the real Bill O'Reilly...

[Spartacus]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

Sadsack, I cannot find it now but there was a book about "left wing media"

The author interviewed James Baker (HW Bush's secretary of state) and a bunch of think tank insiders. They basically admit the entire "the media is left wing" was a planned long-term strategy - a Goebbels style campaign, with that mantra the centrepiece, to be repeated by all at every opportunity.

The instigators knew and admitted there was no meaningful left bias.

IMHO there's been no "rise of right-wing media", with the implication that right wing media was held down before.

A much more accurate description is "the rise of media that's more right-wing than what came before".

I value the rise of the right-wing media front, not because of its intrinsic value, but because of the valuable information it can reveal in conjuction with other sources.

Picture "The Truth" as the centroid of a triangle, whose vertices are defined by the various propaganda/viewpoints such as "Left," Right," and "Center/Other." With these three points, one can triangulate the inferred position of the "truth centroid" with much greater accuracy than if one had only two points of referece; e.g. MSM and NPR alone.

[WDCRob]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

I think there's actually been plenty of research that suggests most reporters are/were liberal. And IMO that bias was evident in a lot of what they did. But it was just that - a bias. For the most part it was a point of pride for reporters that they present a story fairly, and that viewers/listeners not be able to discern their personal views on a subject.

That's completely different than the creation of an entire hierarchy of overtly partisan right-wing media outlets that were conceived, funded and built with the express purpose of electing Republicans.

[sadsack]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

Sadsack, I cannot find it now but there was a book about "left wing media"

The author interviewed James Baker (HW Bush's secretary of state) and a bunch of think tank insiders. They basically admit the entire "the media is left wing" was a planned long-term strategy - a Goebbels style campaign, with that mantra the centrepiece, to be repeated by all at every opportunity.

The instigators knew and admitted there was no meaningful left bias.

IMHO there's been no "rise of right-wing media", with the implication that right wing media was held down before.

A much more accurate description is "the rise of media that's more right-wing than what came before".

All I can say in my defense is this:

I would argue that what is not reported is at least as important as what is reported. I.e., the effect of "selection bias" on the stories/viewpoints that are expressed is much more important than the idiosyncracies of the actual presentation.

(Possibly weak) case in point:

In the recent 60 Minutes interview of Sam Alito by Stahl, it was manifestly apparent to me that Stahl was blindly reading from a script. Any time that Alito delivered a piercing (oftentimes ironic/sarcastic) point, he did nothing more than fling an idea far above the poor woman's head ("air shot").

The net result was, "I don't understand this, so next topic." I.e., any opportunity for the audience to gain a meaningful measure of understanding of the topic at hand was summarily dismissed because the interviewer wasn't "scoring enough points" against Alito.

I have a more positive opinon on such PBS shows as Frontline and Charlie Rose, where a greater measure of intelligent interaction (more so in the case of CR) is permitted.

In sum, "triangulation" is needed most when nearly everyone is talking about everything else in the room but the elephant. If signs point to the spot of interest being at point "X," (if only by it's nearly unanimous exclusion) but nothing is being remotely said about "X," then the (admittedly "grossly ad hoc") method of ideological triangulation can prove useful.

Another case in point: The iTulip vs. Mish polarity/conflict.

Along comes Williams with his revised hyperinflation thesis, and iTulipers, including EJ himself, re-evaluate their viewpoints (to various degrees) as a result of this new datum - triangulation is occurring.


Remember: the centroid is the center of mass of a triangle. You can have triangles that are little more than straight lines. Geometrically, the centroid of a given triangle can only naively be assumed to reside in the approximate visual center.

In a true polarity, all one has is a line, providing no information as to the locus of the relevant point along said line. iTulip provides me with a valuable data point outside the plane of "L vs. R." In similar fashion, if all I had were the MSM (main stream media) and iTulip, I would be missing information from the "paleo-conservative" viewpoint.

[Spartacus]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

small update

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...lan/index.html

[Slimprofits]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

I am absolutely loving how the Clinton backers are playing up her resounding victory in the Puerto Rican primary as strong evidence of her electability in the General election. They don't vote in the general election and anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong here, PR isn't representative of the U.S.A. in general.

And I'm not buying into the line that if Clinton isn't nominated, that Democrats will stay home on Nov. 4th in droves. The next President is likely going to appoint at least one SCOTUS justice. From what I've learned about Democrat fanboys and fangirls over the years, that is the most important issue to most of them.

[algerwetmore]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

I agree with your assessment of the Clintons' victory in the Puerto Rican primary. As to your assessment of democrats staying home in droves, if she isn't elected may be a bit of a moot point.
Whoever is elected will only survive 1 term, and the problems will be insurmountable, at least on the domestic agenda. I wouldn't wish anybody to be president in the middle of a ka-boom cycle.