapproving of the leader, and yet the pundits cannot fathom how Americans approve the Congressional democrats standing up to this person they detest so much.
It really doesn't need any deep political analysis: They don't all have to love Pelosi and Reid, they simply loathe Bush, and cheer anyone who gives him the finger.
The pundits are stuck analyzing 2002. When resisting the President's wishes would harm a member of congress.
-
The Media Whore Bubble
The problem is the "No Liberals On TV" rule. Few reporters face any kind of accountability on their work. Pundits pontificate but the only time they may be held accountable is when they appear on mass media talk shows either on radio or cable or network tv. But there are almost no strong liberals in any of those fora -- and the few there are, like Olbermann and Cafferty, haven't been there long.
Its bloggers like Glenn Greenwald who are changing the dynamic and, at least in some way, forcing the media to back up what they say.
Another great post, as usual, Glenn. Thank you.
-
Or maybe not
My observations of co-workers who are the Republican base suggest that the committed partisans have responded to Bush in two ways:
1. "He's not a real Republican" meaning that he is not an example of what their party and their ideology produces, and
2. "They're all crooks and liars" meaning that contemplating a change in identification and support would be useless.
Thus, the low approval ratings and utter lack of credibility of the Bush Administration do not indicate a popular shift so much as a suspension of participation, with an attendant wall of inattention to prevent further information inconsistent with their fundamental beliefs.
-
Get current, folks
The media elite, like so many others, fail to understand that while 9/11 did not "change everything," its happening during the tenure of George Bush did alter the old political truisms, including what constitutes '"right" and "left." It further eroded the GOP's monopoly on the national security issue.
They are playing by an old, superseded script.
-
You would think.....
That the advertisers who pay the bills and presumably are better at taking the pulse of America than the pundits themselves (they after all spend millions on market research) would be raising a major stink by now. Are corporate boardrooms also that divorced from reality or do they honestly think they can shape public opinion by describing it inaccurately? I'm not being rhetorical...I really want to know.
-
SalmoS:
My observations of co-workers who are the Republican base . . . .
For so many reasons, extremely limited anecdotal evidence of this type cannot remotely undermine an endless string of scientific polls taken over the course of months (actually years) showing the same results.
1. "He's not a real Republican" meaning that he is not an example of what their party and their ideology produces
To the extent Bush does still have support, it is found almost exclusively among Republicans and self-identified "conservatives."
2. "They're all crooks and liars" meaning that contemplating a change in identification and support would be useless.
Thus, the low approval ratings and utter lack of credibility of the Bush Administration do not indicate a popular shift so much as a suspension of participation, with an attendant wall of inattention to prevent further information inconsistent with their fundamental beliefs.
If that were true, all politicians would have the same approval ratings as Bush does. They don't. Therefore, it is untrue.
-
makes me wonder . . .
Why there is such a disconnect between the narrative fed to us by the media stars and the public's actual views? Presumably the reason why the Beltway media stars behavior is worth protesting is because it somehow skews the national debate on issues and affects the public's perception of the issue. But the polling data does not seem to support that. The polling data suggests that people are overwhelmingly ignoring or disbelieving the chatter from the Beltway stars and forming their own opinion. What else could account for %50+ percent of the American public disagreeing with the predominant narrative coming from most media outlets.
Well, perhaps this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/business/media/16pew.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
-
Please update this data
Americans: (a) think the Iraq war was not worth fighting by a 33-66% margin; (b) believe we should withdraw forces "even if that means civil order is not restored there" by a 56-42% margin; (c) oppose the President's "surge" by a 35-65% margin; (d) realize that a victory in the "war on terrorism" does not require victory in Iraq (57-37%); and (e) perhaps most remarkably: believe America is losing the war in Iraq (53-32%) and will lose (51-35%).
In the quote, you have the voting ratios switching back and forth, which is confusing. Please confirm - (a) and (c) are no-yes, the rest are yes-no. If the ratios of polling data actually represent favorable votes on the opinions grouped with the number, you should be consistent in presenting them with the larger number first. Perhaps a quibble, but it would aid comprehension.