To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 21952
21951  |  21953
Subject: 
Re: Newsbits: CA Recall and IMF-Argentina Negotiations
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:01:04 GMT
Viewed: 
672 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Nelson wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
   One book may be a revelation, or it could be a disgruntled whiner. It may be correct for the situation he was in, but not for the industry at large. It may even be correct for the industry at large, but by itself, it would be hard to draw that conclusion.

True, but it’s very difficult to refute Goldberg’s claims in the book. He makes several good points, such as:

1) Why conservatives are always labelled and liberals are not, e.g., why it’s always “conservative” Antonin Scalia but never “liberal” Laurence Tribe.

Virtually all of the Supreme Court justices have a liberal, conservative or morderate label attached to them, so it seems I have easily refuted Goldberg in all of a few seconds. As to Tribe, who is not a member of the Supreme Court, and thus not particularly comparable, a quick look on yahoo delivers all sorts of descriptions of him as “liberal”, so again, refuted, and most easily.

  
2) Why white males are the only group that can be ridiculed. (I take it as a compliment since we’re the only ones tough enough to take it!) ;-)

Because they are the ones in power, and remain so. And last I checked, everyone is ridiculed, so I’m increasingly suspecting that Goldberg is just grinding a personal axe.

  
3) Why well-meaning advocacy groups are not questioned, but simply have their line repeated.

They do get questioned. What planet is Goldberg from?

  
4) Why news reporters openly mock the stories they are covering, rather than simply reporting. Goldberg’s ostracism from CBS began when he questioned the objectivity of a reporter who in a news story termed Steve Forbes’ flat tax proposal as a “risky scheme.”

Wait, he just complained that advocacy groups are not questioned. You’ve juxtaposed a presidential candidate with advocacy groups - have other presidential candidates been “mocked”? Bad example by Goldberg.

  
5) Why alternative viewpoints are not presented. He gives the example of a story that had views from two antis and no pros as an example.

That is a problem with TV news in general - and why I don’t bother with it for the most part. It’s those outside of traditional liberalism and conservatism that have cause for complaint.

  
FWIW, Alterman’s “What Liberal Media?” provides a counterpoint. He makes the mistake of defining himself (and he’d make George McGovern look like Barry Goldwater) as middle-of-the-road, therefore anything to the right of him is conservative. He makes an excellent case about conservative media not providing alternative viewpoints as well, leading to your well-said point:

   For the point of debate, let me note that I have utterly no doubt that instances of bias can be found, in either direction, human nature being what it is.

I shall not debate your infinite wisdom on this, as I am in wholehearted agreement.

  
   I mean “mainstream media,” meaning media outlets where people turn for information rather than opinion, which includes the: major networks...

   Fox, conservative.

Fox still doesn’t qualify as a major network. It qualifies as a cable news network. Just compare viewership of the evening ABC/NBC/CBS news (~20 million viewers each) to Fox News viewership (~1.5 million viewers).

Fox is counted as a major network. WB and UPN are not. Nor have you established that any of ABC/NBC/CBS are inherently and consistently “liberal” (considering their savaging of Clinton and hands-off of Reagan and Bush, the case could be made the other way).

  
   Yes, you were specific, but you left a lot uncovered, nor have I heard Time and Newsweek singled out as “liberal” before. You may be right, I don’t read them on a regular enough basis to form an opinion - but there is a tendancy among conservatives to identify anything not specifically conservative as liberal (get in that pre-emptive strike alleging bias, just in case).

You’re right about the tendency to label anything not conservative as liberal, and for liberals to label anything not liberal as conservative. Once again, human nature.

If that were true, then liberals would be refering to the “conservative media”. Yes, some of both sides are guilty of labeling anything not of them as against them, but the calculated spin-mastering of broad-based bias is only coming from one side.

  
   As to the point about endorsees, I simply didn’t challenge you to provide evidence of such because I thought it would go down a tedious route - locally of the two biggest newspapers, the Los Angeles Times will recommend both liberals and conservatives, the Orange County Register only conservatives, so my local experience does not support your claim (not that it represents a valid sample). Anyway, I take it you have a headcount to have made your claim, so quote the source and lets take a look at the evidence.

Geez, I am chagrined. I looked closely at he study that I was ready to bludgeon you with and it was from 1980--hardly applicable to our debate (ouch!)!

Well, who knows, you could still be right, so I shall not gloat.

