See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Don Surber » Blog Archive » Bu-bye, reputation
2. More on the Journalists' Donations : The American Pundit
3. A Lady's Ruminations
4. Gubatron
5. Nightly Ramble: Videotape, Bias and more | BitsBlog
6. PAXALLES
7. Lincoln Logs » Blog Archive » Journos Like Dems
8. Media Unmasked !
9. tribe.net: michellemalkin.com
10. tribe.net: michellemalkin.com
11. Mesothelioma WebLog » Blog Archive » FrontPage magazine.com :: Victory in Pennsylvania by David Horowitz

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On June 21st, 2007 at 3:32 pm, schratboy said:

   I don’t give a crap about these scribes spend their money. Just don’t let them say that they don’t keep their biases out of their writing and reporting. The furtive tongue-cluck. The inflected word. The extra adjective. All indicators of peevish liberal tendencies manifest as so-called ‘objective reporting and reporting the facts.’ Fact rhymes with crack. Get the picture?

2. #2
   On June 21st, 2007 at 3:34 pm, The Raging Republican said:

   “New York Times” and “Ethicist” don’t belong in the same sentence!

3. #3
   On June 21st, 2007 at 3:35 pm, Capt Howdy said:

   I wonder if it’s possible for Michelle to go one day without using the word “moonbat.”

   Whaddya say Michelle? It’s too late today, but maybe tomorrow you could try dropping the name calling for a day?

4. #4
   On June 21st, 2007 at 3:40 pm, Brad said:

   Agree with #2.. but that’s what makes it so juicy!

5. #5
   On June 21st, 2007 at 3:40 pm, David e said:

   I voted for Randy as he also claimed that he didn’t know MoveOn.org was a political organization. Sure let’s go with that.

6. #6
   On June 21st, 2007 at 3:49 pm, The Raging Republican said:

   I voted for Randy as he also claimed that he didn’t know MoveOn.org was a political organization. Sure let’s go with that.

   Yeah, and Keith Olbermann(D) is a “reporter”

7. #7
   On June 21st, 2007 at 4:05 pm, mangle1 said:

   It saddens me to see Michelle using this silly non-word “moonbat” to describe her political enemies.

8. #8
   On June 21st, 2007 at 4:07 pm, billhedrick said:

   It’s not name calling to call them what they are. Name calling would be to call them, oh, sons of apes and pigs. The word “Moonbat” means what they are senseless see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonbat

   It’s common parlance, as is wingnut for we members of the VRWC

9. #9
   On June 21st, 2007 at 4:08 pm, MikeyMike said:

   Moonbat and wingnut are very common terms in political blogs. I suppose one could be PC and say “far left liberals” or “far right conservatives”, but I suggest getting a thicker skin.

10. #10
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:10 pm, mangle1 said:

    billhedrick, if I said “nigger” was a common slang term for black people, would that be appropriate?

    Probably not. Granted, “nigger” has more hateful connotations, but I think that “moonbat” is dismissive to the point of being malicious.

    Moreover, don’t try to defend Michelle’s silly made-up word by pointing fingers at others. If she wants to be a grown-up journalist, she should try, well, growing up.

11. #11
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:12 pm, ThomasChronicles said:

    Personally, I liked Mark Singer from the New Yorker. MSNBC has a good quote from him comparing defeating Bush’s 2004 presidential run to killing Hitler. You know, a moonbat isn’t complete until he compares Bush to Hitler.

    “If someone had murdered Hitler — a journalist interviewing him had murdered him — the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime.”

12. #12
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:14 pm, The Raging Republican said:

    It terrible that people like Michelle are more well education than you and can use big words like “Moonbat”.

    How about you get something other than a GED before you come on here and start bashing people.

13. #13
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:18 pm, mangle1 said:

    The Raging Republican: I’ve been schooled about twice as long as Michelle has, if her Wikipedia page is to be believed. At better schools, no less.

