lol yes it is me the legendary KMAN from FLINT MI

Actually I believe it's legion.

That seems probable.

And spelling?! Was it legion or kman who had the sucky spoelling, I forgot.

BTW, Obama is only 60 delegates short to win. This looks like a finale!

legion.

Kman posted in the Library sometimes, and his English was good even though his views were stereotypically redneck.

Quoted from KMANGIANTKILLER:

lol yes it is me the legendary KMAN from FLINT MI

Really? We'll see. First of all, you obviously didn't read the Forum Guide before posting. I recommend that you do.

Secondly, if you're not "the legendary KMAN" we mods don't appreciate the masquerade in The Library. If you are who you say you are, then you know what's coming.

Thirdly, in The Library we make the best attempt we can at good spelling and good English structure in our posts. This isn't the place for netspeak. Stop posting without capitalization, punctuation and a reasonable attempt at correct spelling.

If you intend to post here again, please make an effort going forward to comply with the Forum Guide and my other requests in this post.

[This message has been edited by Civis Romanus (edited 05-21-2008 @ 12:19 PM).]

Quoted from Lurking Horror:

True. But I did use it in an unsubmitted draft of my post. How did Civis know?!

Scary.

LOL! I put a similar fright into Sassenach a few years ago over a news item I uncovered and posted. Let's just say I successfully penetrated your thought process and understood the essence of your thinking, despite your juggling of terminology. BTW, I do want to complement you on your posts. Even if we don't exactly agree on the subject at hand, your posts like those of many others I'm seeing of late (with a few exceptions) are always well structured, coherent and cogent. Glad to see you back with us again.

As for a response to your most recent post... I'm thinking.

Granite Q: Ooops. I didn't understand you were actually asking me to recommend a specific poll. I don't see some of the polls you cited and have never tracked them. I'm dependent on more localized polls and those which are cited in the media I happen to catch at the time. Plus, the polls tend to vary year to year, and of course, the information is selectively offered by local media as I described in my California recall example. I shall also ask forgiveness for lapses in recollection since we have these national elections every two years and I don't keep records of what poll was the worst. What I can do is watch for those I see which seem slanted and let you know which to accept as reasonably accurate and which to be wary of.

DebauchedSloth is correct on the principles of statistical margin of error. However, in the Calfornia recall example, the margin of error across the State was way beyond the statistical norm; and the point of my message was that the unfavorable trend against Davis was spoken of less and less the wider the margin became. Eventually, the only precincts Gray Davis carried were a few surrounding the San Francisco Bay Area, which is recognized as the most liberal region politically in the State.

Quoted from Time Article:

But he (Ron Paul) is an extremist — partly in the Barry Goldwater extremism-in-defense-of-liberty-is-no-vice sense of the word, but also in the wacky let's-relitigate-the-currency-debates-of-the-1820s sense of the word. The late William F. Buckley wanted conservatives to stand athwart history yelling stop; Paul seems to want to slam history into reverse. The guy genuinely wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and start circulating gold again.

Goldwater was a fervent nationalist, but not an extremist in the "Ron Paul" sense. Mr. Paul is not a valid representative of the Republican Party body politic and that's why he went down to a crushing defeat in the primaries. He is truly the extreme side of conservatism and represents little of consequence.

[This message has been edited by Civis Romanus (edited 05-21-2008 @ 01:17 PM).]

Yes, Civis Romanus you are correct i did not read the forums code of conduct as i should have.
As a matter of fact i did not read the thread at all.
And i am extremely used to what you refer to as netspeak
so it is difficult for me to adjust .
After my post i went on to read the entire thread ,
and have very much liked what i have seen.
Everyone here seems extremely intelligent beyond that of "normal people" and most of you i deem respectable.
Its actually quite delightable that you are the forum master Civis because after reading all the posts i had the most
respect for you and was actually going to comment on that believe it or not.
I believe there is some confusion about who i am,
my nickname is Kman and i thought hitler was someone i knew but after looking at the posts after mine i relize this is not the case i am not the other kman nor legion this was my first post other then my complaint on the CD key in age of mythology tec forums.
It was not my intention on a masqurade just thought a fan recognized me. And yes Civis i will try my best on proper english even though i deem it mathmatically incorrect.I will try just out of respect for you my fellow intelectuales
I am very used to talking down to people due to a large scale ignorance problems in most other forums.
But anyway, obama for the win !

It's definitely not 'our' Kman. He was much wittier with better English. Also, wasn't he from California ?

Probably not, Sass, but being checked anyway.

KMANGIANTKILLER: Thank you for your post. I do not object to netspeak as such and used where it is appropriate, but The Library is not a quickspeak chat site or messaging forum. In fact, if you can work at it, The Library gives you a chance to practice standard English writing. This is good preparation for classes demanding standard English writing skills and for real life employment where standard English writing skills are expected.

Okay, Lurking Horror, I've concluded my "thinking", which you may consider being good or bad news at your option.

The media (newspapers in particular) are referred to as the Fourth Estate, a concept developed around the turn of the 20th Century. For your information, I once harbored modest ambitions of becoming a journalist and working for a newspaper. That is, I did until I became involved in radio broadcasting and did some television technical work. Eventually, the Vietnam War disrupted all of my plans and like a prize-fighter I had to do some ducking and weaving to settle on a career path. Even so, I still became engaged (more in the past) in writing organizational bulletins and newsletters and other such material usually for free. In the course of doing these side activities I brushed up against media of all kinds in the ensuing years.

I whole-heartedly agree with you that the Fourth Estate has a responsibility to present accurate information and reasoned commentary on matters of current events. I also agree with you that the Fourth Estate should portray itself properly in its advertising and marketing schemes. I found no fault with the slogan Fox News applies to its web site. I agree with you that advertising, marketing, branding etc., misrepresenting Fox's position on the bias spectrum is deserving of criticism. I would not go so far as to say "scorn". I would in concert with this statement offer criticism of the Fox advertising/marketing personnel for failing the test of professional artistry by having to resort to a blatant lie instead of shrewd thinking to apply to their objective. Regardless, none of the above detracts from the right of Fox to present a more conservative-opinioned product in competition and contrast with the more liberal-opinioned product produced by the majority of networks and outlets throughout the Fourth Estate.

Perhaps the real problem we have is with the Fourth Estate and its product, which is designed to engineer or modify public opinion in favor of its particular viewpoint, right or wrong, instead of being a source of accurate information, and to create a following. The ultimate corporate objective, of course, is to grow this following and increase its advertising revenue accordingly.

I am intimately familiar with abuse by the Fourth Estate. The most galling I know is an incident in which a reporter for a Washington DC news outlet interviewed a high level government official who refused to answer the reporter's questions, except one. Finally the reporter asked, "You're not going to answer my questions, are you?" The interviewee gave this question the only answer spoken. It was "No." The next day the interviewee was widely quoted embarassingly on a number of US Government administration issues by this unethical reporter who was in turn supported by the news outlet's editor and management. With this knowledge I decided then and there I could not be a part of this product or engaged in its creation.

However, the need to protect the Fourth Estate is paramount. It must be free to function as it wants short of generating libel. In reality human nature being what it is, the Fourth Estate will be biased no matter what is done to prevent it, because its population is biased. What cannot be done is to permit a preponderant bias to suppress its less powerful, less popular opposing bias, as seems to be the case when liberal media product attacks conservative media product. To allow those bad conservatives to go down before their good liberal opponents screams of inequity and inevitable loss of general free speech, all of this being done in the name of and under the guise of what is really pseudo-liberality.

So Fox's slogan is misleading; but its right to present what product it presents is an absolute right, its bad marketing/advertising notwithstanding.

[This message has been edited by Civis Romanus (edited 05-21-2008 @ 09:44 PM).]

Quoted from Civis:

Okay, Lurking Horror, I've concluded my "thinking", which you may consider good or bad news at your option.

Given the recent evidence of your psychic powers, I will go with "terrifying".

Quoted from Sassenach:

Also, wasn't he from California?

Berkeley, as I recall.

Going back to the presidency...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/20/chuck-hagel-takes-on-mcca_n_102775.html

This has me very excited. For starters, he is from my state, he has been in on legislation I agree with several times, and I don't see how the Republicans can call him cowardly or claim he hates America.

[This message has been edited by Maximus_Decimus9 (edited 05-21-2008 @ 09:56 PM).]

Quoted from Civis Romanus:

I found no fault with the slogan Fox News applies to its web site

We were discussing their television station not their website. Nice try at changing the subject, though.

Look, it doesn't seem to matter what I (or Lurking Horror) say, you seem to be quite convinced that we are wrong. Fair enough, that's your prerogative. I'm not wasting any more time or effort trying to persuade you otherwise. For me this particular subject is closed.

Quoted from Civis:

It is a natural by-product of liberal arts, journalistic (mass media) training at the collegiate level which is also prone to teaching and favoring liberalism, even if some students are conservatively oriented.

Yes most journalists have journalism degrees that are liberal arts degrees. Having a liberal arts degree and being liberal politically is not the same thing. What I most remembered most about journalism school is that facts must be checked and rechecked. At my university any fact error on any assignment meant failure on that assignment. The hardest class in the Journalism college was Journalism Law which could be subtitled how to avoid getting yourself and employer sued.

