Liberal Media Attempting to Understand Conservatives

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
197 replies · 28K views
Physics news on Phys.org
Office_Shredder said:
Your fault.

Now can there be an actual conversation again?
Nope.
It's not my fault that some liberals have made reference to "liberals" be a universal term, and hence, fallaciously, that saying something is the fault of liberals means the fault of ALL liberals.
You are the one at fault here, not me.
 
Hans de Vries said:
This looks to me more like an example of:

"Liberal Media Attempting to Understand (Religious Fundamentalist) Conservatism"

as in the title of this thread.

1) Muslim fundamentalist vigorously oppose anything like a liberal lifestyle.
2) A life under fundamentalist religious law would scare the hell out of liberal people.

Can you explain why you are nevertheless linking these two totally different groups?

Hans, would you explain your point? For some reason I'm having trouble following it, and as a result its responses are also unclear to me.
 
In my opinion, Fox News is the only trustworthy news source :-p
 
Leptos said:
In my opinion, Fox News is the only trustworthy news source :-p

I don't think that there is a trustworthy news source. You must admit that all news organizations have bias, by virtue of organizations being made up of people, and people having biases. Thus, you really can't trust a single news organization for fair and unbiased news.

That said, I do enjoy Spiegel for my news of America.
 
Char. Limit said:
I don't think that there is a trustworthy news source. You must admit that all news organizations have bias, by virtue of organizations being made up of people, and people having biases. Thus, you really can't trust a single news organization for fair and unbiased news.
That's absolutely true, but having many more biased sources than in the past makes a difference. 20 years ago, a majority of people got all their news from the big three and AP. They spent their entire lives hearing the Democrats' point of view, and the Democrats' twisted version of the Republican point of view, and never even recognized any bias because they had no idea the Republican point of view was being so grossly misrepresented. It's very difficult to recognize bias from a source, if the information one could use to determine bias is coming from the same source.

Even today, many people I know, including family, simply have no idea what the Republican point of view is, or why so many people vote for the "party of the rich". They have no interest in researching both sides of the issues, when ignorance is much easier.
 
Office_Shredder said:
...In which you pointed out that the wealthy voted for McCain at a slightly higher rate than the rest of the country. Ok, that convinced me
No, the over $200k income block voted for Obama at a higher rate, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2795048&postcount=89" Also, the highest dollar political contribution zip codes in the US overwhelmingly donated to Obama. In addition, we have zillionaire icons Gates, Buffett and Soros supporting the democrats with money, and billionaires like Kerry running on the Democratic ticket for the Presidency.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Al68 said:
That's absolutely true, but having many more biased sources than in the past makes a difference. 20 years ago, a majority of people got all their news from the big three and AP. They spent their entire lives hearing the Democrats' point of view, and the Democrats' twisted version of the Republican point of view, and never even recognized any bias because they had no idea the Republican point of view was being so grossly misrepresented. It's very difficult to recognize bias from a source, if the information one could use to determine bias is coming from the same source.

Even today, many people I know, including family, simply have no idea what the Republican point of view is, or why so many people vote for the "party of the rich". They have no interest in researching both sides of the issues, when ignorance is much easier.

I am having some difficulty in accepting this argument... if people only got their news from the Democratic newspapers, then why did Republicans get elected as often or more than Democrats?

If you can resolve this well, then I would be very highly inclined. I understand your argument, and am inclined to agree with it somewhat, but I can't reconcile it with the fact above.

EDIT: I meant in a presidential election.
 
mheslep said:
No, the over $200k income block voted for Obama at a higher rate, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2795048&postcount=89" Also, the highest dollar political contribution zip codes in the US overwhelmingly donated to Obama. In addition, we have zillionaire icons Gates, Buffett and Soros supporting the democrats with money, and billionaires like Kerry running on the Democratic ticket for the Presidency.
There is a problem with using one election year to make a point about a party. Its like making doing analysis on a single data point.
There are billionaires on both sides see Rubert Murdoch (Media Overlord), Waltons, Bloomberg.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Char. Limit said:
I am having some difficulty in accepting this argument... if people only got their news from the Democratic newspapers, then why did Republicans get elected as often or more than Democrats?

If you can resolve this well, then I would be very highly inclined. I understand your argument, and am inclined to agree with it somewhat, but I can't reconcile it with the fact above.
That's easy to resolve for at least three reasons. First, many, like me, did recognize the bias. Second, many (not like me) voted Republican because of a specific social or religious issue.

Third, the fact that media bias had great influence doesn't necessarily put the beneficiaries of the bias in a commanding position. An analogy might be a biased team of referees causing an inferior baseball team to win half the time against a superior team.
 
Al68 said:
That's easy to resolve for at least three reasons. First, many, like me, did recognize the bias. Second, many (not like me) voted Republican because of a specific social or religious issue.

Third, the fact that media bias had great influence doesn't necessarily put the beneficiaries of the bias in a commanding position. An analogy might be a biased team of referees causing an inferior baseball team to win half the time against a superior team.

Well reconciled. I have no further argument.
 
Char. Limit said:
I am having some difficulty in accepting this argument... if people only got their news from the Democratic newspapers, then why did Republicans get elected as often or more than Democrats?

If you can resolve this well, then I would be very highly inclined. I understand your argument, and am inclined to agree with it somewhat, but I can't reconcile it with the fact above.

EDIT: I meant in a presidential election.

well, personally, i think that republican and democrat have a tendency to represent the needs and values of city-states (democrat) on the one hand, and the less-populous rural and suburban areas on the other. city-states are highly co-dependent and liberal, whereas the rural/suburban areas are more rugged individualist and conservative. now, despite the media centers being situated in city-states (as well as the journalists) and having a strong liberal democrat bent, the people outside urbaneia still tend toward the individualist and conservative. and despite national news shows from the city-states, local news has always been a staple. not sure, but local news may have even filled some FCC requirement for serving the public interest.

but that is only part of it, because our government does not operate simply on representation by population. every state gets two senators, regardless of size. and at least one representative. and rural districts in primarily city-state states get their own representatives. presidential elections are winner-takes-all wrt to electoral votes. i think without these sort of checks and balances, you would see democrats elected more. and perhaps a more imperial view towards rural areas, accompanied by more of the same sort of financial discrepancy you see in imperial relationships.
 
Char. Limit said:
I am having some difficulty in accepting this argument... if people only got their news from the Democratic newspapers, then why did Republicans get elected as often or more than Democrats?

If you can resolve this well, then I would be very highly inclined. I understand your argument, and am inclined to agree with it somewhat, but I can't reconcile it with the fact above.

EDIT: I meant in a presidential election.

Rush Limbaugh?
 
drankin said:
Rush Limbaugh?

more like Jimmy Carter
 
mheslep said:
No, the over $200k income block voted for Obama at a higher rate, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2795048&postcount=89" Also, the highest dollar political contribution zip codes in the US overwhelmingly donated to Obama. In addition, we have zillionaire icons Gates, Buffett and Soros supporting the democrats with money, and billionaires like Kerry running on the Democratic ticket for the Presidency.

You said that people making over 200k voted for Obama more than they did McCain. Fine. But the rest of the country voted for Obama more than they did McCain at an even greater rate than the over 200k demographic did. So you have demonstrated nothing
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Office_Shredder said:
You said that people making over 200k voted for Obama more than they did McCain. Fine.
Well I referenced what CNN's poll said. End of story.

But the rest of the country voted for Obama more than they did McCain at an even greater rate than the over 200k demographic did.
Relevance? The fact remains that the highest income brackets, i.e. 'the rich' by Obama's definition, voted Democratic in 2008.
 
mheslep said:
Well I referenced what CNN's poll said. End of story.

I wasn't questioning the veracity of the statement

Relevance? The fact remains that the highest income brackets, i.e. 'the rich' by Obama's definition, voted Democratic in 2008.

You pick an election in which the Democrats win, and use that to show that the rich "live in the Democratic party" based on the fact that they voted for a single Democrat when he was popular. Do you agree with the following statement:

America, as a whole, lives in the Democratic party?

Because every piece of evidence you have given that the rich live in the Democratic party can be used to give even more convincing evidence that America as a whole lives in the Democratic party.
 
j93 said:
There is a problem with using one election year to make a point about a party. Its like making doing analysis on a single data point.
Actually millions of data points taken at a point in time, with the entire country paying attention.
There are billionaires on both sides see Rubert Murdoch (Media Overlord), Waltons, Bloomberg.
Yes I know, though one rarely if ever hears Democratic politicians admit they have (many of) the uber rich on their side. They pretend something entirely different.
 
Last edited:
Office_Shredder said:
I wasn't questioning the veracity of the statement



You pick an election in which the Democrats win, and use that to show that the rich "live in the Democratic party" based on the fact that they voted for a single Democrat when he was popular.
Not a single Democrat, but many Democratic politicians - US House/ Senate, and this trend has been increasing for some years. Also, not only did that high income block vote Democratic, but those with very large checkbooks overwhelmingly contributed to the Democrats.

Do you agree with the following statement:

America, as a whole, lives in the Democratic party?
Sure I agree for 2008 ( I doubt now), though broadening the statement makes it far less precise and more error prone than mine is about the rich.

Because every piece of evidence you have given that the rich live in the Democratic party can be used to give even more convincing evidence that America as a whole lives in the Democratic party.
No, less convincing because in so doing one widens the distance between part and whole, creeping towards ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mheslep said:
Actually millions of data points taken at a point in time, with the entire country paying attention.
Its only a single point of public sentiment it cannot logically be used for anything other than making conclusions about the year it took place. Logically if you want to say you can use the 2008 election cycle to say that the democratic party is a party of the rich then you can use 2004/2000 election cycle (two election cycles) to say the republicans are a party of the rich and so on.
 
