Enough said? I can say that if you actually read Bias (or listened to it on tape), you couldn't possibly draw the conclusions you have regarding the media. Perhaps that it is why you find Goldberg so irritating? It is worth pointing out that Goldberg is not only not partisan, he is actually a Democrat. You see, he was actually just trying to do what you say 99% of all reporters do...present an unbiased reporting of events. He was run out of town for that. So much for any theory of lack of bias in the mainstream media.

It is really pretty amazing, inventor, that you can continue to call out those who you say are so blind while being so unreceptive to counter arguments yourself. You make the claim in this thread that ALL media is biased to the right (radio, print, and TV). Are you then claiming that liberals simply lack the intelligence to produce or demand an outlet that caters to their market? Capitalism dictates that any market need will be met...therefore there must be some reason there's no market, in your hypothesis, for liberals. Why could that possibly be? While there might be a variety of wild postulations about this, Hakim's Razor indicates that the obvious is most likely true...that in fact the market is being met, and that if radio, as you claim, is highly biased to the right then it must also be true that the other media is equally biased to the left.

What dictates in thought to an individual is the most obvious. Inventor lays out neat chain of command on our media by certain people that without a doubt obviously have a conservative bone in there bodies. Not that this is wrong but maybe he does have a case in pointing out that these people also allow for personal beliefs to bias "news" input or media into our culture regardless of form, be it radio or cable or whatever.
The idea that I get when I watch fox is that the channel is most diffidently to the right, and sometimes far right. I do watch cnn at points and more often then not the do play on the issues that would be more on the left but they do not hold such a political concentrate if I can, not in what they report or questions they ask, but simply overall behavior.

I do know when i turn on the radio, which I really don’t do all that often simply because the music stations out here might as well be the most plastic forms of capitalism one can come by Your only chance to hear something outside of the box for the most part in regards to liberal thought only comes on public broadcasting channels, and I do know they have to fight for the right to party more often then not.

It may not be as I think a lot of people overall are taking it though, only in some regards do I think overall there is some scheme if I can to keep in circulation certain ideas people in control accept, the problem comes when those walls if you will say in media are so controlled as to not allow for any transparency in the walls you end up in something from Orwell. Maybe this is why gore pushed so hard for the internet, yet another conspiracy I can hatch in nothing I like the internet because its hard to put a leash on it overall, and yes if anything you can say about mainstream media or legacy media lol is that it has a leash on it.

As far as super controlled thought overall though, I don’t think it exists. We are so use to pc and people that can talk with clarity that our current president can shock people when he speaks, not to mention the man can choke on a pretzel, but such is human.

Overall its not a far fetched idea to think millions of Americans can come to be influenced by the media, such is known, its why we have commercials, and on that note again maybe its not that far fetched that certain people with the resources aim to control this, and put a spin on it, or even go as far as to control what you head about and don’t, and in what form you hear about it, I really do not find that to far fetched, in fact personally I find it obvious, so I guess it must be true. Such happens in all kinds of countries, just like Iran, liberals are a hunted species along with the secularists, and such may be why Jesus got the spear overall.

I see in my absence that this thread has retained the same theme. Inventor vs. everybody else......
I guess that's something to be said for consistency anyway. At least it makes for entertaining reading when I come in from the cold.


You're statement is absolutely untrue. Have you not ever heard or watched Keith Olbermann? You can make all of the arguments you wish to concerning weighting and coding, but when you make factless, baseless and unsupported statements, how do you expect to have them taken seriously?


Absolutely and patently false. Thanks Carlito





No, you have hypothesized, and in some cases invented 'challenges' that were conceived solely to prove your point. The case of talk radio being conservative has always been a no-brainer, yet you insist there are people in the thread that disagree.

No, not really. He lays out a hypothesis that any big corporation MUST inherently be conservative, and then claims that this proves beyond any doubt that the mainstream media, being run by big corporations, MUST be inherently conservative. Interestingly, by this same hypothesis, Hollywood MUST also be conservative, yet you'd be hard pressed to find a more liberal group anywhere. So, unfortunately, the facts have little to do with the hypothesis.



This is true. What is NOT true is cthat onservatives have any monopoly on this. In fact, until the proliferation of the right wing outlets inventor so often mentions, it was by and large almost exclusively the domain of liberals, which completely explains the popularity of the Fox network and right-wing radio. It is in fact that very popularity which provides strong evidence of the liberal bias that existed before...why else would it have gained such popularity?

Gordo has stated clearly a few things I have not articulated, well and added some. And as he thinks some of these same things are obvious so do I and that is part of the problem with debating some of you. Also he writes at a depth in a style that is similar to the passage I quoted from Thomas Paine. Plus he has gone into a level past what I said and some very deep concepts. To add to it he also debate me in a exemplary level of no insults. Time to take notes, if you know what I mean. I am curious of his background, should he so desire to disclose it?

