whomever on earth are you talking too
are you.... free versing? burning the midnight strawman?
Um-- see your name in the quote? I start there, then I riff on for anyone reading. And it's sunny afternoon here, so it's not me who's at the midnight hour... ergo we may be forced to file this post under 'non sequitur'
thats becasue instead of asking, you assume, or it certainly appears you have...am I wrong? .
in the event of the former, let me help you, I never ever have denied fox is slanted. ever.
so, as long as you apply same to cbs abc nbc et al I have no qualms with your post in this quote. my experience tells me they don't.
I think bernie ( goldberg) has it exactly right- he ( and I ) don't think there is a grand conspiracy amongst the truth ministry ( ) they just all have the same world view, so they all see things basically the same way, fox is no different in that context, thats why they are slanted.
but , when you ask them, or have this argument with folks of that mindset ( it appears to me) , they think that fox is slanted yet, they are not. they shoot from some special high ground wherein they really are the middle of the road folks ( see: dan rather) and tell the news straight up, while fox is slanted.
when you compare the population at fox vis a vis cons to libs, you'll find the same skew, a preponderance of cons ergo their slant is con...well no shit, BUT- see, at cbs abc et al, even though their skew leans just as heavy the other way? no not them, they are not slanted......just becasue 8 or 9 of 10 of their team is lib ( like fox is con) they don't slant, but fox does.Its a hypocrisy I find especially galling.
A translation of this post into coherent English being unavailable, I'll try to muddle through what I can gather it means... basically I started (three weeks ago (?)) with a general comment which was addressed to the general reader. That comment was based on your previous comment about the topic of Fox ratings, which, again, as near as I could suss it, implied some sort of relationship between television ratings and television "value". So I then went into an explanation of what ratings mean and what they don't mean. That's what I do over and over when that particular fallacy comes up, because it's what I know.
I just did the same thing again today. Perhaps we can discuss it in three weeks time.
It's quite possible that I guessed wrong on your meaning originally (again I'm finding your posts near incomprehensible) and was addressing a point you did not make, but I figured it was probably a point that needed making regardless. And judging by today's bumps, that seems correct. But none of it was about anybody's slant or bias; it was about the psychology of how TV works and what the ratings mean; and how they are achieved by a broadcaster. And the only reason I keep explaining that is because various posters keep bringing in lists of TV ratings --which, again, have no value to anyone here unless we are buying advertising time. Assuming no one is here for that purpose, we must also assume that these ratings sheets are therefore being brought in on some other belief of what they represent. So I clarify.
I think you're talking here about ideologies. I'm not. I was talking about technicalities of the general media industry. Apples and aardvarks. Ideologies, well we can do them another time.
Last edited: