I like the way macymacon050 puts it.
“People who closely follow both political blogs and traditional news media tend to believe the content in blogs is more accurate,” says a prominent political scientist. “People in general suspect habitual bias in the traditional news content.”
"Evilsax stands out from the crowd. That is because he has decided he is opinionated and sticks with it."
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16233303-with-incisive-economics-impact-analysis-diary-of-a-republican-hater-shaping-opinions
Yes, there is someone who gets it. I am biased and I do stick with it. The important question though is if I'm honest and credible. That's what matters in any kind of news or analysis source. Many Americans rightfully no longer trust the allegedly unbiased, nonpartisan media flacks-those more serous than thou like David Brooks or Bob Woodward who mistake allegedly not taking a side with getting it right and accurate.
Even in my perennial slugfests with Sumner, I always quote exhaustively so that the reader if interested can follow up and come to their own conclusions. Macmacon050 says this regarding the issue of sources:
'He cites sources, an important element to be considered if people must take him seriously.'
Sumner has accused me of being biased a claim he also levels at Krugman. Yet which sources do you find most credible. I mean the MSM just embarrasses itself again and again. On the recent GOP filibuster of an extension for UI benefits the Associated Press were derelict in its duty to even basically inform readers at to what actually happened. The way they arranged the wording of the story it made it seem majorities had voted against both UI extension bills rather than both times there were over 50 but not 60.
The AP stories also made it sound like 60 votes was just the normal requirement of Senate business-they didn't even refer to it as a filibuster.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-15/news-media-fudge-unemployment-aid-filibuster.html
So playing the 'both sides do it' game doesn't make one truly objective much less accurate. No wonder people prefer reading yours truly. Of course another great reason for reading me is to annoy Scott Sumner.
P.S. I have to admit that I myself was confused with how they phrased that UI vote-it really did seem at first glance that majorities had voted against both bills-rather than for both but with less than 60.
P.S.S. I see that Sumner and Yglesias have drawn swords. I better get the scoop so we can analyze it properly here-after Sumner spins it into another 'Keynes is dead yarn.'
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=25914
I'm going to read it now. Be back with you soon.
“People who closely follow both political blogs and traditional news media tend to believe the content in blogs is more accurate,” says a prominent political scientist. “People in general suspect habitual bias in the traditional news content.”
"Evilsax stands out from the crowd. That is because he has decided he is opinionated and sticks with it."
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16233303-with-incisive-economics-impact-analysis-diary-of-a-republican-hater-shaping-opinions
Yes, there is someone who gets it. I am biased and I do stick with it. The important question though is if I'm honest and credible. That's what matters in any kind of news or analysis source. Many Americans rightfully no longer trust the allegedly unbiased, nonpartisan media flacks-those more serous than thou like David Brooks or Bob Woodward who mistake allegedly not taking a side with getting it right and accurate.
Even in my perennial slugfests with Sumner, I always quote exhaustively so that the reader if interested can follow up and come to their own conclusions. Macmacon050 says this regarding the issue of sources:
'He cites sources, an important element to be considered if people must take him seriously.'
Sumner has accused me of being biased a claim he also levels at Krugman. Yet which sources do you find most credible. I mean the MSM just embarrasses itself again and again. On the recent GOP filibuster of an extension for UI benefits the Associated Press were derelict in its duty to even basically inform readers at to what actually happened. The way they arranged the wording of the story it made it seem majorities had voted against both UI extension bills rather than both times there were over 50 but not 60.
The AP stories also made it sound like 60 votes was just the normal requirement of Senate business-they didn't even refer to it as a filibuster.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-15/news-media-fudge-unemployment-aid-filibuster.html
So playing the 'both sides do it' game doesn't make one truly objective much less accurate. No wonder people prefer reading yours truly. Of course another great reason for reading me is to annoy Scott Sumner.
P.S. I have to admit that I myself was confused with how they phrased that UI vote-it really did seem at first glance that majorities had voted against both bills-rather than for both but with less than 60.
P.S.S. I see that Sumner and Yglesias have drawn swords. I better get the scoop so we can analyze it properly here-after Sumner spins it into another 'Keynes is dead yarn.'
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=25914
I'm going to read it now. Be back with you soon.
Absolutely Mike. This desire to not be "partisan" plays right into the hands of the right wing in my view. Who cares about sounding or being partisan or biased I care about whether someones claims can be supported by evidence.
ReplyDeleteHere is why I think these efforts to be balanced tend to favor the right. The right, for the most part, stands for the way things are. Anything that has "been" for any period of time becomes part of "how things are". Challenging how things are is for the most part a left wing activity. The left, traditionally, is comprised of those mostly out of power. Power = political right. So when the right is challenged and is questioned a typical response is usually that the critics will likely do the same thing if they are in power (those other guys are no better!) The power is believed to only be acting exactly as anyone else would in this position.... i o w ... T.I.N.A. Playing these false equivalency games neuters critics.