7% of journalists are Republican

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-09-2015, 08:56 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Biased against unemployment ?
I'm sure many of their employment opportunities involve people that despise one party or the other.

Whoops...... sorry if that was only posed to Lucie.

I'm sure their boss' love of money would outweigh their hate for one party or the other.  It's all about getting eyeballs to read their ads.

[*bfine32*]

oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:I didn't focus on any mathematical error because I'm unaware of any mathematical error.  Would you care to point out the error I focused upon?  Or would you care to continue avoiding answering the bias of the media who didn't self-identify with either party?

oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:How is your math?

Most likely just genuinely curious about how his math is.

I haven't "avoided" answering. I stated given the sample size that did report, and that ratio being 4 to 1, we can determine with pretty much mathematical accuracy what way the remaining population would lean. Of course we would have to consider the "All other things equal" rule and dismiss the possibility of anomalies.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-09-2015, 08:45 PM)Benton Wrote: first, not more trusted. They say what's more expected. That just mean they're trusted more. Like someone assertion in another thread that its common knowledge charities are better distributing money to the needy than federal programs. That's a commonly expected belief. And it's wrong.

for the second part, that's part of being a gatekeeper. And part of the problem with social media. Yes, sometimes they (msm) misses a story. But weigh that against all the propaganda from social media.

I want everything reported on and then I can decide what I take in and what I take seriously.

[GodHatesBengals]

A kid works at McDonalds. He doesn't like cheeseburgers, but he loves the fries.

Do you think his personal preference impacts how he serves the food? If not, then /thread.

Look at who runs companies, not who works for them.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2015, 10:01 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: A kid works at McDonalds. He doesn't like cheeseburgers, but he loves the fries.

Do you think his personal preference impacts how he serves the food? If not, then /thread.

Look at who runs companies, not who works for them.

Do you think his preference impacts what he recommends to customers from the menu? If so then un /thread

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-09-2015, 09:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Most likely just genuinely curious about how his math is.

I haven't "avoided" answering. I stated given the sample size that did report, and that ratio being 4 to 1, we can determine with pretty much mathematical accuracy what way the remaining population would lean. Of course we would have to consider the "All other things equal" rule and dismiss the possibility of anomalies.

I didn't see a math error.  Did you?  How can I focus on something which I'm unaware is there?

To the bold: you're suggesting a 4:1 democrat:republican bias ratio among the remaining 65% based upon the individuals who self reported?  That's an assumption.  Even if the remaining 65% all declared as independent instead of a third party, how do you predict the political bias of an independent?

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2015, 10:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I didn't see a math error.  Did you?  How can I focus on something which I'm unaware is there?

To the bold: you're suggesting a 4:1 democrat:republican bias ratio among the remaining 65% based upon the individuals who self reported?  That's an assumption. 

Then what was the purpose of "How's you math" question?

Now you're starting to understand what a QA is.

I should have added we must consider the "all other things equal" rule...........hey wait a minute

[*Nately120*]

(11-09-2015, 09:38 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I want everything reported on and then I can decide what I take in and what I take seriously.

Too many conservatives are sitting around waiting for some OTHER conservative to suck it up and become a journalist instead of doing it themselves.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-09-2015, 10:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Then what was the purpose of "How's you math" question?

Now you're starting to understand what a QA is.

I should have added we must consider the "all other things equal" rule...........hey wait a minute

Because if he did the math, like you, he would determine the majority didn't self-report as either republican or democrat.  I don't believe you can guess the bias of an independent majority based upon two biased minorities.  Unless you're using Karl Rove's math.

The thread title suggests the remaining 93% are democrat and the article title "Republicans' media bias claims boosted by scarcity of right-leaning journalists" buries the bit about 65% of the media didn't self-identify as either Republican or Democrat.

But, I guess since I'm pointing out the fact the majority of the media don't identify with either party means I'm liberal for pointing out they don't identify as conservative.

[Benton]

(11-09-2015, 09:38 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I want everything reported on and then I can decide what I take in and what I take seriously.

People have no problem believing parody sites are real. People put out misinformation because there's a lot to gain and little to lose. One can toss out some erroneous story about Obama being a Muslim or the gay liberal mayor of Frankfort being a member of the KKK and some people will believe it.

(11-09-2015, 10:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you think his preference impacts what he recommends to customers from the menu? If so then un /thread

Eh, journalists aren't concierge. Their task isn't recommending the truth, it's providing it in an easily accessible form.

[GodHatesBengals]

(11-09-2015, 10:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you think his preference impacts what he recommends to customers from the menu?

Not unless his boss tells him it can.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-10-2015, 02:59 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Not unless his boss tells him it can.

Push the tuna.  It's past its don't sell date.

[Rotobeast]

(11-10-2015, 03:30 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Push the tuna.

