Freedom Fries and Fallacious Wars
What a wonderful story...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1491567,00.html
Apparently the guy behind the push to rename "Freedom Fries" and "Freedom Toast" has now recognized the stupidity of this war and is against it.
So there is hope. People do learn.
Liam.
posted by Liam at 5/25/2005 10:03:00 AM
9 Comments:
Liam — you asked about the dissection of Diane Rehm's interview with Ken Tomlinson of the CPB. You can find it here.
What bothered me was his filibustering her and his repeated broadsides on Moyers. I never missed NOW, and I know how many conservatives Moyers interviewed, how many he invited to share his podium. Now this was pushed to the background as Tomlinson complained about Moyers' editorializing.
To form a more complete picture, you might want to listen to or read Moyers' speech to the Free Press Conference that was held recently.
Tomlinson won't appear with Moyers, but he'll bully Diane Rehm and then go on Bill O'Reilly's show and tell him how much he loves the program. Are you familiar with the PIPA study that was done a few months before the election? Are you aware that it showed that people who got the bulk of their news from NPR had a grasp of the facts about Iraq and those who got their news from Fox did not?
Thursday, May 26, 2005 12:02:00 AM
"If we were given misinformation by the administration intentionally.." So what is the story here? A former supporter of the Operation Iraqi Freedom campaign now doubts the veracity of the President? Maybe he does but you take the story from the Guardian and not the newspaper cited. And what did the PIPA survey use to define the 'facts' about Iraq? NPR?
Thursday, May 26, 2005 11:51:00 AM
Hmmmmm. Interesting...
First, b.jeany, thanks for the link, I enjoyed reading it. It did point up some thing not obvious to me (things which could only be gathered by contrasting this appearance with other appearances by Tomlinson).
I did read Moyers' speech. I just... I'm a bit sensitive sometimes to the two sides having an argument they don't need to have, because both are viewing mostly-reasonable behavior on the other side through colored glasses and perceiving malice where there is none.
I'm also curious who did the PIPA study, and wonder how they define "a grasp of the facts". I'm not saying the study is flawed, but the most radical left or right winger could survey different people and define an entirely different set of people as the ones who have "a grasp on the facts". I'm just curious if the "grasp" was on absolute facts or on the fact-spin of one side or the other, because clearly those who listen to O'Reilly are not going to be as versed in the fact-spin of the Liberal side.
(Don't get me wrong, I'm not an O'Reilly fan, I just want to make sure I consider the source before I choose whether to agree with it, ignore it or dispute it. A heavily biased source can never put out an unbiased study.)
And Ralph: I'm not sure what you mean by "the newspaper cited". The link goes to the article in the Guardian, a U.K. newspaper, which is the source of the article that was mailed to me.
However, I agree with you on the "facts" bit. I always want to know more about the methodology of a survey before I believe it entirely. Even something as simple as the wording of a question or the attitude of the person administering the poll can slant the results significantly, add in things like bias in determining the results and downright forgery of results... A survey on it's own doesn't tell you anything without some information of who did it, how they did it, etc...
Liam.
Thursday, May 26, 2005 12:23:00 PM
Liam — Sorry that I posted that bit over here instead of on Huff, but I figured the comments over there were so far down as to be dead. I didn't mean to hijack your blog.
The PIPA study was interesting, and I think if you google creatively you'll find your way to the source at the University of Maryland. There was some controversy, but the questions were about whether Iraq was a party in the 9/11 attacks, whether or not Iraq had WMDs and things of that sort. It's worth reading and picking apart, and IIRC, Freepers rubbished the study while there was a resounding cheer from the reality-based community. I hestiate to get too concrete from memory.
What Moyers says about what passes for balance in today's media rings true: a putative journalist sits between representatives from opposing sides, and lets them spin their position without ever challenging either one on the accuracy or completeness of what they say.
Thursday, May 26, 2005 2:24:00 PM
PIPA (Program on International Policy Attitudes) website, University of Maryland
Report in Acrobat .pdf format
The title of the study is The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters.
Although the election is long past, the issue is whether or not there is liberal bias in the programming and program content on PBS and NPR. Perhaps a good starting place would be to understand what is meant by the term "liberal bias." The reports on the CPB's own research is a little confused, but what I think I understand is that overall, listeners do not find liberal bial affecting balance, or that interferes with the accuracy and fairness of said programming. The PIPA study makes a good companion to the inquiry.
Thursday, May 26, 2005 2:47:00 PM
PIPA (Program on International Policy Attitudes) website, University of Maryland
Report in Acrobat .pdf format
The title of the study is The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters.
Although the election is long past, the issue is whether or not there is liberal bias in the programming and program content on PBS and NPR. Perhaps a good starting place would be to understand what is meant by the term "liberal bias." The reports on the CPB's own research is a little confused, but what I think I understand is that overall, listeners do not find liberal bias affecting balance, or that interferes with the accuracy and fairness of said programming. The PIPA study makes a good companion to the inquiry.
Thursday, May 26, 2005 2:48:00 PM
Liam,
If I recall, the Guardian was reporting what a reporter in the guy's home state said. He must have written a story. I am curious if what he actually said was accurately stated by the Guardian.
Thursday, May 26, 2005 11:58:00 PM
Hmmmm. Good question. I'll see if I can find a corroborating source later today, when I have some free time.
Friday, May 27, 2005 11:17:00 AM
b.jeany,
Thanks for the sources. I'll read through them this evening and take a look at their methodology and see what I think.
Great to have you here chiming in!
Liam.
Friday, May 27, 2005 11:18:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home