Just listened to AAR for 4 hours and not one “news” break, last night. Grant it I do step out here and there. But will say I do not listen to a local station. XM. But, the larger point that you did not defend is the Sunday talk shows. Hahahahahaha as listed on the chart….. I have yet to hear a news break on them.
Let me get this,,, So if you are saying all radio stations including sports have news then it is 122 million listed in talkers plus every music station, news station, every talk of any kind, and so on. Why would you be removing Imas? So with your way, this proves that radio is now way more than TV. Last time I watched TV as I said the political Sunday shows did not have news as you define it, either does, the unit, 24, amazing race, the apprentice, prison break and so on. So even with your logic RADIO beats the heck out of TV. But again you are just missing it and as listed on the table which you have not been capable/able to understand because of your absolute blindness is the SUNDAY TV shows they are referring to DO NOT HAVR NEWS BREAKS. And as I said I discount basically everything you have said here on this thread because you just do not have a clue to the subject when you can not follow this chart. BTW the chart did not list AAR specifically.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_po...dex.asp?PID=679
TABLE 2
TELEVISION CHANNEL TURN TO MOST OFTEN FOR NEWS RELATED TO POLITICS OR PUBLIC AFFAIRS
"When you want news or information related to politics or public affairs, which television channel do you turn to most often?"

from table 2 Sunday morning shows (various broadcasts)
What about that do you not understand, they also listed C-SPAN, I do not watch C-SPAN often but do not remember news on it either.

Sorry to wreck you day DTOM, but it is 50 to 1 in my favor of top insiders from a rightys heroes numbers, read the link below.. Granted here on this board of people who are not to the left they disagree with these 50 to 1 industry insiders that are/were in the top of the industry according to Goldberg.. You just do not have a clue to this do ya. The rest of your normal say nothing (but well written) of no substance is just tooo funny to comment on. Do you have anything applicable to the discussion? BYW DTOM seems you have not read the chart, it is 98% of the right that do not think it is highly slanted and it is obvious it is the most slanted. BY far righty… poor victim rightys out in the world.

RE GOLDBERG First I do not know Goldberg is a democrat, from what I saw he says he is a liberal(in his own biased mind), from his positions I read he seems to admire the partisan right. Next I did a quick check and found the below interview. And from other interviews that I have heard him on, which if the media is so liberal he would never be interviewed. Again does he cover the medias obsession with Clinton and Monica certainly an objective person would? Any proper discussion of the biased media would cover this subject; the amount of time placed on monica, no liberal would cover past one week,,, if it was a liberal media….. If he didn’t discuss it I also find him biased. He just does not use data what so ever and in the second source is just proven wrong wrong wrong. Here is a guy that believes then he even eludes to say O Rielly is not way to the right. Anyone who states this with almost 30 years in the media without knowing O‘Rielly is to the right is an absolute moron and not worth listening to his opinions. Simple as that, he does not believe in using data and he is so biased that it is disturbing that the right consider a moron like this as credible. Read the second link and they take him to task about a reporting leading with conservative where he claims they do not do that to liberals. And if that is the best he has for media biases he is also incompetent. The fact that he does not have the intellectual honesty or maybe he is too stupid that they put a shill Colmes against a hard core partisan Hannity, who runs the show and that is fair, in his biased mind. Note that it was 50 to one that say the media is not liberal according to Goldberg, these are top industry insiders.. Then that a person with 30 years experience considers it equal a very partisan person at prime time show vs. the time a person who is not a partisan at a late time slot. How can you expect me to read a book by this idiot.. And his last statement that Fox presents both sides more equally is the biggest laugh I have heard… this guy is just a biased idiot. So you are saying this guy should be taken seriously. I can not take you seriously for what I remember of him and what I just read about him and his words. He is another righty that can not use logic or data.

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/cur...rd_goldberg.htm


http://www.dailyhowler.com/h030102_1.shtml
should you like to cover Goldberg in another thread I will join. But I find from my research it is not specifically applicable but interesting to show his bias he lists the 100 people who are screwing up America, this list is a hit job of liberals. With some other real idiots to the right but interesting righty here McVeigh did not make the top ten. Yet one of the abortion terrorists was in top 25 James Kopp. That demonstrates how he is no liberal. He is a closeted righty..

http://www.philosophistry.com/specials/100-people.html
Who is in Bernard Goldberg's 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America?

http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=2060629
here is a link from that link… that basically states what I have been in various threads, I just back it up with like this thread.
http://www.slate.com/id/2060629/sidebar/2060638/
Hobbes you have it wrong, human nature allows for a few large corporations to be liberal, I have never said all corporations are conservatives just most.. the lions share is highly conservative, even the previous link addresses this obviousness. Again there is a reason of any groups of business defense contractors buy, own, and or have their people on the boards of the media. It is another thing that is just obvious to most. Again some on the right do not think the owners decide what their product is or carries or the board of directors has any influence. Or that right wing rich kids like Olin who inherited his money spending hundreds of millions on how to control the media has any effect. Only a biased righty can not figure out spending hundreds of millions of dollars would not have an effect from the 70s.

So that sounds fair enough, the one person who agrees with you is the only one who understands while the rest of us are "inept" at math...Perfectly reasonable, it's a wonder that you don't have more widespread support with logic like that.

It's been a while since I've reposted the questions you've ignored [and I won't stop reposting them until they're actually answered by the way], so here you go:

So now the qualifications for you're hypothesis is the new breaks on AAR...But I'm sure that'll change in a little bit as all of your qualifications have. First you claimed that Rush Limbaugh had more listeners than TV news had viewers, then when that was proven false you moved on to saying that as a whole conservative talk shows hosts had more listeners than TV news has viewers, and now that that didn't work we're on to something new...Well, it keeps us on our toes if nothing else.

CP

Well, I pity you for listening to 4 hours of Randi Rhodes, but OK, so you are listening to liberal radio on XM. Which is owned by Hughes Electronics, GM, Honda, and some investment groups. What type of corporate messages were they putting into your brain?

I'm sure you will agree that most americans listen to local stations, not satellite, since satellite is only a few million subscribers. And local stations have news. Moreover, satellite listeners still have a tuner, so can tune into one of many news stations. The fact that you choose not to do so being the exception.


OK, focus on this chart. Don't look at anything else.
"most often"
station - %
CNN - - - -20
FOX News 18
ABC - - - - -9
NBC - - - - -8
CBS - - - - -7
MSNBC - - -5
C-SPAN - -- 3
PBS - - - - --3
CNBC - - - - 1
Local cable news channel 4
Local broadcast news channel 8
Sunday morning shows (various broadcasts) 2
Something else 4
Don’t watch news 7

The chart has 9% ABC, 8% NBC and 7% CBS "most often" yet only 2% of the respondents list the "sunday talk shows." Moreover, the Sunday shows are only on once per week, so "most often" for the "heavy" media users is more than once a week. They must be referring to the nightly network news. It's the only logical response to the question. Not to mention, this only captures "most often" so doesn't include channel switching.

edit

QUOTE(inventor)

98% of the right that do not think it is highly slanted

You continue to mis-represent what this poll says, even while you link it. The poll does not ask if "radio is highly slanted," it asks whether the PRESENTATION OF NEWS on radio is the MOST SLANTED OF ANY MEDIA. If you aren't going to accurately characterize your own sources, how can we get anywhere?


How in the world can a dead guy be screwing up america? He's dead.

Oh not to worry.....you'll never wreck my day As for me not having a clue........OK, call me clueless. I however am not the person continually taking the discussion off on tangents by making baseless and unsupported allegations that are consistently proven wrong. But I admire your comittment to your agenda, and always enjoy reading your posts.
Will you ever respond to the pointed questions posed to you?

He may be dead but his cause lives on like the guy he listed for having his season tickets revoked,29. John Green he can not go to games any more.

You miss the point of the listed channels again the point being it is news information.....

and actually one can make the argument via weighting via the heavy users use it on TV that FOX is the largest source of news political information by far. 39 percent of heavy users so weighting this would still keep Fox as number one. So one would have to say just here the media could be called FOX. Gee that liberal TV media. And again in CNN they have partisans to the right like Lou, King, Zahn, Cafferty, Kagan. These are overt partisans. The other ones have never been overt partisans.

And yes XM is has a large listenership but small potatoes of the entire market. Again why do they put on AAR when it is corporatist owned, again I will explain it, a righty believe money is more important than anything. Ruppy proves this by his start in trash media like the star an enquirer type of trash paper. Yep trash makes money. He did this in inheriting his fathers papers and moving all over the world with this trash including now FOX. and if we notice almost all on this thread believe money should be the only factor on what is on in the media.

As far as how i characterize it, it is accurate. I am not hearing anyone disagree how disproportionatly radio it is slanted to the right via the talkers magazine information, radio barely has but a handful of partisan liberals vs the partisan rightys. it is so out of whack that anyone should know this. I do blame it on the media that the rightys claim is liberal and the lemmings for believing these liars. Gordo did a good job of analyzing this hypocrisy. If it was a liberal media it would be attacked, as they do attack it on AAR. These things are discussed there, again the only liberal partisan media.

That's right. You were just about to name some of the "hate groups" that are "well represented" on the radio talk shows. The "hate groups," coupled with hatred of the liberal media, that "turn right wingers into terrorists."

Anyway, how does your weighting handle this information? Only 17% of Americans get their news from radio call-in shows. What's the difference how many shows that small percentage listen to?



Pew esearch link from an earlier post. As a reminder, this was the source that told us that 42% of Americans said that Local TV was a "primary source" for their campaign / political information. That's more than twice the number of people who even listen to talk radio.

My friend would you like to buy a clue, I answered it. Just because we answer in different ways and you can not understand or do not like the answer that is not my problem.

Again using your logic if we use you direction, then the same is true for TV, in the ratings did these same individuals people watch 5 shows on FOX? Did they watch several cons in a day. IE did they watch morning news, evening and nighly? It does not matter with my cumulative method.

Do you understand why your question is trying to change the basis.

Rush does have more listeners than any single show and actually more than several network shows.

And again when weighted it is overwhelmingly. But you seem to have a problem with weighting of what this thread is about political/news. again as I showed you local news had a duty cycle of 20% of news. Again I pulled out local stuff like weather, traffic, sports, and local crime.

Again this is without putting in a weighting for partisan adding to the media. Again I believe this should be done, a Rush/Ollie/ Liddy/Keys/dobbs/ hanity/Oriely and so on and on are far extemisht. Nothing balanced about them. Only a few like Franken, Carville, Shultz, are close to this partisanship from the left. So factor that in is difficult where as the factoring in the removing of sports weather is simple. Do you believe there is a difference between a Rush and how Brit Hume reports the news/information? Do you believe there is a difference between the nes pages on a paper vs the editorial page?