That's what she said. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-10-2015, 11:11 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: That's what she said. 

 

Reminds me of another joke:  While laying in bed, a sensitive, caring husband tells his new bride , "If you want to have sex reach over and pull on my penis 1 or 2 times.  If you don't want to have sex pull on my penis 3 or 4 hundred times."

[StLucieBengal]

(11-10-2015, 01:55 AM)Benton Wrote: People have no problem believing parody sites are real. People put out misinformation because there's a lot to gain and little to lose. One can toss out some erroneous story about Obama being a Muslim or the gay liberal mayor of Frankfort being a member of the KKK and some people will believe it.


Eh, journalists aren't concierge. Their task isn't recommending the truth, it's providing it in an easily accessible form.

The problem is the MSM media cooks up their slants to stories. Head of CBS news is the brother of someone in Obama White House. The crossover from journalists and the WH staff is ridiculous and they help each other out .

What's funny is MSNBC is researching whether Ben Carson stabbed someone when he was a kid because it was in his book. They wanted to see if he was violent.... That's a fair story in most cases .... But I never saw an expose on Obama's drug use, how relationship with Jeremiah Wright or connections to terrorists which he freely called influencial to his political career. They never did any stories on any of that.... They covered it up as no big deal. Why.... Because he was a democrat and they were rooting for him.

They researched someone who Romney supposedly bullied when he was a kid.

Without new media we never know about a lot of things. This is why the progressives want to shut new media down. You can still do quality journalism and not be part of the MSM. Sheryl Atkisson was fired from CBS for making Obama admin look bad.... Now she is new media.

[fredtoast]

(11-10-2015, 07:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:  Sheryl Atkisson was fired from CBS for making Obama admin look bad....  Now she is new media.

Wow, Lucie, I knew you were a bit of a rube, but this is getting silly.

Do you really just swallow everything the right wing media feeds you without asking any questions at all?

[*Nately120*]

(11-10-2015, 07:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: But I never saw an expose on Obama's drug use, how relationship with Jeremiah Wright or connections to terrorists which he freely called influencial to his political career.  They never did any stories on any of that....   They covered it up as no big deal.   Why.... Because he was a democrat and they were rooting for him.  

You didn't?  I heard about Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers being"obvious" candidates for Obama's cabinet if this country were stupid enough to elect him in 2008.  Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers were both painted to look like Obama's best pals, truest confidants, and (according to some people) hosts of his inauguration party.

What do you think those 7% of journalists who are Republican were up to in 2008?

[StLucieBengal]

(11-10-2015, 10:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wow, Lucie, I knew you were a bit of a rube, but this is getting silly.

Do you really just swallow everything the right wing media feeds you without asking any questions at all?

You mean like listening to the principle party. Her..... And given her consistent reporting history it's evident that Obama WH connection to CBS were in play.

There is a serious problem with all the connections between the WH and the media .

[StLucieBengal]

(11-10-2015, 10:10 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You didn't?  I heard about Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers being"obvious" candidates for Obama's cabinet if this country were stupid enough to elect him in 2008.  Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers were both painted to look like Obama's best pals, truest confidants, and (according to some people) hosts of his inauguration party.

What do you think those 7% of journalists who are Republican were up to in 2008?

Where was the reporting of that on CBS, ABC, NBC, or CNN?

[Benton]

(11-10-2015, 07:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The problem is the MSM media cooks up their slants to stories.  Head of CBS news is the brother of someone in Obama White House.   The crossover from journalists and the WH staff is ridiculous and they help each other out .  

What's funny is MSNBC is researching whether Ben Carson stabbed someone when he was a kid because it was in his book.   They wanted to see if he was violent....  That's a fair story in most cases .... But I never saw an expose on Obama's drug use, how relationship with Jeremiah Wright or connections to terrorists which he freely called influencial to his political career.  They never did any stories on any of that....   They covered it up as no big deal.   Why.... Because he was a democrat and they were rooting for him.  

They researched someone who Romney supposedly bullied when he was a kid.  

Without new media we never know about a lot of things.   This is why the progressives want to shut new media down.    You can still do quality journalism and not be part of the MSM.   Sheryl Atkisson was fired from CBS for making Obama admin look bad....  Now she is new media.

Attkisson is probably a bad example. And she wasn't fired, she quit when she was told she couldn't wear her tinfoil hat on TV.



Although, in her defense, there probably is a conspiracy by CBS, The White House, the ATF, the Post Office, Clinton, Congress, and others to make sure she... quits the job she... already... quit? Or something?

No, you may be right. Independent unvetted and unfiltered news is probably what the masses need to make informed decisions.

Propaganda and news are two different things. One crazy or profit motivated person (how many books has Attkisson put out?) is a poor substitute for peer reviewed information.