usmbguest5318
Gold Member
You seem to want to make me out to be the fool in this discussion and get on me like stink on a skunk. Well, baby, I got news for you: that dog won't hunt, not today anyway. I'm sorry this post is so long, but I'm not about to let you get away with pullin' some shit like that.
I don't know whom the authors of the "long" article you cited intend to appeal to. It's obvious that they want to seem credible, but anyone who reads the damn thing and follows the key links in it will quickly see that its authors are trying to measure the well's depth by the handle on the pump. The whole thing is loaded with almost nothing but innuendo, and the few facts they cite don't make the point when you consider the number of news journalists there are and the content from the study that, at the very end of the article, they reference.
Show me the methodology for the sample? I'd actually look at it to determine whether it is legit. I don't see it noted in the article at all. I even clicked on the external links in the article expecting to find a methodology exposition. It doesn't exist. So what makes that article (1) be a study, and (2) be a legit study? Your saying it is?
Let's begin where the article does. It cites The New Yorker magazine television critic's comments about Trump. Really? A TV critic whose comments appeared not in a news story, not on the editorial page, but in the culture section of the magazine? Her story isn't even political. It's just about the convention and her thoughts about it as an event that appeared asTV content. The piece reads like a gossip column.
Who are Levinthal and Beckel trying to fool? Who having more sense than a bag of hammers would take her essay as anything but entertainment? That's not how I'd open what is supposed to be a credible and serious article about bias in journalism. I doubt even you would. (The New Yorker does have a news section, but Nussbaum's story doesn't appear in it.)
Levinthal and Beckel go on to say that "Talk radio ideologues, paid TV pundits and the like — think former Trump campaign manager-turned-CNN commentator Corey Lewandowski — are not included in the tally." See that word "tally?" A tally is a count of whatever is gathered or seen. It does not indicate statistical validity. They don't even tell us what was tallied, money or people.
Further indication that however the collectors of the information gathered their data, it wasn't statistically valid, or at least not that of it which was used in the article, is that Carole Simpson's donation to the Clinton organization was mentioned. Simpson is not a journalist. She used to be one, and if you can show that her news reporting was biased, I'll give her inclusion a "pass," but my doing that won't make the data in that article be statistically valid as something that is used in an actual study must be.
You speak of sampling, which I do understand, yet the article refers to people, Carole Simpson for one, who cannot be included in a statistically legit survey of journalists. Also, what does the article say about contributions to political campaigns and candidates?
Then there's this:
Finally, toward the very end of the article, its author provides a link to something that actually is a study, "The American Journalist in the Digital Age: Key Findings." In that study, we see that nearly 65% of journalists identify as Independents or something other than Democrat or Republican. We also see that while the percentage of Democrat and Republican journalists has steadily and materially declined since 1992, the percentages of Independents and "Other" have risen with near comparability. In 1992, ~60% of journalists belonged to one of the two major parties.
Lastly, the study does not even hint that there is actual bias, in any direction. The study isn't even about media bias. I'm sorry, but the mere fact that a journalist, or any professional, belongs to a given party does not demonstrate that they cannot separate their political views from objective reporting of news. Editorial commentary may be a different matter, but as you noted in your opening post, that's not news. Who gives a shit about bias in editorial content? Biased what it is supposed to be. It doesn't even pretend to be something other than that.
So what that article presents is a lot of anecdotal information that, though interesting, is solidly indicative of nothing other than that if you look hard enough you can find journalists who have contributed to political campaigns. Well, blow me down!
I have to believe that, like the imagined-in-your-mind credibility of the study-that-isn't (the one study referenced isn't about bias in the media), you fabricated the supposedly quoted passage above. Why?
Now the article referenced above is actually one that contains content spoken by Evan Thomas, but it says nothing about "bashing" anyone. In that article, do you know who uses the word "God" and who interprets Evan Thomas as having "elaborated on Obama as God?" I'll tell you who: Kyle Drennen, the article's author. What exactly is the elaboration to which Drennen refers? Here's the relevant content from the interview which was conducted by Chris Matthews of Evan Thomas:
That's it. Where is the so-called "elaboration on Obama as God?" It's not there because Thomas wasn't trying to make like Obama is something like a god.
What I see in that conversation is an elaboration on the different approaches Reagan and Obama used to finesse U.S. foreign policy and security policy. There is no elaboration that likens Obama to God. Even Thomas' statement that mentions God is not a reference to the divine nature of God and Obama being God-like in that regard, or even being a god, but is instead an analogical metaphor for taking the ethical/moral high ground. The man says as much when he states, "Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial."
You know what you ignored? The possibility that I would actually read the content linked to and in so doing discover that the words you attribute to Evan Thomas are not there. It's not even as though someone else said it and you merely screwed up on the attribution.
I don't know whom the authors of the "long" article you cited intend to appeal to. It's obvious that they want to seem credible, but anyone who reads the damn thing and follows the key links in it will quickly see that its authors are trying to measure the well's depth by the handle on the pump. The whole thing is loaded with almost nothing but innuendo, and the few facts they cite don't make the point when you consider the number of news journalists there are and the content from the study that, at the very end of the article, they reference.
Show me the methodology for the sample? I'd actually look at it to determine whether it is legit. I don't see it noted in the article at all. I even clicked on the external links in the article expecting to find a methodology exposition. It doesn't exist. So what makes that article (1) be a study, and (2) be a legit study? Your saying it is?
Let's begin where the article does. It cites The New Yorker magazine television critic's comments about Trump. Really? A TV critic whose comments appeared not in a news story, not on the editorial page, but in the culture section of the magazine? Her story isn't even political. It's just about the convention and her thoughts about it as an event that appeared asTV content. The piece reads like a gossip column.
Who are Levinthal and Beckel trying to fool? Who having more sense than a bag of hammers would take her essay as anything but entertainment? That's not how I'd open what is supposed to be a credible and serious article about bias in journalism. I doubt even you would. (The New Yorker does have a news section, but Nussbaum's story doesn't appear in it.)
Levinthal and Beckel go on to say that "Talk radio ideologues, paid TV pundits and the like — think former Trump campaign manager-turned-CNN commentator Corey Lewandowski — are not included in the tally." See that word "tally?" A tally is a count of whatever is gathered or seen. It does not indicate statistical validity. They don't even tell us what was tallied, money or people.
Further indication that however the collectors of the information gathered their data, it wasn't statistically valid, or at least not that of it which was used in the article, is that Carole Simpson's donation to the Clinton organization was mentioned. Simpson is not a journalist. She used to be one, and if you can show that her news reporting was biased, I'll give her inclusion a "pass," but my doing that won't make the data in that article be statistically valid as something that is used in an actual study must be.
You speak of sampling, which I do understand, yet the article refers to people, Carole Simpson for one, who cannot be included in a statistically legit survey of journalists. Also, what does the article say about contributions to political campaigns and candidates?
Major news organizations often restrict, if not prohibit, their journalists (and occasionally non-journalist employees) from making political campaign contributions. The news organizations’ overriding concern: Such contributions will compromise journalists’ impartiality or seed the perception that journalists are biased toward certain politicians or political parties.
Major news organizations. Do you see that? So just who is prohibited from making those donations? According to your cited article:- The New York Times
- The Associated Press
- CNN
- The Dallas Morning News
- Houston Chronicle
- Los Angeles Times
- National Public Radio
- ProPublica
- San Antonio Express-News
- The Seattle Times and
- Tampa Bay Times
- MSNBC -- Suspended a journalist for making a political contribution
- Business Insider
- ESPN
- Santa Cruz Sentinel
- Shelter Island Reporter
- Liberty Tribune
- Fox News
- The Washington Post
- RT America ("RT" I think stands for Russia/Russian Television)
- Reuters
- The Argus-Press
- The article also notes seven non-news organizations - general interest, fashion, lifestyle and gossip outlets - that have no such restrictions.
Then there's this:
Journalists’ political contributions are not, however, always what they appear to be. Lauren Goode, an editor at tech and culture news outlet The Verge, explained that her $500 contribution in February to the Clinton campaign wasn’t about supporting Clinton’s candidacy — Goode just wanted, for background reporting purposes, to get inside a fundraising event in Silicon Valley at which Clinton was speaking. “Prior to the event I discussed the particular circumstances of this with the editor-in-chief at The Verge,” Goode explained, “and he approved it.”
Contributions made so a reporter can attend an event and report on it.Finally, toward the very end of the article, its author provides a link to something that actually is a study, "The American Journalist in the Digital Age: Key Findings." In that study, we see that nearly 65% of journalists identify as Independents or something other than Democrat or Republican. We also see that while the percentage of Democrat and Republican journalists has steadily and materially declined since 1992, the percentages of Independents and "Other" have risen with near comparability. In 1992, ~60% of journalists belonged to one of the two major parties.
Lastly, the study does not even hint that there is actual bias, in any direction. The study isn't even about media bias. I'm sorry, but the mere fact that a journalist, or any professional, belongs to a given party does not demonstrate that they cannot separate their political views from objective reporting of news. Editorial commentary may be a different matter, but as you noted in your opening post, that's not news. Who gives a shit about bias in editorial content? Biased what it is supposed to be. It doesn't even pretend to be something other than that.
