You are making the sexist assumption that Dr. Pepper is a man, not a woman. If the good Dr. is a woman, inserting a finger will only exacerbate the situation.
No need to apologize for disagreeing with me. I don't think you've understood my point. My point is not that she's in the center, politically. That's not what "objective" means. Objective means leaving your own bias out of the analysis you provide. I think she's pretty objective in analyzing Democrat and Republican politicians. Of course, true "political objectivity" is fairly impossible. There has to be a standpoint from which you analyze. Her worldview is surely a progressive one, so she analyzes from that standpoint...which will tend to agree with progressive policies more than conservative ones. My real point is that she doesn't strike me as attempting to carry out an agenda. Most talk show hosts are attempting to create a narrative...Republicans good/Democrats bad or Democrats good/Republicans bad. Ifill doesn't do that, in my view. Her analysis is influenced by her worldview, so is biased in that sense, but it is not biased by an agenda.
THANK YOU...the book is not about obama and is not pro obama. it doesn't say "vote for obama if you want change". its pro african american politicians and their struggle to get where they are and what they had to go through...and if she didn't include obama in her book. she would be a fool.
I don't think she's objective in the least. She's trained in the NYT and Washington Post school of journalism (worked at both) and went to an even further left outlet at PBS. Her show has a Green Party bias to it that is obvious to anyone who's been exposed to that kind of thing.
If I'm the dems this VP debate scares the hell out of me. They are doing well in the polls and a slip up by Biden right now would be huge. Biden has a problem of putting his foot in his mouth. If I'm the Republicans I figure out some comments that provoke him into a mistake.
Just out of curiosity, who would you name as a journalist representative of the moderate center? I'm just wondering what kind of scale we're working on here, if the NYT/WaPo are left, PBS is far left, and Gwen Ifill (!?!) is far, far left. SR
There isn't. The bulk of the US media is left of the people, and the rest is right of the people to compensate. (the people being mostly moderate center, and not as polarized as the issue debates make it seem). You think it's good to recognize this "truth" and take it into consideration instead of pretending it's not true?
I think it's entirely possible that there's no one right exactly at the center... I couldn't think of someone I'd cite either. I totally disagree that the bulk of the media (particularly the ones you mentioned above) tilt to the left. The NYT Editorial Page definitely leans left; the news coverage definitely doesn't. Similarly, at least since Kay Graham died, the WaPo Editorial Page definitely leans right; the news coverage doesn't. The two most critical decisions of the last 10 years in the United States, in my view, were the election of George Bush in 2000 and the authorization of war in Iraq in 2003. No other institution in American society was more responsible for those two things happening than the New York Times. The old right-wing claims about the NYT's left-wing bias are hugely useful in political terms, and maybe it was true 30 years ago, but it is clearly not true now. SR
At the very least she shouldn't have been concealing this information from the Commission of Presidential Debates. I thought that telling the commission that you're writing a book like that would be common sense.
The WaPo and NYT editorial pages lean left, and the news coverage is done by zealots who want to be part of the editorial page. The NYT bashed Clinton pretty hard, but I chalk that up to NAFTA, GATT, ending welfare as we know it, MFN for China, and a whole host of other republican ideas he implemented. The "news" is absolutely biased, and filled with opinion or quotes to advance an opinion. We can talk about global warming in another thread, but it's a good example. Some scientists say it's man made and others say man has nothing to do with it. If a news article quotes the former kind of scientists heavily and the latter kind out of context or not at all, it skews the news. Another good example is an AP story yesterday. Consumer confidence report is up for the first time in a long time, surprising economists who predicted otherwise! AP's headline and gist of the story is "it's at it's lowest in 8 years and remains so" but they did get to the report being up in paragraph 10 or 15 (literally).
