> >> > In other words you believe the crap you want to, > >> > >> I do. > > > >As long as it confirms your own biases you mean. > > No, it means I have free will and I choose what to believe.
Free will right, and tell us that when you parrot Rush Limbaugh. With every response you make, you're just confirming that article I quoted. > > >> > and damn the objective evidence. > >> > >> I have an eye for the obvious. Nothing about that abstract would > lead > >> me to believe it was objective. Quite the opposite. > > > >So as I said, you prefer your own prejudices and will not > investigate > >anything that will contradict it. You know keeping one's head in the > >sand makes breathing difficult Sam. > > Again, not what I said or meant. Common sense tells me that if someone > claims that all news media except Fox is fair, than they probably have > a bias against Fox. Do you have evidence of that or are you just blowing smoke again. When I mean evidence, you will need to examine how the so-called bias was measured. Did they measure time spent of supporting a specific viewpoint? How about focusing more time on one candidate over another? Unfortunately you can't say that. You have dismissed a series of studies without examining the methodology used in assessing bias one way or another. Without doing that you're just blowing smoke out your ass. > As you stated: > "In other words if you think that Fox News is biased then you will > find bias. If you think its not biased then you'll think its Fair and > Balanced." > > Don't you find it odd that someone would say ALL media except Fox is > fair? Didn't say that at all. Look at the methodology then decide. Until you do such all you're doing is demonstrating a confirmatory bias. > > >You're right I am, I have a very skeptical view of things and form > my > >own opinions based on evidence, not crappy pablum spoon fed to me by > >an obese brain dead drug addict. > > Your rage is showing :) OK you mean your parroting Limbaugh isn't such? I can do a line by line comparison to what you have said and what Limbaugh said that day or a day or two later. You will find that the correspondence is very high. Are you saying that he isn't overweight, or underwent treatment for an addiction to prescription drugs, or was not busted for drug possession? > >> > >> > Believe what you want and screw the > >> evidence. > >> > >> What evidence? Did you pay the $15 to find out if they had any > >> evidence that proves Fox is more biased than al Jazeera? > > > >I did. Because I wanted to see what the rating system was and if it > >was a valid rating system. Also it did not hurt that since I have > had > >articles in other journals published by the same company I got a > small > >discount. I saw how they did their rating and while not perfect, it > >made good empirical sense. The scales appeared to have a high degree > >of face validity. In other words I don't let my biases drive my > >conclusions, I prefer to let the the data dictate. Nor do I let a > >confirmatory bias colour my interactions. > > To pay for a blatantly biased article shows that youâre biased against > Fox and are hoping for confirmation. That's spoon fed crap for you. What evidence was there of bias? you did read the article, I did. You did not examine how they measured bias, I went through the method section very carefully. Given that determination, who is demonstrating bias. You see a certain set of words, and let an automatic heuristic take over, WITHOUT critically examining the evidence. To me that is bias. > > >Frankly Sam you have made it very clear that despite whatever real > >evidence there is, you will dismiss it out of hand because it > >contradicts your prejudices. Such a narrow world view. > > You have such a small view of people that disagree with you. Once you > open your mind and realize people that are different aren't > necessarily evil or stupid you wouldn't need so much antacid. Do not try and put word in my mouth or ascribe motives. You have no clue. I base my conclusions on the evidence. I looked at the research I cited and concluded, based on the evidence, that the rating systems used in several of the studies were more than adequate. I try not to let my biases interfer with these conclusions. Here's an example, in one of the studies they used a panel of observers who were self-identified liberals, conservatives or moderates. They asked the observers to rate the degree of bias on the sample of news reports identified as Fox, CNN or a fictitious news station. The inter rater reliability of the ratings were very high >.90. That means that the liberals, moderates and conservatives agreed far more often than not when they rated something as biased. Unless you're willing to look at the methodology and do a detailed analysis of it, you're just demonstrating your own biases. In other words you're demonstrating the point I was making previously, you're using the Brand of the news station to short circuit your critical thinking skills and to leap to a predetermined conclusion. To me that's bias. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;192386516;25150098;k Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:260235 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
