d16842 0
Recommended Posts
QuoteIn fact, I happens to believe that the award is not his to receive, thanks to the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. I do not think that an Unconstitutional Act is something to be proud of - especially when all he has to do is ask and receive consent of Congress.
This speaks to character.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
d16842 0
From: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
One way to measure news agency bias is to pay attention to the think tanks they reference in their reports. Think tanks almost always lean left or right. Thus the initial selection of a right or left think tank, literally predetermines the report's final conclusion.
In a study, of the ten most cited think tanks used by major news agencies, only one right-wing think tank is among them. the American Enterprise Institute. The other nine are from the left.
I agree with those of the left who say the Fox News organization's combined programming is biased to the right. One would be an idiot not to, with O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, etc. But these are not news shows. My point here is we should know the difference in news and comentary. Far too many, on both sides, don't. But if I can can agree that Fox News' total programming schedule is biased right, it won't kill you guys to admit the same is true, and just as badly, by some left leaning broadcasters.
Where Fox does a better job than many competitors is in balancing the content of its actual news programs. They consistently rate in the best 25% on this. While they do have a right bias, they are no more right than the best of the other programs are left. The study numbers demonstrate that soundly.
People have a right to expect the actual news programs to be balanced. And it is clear that the public is finally catching on to the bias problem. Dan Rather's self destruction was caused by a clear and overt attempt to influence the 2004 election, not just report about it. His zeal to burn Bush, ignoring all of the basic rules of source verification, verifying a source, overcame any journalistic sense he still possessed. Consequently, public respect of journalists is at an all time low. It is a sad state of affairs.
One way to measure news agency bias is to pay attention to the think tanks they reference in their reports. Think tanks almost always lean left or right. Thus the initial selection of a right or left think tank, literally predetermines the report's final conclusion.
In a study, of the ten most cited think tanks used by major news agencies, only one right-wing think tank is among them. the American Enterprise Institute. The other nine are from the left.
I agree with those of the left who say the Fox News organization's combined programming is biased to the right. One would be an idiot not to, with O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, etc. But these are not news shows. My point here is we should know the difference in news and comentary. Far too many, on both sides, don't. But if I can can agree that Fox News' total programming schedule is biased right, it won't kill you guys to admit the same is true, and just as badly, by some left leaning broadcasters.
Where Fox does a better job than many competitors is in balancing the content of its actual news programs. They consistently rate in the best 25% on this. While they do have a right bias, they are no more right than the best of the other programs are left. The study numbers demonstrate that soundly.
People have a right to expect the actual news programs to be balanced. And it is clear that the public is finally catching on to the bias problem. Dan Rather's self destruction was caused by a clear and overt attempt to influence the 2004 election, not just report about it. His zeal to burn Bush, ignoring all of the basic rules of source verification, verifying a source, overcame any journalistic sense he still possessed. Consequently, public respect of journalists is at an all time low. It is a sad state of affairs.
Tom B
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteIn fact, I happens to believe that the award is not his to receive, thanks to the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. I do not think that an Unconstitutional Act is something to be proud of - especially when all he has to do is ask and receive consent of Congress.
This speaks to character.
If by that you mean that Obama's acceptance of the Nobel - in this fashion - demonstrates poor character on his part, then I challenge you to find any statistically significant sampling of moderate swing voters who will agree with that.
I would suspect that you may be right, but the fact that a large number of the people in this country have such a fucked up moral compass that they couldn't find their own ass with two hands and a flashlight does not make an excuse for the Commander in Chief, and President of the United States of America to ignore a directive contained within the Constitution of the United States.
I think he should be held to a higher standard than the average asshole.
I think he should be held to a higher standard than the average asshole.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
I definetly agree. there is biased news reporting for both sides.
has it always been that way? back when there were just 4 news channels ABC, CBS , NBC and PBS, i guess they only had an hour to report news. not a news channel that has "news" discussion shows.
i try to watch both slants. watch oreilly, jon stewert (yes stewert has become a news dicussion show with a laugh track), and morning joe. ocassionally they come to same conclusions, but never will admit it.
has it always been that way? back when there were just 4 news channels ABC, CBS , NBC and PBS, i guess they only had an hour to report news. not a news channel that has "news" discussion shows.
i try to watch both slants. watch oreilly, jon stewert (yes stewert has become a news dicussion show with a laugh track), and morning joe. ocassionally they come to same conclusions, but never will admit it.
