The media is biased? Prove it in real time!

[Sundog]

.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Sundog


This is obviously biased reporting. If you can't agree, you should probably not take part in the experiment.

Let's see this famous "liberal bias" I am never quick enough to catch anywhere. :D

I'm not saying if I agree or not, but your definition of bias (i.e., whatever Sundog sees as biased, or you can excuse yourself from the debate) makes it clear that no evidence against your preconceived notion of conservative bias will be allowed to see the light of day.

It also explains how you don't see any liberal bias in the media.

I'm sure Pat Buchanan could make the same argument to the contrary, using your exact words.

[Tmy]

What type of bias are we looking for? Libral, Conservative, Patriotic, East Coast, Racial, Isreali, Arab, New York Yankees, you name it and its a bias. What am I looking for.

Sundog, don't you think if we are going to cite examples that we should provide links? Do you have one to the Fox news story?

I can provide an example of media bias. And it was provided by AUP in another topic just yesterday.

Camp X-Ray is Brutal. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12881024&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=CHILDREN%20HELD%20AT%20CAMP%20X%2DRAY)

Their choice of adjectives like "brutal" shows bias.

And:
Inmates are bound and gagged in suffocating orange boiler suits and have not been charged with any offences or allowed access to legal advice.

"Suffocating orange boiler suits?" Why isn't anyone doing anything to prevent the inhumane garb of maintenance men everywhere?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
I'll start things off with a news article I saw on Fox yesterday regarding French comments on the postwar situation. The graphic at the bottom of the report said throughout, "FRENCH WHINE?"

This is obviously biased reporting. If you can't agree, you should probably not take part in the experiment. It sounds interesting and I would be willing to contribute. However, are there going to be any rules. I didn't see the graphic you mentioned so I have no context to judge it. I would agree that it appears biased but without context I don't know how to decide.

Was it part of the news or was it part of some commentary?

Can I wait until it is too late to verify something before I mention it? CNN had a graphic saying "Bush seeks to kill Iraqi children?" Would you agree that such a graphic is biased? (just an example)

Would you be willing to write Fox to get their opinion and response and perhaps provide the necessary background so as to make a decision.

If you can't agree, you should probably not take part in the experiment. The statement seems to beg the question. Does any amount of skepticism disqualify me from the experiment?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by LukeT
Their choice of adjectives like "brutal" shows bias. Saddam had a nasty habit of cutting the ears off of prisoners.

IRAQ - Systematic torture of political prisoners (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CIRAQ?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CIRAQ)

I would think that brutal would be reserved for such behavior.

bru·tal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (brtl)
adj.
1. Extremely ruthless or cruel.
2. Crude or unfeeling in manner or speech.
3. Harsh; unrelenting: a brutal winter in the Arctic.
4. Disagreeably precise or penetrating: spoke with brutal honesty

In light of the definition and the fact that the prisoners recieved health care, food (adhering to religious requirements), shelter, prayer rugs (towels), access to Red Cross (facility on base), prayers over loud speakers etc., then I think the word was used for rhetorical purposes.

Yes Luke, I think you scored.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
As much as I believe in your sense of honor I have a GREAT deal of trouble believing you actually saw such a graphic. I would indeed agree that it was biased, if true. I have trouble believing it because I have NEVER seen anything approaching that. Hey Sundog,

It was a hypothetical. How can we judge the "french whine" graphic without having seen it?

Originally posted by Sundog


I accept this, though I don't really think it's a very good example. Do you honestly think "brutal" is too tough a word for conditions at camp X-ray? Would it be bias if you said it about conditions in a maximum-security prison elsewhere? Not in my opinion.

I agree that loaded words like "suffocating" are good evidence.

And this is where your topic can veer wildly off topic. Someone will want to argue about one particular news item. You and others might think Camp X-Ray is brutal, while I and others won't, and the next thing you know, we are talking about Camp X-Ray instead of media bias. :)

In your OP, you said:


Please leave out anything clearly marked as opinion or editorial content. We are watching for ACTUAL, VERIFIABLE evidence of bias in basic reporting.

Then you mentioned a Fox "news article." I assumed "article" meant print media. And how can it be VERIFIABLE if you saw it on TV?

If there was a banner that said "French Whine" as you say, I agree that is biased.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
I accept this, though I don't really think it's a very good example. Do you honestly think "brutal" is too tough a word for conditions at camp X-ray? Considering the definition, yes it is too tough a word.

Would it be bias if you said it about conditions in a maximum-security prison elsewhere? Not in my opinion. All prisoners are constitutionally guaranteed that penal institution not deliberately treat inmates in a "cruel or unusual" manner. Unfortunately it is not possible that inmates be free from cruel treatment given that prisoners are "cruel" to each other.

If such behavior could be stopped then I would say that the word "cruel" would be quite inappropriate for a maximum security prison.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
You don't think definition 3 is a fair description of life at X-ray? Seems spot-on to me. Definition 3 suffers from relative distinctions. What is harsh? It certainly is unrelenting. I don't at all believe that was what was meant by the use of the word. In any event I don't think the average person would define "jail" as brutal. I think the average person would use words like torture and dehumanizing as "brutal". Cutting the ears of prisoners is brutal. Giving them lucky charms and a prayer blanket are not. I think those that used this word knew this and they used the word in a rhetorical manner.

I don't know if this is a form of bias in the media or not, but I groan everytime a "serious" news piece starts out like a some kind of prosy novel.

Example:

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The last Marine on watch rustled his buddies awake about an hour before the sun popped over the brown brick buildings around them.

Like they do almost every morning since the war began, they silently packed their bedrolls and donned their gear in the dark according to the age-old military tradition of "stand-to."

Sunday morning, however, stand-to was different.

Can you tell what the news piece is about yet? Whatever happened to explaining who, what, where, when and why in the first paragraph?

The story continues:

Not only was it Easter, but it would be their last morning in Baghdad.

After blasting their way into Baghdad nearly two weeks ago, U.S. Marines began quietly pulling out of Baghdad Sunday night, leaving the capital city to units from the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division.

The departing units, parts of the 1st Marine Regimental Combat Team, are heading south to the town of Al Hillah for what commanders say will be more security operations in the countryside, but which most Marines say they believe is the first leg of their trip home.

"It's in the right direction at least," Staff Sgt. Roy Whitener said as he waited for his company commander to brief him and other leaders on the impending journey south. "I'm ready to get out of here."

And it goes on and on. I used this as an example because it has a pro-troop, gung-ho America slant to it, and I am a gung-ho, pro-troop American and want to say that doesn't mean I want that kind of reporting.

I see examples of this kind of lousy reporting more and more. It leaves the field wide open for bias. Just give me the facts. Objective facts. Something simple like, "Such-and-such battalion is leaving Iraq today..."

Got the above story from here. (http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2003/04/22/build/war/30-marines.inc)

The use of adjectives gives away someone's bias. Look at the debate we are having over the word "brutal." The story would have been more objective without it.

Reporters need to be more careful with adjectives.

[Lurker]

I just went to Foxnews website and saw the poll they currently are running. I saw the wording as biased:


Helpful or Harmful?

Do you support the president's tax-cut plan?

Yes, it's good for the economy.

No, it's too large.

Not sure


-----
"Yes, it's good for the economy"? Kind of leading, isn't that? What if I wanted to vote yes for a different reason? Here we have a yes response with a positive descriptor. What purpose except to influence the pollee to choose it? Or they could have "No, it is bad for the economy". "it's too large" seems somewhat neutral in tone compared to "it's good for the economy."

Lurker

Odd.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
The word is used colloquially all the time in the sense of "the heat is brutal", is it not? "A brutal winter"; "A brutal thunderstorm". How often is it intended to convey definition one? Only part of the time. But what was the reason for using the word brutal and what is likely to be conveyed when it is used when those who use it are complaining of the abuse of rights and in conjunction with prisoners. Whey you hear of "brutal" treatement of prisones what comes to your mind?

I don't like the "brutal" argument, but I do like the "suffocating" one.

And let me make clear, though it's my thread, I'm not the one doing any judging here. We all will. Fair enough, because of the high likelyhood of the word 'brutal" conveying a message of "ruthless or cruel then I do like the "brutal" argument.

Originally posted by Lurker
I just went to Foxnews website and saw the poll they currently are running. I saw the wording as biased:


Helpful or Harmful?

Do you support the president's tax-cut plan?

Yes, it's good for the economy.

No, it's too large.

Not sure


-----
"Yes, it's good for the economy"? Kind of leading, isn't that? What if I wanted to vote yes for a different reason? Here we have a yes response with a positive descriptor. What purpose except to influence the pollee to choose it? Or they could have "No, it is bad for the economy". "it's too large" seems somewhat neutral in tone compared to "it's good for the economy."

Lurker

Odd.

I agree. The question should have simply given "yes," "no" or "not sure" as the choices for answer.

Sometimes the wording of the question itself can be leading or done badly.

Do you have a link to the poll, lurker? I would love to see if they have a question, "Do you know what the President's plan is for a tax-cut?"

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Lurker
"Yes, it's good for the economy"? Kind of leading, isn't that? What if I wanted to vote yes for a different reason? Here we have a yes response with a positive descriptor. What purpose except to influence the pollee to choose it? Or they could have "No, it is bad for the economy". "it's too large" seems somewhat neutral in tone compared to "it's good for the economy." You have a valid point. I'm curious though, assuming that there is a bias is it more likely to be an example of a subconcious bias or a deliberate bias on the part of the person who wrote the poll?

[Lurker]

The poll I quoted was on the www.foxnews.com website. On the right side, down a bit.

I have no idea whether it was subconscious or deliberate. My opinion is the person writing the poll would have checked the first box.

Lurker

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Sundog
... snip
I'll start things off with a news article I saw on Fox yesterday regarding French comments on the postwar situation. The graphic at the bottom of the report said throughout, "FRENCH WHINE?"

This is obviously biased reporting. If you can't agree, you should probably not take part in the experiment.

Let's see this famous "liberal bias" I am never quick enough to catch anywhere. :D

The problem we face here, is the liberal media takes it's views so seriously, we would never see anything so blatant, as this Fox attempt at humor..

I'll keep looking though....

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
And observe the result. Watch how much of the time the result is 92% one way and 8 the other. I would argue that that might be evidence of simple pandering to one point of view. I read somewhere that most people on the net are conservative. I don't know if that is true but I am sure that a majority of Fox news visitors lean to the right.

www.vote.com is similar. I stopped going there along time ago because I felt the results were far from a true picture of what people think.

I don't know if the wording is the reason for such extreme results but it certainly could have an effect.

I would say that such polls from any source are circumspect.

[Tmy]

FoxNews is such an easy target. I found this:

"Homicide Bomber Kills One in Israel"


On most other news pages you'll find the same story accept they will use the term "Sucide" Bomber. Sucide bomber has been the common term for years, lately you get this awkward "Homicide Bomber" which is used by many on the left in a weird PC-ish post 911- don't sugarcoat with the word "suicide" since its "homicide" which = murder- reverse PCish semantics.

Originally posted by Tmy
FoxNews is such an easy target. I found this:

"Homicide Bomber Kills One in Israel"


On most other news pages you'll find the same story accept they will use the term "Sucide" Bomber. Sucide bomber has been the common term for years, lately you get this awkward "Homicide Bomber" which is used by many on the left in a weird PC-ish post 911- don't sugarcoat with the word "suicide" since its "homicide" which = murder- reverse PCish semantics.

I haven't noticed that, but now I will keep my eyes open for it.

A "homicide bomber" could be someone like the Unibomber couldn't it? The name doesn't convey that the bomber killed himself in the process, just that he killed other people. Interesting.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Sundog
This is an experiment to see what solid evidence of media bias we can come up with on a daily basis.

No old news, no old stories, reports must be from something you PERSONALLY saw within the last 24 hours.

Please leave out anything clearly marked as opinion or editorial content. We are watching for ACTUAL, VERIFIABLE evidence of bias in basic reporting.

It is my hope that we can do this in a spirit of common investigation rather than in an acrimonious spirit.

I'll start things off with a news article I saw on Fox yesterday regarding French comments on the postwar situation. The graphic at the bottom of the report said throughout, "FRENCH WHINE?"

This is obviously biased reporting. If you can't agree, you should probably not take part in the experiment.

Let's see this famous "liberal bias" I am never quick enough to catch anywhere. :D

Well here is one example that you ignored in the fox thread.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020705-793139.htm

And the link that RanFan posted that you also ignored.
http://www.ratherbiased.com/

And some more good examples here.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030410.asp#2

[Baker]

Originally posted by Sundog


It was from the live TV broadcast, there is no link.

Yes, we should provide all the detail possible.

Well we only have your word on it if there is no source to it lets not use it in the debate.

[003998]

That Washington Times article is really an excelent example:

CNN has suffered a series of embarrassing incidents calling into question its news judgment and ability to meet the most basic standards of fairness in reporting on Israel
More of a statement than a report.
If CNN actually follows through on Mr. Jordan's promise, it could be a major step in the right direction.
Is it right direction or direction of the right-wing ?
CNN and other major news organs in the United States consistently portrayed Israel's actions in the most malevolent light possible while ignoring serious misconduct from the Palestinian side
Again no facts, just opinion.
CNN had plenty of company when it came to getting the story wrong
Need I say anything ?
When it came to the print media, The Washington Post seemed to specialize in portraying Israeli actions in Ramallah in the darkest possible light, and Mr. Arafat's behavior in the most bizarrely positive way
"bizarrely". Very objective.

[Baker]

Originally posted by 003998
That Washington Times article is really an excelent example:


More of a statement than a report.

Is it right direction or direction of the right-wing ?

Again no facts, just opinion.

Need I say anything ?

"bizarrely". Very objective.

Just an opinion? There are facts involved in the story you should try looking into them.

[zakur]

Originally posted by Baker
Well we only have your word on it if there is no source to it lets not use it in the debate. FWIW (and although these examples are older than 24 hours), they appear to have used the phrase "French Whine" before:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78961,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78228,00.html

[Baker]

Originally posted by Sundog


It may seem bizarre, but we are trusting one another in this thread, as befits a group of adults who respect each other.

Please read the rules again: nothing older than 24 hours, nothing you haven't witnessed yourself, no opinion or commentary, just hard news stories that you think are presented in a biased manner. We aren't rehashing old accusations of bias here, we're trying to catch the critter in the act.

So, we are supposed to prove liberal bias but only if it is something we read or saw in the last 24 hours how is this going to prove that there is no liberal bias in the Media?

[Baker]

Originally posted by zakur
FWIW (and although these examples are older than 24 hours), they appear to have used the phrase "French Whine" before:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78961,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78228,00.html

Thanks zakur I still don’t see what the complaint is it did appear that they where whining?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by zakur
FWIW (and although these examples are older than 24 hours), they appear to have used the phrase "French Whine" before:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78961,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78228,00.html Well I have been asking for context so thank you. Both examples are from "FOX & Friends". Fox & Friends is commentary. Is commentary and evidence of bias? Or are you just trying to show that the graphic has been used before lending credence to Clancy's account? I have accepted that Clancy was telling the truth when he said that he saw the graphic. What I wanted to know was if the graphic was part of commentary or was a news piece.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Baker, "whining" is quite obviously a loaded word and should not be used by a news organization in reporting a story. If we can't agree at least THAT much, perhaps you should sit the game out. Would it be appropriate for "whining" to be used in commentary?

[RandFan]

Let me make it clear that if "whining" was used in a news story then it would be both inappropriate and evidence of bias IMO.

Of course I have acknowledged that I believe that Fox is biased. I'm most interested in the degree and the comparison to CNN and the networks.

It's not scientific sundog but I do like the thread.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
The story I saw was a news story though, not commentary. But the graphic by Zakur is commentary.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan

It's not scientific sundog but I do like the thread.

Of course it's not but it's a heckuva lot more productive that sitting around saying "Is too!" "Is not!" ;)

[Sundog]

I can prove Fox is biased, right now, beyond argument.

How many obviously right-leaning opinion shows are on Fox?

How many obviously left-leaning opinion shows are on Fox?

Seems to me to settle the basic question of Fox's bias right there.

And in the opinion of my friends on the other side of the aisle, what would you hold up as the most leftward-leaning opinion show on other networks?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Sundog
I can prove Fox is biased, right now, beyond argument.

How many obviously right-leaning opinion shows are on Fox?

How many obviously left-leaning opinion shows are on Fox?

Seems to me to settle the basic question of Fox's bias right there.

And in the opinion of my friends on the other side of the aisle, what would you hold up as the most leftward-leaning opinion show on other networks?

The ABC nightly News CBS evening News And of course CBS's
As far as show's

Just to name a few

Jerry Springer
Late Night with Conan O'Brien
Oprah Winfrey Show
Don Imus

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Baker


The ABC nightly News CBS evening News And of course CBS's
As far as show's

Just to name a few

Jerry Springer
Late Night with Conan O'Brien
Oprah Winfrey Show
Don Imus


We're not talking about mainstream entertainers here. We are specifically talking about news media.

Also, I asked what opinion shows you felt leaned way to the left. The ABC, CBS (and CBS too) nightly news are straight news, unless you are talking about a commentary section or something.

I realize it may be rather boring to some of you to actually sit down and calmly talk about facts. If so, feel free to argue about it in one of the more boisterous threads. I'm content to let this one stay boring as long as it stays on topic.

[Sundog]

I don't know whether to classify this as biased or not. At noon on Fox a reporter was giving an incredulous tour of Tariq Aziz's home, pointing to things like a private elevator as examples of a ludicrously rich lifestyle. (My words, but that was clearly the message.)

