Monkeywrenching the political process

[unixronin]

With the popular vote in the just-past election so close, one could be forgiven for wondering how much the election may have been influenced by what amounts to an elaborate practical joke.

Of course, the article points out that the perpetrators observed that the news media could easily have exposed their hoax had they put the least effort into checking their facts.  But in this last election, by all appearances the media didn't WANT to check their facts, as long as the report involved something damaging to the McCain-Palin campaign.  Can you imagine the witch-hunt had Eitan Gorlin and Dan Mirvish chosen Barack Obama as their target?  Ah, but wait, we don't have to imagine — we have the persecution of Joe the Plumber as an example.

When I consider how one-sided the reporting of this past election campaign was, and yet how close the popular vote was, I find it hard to avoid speculating that in this Presidential election, the people of the United States did not elect Barack Obama; the news media did.

Comments

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

You're right, I was wrong to say the VP serves at the "pleasure of the president." This doesn't change the argument.

It is continually proving that you have not studied the issue, yet are making definitive pronouncements. It doesn't change that, at all. The "novel legal argument" which was the question (That you didn't even know how Biden had answered but "believed" that he had to know), was that the Vice President is in actuality, part of the Legislative Branch.

And you know what? That's the only place a duty is defined.

And there is but 1 duty defined. As Palin said, it can be very flexible.

Not, as Biden said, that "Everybody knows" it's in the Executive Branch. If it was, why is the duty not specified there?

But I think the point has been made, and made well - the press got to your opinion long before you looked at the facts of the matter, and you've made your mind up. And having made your mind up, you're not going to question your conclusions, much less the assumptions they were made upon.

Thus proving unixronin's very point solidly.

Finally, the Washington Post may lean liberal, but Fox, Washington Times and Wall Street Journal do not; and, if there was anything to Ayers or the LA dinner tape, it would have leaked for a nice payday.

Fox does indeed lean liberal. Just not as much as the rest. They have a lot of conservative commentators, but again, as you're screaming FOX FOX FOX to the "The media is biased", you're again confirming that it is, and you know it. The Wall Street Journal is famous for it's left wing reporters.

The editors aren't, but that dichotomy at that paper is very famous for that.

And even if you were totally right, Fox, the WT, and WSJ together reach less people than even 1 of the nightly newscasts of the major networks.

LA Time never released the tape, despite much interest. Payday or not, they withheld it for their own reasons (they have multiple conflicting stories). The tape would have been damaging. Your "Belief" that they would have made so much that it would have been released is yet again unfounded.
You continually "believe" to start your thought process, then as facts contrary to your "belief" are pointed out, that they (to you) are irrelevant, or minor, not trumping your pre-formed "Belief".
It's not logical or indicative of critical thinking, throwing any other conclusions you've made into strong question.

Even if Fox doesn't lean liberal, does that excuse all the others? So they do "lean liberal"? You're admitting that? Despite arguing every nit and saying that they don't previously?

Laugh at the WP's ombudsman's comments - but she disagrees with you and she's in the newsroom.

She wasn't just talking about the WP. The fact that over 100 reporters were sent to Alaska to "discover Palin" - while only 1 attempted to interview Ayers (and they were from the hated FOX News), and none went to "discover Biden" again, shows that you're wrong about the coverage.

As long as you refuse to change your conceptions, you'll remain so, in denial, and in opposition when even the press says "Yeah, we were in the tank". Are you going to write Howell and tell her she's wrong? She has no idea?

See, this started out as "how one-sided the coverage was", and you said "I don't know what's going on, but it was hardly one sided, even though I reiterate, I don't know what's happened".

And you've held to that belief, attacking any and all of the examples, dismissing every one out of hand as irrelevant or minor.

Added together, they make for an obvious pattern - one even the press is admitting was shameful. Any one might be happenstance. Any two might be just coincidence. Once you start getting to every decision going in the same way, to harm McCain/Palin and help Obama/Biden, then no, it's not just an accident.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

You have not provided any knowledge that was not already out there for even a lay reader like myself. Indeed, your examples do not hold water.

You simply choose to construe the same facts to fit your preconception, that the entire MSM (including those sources with largely conservative readership, like National Review) has a liberal bias.

This is a far more complex hypothesis than mine, which is that there was no story lurking with the Obama-Biden ticket -- they were competent and boringly who they said they are.

Unless you have new information that shows that my hypothesis to be counterfactual, I don't see why I should be persuaded to your more complex one.