Born ok 1st time.
Quote
So Riddler, you believe that Fox News is extremely partisan? OK, but does real, statistically valid research bear that claim out? Let's take a look at the huge UCLA media bias study of 2005 which objectively quantifies bias in 20 major media outlets. It is four years old, but I don't believe any of the media outlets have changed much since then. Here are two papers.
With the shift in power in 2006 and more importantly in 2008, I suspect that there has been a measurable shift in both the left leaning outlets, as well as right leaning Fox. In 2005, Fox was defending the status quo. Now it's effectively promoting the opposition.
I don't watch any of them, but I have MSNBC running on TVs in the office with the sound off. It seems to be acting as the left version of Fox (esp Keith O, who should go back to sports), and dropping any presence of being non partisan.
jcd11235 0
QuoteIn fact, I happens to believe that the award is not his to receive, thanks to the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. I do not think that an Unconstitutional Act is something to be proud of - especially when all he has to do is ask and receive consent of Congress.
There were plenty of people who had legitimate reasons to criticize Kissinger's award of the same prize.
Is there any case law specific to the Nobel Prize and the emoluments clause?
Read literally, the accepting the prize would not appear to be restricted by the clause. The Nobel Foundation is a private institution, not a government one. Also, if emolument is interpreted as a salary, fee, or other profit from employment, then the prize should not be considered an emolument, as there was no contract of employment between the Nobel Foundation and Obama, implied or stated expressly, for Obama's performance during the twelve months prior to the nomination (or prize announcement), the period during which the actions of nominees are judged.
Further, "Sitting members of the Government and sitting parliamentary representatives cannot be members of the Nobel Committee" unless they have explicitly stated their intent to not seek reelection and have less than six months of their term remaining. [Source] Thus, the Norwegian Parliament select a non-governmental committee. That committee, with assistance from the Norwegian Nobel Institute, then selects from among the Nobel Peace Prize nominees a winner on behalf of the Nobel Foundation, not on behalf of the Norwegian government or the nation-state of Norway.
For the above reasons, and also my lack of awareness of any case law dealing specifically with the acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize by a person holding an office of profit or trust under the United States, I respectfully disagree with your (and others') belief that President Obama's acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, without the consent of Congress, was an Unconstitutional Act. It is my opinion that the prize does not constitute a "present (arguable, depending on relevant case law –jcd11235), Emolument, Office, or Title". Also, the Nobel Peace Prize is not accepted from "any King, Prince or foreign State." It appears that both conditions must be met for the President's acceptance to be considered an Unconstitutional Act (i.e., in violation of the emolument clause of Article I, Section 9).
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Amazon 7
QuoteBut if I can can agree that Fox News' total programming schedule is biased right, it won't kill you guys to admit the same is true, and just as badly, by some left leaning broadcasters.
The problem lies in the definition of LEAN..... and falling down.
There are a sizable proportion of people who thing FAUX News is centrist
riddler 0
Quotehttp://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
Instead of basing your opinion on a four-year old study of one person's questionable method of analyzing media content (I call it questionable, because he calls the Wall Street Journal liberal, and the Drudge Report left-leaning), why don't you look at my post literally?
In the case of Obama accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the home page of Fox News was exactly how I captured it in a screenshot. Can you point to one story on that entire page that says anything positive about the ordeal? Is there one story that is even neutral? "fair and balanced" is not the first thing that comes to mind in this instance.
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
d16842 0
QuoteQuotehttp://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
Instead of basing your opinion on a four-year old study of one person's questionable method of analyzing media content (I call it questionable, because he calls the Wall Street Journal liberal, and the Drudge Report left-leaning), why don't you look at my post literally?
Which aspect of your post do you refer to?