In truth, the place looked like some rich person's very nice home. It's not like it was adorned with gold leaf or anything!

Does anyone else think this is rather disingenuous? Ironic, at the very least. Probably LOTS of Fox fans have houses at least that nice.

Biased reporting? Probably not. Propaganda? Absolutely. No true news value whatsoever.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Sundog



We're not talking about mainstream entertainers here. We are specifically talking about news media.

Also, I asked what opinion shows you felt leaned way to the left. The ABC, CBS (and CBS too) nightly news are straight news, unless you are talking about a commentary section or something.

I realize it may be rather boring to some of you to actually sit down and calmly talk about facts. If so, feel free to argue about it in one of the more boisterous threads. I'm content to let this one stay boring as long as it stays on topic.

You asked for most leftward-leaning opinion show on other networks.
Talk shows are opinion shows.
In addition, nightly news shows can be very much tilted to the left as they usually are.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Baker


You asked for most leftward-leaning opinion show on other networks.
Talk shows are opinion shows.
In addition, nightly news shows can be very much tilted to the left as they usually are.

Baker, not to be unkind or anything, but you're not sticking to the point very well.

The question of whether news shows are biased or not is the main subject of this thread. The question I put to you was, what news commentary programs you would stack up on the left as counterexamples to O'Reilly etc. on the right. I apologize if I wasn't clear.

If you'd like to start a thread about what mainstream entertainment shows are biased, it might be interesting, but that's not what THIS thread is about.

Sundog, I'm not sure, but I think I'm "on the other side of the aisle" from you. I would say that Dan Rather is biased to the left. I don't watch CBS news any more, and I rarely did in the past because of that. I won't be able to provide current evidence, either.

I agree that Fox leans heavily to the right.

As for the tour of Aziz' house, I think this is a problem that comes with a 24 hour news source. There is only so much hard news going on in Iraq, so you get infotainment. Too bad they aren't reporting on other hard news events going on in the world, but then most people would probably be bored by it. Sad, but true.

Sort of like this educational forum. The most heavily trafficked section is Banter. :)

[Baker]

Originally posted by Sundog


Baker, not to be unkind or anything, but you're not sticking to the point very well.

The question of whether news shows are biased or not is the main subject of this thread. The question I put to you was, what news commentary programs you would stack up on the left as counterexamples to O'Reilly etc. on the right. I apologize if I wasn't clear.

If you'd like to start a thread about what mainstream entertainment shows are biased, it might be interesting, but that's not what THIS thread is about.

Well O'Reilly is also a talk show some might even claim its an entertainment show also.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Baker


Well O'Reilly is also a talk show some might even claim its an entertainment show also.

Well, I'm being the Nazi here and making the rules. :D

This topic is thin on solid examples of bias. I've provided a couple/few. Anyone else?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by LukeT
This topic is thin on solid examples of bias. I've provided a couple/few. Anyone else?

This may take some time; in fact, it needs to, if it's to be meaningful. Everyone just remember this thread when you see something pertinent.

[corplinx]

Fox has a biased piece on their website:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85199,00.html

The article claims that the earned income tax credit "gives back" to the working poor. In fact, it usually serves as an income redistributor and gives the poor money they didnt pay in taxes to begin with. Its welfare at the IRS level, not a tax credit.

[shecky]

Originally posted by Baker


Well O'Reilly is also a talk show some might even claim its an entertainment show also.

I dunno, I get all of my news from O'Reilly... :D

[Sundog]

Sometimes, bias lies in what stories are covered and what ones aren't. This morning Fox spent 4-5 minutes talking to a guy who has a website dedicated to recalling Michael Moore's Oscar.

What's the problem? The guy admitted at once that he had no chance of success, so it's a non-story from word one; they had no one representing an opposing view; and most troubling of all, the "reporters" treated him as an old friend, asking exactly the "questions" that would allow him to simply spout his agenda for 5 minutes.

Their questions were on the order of "Any chance that this will succeed?" "But this will never work, will it, because you know Hollywood's behind him!" Watch for this one again, it's one of their favorites: Fox loves to trash the left indirectly by trashing Hollywood.

This was a non-story; this was a guy with an obscure website and an obvious agenda, and they treated it like it was some mass uprising. Fox does this all the time, give right-wing groups a chance to simply sell their agenda.

It would STILL be no problem if occasionally you saw them give 5 minutes to someone on the far left. Never happen (I predict). It's nearly ALWAYS someone on the right, or when it's not, the questions are suddenly hostile. Not claiming this as a fact, just something to watch for and see if I'm right.

Oh, and the previous news story had the banner "FRENCH FARCE?"

[Baker]

This whole thread is bias especially the author.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by corplinx
Fox has a biased piece on their website:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85199,00.html

The article claims that the earned income tax credit "gives back" to the working poor. In fact, it usually serves as an income redistributor and gives the poor money they didnt pay in taxes to begin with. Its welfare at the IRS level, not a tax credit.

The actual wording is:

The earned income tax credit, launched in 1975, returns some of the payroll taxes paid by the working poor to encourage them to continue working instead of applying for welfare.
---------
Excuse me if my understanding is incorrect, but the EIC never actually exceeds the amount of taxes paid, does it?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Baker
This whole thread is bias especially the author.

Which detracts attention not at all from the fact that you haven't found any bias to post about.

If all you can do is throw spitballs please don't post on this thread, we're adults here trying to discuss something.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Sundog


Which detracts attention not at all from the fact that you haven't found any bias to post about.

If all you can do is throw spitballs please don't post on this thread, we're adults here trying to discuss something.

You wish to find something within the last 24 hours or has dropped to 2 hours now?
So if nothing can be found in the next 24 hours its proof that there is no bias in the media well except fox of course.:rolleyes:

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Baker


You wish to find something within the last 24 hours or has dropped to 2 hours now?
So if nothing can be found in the next 24 hours its proof that there is no bias in the media well except fox of course.:rolleyes:

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. Either engage with us or go away.

It surprises me not one bit that those who most publicly wrap themselves in the flag are usually utterly unable to take part in a reasonable discussion.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Excuse me if my understanding is incorrect, but the EIC never actually exceeds the amount of taxes paid, does it?

National Tax Payers Union (http://www.ntu.org/features/commentary/OPED0301bischoff.php3)

As things currently stand, a married couple with two young children must earn more than $32,150 to owe the IRS. A single parent with one young child must earn over $19,100.

In fact, many low-income individuals are actually entitled to receive free government money in the form of “tax refunds.” Why? Because they can still collect child credits and earned income credits even after their federal income tax bills have been completely zeroed out. So they don’t just owe nothing. The government owes them (negative income tax, if you will). The point is, you simply cannot cut income taxes for individuals who owe nothing or less than nothing. Sorry about that. This isn’t a matter of fairness. It’s a matter of mathematics!

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan


National Tax Payers Union (http://www.ntu.org/features/commentary/OPED0301bischoff.php3)



Thank you RandFan, I stand corrected.

Does anyone else agree that this is left-wing bias? Given the source, I think it's probably not intentional.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Sundog


Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. Either engage with us or go away.

It surprises me not one bit that those who most publicly wrap themselves in the flag are usually utterly unable to take part in a reasonable discussion.

No one is going to play your game here because you have to approve that it is liberal bias or left bias.
That’s like John Edward using a fellow medium to help him explain that he can communicate with the dead.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
It would STILL be no problem if occasionally you saw them give 5 minutes to someone on the far left. Never happen (I predict). It's nearly ALWAYS someone on the right, or when it's not, the questions are suddenly hostile. Not claiming this as a fact, just something to watch for and see if I'm right. I don't think that is true at all. I have seen lot's of people from the left including reps from ELF, NOW, democrat legeslators and other liberal organizations.

And I have found that in the past Sunday Morning talk shows and other such shows on the networks had more left leaning commentators than right. I used to have a habbit of counting them. I haven't watched the Sunday shows in awile but I really don't think that you are right on this one.

[DavidJames]

Sundog - Very good thread and I think the (lack of substantial) results speak volumes about the actual media bias versus the perceived bias. Of course, that won't stop them :)

Regarding the EIC, I think picking apart the wording to determine bias is kinda like the bible codes. If you look hard enough you will be able to find whatever it is you are looking for.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Baker


No one is going to play your game here because you have to approve that it is liberal bias or left bias.
That’s like John Edward using a fellow medium to help him explain that he can communicate with the dead.

Actually, you're the only one who seems to have a problem with it.

It's perfectly fair. I'm not sure what's interfering with your comprehension here but I am not the judge here. We are all judging each sighting equally. Do you get it yet?

Please stop derailing my thread, and please stop it right now.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
I haven't watched the Sunday shows in awile but I really don't think that you are right on this one.

Quite possible! That's why I don't claim it as a fact. Now we can watch for such things.

Keep in mind, speaking of Sunday shows, I'm not talking about talking-head type shows. I'm talking about such coverage during the straight news.

