Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:I didn't suggest that bias must exist because James O'Keefe had done another one of his undercover bits. I just said that they're biased.

Still waiting.

It starts with "I" and rhymes with "was wrong".

Give it a try.

You're reading the sentence wrong. It isn't saying that you think the bias exists because of O'Keefe, it's saying that you think the bias exists and we were talking about that because of O'Keefe having done one of his undercover bits.

NPR is biased, I don't need Glenn Beck or James O'Keefe to tell me this.

I will pass on the sentence parsing. If you can't apologize when you're wrong, I can accept that.

biccat wrote:NPR is biased, I don't need Glenn Beck or James O'Keefe to tell me this.

...I weren't saying that you did. You mentioned the alleged bias because something happened to make it the topic of discussion.

biccat wrote:I will pass on the sentence parsing. If you can't apologize when you're wrong, I can accept that.

I can apologise when I'm wrong. However, in this instance, what I said was that:

1. You and Frazzled think NPR is biased

2. Pretty much everyone else in the thread who posted on-topic disagreed with that or made no mention of their stance

It's not going to hurt my feelings if you misinterpret what I say, but I'm certainly not going to apologise for it.

Well, when you're biased towards intellect, it just looks like a liberal bias.

Polonius wrote:Well, when you're biased towards intellect, it just looks like a liberal bias.

I totally agree.

Being an intelligent person, I can quite clearly see the liberal bias. Can you?

I might argue NPR has a populist bias, and an intellectual bias, but 'liberal'...
Not as liberal as Fox. There's bias in every program on Fox.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, when you're biased towards intellect, it just looks like a liberal bias.

I totally agree.

Being an intelligent person, I can quite clearly see the liberal bias. Can you?

It depends what you mean by liberal. NPR tends to focus on a more analytical approach, which features experts and the like on most topics. Nearly anything science related, particularly in psychology or medicine, is going to appear to have a liberal bias. A disproportionate number of researchers in the social sciences have pretty liberal sensibilities, and their research tends to mostly support left wing policies.

Intellectualism has, on the whole, predominantly favored classic liberalism since the Renaissance. Nearly all thinkers favor greater personal and economic freedoms, for example. So, anything that really looks to academia for answers on social issues is going to favor personal freedom, meaning that on any topic (aside from gun ownership), the results will appear liberally biased.

So, on any topic involving science, tech, a social science, or personal freedom anything that looks first to experts and researchers will appear more often than not to have a liberal bias. To many people, accepting the science behind evolution is liberal bias, for example. As would reporting stats showing no mental harm in having homosexual parents raising a child.

biccat wrote:I'm terribly confused.

Is Glenn Beck a no nothing DON'T USE THIS WORD THIS WAY ON DAKKA who has nothing valuable to say, or is he an intelligent commentator who is exposing the truth about O'Keefe's story?

This is all very confusing. I really wish the political left would get their story straight.

Glenn Beck is partisan hack, who will invent ridiculous nonsense to scare people. But he puts some level of restraint on his nonsense, stopping short of disingenuously editing footage to make it appear that people claimed things they didn't.

He has called out another partisan hack on doing that.

This is not confusing. It is very simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Ambush journalism is a time honored staple of journalism for decades. Its also interesting none of this popped up when the blogger who supported the Wisconsin governor did his thing.

If you'd read the story involved you'd see the problem wasn't ambush journalism, it was editing the footage to give a misleading impression of events.

It's kind of funny that after you posted that gakky O'Keefe story that you almost certainly didn't bother to read, you'd come in hear and complain about Beck's criticism of that story after you hadn't bothered to read it.

Perhaps in future you might want to actually read things?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

schadenfreude wrote:A stopped clock right twice a day.

Glenn Beck honestly thinks everything he says is true. He also sees O'fart's gotcha editing of tapes as dishonest which should surprise nobody when you think about how paranoid Beck is. Said paranoia's next logical step is to see O'fart's dishonest tactics as a threat to his own credibility, and the credibility of all other right wing journalists, bloggers, and pundits.

Sometimes paranoia is useful.

I'm not convinved Beck believes what he's saying. But as a professional liar he puts a bit of effort into his lies, making sure the big leaps in logic are merely ludicrous, not objectively, provably wrong.

I think it offends his professionalism as a bullshitter that O'Keefe has been telling amateurish lies, and getting a lot of success in the same market of easily outraged, almost entirely uncritical rightwingers that Beck panders to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:biccat and Frazzled, IIRC?

