In a nutshell, why I post about the hipocrisy regarding Palin

[BigPapaVol]

And here we have the "elite card."

If you think that the battle of politics is ever about the poles than you are mistaken. The battle in politics is about shifting the center. The center in American politics is well to the right. When the right organized to declare the media a "liberal media," what it was effectively doing was labeling a centrist media as liberal. There has not been a "liberal media" in the US for 35 years. What fox news implies is that they are providing a balance, when in fact, they are providing a polemic. The perceived implication of this for most Americans is not that foxnews is the "truth," but that it gives balance. In reality, what it does is shift the center to the right. The other implication is that balance equates to equality. If one side argues that the sky is blue, and the other argues that it is pink, there may be balance in that there are two sides to the argument, but both sides are not equal. The media has a duty not to pick a side, but to report on the merit of each position. If you position has few merits, that is not a media bias, that is good journalism.

This is ridiculous. First, congress and governorships would tell you that you are dead wrong on the centeredness of our politics. The right hasn't organized to declare the media anything. Individuals have spent enormous energy making the point. If that point was off the mark, the first book about the issue would have been the last. However, comma, it wasn't.

The notion that there hasn't been a liberal media in the US for 35 years is just plain uneducated. Our media might not be liberal relative to the neo-socialists in your beloved Europe, but they have been completely biased toward the American left view, which is the only left view that matters in our country.

Finally, you act as if Fox News has enough viewership to represent some kind of shift in our national mindset or our media bias. Do some math on the viewership and you might find that Fox News is almost statistically insignificant relative to the national media.

Your final statement implies that you believe trash like the NYT to be good journalism, but Fox to be poor. That tells me you have dramatically more bias than you would even have the ability to recognize.

Finally, how is it elitest to say that your opinion about this herd of right wingers coalescing to shift American politics is complete fantasy? I'm thinking you might have missed my point in explaining how your imagined coalition doesn't and could not exist.

 

[volinbham]

You are correct to point out that center is a relative term (but I thought that the right despised post modernist relativism?) when we are talking about a cultural identity. When we are talking about arguments and logic however, as I mentioned before, the center does not equate with validity. Journalism has no duty to "the center." Journalism has a duty to the truth of an issue. By truth of an issue, I mean, accurate reporting of the arguments AND their merits. If you look at traditional right wing policies, there is very little evidence to give arguments like supply-side economics much merit. As an economic theory, it has been fairly well debunked. Yet, it political discourse, it is still treated as an equal (read balanced) position.

Again, you presume that "truth" is somehow apparent to the media.

Look at the coverage of the economy - the media (as you suggest) has a profit incentive - bad news sells and we get some extremist discussions of the economy. The journalists are not promoting the true state of the economy - they are promoting the 'events" that grab attention and in doing so distort the view.

Again, I would suggest that the way in which one perceives bias has much to do with their own leanings - if the tone of the stories match your view it appears to be straight up reporting. However, if you hold a different view, it appears biased. The question is does the story represent some "truth" or simply the world-view that the writer/teller brings. Can the source completely ignore their world view to tell the truth?

 

[BigPapaVol]

there is very little evidence to give arguments like supply-side economics much merit. As an economic theory, it has been fairly well debunked.

to prove you're not completely retarded, help me with this little doozy.

I've spent a lot of time dealing with economic study at some reasonably respected institutions and I don't recall anything that supported this gibberish. Even the flaming liberals at LSE would tell you that you're out of your mind on this.

 

[cibai]

My point is those studies would all be subjective wouldn't they?

Not if they are done properly. They would give you objective data. They are only subjective to the degree that you compare them to like data, which is how all science works.

 

[cibai]

Again, you presume that "truth" is somehow apparent to the media.

Look at the coverage of the economy - the media (as you suggest) has a profit incentive - bad news sells and we get some extremist discussions of the economy. The journalists are not promoting the true state of the economy - they are promoting the 'events" that grab attention and in doing so distort the view.

Again, I would suggest that the way in which one perceives bias has much to do with their own leanings - if the tone of the stories match your view it appears to be straight up reporting. However, if you hold a different view, it appears biased. The question is does the story represent some "truth" or simply the world-view that the writer/teller brings. Can the source completely ignore their world view to tell the truth?

The truth is not apparent to anyone. What is apparent to most rational thinkers is an accumulation of evidence that can justify conclusions.

 

[BigPapaVol]

The truth is not apparent to anyone. What is apparent to most rational thinkers is an accumulation of evidence that can justify conclusions.

and apparently, most rational thinkers haven't come to your conclusions.

 

[volinbham]

The truth is not apparent to anyone. What is apparent to most rational thinkers is an accumulation of evidence that can justify conclusions.

Well we are mixing 2 distinct ideas here:

The first is the notion of hypocrisy among parties - I contend it is equivalent; you say the right is more hypocritical than the left. As of yet, I see no evidence presented for your position.

The second is the notion that journalism is objective and reveals the truth via reported accumulated evidence. This assertion assumes the accumulated evidence itself is objective and without bias - a tenuous assumption.