[Sundog]

It's too early yet to crow that the famous Liberal Bias has so far failed to manifest itself, but I'm going to do so anyway just as motivation. :D ;)

[Lurker]

Originally posted by RandFan
Let me make it clear that if "whining" was used in a news story then it would be both inappropriate and evidence of bias IMO.

Of course I have acknowledged that I believe that Fox is biased. I'm most interested in the degree and the comparison to CNN and the networks.

It's not scientific sundog but I do like the thread.

Degree and comparison are at this website. Yes, it is not a comprehensive study but it seems to be the best we have.

http://www.fair.org/reports/fox-cnn-guest-list.html

And we can ignore study bias by ignoring all but Dems and Repubs and still FoxNews has on many more Republicans than Democrats.

Lurker

[Baker]

Originally posted by Lurker


Degree and comparison are at this website. Yes, it is not a comprehensive study but it seems to be the best we have.

http://www.fair.org/reports/fox-cnn-guest-list.html

And we can ignore study bias by ignoring all but Dems and Repubs and still FoxNews has on many more Republicans than Democrats.

Lurker

Most if not all of the other networks or mainly Democrats.
Is Fox News the only channel you get unless you are being forced to watch it you can always turn the channel.
This is another of media bias.


http://www.ratherbiased.com/
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030410.asp#2

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Baker


Most if not all of the other networks or mainly Democrats.
Is Fox News the only channel you get unless you are being forced to watch it you can always turn the channel.
This is another of media bias.


http://www.ratherbiased.com/
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030410.asp#2


Enough unsubstantiated argument please, stick to the topic or stop posting on this thread.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Sundog



Enough unsubstantiated argument please, stick to the topic or stop posting on this thread.

I was replying to Lurker who first went off the topic.
Can you prove my argument is unsubstantiated?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Baker


I was replying to Lurker who first went off the topic.
Can you prove my argument is unsubstantiated?


Lurker's post was not off-topic, but exactly ON-topic. We were discussing the proportions of guests by political inclination and he provided a link to a site with this information.

Of course I can prove your "argument" is unsubstantiated. You didn't provide any evidence for your statements. That happens to be the definition of "unsubstantiated". Simply making wild statements isn't an "argument" of any sort. Your "love it or leave it" argument about Fox is also out of place here.

This is your last opportunity to stop trolling in my thread before I seek moderator intervention.

[RichardR]

You may wish to check out Spinsanity: (http://www.spinsanity.org/)

Spinsanity, the nation's leading watchdog of manipulative political rhetoric, was founded in January 2001 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan and publicly launched in April 2001. We work to counter the increasing dominance of techniques of deception and irrationality in American politics by identifying and dissecting outrageous and important examples of this rhetoric in daily posts and longer columns that appear roughly once per week.They seem pretty even-handed in how they evaluate biased reporting in the US media.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RichardR
You may wish to check out Spinsanity: (http://www.spinsanity.org/)

They seem pretty even-handed in how they evaluate biased reporting in the US media.

Thanks, I will do so!

[Incitatus]

well, the NYT said this

A NATION AT WAR: STRATEGIC SHIFT; PENTAGON EXPECTS LONG-TERM ACCESS TO KEY IRAQ BASES

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0811F9395E0C738EDDAD0894DB4044 82

Rummy said this

"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday the military has no plans to set up long-term bases in Iraq for U.S. forces."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030422-89128996.htm


I think that the Times is biased but it is subtle and filled with innuendo. rumours that are negative to the administration (like the above) seem to get printed fairly easily. It is more of a pattern than a smoking gun.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Incitatus
well, the NYT said this


I think that the Times is biased but it is subtle and filled with innuendo. rumours that are negative to the administration (like the above) seem to get printed fairly easily. It is more of a pattern than a smoking gun.

I don't see it (perhaps that's predictable). The article is being attributed to "senior administration officials" saying these things. How is that biased?

I'd like you to quote passages that strike you as biased so I can better understand what you mean.

What do you others think? Is the first report biased?

[Incitatus]

the bias is in the insinuation that the US (as usual) is up to no good. It is sorta like a spouse that always finds fault, always .. warrented or not. Point is that the times will err on the negative side (stories during the first few days of the war, for example). Again, it is a pattern. I sorta thought this was pretty obvious to any regular NYT reader. Don't look for a smoking gun with the times, that would be too obvious.

I foreget the name of that cleric who was in exile in Iraq who is a powerful voice in the ***** community. His position is that his co-religionists should cooperate with the US. You will never see a headline to that effect in the NYT, nly stories of demonstrations. Again, it is a pattern of negativity, innuendo and omission, not anything as banal as an outright lie.

[RandFan]

Is misstating Santorum's position on a legal precedent concerning sodomy an example of bias? Those on the right will probably say yes and those on the left will probably say no.

Is the wording of a poll on Foxnews.com evidence of bias?

If you answer yes to either is the bias more likely conscious or unconscious?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
Is misstating Santorum's position on a legal precedent concerning sodomy an example of bias? Those on the right will probably say yes and those on the left will probably say no.

Is the wording of a poll on Foxnews.com evidence of bias?

If you answer yes to either is the bias more likely conscious or unconscious?

Naturally we're all biased. But there is such a thing as trying to overcome our biases and examine things rationally. Some people live trying to do this; some, like certain unnamed people, would die before they'd even try.

[RandFan]

RandFan
Is misstating Santorum's position on a legal precedent concerning sodomy an example of bias? Those on the right will probably say yes and those on the left will probably say no. Is the wording of a poll on Foxnews.com evidence of bias? If you answer yes to either, is the bias more likely conscious or unconscious?

Originally posted by Sundog
Naturally we're all biased. But there is such a thing as trying to overcome our biases and examine things rationally. Some people live trying to do this; some, like certain unnamed people, would die before they'd even try. I agree, what are your answers to the questions though.

[Sundog]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RandFan
Is misstating Santorum's position on a legal precedent concerning sodomy an example of bias? Those on the right will probably say yes and those on the left will probably say no. Is the wording of a poll on Foxnews.com evidence of bias? If you answer yes to either, is the bias more likely conscious or unconscious?

Originally posted by Sundog
Naturally we're all biased. But there is such a thing as trying to overcome our biases and examine things rationally. Some people live trying to do this; some, like certain unnamed people, would die before they'd even try.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree, what are your answers to the questions though.



Well, first of all, I can't go along with the presumption that anyone is misstating Santorum's position; his position is clear and unequivocal, it seems to me. I'm staying away from that one because it's being discussed elsewhere and the right wing apologists seem more than usually dense about it.

Is the wording of a Fox poll bias? A meaningless question, of course, unless we know the poll you're referring to. Is it possible to identify bias, in spite of one's leanings? Of course it is.

[schplurg]

I think one of the biggest ways in which the news media shows bias is in what it chooses, and chooses not, to report. A link to one article can't prove such bias, it is only evident after watching or reading stories week after week that one can see any bias through omission, or inclusion I guess ;).

For example, if one news show continually reports on every single civilian death in Iraq and is "on-scene" for every war protest, while a competing show reports much less of this and shows more "pro-war" stories, such as Iraqi's dancing in the streets and thanking the coalition troops, this can show a bias. Watching these news shows for a single day may not reveal much of a slant toward one direction or the other, but continued viewing over a length of time may reveal patterns of bias.

So as far as there being a lack of evidence in this thread of any media bias, it may be attributed to the fact that one story doesn't really prove anything.

An example of what I mean is seen (or heard) in the San Francisco bay area, where I live. Two major AM radio newstalk stations - KGO and KSFO - are in stark contrast to each other. KSFO is very right wing, with hosts and syndicated shows such as Dr. Laura, Mike Savage, Rush Limbaugh. On the other end of the spectrum, though not as far from middle-ground as its right wing counterpart, KGO is much to the left, escpecially in the evening with hosts from the far FAR left such as Bernie Ward, Ray Taliafero(sp). They also have a Libertarian, Gene Burns (my fav) and a few other moderates. They are a little more well rounded than KSFO, IMO.

That's my evidence. The hosts and programs that each of these two stations choose to broadcast shows a definite leaning to one side or the other. Just look at their websites and check the list of shows and personalities...you will need to look no further.

KGO (http://www.kgoam810.com/)

KSFO (http://www.ksfo.com)

That is a bigger type of bias than any single article can expose. As a station, I would say that KSFO - the right wing station - has more of an overall agenda than does KGO, and I listen to both. KSFO does not hide its conservative slant, even in its own commercials, while KGO doesn't claim to be left or liberal at all.

Alrighty then :)

[Incitatus]

One of the BBC's own made an accusation of bias

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,922206,00.html

You mighht also remember that when the statue was ripped down in Baghdad the BBC reported on an earthquake in India. That went beyond bad editorial judgement and reflected an unwillingness to show tthe success of the coalition. Again, no one event might be very obvious, it is a pattern, like the NYT.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Well, first of all, I can't go along with the presumption that anyone is misstating Santorum's position; his position is clear and unequivocal, it seems to me. Did you read the information given by Spinsanity?

Misrepresentations in the Santorum debate (4/25) (http://www.spinsanity.org/)

Commentators deliberately misstated what Santorum had said. He never equated Homosexuality with incest. He was making a legal argument. He was saying if you have the right to do one thing then you have the right to do the other. Not because they are morally equivalant but because it would set a precedent regarding privacy.

Now I don't agree with him. I think his notion is baseless but there is nothing in his words that equate one with the other.

Spinsanity, the nation's leading watchdog of manipulative political rhetoric, was founded in January 2001 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan and publicly launched in April 2001. We work to counter the increasing dominance of techniques of deception and irrationality in American politics by identifying and dissecting outrageous and important examples of this rhetoric in daily posts and longer columns that appear roughly once per week. Do you feel that Spinsanity is biased to the right?

I'm staying away from that one because it's being discussed elsewhere and the right wing apologists seem more than usually dense about it. Hmmmm..... of what value is this thread if anything and everything is judged based solely on our own subjective and personal bias? Is bias what we "feel" it is? If I disagree with you does that automatically mean that I am dense?

[fsol]

You mighht also remember that when the statue was ripped down in Baghdad the BBC reported on an earthquake in India. That went beyond bad editorial judgement and reflected an unwillingness to show tthe success of the coalition. Again, no one event might be very obvious, it is a pattern, like the NYT.

You might remeber that when the statue was pulled down in Baghdad the BBC showed it live on television, linking up the report with their radio stations.

also from the article you linked to

Labour MP Alice Mahon has also complained that the BBC is too pro-war and is not showing enough of the casualties inflicted on the Iraqis or the problems with humanitarian aid.

I guess bias is in the eye of the beholder.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Incitatus
One of the BBC's own made an accusation of bias

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,922206,00.html

You mighht also remember that when the statue was ripped down in Baghdad the BBC reported on an earthquake in India. That went beyond bad editorial judgement and reflected an unwillingness to show tthe success of the coalition. Again, no one event might be very obvious, it is a pattern, like the NYT.

Which BBC service? As far as I recall, BBC News was featuring the toppling of the statue as its main story; I've tried BBC News Online and can find no reference to an earthquake in India.

But even so, is choosing to run with the earthquake story over the statue incident an example of bias, or simple editorial judgement about prioritising stories? And the charge of "unwillingness to show the success of the coalition" smacks of a biased position to begin with, imo.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by RichardR
You may wish to check out Spinsanity: (http://www.spinsanity.org/)

They seem pretty even-handed in how they evaluate biased reporting in the US media.

Spinsanity is an excellent source - I check it out every week. For a daily dose I check out www.dailyhowler.com but it causes my blood pressure to rise.

Lurker

[Sundog]

Excellent give-and-take, but let's try to stay on topic. No stories ABOUT bias, no old news, no arguing about past misdeeds: this is a real-time observation experiment.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Sundog
Excellent give-and-take, but let's try to stay on topic. No stories ABOUT bias, no old news, no arguing about past misdeeds: this is a real-time observation experiment.

Mea culpa, I knew I was straying a bit.

Actually, it is almost too easy. Just look at the poll at Foxnews today:

-----
How to Fight AIDS

Should abstinence be the cornerstone of Bush's global AIDS initiative?

Yes, it has proven successful in fighting the epidemic.

No, the initiative shouldn't focus on any one strategy.

Not sure
-----

Again, the spin put on the answers lends credence to the "Yes" response. I tell you, finding bias at Fox is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Lurker

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Lurker
How to Fight AIDS

Should abstinence be the cornerstone of Bush's global AIDS initiative?

Yes, it has proven successful in fighting the epidemic.

No, the initiative shouldn't focus on any one strategy.

Not sure I think that there is an argument that the poll could constitute bias. Could you re-write the poll to give an example of a non-biased version?

[Sundog]

The questions in that poll lean towards a positive answer but I don't know if I'd call it bias.

Even if you rewrite it:

Should abstinence be a cornerstone of Bush's war on AIDS?

Yes
No
Don't know

I have a problem with it. Fox has a habit of just throwing out outrageous statements pandering to the right and then acting as if they are just taking a poll. Often the questions themselves are outrageous, as in this case. Anyone who can even ask this question is too hopelessly stupid to deal with.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Anyone who can even ask this question is too hopelessly stupid to deal with. Abstinence is the only 100% effective form of birth control and the prevention of STDs. Statistics have shown that programs that teach abstinence reduce both unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. It works every time that it is tried. I practiced abstinence for practical reasons and not one of my girlfriends got pregnant until I was 22, employed and ready to support a family and prepared to deal with such a serious issue as pregnancy. The only affliction that I have suffered is a mild yeast infection. Personally I am a fan of abstinence.

Anyone who can even ask this question is too hopelessly stupid to deal with. I have asked similar questions. I guess that I am persona non gratis as to this thread. Well it was fun while it lasted.

Thanks,

RandFan

[Sundog]

Come now, don't be so thin-skinned. I see you take worse shots every day. ;)

Of course abstinence is a stupid answer. Other than on a personal level, as you describe, it has never worked EVEN ONCE as a mass answer for ANY of the things it's prescribed for. VD, pregnancy, alcoholism, it has NEVER worked AT ALL.

I didn't mean to offend you, but I can't help but roll my eyes at anyone who thinks "Well, don't do it then!" is an adequate solution for a worldwide epidemic. They KNOW it ain't gonna happen; it simply gives them an excuse to say, "Well then, it's your own fault, I don't care any more."

It's in the same class as "get a job" as an answer for the poor, "just don't do it" as an answer for teenage pregnancy, etc. etc. etc. It's not an answer at all; it's a way of AVOIDING an answer and dismissing the problem.

[Lurker]

I think the rewrite of the poll is much better. Not perfect but better. Be sure I will log on again tommorrow to see the next biased poll FoxNews has. Anyone care to bet that it is biased to the right?

RandFan, stick around. It would be less fun without you.

Lurker

[Lurker]

Here is the poll from CNN's website:

Should Lee Boyd Malvo's statements to police be used in his trial?


Yes
No


Much less bias there, woudn't you say?

Lurker

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Of course abstinence is a stupid answer. Of course abstinence is a stupid answer? I'm sorry but this type of argument is becoming more and more prevalent on the forum. To be honest I have engaged in it at times myself. It is simply a bullying tactic and it is fallacious.

Ad Hominem
The accusation that someone is stupid in the context of a debate is called an “ad hominem” argument, attacking the person instead of the subject of the debate.

it has never worked EVEN ONCE as a mass answer for ANY of the things it's prescribed for. VD, pregnancy, alcoholism, it has NEVER worked AT ALL. Now that sounds like a claim to me. Do you have any objective evidence to support that "it has NEVER worked At ALL?"

Your argument is specious. Those interested in preventing the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies know that we are dealing with statistics. No one expects everyone to practices safe sex. The point is to increase the number of people who practice safe sex.

This raises a question, if public education can increase the numbers of people who practice safe sex then does it not follow that educating adolescents as to the benefits of abstinence would increase the number of adolescents who practice abstinence?

If the answer is no can you site any evidence that would disprove the notion that education as to the advantages of abstinence can increase the number of adolescents who practice abstinence?

The question is not rhetorical, I would appreciate an answer.

I didn't mean to offend you, but I can't help but roll my eyes at anyone who thinks "Well, don't do it then!" Good straw man. I don't know of anyone who is making that argument. Everyone that I know who advocates teaching abstinence are only interested in giving students and young people sufficient information to make an informed choice.

Adolescence and Abstinence Fact Sheet (http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0001.html)
Interventions that are effective in encouraging teenagers to postpone sexual intercourse help young people to develop the interpersonal skills they need to resist premature sexual involvement. Effective programs include a strong abstinence message as well as information about contraception and safer sex. For interventions to be most effective, teenagers need to be exposed to these programs before initiating intercourse.

...is an adequate solution for a worldwide epidemic. They KNOW it ain't gonna happen; it simply gives them an excuse to say, "Well then, it's your own fault, I don't care any more." Same straw man. I know educators who are involved in programs that stress abstinence and they don't have that attitude. In fact I have never encountered that attitude. It seems to mostly exist in the minds of those who argue against teaching abstinence.

Of course I await for you to show me other wise.

It's in the same class as "get a job" as an answer for the poor, Another well worn straw man. Since you brought it up I have to ask you for evidence of this one as well. I personally and financially support programs that help train people to become employable. Sure there are callous humans and bigots out there with that attitude but it is fallacious to paint those of us who have concerns with welfare with the same brush.

"just don't do it" as an answer for teenage pregnancy, etc. etc. etc. It's not an answer at all; And I don't know of anyone making this argument. The people that I am familiar with advocate education and encouragement as a way to increase the number of people who do practice abstinence.