So what that article presents is a lot of anecdotal information that, though interesting, is solidly indicative of nothing other than that if you look hard enough you can find journalists who have contributed to political campaigns. Well, blow me down!
I have to believe that, like the imagined-in-your-mind credibility of the study-that-isn't (the one study referenced isn't about bias in the media), you fabricated the supposedly quoted passage above. Why?
- The link you provided isn't even an interview by or with Evan Thomas, nor is the article written by him.
- The people who are party to the linked interview don't use the word "bash."
Now the article referenced above is actually one that contains content spoken by Evan Thomas, but it says nothing about "bashing" anyone. In that article, do you know who uses the word "God" and who interprets Evan Thomas as having "elaborated on Obama as God?" I'll tell you who: Kyle Drennen, the article's author. What exactly is the elaboration to which Drennen refers? Here's the relevant content from the interview which was conducted by Chris Matthews of Evan Thomas:
Chris Matthews interviewing Evan Thomas on Hardball at some point prior to June 5, 2009.
MATTHEWS: The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world. If he can, he'll be honoring what happened on D-day 65 years ago tomorrow. He will be delivering the world once again from evil. Evan Thomas is editor at large for Newsweek magazine. Evan, you remember '84. It wasn't 100 years ago. Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?
EVAN THOMAS: Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God. He’s-
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
THOMAS: He's going to bring all different sides together. It's a very different-
MATTHEWS: Can he – well, here’s Ronald Reagan. Let's take a look, a little Friday night nostalgia. Here he is speaking about peace and reconciliation at Normandy back 25 years ago. Let's listen.
RONALD REAGAN: But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and, yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation. In truth, there is no reconciliation we would welcome more than a reconciliation with the Soviet Union so together we can lessen the risks of war now and forever.
MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the difference. He was talking about the evil empire, trying to reconcile with the people of Russia and the Soviet Union, but not the country. Barack Obama the other day was saying, yesterday, that we don't have an enemy out there per se. We have people who choose extremism, but Islam’s not our enemy. That's not the evil empire.
THOMAS: But Reagan did it with a very – for the first term it was a clenched fist. I mean, we ramped up the cold war before we ramped it down. We built up our military. We – all of this D-day stuff was about war. That was about fighting.
MATTHEWS: Right.
THOMAS: Reconciliation only after the fighting. That's not – Obama’s not doing that. Obama – we've had our fighting. Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together. I think he has a much tougher job, frankly
MATTHEWS: The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world. If he can, he'll be honoring what happened on D-day 65 years ago tomorrow. He will be delivering the world once again from evil. Evan Thomas is editor at large for Newsweek magazine. Evan, you remember '84. It wasn't 100 years ago. Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?
EVAN THOMAS: Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God. He’s-
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
THOMAS: He's going to bring all different sides together. It's a very different-
MATTHEWS: Can he – well, here’s Ronald Reagan. Let's take a look, a little Friday night nostalgia. Here he is speaking about peace and reconciliation at Normandy back 25 years ago. Let's listen.
RONALD REAGAN: But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and, yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation. In truth, there is no reconciliation we would welcome more than a reconciliation with the Soviet Union so together we can lessen the risks of war now and forever.
MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the difference. He was talking about the evil empire, trying to reconcile with the people of Russia and the Soviet Union, but not the country. Barack Obama the other day was saying, yesterday, that we don't have an enemy out there per se. We have people who choose extremism, but Islam’s not our enemy. That's not the evil empire.
THOMAS: But Reagan did it with a very – for the first term it was a clenched fist. I mean, we ramped up the cold war before we ramped it down. We built up our military. We – all of this D-day stuff was about war. That was about fighting.
MATTHEWS: Right.
THOMAS: Reconciliation only after the fighting. That's not – Obama’s not doing that. Obama – we've had our fighting. Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together. I think he has a much tougher job, frankly
That's it. Where is the so-called "elaboration on Obama as God?" It's not there because Thomas wasn't trying to make like Obama is something like a god.
What I see in that conversation is an elaboration on the different approaches Reagan and Obama used to finesse U.S. foreign policy and security policy. There is no elaboration that likens Obama to God. Even Thomas' statement that mentions God is not a reference to the divine nature of God and Obama being God-like in that regard, or even being a god, but is instead an analogical metaphor for taking the ethical/moral high ground. The man says as much when he states, "Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial."
You know what you ignored? The possibility that I would actually read the content linked to and in so doing discover that the words you attribute to Evan Thomas are not there. It's not even as though someone else said it and you merely screwed up on the attribution.