Yep.

It wasn't like the majority of the posters in the thread were basically saying that this was an intensely silly misrepresentation of the whole thing that had been blown way out of proportion or anything.

They were, which you'd expect because it was such obvious bs. Which, really, only makes the original judgement in posting the story more suspect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:NPR is biased, I don't need Glenn Beck or James O'Keefe to tell me this.

If you came into that thread and recognised that it was terrible journalism, but were happy to ignore this in order to make an entirely groundless attack on the political bias of NPR, that makes you a partisan hack willing to overlook dishonesty as long as it's on your side.

I think you'd be better off admitting you were taken in by O'Keefe.

I will pass on the sentence parsing. If you can't apologize when you're wrong, I can accept that.

I'm not sure that's a standard you really want to set, is it?

I don't ever follow what this guy does or says, but it's always interesting to read what other people think of this guy. I did mention this whole thing to a friend of mine who keeps up with this sort of thing and he seems to think that Glen Becks ego is actually doing something good for once. Purely for selfish reasons though.

Basically Beck's contract is almost up with Fox and he doesn't really have the following everyhing thinks he does. So Fox can't afford him anymore. O'Keefe, as a possible replacement, is a threat to Beck's continued employment with Fox. Kick in Beck's ego, if he can't have it then no one else can so it's time to throw around some of his weight to ruin the reputation of the competition.

Again, this is what a friend of mine thinks of the whole thing. I have no idea how accurate any of this could be. It does sort of sound a little crazy, but then we're dealing with crazies to begin with so it could be perfectly logical?

You should consult that amazing beard in your Avatar. It seems....wise.

Is madiera wine a glenn beck sponsor?

sebster wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:A stopped clock right twice a day.

Glenn Beck honestly thinks everything he says is true. He also sees O'fart's gotcha editing of tapes as dishonest which should surprise nobody when you think about how paranoid Beck is. Said paranoia's next logical step is to see O'fart's dishonest tactics as a threat to his own credibility, and the credibility of all other right wing journalists, bloggers, and pundits.

Sometimes paranoia is useful.

I'm not convinved Beck believes what he's saying. But as a professional liar he puts a bit of effort into his lies, making sure the big leaps in logic are merely ludicrous, not objectively, provably wrong.

I think it offends his professionalism as a bullshitter that O'Keefe has been telling amateurish lies, and getting a lot of success in the same market of easily outraged, almost entirely uncritical rightwingers that Beck panders to.

Well now you just opened a can of worms and asked the big question: Is Glenn Beck's show just an act?

I only see 2 options:

#1) It's no act and he's a total wingbat.

#2) It's all a manipulative act.

I'm not buying that it's an act myself. If it were just an act it would make sense to make it more focused and not so damn easy to ridicule. He makes anybody who seriously listens to him look like a complete moron, which makes no sense to me if what he is doing is an act. Unless....

#3) It's all just an act, and Glenn Beck is really a brilliant NPR type liberal that infiltrated Fox news in an elaborate plot to make cool aid drinking conservatives look like complete tools. #3 is total tin foil hat territory, but it actually makes more sense than #2.

schadenfreude wrote:Well now you just opened a can of worms and asked the big question: Is Glenn Beck's show just an act?

Good question.

I only see 2 options:

#1) It's no act and he's a total wingbat.

#2) It's all a manipulative act.

Can't it be a little of both of these? The human mind is a weird thing at the best of times, and when you get someone who gets adoration and great big piles of cash for saying outrageous nonsese, Beck has a personal motivation to claim dramatic things, which means he will likely do that even if those things are not true.

But most people don't like to think of themselves as cynical manipulators, which means Beck has a motivation to believe his nonsense, even as he's making it up.

You would think this kind of thing would be impossible, to make something up and decide to believe it exactly the same time, but I see it all the time. It's pretty common in the most convincing of liars, but is also pretty common in the weakest of internet debaters

schadenfreude wrote:Well now you just opened a can of worms and asked the big question: Is Glenn Beck's show just an act?

The problem with Beck is that his show used to be mostly comedy with a few political things thrown in. I used to listen all the time (2002-2005 or so), but now he seems to have gone off the deep end. It's entertaining, but hardly "factual".

I don't think it's all an act, but I'm sure a good part of it is. I'm also curious how much his (what most people would call) fear mongering has to do with the LDS Church. They tend to be big in the "end times" stuff.