I really don't see a problem using the study for several reasons. First, it was not one person's opinion. The data was collected by hundreds of researchers, from several universities. It does have some age I admit, but its methodology was first class, and that helps a lot in terms of getting useful data out of it. It really stands alone in creating methods to make consistent measurements of news articles, instead of using gut reactions which are unreliable. Second, I have personally seen nothing that even remotely suggests any of the news agencies improved on bias. If anything, it is worse today, probably from the polarization of the 2006-2008 elections.
If you dig through the larger of the two papers, they explain the Drudge score. It is because of the slant of the non-headline issues.
Quote
In the case of Obama accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the home page of Fox News was exactly how I captured it in a screen shot. Can you point to one story on that entire page that says anything positive about the ordeal? Is there one story that is even neutral? "fair and balanced" is not the first thing that comes to mind in this instance.
For starters, I never even attempted to write that Fox News was completely balanced. In fact, I did the opposite, plainly stating that Fox News is biased to the right, and that was also clearly noted in the UCLA study. My point, and yes anger now that the data is out, is that is that so many on the left are like members of the Waffen SS, believing that anyone who doesn't agree with them must be retarded. The pedestal they stand on when making that claim are news organizations far worse than Fox News.
Tom B
d16842 0
QuoteQuoteBut if I can can agree that Fox News' total programming schedule is biased right, it won't kill you guys to admit the same is true, and just as badly, by some left leaning broadcasters.
The problem lies in the definition of LEAN..... and falling down.
There are a sizable proportion of people who thing FAUX News is centrist
Yes there is. It is about the same size as the group that thinks MSNBC is even handed, and who think that Dan Rather was just trying to report things, not cripple Bush's election chances when he ran the bogus news story, and in so doing committed career suicide. The same group who feels it was his obligation to run the story without doing any checks on the document's validity. Yeah, THAT group.
Tom B
LyraM45 0
QuoteQuoteUnless you are an avid reader of Fox News - every lead article subtly or not so subtly slamming the award. I guess the right-wingers there are only proud to be an American when a Republican sits in office.
So Riddler, you believe that Fox News is extremely partisan? OK, but does real, statistically valid research bear that claim out? Let's take a look at the huge UCLA media bias study of 2005 which objectively quantifies bias in 20 major media outlets. It is four years old, but I don't believe any of the media outlets have changed much since then. Here are two papers.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
Starting with Riddler's assertion that it is Fox News that is the problem, the study of 20 news organizations revealed:Quote
There is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left. Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
Think about it. Fox is the only news agency that isn't further left than the average voter. Given that industry baseline, it can be no surprise that the left views Fox News as incredibly biased, as their comparison group, all the other organizations, are biased to the left. I don't claim that Fox's news programs are not biased. But the studies demonstrate it is significantly less biased than many left leaning news organizations. Excluding Fox, 18 of the remaining 19 agencies studied were biased left.Quote
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third. The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.
Riddler, you asked how much more biased could Fox News get? Perhaps you should ask that of sixteen remaining news shows, as the study found all of them more biased than Fox News.
There is a huge difference between the "other media outlets that lean a LITTLE to the left," and Fox news which is just so far left it's ridiculous; so far right to the point where they exaggerate and make stuff up. At least the other news stations report fact. I'll take a little left spin over complete and udder false facts from Faux.
Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)
nerdgirl 0
QuoteOK, but does real, statistically valid research bear that claim out? Let's take a look at the huge UCLA media bias study of 2005 which objectively quantifies bias in 20 major media outlets. It is four years old, but I don't believe any of the media outlets have changed much since then. Here are two papers.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
Concur that the Groseclose and Milyo paper (‘clicky’) is a neat study.
It does not, however, demonstrate media bias. (It wasn’t really huge by political science or economics standards either.) And the authors acknowledge this.
The method that the authors used was novel – it was a neat experiment …. Groseclose and Milyo did what the title of the paper indicates: "A measure of media bias" -- they created a measure; their 'ruler' for measuring domestic politics and lean to the right of conservatives of the 1993-1999 Congress. And they don't try to hide that it in the paper; it's just not acknowledged readily in the press release, however.
Basically Groseclose and Milyo set their “ruler” so far right that the numbers generated make almost everything “liberal” except the Family Research Council and Christian Coalition. Even the NRA is a liberal-leaning organization by Groseclose and Milyo's method. By the method the authors use, the AARP is a far left advocacy group, even more liberal than Amnesty International by almost 10 points (Table 1, p. 1201 in the pdf).