Then add in the totals of the talkers we have somewhere around 80-100 million. And with weighting of TV and radio you can not come up with number from the network and local news (again for the 100th time) weighting the local news shows.

Not if you're selling them. Where pray-tell did you answer them?

That is not an answer to my question, that is an attempt at forseeing the reasoning for my question and then attempting to use what you THINK I'll say against me...It doesn't work, so perhaps you can actually answer the question and I'll decide what my logic is for myself, thank you so much.

And again, for the 100th time [see, I can feign exasperation too ] I'll tell you that after adding up all of the conservatives' listenership it is less than the viewership of TV news [perhaps I can get a two for one deal when I buy a clue and give the other one to you]. In addition, no matter how many times you say that you have a formula for weighting and the like, you don't. You're "method" of weighting is one that is designed to support you're hypothesis, it is completely dependent on YOUR pre-conceived notion, it is completely subjective and that's what EVERYONE has been telling you since the start, yet YOU see yourself as the lone voice of reason in a room full of idiots, please. Perhaps you should consider giving some thought as to WHY every single person debating with you disputes you're weighting theory...Are you really arrogant enough to think that we're all just ignorant? I mean, God Almighty, you can't even prove how many different people listen to conservative talk radio for God's sake. You've brushed aside Carlito's poll showing that only 17% of Americans listen to talk radio more than anything else, and now you're telling me to buy a clue...Unbelievable, it really and truly is unbelievable. It would be hysterical if it wasn't so annoying.

On Edit: I'm going to repost my questions one more time, because they aren't on this page yet.

I never get tired of this.

CP

Gee they forgot the other part of news in the radio section, what happened to the all news stations?

Remeber these are two different polls completely.

But anyway I see you are now debating up the right track...

but as I said we weight any media, like local news it really drops to actually political/news when you remove weather. Nightly tetwork news does not get weighted as it had a 100% duty cycle. And if you notice the numbers are over 100%..

Now for the details that I have said before from this report that
it says the time the average person spens on each media is per day...
from the chart time spent with News "yesterday"
32 minutes average of TV news
17 minutes of newspaper
17 miutes of news on the radio

And we know the majority of people watch local news vs network from our other polls, so with weighting it becomes basically a 3 way tie for actual time, with by this study TV inching it out a bit with the weighting..... That is one study and we have the other that shows radio is beating it up big time.

Now the next thing we need to add in the partisanship. which is very difficult to do other than to say we know radio is far more politically biassed. So have not attempted to get into this to deep yet.

And is TV really biassed, as shown in the Harris poll, by heavy users for news, more than 1 a week, has 39% of the heavy news viewrs with fOX and CNN at 22% for the next closest.

Again the entire point being where is this partisan liberal media?????????????







Get a clue, the answer is you have not posted data to support those hypothetical questions..... Post data and I will reply but when posting from the theoretical I can only tell you the same theory should apply to TV. You just do not have a understanding or normalization. Give me the complete stats and I can answer you question. The best stat shows there is overlap in both TV and radio because the numbers add up to more than 100%.

And yes we do have numbers for rightys listening to radio and such read the stats. But the issues is who is doing the talking anyway, who is giving out the propaganda. daaaaa for that we may be able to decide from the talkers magazine who is to the far right, I say Rush is and so on. Even by your standard there are 52 million sessions of partisan righty propaganda given out.

Maybe you should give more voice to the fact that even Goldberg is only 1 on your side of his numbers vs 50 that disagree with him. These by Goldbergs standard are industry insiders. Gee who knows more you or these 50 to one? There I gave you a clue for free. You know where my vote is.

Telling me to get a clue, and then apparently not knowing what the word "hypothetical" means in the same sentence makes you look a little bit silly inventor. None of my questions are hypothetical, they're straight forward, do you think the two different sets of "righties" watch Rush and Hannity? Do you know how many different people listen to these shows? If you don't then what good is your data? You're attempts to skirt these questions are frankly pathetic. Telling me to get a clue is not going to get the reaction you're looking for, what it will get is yet another installment of "These are the questions I asked, now would be a good time to answer them and stop stalling."



Really? What statistics have you presented that show the number of DIFFERENT people listening to each of those conservative radio shows?

I look forward to have my questions answered, and I remain optimistic that they will be...5th time's a charm right?

CP

I don't understand your question here. No other types of stations were included. Just "radio." As you noted, NPR and talk radio are the largest formats. After that radio formats are very fragmented.

There is overlap in the numbers. In theory, the blue parts could have been included in the survey, but they weren't. Just for example.

- 42% of people get news from radio
- 17% get news from talk radio
- 16% get news from NPR
- (5% listen to "news radio" for all we know)
- (10% get news from music radio stations' "top of the hour news" perhaps...)


And here is where I reject your premise completely. You can't weight the minutes of news. Can't do it. You can't "weight" local news to take out time listening to weather. Either a person sees, hears, and comprehends a given political news item, or they don't. Believe it or not, some people never, ever watch or listen to news.

If someone is very interested in that story, they will pay attention. If reading a newspaper, they may spend several minutes reading about that story. If it's on the local news, they may just notice it a bit. If talk radio, they may even call in to discuss it. All qualitative levels of comprehension and interaction. Not quantitative.

