AOW,Timely and Spot-On! I forwarded this video to many.
The State-owned media is simply doing the bidding of its master...
The nation would be like Texas?Good lord what an idiot. Why not go for Mississippi?I love the bit about measuring the PQ. This guy must have received his degree from Prager University.
If the Kotch brothers are really conservatives, the best thing could do to promote conservatism is buy MSNBC, CBS, and, ABC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.
Dearest Waterfowl, being on the left you don't see it. You just enjoy the MSM reenforcing what you believe.
"The nation would be like Texas?"GOOD!
AOW, he's at UCLA? I'm amazed he's not been fired. Honestly. Oh, my gosh...i have the inauguration on and they're cheering for the Carters, whose own Board members quit in protest to his horrid hatred for Israel. Congratulations, Leftwingers; you should be so proud.this video is excellent..thanks for posting...I need to turn the TV off. Somehow. It's like watching a train wreck; you put your hands over your eyes but have to peek through your fingers because you want to see the damage.ugh
One more reason why Texas should have never joined the Union. Or, why we should all move to Texas. If Texas would secede from the Union I'd move there immediately.
I am giving my tv a rest! Good one.
Nation like Texas? Excellent. That state is quickly becoming my favorite... Great video, easy to understand and factual. And so true on the bias! Having grown up with talk radio, my bias is right if anything- and I find the leftist to be gag worthy on their blatant twisting of the news, and utter lack of reporting. Or reporting and painting the right as evil, subtly or (often) not. The test he mentions is pretty interesting- it presents bills/etc that have been proposed/passed by Congress with three answer options: agree, no decision, disagree. (major ones mentioned were Obamacare and Tarp, as well as others) My score? 6.5 -Wildstar
Excellent post, excellent information. I have long known that the mainstream media is our enemy, but this confirms it on a statistical basis.
I don't really need a five minute video to educate me on media bias.It's so obvious that it's not even questionable.My simple standard is imagine what would happen if Bush or any Republican had said the same thing as Obama on X,Y or Z issue.Alternately, the same could be said on what stories are covered. Benghazi in which four americans died with key questions unanswered about Obama's involvement is no big deal yet two years and a special prosecutor were required because someone hinted to a reporter that Amb. Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and might have been feeding Joe false info about Iraq's WMDs. No one died in Plamegate and no one was ever charged for revealing her name yet the media went after that story for YEARS!
Benghazi? Man, here we are down to seeds and stems again. But I'm surprised you've let go of the birth certificate.Now Mike, just what are these critical questions?A consulate (not an embassy, important) was attacked. There were four immediate casualties and the attack was repelled.Now embassies are attacked frequently. In fact I believe over thirty were killed in embassy attacks during the Chucklenuts administration.Or better yet. This is unacceptable. On December 12th,1983), our U.S. embassy in Kuwait was attacked by a suicide truck bomber. This blatant act of terror killed 5 people. Yet, the weak willed President Saint Ronnie Raygun refuses to call it an Act of Terror.Remember that one? Probably not since the right wing media refuse to identify President Beirut as the one who first took the knee to terrorists.Fish in a barrel.Any comments, Odie?
Duck,I believe over thirty were killed in embassy attacks during the Chucklenuts administration.Maybe so. But not an ambassador. The death of an ambassador SHOULD matter.As for the birth certificate you mentioned, I might have posted a few times about the topic. But I'm not a birther. That said, the birth requirement in our Constitution stands and should be adhered to -- with absolutely no questions as to the authenticity of a certificate.BTW, why are you deleting my few comments at your Photostream? Are you now into censorship?
TO ALL:Tammy has left -- as of early this afternoon.I've made a few blog rounds, but I haven't attempted to answer all comments here at my own site. I'm decompressing, so to speak.Things are going to be dull here at the AOW household now that Tammy has left. **sigh**
@AOW --- Maybe so. But not an ambassador. The death of an ambassador SHOULD matter.---It doesn't matter?The question here seems to be the right's desire for a military response. Well, Obama was smart enough to get the French to proxy in Niger, right? That's the crew that is being at least partially supported by the rogue Libyans.Or he could bomb up east Libya and really create a mess.So I get back to it. The reason the right is upset is the desire for a military response and they even get upset when they get one. Completely irrational.
Birther here! Birther here! I'm a Birther, Me, Here. Over here. Birther!That birth certificate has been proven to be a fraud by experts. By Law Enforecement Personnel. It's an altered document and proven to be so by forensic and computer experts IN LAW ENFORCEMENT! That our liberal media chooses to utterly ignore this is no surprise to anyone who's paying attention."Ducky" is such a good name. Quack, quack, quack.
... excuse, I mean Mali. Substance doesn't change.