How did that happen? Groseclose and Milyo use ADA scores. ADA scores are on a scale from 1-100. A score of 50 is defined as right in the middle, supposed to reflect the “average voter.” The average ADA score for 1993-1999 for Congressional Democrats was 74.1 (approximately halfway between the middle & far left), whereas the average score for Congressional Republicans 1993-1999 was 11.2 (25 would be halfway between the middle & far right). The Congressional Republicans by the ADA method were not moderate conservatives. The median score for *all* of Congress (Dems & Reps) during the time period was 38.0. By the method that the authors employ to set their “cutpoints” [their wording], the Republican representatives of Congress btw 1993-1999 were significantly bias to the right and that weighted score was used for comparison. By Groseclose and Milyo’s method, some moderate conservatives Republicans were considered “liberal.” Very significantly.
Groseclose & Milyo acknowledge “The average ADA score of senators during the 1975–1994 period was 53.51. The similar figure for the House was 54.58. After rounding, we use the midpoint of these two scores to define 54.0 as the centrist United States voter during 1975–1994.” [italics in original, p. 1221)
If on the other hand, one instead compares the scores that the authors themselves report for media outlets to the straight ADA scale (not adjusted for the bias in Congress) – that is the primary data (p. 1220) -- one finds the following:
Fox News’ Special Report 39.7 (interesting to me personally, is that when I looked at an earlier version of Groseclose & Milyo’s study that was presented at a conference, they gave Fox News a rating of 29.0. Draft papers are the norm. It’s *not* evidence of conspiracy or anything sinister, just curious.)
Drudge Report 60.4 (previous Groseclose & Milyo score 44.9)
ABC World News Tonight 61.0 (52.8)
NBC Nightly News 61.6 (53.8)
Los Angeles Times 70.0 (57.1)
New York Times 73.7 (59.0)
USA Today 63.4 (59.9)
CBS Evening News 66.6 (60.8)
Wall Street Journal 85.1 <-- the most liberal of all by Groseclose and Milyo's method
Newshour with Jim Lehrer 55.8
So yes, everything is liberal, even Fox News leaned slightly liberal, by Groseclose and Milyo’s method of comparing to the average ADA score (38.0) of all Congress Reps and Senators during 1993-1999. I’m not currently motivated enough to compare the different versions and figure out how the “liberal media” outlets score rose.
While a neat study (seriously), my conclusion is that the authors demonstrated the inappropriateness of their variable selection and inappropriateness of this statistical method for this particular application (may work well in others). There’s no independent variable in the analysis. It’s more a commentary on domestic politics of the late 1990s.
As always, don’t believe me. Please read the paper.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
nerdgirl 0
QuoteThe data was collected by hundreds of researchers, from several universities.
To what study are you referring?
The "UCLA" Groseclose and Milyo study refers to data collection overseen and analyzed by two guys: Tim Groseclose (UCLA) and Jeff Milyo (University of Missouri) from two universities. They used Lexis-Nexis. They acknowledge 21 research assistants, who are probably undergrad & grad students who did the Lexis-Nexis initial querying.
Quotebut its methodology was first class,
One what do you base that assessment?
Concur that it was a robust statistically valid methodology. Media studies is not my area of expertise. Compared to other statistically-based methods for assessing media bias, why was Groseclose & Milyo's better?
QuoteSecond, I have personally seen nothing that even remotely suggests any of the news agencies improved on bias.
Suspect you may be correct. Here's the response to Groseclose and Milyo's findings, specifically addressing methodology and their conclusions, of the Dow Jones and Co., the publisher of the Wall Street Journal:
“The Wall Street Journal's news coverage is relentlessly neutral. Of that, we are confident.
“By contrast, the research technique used in this study hardly inspires confidence. In fact, it is logically suspect and simply baffling in some of its details.
