Conquer Club

Nobunaga wrote:

Neoteny wrote:I think Nobunaga is biased.

... Of course I am.

... But I'm not writing "news" articles.

... And the assertion that minority journalists should applaud any more or any less enthusiastically for this hack is race-based and insinuates that because they are minorities they are incapable of avoiding bias? That is absolutely a racist assumption on your part. What? They should cheer louder because they are black/Hispanic/native American?

... Tell me why please, I gotta' know.

...

Of course you are. And do you think you could write 100% objectively if you were writing "news" articles?

Do tell.

Neoteny wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

Neoteny wrote:I think Nobunaga is biased.

... Of course I am.

... But I'm not writing "news" articles.

... And the assertion that minority journalists should applaud any more or any less enthusiastically for this hack is race-based and insinuates that because they are minorities they are incapable of avoiding bias? That is absolutely a racist assumption on your part. What? They should cheer louder because they are black/Hispanic/native American?

... Tell me why please, I gotta' know.

...

Of course you are. And do you think you could write 100% objectively if you were writing "news" articles?

Do tell.

... Typical unfounded assumption - shift focus to avoid difficult argument. We're not discussing Nobunaga's bias here, Neo. Get with the program.

...

Nobunaga wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

Neoteny wrote:I think Nobunaga is biased.

... Of course I am.

... But I'm not writing "news" articles.

... And the assertion that minority journalists should applaud any more or any less enthusiastically for this hack is race-based and insinuates that because they are minorities they are incapable of avoiding bias? That is absolutely a racist assumption on your part. What? They should cheer louder because they are black/Hispanic/native American?

... Tell me why please, I gotta' know.

...

Of course you are. And do you think you could write 100% objectively if you were writing "news" articles?

Do tell.

... Typical unfounded assumption - shift focus to avoid difficult argument. We're not discussing Nobunaga's bias here, Neo. Get with the program.

...

If you're talking about the minority thing, that wasn't my argument.

Don't pussy out on me. My question is related to the topic. This isn't a difficult argument because you are just whining about something that you yourself probably would not be able to prevent. I'll reverse the question to myself.

Could I be a 100% unbiased reporter?

Abso-fucking-lutely not. I have opinions and pretenses just like everyone else, and there is no way to completely block them out. And, though I would like people to try to report objectively, I know that occurance will not always, if ever, be the case. Additionally, when researching a story, I don't expect the reporters to behave like automatons and not show any signs of their support for what they believe in. People support causes, people, and events. Additionally, some people might have the talent to separate the two sides of their nature; they can be a human with opinions and emotions, and they can be an objective professional. Most probably can't, but either way, it's human nature, and I'm not going to sit around complaining about it just because I want to pretend the world is the way I want it to be.

So, I'll ask you again:

Do you seriously think that you could be a 100% unbiased reporter?

Neoteny wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

Neoteny wrote:I think Nobunaga is biased.

... Of course I am.

... But I'm not writing "news" articles.

... And the assertion that minority journalists should applaud any more or any less enthusiastically for this hack is race-based and insinuates that because they are minorities they are incapable of avoiding bias? That is absolutely a racist assumption on your part. What? They should cheer louder because they are black/Hispanic/native American?

... Tell me why please, I gotta' know.

...

Of course you are. And do you think you could write 100% objectively if you were writing "news" articles?

Do tell.

... Typical unfounded assumption - shift focus to avoid difficult argument. We're not discussing Nobunaga's bias here, Neo. Get with the program.

...

If you're talking about the minority thing, that wasn't my argument.

Don't pussy out on me. My question is related to the topic. This isn't a difficult argument because you are just whining about something that you yourself probably would not be able to prevent. I'll reverse the question to myself.

Could I be a 100% unbiased reporter?

Abso-fucking-lutely not. I have opinions and pretenses just like everyone else, and there is no way to completely block them out. And, though I would like people to try to report objectively, I know that occurance will not always, if ever, be the case. Additionally, when researching a story, I don't expect the reporters to behave like automatons and not show any signs of their support for what they believe in. People support causes, people, and events. Additionally, some people might have the talent to separate the two sides of their nature; they can be a human with opinions and emotions, and they can be an objective professional. Most probably can't, but either way, it's human nature, and I'm not going to sit around complaining about it just because I want to pretend the world is the way I want it to be.

So, I'll ask you again:

Do you seriously think that you could be a 100% unbiased reporter?

... See previous, Neo, I've said I could not. And I am not a journalist so this is quite irrelevant.

... The journalistic profession demands a restraint of bias. These folks don't even seem to want to try.

... But what the hell do you care, right?

... Interestingly enough, the BBC over across the pond, did a study on US media and found FOX News to be the least biased of major US networks. Now... That determination is in itself alarming, as even in my own "Neocon Bible-thumping redneck world" I know FOX to have serious problems.