  
The only numbers that I found in a cursory search that had a reasonable basis were from USAToday and Gannett (its parent company). They reported the following endorsements for the past few presidential elections:

1992 ---- 45 endorsed Clinton 15 endorsed Bush 22 made no endorsement

Bush shot himself in the foot (read my lips, oops, I lied!) - I’m not surprised at this on top of the economy going downhill.


  
1996 ---- 40 endorsed Clinton 21 endorsed Dole 21 made no endorsement

(source: http://update.usatoday.com/go/newswatch/96/nw1124-4.htm)

Again, this is a why rock the boat, the economy has improved since Bush was tossed. Go back to Reagan and see if he got the nod for his second term would be my response (or was preferred over Carter, for that matter).

  
1996 ---- 45 endorsed Clinton 28 endorsed Dole 24 made no endorsement 1 offered opposing endorsements by different members of the editorial board


Isn’t this just a slight variation of the above?

  
2000 ---- 41 endorsed Gore 37 endorsed Bush 20 made no endorsement

(source: http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2000/november/nw1110-3.htm)

Pretty darn even. Where did that bias go?

  
Comment 1: I wonder why the difference in 1996 numbers between the two sources, obviously both Gannett-based. I’d suspect that the more recent one includes papers acquired in the time period between reports.

Comment 2: Tedious in the extreme, looking this up. I spent about 2 hours looking for a relevant study of this, that wasn’t from some propaganda site. I’d find it interesting to see a study that looked at endorsements by party or leaning, especially if it included circulation of the paper in there. Any interested journalism or poli sci students out there?

Well, that is what I meant. Interesting, but I wasn’t about to do the work! :-)

  
   No, it’s not a notation of the status quo: the term “liberal media” is an attempt by conservatives to try and dismiss any criticism of them by claiming bias. An example would be to call newspapers liberal, but then trumpet how newspapers claimed that Bush would have won the recount in Florida (which is the exact point this conversation began with), or use the “liberal media” (i.e. the “mainstream media”) to bash Clinton over and over again. It’s not the bashing I mind so much, as the hypocrisy of doing so while claiming the “liberal” media is out to get them.

It is a term typically used in a whining manner, but that doesn’t make it untrue. Here’s something from the American Society of Newspaper Editors (http://www.asne.org/kiosk/editor/97.jan-feb/dennis4.htm) where a 1996 study of newspaper journalists showed that 61% considered themselves “Democrat or liberal,” 15% “Republican or conservative,” and 24% “independent.” The table linked in the article contrasts that with the general public.

I think this more significant information, but at the same time, democrat does not equal liberal, and republican does not equal conservative for any given individual. The question needed to be, do you view yourself as a liberal, conservative, or moderate?

  
That of course doesn’t equate to bias in the media, nor do I believe that the media is 100% biased 100% of the time. As I’ve said before, I think the media bias isn’t a conspiracy. The vast majority of the time they do a fair job. Their first bias is in favor of their ratings--anything “scandal” or fearmongering gets top ratings, and therefore top treatment. Then when it comes time to present different viewpoints, they go with what they know, which is more often the liberal view. That’s how bias manifests itself, IMO.

Again, what really depends is on how they present the news itself (as opposed to the op/ed page).

  
And if you think that the bias never manifests itself on important issues, then why did Dan Rather refuse for a month to report about Gary Condit, and why was Trent Lott vilified (and rightly so) for his comments about Strom Thurmond but Robert Byrd (D-WV) can use the n-word in a speech with no comment?

But I already said that I acknowledge individual cases of bias manifest themselves in both directions, people being what they are. As to the cases you mention, I’d have to see the specifics to be able to comment, but they hardly indicate some broad pattern regardless (you basically conceded that I can find them going back the other direction, so I’m going to be lazy and not bother!).

  
   Why? The one has nothing to do with the other. A better suggestion is to keep the term “liberal media”, or don’t quote how newspaper claim Bush would have won a recount. Give up one or the other since they are mutually exclusive.

I just find it fun to point out that there was never a recount, public or private, that showed Gore winning. I’m not trumpeting anything, just making a point and quoting a source. Isn’t that what debating is about? And shouldn’t you be interested in discrediting the point rather than accusing me of hypocrisy?

I did not accuse you of hypocrisy, just that if you were going to quote the one, don’t use the phrase. I was merely warning not to fall in a hypocritical trap (though others will have to assess whether or not you willfully leaped into the trap afterwards).

And if the recounts never showed Gore winning, then why didn’t we depend on the will of the American people rather than bypass it with the Supreme Court? Pity Bush didn’t have the confidence of the voters.

