Bush's fake Turkey

[Tock]

It took me a while, but I found it. It had been a few years so my information was a little off. The survey was by The Roper Center not slate.com, and it was 89% instead of 90%. I couldn't get the entire information because you have to pay to access it. http://www.aim.org/publications/spec...orts/bias.html

================



Ok, let's look at these overstatements we've got here . . .

You posted earlier:
.............
"In a poll taken by slate.com (a liberal website by the way)
of reporters from all sections of the media, over 90% had voted
for Bill Clinton in 1996."
.............

You stated that the poll was of "reporters from all sections of the media," however the quote from your source says the "survey" was of only 139 Washington-based bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents April 1996.

IMHO, a poll of only 139 people in only one city hardly qualifies for a study of "reporters from all sections of the media." I'm sure the outcome would be different in the poll had been taken in a place like Montgomery, Alabama, or in San Francisco, California.
So this poll that you cited shows nothing at all about "Reporters from all sections of the media" as you claim. Perhaps it indicates something about Washington-based Bureau cheifs and congressional correspondents (probably that those people who are the best informed about what's going on in politics thought Clinton was the better choice), but that's about it.

Copied from your reference:
..........
The Freedom Forum/Roper Center survey of 139 Washington-based bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, April 1996.
Question #49: How would you characterize your political orientation?
22 % Liberal
39 % Liberal to Moderate
30 % Moderate
7 % Moderate to Conservative
2 % Conservative

Question #53: Did you vote for Bill Clinton, George Bush, Ross Perot, or some other candidate?
89 % Bill Clinton
7 % George Bush
2 % Ross Perot
2 % Other
.......


Maybe you can dig up another cite of a poll that took a more representative sample of journalists across the US that supports your notion that 90% of them voted for Clinton in 1996. But my gosh, to take the opinion of only 136 people in Washington, DC, of all places, and assert that their opinion is representative of all US journalists is, um, a bit much.
Not too much for an organization like Accuracy In Media
www.aim.org which is just another christian conservative group which has its own peculiar take on things . . . Their website hardly makes 'em look like a sanctuary for moderate thinkers on any subject.
Oy vey . . .

[Mr. Death]

================



Ok, let's look at these overstatements we've got here . . .

You posted earlier:
.............
"In a poll taken by slate.com (a liberal website by the way)
of reporters from all sections of the media, over 90% had voted
for Bill Clinton in 1996."
.............

You stated that the poll was of "reporters from all sections of the media," however the quote from your source says the "survey" was of only 139 Washington-based bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents April 1996.

IMHO, a poll of only 139 people in only one city hardly qualifies for a study of "reporters from all sections of the media." I'm sure the outcome would be different in the poll had been taken in a place like Montgomery, Alabama, or in San Francisco, California.
So this poll that you cited shows nothing at all about "Reporters from all sections of the media" as you claim. Perhaps it indicates something about Washington-based Bureau cheifs and congressional correspondents (probably that those people who are the best informed about what's going on in politics thought Clinton was the better choice), but that's about it.

Copied from your reference:
..........
The Freedom Forum/Roper Center survey of 139 Washington-based bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, April 1996.
Question #49: How would you characterize your political orientation?
22 % Liberal
39 % Liberal to Moderate
30 % Moderate
7 % Moderate to Conservative
2 % Conservative

Question #53: Did you vote for Bill Clinton, George Bush, Ross Perot, or some other candidate?
89 % Bill Clinton
7 % George Bush
2 % Ross Perot
2 % Other
.......


Maybe you can dig up another cite of a poll that took a more representative sample of journalists across the US that supports your notion that 90% of them voted for Clinton in 1996. But my gosh, to take the opinion of only 136 people in Washington, DC, of all places, and assert that their opinion is representative of all US journalists is, um, a bit much.
Not too much for an organization like Accuracy In Media
www.aim.org which is just another christian conservative group which has its own peculiar take on things . . . Their website hardly makes 'em look like a sanctuary for moderate thinkers on any subject.
Oy vey . . .

aim.org had nothing to do with the survey. That was just the only place I could find any information about it. I had been years since I had seen the survey, so my information was a little off. Do you seriously believe that all of the liberal reporters moved to Washington, and the rest of the country is full of right-wing journalists.