I fear that the GOP has the same mindset and will persist in "gotcha" politics like during the campaign, lobbing smears that won't stick. This is unfortunate for the country, because many substantive criticisms can be made of the Democrats, and this will be needed with their newly gained power. It's time for the grown-ups to be in charge of the GOP again.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

You have not provided any knowledge that was not already out there for even a lay reader like myself.

Which ought to indicate to you that it wasn't that hidden. Yet it didn't make it into the "MSM". That's MainStream Media. Not niche media.

Of your examples, only Fox News would be considered MSM.

Unless you have new information that shows that my hypothesis to be counterfactual,

Which I've presented and you've ignored.

In fact, you're exhibited exactly the same thought process as the MSM, which might explain some of your defensiveness.

You "believe" something, then went to look for ways to "prove" it. Your MO is exactly what we're complaining about, it's not surprising that you fail to see it as a problem.

You simply choose to construe the same facts to fit your preconception, that the entire MSM (including those sources with largely conservative readership, like National Review) has a liberal bias.

Watch out, those strawmen are flammable. You're now flat-out-lying. I've never said that, nor even indicated it. I'm sure you "believe" I think that. But, as you've been throughout this thread, you're wrong.

This is a far more complex hypothesis than mine, which is that there was no story lurking with the Obama-Biden ticket -- they were competent and boringly who they said they are.

Considering the MSM didn't even start to investigate the previous scandals, associations, and previous work history, this is a laughable hypothesis. We've presented many cases that would call it into question, you dismiss each of them individually, ignoring what the sum total of the issues proves you wrong.

You've said "I can't believe that [something happened that did]" several times. Nevermind what that should indicate to you as to your conclusion-drawing ability, you just continue down the same path. Just as the MSM did.

because many substantive criticisms can be made of the Democrats,

And they'll be dismissed, just as you've dismissed all the bias. Exactly the same way. After all, they "believe" they're fair, and anything that disproves that, well, it "just doesn't hold water."

Want to see the problem with the MSM? Look in the mirror, you're proving unixronin's point, not disproving it.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

I'll just add that you made the case for WSJ and Fox being liberal, which again wasn't very convincing. And National Review is certainly mainstream, just like The Nation is on the liberal side.

I know you never said that you are fitting the same facts to your preconception, but I realize now that that's precisely what you are doing. I hoped to be enlightened, but you have not delivered.

Your conspiracy theory is not believable, because the same facts fit the boring theory much better; any additional "facts" you offer is just tilting at windmills. It's like claiming that imaginary pink unicorns got Obama elected, and then complaining that the MSM failed to investigate it.

If you have any real evidence that the MSM failed to do their due diligence, please let me know. Just to be fair, I'll give you two examples of new data that would change my mind:

* An adult Obama is on videotape attending a mosque or praying Muslim-style for a non-political event.

* Biden is shown at a senate committee meeting with the proceedings flying over the head, or gives an interview showing the same.

Mind you, McCain has actively courted the Religious Right in public, and Palin already bombed the interview with Charlie Gibson.

Until then, all you have to offer is paranoia.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

Until then, all you have to offer is paranoia.

You really need to look up "projection".

Your conspiracy theory is not believable,

I've posited no conspiracy theory. Just as I've not said the other strawmen you've credited to me

because the same facts

Remembering that you've declared off limits the facts that don't fit your admittedly uninformed initial "conclusion";

fit the boring theory much better;

per your classification. I reject it, as I reject your dishonest classification that I have a "conspiracy theory". I believe in no conspiracy.

Let's especially remember that you're rejecting all the information you admit you didn't know when you made your decision. And now it's irrelevant, wrong, or in some other way not sufficient to change your initial opinion. On anything. Despite all the things mentioned, your "beliefs" are still paramount. Unchanged. Unchallenged.

Of course, when you reject all that could possibly challenge your preconceived notions..

I hoped to be enlightened

I don't know if that's honest or not, but,

but you have not delivered.

Even Mohammed had to go to the mountain.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

I'm not a political junkie, and I don't have time to verify every fact. We do this all the time in our lives -- e.g., we don't go to medical school, we seek doctors who seem to know what they're talking about.

I was hoping you would show me why the MSM can't be trusted in this regard vis-a-vis Obama, but I remain unconvinced. I have given you my standard of evidence, which is no different from that for the criticism leveled at the Republicans.

This being said, I appreciate the time you have spent here.