Show of Hands

Fact-only reporting also presumes an intelligent, thoughtful, and reasoning public. Round education is necessary to achieve this.

But then, despite being very socially liberal, I am not a "consistent" liberal. On some issues I'm off the scale to the right.

friends. I have to wonder if part of that is simply because most people don't talk about politics, though. That could lead to making assumptions about the makeup of your friends that isn't actually all that accurate. Maybe the problem is that the

people who don't talk much about politics aren't speaking up enough. Polarization is their fault! ;)

Fox is by far the most fair and balanced. It's just sad so many liberals rely on a comedy network for so much of their worldview.

I think it's sad so many conservatives don't understand the meaning of the words "fair" and "balanced".

I think it's sad so many liberals consider the mainstream press "objective" so as to make Fox appear "biased". Unlike the former, the latter tells BOTH sides to a story. And yes, there are two sides to every story.

Only two? That's a pretty narrow view. It's funny how some think presenting two sides of an issue is all that's needed for a full picture.

Also, Scotty, it's funny how you simply saw the word "Fox" and knee-jerked into an argument. You'll note I actually didn't disparage Fox in my comment.

Yes, only two. For example, either global warming is happening or it's not. It's not and Fox presents that side in addition to the pro-hoax side.

And you said, "whether one trusts Fox or not." Why not whether you trust NPR or not? Clearly the implication is you don't trust Fox.

No; the point was exactly what I said: the article points to exactly one source that seems to distinguish between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives love it, liberals hate it. As for liberals' favored source, it depends on the liberal.

And global warming is a great example. There are AT LEAST three "sides": (1) it's happening and caused by humans, (2) it's happening but natural and unavoidable, (3) it isn't happening. And further nuance/variation within some of those.

Actually there are four sides to global warming:

1. It's not happening.
2. It's not happening.
3. It's not happening.
4. It's not happening.

Five, actually. We HOPE global warming is happening - because when the Holocene interglacial finally comes to an end, we'll all be huddled around the fire wishing for the good old days when you didn't have to melt your water first to drink it.

Oh, I see. Fox News is fair and balanced in that it presents the four sides of global warming that Scotty mentioned. Makes sense.

Sadly no, Fox goes out of its way to be fair and balanced on this issue and consistently features pro-global warming kooks which drives me nuts because everyone knows it's a bogus hoax.

Scotty, if they're using kooks to present an opposing viewpoint, that isn't fair and balanced at all. That's called a straw man argument. It's considered a logical fallacy. Maybe they should change the slogan to "fallacious and biased" then.

"Kook" is my characterization (and you know that). They're accredited scientists and all. Fox is mind numbingly balanced on this issue.

Got a short clip that demonstrates this "mind-numbing" balance? I have seen some Fox hosts who do a decent job of balancing discussions. Others are clearly in over their heads. So it's possible for x random discussion but it isn't accurate as a

broad descriptor based on what I've seen.

Admittedly I don't watch ANY news regularly. I get my news from an assortment of online news aggregators supplemented by Google, Twitter, and word of mouth. Also the Sirius politics channel on my commute and

OCCASIONALLY NPR, but I'll admit I find a lot of their programming overly dry. What can I say, I'm part of the problem.

youtu.be/pYoGuZoYxo8

Hahaha I meant an example of an interview you were talking about, not a "let's pat ourselves on the back" clip. I looked up the study in question, and it suggests that the reason for the disparity is because McCain went into attack mode after the

economy tanked, trying to draw focus away from the economic numbers, which the *public* viewed negatively. So one could argue that the supposedly equitable negative coverage actually is evidence that Fox *isn't* balanced. It's always important to

keep context in mind. For instance, if a politician does something horrible, like defrauding investors in a company, and the politician's opponent is pretty unremarkable, it would arguably show *more* bias to report an equal number of negative things

about the two of them, since one candidate is probably simply a worse person.

Btw I'm not saying McCain is a bad person or worse person than Obama; I'm just saying that the isolated variable they're talking about in the clip doesn't actually show that they are "fair and balanced."

"40% vs. 40%"

Truth hurts, huh?

Nope. Nothing more to say?

Nope, I've just proven you wrong (again). My job here is done.

It's always so disappointing when you don't engage. Ah well.

Okay, we're weeks away from the big gaming season. Please tell me you'll be buying at least one of the following:

Master Chief Collection
AC Unity / AC Rogue
Advanced Warfare
Far Cry 4

Unity. Probably Rogue as well but I may wait for a sale. And Dragon Age: Inquisition. GOD I've been waiting a long time for that game.

An outside perspective if the report source is too biased for you.

www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/leaning-skews-news-views-us-survey-shows/story-e6frg6so-1227097766851?nk=e93ed90a203cb1233b57fb353b4e9f0a