Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The way the news people cover any Obama administration story vs any Romeny campaign story, and it isn't subtle. As for this Fox poll you reference, I've not heard about it nor the methodology used, nor when it was taken. I thought you didn't care for Fox's coverage, so that must mean you are only referencing it now to needle people. Are you bored?

Riiight. Obama never gets criticized at all. :rolleyes:

But I'm referencing the Fox poll because I find it bizarre that they would claim polls that show Obama to be +3 are biased in Obama's favour while ignoring their own poll that has him +5.

It just shows how right-wingers love to whine about media bias even when the evidence is clearly not there. They have a strange victim mentality that is making them deluded from basic reality.

Once again, I could give you five biased Fox articles for every one you could provide from the rest of the mainstream media.

And you would still whine.

"I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

It just shows how right-wingers love to whine about media bias even when the evidence is clearly not there. They have a strange victim mentality that is making them deluded from basic reality.

Once again, I could give you five biased Fox articles for every one you could provide from the rest of the mainstream media.

And you would still whine.

Well, of course.

The funny thing about "media bias" is that it does indeed exist, I think, and I think it can be demonstrated...but it's not generally a right-left issue. It's biased towards Establishment Power (meaning, at all times, both Democrat and Republican, in these American examples), for several interrelated reasons.

“There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver."

--Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007

Posted

Riiight. Obama never gets criticized at all. :rolleyes:

But I'm referencing the Fox poll because I find it bizarre that they would claim polls that show Obama to be +3 are biased in Obama's favour while ignoring their own poll that has him +5.

It just shows how right-wingers love to whine about media bias even when the evidence is clearly not there. They have a strange victim mentality that is making them deluded from basic reality.

Once again, I could give you five biased Fox articles for every one you could provide from the rest of the mainstream media.

And you would still whine.

Let me get this straight. The guy who whines continually about Fox doesn't think there is a bias in the media? Why don't you produce some positive stories/coverage for Romney in the last month from anywhere except Fox. Bonus points if it's MSNBC. BTW, quite trolling, you don't need to do it if your posts have decent content.

And if you are going to continually whine about Fox's polling, the least you could do is provide a link, I've looked through several days of your posts and can't find anything but the whining.

Posted

Well, of course.

The funny thing about "media bias" is that it does indeed exist, I think, and I think it can be demonstrated...but it's not generally a right-left issue. It's biased towards Establishment Power (meaning, at all times, both Democrat and Republican, in these American examples), for several interrelated reasons.

Yep, it is there for establishment too, but Obama seems to be their golden child for some reason.

Posted

Let me get this straight. The guy who whines continually about Fox doesn't think there is a bias in the media? Why don't you produce some positive stories/coverage for Romney in the last month from anywhere except Fox. Bonus points if it's MSNBC. BTW, quite trolling, you don't need to do it if your posts have decent content.

And if you are going to continually whine about Fox's polling, the least you could do is provide a link, I've looked through several days of your posts and can't find anything but the whining.

I whine continually about Fox? You must have me mistaken for someone else. I also agree there is bias in the media, and that it is towards the establishment. But a "liberal" bias? I don't see it.

Here's a link to MSNBC's main politics page. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/ns/politics-politics/t/nbc-politics-election-news-political-issues-events/

Currently, there is an article about both candidates' weaknesses. There is also a Romney video about a big new endorsement. There's an article about a family-friendly tour that Ryan is making. Shocking bias, I realize.

Compare that to the current Foxnews page. I don't even have to look at it, and I can tell you every single headline about the election will have some anti-Obama angle to it.

The FoxNews poll is well documented and those who follow politics know where to find it. I'll give you a clue. Go to Realclearpolitics.com and look at the current poll tracker.

But if you're going to accuse me of trolling, you should explain how I am doing so.

Sounds to me your victimhood complex is getting the better of you again.

"I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
  • 4 weeks later...
Posted

A 100% random poll is worthless. Polls are based on a statistical model. That's why you get the margin of errors built in.

WTF__emoticon_by_Suzaku_i_Sei.gif

"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure."

- Mark Twain

Posted

A 100% random poll is worthless. Polls are based on a statistical model. That's why you get the margin of errors built in. Why am I having to explain common knowledge to you people? blink.giflaugh.gif

No that is not "why you get the margin of error built in". The margin of error is on all random sample it has to do with the normal value (how many people you sample vs. the number of people the sample represents) and if your model is not 100% random then your margin of error is huge because you have a sampling bias.

YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT STATS SHADY. Just stop you look to stupid to those of us here who actually have background in statistics.

Posted

Nate Silver says there is a 75% Chance Obama will win the electoral college. In 2008 they predicted 349 for Obama....he got 353.

Posted (edited)

Also, I noticed Shady stopped talking about Intrade. Probably because the daily close chart doesn't look very good for Romney, as it has Obama pulling away.

http://www.intrade.c...<br /><br />Obama's closing share price has increased $7 since this week's low on Wednesday.

Not to mention Intrade has Obama at 277 to Romney 248 (13 tossup votes).

Edited by cybercoma

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...