Where have I heard that before?……

Yeah. You’re off. You are going overboard on minutiae. You may have some point but I don’t know what it is. Mine was that I don’t expect my study PROVES anything but my POV (due to it being based on my assumptions – ie, we would not agree on what constittues bias).

Dugger

It would be nice if you checked your sources once in while.

You quote a blog that asserts Hugh Hewitt said Sy Hersh  fabricated his New Yorker story. The assertion from the  first draft blog is hearsay without a source, but by your standards say,  LET S RUN WITH IT!

Makes some sense, since this is exactly what Hewitt believes Hersh may have done!

Oliver, words mean things. Hewitt said Hersh “could have” fabricated his story, and he backs it up with some historical, anecdotal fact.

Which is far, far more than you have done.

Here s the Hardball transcript link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12268709/

Here s the text:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the far more troubling question about Sy Hersh s piece in  The New Yorker, somewhat parallel to the piece in

I think it was in  The Washington Post yesterday that we re developing a strike option for Iran, including the nuclear.

HEWITT: It was very interesting. Seymour Hersh gets it right about 50 percent of the time. I did not hear a single name. He could have completely fabricated that.

MATTHEWS: Why did he make it up?

HEWITT: Because it s a heck of a story. It sells a lot of magazines.

MATTHEWS: Sy Hersh is a credible reporter.

HEWITT: Half the time he gets it right. Half the time he goes on to stuff that will never see the light of day. And when you asked him you pressed him, who is the name here? And he said,  Well, George W. Bush. Give me one name and I ll believe it, Chris. And until I get one name in the Pentagon, I m not going to.

Hewitt criticizes Hersh for running stories with ZERO CREDIBLE SOURCES. You’ve followed Hersh s lead by citing a report with NO CREDIBLE SOURCE to back it up, as a criticism of Hewitt.

Oliver, you as full of crap as you are transparent.

This explains much.

So it holds that this must be true of all studies of media bias, natch.

You are off today. I just said my own study, which is more than a feeling, was reflective of my own biases.

mjb,

No its coherent, if you pay attention. Re the MSM, you said that I had, in effect, nothing but a feeling. I said no, I had done a study – a quantitative study – hence, more than a feeling. And that the value of that study in an argument/discussion like this is limited because we would not agree on the fundamental premise of what constitues bias.

You didn’t offend me at all. I have snippets of time to post and do quick Googles and don’t save my work – when its part of an ongoing discussion. (one of the reasons that my typing is so crappy). My opinion is that if you want to do an honest assesment of the reliability of Hersh, as opposed to having your own opinions and biases reinforced, you will find he’s (regarded as) unreliable. I tried to show that people of opposite-my- political-persuasion think so – to make a better case.

Dugger

Its about two years old (maybe a little more) and has not been updated to reflect thing like Howell Raines having left the NYT which would/did make them a little less liberal. Maybe when I get it updated but I again say we would not agree on what constitutes bias. I say CNN, for instance, is moderately liberal. Most progressives think they are right of center. Too much of a gap.

Dugger

You are off today. I just said my own study, which is more than a feeling, was reflective of my own biases.

You did? Where? Here?

But that study asserts my findings predicated on my assumptions.

“Asserts my findings predicated on my assumptions” is a rather neutral statement. Any study is going to be “predicated on assumptions” which will be spelled out in the study’s methodology.

 Reflecting ideals and beliefs doesn’t have quite the same connotation, does it? In this phrasing, the “ideals and beliefs” seem to come first, before the findings.

Somebody’s off. Ain’t me.

And sorry to offend you with a request for a link. My bad. But since it’s from NR, would I be too cynical to think that maybe you didn’t want it revealed at least initially that your source was a winger source, rather than something more respectable? Nah, I’m just too cynical.

It’s strongest argument that Hersh can’t be trusted? Apparently he has admitted that he’s made mistakes in the past.

Keep following that gut Dugger. Follow the Gut.

I did a quantitative study.

I see.

Some studies are just…how did that go?….ah, yes, “reflecting ideals and beliefs.” Others seem to be more reliable.

How does that work, exactly?

Sorry, you used quotes so you got it from somewhere. It’d be helpful if you showed me where you got it. Or you can pull a pedro and not really address it anymore once you clouded the issue enough.

one more thing,

“mainstream media (which I understand is biased, but do you?)”

I actually understand and can point to facts which meet objective standards which show how the msm is biased, you have nothing but a feeling. You know that, but I don’t want to have this argument again.

On media. More than a feeling. I did a quantitative study. But that study asserts my findings predicated on my assumptions. As I have always said, at onset, you and I would disagree about what constitutes bias. And no offense again, but I doubt there are facts that indicate bias by the MSM (my side or yours) – they would have to be facts that support a judgment of bias.

On Hersh, just cut and paste the quote in the search bar if thats what you want. I did a quick Google just to show you there’s a lot out there on Hersh. Don’t try to pretend that a quick Google makes a conclusive case – you have to decide that for yourself. I did. I know from personal experince he was 100% wrong on the AC-130s (which he belatedly admitted) and had read much more.

Dugger, My telling you or giving you Dugger-select sources won’t convince. An open mind will.