  
   I already noted that Gore accepted the Supreme Court’s decision, so quoting anything about Florida is fairly useless (a point that as I recall, you agreed to). But be that as it may, since you have laid it on the table” the Florida Supreme Court is not part of the Democratic party, so I don’t see where you have a point.

It makes no difference whether he was successful or not. It’s sufficient for me to show that Gore attempted to do “whatever it takes” to gain the office of the presidency.

No - inasmuch as he accepted the Supreme Court’s decision, he clearly was not willing to do whatever it takes, which is why I said don’t bother with Gore. Further, challenging a close vote is hardly what I would define as some kind of overbearing ruthlessness - it is a standard provided for by law. It is far more ruthless to try and avoid the legality of a recount by simply stalling so long on making a decision that a recount can not be done, despite the provisions for such. If that is how a recount will always be met, then having a provision for a recount is a lie, or a mutable thing to be discarded when it does not meet the approval of those in power (i.e. a betrayal of the electorate).

  
BTW, the nine-member Florida Supreme Court is composed of nine justices appointed by Democrats.

Who have no connection to the National Democratic Organizing Commitee. Nor are they necessarily liberal - especially being from the south - or even Democrats themselves.

  
   Judge: not democratic party, so again, there is no point.

So, you’ve called your Senators, and asked them to stop blocking Bush’s judicial nominees? After all, they’re going to be judges, so they’re not going to be partisan, regardless of who appoints them.

That depends on what you mean by partisan. Scalia is nothing but partisan, O’Conner is a conservative, but hardly what I would call a partisan. Souter seems to be a good example against you.

  
   But to adress it anway, I take it you (or your source) is paraphrasing, because I sincerely doubt that the law is written the way you quote it: who the heck would write into a law “there is no provision allowing a judge to extend the hours of voting? They would say, “the hours of voting may not be extended under any circumstances” and if that was what was written, I firmly believe that is what would have been quoted (but wouldn’t change that a judge could review the law). Anyway, what you quote is stated as a spin. I can probably safely restate it to say: there is no provision prohibiting a judge from extending the hours, and I suspect I would be correct. Further, judicial review of laws is well-established (i.e. just because there is a law, doesn’t make it legal).

The actual law:

“The election judges shall open the polls at six o’clock in the morning and keep them open until seven o’clock in the evening. At seven o’clock in the evening, all voters at the polls, including any in line to vote, shall be permitted to vote.” (Missouri Revised Statutes, Section 115.407 http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C100-199/1150407.HTM)

Nothing preventing a judge from extending hours if there are irregularities. See, the quote you provided was extremely misleading.

  
The law was passed in 1977 and contains the following annotation:

“(2000) Circuit judge lacked jurisdiction to extend voting hours. State ex rel. Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc. v. Baker, 34 S.W.3d 410 (Mo.App.E.D.).”

Was this before or after the vote in question (it is worded such that it must be after the fact)? And elected officials can pass all sorts of anti-judicial laws and not have them stand up, as I already previously noted. In other words, the annotation looks like after the fact posturing.

  
The source for that document was the Missouri Secretary of State--the guy in charge of elections--after public hearings and government investigation into potential fraud. It’s interesting reading, especially the part (beginning at the last paragraph of page 9) about how the Gore-Lieberman campaign filed a suit alleging that someone was not allowed to vote when “Mr. Odom in fact had voted and had no trouble voting.”

It continues on the next page:

“The information suggests that the lawsuit was not filed as a result of problems that occurred on election day, but instead was filed as a result of a plan conceived before election day. At about the same time that the court issued the Order, St. Louis City residents were receiving pre-recorded telephone messages from Rev. Jesse Jackson telling them they could vote late, and half an hour later Vice President Al Gore was telling KMOX radio listeners that the polls were still open. The purpose of these communications was to encourage persons not eligible to vote because of their failure to get to the polls on time to nonetheless go to the polls and vote.

Ummmm, forgive me, but that sounds like a bunch of partisan hooeey. Somebody’s little empire got stepped on and now he is whining.

  
“Further support that the attempt to extend the voting hours was not to address problems that occurred on election day but instead was conceived before election day is that almost the exact same petition was filed in Jackson County. A comparison of the two petitions reveals that long passages in both petitions are word-for-word the same. The use of canned pleadings suggests a strategy to extend the voting hours was developed before election day, and that the lawsuits were not a result of occurrences that happened on election day.”

Not that it makes the slightest sense at all. Why the heck spend that kind of effort on something dubious rather than spending it on actually getting the vote out? I’m extremely skeptical of this story.

  
Does that qualify as “whatever it takes,” a preplanned effort to file false lawsuits to subvert election law?

Nope - I frankly don’t believe the scenario as laid out. What do the local news agencies have to say on the matter?

  
   (deleting the reply I wrote as I realize that...) You need to establish that Gore was behind the military ballot problems. You have currently simply juxtaposed the two and implied a connection. Perhaps you felt it obvious, but I need my memory jogged, alas.

Huh? Gore wasn’t behind the military ballot problems. I’m establishing that it was hypocritical for him to continually claim that “every vote must count” when he actively tried to throw out military (read: primarily Republican) ballots.

If Gore wasn’t behind it, then how is it some scheme by the democrats? And if he wasn’t behind it, then why in the next sentence do you again claim that he is? Resolve these two statement:

Gore wasn’t behind the military ballot problems

he (Gore) actively tried to throw out military...ballots

  
   Of course there were indications that abuses occured - they may or may not have been the reason for the recount request that you are refering to, but they were there. So, oops! - forgive me if I sloppily connected the two.

Ah, understood. The mathematical reason for the recount in heavily Democratic areas is this. Let’s say (I’m making up numbers here) that there’s an across-the-board counting error rate (meaning that the error prevented the ballot from being properly counted) of 1% in an area with 100,000 voters. That makes 1,000 votes in error. Now let’s say that the area voted 75% Democratic and 25% Republican. A recount that corrected all errors would find 750 Democratic votes and 250 Republican votes. One in a heavily Republican area would find more Republican votes.

Ummmm, so why would there be a problem with this?

  
   So...the claim was not backed up by any action (i.e. your accusation is not supportable by the facts as they currently stand)?

I have no knowledge of any. That doesn’t mean that it’s wrong--if I’m wrong and you don’t point it out I’m still wrong. It does not establish that mediation is a proper means of judicial review either; can you point me to where it is?

I worded my parenthetical comment very carefully: I did not say that you were wrong in your view, just that by any measureable evidence you can’t really back up the accusation of illegality. I can respect you thinking it illegal even if I disagree, but I can’t really respect it as any kind of actual proof against the Democrats doing illegal things.

Can I point to mediation being proper? Why yes, the very example you site - if it was improper, then it would at least be in dispure, and since you concede that it is not, then guess what? :-)

  
   Ummmmm, if that’s the way you feel, why the arguement? But in any case, yes you do have to tie it to the Democratic party, because the whole point is that the Republican Party, from the top of the power structure is coordinating the effort against the Democrats. The NAACP is not the Democratic inner circle.

And the NRA isn’t the Republican inner circle either...

Inasmuch as I have never mentioned the NRA in any of this, this is a disingenous argument. You have tried to show that the Democratic party is just as ruthless as the Republicans with an example about the NAACP. If I try and show how the National Republican Organizing Committee is ruthless by siting an example instigated by the NRA, feel free to shoot me down. :-)

  
See above re: Missouri lawsuits for one that is related to at least the Gore-Lieberman campaign as plaintiff. But I guess that’s not the Democratic party?

That would be correct.

  
  
   Let’s talk about content then. Is equating the governor of a state to a murderer acceptable content for a campaign ad?

Ummmmm, where did an ad say that? (to save the inevitable response, no the ad you refered to made no such claim - however, the site you just disavowed did)

That’s assuredly what it meant--“if you elect Bush these killings will continue.”

What you just placed in quotes in no way accuses Bush of being a murderer. You don’t see that?

  
   And I said your challenge is meaningless: if some other company was able to abusively act in the fashion Enron did via coddling by The Powers That Be, then we are still at the same point (i.e. I don’t find the Tit for Tat Defense, or The Two Wrongs Make it Okay Defense as valid). So, again, yes or no. Again, feel free to append explanations after the yes or no, but we really can’t proceed until you actually answer. If yes, Bush and Co. did clear the path for Enron’s excesses, then we have reached a conclusion on this point (beyond any rationalizations or explanations that you feel may be mitigating - your point about other companies getting the same treatment would fall into this category). If no, then we can proceed to the evidence that indicates otherwise.

I’m not sure where you learned about debating, but it’s up to the person making the claim (i.e., “The bottom line is that they (Enron) were protected and sheparded by Bush and his buddies every step of the way except the last.”) to provide evidence. Give me hard evidence (not from some liberal propaganda site) that the above is true. You can’t have it both ways, asking me to justify everything that I say and refusing to do it yourself!

You made your answer dependent on me answering your question first. Actually, I had answered it, but did so again in a more extensive fashion. But now you come up with a new condition. One would think you simply don’t like the question, and that you are looking for any excuse not to be pinned down by an answer.

I’d rather bypass the nonsense (though I seem to be getting it anyway). All you have to do is say, “No, I don’t believe he aided or abetted Enron in any way” and I will proceed to the evidence that you demand. If you believe that he did aid Enron in some fashion, then why don’t we skip the nonsense and go onto what you feel are mitigating factors (so far consisting of, well, EVERYONE does it, so why is Bush being castigated?). I have accused you directly in believing that Bush has in some fashion aided Enron in a dubious fashion, and I don’t see you denying it.

  
   Yes, you can say it more clearly, by matching deed to word. If it must not be tolerated, then to prevent it the roots of the problem must be explored. If the answer is: well, the roots can be explored, but if it gives ammunition for liberals to rightly criticize Bush (assuming that’s where the evidence goes), then no, the roots shouldn’t be explored, then your real answer is: Yes, wrongdoing is to be tolerated, as long is it done by people I politically agree with.

You’re confusing me with the Republican party: I can’t do much of anything about Enron. Wish I could--its lying criminal execs deserve to be flat broke like the people they bilked and in jail.

   And to temporize the seeming harshness of that last statement, let me say that it is more of a trap that anyone can fall into, often without realizing it, than a planned response.

I understand what you mean, and it’s not that harsh. All of us would like to think we’re above it. I think that if there was wrongdoing by Bush and Cheney they should be accountable for it.

Alright then, if you think them innocent, then I need to provide evidence that justify a greater inquiry, or we can skip that if you feel there is some mitigating circumstances, which we can then proceed directly to. But ya gotta give me the yes or no before we can proceed. If you don’t want to proceed, then just say so (any answer that doesn’t include the yes or no will be viewed as you don’t wish to continue - it gets tedious asking).

  
I think for the most part the parties do a decent job of policing their own (the Democrats properly distanced themselves from Gary Hart, the Republicans made Gingrich, Livingston, & Lott step down) to show that they will challenge wrongdoing, regardless of who does it.

They’ll challenge wrongdoing when they are confronted by it in a manner that they cannot ignore - but they will ignore it until then (both sides are equally guilty of this).

  
   Equating a downturn, and a long term failure of the economy on someone else’s watch is not particularly supportable. Further, you don’t believe your own argument, why should I?

I don’t have to believe my argument to refute yours. All I’m saying is that if you blame the bad economy on Bush then you need to assign blame to Clinton as well. And plenty of other people deserve blame as well--overexuberant investors, crooked execs and accountants, some Muslim extremists committing mass murder by flying planes into buildings, to name a few.

I beg to differ. If the argument you are advancing is a mere sophist’s trick, then it is incapable of being refutation. How can you refute something with evidence neither side believes? You might be able to score debate points with the unwary, but taking such a tack does nor provide enlightment regardless of the outcome.


   I think that the government can help or hurt the economy. I am crediting him with making a correct move to help the economy, rather than one that will hurt it.

The question was whether he had already hurt it.

  
My basic point is pretty simple: an economy that responds primarily to government control is a communistic one. Our economy is not communist, and the government doesn’t have much control.

I think I would describe it as simplistic, not simple. The government levies taxes (socialism), has some kind of control over interest rates, has some form of control over imports, has some control over business rules, banking rules, organization rules, inheritance rules, wages, hiring practices and on and on. Does ours have as much control as a Communist one? That’s a different question entirely.

  
Whew. Good thing only innocent electrons are harmed for us to continue this debate, eh?


Enlightenment is help, not harm.

-->Bruce<--



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Newsbits: CA Recall and IMF-Argentina Negotiations
 
First, an apology: real life interferes with a lengthier reply on your message on things that we will never agree on; sorry for the lengthy snips. In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote: (lengthy snip) (...) Hear, hear! (...) Many (...) (21 years ago, 19-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Newsbits: CA Recall and IMF-Argentina Negotiations
 
(...) True, but it's very difficult to refute Goldberg's claims in the book. He makes several good points, such as: 1) Why conservatives are always labelled and liberals are not, e.g., why it's always "conservative" Antonin Scalia but never (...) (21 years ago, 19-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

41 Messages in This Thread:









Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR