By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 16 May 2013
Edit Thread
curl-6 said:
sc94597 said:

Firstly, I'm not citing wikipedia as a source. I was referring to an online encyclopedia which collects sources itself for people to read and organize called wikipedia. If somebody were to find sources on a conservative bias they would have. 

Secondly, the whole conservative bias article was a refutation of a liberal bias. Furthermore it specifically mentions and cites an academic source which verifies  that there have been more studies verifying a left than the populous media than not, and consequently more than a right to the populous media.

Quite obviously with your blind declination of wikipedia I can  tell that you just mimick what people tell you. Wikipedia is not an academic source, that does not mean it can't be used to find academic sources and information. In fact, it's quite a good tool for finding information, especially if you read the history logs of the editing. Most academics use wikipedia for this reason. 

http://www.journalism.org/node/2304

Pro tip: ad hominem attacks are a bad idea, they don't cat you or your argument in a positive light.

Firstly, Wikipedia is informed by a community of people with their own views. If the people who cared enough to contribute and research cared more about a certain viewpoint, it will be more represented.

Secondly, that not conclusive in the slightest; many such studies are commissioned for the purpose of "finding" a preconcieved result. More could simply have looked for a left slant.

I'm two months off a postgrad in journalism, so I'm pretty confident in saying that the "liberal media" label is more a symptom of a persecution complex by those who feel their views are being attacked than any reflection of reality. People see their views as normal, so they only ever notice when someone disagrees with them.

I honestly don't care enough to keep responding though, so peace out.

Actually I'd call it appeal to psychology, but I'm sure ad hominem fits as well. Either way, you used appeal to authority and plenty of other logical fallacies yourself, strawman, and non sequitur being a few others. 

Firstly, my argument after reading the editing history of that page is that there are enough people on both sides who cared enough. Particularly when it comes to politics, the pages get locked and only substantiated claims are allowed anyway. 

As for your second argument, some of these studies are indeed flawed, as given by the statistical credence. However, my argument isn't based on anecdotal data, but empirical data. A survey asking a sizable portion of journalists whether or not they support the democratic or republican party is quite fool-proof, especially considering the huge variation (60% Democrat vs. 15%. Republican)  and how this deviates from similar surveys on the general population.