Again, using as example the reporting of the economy - it is driven by the "event" imperative of selling news and accordingly, the accumulated evidence from the media may or may not accurately portray the "true" condition of the economy.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Well we are mixing 2 distinct ideas here:

The first is the notion of hypocrisy among parties - I contend it is equivalent; you say the right is more hypocritical than the left. As of yet, I see no evidence presented for your position.

The second is the notion that journalism is objective and reveals the truth via reported accumulated evidence. This assertion assumes the accumulated evidence itself is objective and without bias - a tenuous assumption.

Again, using as example the reporting of the economy - it is driven by the "event" imperative of selling news and accordingly, the accumulated evidence from the media may or may not accurately portray the "true" condition of the economy.

stop with all of that. I wanna hear about debunked supply side economics.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Outstanding:

YouTube - Sarah Palin And Republican Hypocrisy

Yes we know... you don't like Rush, Hannity or Boortz....

 

[cibai]

One at a time here. BPV, you asked first (sorry, I had to get some work done )
To begin with, first you must surely realize the ridiculousness of trying to provide comprehensive coverage of an issue in a forum post, but I will try and hit some high-points:

Supply-side reading (It may be worthwhile to distinguish between the theory of supply-side, and the real world application of it. Like marxism, it sounds great as a theory, in reality, human nature inevitably corrupts its application.):

Wall Street Journal Article on Holtz-Eakin's CBO study

Harvard's Jeff Frankel

The most compelling evidence would be the deficits that consistently produced when it is implemented. Seen our national deficit lately?

 

[MG1968]

despite my lack of educational pedigree, I can safely say that Frankel is an idiot. He once taught at UC Berkeley and is now a member of the Kennedy School. Neither institution is well known for their support of capitalism.

 

[cibai]

despite my lack of educational pedigree, I can safely say that Frankel is an idiot. He once taught at UC Berkeley and is now a member of the Kennedy School. Neither institution is well known for their support of capitalism.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid. :good!:

 

[MG1968]

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

pedantic drivel

 

[BigPapaVol]

One at a time here. BPV, you asked first (sorry, I had to get some work done )
To begin with, first you must surely realize the ridiculousness of trying to provide comprehensive coverage of an issue in a forum post, but I will try and hit some high-points:

Supply-side reading (It may be worthwhile to distinguish between the theory of supply-side, and the real world application of it. Like marxism, it sounds great as a theory, in reality, human nature inevitably corrupts its application.):

Wall Street Journal Article on Holtz-Eakin's CBO study

Harvard's Jeff Frankel

The most compelling evidence would be the deficits that consistently produced when it is implemented. Seen our national deficit lately?

Both articles were simply weak and essentially unsupported attacks on lower tax rates. Frankel's piece was simply an Obama ad disguised as academic discourse.

He tries to make a mockery of the argument that lower taxes can lead to increased revenues, purely from the harder work perspective. He completely ignores the impact that higher marginal rates and higher cap gains rates have on the returns of investors, who are the engine for the entrepreneurial machine of our economy. Investment returns are the place where big tax rates hit our economy and governmental tax receipts the hardest. His intentional omission of the suppressive effect upon capital investments makes his view essentially laughable and he knows it. While he does make some good points, he does it in a very disingenuous nature by trying to frame his comments as educational in nature.

Supply side policies aren't perfect, but they certainly haven't been debunked, especially from reports of this nature.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid. :good!:

I'm arguing that the argument is not valid.

 

[volinbham]

Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid. :good!:

But we run to a question of validity with issues such as Affirmative Action. Is there a universal truth about AA? I'm not sure there is. Isolating the effects of AA to support one side of the argument is a virtually impossible task so to debunk either in favor or against relies on a series of assumptions and ignoring of many variables in an attempt to isolate an effect. As a result, we fall back on ideological bases to shape both the debate and the guidelines for judging validity.

 

[cibai]

But we run to a question of validity with issues such as Affirmative Action. Is there a universal truth about AA? I'm not sure there is. Isolating the effects of AA to support one side of the argument is a virtually impossible task so to debunk either in favor or against relies on a series of assumptions and ignoring of many variables in an attempt to isolate an effect. As a result, we fall back on ideological bases to shape both the debate and the guidelines for judging validity.

:huh:

I have no idea what you just said
Are you saying that when we are faced with a lack of evidence, that it is ok to evaluate an argument based on who is making it? hmy:

 

[volinbham]

:huh:

I have no idea what you just said
Are you saying that when we are faced with a lack of evidence, that it is ok to evaluate an argument based on who is making it? hmy:

Absolutely not - I'm challenging the assertion that a topic such as affirmative action can be boiled down to some "truth" by repeated examinations and rational thought about those examinations.

Put another way - it's not a lack of evidence; it is the ideological basis on which such evidence is constructed and distributed that prevents some "truth" from being revealed.

 

[BigPapaVol]

:huh:

I have no idea what you just said
Are you saying that when we are faced with a lack of evidence, that it is ok to evaluate an argument based on who is making it? hmy:

that's not at all what he said.

He said we each fall back to our own ideological biases in shaping our view of issues about which we don't have enough facts or information.

Essentially, for all those things left to opinion, we all lean toward our own worldview, which is probably right, even for the members of the media (who are overwhelmingly liberal).