Office_Shredder said:
You said that people making over 200k voted for Obama more than they did McCain. Fine. But the rest of the country voted for Obama more than they did McCain at an even greater rate than the over 200k demographic did. So you have demonstrated nothing

Exactly.
 
j93 said:
Logically if you want to say you can use the 2008 election cycle to say that the democratic party is a party of the rich then you can use 2004/2000 election cycle (two election cycles) to say the republicans are a party of the rich and so on.
Yes, and Democratic politicians have done so none stop in the past, and continue to do so now despite evidence to the contrary. I want to draw attention to data showing the situation has changed.
 
1. If D won 100% of the sub-200K demographic (which is nearly everyone in the country) and 51% of the super-200K demographic, by your argument, you would still call D the party of the rich, and object to a characterization of R as the party of the rich. That despite the fact that the entirety of R's voter base came from the super-200K group.

2. The fact is that the sub-200K demographic more strongly favored the D party than the super-200K folks. The latter group, however, favored the R party more than the former group. And both groups favored D over R.

2. Also, the choice of $200K as the dividing line between rich and poor seems arbitrary. If instead, one used $100K as the boundary, McCain has a greater share of rich votes.

3. Moreover, having previously disputed the usefulness of using incomes to measure richness, why the insistence upon using it now to make this case?

4. I think OS's corollary to your argument puts this well, that by your reasoning, D is the party of all America.
 
Last edited:
Gokul43201 said:
3. Moreover, having previously disputed the usefulness of using incomes to measure richness, why the insistence upon using it now to make this case?
Of course incomes are one measure of richness/wealth; I earlier disputed your labelling of an incomes list as the indicator of "richest zip-codes", without qualification, back in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2801888&postcount=102", just as you correctly pointed out that my list of political contributors was not the final word on wealth in those zip codes.

More later ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mheslep said:
Of course incomes are one measure of richness/wealth; I earlier disputed your labelling of an incomes list as the indicator of "richest zip-codes", without qualification, back in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2801888&postcount=102", just as you correctly pointed out that my list of political contributors was not the final word on wealth in those zip codes.

More later ...
(bolding mine)

That's hardly my unique labeling applied to the list, seeing as how I merely copied it from the article (and how most anywhere else, income is probably the most commonly cited indicator for wealth). If you asked a group of economists whether they would rather use incomes or political donations in one election as a measure of wealth, do you think they will likely be evenly split between those two choices?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gokul43201 said:
1. If D won 100% of the sub-200K demographic (which is nearly everyone in the country) and 51% of the super-200K demographic, by your argument, you would still call D the party of the rich, and object to a characterization of R as the party of the rich. That despite the fact that the entirety of R's voter base came from the super-200K group. ...
To avoid that interpretation, I qualified my statement in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2795048&postcount=89" to the "rich now live in the Democratic party", the rich for my purposes being 2008 voting blocks with incomes over $200k, and super rich contributors. Do you believe otherwise? I'm not attempting to make a statement about the entirety of the D. party of the US.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gokul43201 said:
(bolding mine)

That's hardly my unique labeling applied to the list, seeing as how I merely copied it from the article
Right I recall that now, and the article's label is not justified.

(and how most anywhere else, income is probably the most commonly cited indicator for wealth). If you asked a group of economists whether they would rather use incomes or political donations in one election as a measure of wealth, do you think they will likely be evenly split between those two choices?
As I explained earlier, no, for the super rich I do not think income, especially income reported on tax forms, is the best indicator.

me said:
Income need not accurately reflect wealth, or more precisely net worth, as reported income misses the wealth of the idle rich. Income won't capture the value of a $30M mansion housing an heiress, or the accounts of a retired philanthropist taking large charitable write downs, or otherwise controlling the wealth of some business or trust by proxy (e.g. Andrew Carnegie). So if I wanted to go knocking on the doors of those able to write the largest checks, regardless of the cause, I expect my list is more likely than your income list to produce the best results
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2803192&postcount=111
 
I beg to differ (I think your list is extremely susceptible to political micro-climate), but don't consider this particular point to be of significant import within the subtopic of discussion to warrant further debate.
 
mheslep said:
Yes, and Democratic politicians have done so none stop in the past, and continue to do so now despite evidence to the contrary. I want to draw attention to data showing the situation has changed.
You haven't shown any proof/data of this nonstop assertion . I just don't understand any of the logic, you tried to use one data point to make an assertion then concede that a different assertion is true for 2000/2004 but use an "exception proves the rule" like argument to make an assertion for nonstop dominance of democrats among the rich .
 
Gokul43201 said:
I beg to differ (I think your list is extremely susceptible to political micro-climate),
Such that there's frequently a large political variance across a single zip code? Maybe, but I doubt it.
 

Similar threads

News Overt Liberal Media Bias: Journalistic Fraud
  • russ_watters
  • · Replies 37 ·
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
37