...it's a way of AVOIDING an answer and dismissing the problem. Those who are working to bring the teaching of abstinence into the curriculum do not dismiss the problem. They are taking it head on (please see links) because it works.

I know I that I often come off as patronizing so please forgive if I do but I have to ask. Do you have any evidence or data that disproves my contention. In doing so, could you provide conclusions drawn from inference supported by premise and avoid fallacious reasoning?

Effective, Comprehensive Sexuality Education (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/pag/effective.htm)

The newest generation of sexuality education programs is the most promising. These programs promote abstinence as the best and safest choice, especially for young adolescents, and they provide contraceptive information. These programs build skills in communication, negotiation, and refusal and allow adolescents to practice applying their skills and information.

Abstinence based program effective UPI (http://www.aegis.com/news/upi/2002/UP021001.html)

A non-directive abstinence based sex education program developed at the University of Arkansas has been shown to work with high school students, a new study shows.

[Sundog]

I stand by my statement. Abstinence is quite obviously not going to work to stop the AIDS epidemic, or anything else. I consider this self-evident (AIDS still exists, teen pregnancy still exists, alcoholism still exists) and have no intention of trying to back it up with statistics. Since you don't like the word "stupid", I am at a loss as to how to characterize such a belief.

If we're demanding statistics, I could ask you to prove that these ridiculous abstinence programs produce any results at all, but I'm sure you have no more time to search for statistics than I do.


Thanks for coming back, though. ;) I'm sorry you felt insulted, it certainly wasn't aimed directly at you. And you've indulged in some rather heated exchanges lately, I've noticed, so let's not get TOO indignant...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Since you don't like the word "stupid", I am at a loss as to how to characterize such a belief. Sundog, are you familiar with logical argument? How, you would charactherize such a belief is not germaine to the argument.

If we're demanding statistics, I could ask you to prove that these ridiculous abstinence programs produce any results at all,... Did you read the links? There are statistics there.

Facts and Statistics (http://www.cfoc.org/5_educator/5_facts.cfm?Fact_ID=100)

FACT: A World Health Organization literature review concluded that there is:

Many sexuality education programs have been able to successfully promote abstinence as well as effective contraceptive use.

(SIECUS. "Myths and Facts About Sexuality Education." available: www.siecus.org)

That is from the World Health Organization. Not quite a right wing organization. It is footnoted and referenced.

If you are going to stand by your statement then I can only conclude that you are uninterested in the facts. It would seem that your mind is already made up.

Thanks for coming back, though. ;) I'm sorry you felt insulted, it certainly wasn't aimed directly at you. I understand, I'm just a little tired of fallacious reasoning and those who are intentionally obtuse. I'm not saying that you are but it would help if you avoid fallacious argument. If you need any help (again sorry if I'm being patronizing) then see Logic & Fallacies (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html).

And you've indulged in some rather heated exchanges lately, I've noticed, so let's not get TOO indignant... That is fine, but please check my references.

...but I'm sure you have no more time to search for statistics than I do. The stats are documented on the sites that I linked. If it would help me to post the data then that would be fine.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by RandFan
Abstinence is the only 100% effective form of birth control and the prevention of STDs.
Well to be pedantic--and I apologise in advance for this--abstinence is a form of contraception (prevention of conception), rather than birth control (ending of pregnancy).
Statistics have shown that programs that teach abstinence reduce both unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. It works every time that it is tried.
Abstinence is certainly the only 100% effective form of protection against conception and venereal disease. However (and I've read your subsequent posts and references), a quick Google on the topic suggests that evidence of the efficacy of abstinence education programs is at best problematic (http://www.wested.org/ppfy/impactt.htm), and at worst shows that these programmes are ineffective (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/06/14/sexed020614).
Issue: Are abstinence-only-until-marriage programs effective?

Answer: To date, no published studies of abstinence-only programs have found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse.

Source: Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS) (http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0007.html)

Which is not to say I don't think abstinence shouldn't be promoted as a form of sexual health, except where it's part of a faith-based initiative.

And the Fox poll is clearly biased by presenting heavily loaded choices to their question; you could interpret these to read as:

Should abstinence be a cornerstone of Bush's war on AIDS?

(a) Yes, because it works.
(b) No, because I'm a woolly-minded liberal idiot.

[Tmy]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85528,00.html

Story on the latest terrorism attack in Tel Aviv.

Once agian Fox using the term "homicide bomber" while the other news orgs use "suicide bomber".

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
Sundog, are you familiar with logical argument?

You know perfectly well that I am. ;)

It's an interesting topic, and worthy of another thread. Let me try to justify my reaction, though.

Look at this scenario. I don't need to quote the statistics in Africa to remind anyone that the situation is dire there. To me, as a skeptic, the idea that this can be turned around by telling everyone to keep it in their pants is... well, you supply the adjective, since you disapprove of mine. Ludicrous is the kindest word I can think of.

And I don't mean to be condescending either, but apparently I've had even better luck than you at avoiding any STD's, and I've successfully avoided abstinence for about 30 years now. A condom works too.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Well to be pedantic--and I apologise in advance for this--abstinence is a form of contraception (prevention of conception), rather than birth control (ending of pregnancy).


Well, not in common usage. They are called birth control pills and birth control devices far more often that contraceptive pills and contraceptive devices.

In the U.S. at least, birth control is commonly used to refer to contraception.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Abstinence is certainly the only 100% effective form of protection against conception and venereal disease. However (and I've read your subsequent posts and references), a quick Google on the topic suggests that evidence of the efficacy of abstinence education programs is at best problematic (http://www.wested.org/ppfy/impactt.htm), and at worst shows that these programmes are ineffective (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/06/14/sexed020614) Hi Billy,

Did you look at my links? I got them all from google. Is the World Health Organization and siecus discredited?

FACT: A World Health Organization literature review concluded that there is:

Many sexuality education programs have been able to successfully promote abstinence as well as effective contraceptive use.

(SIECUS. "Myths and Facts About Sexuality Education." available: www.siecus.org) How is the information that you site superior than the information that I have provided?

Please not that the information provided by www.siecus.org is based on scientific study.

What about the Advocates For Youth (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/pag/effective.htm) site.

One recent study attributed 75 percent of the decline in U.S. teen pregnancy rates to teens’ better use of contraception and 25 percent to teens’ increased abstinence1 while another study credited the two factors about equally.2 Although U.S. teens are increasingly adopting protective sexual behaviors, they face barriers to consistency in these behaviors. The data is sourced so why should it be discounted?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Sundog


Well, not in common usage. They are called birth control pills and birth control devices far more often that contraceptive pills and contraceptive devices.

In the U.S. at least, birth control is commonly used to refer to contraception.

Over here, we have contraceptive pills which prevents fertilisation of the egg, and something called the "morning after pill" which prevents a fertilised egg from attaching to the womb wall and as such is a form of birth control rather than contraception. I hope that clears it up?

Btw, I did apologise in advance for my pedantry! :D

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Look at this scenario. I don't need to quote the statistics in Africa to remind anyone that the situation is dire there. To me, as a skeptic, the idea that this can be turned around by telling everyone to keep it in their pants is... well, you supply the adjective, since you disapprove of mine. Ludicrous is the kindest word I can think of. But again Sundog that is not what the programs are about. You are creating a straw man.

First, I am talking about abstinence progams for adolecents. Studies have shown that comprehensive sexual education programs that include information about abstinence work (see above).

Second, I have no idea to what extent such programs would have in Africa to stop the spread of aids. I suspect that they would work but would be willing to see the data before I make up my mind.

...I don't need to quote the statistics in Africa to remind anyone that the situation is dire there. To me, as a skeptic,... Your a decent guy Sundog and I like you but the above statement is frought with problems. First you are moving the emphasis of the significance of the statistics from the efficacy or lack thereof to an agreed on premise that the situation is dire in Africa. No one needs statistice to deduce that the situation in Africa is bad.

However would you accept statistics that showed comprehensive sexual education programs that included abstinence worked in Africa? Or would you dismiss any data that did not fit with your view of the effecacy of teaching abstinence?

It is appropriate as a skeptic to question studies and statistics. However, if you dismiss scientifically gathered data because it does not fit with your view of the way things are then you are not a very good skeptic and you are not being objective.

Many of the same people come back to James Randi to be tested on their dowsing claim. Everytime they fail they have objective proof that they are unable to do what they claim. Yet they come back. Why? Because they know that dowsing works and they are skeptical of the results obtained during the test by Randi.

They choose to reject the evidence that does not fit with their view of the world.

[BillyTK]

Hi RandFan,

Did you look at my links? I got them all from google. Is the World Health Organization and siecus discredited?[b][quote]

How is the information that you site superior than the information that I have provided?

Please not that the information provided by www.siecus.org is based on scientific study.
I looked at your links. The quote I included about "no published studies of abstinence-only programs have found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse" is also from SIECUS. It's not so much a refutation of your points as much as a clarification; it's the difference between saying that "many sexuality education programs have been able to successfully promote abstinence", and saying that "abstinence education programs are the most effective" (the point being, the jury is still out on that last one ;) ).