    I don’t see what that has to do with anything, regardless. “Moonbat” is a dumb and made up term for political opponents that is meant to dismiss them before even dismissing them. If the word did anything else, she wouldn’t use it. Educated people should know better.

14. #14
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:23 pm, The Raging Republican said:

    Made up?????? Come on mangle1…Go to school and learn something…I’ve got two degrees, are you telling me you can’t even get one????

15. #15
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:23 pm, MikeyMike said:

    mangle1
    Strange that you are offended by the use of her terms, yet visit the site, post here and take the time to look up her entry in Wikipedia. I think that may qualify as another term

    *troll*

16. #16
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:31 pm, billhedrick said:

    mangle is a notable troll here. Moonbat as is noted in the wikipedia entry isn’t a neologism, but if it were all words are made up words. Some are older than others and most have changed meaning through the years.

17. #17
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:31 pm, mangle1 said:

    The Raging Republican : I have two degrees. So do you. Very nice. That’s what I meant when I said I’ve been to school about twice as long as Michelle who, I have seen, has one.

    Thank you for reading.

    Anyway, “moonbat” is not a word.

18. #18
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:32 pm, SAHMmy said:

    So Capn Howdy, if we stop saying moonbat, does that mean they will all *poof!* disappear?

19. #19
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:33 pm, mangle1 said:

    Nobody can argue my point. Use of the word “moonbat” cheapens the political environment and degrades opponents irrationally. Michelle should stop using it.

20. #20
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:34 pm, Mindcrime said:

    You know your liberal slip is showing when you’re deeply offended by the word “moobat”.

21. #21
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:36 pm, SAHMmy said:

    mangle, if it’s not a word why do you have your panties all in a knot over it?

    Why are liberals so afraid of words? Except real words like Chimpy McHitlerBush, eh?

22. #22
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:36 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    OK mangle1, I’m calling you out. What schools did you attend, how long and what degrees did you earn? And can we verify it, or are you all talk?

23. #23
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:37 pm, steveegg said:

    Tough choices all, but I had to go with Guy Raz for not only violating CNN policy, but for violating federal law by not disclosing his occupation and lawyer.

24. #24
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:38 pm, David e said:

    Gee mangle1, aren’t we elitist snobs. You have a better education, longer, etc, etc. Having occupied a chair in a classroom does not make one well educated, no matter what the school. I know as I have taught physics at University of Illinois (obviously a second rate school in your mind . I have taught at others including College of the Virgin Islands, now UVI).

    I am also willing to be you have used such charming terms as nazi or fascist to describ people you disagree with, but I’ll bet that is ok.

25. #25
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:39 pm, rightside said:

    mangle1, if her choice of words bothers you, feel free to not read here any longer. That it your right.

    How about we choose a more appropriate term then. Liar. You know, that’s what happens when you tell lies. Things like, “I didn’t inhale”, “I can’t recall”, “I can be completely objective, because I am a journalist”.

26. #26
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:39 pm, billhedrick said:

    I will argue your point, since you refuse to read my cite. Moonbat while not a nice word or one of long lineage is used specifically to designate a specific group much as wingnut is. I will gladly accept a designation as a wingnut. Like all good words it quickly tells you who you are talking about.

    As far as cheapening the political environment, I think that’s like trying to make water wet. Political argument is not for the faint of heart or those too gentle for rough and tumble. This is nothing new, if anything the last 30 years have been tame in historical American perspective. If politics is too harsh for you perhaps you should concentrate on something tamer, like Professional Wrestling.

27. #27
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:40 pm, reppac122 said:

    So, if someone is short, we should call them “vertically challenged.” If someone is bald, we should call them “follicly challenged.” And….if someone is a “moonbat”, we should call them a liberal. Either way, same thing. I am not PC, so moonbat it is.

28. #28
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:41 pm, Val Prieto said:

    How about adding an “All of the above along with every other MSM reporter mentioned or not mentioned in the story” option?

29. #29
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:43 pm, mangle1 said:

    SAHMmy: I’m not offended, I just think it’s dumb. It’s an unintelligent slang term from a woman who would aim to be an intelligent journalist. It’s holding her back.

    David e: I only commented on my education after being told that I have no education. Don’t be testy.

    rightside: I agree. Liars should be impeached. It’s a shame that Gonzales is still in office.

    Everyone here defends Michelle to the point of lunacy.

30. #30
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:46 pm, capitano said:

    Randy Cohen makes his own case for moonbat award:

    Cohen went on to compare donating to Moveon.org with giving to the Boy Scouts or the Catholic church. LINK

    Need more be said?

31. #31
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:48 pm, reppac122 said:

    Given the comments section has been open less than 12 hours, I don’t see how you can say that “everyone here defends Michelle to the point of lunacy.” So, are you calling us luncatics now? That is cheapening the debate I think. This is a right of center blog. We have every right to express our opinions here. We happen to agree with Michelle, hence her vast readership! You certainly can disagree with Michelle and our views, but if your only dog in the fight is the word “moonbat”, then, respectfully, you are fighting an uphill battle here.

32. #32
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:49 pm, bipartisancomplainer said:

    Interesting reporting from MSNBC! Thanks for sharing it. I voted for Guy Raz for claiming to not understand the Iraq war would be considered “U.S. News.”

    Off topic but I agree that the ‘affectionate’ name-calling could be lessened from both sides. Especially in this day and age of so much party disenchantment, more and more people are open to good ideas regardless of where they are coming from. No need to alienate them before the ideas are even presented. And as anyone can see from this comment thread, the actual point of this post has been lost due to the name-calling.

33. #33
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:51 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Holding her back from what? Hasn’t she accomplished more with her one degree than you have with two?
    Aside from that mangle1, don’t you agree that journalists should abide by the stated standards of their employers, and Federal election laws? I believe the post had more to do with that than with the term Moonbat?

34. #34
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:52 pm, rightside said:

    I agree. Liars should be impeached.

    He was on 12 February, 1999.

35. #35
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:52 pm, billhedrick said:

    I’m voting for Guy Raz as well,to think American news stopping at the waters edge!

36. #36
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:52 pm, Brad said:

    I smell a troll.

    Moonbat, wingnut, koolaid drinker (gotta love that Jim Jones’s legacy lives in political name calling) and other names are simply part of the lingo now, but I fail to see how comparing it to a racial name makes any sense.

    I’m assuming that terrorist are just freedom fighters, right? Perhaps illegal immigrants are just “undocumented Americans” a la Harry Reid. A true blue moonbat and nutroot panderer, mind you.

    I for one do not intend on whitewashing a term some dislike simply because it doesn’t portray them in a positive light. You’re more than welcome to your own words, but I wouldn’t expect to solicit too many conversions. Perhaps you got lost on your way to Kos or Wonkette?

37. #37
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:55 pm, SAHMmy said:

    I’m not defending Michelle, she needs no help from me. I’m taking issue with the use of one of my all-time favorite words.

    There are people that I deeply love and cherish who are moonbats. That they are moonbats is sad, but doesn’t diminish my love for them. But I don’t need to not refer to them by that term because it is such a perfect description of their views.

    Boo and hoo.

38. #38
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:56 pm, jw said:

    isn’t it illegal to make donations using someone else’s name…

39. #39
    On June 21st, 2007 at 4:58 pm, rightside said:

    Brad, calling and illegal immigrant an “undocumented worker” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”

40. #40
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:03 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    If the “moonbat” fits - wear it!

41. #41
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:04 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

    Resident Troll Mangle has, once again, achieved great success using the well-known, oft-used tactic of diversion.

    Instead of condemning the obvious political leanings of journalists, he instead chooses to steer the conversation away from the damning evidence by focusing on the word, “moonbat”.