The "Duty Cycle" concept doesn't apply well here. You have the intersection of a qualitative thing like a broadcast, with an imperfect receptor like the human mind. There are too many unknowns. You need a better model. Counting the number of minutes that someone may listen to or view politics just doesn't do anything.

That’s not the point of the debate though. The math if I can sits primarily on what type of information is being presented in the news, and by what numbers of people are watching them, not about if the people are taking it in. I am not a republican, yet I have watched fox news, personally I love it when the bash on people that collect and write intelligence reports and state on national television that they side with the president, this aside.

If you ran a business, you would have it perform to your understanding and standards, I think this applies to anything really. I am not calling it bad that say some right wing people that own news producers maybe interject a slant of bias into it, but what the idea is is that such occurs, which again i do not find to off the beat really in regards to how people actually do things in life with there property.

To me the only problem comes from the idea that news does indeed influence people, tv in general does, input period into our brain does. So with that in mind, why is inventors post so out in left field, maybe simply because no body talks about this kind of thing, and for the most part most the people that participate in the thread probably do not care to really think about it. I don’t claim that the media is entirely owned by the right, but on that note I do notice that a majority of our television in regards to news and even simple shows does play to that side of the spectrum, we have popular shows that center around abusive police officers, i can hardly find that coming to rest in any political party save the republicans.

As far as weighting goes, last time I checked its how jpegs or gifs work. The data is simply put that way to be read and then displayed. I think such can be used in many applications, such as threading in programming to the more complex of setting up how you might want to shop if you have to shop in breaks and periodically doing a large shopping for groceries.

In this realm of data if I can, I think for the most part he is simply going from what kind of media is being produced in relation to the number of viewers in obtains and if i have it right priority ownership of such. It again has nothing to do with if the people viewing are taking to it, you are still getting such thought out in large circulation overall. Now taking that America is democracy and capitalism, then maybe this is not as bad as some people are making out to be, which I don’t think is inventor, just people getting defensive. I think the problem comes when any form of news outside that box is instantly attacked as maybe a communist news network because it does not copy and paste the message.

In reply to hobbes.

My simple point is that the razor comes down to the obvious being true, well the obvious is being observed by a human mind, my question is what made it obvious to the viewer. I think if people in general just followed the obvious as truth maybe the human species would already be extinct, just a guess though and I don’t find it that obvious.

I do not think that liberal thought was that big back in the day as we currently understand the liberal. If it was not for people wanting change I also do not know what the world would look like, but on that note a conservative will not accept the conservation of something that did not always exist accept for people that desired to get liberal on Great Britain, darn our communist forefathers. Pretty much I think our current mode of liberalism is really just a product of racial tension and Vietnam, but again its not so obvious.

Boy I think I really got this right, the thread on target.

Do you believe the whitehouse would not be pulling in the radio people if it was not so potent... This is the second time in what a week that he has brought in radio people to send out his message. Note that he did not bring in TV or print. Note he did not allow one person from AAR on either days.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politic...5-radioday.html



I know basically all conservative will not see the bias or advantage in these stunts.

Inventor, no one...no one has said that radio isn't biased...no one. The President having a bunch of radio talk show hosts [presumably mostly conservative ones] over the White House does not prove that it is the main form of media, it has no connection at all to what we've been debating this whole time, it simply means talk radio is conservative [which no one has disputed] and that Bush doesn't want AAR hosts there [big surprise]. The fact is that you've essentially ignored everyone's legitimate criticism and questions and then told us that we all just "didn't understand" you're complex mathematical concepts. Carlito has spent waaaay too much of his time giving you hard statistics that PROVE radio doesn't have the listenership that TV does but you simply ignore it. I have asked you basic questions about your entire thought process that you have ignored for WEEKS, and this "proof" of you being right is a microcosm of this thread. Blind ideology flying in the face of empirical evidence and non-debateable fact.

CP

Link
How is Bush's Radio Day any different than Clinton's?


Note also that your link does not list the 41 radio talk show hosts, so while you may be correct, you are merely speculating.


CP pretty much put this one to bed.



How does this prove your theory that most Americans use radio, specifically talk radio in your opinion, as their main source of news????

I have to say think you for again supporting my point with your source. First, why did they (both parties) only bring in the radio? again that is a republican and a democrat. Because they know how powerful it is over other media for influencing the public. thank you for proving my point.

Next you have to admit Clinton is way more open, he brought the wolves in to the hen house. We do not see Bush bringing in liberals do we....

And yes I heard AAR complain that they were not invited and they even asked to be included.

And Clintons was not a few weeks before a major election was it.... like I said I knew those on the right would not see a political bias here.


CP
As far as anyone giving me stats and telling me I do not understand them, I can say from what I have seen the majority of the people on the right here and everyplace I have debated need to pass stats first, before they cast such a stone. Just as obvious to you my grammar is bad is it to me others math and stats is so deficient. It is so funny to hear a person like you say I can not understand stats when I have not only had high grades in stats I have made it to differential equations and linear programing. I made my living and still use my math and have been paid some big bucks for it and the patent office has agree with my ability to use it in some very advanced areas. it is too funny how people who have never passed stats or high level math are experts in armchair stats.