It's not going to get any better in the next 4 years.DebbieRight Truthhttp://www.righttruth.typepad.com
Duck,A military response might be appropriate and might not be.What I support: pulling out our physical embassies and using cyber embassies. Furthermore, if we cannot keep our own diplomatic personnel safe, then we shouldn't send them to those locations nor should we be offering so much financial aid to these countries. These countries need to understand that we will not tolerate their biting the hand that feeds them!I also advocate a complete investigation of what happened in Benghazi and, possibly, Algeria. In the case of the latter, some stories have indicated that the weapons used by the Islamic terrorists to effect the attack in Algeria came from Libya, which was Obama's war.
Black Sheep, You may be absolutely correct. I admit that I haven't followed all the developments regarding the birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama.It is a given that our liberal media chooses to utterly ignore this. The Constitution is flying out the window!
If I hadn't been painfully aware of this regrettable phenomenon for the past FORTY-FIVE years, I wouldn't have coined the term ENEMEDIA, which I've tried to put into general use in thousands of comments and blog posts for over a decade.But these endless games of Ain't it Awful? aren't doing much to change things for the better, are they?
FT,I know that most in the conservative blogosphere are aware of the details in the video. Actually, I posted the video primarily for my students to see. We are studying logic fallacies and propaganda techniques right now in Current Events class.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be Ducky, whose style of debate includes cute and snarky names for people he doesn't like, while changing the subject.Obama's crime in the Benghazi attack was his refusal of a request for more security before it happened, his order for the military to stand down, his failure to provide air support to the two Seals who gave away their position by painting the location of the terrorists electronically so an overhead chopper could take them out. The chopper failed to do so, no doubt on orders from our traitor in chief. Then Obama and his secretaries tried to cover uo their own malfeasance with a phony story about a YouTube video. Yeah Ducky, that's so analogous to Reagan's experience isn't it? Not.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Groseclose was with UCLA when he did his ground-breaking study on media bias. His paper has been around for a while, and for some reason liberals try dispute the conclusions. It is not apparent to me why. Nobody has been able to refute the methodology Groseclose used, or the conclusions.Most of the criticism I have read of Groseclose's paper is from people who have not read the paper or the book, and probably would not understand the methodology.There has been only one paper of which I am familiar that claims that Groseclose's model exhibited a sensitivity problem, meaning that changes in the base referenced organization might not be noticed, but no proof was shown. There's just a lot of handwaving going on.I read his book when it was first published on Kindle, and it is a fascinating account. I have also read portions of his actual study, but have not been able to find a free copy of the data and algorithms he used. Nevertheless, his model is probably not perfect, but as far as statistical models go, is probably as good as you will find.The Kindle version of the book is only $10, and a Big Mac lunch at McDonald's cost almost that much.
Liberalmann, your ignorance is crushing. Certainly you can do better than your previous comment would lead people to believe. That was one of the most ignorant and worst researched comments I have ever seen. Maybe you have done worse, but I haven't seen it.Where do you find these weirdo's for your YouTube links? Who are they? What is their background? They come across like high school dropouts reading a bad script. They did go to high school, didn't they?As far as liberal media bias goes, it is there. Dr Groseclose's study did a pretty good job, and no one has been able to effectively refute it. If you don't have anything more than anecdotal accounts from a second rate journalist, let it be.Apparently, you don't understand the climate change, or global warming issue. If you need help I will explain things to you, and even follow up with some science. The media never follows up with science because there is no science supporting radically increasing sea levels, or radical increases in instances of violent weather. You really need to pay close attention to your sources. They will make or break your position.
@ Bob,You're arguing with an idiot (liberalltwitt).He doesn't pick his sources for integrity or intelligence, he picks them because they reinforce his psychosis.It doesn't matter anyway. As soon as an administrator becomes aware of one of his comments, its deleted.
If Liberalmann had an ounce of sense, he'd quit perseverating. Apparently, he's also unaware of Einstein's definition of insanity.Furthermore, most of Liberalmann's comments are copied and pasted at various blogs in the conservative blogosphere. He's a spammer -- and, thereby, differs from Ducky.
At last the mystery is revealed. I've been wondering whose comments are being deleted so often but I've seen no direct reference until now. Good. One source of utter blind stupidity has been moderated. Now if Ducky will just get a little more into reality. Even 10% more would be a big improvement. It's not that I expect agreement in all things. Opinions are what they are. It's the unyielding insistence, the stubbornness that theory is fact and Ducky is right regardless of anything, that makes him/her/it such a discordant squawk of insanity. It's that insanity that disturbs me. There's no reason in it.
Black Sheep, let me help you out and turn that feeling of unyielding insistence into a smile.There is a blogger that collected a list of Nostradumbass' many "mistakes". It was a (very) long list. When he is wrong or makes such a total fool of himself that he becomes embarrassed, he pretends it doesn't happen or that he never saw it. He will then disappear from the thread.
Warren,Thank you for responding to others in this thread. Right now, my schedule has overwhelmed me. Tomorrow looks no better; I will have a post tomorrow as to why.
We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. We will delete comments that include any of the following:1. Any use of profanity or abusive language2. Off topic comments and spam3. Use of personal invective4. We do not respond to anonymous comments