    Mangle - how about accepting the truth that this story highlights what most of us ‘wingnuts’ knew a long time ago - that the MSM is liberally biased.

    On a different tangent - my favorite has to be Mr. Cohen from the NY Times. He said he thought of “…MoveOn.org as nonpartisan and thought the donation would be allowed even under the strict rule at the Times.”

    How in touch is this “reporter” that he believes MoveOn.org is non-partisan???

    And we’re supposed to trust him with accurate news stories?

42. #42
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:05 pm, 3Steps said:

    *sigh*

    And I thought we were going to stick to topic.

    I find the whole whether or not MM uses the word Moonbat discussion WAY off- topic.

    Education has very little to do with how smart someone is. And even less to do with how well they speak or write. As most colleges and universities are run by moonbats these days it goes without saying that they are the ones that tend to throw out that education card. Guess what? I’ve got NO degree. I can’t post my transcript… school won’t give it too me.. something about not paying for that last class. Gee… I’m err.. heartbroken.. ya that’s it. But I’m 7 points from being a Mensa candidate. And guess how much that matters in the ways of the world? Not a damn thing. Therefore, education or lack thereof is also off-topic.

    I voted for the “Ethics” king at the NYT. But last 2 are classic moonbats as they did not even accept responsibility for their actions. Let’s blame everyone else it wasn’t our fault.

    Step up to the plate. If you don’t want to be classified as a moonbat. Don’t act like one. Take responsibility for your own actions for a change.

43. #43
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:08 pm, todd76705 said:

    just wondering, did olby even make the top ten in the moonbat list?

44. #44
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:08 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    Why was the Wall Street Journal editorial board not mentioned? Their video was just too funny!!!

45. #45
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:08 pm, 3Steps said:

    @ rightside

    calling and illegal immigrant an “undocumented worker” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”

    ROFL!!!! Nice one.

46. #46
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:10 pm, The Raging Republican said:

    Harry Reid calls ‘em Undocumented Americans

    Video

47. #47
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:17 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    And SAHMmy - it’s boo-freakin’-hoo. If you are going to quote MM, at least get it right! LOL

48. #48
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:22 pm, mangle1 said:

    Troll, as defined by the MM community: Anyone who disagrees.

49. #49
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:27 pm, reppac122 said:

    Mangle1: Do you, or do you not, agree that there is a bias in the media skewed leftward? Let’s get the comments back on track.

50. #50
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:32 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    No, troll is someone who can’t get past a “made up” word. MM uses the word because it fits. I (and others) disagree with you. What does that make me? P.S. no degrees here and yet, somehow, I understand completely – go figure.

51. #51
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:34 pm, mkarnes2007 said:

    Anyone else think this MSNBC report about journalists contributing to democratic candidates is like the pot calling the kettle black?

52. #52
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:35 pm, billhedrick said:

    mangle did you look at the wikipedia cite I posted, that explains the genesis of the word, besides who on the list did you find least credible?

53. #53
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:37 pm, billhedrick said:

    understand ALL WORDS ARE MADE UP. As an educated man don’t you have any understanding of philogy or neologisms?
    What do they teach people nowadays?

54. #54
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:38 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    Ebonics

55. #55
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:40 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    Oh, I voted for Cohen and he is in the lead!!! Just to get back on topic here - LOL

56. #56
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:51 pm, corona said:

    OK, I’ll admit I vote for the blond on the basis of pure lookism.

57. #57
    On June 21st, 2007 at 5:54 pm, pakurilecz said:

    The excuses offered remind me greatly of Animal Farm. The good thing about the report is that it confirms the inherent bias present in the MSM. Now just imagine the uproar if they had been donating to Republicans, there would be a great hue and cry about it.

58. #58
    On June 21st, 2007 at 6:19 pm, davidleerothmann said:

    “She said the donation “is not a reflection of my political views,”

    Ummm, sure. I don’t care to whom they donate, I think it would be in the public interest to have complete disclosure. I want to know if the guy on TV who is showing me a memo that is “fake but accurate” gave money to the opposition candidate. These journalists are lying to themselves and to us when they claim they are unbiased.