I don't know if you read the article I linked to by Douglas Kirby (http://www.wested.org/ppfy/impactt.htm)? It's a review of the five studies of abstinence programs available at the time of writing of the article, and he outlines the methodological problems of each study and why their results should be considered most carefully. But his recommendation is that further study is required, not that abstinence education should be dumped.

I've found a link tothe DiCenso et al study (http://bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/324/7351/1426?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=DiCenso&searchid=1051722701756_17407&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=1,2,3,4,10) which was cited in the other article I linked to, and which is another analysis of existing research, including evaluations of four abstinence programs which indicated that abstinence programs are less effective than other sexual health programs(although there's some interesting comments on DiCenso et al's research here (http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7367/777/a).

What about the Advocates For Youth (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/pag/effective.htm) site.
The data is sourced so why should it be discounted?
I'm not suggesting that it should the article or the data it cites should be discounted. I am saying that the data should be treated cautiously (just as the article does) and any claims made about the efficacy of these programs made with caution (just as the article does). Does that make my position a little clearer?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
But again Sundog that is not what the programs are about. You are creating a straw man.

First, I am talking about abstinence progams for adolecents. Studies have shown that comprehensive sexual education programs that include information about abstinence work (see above).



I could argue that this is a straw man, actually two of them. The problem at hand is to stem the AIDS pandemic in Africa, not to marginally affect the behaviour of adolescents. I see abstinence as a cosmetic approach to a problem in need of drastic solutions.

You have moved the goalposts, too; the question is, should abstinence be a cornerstone of Bush's plan, not, should abstinence be included in a "comprehensive sexual education program", which of course is far more likely to work, and which is the basis for the statistics you cite.


Second, I have no idea to what extent such programs would have in Africa to stop the spread of aids. I suspect that they would work but would be willing to see the data before I make up my mind.



You know what makes me skeptical of the whole abstinence plan? I remember when it was tried for drugs ("Just say no!" :rolleyes: ) It didn't work. It was a complete joke among the part of the population it was meant to influence. Sheer bad psychology and a complete lack of understanding of the problem.

Same thing for the people who apparently actually believe that you can convince teenagers not to screw. That's just mind-poppingly naive to me.

Abstinence has been touted as a cure for alcoholism, drug abuse, AIDS, and early pregnancy. The most cursory glance at the statistics involved would show that, no, of course these haven't been wiped out; they haven't had an effect on the problem as a whole at all. What makes us think it will suddenly work in Africa, of all places, when it has never yet worked here?


Your a decent guy Sundog and I like you but the above statement is frought with problems. First you are moving the emphasis of the significance of the statistics from the efficacy or lack thereof to an agreed on premise that the situation is dire in Africa. No one needs statistice to deduce that the situation in Africa is bad.

However would you accept statistics that showed comprehensive sexual education programs that included abstinence worked in Africa? Or would you dismiss any data that did not fit with your view of the effecacy of teaching abstinence?

It is appropriate as a skeptic to question studies and statistics. However, if you dismiss scientifically gathered data because it does not fit with your view of the way things are then you are not a very good skeptic and you are not being objective.




From your own link:

The World Health Organization reviewed 35 programs from around the world and found that abstinence-only programs were not as effective as programs that promoted abstinence or the delay of sexual intercourse and safer sex practices such as contraception.


According to research, effective abstinence-based programs include discussion and activities regarding communication skills and social norms, in addition to discussion of basic facts.
(Baldo M, Aggleton P, Slutkin G. Does Sex Education Lead to Earlier or Increased Sexual Activity in Youth? Presented at the IXth International Conference on AIDS, Berlin, 6-10. June, 1993. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1993.)


In a recent U.S. survey, seventy-nine percent of adults supported the notion of sexuality education in the schools (62% were strongly in favor). Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed believed that abstinence may be an unrealistic expectation of adolescents, but sexuality education was needed.
(Lake Research. New Poll Shows Family Planning Services are Overwhelmingly Popular. Washington, DC: Lake Research, 1996.)


In a study of PTA Presidents in North Carolina, 96 percent believed sexuality education curriculum should include abstinence and contraception education. Individuals surveyed believed puberty and the reproductive system should be taught to students in grades 4-5, while STD prevention and contraception should be introduced in grades 6-8.
(Algozzine B, Berne LA, Huberman BK. Comparison of beliefs about the family life education curriculum. Journal of Educational Research. 1995; 88: 331-337.)



The site you cite is a bad example for your argument; it is clearly promoting a multi-faceted approach to the problem, and it also clearly states that studies of the efficacy of abstinence-only programs have been inconclusive.


Many of the same people come back to James Randi to be tested on their dowsing claim. Everytime they fail they have objective proof that they are unable to do what they claim. Yet they come back. Why? Because they know that dowsing works and they are skeptical of the results obtained during the test by Randi.

They choose to reject the evidence that does not fit with their view of the world.

So many of us do, don't we? ;) I posit that, because you personally found abstinence to be an effective tool, you oversimplify the problems and contradictions involved in extending that to others.

I know that when I was in school and we got the keep-it-in-your-pants lecture, we laughed ourselves silly.

In any case, I can find nothing in your statistics that applies to a situation where "abstinence is the cornerstone" of the plan.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Does that make my position a little clearer? Yes but I would say that the data and the response to the data suggest that comprehensive sexual education program that include abstinence are more succesful than those that don't. That teaching absinence can significantly reduce incidence of STDs and pregnancy though all agree that to be effective the overall program must be comprehensive and include information on safe sex.

If I was not clear about that then let me say so now. The data suggests that a succesfull program is a comprehensive program.

Thanks Billy

Sorry Sundog, I will not interupt any more on this subject.

[Lurker]

Um, back to the topic, here are two polls that I found. Guess which one is CNN's poll and which one is Foxnews! :D
-----
Should large-scale Internet spammers face the possibilty of jail time?
Yes
No

The U.S.-backed plan requires a cease-fire, a crackdown on militants, an Israeli withdrawal and a dismantling of settlements. Will it work?
Yes, it's a good plan.
No, it's not going to work.
Not sure
-----

Any guesses?

Lurker

[RandFan]

I could argue that this is a straw man, actually two of them. The problem at hand is to stem the AIDS pandemic in Africa, not to marginally affect the behaviour of adolescents. I see abstinence as a cosmetic approach to a problem in need of drastic solutions. No, now hold on lets back up.

You said in reference to abstinence being the cornerstone of Bush's war on Aids "Anyone who can even ask this question is too hopelessly stupid to deal with."

I objected to the ad hominem and noted that I had asked similar questions because I have seen that abstinence can reduce the incidence of STDs and pregnancy by a significant amount.

I don't know if it will have the same effect in Africa but I don't think asking the question is "stupid". I do think that it is worthy of further study and research.
I reject completely that abstinence is a cosmetic approach. Studies have shown that it is significant in the fight against the spread of disease. I have said from the beginning that it must be part of a comprehensive program but it does work.

The site you cite is a bad example for your argument; it is clearly promoting a multi-faceted approach to the problem, and it also clearly states that studies of the efficacy of abstinence-only programs have been inconclusive. I would counter that you don't know what my argument is. I have argued from the start that teaching abstinence is an effective method for reducing teenage pregnancy and STDs and my site clearly states that such programs are effective. My pull quotes are not edited and state that they have been found to be effective.

FACT: A World Health Organization literature review concluded that there is:

Many sexuality education programs have been able to successfully promote abstinence as well as effective contraceptive use.

(SIECUS. "Myths and Facts About Sexuality Education." available: www.siecus.org) The only way to get past that is to close your eyes.

Your quotes only deal with beliefs and comparisons of abstinence only programs to comprehensive programs.

I have only argued that abstinence is an effective tool for fighting the problems associated with teenage pregnancy.

You have moved the goalposts, too; the question is, should abstinence be a cornerstone of Bush's plan, not, should abstinence be included in a "comprehensive sexual education program", which of course is far more likely to work, and which is the basis for the statistics you cite. The "question" has nothing to do with my initial argument, which was to criticize you for your ad hominem. I said that I have asked similar questions.

I criticized you for your ad hominem. I did not move any goal posts.

Same thing for the people who apparently actually believe that you can convince teenagers not to screw. That's just mind-poppingly naive to me. I don't know of anyone that advances such an idea. I certainly haven't and none of my references have either.

Not all teenagers engage in sexual intercourse. The rate changes depending on any number of variables.

Teaching abstinence as part of a comprehensive course on sexuality can and does reduces the incidence of teens engaging in sexual intercourse.

Abstinence has been touted as a cure for alcoholism, drug abuse, AIDS, and early pregnancy. I have not advanced the idea that abstinence is a cure for alcoholism and drug abuse. Straw men.

The most cursory glance at the statistics involved would show that, no, of course these haven't been wiped out; And teaching safe sex and providing condoms has not wiped out AIDS or unwanted pregnancies either. The argument is fallacious. No one is suggesting that absinence can wipe out these social ills.

...they haven't had an effect on the problem as a whole at all. Demonstrably false. Education only seeks to reduce the incidence of social problems. To that end teaching kids about condoms and safe sex has been successful. Including instruction on abstinence has made the programs significantly more successful.

What makes us think it will suddenly work in Africa, of all places, when it has never yet worked here? Well, I can't make you look at what you will not see. Studies have shown that teaching abstinence is a significant tool in the fight against the spread of disease. That is a fact. If you choose to ignore it because you giggled in high school when you were given information that would help you make an informed choice then there is little that I can say to change your mind.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yes but I would say that the data and the response to the data suggest that comprehensive sexual education program that include abstinence are more succesful than those that don't. That teaching absinence can significantly reduce incidence of STDs and pregnancy though all agree that to be effective the overall program must be comprehensive and include information on safe sex.

If I was not clear about that then let me say so now. The data suggests that a succesfull program is a comprehensive program.

Thanks Billy

Sorry Sundog, I will not interupt any more on this subject.

Yr welcome! Overall I agree with you, except for the "significant" bit which has a very specific meaning in statistics, and which the research has yet to prove (emphasis on the word "yet" ;) ).

And also apologies to Sundog; I promise to attempt (well, I am a skeptic! [Peanut gallery: "Oh no you're not!"]) to stay on track in future :)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Lurker
Um, back to the topic, here are two polls that I found. Guess which one is CNN's poll and which one is Foxnews! :D
-----
Should large-scale Internet spammers face the possibilty of jail time?
Yes
No

The U.S.-backed plan requires a cease-fire, a crackdown on militants, an Israeli withdrawal and a dismantling of settlements. Will it work?
Yes, it's a good plan.
No, it's not going to work.
Not sure
-----

Any guesses?

Lurker

Again, a perfect example of bias in terms of loading the answers. We could equally rephrase the poll as:

The U.S.-backed plan requires a cease-fire, a crackdown on militants, an Israeli withdrawal and a dismantling of settlements. Will it work?

Yes, because the US has the capability to impose its will on any country;
No, because I'm a traitorous commie;
Uh, beer-mmmmm!

So the first poll is Foxnews?!! ;)

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan

Well, I can't make you look at what you will not see. Studies have shown that teaching abstinence is a significant tool in the fight against the spread of disease. That is a fact. If you choose to ignore it because you giggled in high school when you were given information that would help you make an informed choice then there is little that I can say to change your mind.

Well, we're totally talking past each other, since you have misunderstood me from square one and appear to be arguing about something else entirely, based on a perceived ad-hom that wasn't even directed at your argument.

Here's what I said:

"Anyone who can even ask this question is too hopelessly stupid to deal with."

(Which I regret, if I haven't made that clear already.)

Referring to:

"Should abstinence be the cornerstone of Bush's global AIDS initiative? "

This is not what you've been talking about; you have been talking about abstinence in combination with other strategies. Therefore everything you've been saying is completely irrelevant.

Even your own link casts doubt on a policy based on abstinence, as I've shown.

So we're not even on the subject we got off the subject to talk about. So...

Does anyone else think it odd that we don't really have a single good "Aha - left wing bias!" report yet? ;)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
"Anyone who can even ask this question is too hopelessly stupid to deal with."[/b] I dealt with that in my post but that is fine. I don't need to keep repeating myself. My post is in the record for anyone interested.

Does anyone else think it odd that we don't really have a single good "Aha - left wing bias!" report yet? ;) Well, I think the thread says more about the bias of the individuals that have posted. I think the spinsanity story about Santorum is an excelent example. You simply dismiss it. I thought the use of the word "brutal" was another excelent examle of bias and poor reporting. Again you just dismiss this one also.

While the thread is interesting I don't think it provides any real insight since people will see what they want to see.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
I dealt with that in my post but that is fine. I don't need to keep repeating myself. My post is in the record for anyone interested.

Well, I think the thread says more about the bias of the individuals that have posted. I think the spinsanity story about Santorum is an excelent example. You simply dismiss it. I thought the use of the word "brutal" was another excelent examle of bias and poor reporting. Again you just dismiss this one also.

While the thread is interesting I don't think it provides any real insight since people will see what they want to see.

If people don't wish to look inside, they will have no insights. Some find them scary and run from them.

Why point at me? I started the thread - I have said time and time again that I don't want to be the judge. I will offer up my opinion on how it's going, just as you will. Ask others what THEY think.

I did not at all dismiss the "brutal"; scroll up. In fact I agreed that the description of the suits was a bit one-sided.

You're misrepresenting me. I said I understood the law-point argument re Santorum. But it is clear by his own statements that he has a problem with homosexuals, so to me it's rather a moot point; plus the fact that people have raised "sightings" of both left and right wing bias, so it's just not a very good example (IMHO!)

I just don't think any of these is on the scale of things we see from the right every day. I want to see something I can get my teeth into.


:D

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Why point at me? I started the thread - I have said time and time again that I don't want to be the judge. I will offer up my opinion on how it's going, just as you will. Ask others what THEY think. Ok, I understand.

You're misrepresenting me. I said I understood the law-point argument re Santorum. But it is clear by his own statements that he has a problem with homosexuals, so to me it's rather a moot point; plus the fact that people have raised "sightings" of both left and right wing bias, so it's just not a very good example (IMHO!) I don't understand but that is fine. This is more subjective and what ever one feels. That's cool.

I just don't think any of these is on the scale of things we see from the right every day. I want to see something I can get my teeth into. I don't think that there has been any scale demonstrated. And I have always believed that Fox and the networks are both biased in equal degrees. I have not seen anything that would change my mind. That is my HO.

[Frostbite]

I lost faith in CNN the day they showed Palestinians celebrating in the streets when the twin towers fell. Turns out the images were filmed months earlier.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Frostbite
I lost faith in CNN the day they showed Palestinians celebrating in the streets when the twin towers fell. Turns out the images were filmed months earlier.

Uh, wrong. Famous urban legend there! That footage was shot by REUTERS and it really was shot that day. See the article on it at snopes.com.

[Frostbite]

We appear to have conflicting information sources. I'll look into it.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Frostbite
We appear to have conflicting information sources. I'll look into it.

Here ya go:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm

" No, CNN did not air decade-old footage of Palestinians dancing in the streets. Eason Jordan, CNN's Chief News Executive, confirmed that the video used on CNN was in fact shot on Tuesday, 11 September 2001, in East Jerusalem by a Reuters TV crew, not during the Persian Gulf conflict of 1990-91 -- a fact proved by its inclusion of comments from a Palestinian praising Osama Bin Laden (whose name was unlikely to have come up ten years earlier in connection with the invasion and liberation of Kuwait) as well as the appearance in the video of post-1991 automobiles. The person who made the claim quoted above has since recanted. "

Amazing how these things take on a life of their own, isn't it?

[Frostbite]

Nice link, thanks. :)

[RandFan]

I was just watching Fox and Friends on Fox. The commentators were all unanimous in their condemnation toward Mike Savage on MSNBC for some inappropriate remarks and the failure of MSNBC to discipline him while at the same time disciplining Ashley Banfield for much less egregious remarks.

Seems to go against the grain.

[RandFan]

bump

[Baker]

Originally posted by Sundog
Yesterday Fox news ran a story about North Korea and captioned it with the large graphic "AXIS OF EVIL".

Today everyone except Fox appears to have a story about Bill Bennet's decision to stop gambling.

How is that bias they are on the axis on evil list?

[aerocontrols]

How to Build a Better Democrat (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030519/story.html)

Fire the consultants, find some core values and speak from the heart, and then maybe one of the candidates will have a chance against Bush

Remember the cover story/special report in 1995 "How to build a better Republican"?

Yeah, me neither.

[zakur]

From this thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20887) (which I started), a story from The Guardian:Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,970334,00.html)

Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.

The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbours - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.

His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."To which Aerocontrols quickly and succintly replied:The reason we believe the North Korean regime can be combatted economically is because it's on the brink of economic collapse already, while Iraq could not be combatted economically because it had enough oil to support its police state indefinitely. Note that our economic effort to end North Korea's tyrant regime and nuke-building primarily consists of cutting off their flow of oil. For obvious reasons, that wouldn't work in Iraq.

That hardly translates into oil-as-motive, despite the Guardian's distortions.

Here (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=8179271&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6) is a media source that gets the quote correct:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse," Wolfowitz said. "That I believe is a major point of leverage."

"The primary difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options in Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil," he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the transcript (http://www.pentagon.gov/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html):

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It looks to me like the Guardian is relying on a twice-translated version or something.

MattJKudos to Matt.

[aerocontrols]

George W. Bush - Professional Fascist (http://www.nzpundit.com/archives/002620.html#002620)

(by the way... thanks for the praise, Zakur.)