I disagree that you would have reduced the bias. In fact all that you would have done is introduce yet another unquantifiable variable into the mix - muddling the water yet further. The result may have appearence of being more credible but in fact it would have no merit to it than the original study did.
It was a demand and not an order. And I never said it was civil. It was intentionaly worded to be direct.
If that is the case then I apologise. "Tool" also has another meaning as you know and short of an explanation as to one's meaning there is no way of knowing the way in which was intended when used.
Methods are either scientific or they are not. There is no inbetween. Therefore that which you suggested has no more scientific value than the study which was done.
No I said that because name calling is rude and unecessary. But considering that appeals to civility are likely to not have meaning to one such as yourself I chose to be direct rather diplomatic. Be advised however that I can make you burn inside until you puke if I chose to. And I will not hesitate to do so if need be. Let's be friends and not enemies. Life is too short.
Well then why on earth do you continue to post in this thread?
Well I prefer to be spoken to in a civil manner or not at all.
Oh? I think not. Consider that one's own opinion of whether one is a conservative or a liberal is usually quite different than what others would describe him as being. In other words one own opinion of what one "is" - is also the result of a subjective evaluatuion. Therefore negating the possiblity of such a panel being scientifically chosen.
BTW - Do not refer to me as a tool again - ever.
Your point is that your opinion is worthless? I disagree but then I may have a higher opinion of you that you do of yourself. But if you find posting in this thread to be a waste of your time by all means do not let me prevent you from leaving it all together.
Oh? How do you select a "balanced" panel scientifically? It cannot be done. Yet it must be done if the work of the panel is going to be scientific.
To me it has relevance as I agree with the authors idea of what is liberal and what is conservative as illustrated by the examples they give. In other words the study has meaning to me despite the fact that it is not scientific. Given that it is an opinion piece, it is no more worthless or worthwhile than is your opinion of it.
How on earth could one conduct a scientific inquiry into something as subjective as the political slant of a news story? Such a determination requires subjective evaluation on the part of those conducting the study - we're not talking about hair color or a person's height here.
Yes the author's of this study went into it holding the belief that the media had a liberal slant. But given that the subject of the study cannot be scientifically measured what difference does it make? In other words the study and it's subject are essentially matters of opinion - not fact. Nothing wrong with that provided that the authors do not attempt to pass it off as being anything other than what it is which in my opinion they do not.
So what is your opinion as to the poltical leanings of the media?
In the full report it explains that what they did was track all of the braodcast news reports within a specific timeframe surrounding a particular story. The MRC report in other words is a compilation of several individual "reports" each surrounding the key news events of 2003.
Yawn, no news here people, move along...
Attacking the messenger as opposed to the message aren't you?
Any comment as to the examples of bias which they give in the ariticle which I have quoted from above?
Wrong. Please note that in the last sentence above I am asking the reader as whether or not he or she thinks the individuals that I am about to quote are lying. This is not an assertion on my part that the individuals in question were lying, or were not lying.
Everyone else seems to have understood what I meant. I'm not sure why you are having such a difficult time with it.
Comment - Some of the worst offenders are the wire services such as the AP and Rueters in my opinion. The Executive summary for the study can be found at the link above.
How in God's name did someone with such poor reading comprehension get to be a moderator? You are clueless!
I never said that the individuals I quoted were lying genius. Go back and read what I have written slowly and carefully. Get mommy to help you this time because you have missed the entire point of this thread which was to show that those who accuse President Bush of lying actually have done exactly what you accuse me of doing in your post above!
I demand an apology. Oh wait a minute.... I forgot. The left never admits it when they are wrong do they?
Hey no problem Picard....
From - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/news/7oclock...on_151203.shtml
From - http://www.townhall.com/columnists/rossmac...m20031230.shtml
From - http://www.thevrwc.org/speakOut.html
From - http://www.wspd.com/bobwmd.html
Let me know if I missed any and I'll be glad to provide a source for whatever I may have left out. There are literally hundreds of sources available for these quotes.