tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10694316.post111972428213922636..comments2024-03-27T20:10:46.984-07:00Comments on The Rambling Taoist: The Media's Liberal Bias Part IThe Rambling Taoisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04730292897416827840noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10694316.post-1119863353547490932005-06-27T02:09:00.000-07:002005-06-27T02:09:00.000-07:00Ghost Dog,I look forward to future discussions wit...Ghost Dog,<BR/>I look forward to future discussions with you. In this highly argumentative and polarized world, it's always nice to find others who are willing to agree to disagree. My wife & I struck that agreement over 20 years ago and we're still going strong!The Rambling Taoisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04730292897416827840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10694316.post-1119861489148173592005-06-27T01:38:00.000-07:002005-06-27T01:38:00.000-07:00In Japan, under the feudal system, samurai who ha...In Japan, under the feudal system, samurai who had renounced his clan or who had been discharged or ostracized and had become a wanderer without a lord were called "ronin". <BR/><BR/>I was in the Army from 1989 to 1997; and was honorably discharged. I think it's over-romanticizing my situation to say I am a wanderer without a lord, but in a sense, I am. I still believe in many of the things that made me a soldier, yet I serve no one as such.<BR/><BR/>Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the media bias bit. Sorry about your football.MikeyPDXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02664912904753873654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10694316.post-1119857129093887802005-06-27T00:25:00.000-07:002005-06-27T00:25:00.000-07:00BTW, What does "Gone Ronin" mean? Thinking about t...BTW, What does "Gone Ronin" mean? <BR/><BR/><I>Thinking about the 20-to-3 thing you mentioned, doesn't it seem more likely that the media was again pointing out the weak turnout of the opposition of your resolution? Isn't it more sensational that only a small number of people opposed it? If it was more even, do you think the opposition would still have had "more coverage"?</I><BR/><BR/>The City Council voted it down 8-3, I believe. Despite the fact we had 10 times more supporters there, the 3 who spoke against the resolution were quoted 3 times more than us. Consequently, for the average reader, it appeared as if the for and against sides were fairly even.<BR/><BR/>As to the coverage of the PDX march, maybe our differences in perspective has to do with which TV station we watch and the amount of coverage provided by each.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and I'm STILL upset about my football :-<The Rambling Taoisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04730292897416827840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10694316.post-1119856176362834422005-06-27T00:09:00.000-07:002005-06-27T00:09:00.000-07:00Well, until there is evidence to invalidate what w...Well, until there is evidence to invalidate what we know today to be fact, it remains so. But you asked what "fact" was, so I gave you the definition. You want to dispute the examples given by dictionary.com, go for it, it's your blog. :)<BR/><BR/>I don't trust Michael Moore. Nobody should, on either side, to be honest with you. Too many times has he chopped up interviews to suit his views. <BR/><BR/>Gotta throw the flag on your response to my request to prove your assertion that the left is ignored by the mainstream media.<BR/>I can't speak for your experience in Salem, but from where I sat, (stuck on the MAX just shy of Pioneer Courthouse Square, on my way home), there was plenty of coverage of the anti-war demonstrators. So much so, that my wife called me to ask if I was delayed by it all - because she saw it on the news. As I recall, the only coverage of the rally supporting the President and the troops was to point out how small a group it was compared to the throng at Pioneer Courthouse Square. <BR/>Thinking about the 20-to-3 thing you mentioned, doesn't it seem more likely that the media was again pointing out the weak turnout of the opposition of your resolution? Isn't it more sensational that only a small number of people opposed it? If it was more even, do you think the opposition would still have had "more coverage"?<BR/><BR/>BTW, thanks for visiting Gone Ronin. I like your blog (you might have guessed, since I've visited rather frequently lately :) ). I have read the <I>Tao Te Ching</I> (The Victor H. Mair translation) and <I>The Tao of Pooh</I>, as well as <I>Vitality, Energy, Spirit: A Taoist Sourcebook</I> (but in each case, it's been a while), and am also highly critical of Christianity (and most of the "organized religions" - all they've really contributed to world history is war, persecution, and some fantastic architecture and art).MikeyPDXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02664912904753873654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10694316.post-1119764596236054102005-06-25T22:43:00.000-07:002005-06-25T22:43:00.000-07:00Something demonstrated to exist or known to have e...<I>Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.</I><BR/><BR/>Aah, yes, but will genetic engineering be a fact in 50 years? Yes, we know a man named Chaucer lived, but was he the genuine author of the works ascribed to him? Re this latter question, for centuries people believed (accepted as fact) that the Christian Gospels were written by the men each book is named after. Today, biblical scholars don't believe ANY of the books of the Gospel were written by the 4.<BR/><BR/><I>Just because there aren't as many left-leaning talking heads doesn't mean the viewpoints are ignored.</I><BR/><BR/>There are lots of left-leaning talking heads out there, but NONE OF THEM get invited on the panels OR as guests. Consequently, you have conservative, moderate and a few liberal talking heads explaining left-leaning ideas. What would you think about socialists explaining conservative strategies? I bet you would think they were providing biased coverage and NOT expressing the merits of such ideas in a good light.<BR/><BR/><I>And that isn't even the basis of the claims of people making allegations of liberal bias in the media. They're talking about the way the "facts" are reported. A prime example is the difference in accounts of a particular incident in Afghanistan from a "news source" and the blogs of soldiers actually on the ground. Before you say anything about how they're brainwashed and not free-thinkers, don't. I knew plenty of soldiers in my service days who were quite the opposite. So if the media was reporting fact, why would there be a difference in the reports?</I><BR/><BR/>There are different stories coming from the front lines. Michael Moore has recieved hundreds of letters from soldiers in Iraq that contradict what we hear from the Bush Administration. Robert Fisk of the UK Guardian has spent much of the past decade in Afghanistan & Iraq reporting on the "behind the scenes" stories. By and large, the mainstream media receives its information from the Pentagon & the White House.<BR/><BR/>Many soldiers on the ground feel we're justified being in Afghanistan & Iraq and there seem to be just as many that don't. Many soldiers believe we're making tremendous progress, yet many believe we're not making ANY progress. It's not a situation in which one group is lying and the other is telling the truth. Each soldier is basing their analysis on their own experience and perceptions.<BR/><BR/><I>What facts do you have to prove your assertion that the left is ignored by the mainstream media?</I><BR/><BR/>When tens of millions were in the streets protesting the initiation of the Iraq War, there was scant coverage in the press. The media made it seem like their were a few rabble rousers inciting small crowds here and there. Over 1 million marched in London and in Paris. I think they got a 5 second soundbyte on the US national news.<BR/><BR/>In Portland, over 10,000 turned out to protest. There were about 200 counter protestors (in favor of the war). The 200 received more press coverage than the 10,000.<BR/><BR/>Here in Salem, I sponsored an anti-war resolution before our City Council. We brought so many supporters (nearly 200) that the city council chambers filled up and they had to set up an overflow room. Twenty people testified in favor of the resolution and only 3 against it. Which side received more coverage in the local newspaper the next day? Of course, it was 3.<BR/><BR/>Now, that's what I consider biased coverage!The Rambling Taoisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04730292897416827840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10694316.post-1119757635917987942005-06-25T20:47:00.000-07:002005-06-25T20:47:00.000-07:00Hm...that response reeks of side-stepping. But, wh...Hm...that response reeks of side-stepping. But, whatever...<BR/><BR/>Fact:<BR/><BR/>Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy. <BR/><BR/>Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact. <BR/>A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case. <BR/>Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts. <BR/>A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact. <BR/>Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact. <BR/><BR/>The media refuses to acknowledge the left? Now there's some conjecture. Okay, so Fox News does, but not everyone. Just because there aren't as many left-leaning talking heads doesn't mean the viewpoints are ignored.<BR/><BR/>And that isn't even the basis of the claims of people making allegations of liberal bias in the media. They're talking about the way the "facts" are reported. A prime example is the difference in accounts of a particular incident in Afghanistan from a "news source" and the blogs of soldiers actually on the ground. Before you say anything about how they're brainwashed and not free-thinkers, don't. I knew plenty of soldiers in my service days who were quite the opposite. So if the media was reporting fact, why would there be a difference in the reports?<BR/><BR/>Additionally, there are so many reports in the mainstream media that make it sound like there's so little progress being made in Iraq, but if you read the accounts of the soldiers and marines over there who are witnessing it all at street-level and point-blank range, you'd see a different story entirely. Who's got their story straight?<BR/><BR/>If it's so hard to criticize a perspective that the media refuses to acknowledge, how come there are so many right-wingers doing it?<BR/><BR/>What facts do you have to prove your assertion that the left is ignored by the mainstream media?MikeyPDXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02664912904753873654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10694316.post-1119736733660516422005-06-25T14:58:00.000-07:002005-06-25T14:58:00.000-07:00if the media simply reported the factsWhat is fact...<I>if the media simply reported the facts</I><BR/><BR/>What is <B>fact</B>? Every bit of reality is based on perspective and perception. Every person has bias. What you may call fact, I might call conjecture and vice versa. The reason the Left doesn't get trashed by the mainstream media is because the media IGNORES the Left. It's hard to criticize a perspective that the media refuses to acknowledge.The Rambling Taoisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04730292897416827840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10694316.post-1119730102320844052005-06-25T13:08:00.000-07:002005-06-25T13:08:00.000-07:00Straws...just out of...reach...There's a differenc...Straws...just out of...reach...<BR/><BR/>There's a difference between being free to report the facts without fear, and reporting only the facts that make a certain segment of people look bad. Trashing conservatives isn't the same thing as reporting the truth. <BR/><BR/>The media <I>already</I> decides what information <I>they</I> want you to know. The problem conservatives have with that is that the information the media decides to put out isn't free of opinion, and isn't held accountable for any omissions of facts that might cast conservatives in a favorable light.<BR/>If the media trashed both left and right equally, there wouldn't be a problem. Better still, if the media simply reported the facts, we'd all be better off.MikeyPDXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02664912904753873654noreply@blogger.com