I can not help you understand what you you may not want to understand. I can not educate you on math, that is your option as you are in college. Do you think you can ever understand a thing as simple as the theory of relativity? this is a very simple math stats understanding that is so obvious and simple. now again there are some debates even in what is gravity.

From what I have seen there is a poster here that does have the math background/aptitude and got the statistical connections. Other than that in the media issues have not seen any math wizards around.

I like to pick on Lawyers who become politicians a lot for being the most math/logic/stats inept people on the face of the earth as a rule, and there are exceptions. I always point out if a person can not fix a simple item with logic and math like a simple car how do we expect to have politician/lawyers to fix complex things in our society. yet I believe a top car mechanic is probably better suited to solving societal problems than lawyers can. But for some reason a trait in a Lawyer seems to be 50 times more electable. Does electable equate to good problem solver, absolutely not to me. they may be good people and good intentioned but as we have seen this is not getting us anywhere.

Yet again, you live up to your username. You've invented what I said, I never said that you didn't understand statistics, I said that you're ignoring them, which everyone who reads this thread undoubtedly sees. I never ever said that you don't understand stats, you clearly do, you couldn't be an engineer if you didn't understand them, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop, um, making false statements about what I did and did not say, it's just annoying.


Self-righteous condescension is one of the most entertaining things that one can read...What makes it more entertaining is that you've ignored statistics for about a month and then talk down to me because I don't agree with you...That's one way of debating I guess.

That's because we're all idiots Inventor, and you are the shining beacon of intelligence in this fog of utter stupidity .


And more self-righteous condescension....I can do that to you, know, let me give it a try. I always point out when a person refuses to acknowledge a fact when it is presented by oh, say, 5 different people over the course of a few weeks. Here's the problem, 17%, isn't 40%, you don't have to be an engineer or the intellectual heavyweight that you obviously are to figure that out.

CP

CP

tooo funny. Again your argument is 4 or 5 people disagree with me so I am wrong. too funny. Again when people are so clueless to stats and they act like they have spent a lifetime being paid for it then again as I point out. From what I have seen they are just not technically competent to understand, that is why I posted my experience to see if anyone else had some real world experience. That is how I debate. When things are technical I like to see the background. If there is none it makes my job more difficult to convey.

I like how you admit also to the utter ignorance of those others regarding stats.

Just like on TV when they have a problem with nuclear weapons they bring in people with expertise with that. Then sometimes they have to explain to the masses what the expert just said because it is amazing how everyone in the USA are not experts in all areas. You may not see it this way, which is fine. You are welcome to take the ball and go to another thread where you communicate with people you like debating. That is fine.

So just because people do not understand math at high levels they are not idiots they are just not going to be engineers and understand simple things like gravity theory of relativity, how a Tv works, the physical world around us.. Is this important, in my book it does not hurt. Not idiots as you say.

And yes I do believe Americans are getting more and more math deficient is one of the major reasons we are losing our technological edge. and can not see the obvious like the right wing media domination including radio.

Actually that's not what I said, but you don't care. You say things independent of reality all the time, so this particular instance doesn't surprise me. You're wrong because indisputable fact proves you wrong, not because 4 or five people think your wrong. But again, thank you for yet again misrepresenting what I said, it was, dare I say, "too funny."

Perhaps your not familiar with sarcasm, but, um, that was what my post was dripping with, but I'm sure you knew that.

This is the most nonsensical paragraph I've ever read. It has nothing to do with, well anything.

And once again, I was being sarcastic when I called us all "idiots".

The obvious right wing domination of media? That you've proven by saying that 37% of people listen to talk radio [which was proven as false] and because you've said that "righty" radio has more listeners than TV news has viewers [which was proven as false]. You haven't proven anything inventor, even if you say you have really loud and really frequently, it won't alter the fact that you haven't proven a thing.

Feel free to now completely misrepresent what I've said in this post so we can continue this pointless exchange.

CP

hmmm sometimes I think these is truth behind sarcasm... maybe this time you nailed it.
no need, you do well on your own.

Now back to the subject. we had our fun for the night.

back to the issue of Bush having no partisan liberals to challenge or keep him honest right before the elections. We know that Clinton was not a wimp he invited in the right media radio and we see this wimp of a president excludes the partisan liberals. we can assume they only brought in the radio because they have more time to editorialize and present information to the masses. That radio is the most effective media to convey political and information through. both presidents did it.

And now time to get into weighting again. I know it is a tough subject to grasp but partisan political editorial on TV or radio is far more powerful than professional journalism of being as close to non-based as possible.

We can give a person like Rush O'Riely aand so on a heavy bias factor. Same with Franken AAR personalities. Now on TV the ones I give a high bias are like Cafferty, Zahn, Kagan (she was dating rush) Lou Dobbs, O'Reiley, Larry King, and such. IE if they get to editorialize and they stick to one side as a norm. Now we will notice TV is a bit more difficult because even a Lou Dobbs has to read some AP stuff critical of a righty, and he will not get to defend/spin like a Oriely of Rush no matter what cart blanch. Reading the AP news is not editorializing. It can be bias if crime is put on all the time, crime is another way to dumb the masses and make them conservative.

Any questions to the framework?

I really wish I started counting the number of consecutive posts in which you ignored every question posed to you inventor, you'd be approaching a record right now.


I know I nailed it. The truth is that it takes an unbelievable level of arrogance to believe that one is right and everyone who disagrees are simply "math inept".

And once again, another completely unsupported claim that you pass as fact, because why start paying attention to facts now? YOU can assume what you want...I'll KNOW that radio isn't as popular as TV because it has been proven by a multitude of posters here.

Yeah let's go back to weighing. I know it's a tough subject to grasp but when you construct a method of statistical analysis to support your own preconceived notions, we here at AD call it a fallacy, but hey, don't let that stop you now, you hinged your whole argument on a fallacy, you'd be nuts to let the truth get in the way of that.

Yeah, I heard you the first time inventor. Let me ask you something, not that you'll answer, but it'll make me feel better. Do you think it's possible that I simply disagree with your methodology and that I prefer to believe institutions like the, oh, say the Pew Center when I read research on the media? What's entertaining to me is that you've essentially repeated this same line of reasoning [or lack thereof] for the entire thread and every time it is questioned you simply ignored the question. I know that that is the easy way to debate, but it'd be decent if you could at least pretend to acknowledge the fact that someone can have an opinion different than yours without being math inept. But nahh, that's impossible, after all, there was some truth to my sarcasm, we're all just morons. Now whatever you do in your next post, don't you dare answer the questions I've posed. And just on the off chance that you decide now would be a good time to answer them, I'll repost them.

Just a thought, but what does it say that I have to repost the same questions over 4 times in the period of a few weeks just so I can have you answer them. Meanwhile, whenever one of your condescending posts appear, I thoroughly respond to them as quickly as possible. Perhaps you could have the same common respect that I do so we can actually return to a debate instead of what we're doing now, which is not worthy of Americas Debate.

On edit: Here's some more facts you've ignored that maybe you can add into your arbitrary equation. From the Pew Center. . So let's see, 17% listen to call-in talk shows. 59% watch local news, 38% watch cable news and another 29% get news from the internet. Feel free to ignore these facts as well. Just one last question [I'm being overly optimistic thinking you'll actually answer it], how do you determine the "partisan factor" of each individual...Is there a formula for that too? If there is , you haven't defined it, leading me to believe, actually I know, that it is just an artificial construct created by you in order to attempt to confirm what you believed coming into this deabate and what no one can prove to you otherwise, no matter how much fact you have to ignore. All this on top of the fact that you STILL haven't been able to prove the number of DIFFERENT people who listen to conservative radio! You maintain this level of smugness without having actually debated. You say what you have to say and really don't care about anything that's said to the contrary. You can't even imagine what it's like debating [if you can call it that] someone who doesn't acknowledge fact. Prove to me that your weighting system isn't a construct made by you to support your claim and then we can talk. Prove to me that you can pretend to be fair and acknowledge that you don't know how many different people listen to conservative radio. Prove to me that you have some intellectual integrity and apply the "partisan weight" to ideological liberals that are in the media [after you explain to me how it isn't an arbitrary way for you to attempt to tie your ideas to fact]. Can you do any of that, inventor? Because if you can you're sure waiting a hell of a long time to do it. And if you can, you'd think a true scientist would explain his methods BEFORE calling them pefectly legitimate. But what do I know, I'm math inept.

CP

Even though I haven't lived in the US for a few years now, it seems extremely logical that radio would be the major source of political news used by most americans.
When one considers the average commute time (to and from) is 55 minutes per day:

http://www.ridetowork.org/pages.php?pageid=19

It would seem that many commuting americans leave home before the TV morning news, and get home after the evening news. Add to this the number of hours spent at work in a given week (I can only speak for my industry where there are no clear statistics in print, but I know of no-one, on the US side of our business, who puts in less than 50 hours), and you can see why radio is king for news. One can't very well watch TV to, from or at work. Reading the newspaper is also out of the question.
So, with these numbers, it seems logical that most Americans are no where near a TV 12 hours per day. That leaves very little time to sit in front of the tube and get ones evening dose of counter rush news, as well as fix dinner, attend to the family, and maybe get a few hours sleep in preparation for the next day.
American labor ethics should also be a topic here!!
I also know of no real left biased radio programs, other than Air America (but isn't it going under?). I'm sure there must be. If anyone can name a few, especially those that broadcast online, I would be most grateful.
Since there is little to counter the constant droning of Rush's propaganda machine, and that of those like him, it is little wonder the liberals can't get their concerns and opinions heard. And good luck trying to get Corporate America to buy advertising time on a liberal station. It would be like financing the enemy (in their view).

Opinon8ted, that doesn't prove anything. Simply because people have the oportunity to listen to the radio doesn't mean they get news information from it more than anywhere else. A large number of posters, myself included, have posted a plethora of data that shows that TV is significantly more poular than radio, and stats about the average drive to work doesn't disprove any of it.

CP

Excellent points, and obviously you did not spend your entire drive reading the entire thread. But I can tell you you hit the nail on the head with a very short direct post...well done... and even did a spectacular job of pulling another set of data into the subject that is completely applicable. The ride time is another great way to analyze the situation.

See what a lot of people do not understand is when data is reported by consumers on logs it is not always accurate. Sometimes people do not tell the truth. But when you use alternative data and logic like yours presented to verify the small sample of consumer usage you get to verify. As we know it is relatively easy to determine average drive times. And this does give you concrete numbers to compare. Though there will be some who say people drive that much without their radio on, which is almost laughable in a respect. One friend of mine who lives in LA has a 2 hour commute everyday. So he does listen to books on tape but that is only a few hours a week, he has all his presets set to righty talk shows. The last time i was in his car he has some real foul mouth name calling righty female on. He changed the channel but I wanted to hear it. He was definitely embarrassed about her talk though. She was as big on name calling as that moron Mark here in Vegas, spewing name calling hate every other minute. Never heard anything like that on AAR. but point being he gets up to 4 hours of righty wing stupidity a weekday. and if you read the data I posted it does not show the total numbers of "heavy listeners" of radio as common sense would have you understand from the survey data posted.. I tried to get people to understand that the heavy users total hours were much higher in my weighting method. Your post data verifys this to be on average of commuters about an hour a day average. Multiply that by number of commuters and in people that listen at work and home and we kick TVs ash for news/information.

So again another great way to back the point radio is the major source of news/information for the brainwashed americans.

Now I will hit another point that the average righty will just be unable to comprehend. As we know rightys even in the media attack AAR for financial issues. As we know FOX after 10 years was still losing money. But we never say-heard liberals beating their chests so to speak about it, whereas we see the righty wing media doing so. Rightys say AAR can not work?????? Why??????????? Some righty talking mouths say liberal hate can not make money. Isn't this proof the "media" is not liberal? IE the right claims all media is liberal and is so biased and yet these same media sources the rightys say are so liberal are making money. So how would another liberal media like AAR not work? again this takes abit of intelligence to understand, and I may not have written it clearly for some. So if you are a good writer, please rewrite so the people who do not understand dyslexia speak can understand. As I have said before there are many around that would not ever understand other dyslexics like Einstein, Pasteur, Davinci, Bell, Faraday, Edison because they and I speak a different way.

You heard Stephanie Miller and Ed Shultz complain that they were not invited, when interviewed on Larry King Live. Not AAR......two hosts, one being from AAR. Why didn't you mention that Victoria Jones, a self professed liberal was present? Or that NPR was represented there?
Comparing Clinton's and Bush's radio day's is entirely applicable. Being close to an election makes no difference. I've never read so much bias from one person who claims so fervently that the other side is biased. Kind of makes that whole pot=kettle quote pan out.


Thank you for making me snort coffee out of my nose this morning. In my three years of posting and reading here at , I have never read a more baseless, factless, divorced from reality statement. Aside from failing to recognize your bias, making false statements of what other have said and generally not responding to pointed questions by other posters, you keep me entertained.


False. Where have any conservatives claimed that talk radio is liberal???

I can't understand why you can't understand that if there were no liberal slant to mainstream media, why has talk radio and FNC drawn so many listeners/viewers. Conservatives prior to the early 1990's, felt they did not have a voice in the media, and now they do. Making strange statements about crime making people conservative do nothing to prove your theory. Nor do accusations (not backed up of course) about 'righty' 'hate'.
I'm glad you found someone to high five with in this thread

Whoa! Whoa! Slow down there!

I obviously have not heard the person that you are talking about from the right wing show in question, but certainly elements of the US liberal media I have heard do have some people whose comments ride near the knuckle - the "Pap attack" on Ring of Fire could be considered an example, who one could argue steps over the line on occasion. I don't think hate, clever spin or stupidity are the sole preserve of the right; one could easily argue it applies equally to all of mankind whatever the nationality, politics, religion or even eye colour. Name calling and labelling does not help either.

And, while you may be trying to weight the statistics for what you are feeling are justified reasons, I just don't see the basis for it within the sources themselves. Aprocryphal stories of single or even multiple users that you think support your case are just that sadly, not even vaguely imperical and therefore, poor quality evidence.

Sorry did not watch that show with Larry King. But thanks again for verifying my point.

again I think rightys play victim very well yell loud enough and long enough a lie and the masses become brainwashed. NPR is not what I call partisan liberal. I will call them balanced and professional. That is part of the problem anything to a righty brainwashed can not tell what is partisan vs not. If it isn't hard core partisan to the right it is liberal... tooo funny...

I am sure bush has put in a person from the political burrow he has to make the decisions like he put in political in the Pentagon to make political decisions. really sounds like the communist ways of Russia how there always needs to be a person from the party to make sure the professionals do not get their professional opinions out. I do wish they would be take NPR and PBS off the air, as it is another way the rightys play victim. It is not partisan liberal. and it is funny how people on the righty use this as their big partisan media bias. Listen to AAR and you will hear partisan.

Also with your example why is there a growth in hate media like Fox, using your argument then we would could argue, gee the media was so righty so that is why CNN became the biggest all news media because all the media was so right wing.

BTW everything I have read of yours is about the most baseless, factless, divorced from reality statements I have ever seen. So what makes you worthy of the world to listen to. I have no problem with your statement to me if you have some beef to back it up. What you got or are you just a big mouth like the rightys on the radio who were all basically flunkies at everything they every did but big talk. didn't Rush declare bankruptcy. Ever read Olielys child pornography book he wrote and read? cast that first stone back up you trash talk like the rightys on the radio and TV..