Originally posted by TOC: But of course they do that. Specialize in looking for statistics that make Republicans look bad, and ignoring statistics that make Republicans look good, I mean. I expect the New York Times to do that. They are liberal, after all, so I expect them to show me the statistics that support their view. I don't expect them to eagerly serve up the statistics that support the Republicans.
Ann wanted to know why I'm asserting she admits the New York Times is biased against Republicans. This is the direct quote from her. So when a source is admitted to be biased, I'm not sure why I should accept what the source says.
Right wing sources also try to bias things in their direction. That's why I go out of my way to avoid using them as sources. I know which sources the left feel are untrustworthy so I don't bother to quote them with the exceptions I outlined above: when I'm using them as an example of media bias. I've not asserted Fox News as a source of fact since I know no one on the left will believe them, only that they will report what leftist sources will not. On the issue of the 500 WMD, my example was not to use Fox News to say that people should take their word for it. My use of Fox News was that they reported that portion of the ISG report while the mainstream media would not. It is a significant difference.
The very first thing I do when I hear something interesting on a right wing source is to immediately search left wing sources for their take on things. More often than not, I won't even find a mention. When the left makes up over 90% of the media, it's very difficult for the right to get their viewpoint across without being drowned out by the liberal media. It's no mystery to me why WMD or the second half of the ISG report has not been successfully advertised and why the Bush Administration basically didn't bother. They knew it would be futile since the mainstream press had already made up their minds. The Administration basically admitted defeat by saying they'd already fought that battle and lost. Two outraged Republicans in Congress tried to get the news out but were effectively muzzled by the media by being given the cold shoulder.
It seems each time Fox News is mentioned here, it gets ridiculed for being wholly unreliable and biased towards conservatives and therefore to be discounted entirely. Granted you regretted it later, Paul, but even you ridiculed Fox News for having a right wing agenda with "reality biased against them." And I know Ann doesn't believe they are "fair and balanced." I don't take any offense at that but merely note it to not use a source like that when debating liberals. Why bother using a source that is immediately discounted?
Yet a double standard exists that says the New York Times must be accepted as a valid source when most conservatives consider the Times as no better than a rag lining the bottom of a bird cage. Many conservatives even consider them to be traitorous. I've heard jokes about why bin Laden has the cheapest intelligence service in the world. All he has to do is go out and spend a dollar on a copy of the New York Times every day to read about all the detailed steps and secret programs the Bush Administration is using against him. I'm sure you've heard those jokes.
And no, I don't use the National Enquirer as a source. It's a joke to make a point. I'm not sure if I've even ever read it outside the occasional glance at the front page headline while in line at the supermarket.
-- Roger
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin
