A couple of random thoughts on Sykes, NerdProm, and double standards

Grow Fins:

Bias is in the eye of the beholder.

To an extent, yes. and one may even ask if reality is inherently biased. However, as it is, bias- or, more accurately, unreasonable slant (as opposed to unavoidable bias that one trying to be fair could moderate)- is indeed present, and can often be proven (though again, not perfectly and with very great difficulty).

However, perhaps a more pressing issue than mere bias is unreasonable bias or bias masquerading as objectivity.

Case in point: would you trust be to write the entire truth on the pluses and negatives of torture?

Probably not. Perhaps you would trust me to write A PAPER on torture as opposed to a concrete definition, but again, asking me to write an objective, end-all-to-be-all of papers on the subject would not be something I would be fit to do, as my biases and other issues would filter into the paper and poison an ostentiably objective piece.

Now, perhaps you would trust me to write an opinion column on the issue, given the fact that I declare my biases beforehand and drop any claims to pure objectivity, but that is another matter entirely.

This is the sort of issue many here on the right are aggrivated about: the MSM has indeed been caught carrying water for the Dems and attacking the GOP (again, not always unfairly) while at the same time claiming pure objectivity.

Now, it is all fine and dandy to have a Left-leaning news organization, but the problem is when one publishes one’s opinion (no matter how solidly backed up by fact) as the unvarnished truth.

And for the poster to claim that every single cultural expression in America is evidence of “liberal dominance” being thrown in his face says way more about the beholder’s eye than it does about reality (or ‘bias’ if you prefer).

True, but the issue is was he truly taking “every single cultural expression in America” as evidence. Some organizations lean left, some lean right, some center, if for no other reason than the politics of their members.

Now the question is, of course, how true to reality this is. Unfortunately, while one can reasonably expect a biased study from a declared sprecial interests group or lobby, bias is indeed present in the news and the presention of such.

Now, this is not necessarily a problem, but it can be when

A. You start covering up facts

B. You start passing yourself off as impartial

Now, the news organizations (or MSM) by and large have a leftwing slant. This much is fine, but several cases have caught them redhanded acting more akin to some of the more dishonest partisan blogs on the web (think DKos or “Free” Republic). Which is what I think he was referring to.

I suspect that the beholding eye, in this case, is pretty jaundiced.

True, but so is yours, and so is mine. And the jaundiced eye can indeed see, and sometimes correctly. And the amount of supporting evidence at least in regards to the news is not a slight issue.

Conservativism, especially the nasty Bush-Rove-Hannity variety so beloved of you internuts

Ok, please tell me you haven’t been attending the athensboy shcool of Debate.

is deeply unpalatable to most people right now

Perhaps, perhaps not. Hardly a way to see (again, the recent election is probably some solid proof, but strictly speaking it is impossible to tell the current positions, and how the balance of power will shift).

after eight years of war,

True.

incompetence,

To an extent.

and secrecy.

To an extent, but we are going to be getting quite a few more years of that.

That, my friend, is called “reality.”

No, it is your PERCEPTION of reality.

And I must admit, it is probably not that far off. However, the assumptions you make call into question how you see things. Just as similar ones do my own vision.

Keep blaming the media. That’ll win elections.

By itself? No.

As part of a larger strategy and with evidence to back it up?

Yes.

It won’t work, because one proposition is true–Limbaugh is the (I can’t help it, sorry), the de fatso leader of the GOP

Which obviously means something other than DE FACTO. Limbaugh is not a small fry, but he isn’t king either. If anything, the GOP doesn’t really have one following our drubbing in 08-09, and we won’t have one for a few months at least, perhaps even a few years.

No one *made* Limbaugh the face and leader of the GOP.

That would be because he isn’t. The face of the GOP right now is a rough combination of Bush, Palin, and McCain, and the leader is a mystery even to me.
g
It will take a while for those factors to change, if they do.

b He and the spineless pubbies who grovel at his throne have done so.

Hardly. Limbaugh has been far more loyal to the GOP than most self-proclaimed Conservatives, but he has always identified himself as a Conservative first, Repub second (or at least in that order).

Yes, he is influential, but influence alone does not a leader make. At most, Limbaugh is a kingmaker or semi-kingmaker, pulling a few strings behind the curtain and getting the word out but of not much use elsewhere.

OK. I look forward to hearing Limbaugh’s platform.

Just tune in, and you will. Say what you will about Rush, but he wears his colors/bias on his sleeve.

Oh yes, and how did you break your magic 8-ball between the time of your response and when you predicted the GOP would go the way of the dodo? They usually don’t get damaged that easily.

Turtler on May 10, 2009 at 9:14 PM