“Third, the reader of this report has to travel all the way Table III on page 57 to discover that the researchers’ ‘study’ of the content of The Wall Street Journal covers exactly FOUR MONTHS in 2002, while the period examined for CBS News covers more than 12 years, and National Public Radio’s content is examined for more than 11 years. This huge analytical flaw results in an assessment based on comparative citings during vastly differing time periods, when the relative newsworthiness of various institutions could vary widely. Thus, Time magazine is ‘studied’ for about two years, while U.S. News and World Report is examined for eight years. Indeed, the periods of time covered for the Journal, the Washington Post and the Washington Times are so brief that as to suggest that they were simply thrown into the mix as an afterthought. Yet the researchers provide those findings the same weight as all the others, without bothering to explain that in any meaningful way to the study’s readers.
“Suffice it to say that ‘research’ of this variety would be unlikely to warrant a mention at all in any Wall Street Journal story.”
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
riddler 0
QuoteMy point, and yes anger now that the data is out, is that is that so many on the left are like members of the Waffen SS, believing that anyone who doesn't agree with them must be retarded. The pedestal they stand on when making that claim are news organizations far worse than Fox News.
Well, then, it's not a very good point, is it? You are superimposing your own prejudices onto my post. I never said other media organizations are not left-wing. In fact, I believe many of them are very much so. Neither did I claim that anyone who doesn't agree with me is retarded. Nor do I condone the actions of Nazi groups. I'm sorry you had to read so much into the post that wasn't there, and it's unfortunate that made you angry.
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
chuckakers 370
QuoteI would think that when the President of the US receives the Nobel Peace Prize, regardless of whether you like him, or whether you think he deserves it, it would be considered a great day for the country, and it's citizens might feel proud.
Unless you are an avid reader of Fox News - every lead article subtly or not so subtly slamming the award. I guess the right-wingers there are only proud to be an American when a Republican sits in office.
The Nobel Peace prize is a joke, and Obama is a clown for accepting it. Proud? Have another glass of cool-aid.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX
D-10855
Houston, TX
QuoteQuoteI would think that when the President of the US receives the Nobel Peace Prize, regardless of whether you like him, or whether you think he deserves it, it would be considered a great day for the country, and it's citizens might feel proud.
Unless you are an avid reader of Fox News - every lead article subtly or not so subtly slamming the award. I guess the right-wingers there are only proud to be an American when a Republican sits in office.
The Nobel Peace prize is a joke, and Obama is a clown for accepting it. Proud? Have another glass of cool-aid.
I won't comment on whether the NPP is a joke or not but if Obama had not accepted it, you would be complaining about that also.
(Hell just froze over-I'm defending Obama
)
chuckakers 370
QuoteQuoteQuoteI would think that when the President of the US receives the Nobel Peace Prize, regardless of whether you like him, or whether you think he deserves it, it would be considered a great day for the country, and it's citizens might feel proud.
Unless you are an avid reader of Fox News - every lead article subtly or not so subtly slamming the award. I guess the right-wingers there are only proud to be an American when a Republican sits in office.
The Nobel Peace prize is a joke, and Obama is a clown for accepting it. Proud? Have another glass of cool-aid.
I won't comment on whether the NPP is a joke or not but if Obama had not accepted it, you would be complaining about that also.
(Hell just froze over-I'm defending Obama
Your assumption is incorrect. I'm not an Obama basher. I just call 'em as i see 'em. If he turned the prize away, I would have applauded the move.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX
D-10855
Houston, TX
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI would think that when the President of the US receives the Nobel Peace Prize, regardless of whether you like him, or whether you think he deserves it, it would be considered a great day for the country, and it's citizens might feel proud.
Unless you are an avid reader of Fox News - every lead article subtly or not so subtly slamming the award. I guess the right-wingers there are only proud to be an American when a Republican sits in office.
The Nobel Peace prize is a joke, and Obama is a clown for accepting it. Proud? Have another glass of cool-aid.
I won't comment on whether the NPP is a joke or not but if Obama had not accepted it, you would be complaining about that also.
(Hell just froze over-I'm defending Obama
Your assumption is incorrect. I'm not an Obama basher.
Several of your past post indicate otherwise. I guess it's how you define the word "basher"
chuckakers 370
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI would think that when the President of the US receives the Nobel Peace Prize, regardless of whether you like him, or whether you think he deserves it, it would be considered a great day for the country, and it's citizens might feel proud.
