Re: Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911

From: Ken Smith (kensmith_at_green.rahul.net)
Date: 08/13/04 

Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:54:20 +0000 (UTC)

In article <118afaeb.0408122051.d78ed8a@posting.google.com>,
Product developer <jdurban@vorel.com> wrote:
>kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in message
>news:<cfg1qg$jpe$1@blue.rahul.net>...
>> In article <118afaeb.0408112233.10ed98f0@posting.google.com>,
>> Product developer <jdurban@vorel.com> wrote:
>> >kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in message
>> >news:<cfdk2k$gvs$1@blue.rahul.net>...
>> [...]
[...]
>> It is a survey of news people. Previous arguments included the claim that
>> they were distoring the facts. This survey asked them if they were liberal
>> or conservative and then assumed that on this question they had not
>> distorted the facts.
>
>As liberals they slant and often editorialize. Clear as day.
 
So you agree that they distort the truth and yet you still take them at
their word when they claim to be liberals.

This sort of selective belief is the way that many a science experment
gets botched leading to totally wrong results. If you only believe the
values that agree with your theory, you always end up with data that
supports your theory. It is sloppy science and sloppy politics.

>>
>> Ok I will try to do it in smaller steps.
>>
>> (1)
>> The claim was made that FOX NEWS became popular because all of the rest of
>> the news has a left bias.
>
> Agreed.
>>
>> (2)
>> The claim, of cause, is presented without any supporting argument other
>> than an implied seeking of a different option by the views.
>
>Definately.
>>
>> (3)
>> In order for the implied seeking of a different option to be used in the
>> argument, there must be evidence that the tendancy to seek something
>> different, in the media, exists in the population.
>
>I think the numbers speak for themselves. If consumers switch from one
>source of news over another it is the same as switching from one
>commodity to another.
>It's called choice. There wasn't one until FOX and talk radio came
>about.

You claim this without proof but to avoid distraction I will not try to
disprove this point.

>>
>> (4)
>> An obvious example of an existing bias in the media is the bias towards
>> good looking people. (You don't see many stump ugly actors)
>
>I fail to see the surprize here. Unlike the unreal, unnatural world of
>liberal thought, people would rather see attractive, positive,
>youthful people deliver their news, entertainment, and meals in a
>restuarant. You won't see fat people in a McDonalds commercial for
>obvious reasons.

There was no surprise intended. I'm trying to break the logic down into
steps small enough for a Limbaugh fan to follow.

>> (5)
>> Examine the evidence to see if there is a trend in the population towards
>> ugly actors.
>
>Whoopie Goldberg

It interesting that you bring her up. She is almost a counter example.

>>
>> (6)
>> Brad Pitt is the latest, I could think of, actor to join the ranks of the
>> popular.
>
>Are you among the unattractive? This obsession with Brad Pitt is
>interesting.

I introduced the name because it was the first that came to mind. If I
changed examples it would confuse a Limbaugh fan so I don't.

>>
>> (7)
>> Brad Pitt is certainly above average in his looks.
>
[.. several off topic comments snipped ..]

>> (8)
>> There is no trend towards ugly actors. If anything the trend is towards
>> ever better looking actors.
>
>Bravo. You go to the head of the class.

So the baby steps worked so far.

>>
>> (9)
>> Therefor there is no evidence that the population seeks something
>> different. If anything there is a tendancy towards seeking a more extreme
>> example of what they already have.
>
>Agreed.

Good so we are still on track

[...]

>>
>> (10)
>> The evidence indicates the FOX is not popular because of some left bias in
>> the media. Instead it is more likely that it is popular because of a
>> pre-existing right wing bias in the media.
>
>Was this a dormant bias?

Go back and read through all the steps again. You will see that you have
agreed with all the steps needed to show that it is more likely that there
was a pre-existing rightwing bias in the media.

[...]

Now that we have proven that there was a right wing bias in the media now
we can switch to the subject of Rush Limbaugh.

>I have seen this trend to demonize Limbaugh by the left more and more

Limbaugh has changed over the years. His show used to be funny. It no
longer is. It is therefor reasonable that the left reacts differently to
him now.

BTW: I was a Rush fan back when he was funny. I stopped listening to him
at about the same time, I think, as he started doing heavy drugs.

>but never any evidence to support that he is untruthful.

If you've never seen any evidence, you've been looking with your eyes
closed.

>> Do you watch TV news? It was the "TV news" programs I was refering to
>
>Sorry I thought "Survivor" was a dopey pop culture show. In retrospect
>the show's title best describes network news.

Baby steps time again:

I am refering to programs called "News" on network TV.

On these "News" shows they have things they call "reports" or "stories".

These "reports" or "stories" are often about what is happening on the
Survivor TV series. 

-- 
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge