Keith Olberman and Al Gore Bitter Divorce

[Wu du Nord]

I really seriously couldn't make sense of John's post, but I got the impression he expects me to reply. So...

1. Balance as a metaphor: Balance describes weights and equilibrium. Concepts don't have weight (physics majors feel free to correct that).

2. Bias: Bias refers to slant. As long as we have observer relative truths (as opposed to universal truth external to the observer), the notion of unbiased accounting of action is a mirage.

3. You know those pens on chains you frequently find in banks? Yeah, one time, I unhooked the chain clasp, pocketed it, and walked straight out the door. Yep, I have robbed a bank. No starving kids. No financial destitution. Straight up cold-hearted larceny. Wu du Nord bank robber.

4. I'm not sure how you missed the evolution of media (its constitution, volume, composition, reach, methods, business models and goals) that have occurred over the past few decades, but a comparison between media practices and relationships of the early-80's and today is disingenuous or at best naive.

5. I'm fairly certain that at one or more journalists were on Nixon's enemies list. Bush complained numerous times about coverage of the Iraq war that focused on car bombs instead of the many successes. Maybe these examples don't have the flair and directness of Obama's, but I will refer to #4 above.

[60Shock]

A couple points ...



But the murderer has feelings too -- that much cannot be denied! And .. what if the victim deserved it? For example if he was a greedy, rich, white, oil baron? Certainly we can have a modicum of balance even in a juicy murder story?




As a counterexample I give you one @KC Shox:. Wichita State fan without a single fiber of bias toward WSU in his bones, what-so-ever. Not that your point is invalid, but freaky anomalies do happen. And no, @KC Shox:, I am not calling you a freaky anomaly. I'll leave that to @ABC:.

Points of clarification complete, carry on.

Initially I did not, but after considering it more deeply, I surprisingly find myself agreeing completely with your first point, Kung.

We must certainly be just when we evaluate and take into account the FEELINGS of a mass murderer, a rapist, a child molester, or any other heinious crime(s).

In order to understand the individual, we must, as caring human beings, consider what the poor bloke was feeling prior to, during, and after he committed his atrocity.

We must understand all of his feelings. For that is most important.

Personally, I for one, would be very interested in knowing how he exactly feels upon having a hot poker driven up the place where the sun never shines.

[Kung Wu]

Initially I did not, but after considering it more deeply, I surprisingly find myself agreeing completely with your first point, Kung.

We must certainly be just when we evaluate and take into account the FEELINGS of a mass murderer, a rapist, a child molester, or any other heinious crime(s).

In order to understand the individual, we must, as caring human beings, consider what the poor bloke was feeling prior to, during, and after he committed his atrocity.

We must understand all of his feelings. For that is most important.

Personally, I for one, would be very interested in knowing how he exactly feels upon having a hot poker driven up the place where the sun never shines.

LMAO

[Wu du Nord]

Feelings was a poor choice of word for what El Kung was going for, there.

Disposition might repair some of the confusion, but possibly not. I'd say that the best resolution relies on a knowledge of social accounting procedures and understanding that they could be otherwise.

Although, I'm suddenly curious about @60Shock: 's opinions on spanking, er, I mean, the atrocity of child abuse. ;-)

[Kung Wu]

One more thing, and to be more accurate, MSNBC did not exist at the time of the research, but ADA. a liberal organization, uses the methodology from this paper to track media bias. They have for years. Go there if you really, really want to know where MSNBC fits in the picture. A little clue, even ADA can't polish MSNBC's scores.

Back to this debate, MSNBC had an intentional strategy of leaning left to "counter Fox News Channel's appeal to conservatives" is cited by Microsoft as the reason that Microsoft and NBC are now splitting up:

The inherent constraints of being locked into a joint venture sometimes handcuffed Microsoft and NBC.

Microsoft, in particular, had grown frustrated by contract terms requiring it to exclusively feature MSNBC.com content on its own websites. That exasperation was exacerbated by the MSNBC cable channel's strategy to counter Fox News Channel's appeal to conservative viewers by tailoring its programming for an audience with a liberal viewpoint.

The strategy fed a perception that material from MSNBC's website was politically slanted, too.

Full article.

[SubGod22]

MSNBC way over compensated... Personally, I've always thought that FNC compares more to CNN as far as leaning in different directions but offering up plenty of the other viewpoint.

[1979Shocker]

msnbc.com is becoming NBCNews.com. Msnbc.com will eventually be the address of MSNBC TV. Microsoft will no longer be a part of it.

In the short term, msnbc.com will reflect the homepage of NBCNews.com. Eventually, it will become the address of MSNBC TV, giving MSNBC TV its own dedicated address and ending an arrangement under which the news site shared the MSNBC name with an increasingly commentary-driven channel.

In recent years, MSNBC TV has shifted toward political commentary favorable to Democratic and liberal causes, creating a potential clash between that mission and the website's goal of producing a nonpartisan news report.

[Kung Wu]

Yes, excellent decision by Microsoft. I bet they regretted that relationship since day almost day one.

[engrshock]

I do not understand the ADA score of 85.1 for the Wall Street Journal in Table 4. That would indicate that the WSJ was more liberal than the democratic members of Congress. There is something amiss in that number as I am quite certain that the WSJ leans to the conservative side.

[Kung Wu]

I do not understand the ADA score of 85.1 for the Wall Street Journal in Table 4. That would indicate that the WSJ was more liberal than the democratic members of Congress. There is something amiss in that number as I am quite certain that the WSJ leans to the conservative side.

The article itself explains it:

"One surprise is the Wall Street Journal, which we find as the most liberal of all 20 news outlets. We should first remind readers that this estimate (as well as all other newspaper estimates) refers only to the news of the Wall Street Journal; we omitted all data that came from its editorial page. If we included data from the editorial page, surely it would appear more conservative.

Second, some anecdotal evidence agrees with our result. For instance, Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid (2001) note that “The Journal has had a long-standing separation between its conservative editorial pages and its liberal news pages.” Paul Sperry, in an article titled the “Myth of the Conservative Wall Street Journal,” notes that the news division of the Journal sometimes calls the editorial division “Nazis.” “Fact is,” Sperry writes, “the Journal’s news and editorial departments are as politically polarized as North and South Korea.”[24]

Third, a recent poll from the Pew Research Center indicates that a greater percentage of Democrats, 29%, say they trust the Journal than do Republicans, 23%. Importantly, the question did not say “the news division at the Wall Street Journal.” If it had, Democrats surely would have said they trusted the Journal even more, and Republicans even less.[25]

Finally, and perhaps most important, a scholarly study—by Lott and Hasset (2004)—gives evidence that is consistent with our result. As far as we are aware this is the only other study that examines the political bias of the news pages of the Wall Street Journal. Of the ten major newspapers that it examines, the study estimates the Wall Street Journal as the second-most liberal."