....

Nobunaga wrote:
... See previous, Neo, I've said I could not. And I am not a journalist so this is quite irrelevant.

... The journalistic profession demands a restraint of bias. These folks don't even seem to want to try.

... But what the hell do you care, right?

... Interestingly enough, the BBC over across the pond, did a study on US media and found FOX News to be the least biased of major US networks. Now... That determination is in itself alarming, as even in my own "Neocon Bible-thumping redneck world" I know FOX to have serious problems.

....

Journalistic profession? Demands? Restraint?

Where are you getting your information?

I know of no oath a Journalist must take in order to perform the "profession". Certainly nothing like what a physician or an attorney would have to take. There is no "oath of office". (Isn't part of the inauguration to swear to 'uphold the Constitution'? Funny how that's played out in this administration)

Plus, Nobunaga, shouldn't you cast the plank from thine own eye, before trying to remove the speck from thine neighbor's? Or however that one goes. So, really, you can't hold someone else to a standard to which you can't hold yourself. That's called a double standard. Some might even call it "bias".

Run with that concept logically, and you'll probably recognize the faults in your previous statements.

Also, in an earlier post you called something racist that wasn't. In order to be racist, an act or a statement must implicitly convey a belief that another person's ethnicity makes them somehow inferior. To simply point out that one minority has something in common with another isn't racist. It's actually quite the complete opposite.

Nobunaga wrote: ... And the assertion that minority journalists should applaud any more or any less enthusiastically for this hack is race-based and insinuates that because they are minorities they are incapable of avoiding bias? That is absolutely a racist assumption on your part. What? They should cheer louder because they are black/Hispanic/native American?

Saying that it is logical for minorities to applaud for a speech about how minorities have been treated badly is not racism. In the same way that the observation that women tend to be more heavily represented in feminist clubs isn't.. This is something that concerns them and not others. To say it's racist to see that is just plain stupid. It's borderline retarded.

Would you say it's racist to assume that you are more likely to applaud for a speech about The American Spirit and How Good it Is than me?

I didn't mention the first thing about "bias" and how minorities are incapable to avoid it. This is not about bias.

Sometimes here on CC, we argue about the stupidiest stuff....

Juan_Bottom wrote:Sometimes here on CC, we argue about the stupidiest stuff....

Stupidiest?

Yeah, stupidiest. More Stupidy than the average stupidy thing.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Sometimes here on CC, we argue about the stupidiest stuff....

Stupidiest?

Thank you future grammer Nazi! I ment Stupidyiest. My bad yo.

Surely you meant to write "more stupid". And btw, it's spelt 'grammar'.

MeDeFe wrote:Surely you meant to write "more stupid". And btw, it's spelt 'grammar'.

I'm pretty sure it's "more stupider."

Anyhoo, your grandma is more stupidier 'n' my grandma. She a stupidy stupidy stupid.

jonesthecurl wrote:Anyhoo, your grandma is more stupidier 'n' my grandma. She a stupidy stupidy stupid.

Yo gramma's so stupid she can't take a crap without reading the instructions.

There's instructions? That where I've been "going" wrong.

Nobunaga wrote:... Interestingly enough, the BBC over across the pond, did a study on US media and found FOX News to be the least biased of major US networks. Now... That determination is in itself alarming, as even in my own "Neocon Bible-thumping redneck world" I know FOX to have serious problems.

....

Eh? Really now? The BBC did a study? Could I see a source for that?

I sort of went back and forth between posting a few questions about the post a few pages back (since appearently all my posts now are minor quibbles) but what id like clairified if possible is which group of journalists you are more disappointed in being staunchly supportive of obama, the freelancers or the ones within the major companies. Though id have to recheck to see if you did break it down, i dont think the complaint can necessarily be the same, though you could certainly make one either way.

Personally of course id like my news to be less infotainment and more balanced as a whole. Realizing the unlikelyhood of that in the current system, i guess im more accepting of some of the cases of bias.

Though perhaps more influential than the sheer dollar difference (id grant to be true, though im not sure how much), they certainly arent the only group who is having some kind of sway over the American public. If 12 percent of registered voters can still think Obama is a Muslim and the independent/displeased democrats and republicans still wont make up their mind, i dont think the influence (although pervasive) is handing obama the election as of yet.

Snorri1234 wrote:In fact, I have yet to see you actually point out anything biased other than that article which leapt from 15:1 to 100:1 by splitting up the republican donations but not the democratic ones. You have only showed that journalists, who having a college-education are likely to lean towards the democratic side anyway, lean towards the democratic side regarding personal beliefs.

Basically, you have drawn a conclusion from observations without giving the results, something which is not done in science or actually any other field.

This also still stands btw.

Fox News works for the White House
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Fre ... &From=News