Remember, y’all, the media is totally liberal.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
MSNBC Personality Pat Buchanan At Conference With White Nationalist
June 22nd, 2009
54 Comments
Remember, y’all, Oliver’s arguments are totally strawman.
Fox commentator Susan Estrich
But Obama having decades-long relationships with Ayers and Wright: that’s immaterial!
This is who they are.
Are you waiting for someone to complete your sentence for you, AO?
http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2009/06/everything-i-know-about-writing-i-learned-from-beatrix-potter.html
Sorry about that messy html. Good article rebutting Buchanan’s asinine arguments.
Remember, y’all, Oliver’s arguments are totally strawman.
Yer mom’s a strawman. Where in that article is a strawman argument?
From the conference that Republican spokesperson Pat Buchanan attended:
“Peter Brimelow, one of the panelists to the event, is the editor of Vdare.com. He has written extensively against immigration and has long advocated that the GOP must “appeal to its base: white Americans.” Brimelow has defended accusations that he writes and publishes white supremacist material by declaring his content to be merely “white nationalist.””
Yer mom’s a strawman. Where in that article is a strawman argument? Duros
The strawman is in the blog title and then the accompanying sentence, “Remember, y’all, the media is totally liberal.”
Something like this:
Conservative truism: The media is comprised mainly of liberals and it is reflected in it’s decidedly biased reporting.
Oliver: Media personality Pat Buchanan attended a conferenece that also featured a white nationalist.
Oliver has linked MSNBC pundit Pat Buchanan to white nationalism and used it to cast doubts to the truism that the media is liberal.
Classic strawman, Duros.
For more obvious examples, see: Reference, News.
But Obama having decades-long relationships with Ayers and Wright: that’s immaterial!
If Obama had recently gone to a conference where he helped Wright and Ayers plot to blow up buildings with white people in them, then you’d have something to compare.
As it is you’re just being stupid.
Oliver has linked MSNBC pundit Pat Buchanan to white nationalism and used it to cast doubts to the truism that the media is liberal.
I don’t see a strawman at all. At least not from Oliver. I don’t believe the media is overwhelmingly liberal, as they continue to prove every day, and the very idea that Pat Buchanan is aligned with a so-called liberal media is laughable.
Laughable is prefacing ‘liberal media’ with ’so-called’, Duros.
Corporate media is overwhelmingly conservative.
MSNBC has a far right Republican politician on for three hours in the morning. And before the got rid of him for dumb racist comments, Imus tilted right on most things (not everything, but on a handful of things he tilted far, far right).
And Republican white nationalist supporter Pat Buchanan (a good ol’ Nixon Republican) is a regular feature on MSNBC and has a permanent seat on fellow Nixon Republican McLaughlin’s PBS show (where despite Buchanan’s extreme right wing beliefs he still comes off more sane than some of the lunatic right wing extremists Nixon Republican McLaughlin brings on his PBS McLaughlin Group show).
Duros, again, for a refresher course on strawman arguments, see previous post to this one. Also, see all previous posts by said poster.
Judith Miller. Charles Krauthammer. Bill Kristol. George Will. David Brooks.
Liberal media my ass.
Republican John McCain had the full “Face the Nation” CBS show Sunday. Again.
Even the increasingly neo-conservative Washington Post dropped it’s best liberal blogger even while it kept a long lineup of far right wing opinion writers and even discredited right wing neo-conservative writers.
The “media” is overwhelmingly right wing.
Laughable is mentioning “liberal media” and MSNBC pundit Pat Buchanan” in the same breath.
Jaim,
As long as you are on a roll why not make out the whole list for both sides?
Isn’t it fascinating that Republican White Nationalist supporter Pat Buchanan has a prominent position on both MSNBC and PBS?
Our right wing corporate media is not only Proud of itself, it’s White Proud of itself.
One of my proudest moments in politics was the time I debated some Pat Buchanan supporters in Manchester, New Hampshire in 1992.
It ended with them kindly offering to throw me through a plate glass window.
Buchanan is a genius. He has mastered the art of running right up to the line of flagrant anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism and drawing up short. This way he can plausibly deny being one of those, while his supporters can say “Pat’s really with us, he just can’t quite come out and say it because of the Jews and the commie libs.”
Buchanan ran for president on Ross Perot’s Reform Party’s ticket in 2000, rejecting the Republican Party that had never embraced him. And he stayed out of it for about five years.
Buchanan is an asshole, and a polarizing one. He’s also a very dynamic speaker. So he’s a favorite “go-to” Paleocon when the media wants to feature someone who thrills a very small segment of the Right, and gives the Left a chance to paint all conservatives as Buchananites.
J. (Proud self-appointed, very, very insignificant member of what Buchanan derides as Israel’s “amen corner”)
Good call, Jay Tea. That pretty much sums up why he’s a regular on MSNBC. Intelligent, rich and experienced background, controversial, edgy, somewhat likable demeanor to the commentators and guests he speaks with, and as you said, pushes the envelope to please various factions on the Right, yet serves as a punching bag for those on Left who need someone like him to prove the media isn’t liberal by portraying him as representative of the general conservative viewpoint.
matt621, if you’re going to site logical fallacies best to do a little studying and make sure that you use them correctly. Oliver isn’t setting up an imaginary target of attack that can easily and disingenuously be torn down.
Still, from the comments that you’ve written here I’d really encourage you to do a little reading about logical fallacies.
site=cite
Michael, what logical fallacy is portrayed here, then?
Pat Buchanan just allowed a controversial white nationalist to speak at a conference he was hosting. Pat Buchanan is an MSNBC personality. Therefore, the media is not liberal.
Seems to me there are at least a few fallacies you could cite, but I’m confused as to how you could rule out the straw man.
If Barack Obama gave a speech that the whole nation was aware of, and he pointed to Pat Buchanan and his conference and mentioned the controversial person Buchanan had allowed to speak there, and then used it as an example to prove that the media wasn’t liberal, nor in the tank for him, you can bet your bottom dollar people would be calling that a straw man argument.
Conservatives aren’t saying that people like Buchanan don’t appear in the media frequently. Holding up a controversial but weak example of how the media is not liberal seems like you’ve just set up a straw man to knock down that notion, but if another argument applies, I’d be interested to know what it was.
I don’t know how this helps, but, first of all. no one with any sense says “The Media is liberal” and by that , means that everyone involved in the Media has a left wing ideology. Some of you have been taken in by Oliver’s deceptive writing.
Remember, y’all, the media is totally liberal.
Of course, the Media is not “totally” liberal, if you mean there are no conservatives in the Media. In fact, liberals are fond of – nay, obsessed with – calling FOX News “conservative”, as if there are never any liberals on that station. Left wing zealots like “News” “Reference” try to convince us that at least 10 people I would call liberal are actually conservative.
Both of these tactics illustrate that 1) The editorial policies of most of the mainstream media is liberal /leftist in ideology; 2) Surveys of journalists disclose that more than 90% of them vote Democratic in Presidential Elections; 3)Research into story choice and word usage consistently demonstrate that Democrats and liberals are treated favorably, while Republicans and conservatives are treated unfairly. Public Broadcasting bristles with liberal themed programs starring liberals and about liberals. Even liberals don’t deny that National Public Radio is “all liberals, all the time.”
And yet, in the face of all this documented evidence, One can’t find more than two dozen conservatives named in this entire thread that are conservative luminaries in the journalistic world (discounting conservative commentators, of course). Even that doesn’t convince liberals that liberal bias exists.
Why?
I believe that either one of two situations provide the answer:
1) Many liberals believe that what most people perceive as “liberal” is actually mainstream – meaning that “most people” think as they do. That being the case, their core beliefs can be seen as “middle of the road”, conservative beliefs as “far right” or “extreme”, and only extreme, marginal leftist views are seen as liberal.
2) The mere presence of conservatives in programming is an indicator that the medium in question is not “liberal”. That’s the tactic being employed by Oliver to introduce this thread.
That both of these usages are deceptive is true. Do they constitute “logical fallacies”? Probably not. They are just lies, told by liberals to convince themselves that they are once again, doing the correct thing.
As if 90% is an indication of anything. I think I feel a tingle going up my leg.
When people cite nonsense statistics without backing sometimes the easiest thing to do is return the favor.
96% of all corporate media is run by Republicans.
Prove me wrong.
65% of all statistics are made up!
It’s true!
Prove yourself right, news reference. Corporate media is still faced with the dilemma of selling their product, and they’re finding more and more the public is wary of them getting liberally biased news forced down their throats all the time, and that’s why they’re struggling. That’s why MSNBC sucks the big one and people go to Fox. Even liberals now are starting to complain about all the conservative-bashing at MSNBC. Keith Olbermann has to plead to the restless Daily Kossacks who are bored with his nightly O’Reilly fetish, that if they don’t continue to support him, he’ll be replaced by a Rick Santelli. Replies? ‘Don’t worry, Keith. We’ve got your back, too.’
That, more than anything else, is why you see conservatives like Buchanan on MSNBC as often as you do. Liberal bias in the news is making them dinosaurs, and they have to adjust. Even if it hurts.
Duros and “News” “Reference” : I’ve heard figures as high as 94% for the journalists voting Democratic in Presidential Elections. I was being … wait for it … conservative .
Heh.
When I am incorrect, I will say so…
In 1976, Carter received 81% of the vote of Journalists.
The 94% figure comes from the Goldwater – Johnson election of 1964.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
Yeah, yeah, I know – It’s MRC … I suggest you look up Lichter and Rothman
You will find the survey all over the ‘net.
In addition to Dennis’ salient point, what makes you think all the people in corporations and their respective boards, are conservative politically?
Oh this is a pretty clear case of “Guilt By Association” which I agree one shouldn’t construct an argument with it. See: Ayers, William and the conservative machine, yourself included Dennis.
Not sure which one is used the most on here, but guilt by association is certainly pretty popular. As is the ad hominem and the tu quoque. Two overly verbose posters in particular here probably average around 6-7 of those per post.
“Corporate media is still faced wit the dilemma of selling their product, and they’re finding more and more the public is wary of them getting liberally biased news forced down their throat all the time, and that’s why they’re struggling.”
From this sentence, you believe that the Fox “News” Channel is either a. not an example of “corporate media” or b. liberally biased. Neither answer passes the straight-face test.
“Even liberals are starting to complain about all the conservative-bashing at MSNBC.”
Too bad conservatives aren’t complaining about all the liberal-bashing at the F(R)NC.
I think you’re somewhat mistaking ad hominem as a rhetorical tool and the actual logical fallacy. Calling someone a dumbass isn’t necessarily a logical fallacy, saying because you’re a dumbass that makes your point wrong is. Still, my original point stands: If you wanna seem smart by naming logical fallacies, it’s best to get them right.
LOL,
Guilt by association gains more credence the longer the association exists. However saying because you’re a dumb ass it makes it more probable that your point is wrong is not a logical fallacy.
An example of ad hominem would be Obama calling the bondholders who were muscled out of thier money in favor of the UAW speculators. An attack on the man not the arguement trying to change to subject.
the UAW speculators
Waaa?!? Speculators? You mean the “speculators” who invested year after year of their work building the product in return for the promise of a pension?
Good heavens, AO, that’s an egregious redefinition, even by your standards.
Shorter AO: I’ve never met a logical fallacy I didn’t like.
An example of ad hominem would be Obama calling the bondholders who were muscled out of thier money in favor of the UAW speculators.
Trying to parse that sentence gave me a headache. Next time read your comment in the new preview and add some punctuation like:
An example of ad hominem would be Obama calling the bondholders, who were muscled out of thier money in favor of the UAW, speculators.
Good catch, Michael. But do you mind if I take a stab at it?
An example of “ad hominem” would be the Obama administration calling Chrysler shareholders, who were muscled out of their money in favor of the UAW, “terrorists.”
I guess that makes the Chrysler bailout an official “man-caused disaster…”
J.
Buchanan ran for president on Ross Perot’s Reform Party’s ticket in 2000, rejecting the Republican Party that had never embraced him.
Yup. The Republican Party never embraced Buchanan. Nixon and Reagan did, but not the Republican Party. Check.
While i don’t know about all these fancy, elitist sounding things like “logical fallacies” and “strawman” arguments, i do know one thing: The conservative trolls here are always just flat out fucking wrong.
Right Jay, you’re either with us or against us, economically speaking.. Maybe Obama is just like Bush.
And I’m pretty sure the only group muscled out was bondholders, not shareholders (whose investment truly had no value).
/nitpick
Right winger “Frank DiSalle”, recognizing that the extreme right wing fiction writers at the MediaResearch.org (Media Research Center) won’t be considered credible, cites the even farther right wing extremist fiction magazine CommentaryMagazine.com to back up his fictional numbers.
This is the same “Frank DiSalle” that thinks that the observable evidence of global climate change is “bilge water” and thinks the sun turns off 12 hours a day.
Suggesting otherwise are just more example’s of ‘liberal bias’.
Right winger “Frank DiSalle’s” evidence includes things like “I’ve heard figures as high as”…
… well, ‘I’ve heard’ figures as high as 97% of corporate media owners and executives vote Republican. And I’m being conservative about that number because if you add up the extent of the media those right wing media owners it means that 99.7% of media in America is run by right wingers who vote Republican.
Now it’s your responsibility to prove me wrong.
See how right wing (il)logic works?
After all, liberal bias is clearly illustrated by the use of “facts” and “evidence” and “science”.
Using “facts” and “evidence” and “science” mean you are liberal.
Shorter news reference:
“I can’t dazzle them with brilliance, so I’ll just try to baffle them with bullshit.”
news reference’s stock in trade: argumentum vebosium
[corrected]
if you add up the extent of the media those right wing media owners own it means that 99.7% of media in America is run by right wingers who vote Republican.
Now it’s your responsibility to prove me wrong.
*******
Also, the book that right winger “Frank DiSalle” is referencing is the fictional work called “The Media Elite: America’s New Powerbrokers.”
Assuming Wikipedia is correct (an assumption I never make) The dated 1986 book apparently decided that unless a journalist said that they thought that homosexuality was “wrong” that journalist was labeled as “liberal”. It also labeled anyone that didn’t support nuclear energy “liberal”.
By those standards, Republican Cheney is a liberal (after eight long years of Cheney’s cowardice rejecting his lesbian daughter when his voice could have counted he’s now decided to come out and support his daughter lesbianism).
And Democratic President Obama is a conservative (he’s pro-nuclear energy and has a shoddy gay rights record).
Michael Over Here: “I think you’re somewhat mistaking ad hominem as a rhetorical tool and the actual logical fallacy. Calling someone a dumbass isn’t necessarily a logical fallacy, saying because you’re a dumbass that makes your point wrong is.”
No, MOH, I was referring to this particular overly verbose poster in question’s penchant for the ad hominem to dispel any point ever made. Of course he uses the the ad hom as a rhetorical tool by calling the person making the point a name, that is a given with him. Such as “Extreme right-wing neocon Jew Michael “Savage” Weiner….”, or “Right-winger Dennis”…, or “Extreme right-winger and rape apologist AO”….”
But then just after the his pre-requisite and obligatory rhetorical ad hominem, he always goes right into a purposely long diatribe laced with obscure and mainly fallacious tidbits and ad hominems from the distant past that has nothing at all to do with the point being made, nor with his point, to discredit the original point.
He, and another overly verbose poster just like him, are the two I was referring to who make ample use of the guilt-by-association, ad hominem and tu quoque fallacies on nearly every post they make.
Day-um, “News” “Observer”, you are full of it!
Amazing!
“News” “Reference” : You can stop with the lie that I believe the sun only shines 12 hours a day.
Just tell me somewhere on earth where the sun shines unremittingly for more than 12 hours day, besides the North Pole ?
Any time in the future you tell a lie about me I will take the time to correct you — until everyone knows what I know: That you are a bloviating a buffoon, a bottomless pit of lies and distorted data. Try reading that website you are linked to .
Frank, seriously, even the liberals here are quite aware that he is a bloviating buffoon and a bottomless pit of lies and distorted data.
Notice how none of them takes the time to comment on anything he says, even though he sucks up to them shamelessly for approval? Guilt-by-association wouldn’t be a logical fallacy in that instance, it would be an irrefutable indictment that they are just as bad.
“Argumentum News Referendium”: Presenting fallacious and highly opinionated, distorted data from dubious sources in an overly-verbose, bloviating manner, and passing it off as accurate and irrefutable, all the while calling oneself a reference for the news, in order to argue against the prevailing wisdom.
I’ve heard figures as high as 94% for the journalists voting Democratic in Presidential Elections.
So?
Yeah, yeah, I know – It’s MRC … I suggest you look up Lichter and Rothman
Really don’t care that much, but thanks.
An example of “ad hominem” would be the Obama administration calling Chrysler shareholders, who were muscled out of their money in favor of the UAW, “terrorists.”
Wow, when did that happen?
Just tell me somewhere on earth where the sun shines unremittingly for more than 12 hours day, besides the North Pole?
Norway, parts of Sweden, Finland, Russia, Alaska, Iceland, and Chile, to name a few.
Duros: “unremittingly” means unremittingly not 6 to 8 hours of twilight.
Right winger “Frank ‘anti-science’ DiSalle” keeps changing the goal posts.
“Frank DiSalle”: “Just tell me somewhere on earth where the sun shines unremittingly for more than 12 hours day, besides the North Pole ?”
you still don’t know what you are talking about “Frank” despite being repeatedly corrected and given ample time to figure this out.
Sunshine is sunrise to sunset.
http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/longestday.htm
And by the way, “Frank”, have you repudiated your support for terrorism yet?
OK, “News Reference” : You are nitpicking and deliberately being obtuse, but I will play along.
As one leaves the Tropic of Cancer going north, or the Tropic of Capricorn, going south, the period during which the Sun is visible in the sky will last more than 12 hours. BUT …
Is there sufficient daylight, for example, to activate a solar cell?
And, is it not true that even in the Land of the Midnight Sun it is dark for a short time at night, no matter what day of the year it is?
My point that the sun does not “shine” all day is correct, and my point that this means that the Sun is not the most efficient form of energy, unless and until the problems of transportability and storage are both solved, is also correct.
The floggings will continue until morale is improved. And in view of the fact that I never supported terrorism, I ask you: Have you abandoned the delusion that I support terrorism yet?
And, further, have you discovered that you do not define the American political landscape correctly, either in here, or anywhere?