Quoted from Civis:

Yes, the mass media is a business, but those who create the product are bright enough to know how to design the product to produce revenue and at the same time take advantage of its public nature to get its perspective either overtly or covertly conveyed. If they who design the product daily are not aware of this, then I am totally mistaken about the intelligence of those engaged in that industry, and that would frighten me more than the content of the message they convey.

I think what you have is a naive idea of how stories are covered. News content and what stories are covered are based almost totally on market research. If the news appears liberally biased to you, it is because that is what the viewers want. The only serious discussion on if a story should be killed or not that I ever see is if that story might offend a big advertiser, the true customer for all mass media.

A big reason for most of the sloppy journalism that occurs is the tremendous pressure to deliver as much product for as little cost as possible. It is hard for me to accuse laziness to people who work as many hours as most journalists. The reporters and photojournalists that work at my station average 60 to 80 hours a week on the job and are almost always on call. The same holds true for my wife's station and every other station my wife and I have worked for.

Quoted from Granite Q:

Look, it doesn't seem to matter what I (or Lurking Horror) say, you seem to be quite convinced that we are wrong. Fair enough, that's your prerogative. I'm not wasting any more time or effort trying to persuade you otherwise. For me this particular subject is closed.

That is an inaccurate assessment of my position, Granite Q.

Quoted from me Post561:

I whole-heartedly agree with you that the Fourth Estate has a responsibility to present accurate information and reasoned commentary on matters of current events. I also agree with you that the Fourth Estate should portray itself properly in its advertising and marketing schemes. I found no fault with the slogan Fox News applies to its web site. I agree with you that advertising, marketing, branding etc., misrepresenting Fox's position on the bias spectrum is deserving of criticism. I would not go so far as to say "scorn". I would in concert with this statement offer criticism of the Fox advertising/marketing personnel for failing the test of professional artistry by having to resort to a blatant lie instead of shrewd thinking to apply to their objective. Regardless, none of the above detracts from the right of Fox to present a more conservative-opinioned product in competition and contrast with the more liberal-opinioned product produced by the majority of networks and outlets throughout the Fourth Estate.

You won my agreement on Fox News misrepresenting itself. However, I will not condemn Fox for presenting a conservative bias unless you agree to condemn the others in the Fourth Estate perceived as having a liberal bias.

Quoted from Great Cornholio:

Having a liberal arts degree and being liberal politically is not the same thing.

I know that.

If the news appears liberally biased to you, it is because that is what the viewers want.

I am not naive. What you cite isn't the purpose and proper roll of the Fourth Estate. You've described its subversion.

[This message has been edited by Civis Romanus (edited 05-22-2008 @ 03:58 PM).]

Quoted from Civis:

You won my agreement on Fox News misrepresenting itself. However, I will not condemn Fox for presenting a conservative bias unless you agree to condemn the others in the Fourth Estate perceived as having a liberal bias.

I know you weren't addressing me, but what the heck.

Personally, I would condemn any news source that blatantly misrepresents it's bias. Particularly when the bias is so overt. Obviously, I hold Fox News in contempt for this very reason. Conversely, I hold no objection with a Christian news site, that advertises itself as such, as holding a Christian bias. I may not agree with their perspective (at all), but they're certainly being honest about their particular slant.

as seems to be the case when liberal media product attacks conservative media product.

Which is something I don't get. Why would any liberal media, that promotes liberalism (based on freedom of speech above all), would undo it's own basic principles by trying to supress conservative media?

Something in this fails logic.

A prime example of market research dictating news content:

The latest research that I got a look at said that suburban women 24-48 in households earning above $50,000 a year, my station's key demo, were sick and tired of hearing about Detroit Mayor Kilpatrick's sex and corruption scandals and our wall to wall coverage of it. Do we lay off Kwame who is a Big Democrat and major player in the Michigan Democratic Party because Republican housewives are tired of it and switching over to the NBC station? By doing this are we showing liberal bias?

@Great Cornholio: Your demographic data as portrayed did not say they were Republican just because they earned $50K or more. Are you assuming that or is that what the data said and you omitted that in your first sentence?

To answer your question, you reduce time and frequency of coverage, but you don't eliminate the story if it is continuing to develop. Elimination of the story because some segment of the population is tired of it is a violation of the Fourth Estate's purpose. On that basis, the liberal plurality can demand that nothing but liberal issues and emphasis be programmed to the exclusion of anything liberals don't want to hear. That's tantamount to tyranny by the majority in an Estate that should be impervious to such things.

Quoted from Great Cornholio:

The hardest class in the Journalism college was Journalism Law which could be subtitled how to avoid getting yourself and employer sued.

I'm sure the editorial executives and management of the news outlet whose reporter wrote the article with the false interview were very busy sweating bricks and doing damage control. It so happened the government issue being exploited was a security matter and for the government to pursue that reporter would have caused the facts to be revealed and a resulting very serious security breach. Thus, the targetted government official "non-interviewed" had no choice but to remain silent and allow the article to stand as is with all of its falsehoods; for to provide the true data as a counterargument in prosecuting the reporter would have been more irresponsible than the article as written.

Quoted from Alex Pharaoh:

Why would any liberal media, that promotes liberalism (based on freedom of speech above all), would undo it's own basic principles by trying to supress conservative media?

In the cause and spirit of liberalism, whatever wins the day is fair.

Quoted from Lurking Horror:

Obviously, I hold Fox News in contempt for this very reason.

It is your right as an individual to make that kind of judgement. Conservatives would line up behind you to enforce that right, but wouldn't condemn the conservative product Fox offers nor act to obstruct the liberal product other outlets offer.

[This message has been edited by Civis Romanus (edited 05-22-2008 @ 05:37 PM).]

Quoted from Civis:

Conservatives would line up behind you to enforce that right, but wouldn't condemn the conservative product Fox offers nor act to obstruct the liberal product other outlets offer.

That's just it. I'm NOT condemning the product. I'm condemning the lie surrounding the product. Though I believe that news should be neutral, every point of view has a right to be heard. Falsely advertising biased news as unbiased is a horrible offense. Whether said news is liberal or conservative.

And that's the big picture in my mind. False advertising. By way of example: A clearly Christian news service purporting to be religiously neutral while portraying anything non Christian with a negative spin should be pulled off the air.

I understand your point, Lurking Horror.

Where is the fun in you understanding it? I then lose the ability to reiterate my point until it loses all cohesion.

The Civis I used to know would keep me arguing just for the sake of it.

I have become the kinder, gentler Civis of the 21st Century resulting from days, months and years of undergoing pulverizing posting by fellow forumers such that I have at times felt more like prepared flank steak than codled filet mignon.

Lest you think I am thoroughly tamed, do understand that we have achieved fundamental agreement on only part of the issue at hand; but that has occurred on the basis of my conscientious study and increased surveillance of Fox at your's and Granite Q's prompting. Let it not be said that Civis Romanus declines to study a subject the best he can in the time he has and subsequently fails to offer quality responses, no matter how underappreciated or unaccepted they might be when received. Never let it be said that when a forumer or two or three helps Civis fill in a small gap in his awareness that he won't acknowledge it with a tip of the hat and a nod of appreciation, and even a small amount of cheerful agreement.

That indeed is the case today as I offer such a nod to Granite Q, Great Cornholio, and Lurking Horror, listed in alphabetical order. Though it is fair to say, that when it comes to a nod this day, as is the case in the manner of such things: tomorrow is an entirely different day and an entirely different matter. So depending upon how I feel about it on any day to come, you and others could be in for a great day or suffer an incredibly nasty bout of polite contrariness if I've a mind to be that way.

That will include once again applying my "psychic" powers to unnerve another formerly safe-feeling forumer.

And now, without further ado, back to the topic of the Presidential Elections of 2008.

@Great Cornholio: Your demographic data as portrayed did not say they were Republican just because they earned $50K or more. Are you assuming that or is that what the data said and you omitted that in your first sentence?

That demographic group in Oakland and Macomb counties would be about 65-70% Republican. Political affiliation is not typically a catagory most advertisers are interested in. It was my opinion that the majority of those surveyed were Republican, I can not prove it. No we will not not cover the scandals or the mayor's office. 1 rating point in that key demo means $500,000 a year in revenue in our 11pm news so how we cover the story will be looked at and adjustments will be made. Of course any reduction in our coverage will be construed as liberal bias by those that want to see it that way.

The guy who sandbagged your friend is a real sleaze, most journalists are professionals who hold that behavior in utter contempt, but in this corperate enviorment delivering stories on time without excuses keeps you employed. Those that cut corners are seldom penalized and often rewarded. Government workers and elected officials are considered "public persons" and have a much higher threshold for proving libel and invasion of privacy. Your friend was screwed with no practicle recorse.

FOX News's decision to program conservative biased news was based on the knowlege that their was/is a market for it and that a large number of people want their news with a heavy conservative bias. The slogan "fair and balanced" is a cynical joke that nobody really takes seriously including most of Fox News viewers.

Edit: fixed fact error. $5 million is the overall revenue of our 11pm news, we average 10 rating points in that key daypart. A 10% loss in ratings would be $500,000. Syd Pactor would have given me a big fat F for that one.

[This message has been edited by Great Cornholio (edited 05-23-2008 @ 00:28 AM).]

Perhaps a new topic should be created to continue this discussion? While it did originally have to do with the election, it has become a debate on the merits of FOX and other such news stations.