    The way things run now is a little like having a business reporter hyping an IPO who just happens to have tons of options in that company. They have a horse in the race, and they always have. Remember Peter Jennings’ “temper tantrum” comment? Contrast the reporting of the recent shift in Congress? Couric, “You go, Girl!”?? Does any more need to be said?

59. #59
    On June 21st, 2007 at 6:26 pm, southdakotaboy said:

    We must all remember that the rules that apply to everyone else do not apply to the msm. Remember they are above such petty things like laws and ethics.

60. #60
    On June 21st, 2007 at 6:27 pm, jdawg said:

    #3, #7

    All I can say is….

    WAHHHHHHHH

61. #61
    On June 21st, 2007 at 6:27 pm, purplepeep said:

    If “mangle1″ were anything other than a troll he would be able to prove so by posting on topic instead of trying to disrupt intelligent discussion with his rage at being called a moonbat.

    If he cannot discuss his thoughts on the issue at hand - the exposure of the media’s financial support of the left, I’m sure Michelle can remedy his problem.

    The MSM coziness with liberal politicos is worthy of a deeper expose, ala the recent one on BBC leftist bias.

62. #62
    On June 21st, 2007 at 6:29 pm, jdawg said:

    Folks,

    Mangle1 is a troll who cannot argue the issue at hand. Therefore, he/she likes to derail the discussion. This happened in the thread on the shamnesty bill.

    Don’t feed the trolls. It only encourages them.

63. #63
    On June 21st, 2007 at 6:35 pm, MoxArgon said:

    Being a so-called “ethics expert” and violating your own rules is truly hypocrisy on a level you must respect.

64. #64
    On June 21st, 2007 at 6:36 pm, DirkBelig said:

    None of these choices.

    As #11 noted, The New Yorker’s Mark Singer came about as close as you can get to wishing that some journalist would assassinate Dubya as you can get without actually explicitly saying such a thing.

    “Probably there should be a rule against it. But there’s a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler — a journalist interviewing him had murdered him — the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don’t regret it.”

    Gee, if you read that quickly, doesn’t that sure sound like he wishes that some noble journalist should assassinate Dubya because just as killing Hitler would’ve made the world a better place, so would the death of the President that he despises?

    Granted, he means that even if it was *wrong* to give political money, he doesn’t regret it. (Let’s not try to twist it like liberals into a flat declaration of murder-wishing on his part.) But what mental pathology is at work that would even make him muse in this manner and context? How the hell are we supposed to keep a straight face at the myth of Treason Media journalistic objectivity when we know what simmers in their ids?

    To recap: While Singer did NOT explicitly call for the assassination of Dubya at the hands of a reporter, he clearly wishes that Dubya would be killed for the betterment of the world. (I wouldn’t be surprised if he has this mental image in his “spank bank” for onanistic purposes in the way a normal man has various Angelina Jolie movies memorized.) Sick man.

65. #65
    On June 21st, 2007 at 6:37 pm, jdawg said:

    Bush = Hitler in the eyes of the left.

    Journalists included.

66. #66
    On June 21st, 2007 at 6:42 pm, purplepeep said:

    “Don’t feed the trolls. It only encourages them”

    Indeed, jdawg. Just report ‘em and then ignore ‘em.

67. #67
    On June 21st, 2007 at 6:51 pm, purplepeep said:

    “Mark Singer came about as close as you can get to wishing that some journalist would assassinate Dubya as you can get without actually explicitly saying such a thing.”

    And note how the MSM justifies itself on such things - the usual air of altruistic elitist supremecy. Remember how Cronkite excused the MSM liberal bias:

    “We are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals so be it, just as long as in reporting the news we adhere to the first ideals of good journalism — that news reports must be fair, accurate and unbiased.”

    George Soros, powerless? heh

    Cronkite Admits: Media Liberal

68. #68
    On June 21st, 2007 at 7:15 pm, liberal_dude said:

    I really don’t care how these fools spend their money…..nor do I care how a wingnut spends their money. Just give me the news and I can make my own choices. If you let the news sway your opinion either way then you are living up to the moonbat and wingnut moniker. Neither party really cares about us they are about the money in their pocket. Conservatives feel dissed and liberals feel dissed so who is really winning?

69. #69
    On June 21st, 2007 at 7:20 pm, tilthen said:

    144 journalist made political contributions,most gave to the democratic party,..can they
    possibly be unbiased?, Mary fuginili says she was then thinking as a lawyer,how is she thinking today, Diana chi news writer gave 19 contributions!

    who are the moonbats i say all,im sure some of you have seen when the bats all fly out from under a tunnel, all flock together.

70. #70
    On June 21st, 2007 at 7:27 pm, jdawg said:

    liberal_dude,

    The contributions show the political leanings of those who proclaim to be “objective” in reporting the “news.”

    Check out newsbusters.org, and you can see plenty of examples of media bias.

71. #71
    On June 21st, 2007 at 7:28 pm, sxs537 said:

    The study is bogus atleast statistically speaking. 144 out 60000 is 0.24% of the total population of journalists and that cannot be indicative of a general trend (of liberal media bias). I am not saying that such a bias does not exist….. it might very well be but this study does not prove it.

    What it does prove is that overwhelming number of TV/News journalists (Right leaning or left-leaning) are ethical and do not contribute to politcal causes, thus avoiding any conflict of interests (whatever their personal political views are).

    Instead of doing a study of political contributions, the more apt study would be an exhaustive scientific survey of a statistically significant number of journalists to prove the liberal media bias.

    Sorry being trained in science I do not agree with this highly unscientific study. My two cents!!

72. #72
    On June 21st, 2007 at 7:32 pm, Laree said:

    All,

    I think Fake Imus’s Fave MSM is Contessa Brewer. This is a link to his blog on Contessa Brewer’s Greatest Hits Vol 1 Check out all the Fakes that showed up to comment.

    http://fakeimus.blogspot.com/2007/06/contessa-brewers-greatest-hits-vol-1.html

73. #73
    On June 21st, 2007 at 7:41 pm, wise_n_texas said:

    Move on folks, nothing to see here…. Bias?? What Bias??? Heck this is how EVERYONE thinks….. isn’t it????

    The Libs don’t even understand how dangerous they have become. The DemWit Party is now the Party of Censorship - NOT Self-Censorship (no, that would be too responsible) - but they want to censor anyone that opposes their views……. AND THEY DON’T GET THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING… How is that possible????

74. #74
    On June 21st, 2007 at 7:57 pm, purplepeep said:

    liberal_dude, don’t you think it you think it’s quite telling that the MSM supports the left both philosophically and financially while also serving as the left’s propaganda arm?

    This nothing new, though. The MSM’s far left bias has always been obvious, with the majority of Americans noting the MSM liberal leanings in every poll. This just serves as further confirnation.

75. #75
    On June 21st, 2007 at 8:04 pm, Justin Higgins said:

    Even though there are better candidates, I voted for Calvert because she personifies the ditzy blonde wing of the Democrat party. Our women are smart!

76. #76
    On June 21st, 2007 at 8:11 pm, purplepeep said:

    Error! Error! Does not compute!
    (with apologies to Msr. Chertoff for those nasty exclamation points!)

    “What it does prove is that overwhelming number of TV/News journalists (Right leaning or left-leaning) are ethical”

    You’re begging to have it both ways. You can’t dismiss the very clear part you don’t like and then tout a purely imagined part you do like. Much less cite the imagined part as “proof”. It’s not intellectually or logically viable, sorry.

77. #77
    On June 21st, 2007 at 8:13 pm, swj719AWG said:

    Had to vote for Collins…

    Sorry, I am but a man…

78. #78
    On June 21st, 2007 at 8:15 pm, MegaTroopX said:

    Testing Testing.

79. #79
    On June 21st, 2007 at 8:22 pm, sxs537 said:

    Purplepeep……I probably worded it wrong…….. I should not say that they are ethical but what I should say is that the overwhelming number of journalists (as quoted in the article i.e 60000-144=59856 people) do not violate the generally accepted ethical norms of not monetarily contributing to political parties.

    This is not purely imagined part….. but just 60000 - 144…… Simple Math

    You just cannot pick a miniscule subset of people (journalists who contribute to political parties) and say that it represents a broad general trend…… It is not done in statistics…… Sorry not being political here but it is pure math.

80. #80
    On June 21st, 2007 at 8:26 pm, Spc Steve said:

    Got to go with the hometown fave, Laura Evans. Dear God, imagine a guy blaming something like that on his wife! Never would have heard the end of it. My wife says that someone with that little common sense probably would let her husband carry the checkbook!

81. #81
    On June 21st, 2007 at 8:42 pm, CZ said:

    Am I the only one who thinks that
    Guy Raz, CNN looks like the younger brother of Mohammad Atta?

82. #82
    On June 21st, 2007 at 9:32 pm, purplepeep said:

    Hi sxs -

    Where you’re going wrong on the math is in incorrectly citing the relevant numbers.

    While it may be tempting to take the 60000 and say “but only 125 gave to liberals”, the thing to look at is the percentages.

    “You just cannot pick a miniscule subset of people (journalists who contribute to political parties) and say that it represents a broad general trend…… It is not done in statistics”

    That’s obviously incorrect. In fact, it’s done all the time. To wit:

    When a polling company wants to get an accurate feel of what people as a whole think or do, it does not interview the 6-7 billion people on planet earth. It takes what’s called a “representative sampling” to get a percentage.

    In this case rhe percentage of those who give to left wing candidates is 125 of 144 journalists. That is over 86 percent; and that’s the pertinent figure.

    As for the “the overwhelming number of journalists do not violate”. That’s what you’ve read into it. It would be just as correct to say that many of them have not yet confessed to or been caught giving $$$ to liberal politicians.

    Making value judgments as goodness or badness based on a lack of info doesn’t work. Take either of above “reads” & a couple bucks and a person has enough for maybe a cuppa joe and a sinker. But not much else.

    You can argue the merits - or lack thereof - of the MSN nose-counting on this, That’s fair game. But you’d have to provide solid data as to why it’s not valid.

83. #83
    On June 21st, 2007 at 10:38 pm, linda60 said:

    CZ, no you’re not the only one. When I first saw that picture, I had a chill down my spine for the very same reason.

    Just imagine if these journalists were contributing to republican candidates in this extremely large percentage…….Can you imagine the uproar?

84. #84
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 3:00 am, Daniel S. said:

    The best moonbat MSM donor is Gideon Yago of MTV. When asked about his donations he responded as follows -

    “I don’t understand. Things that I do as a private citizen?

    “We’re not a traditional news network in the sense of NBC or Fox or CBS.

    “We’re sensitive about equal time or fairness. We’re non-biased.

    “I mean, what the f—-, man?

    “I came back from doing coverage in Iraq and was very moved by what I saw. I was never told by my boss or anyone that we couldn’t give to a campaign.

    “I’m not a journalist now. Writing fiction.

    “I would never qualify what we do as journalism. Ninety percent of what we did was simple identification, after 9/11: Who is Rumsfeld? Who is Colin Powell? Who is Al Qaeda?

    “I try to call it as you see it.

    “After my second trip to Iraq in 2004, I felt the conventional news media was not doing a good enough job of conveying the horrors and the failures of the war in Iraq.

    “At 18 I was a registered Republican. At 24, I was a registered Democrat.

    “I tried very hard — our job was not an indoctrination process — I tried to be as professional as possible whenever possible.

    “We were a non-traditional news outlet. We were nonpartisan.

    “”OK, I’ve been rebuked. Thank you for spanking me in public.

    “Do you hand in all your rights as a public citizen when you do this?

    “I mean — who’s your editor? I’m going to call him right now.”

85. #85
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 am, David e said:

    Mangle1, you didn’t disagree, you sneered. You have no facts, no data, nothing. And now you claim that we are closed minded because, oh wait, you said nothing substansive (save of course your highly vaunted education, yippee for you, rich daddy eh?). You want a debate, moonbat boy, bring ideas, thoughts, data and leave behind the self rightious posing of self rightious snobery.

86. #86
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 3:58 am, sxs537 said:

    Purplepeep - Understand your broad point and agree with it. Although I have two issues:
    1) “When a polling company wants to get an accurate feel of what people as a whole think or do, it does not interview the 6-7 billion people on planet earth. It takes what’s called a “representative sampling” to get a percentage.”

    The keyword is representative sample. One aspect of the representative sampling is that it has to be random. Secondly the smaller the sample size the higher the error percentages become (assuming a constant confidence level). Well this study is not random and also the sample size is very small. Hence the error would be high and probably statistically irrelevant (I did not calculate the percentages)

    2)What I mean to say when I made the stamenet about overwhelming journalists not violating ethical norms was just making a logical deduction. You are drawing conclusions from my deduction. For example:

    If I am a journalist and I do not contribute monetarily to any political party (or affiliation thereof), then regardless of my politcal leanings I am following ethical norms.

    Now whether my writing is biased due to my leanings is a seperate issue. That is what I meant by doing a comprehensive survey in my first comment. There are tons of research houses who can prepare a survey questionnaire and randomly survey journalists (like you mentioned about polling). That would be a more apt study to show the left-leaning political bias of journalists than the MSNBC study.

    That is the crux of my argument about the statistical validity of the study rather than the conclusion. We conservatives should not be drawing conclusions on questionable studies to support our statments. Rather we should have solid data and valid studies which nobody in the world should be able to dispute.

    Thanks for the dialogue. Over and out

87. #87
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 12:39 pm, purplepeep said:

    “That is the crux of my argument about the statistical validity of the study rather than the conclusion.”

    Actually, sxs537, I believe if you check, you’ll find I’ve guided you to try to argue on that basis - versus the way you had been going. You just haven’t made an argument that’s impressed me. I don’t mean that as a dig since in the grand scheme of all things it really doesn’t matter if I’m unimpressed. And I’d venture my being impressed or not won’t cost you too many nights sleep!

    “We conservatives should not be drawing conclusions on questionable studies to support our statments. Rather we should have solid data and valid studies which nobody in the world should be able to dispute.”

    Not affiliated politically here.

    You may not be aware of the many studies and polls which have consistently shown a MSM left wing bias. This expose just further illustrates that fact. One could argue against the sheer preponderance of the evidence, but I think it would be unwise.

    You are right that, if there were only one study/investigation, it might be meaningless. This particular item is just an interesting inclusion to an already-full plate of evidence. Of particular interest here is the denying & protesting too much of the media types involved. Of further note is of the rarity of this study; a MSM outlet voicing a mea culpa.

    By way of a primer of sorts, with historical polling and other supporting data: from the Media Research Center -

    Media Bias Basics

88. #88
    On June 25th, 2007 at 7:45 am, usoa1980 said:

    mangle1 I will stop using moonbat, when trolls and the loony left stop using terms like fascists when referring to conservatives. Racists when referring to those who do not support affirmative action. Nazis when referring to someone who might support the war on terror, that the left wants to cut and run. If the trolls, loony left web sites and you stop using these terms then I will do my best to stop others from using the term moonbat. Have a wonderful day.