[Tock]

aim.org had nothing to do with the survey. That was just the only place I could find any information about it. I had been years since I had seen the survey, so my information was a little off. Do you seriously believe that all of the liberal reporters moved to Washington, and the rest of the country is full of right-wing journalists.

==================


Well, you originally stated that your information indicated results "from all sections of the media," however the quote from your source said only "Washington-based," and then only "Two sections of the media," and then only 139 of them.

In no way can a poll of 139 journalists from 2 sections of the media in only one city be considered a valid sampling of opinion "from all sections of the media." It just ain't so.

The point I'm making here is that you can't use a limited poll like that and extrapolate it to cover 78,000 journalists across the country (that number is from www.bls.gov/oco/ocos088.htm ) . . . Well, I suppose you can, because you did, but it doesn't make for a convincing arguement. You may as well extrapolate the opinions of 139 caucasian rural Georgia pickup truck owners their opinions on the Confederate flag and say it's representative of all pickup truck owners everywhere. You can say it, but saying it won't make it so.

So what you did in your original post was make an overstatement. Big deal. Happens all the time. But it's not a good thing, 'cause that's how fictions get passed on . . . You half-remember something you read a while ago, then make a claim based on an incorrect recollection of the data. I might suggest that in the future, if you feel you might have a vague recollection of the data, that you mention that in your posts. At least then, readers won't be as apt to be misled into beleiving something that may not be true. Better still would be to check your info before you put your foot in your mouth . . . lol . . . Newspapers usually have Fact Checkers on staff to double check the validity of stuff that gets printed, until you become a mega-millionairre in the AS trade, you'll have to do your own fact-checking.

I wouldn't worry about it . . . as my neighbor's wife said amidst her disappointment on her wedding night, "It's no big thing." Facts, like small dicks, are kinda hard to get a hold of sometimes . . . and it's best to check something you might be a little vague on, so that when you talk about it, what comes out of your mouth doesn't look like it's 3 inches short of the "real deal."

Y'know, I kinda like that last paragraph . . . I think I'll save it and shamelessly plagerize myself (in public, too!) sometime . . .

--Tock

[Mr. Death]

==================


Well, you originally stated that your information indicated results "from all sections of the media," however the quote from your source said only "Washington-based," and then only "Two sections of the media," and then only 139 of them.

In no way can a poll of 139 journalists from 2 sections of the media in only one city be considered a valid sampling of opinion "from all sections of the media." It just ain't so.

The point I'm making here is that you can't use a limited poll like that and extrapolate it to cover 78,000 journalists across the country (that number is from www.bls.gov/oco/ocos088.htm ) . . . Well, I suppose you can, because you did, but it doesn't make for a convincing arguement. You may as well extrapolate the opinions of 139 caucasian rural Georgia pickup truck owners their opinions on the Confederate flag and say it's representative of all pickup truck owners everywhere. You can say it, but saying it won't make it so.

So what you did in your original post was make an overstatement. Big deal. Happens all the time. But it's not a good thing, 'cause that's how fictions get passed on . . . You half-remember something you read a while ago, then make a claim based on an incorrect recollection of the data. I might suggest that in the future, if you feel you might have a vague recollection of the data, that you mention that in your posts. At least then, readers won't be as apt to be misled into beleiving something that may not be true. Better still would be to check your info before you put your foot in your mouth . . . lol . . . Newspapers usually have Fact Checkers on staff to double check the validity of stuff that gets printed, until you become a mega-millionairre in the AS trade, you'll have to do your own fact-checking.

I wouldn't worry about it . . . as my neighbor's wife said amidst her disappointment on her wedding night, "It's no big thing." Facts, like small dicks, are kinda hard to get a hold of sometimes . . . and it's best to check something you might be a little vague on, so that when you talk about it, what comes out of your mouth doesn't look like it's 3 inches short of the "real deal."

Y'know, I kinda like that last paragraph . . . I think I'll save it and shamelessly plagerize myself (in public, too!) sometime . . .

--Tock

Come on, give me some credit. I wasn't off by that much. LOL. By all sections of the media I didn't mean geographicaly, I assumed that the entire sample was from D.C. I meant from print, TV, etc. I believe that is accurate, but I can't get the complete information from the survey because it is on a pay site. I've enjoyed our little debate. I wish the politicians could argue on opinion like we have without resorting to personal attacks.

[Tock]

Come on, give me some credit. I wasn't off by that much. LOL. By all sections of the media I didn't mean geographicaly, I assumed that the entire sample was from D.C. I meant from print, TV, etc. I believe that is accurate, but I can't get the complete information from the survey because it is on a pay site. I've enjoyed our little debate. I wish the politicians could argue on opinion like we have without resorting to personal attacks.

=============


Yah, well, y'know, it's pretty **** easy to misconstrue stuff you read, especially if it's from partisan sources. Both you and I have our ideological leanings, and we are apt to agree with whatever confirms our own prejudices. It's taken me a few years to finally figure out that most of what politicians and special interest groups say is so colored with their own prejudices that the underlying facts are misrepresented and prostituted to serve their own interests instead of a truth they don't want to acknowledge.
Pretty much, ya gotta treat 'em all as if you were buying a used car from a disreputable, sleazy business . . . listen to what they say, then thoroughly check things out for yourself. If you take their word for something, you're definitely risking getting taken advantage of. There's lots of BS being given by Republicans and Democrats and Independants, by conservative special interest groups and liberal groups. When you're in heated debate (as I think we both enjoy) it can be very tempting to pick up some carefully engineered BS from some official sounding organization and use it to bolster an arguement. It can be embarrassing when it turns out the data is screwed up worse than a 76 Chevy Vega (I had one of those-was the worst car I ever owned). But worse than that is, had the faulty data not been identified as being flawed, it could have been accepted by the other guy as true, and then tragically, the misconception would have been perpetuated to yet another innocent victim.

So all I'm asking is . . . please make sure that when you say something is a fact, make sure it's a fact. If you have a hazy recollection of a fact, say so, and offer to double check it. If someone tells you something that you personally have not verified, again, say so ("The AIM.org says that . . . "). Basically, accept the limits of what ya know (no one can know everything, except obnoxious know-it-all idiots), and keep in mind that most of what you've been told has been filtered through someone else's prejudices. Verify what they say to see if it holds up to scrutiny. And for god's sake, think for your own **** self--don't be too quick to adopt someone else's opinon/prejudice as your own.

Yah, this has been a pretty good exchange . . . we both probably learned a thing or two. But I'll be danged if I haven't written more in this thread than I did in my last year of high school . . . good thing I ain't got arthritis yet . . .

Au Vois,
--Tock

[tryingtogetbig]

Ha. How could Clinton unilaterrally cut back the military, which he didn't, without the aproval of the Republican legistature who as you point out had control. Bush has not added one soldier since taking office. In fact if you have any friends or family, I have 2 nephews in the 82nd Airborne, one in Mosul, you would know these guys are demoralized and aren't reenlisting. I would imagine a manpower shortage and reinstitution of the draft if there is a GW part II in the Whitehouse in 2005.

I do have family in Iraq...lost a cousin 3 weeks ago over there. As far as being "demoralized"...it all depends on who you talk to I guess. You must be getting your "unbiased" information from CNN. All of the emails/letter/phone calls that my family gets back don't depict that from the soldiers. Besides, they are f'cking soldiers for christ's sake. They are not suppose to be "I'm tired, people are shooting at me....I wanna go home" They are f'cking soldiers. Welcome to the military for those that can't hack it, get the hell out when your time is up.

Bush has added LOTS of money to the military budget!!! Thank goodness. Raised the enlisted salaryies also. But of course, you can take your angle of "hasn't added 1 soldier" to the head count. Typical liberal spin on things.

peace,

ttgb