Unless you are an avid reader of Fox News - every lead article subtly or not so subtly slamming the award. I guess the right-wingers there are only proud to be an American when a Republican sits in office.
The Nobel Peace prize is a joke, and Obama is a clown for accepting it. Proud? Have another glass of cool-aid.
I won't comment on whether the NPP is a joke or not but if Obama had not accepted it, you would be complaining about that also.
(Hell just froze over-I'm defending Obama
Your assumption is incorrect. I'm not an Obama basher.
Several of your past post indicate otherwise. I guess it's how you define the word "basher"
My previous posts - and any others I make - are issues based. If you see a lot of my posts in disagreement with the president, why does that make me a basher, rather than someone who simply disagrees with a lot of the things he does?
As I said, I call 'em as I see 'em. I do, for example, agree with his move to increase troops in Afghanistan.
What's next? I'm a racist becasue I don't like B.O.'s socialist agenda???
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX
D-10855
Houston, TX
jcd11235 0
QuoteQuoteIn fact, I happens to believe that the award is not his to receive, thanks to the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. I do not think that an Unconstitutional Act is something to be proud of - especially when all he has to do is ask and receive consent of Congress.
There were plenty of people who had legitimate reasons to criticize Kissinger's award of the same prize.
Is there any case law specific to the Nobel Prize and the emoluments clause?
Read literally, the accepting the prize would not appear to be restricted by the clause. The Nobel Foundation is a private institution, not a government one. Also, if emolument is interpreted as a salary, fee, or other profit from employment, then the prize should not be considered an emolument, as there was no contract of employment between the Nobel Foundation and Obama, implied or stated expressly, for Obama's performance during the twelve months prior to the nomination (or prize announcement), the period during which the actions of nominees are judged.
Further, "Sitting members of the Government and sitting parliamentary representatives cannot be members of the Nobel Committee" unless they have explicitly stated their intent to not seek reelection and have less than six months of their term remaining. [Source] Thus, the Norwegian Parliament select a non-governmental committee. That committee, with assistance from the Norwegian Nobel Institute, then selects from among the Nobel Peace Prize nominees a winner on behalf of the Nobel Foundation, not on behalf of the Norwegian government or the nation-state of Norway.
For the above reasons, and also my lack of awareness of any case law dealing specifically with the acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize by a person holding an office of profit or trust under the United States, I respectfully disagree with your (and others') belief that President Obama's acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, without the consent of Congress, was an Unconstitutional Act. It is my opinion that the prize does not constitute a "present (arguable, depending on relevant case law –jcd11235), Emolument, Office, or Title". Also, the Nobel Peace Prize is not accepted from "any King, Prince or foreign State." It appears that both conditions must be met for the President's acceptance to be considered an Unconstitutional Act (i.e., in violation of the emolument clause of Article I, Section 9).
Counselor?
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
mnealtx 0
QuoteI'll take a little left spin over complete and udder false facts from Faux.
So, when Contessa Brewer reported about 'white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or to their legs' at an Arizona Town Hall meeting, was that 'left spin' or 'udder false facts'?
Here's a pic of what MSNBC showed, and then there's...the REST of the story.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
So Riddler, you believe that Fox News is extremely partisan? OK, but does real, statistically valid research bear that claim out? Let's take a look at the huge UCLA media bias study of 2005 which objectively quantifies bias in 20 major media outlets. It is four years old, but I don't believe any of the media outlets have changed much since then. Here are two papers.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
Starting with Riddler's assertion that it is Fox News that is the problem, the study of 20 news organizations revealed:
Think about it. Fox is the only news agency that isn't further left than the average voter. Given that industry baseline, it can be no surprise that the left views Fox News as incredibly biased, as their comparison group, all the other organizations, are biased to the left. I don't claim that Fox's news programs are not biased. But the studies demonstrate it is significantly less biased than many left leaning news organizations. Excluding Fox, 18 of the remaining 19 agencies studied were biased left.
Riddler, you asked how much more biased could Fox News get? Perhaps you should ask that of sixteen remaining news shows, as the study found all of them more biased than Fox News.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites