Saturday, October 3, 2009

Sunday Conservapedia*


*Because reality has a "liberal bias"

"Fox News"

"Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "


That would be an appeal to the authority of this "Center for Media and Public Affairs".

The Conservative ideological-affirmative-action effort would have everyone believe that if you don't pretend that John McCain and Barack Obama ran equally appealing campaigns, you're "biased".

...What an ironically Nixon-esque way to subvert merit based or objective evaluation.


3 comments:

Patrick Ross said...

And yet when we examine the popular vote from the 2008 Presidential election, we find the following:

Barack Obama - 52.9%
John McCain - 45.7%

It would seem that only 7.2% of American voters found Obama's campaign to be more appealing than McCain's.

That's a fairly slim margin -- it's definitely nothing like oh, say... 95%. It seems there is a strong argument for the appeal of McCain's campaign.

Care to comment on the salient facts?

Audrey II said...

"Care to comment on the salient facts?"

When you present one, please let me know.

Popular opinion (particularly when dealing with the U.S. electorate) != "salient facts". The beliefs held about Iraqi WMDs and Saddam's involvement in 9/11 illustrated quite well. That's why I used the term "appealing" and not "popular appeal". Cheers for illustrating a penchant for relativism!

Best of luck as well with slaying that "95%" strawman you've erected. Maybe in the process, no one will notice your own goal-shifting admission that even if one adopted the bizarre expectation that press coverage ought to reflect popular opinion, the whining about balance that I referred to would still have been (ironically) a demand for bias.

Patrick Ross said...

Sheesh, Audrey. You see strawmen everywhere. Did you have a troubling experience in the Land of Oz? Perhaps as a child?

Now that the mockery is (for now) over, one can begin to dissect the argument you've made here. As usual, there's virtually nothing of value in it.

One would ask the question of how one would objectively judge appeal.

It would seem that the appeal of a particular campaign would be reflected by how many people are swayed to support them.

Popularity is actually the only objective way to judge appeal.

Barack Obama's campaign attracted 10 million more votes than John McCain's. That is a pretty big deal, and it's unsurprising. There's a lot to like about Barack Obama.

But, overall, that's only a 7% margin.

For all intents and purposes, it's entirely clear that the two candidates ran campaigns that were very nearly equally appealing.

If media coverage didn't reflect this narrow difference of appeal -- and many would argue that it didn't -- then it's entirely defensible to insist that there was a bias.

Now, at the end of the day, this is just a silly matter to argue over. There was, of course, not only a bias, but competing biases, as there always are. The media employs numerous journalists purely for the purpose of portraying and promoting a bias -- we generally refer to them as commentators and opinion writers.

But the intriguing thing about the 2008 campaign was that many of the traditional sources of pro-Republican bias had already been alienated in advance by the Republican candidate. There remained a marked anti-Obama bias, but certainly a slimmer pro-McCain bias.

Now, with all this flying right over your head -- as these things constantly do -- the ultimate hilarity of your argument should dawn on us.

Not too long ago here you were denouncing "an ironically Nixon-esque way to subvert merit based or objective evaluation."

Now we find you casting the best means of objective evaluation out the window entirely.

But it's no big surprise. It's the only thing anyone has come to expect from someone who apparently can't figure out when she's being mocked for the defeat she suffered over l'affaire Ted Kennedy.

Post a Comment