They are biased just like fox and as such, are hardly better. They are blinded by ideology just like Fox and as such, are hardly better. They don't have to lie to be "hardly better" than Fox. AP is better simply because their articles are in print where I can fact check them against other sources far more easily than with a pundit spewing their opinion. I haven't seen an AP article yet where the writer was clearly biased and trying to put out false information for partisan gain. Maybe I have been lucky.
On some issues, I am certain you are. On some issues, I am. I try to reduce my blindness as much as I can and you strike me as someone who makes similar attempts.
At least you've finally conceded that MSNBC doesn't lie like Fox does. I'll let you catch up with my other posts before taking on the silly idea that bias is hardly better than lying. For example, are you saying that I'm hardly better than a liar because I am biased? Or maybe you have just been lazier than the holier than thou media watchdog you portray yourself to be. You can find out about the AP with a simple google search.
Is it not possible to derive a bias from facts? You certainly have on legalization and I agree with you there. The facts have engendered a "bias" in you. When you are right and biased it is not a bad thing. In fact, when you are right, it is good to be biased in favor of the truth.
Bias that leads one to put out information that is false is hardly better than lying. If your bias causes you to twist the facts to suit your ideology, then you are hardly better than a liar. I believe that both Fox and MSNBC are guilty of allowing their biases to lead them to twist and manipulate the truth. I am not a media watchdog, I am just more selective than some about the media to which I expose myself. I don't really care much about specific issues the AP has had, I take their articles with the same grain of salt that accompanies an article from the New York Times, Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, or Newsweek.
Well here you're calling MSNBC liars again. Which is it? Are they or aren't they? Post a link that demonstrates an example of them "twisting and manipulating the truth." Then post one of me doing it, since you've accused me of having a "blind" bias on some issues.
Well, that one was obviously a joke (about the typing I mean). You of all people should appreciate a meticulous, energetic debate. You chased Jorge around for two years begging for one. I guess you didn't want to get into it with me. Look, here's the point: When the facts lead you to a strong position on an issue or issues (as in legalization, in your case), arguing stringently in favor of that position is not "bias." That's a stupid word to use to describe that situation. "Blindness" is also a stupid word to use. If I say that I believe in the theory of evolution because of all the scientific evidence, am I "biased?" Am I "blind?" Of course not! And neither is MSNBC. If MSNBC says the sky is blue -- No, let's say they scream it, rudely even... Let's say they even curse. They even say "THE SKY IS ****ING BLUE!" And then Fox says "No, THE SKY IS ****ING YELLOW. AND WE HAVE PROOF." And then they demonstrate the proof, and they got it from a photograph that ToyCen sent them after he clipped it out of the Weekly World News, and they stand by that "proof" and never retract it... Well, what is the proper response to that? To say, well, maybe the sky is green? You know, since they're both "biased." Or is there such a thing as being right, based on actual facts? And, if there is, what is the damage in being passionate about that?
By seeking arguments from people who think legalization is a bad idea. By working to purge my mind of pro-legalization arguments that are based on lies. Funny story, my position on legalization is a direct result of my biases. When I was young and employed as a drug abuse counselor, I thought that drugs were the scourge of the Earth, that they SHOULD be prohibited, and that alcohol should probably join them. I was convinced that prohibition was not only justified, but necessary for us to have a civilized society. As I explored my beliefs, I was able to analyze my position based on the facts and available evidence at hand. I couldn't believe that I was so wrong about my position, that I was so blinded by propaganda. My deep anti-drug bias ended up leading me to become an advocate for regulation of drugs.
It's a shame how you did all that work and still wound up being "blind," "biased" and "hardly better" than you started. You know, since you seem to think that taking any hard stand on either side of any issue is a failure of character. When you make a post like this after calling a liberal network (or me) those words, you imply that we have NOT done what you described above. That is not just presumptuous, wrong, and grossly and wrongly "morally superior," it is flat insulting. Who the hell are you to assume that I or Rachel Maddow haven't similarly questioned our own assumptions and arrived at our positions honestly and not as a result of "blind bias?"
I'll cure this right now. I believe that MSNBC has a bias that causes them to misrepresent and twist facts. I really don't care if you believe it, this issue just isn't important enough to me to do the requisite research. I don't know of any specific issue on which you are biased, I am just sure that there is one.
Wow, you thought that would "cure" it? You're just going farther and farther down the rabbit hole. Now you've been reduced to saying that MSNBC misrepresents facts (another way of saying they lie) because you "believe" it. That's called truthiness, friend. And that's not a compliment. And then you say that I'm "biased" on an issue based on the 'fact' that you're "just sure" I am? You've gone from the voice of reasoned objectivity to the king of truthiness in under an hour. Impressive work.
I am certain that you and Maddow have questioned your assumptions and I am sure that you arrived at your positions honestly. I am just as sure that MSNBC hosts and guests have misrepresented the truth as a result of their biases.
I thought you were the guy that liked to present tons of evidence for his positions. When did you turn into the guy that uses words like "I believe" and "I am certain" and "I am just as sure" without evidence? In this thread you are doing exactly what you accuse MSNBC of. And, in the case of you doing it, there is evidence. Right here in this thread. Right here in this post. You are misrepresenting the truth (until you prove otherwise) as a result of your bias -- not based on proof but on a sort of feeling you have. Incidentally, I'm sorry to be picking on you so much. I think you're a swell guy. But I don't drink anymore and it's Friday night and I'm out at this farm house where I came to write a rock opera and, well, I'm done with it. So what else am I supposed to do?
What I was trying to say is that I believe MSNBC twists and misrepresents facts and as a result of my belief, I will not watch their network. I don't give a flying f*** whether you believe it. I have, however, found your blind bias. You do not believe that MSNBC has lied or misrepresented the truth and save someone researching enough to overcome the Dunning-Kruger effect, your bias will cause you to fight even with people who support you on just about every issue of note. It is easy for you to alienate people on the other side of the political divide from you. It is much harder to alienate me, given that you and I are much closer politically than you and basso or OddsOn. If that is your goal, you are well on your way. Impressive work.
