Ah, the liberal BBC

From the website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/ne...00/1612653.stm

Why did they do it?

The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda - who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.

In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war - called a jihad - against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.

When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.

Makes me want to write one about why Hitler was "very angry" with the way people in Europe were running things, too. Not to mention how the actions of Jews just finally got out of hand. Of course, since Hitler is only "widely thought" to have done those things, let's leave a question dangling about it, just in case.

Mike

I think that article was on cbbc, the children's bbc. So it's written for second graders and is being very careful with it's facts and language. Other parts do mention bin Laden on video taking credit. Are there facts in the article you disagree with?

Given the upsurge in people claiming 9/11 was sponsored by the US government even the "widely believed" comment looks accurate, if a little over careful, to me.

Regards,
Mark

Mark Gibbons wrote: I think that article was on cbbc, the children's bbc. So it's written for second graders and is being very careful with it's facts and language. Other parts do mention bin Laden on video taking credit. Are there facts in the article you disagree with? Given the upsurge in people claiming 9/11 was sponsored by the US government even the "widely believed" comment looks accurate, if a little over careful, to me.

Classic reasoning. Reminds me of some to those liberal explanations of why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor... it was the US's fault.

[quote=Mike Sigman;189382]Classic reasoning. .... [quote]

Are you still commenting on the BBC article? I didn't see much reasoning there. Just very simple statements of facts.

Mark

[quote=Mark Gibbons;189383][quote=Mike Sigman;189382]Classic reasoning. ....

Are you still commenting on the BBC article? I didn't see much reasoning there. Just very simple statements of facts.

Well, suppose the BBC said something like "America, which many people in the world are happy is doing much to keep aggressive countries in line,...." and continued along in that tone. That also would be a "simple statement of fact", but it would be gratuitously pro-American. You may not be able to see your own viewpoints as anything other than fact, but that's generally true of most people. I like to look at sentences and equations for unnecessary variables and recognize them when I see them.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mark Gibbons wrote: Are you still commenting on the BBC article? I didn't see much reasoning there. Just very simple statements of facts. Mark

Mike...employ "reason?" Where???

Mike Sigman wrote: From the website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/ne...00/1612653.stm Why did they do it? The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda - who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks. In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war - called a jihad - against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do. When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave. Makes me want to write one about why Hitler was "very angry" with the way people in Europe were running things, too. Not to mention how the actions of Jews just finally got out of hand. Of course, since Hitler is only "widely thought" to have done those things, let's leave a question dangling about it, just in case. Mike

Ah, Mike's unfailing attempts to eternally find liberal bias. But will Mike Sigman find happiness in a kids' website, building castles in the sky out of an oversimplified synopsis?

Not this time. On the face of it:

1. Mike mentions Hitler, right off. Godwin's Rule...he loses.
2. Mike's favorite means of barter...apples for oranges...comes into play, again. In short,

the ME's anger at US policies and double-standards regarding Israel do not = Hitler's designs on Europe, or his treatment of the Jews.

3. As Mark points out: this is a site for kids, presenting an oversimplified view of the causes of 911. Typical of Mike to spin Liberal bias from a few sentences (ignoring, of course, that the actual information presented, is inarguably correct. Yeah, Al Qaeda actually WERE acting partly out of anger at the policies of the US.

Whoah! I bet MIKE was floored by this new intel! )

In sum, this thread is just one more weak attempt (out of many others) to "prove" that Liberal bias exists in the media. Well, at the very least, you cannot accuse Mike of failing to provide entertainment!

Neil Mick wrote: Ah, Mike's unfailing attempts to eternally find liberal bias. But will Mike Sigman find happiness in a kids' website, building castles in the sky out of an oversimplified synopsis?

I think in the last couple of months I posted a weblink to a story in the Telegraph which detailed the results of an internal BBC investigation in which they admit that they're biased, Neil. Sort of makes your argument here a bit silly.

1. Mike mentions Hitler, right off. Godwin's Rule...he loses.

I remember a number of discussions at the time Godwin's "law" became trendy... right here on the internet. The unfortunate part about World War II is that at least 50 million people died directly or indirectly from it. I realize those are just statistics to a liberal, but those are actual human lives that were lost... so Hitler can't be trivialized and ignored, as much as you'd like the uncomfortable reminder to go away by calling "Godwin's Law".

the ME's anger at US policies and double-standards regarding Israel do not = Hitler's designs on Europe, or his treatment of the Jews.

The discussion was about gratuitous comments that show a bias. If you want to claim the statement is not biased, please feel free to do so, Neil. Your views are well known.

3. As Mark points out: this is a site for kids, presenting an oversimplified view of the causes of 911. Typical of Mike to spin Liberal bias from a few sentences (ignoring, of course, that the actual information presented, is inarguably correct. Yeah, Al Qaeda actually WERE acting partly out of anger at the policies of the US. Whoah! I bet MIKE was floored by this new intel! )

Actually, it's sort of a joke going around the internet at the moment. It shows that the BBC is so liberal it doesn't recognize when it's flaunting its own biases, despite being on the carpet for being so biased over the last few years. Honestly... do you think that Brits should be taxed every year to pay for liberally-slanted news? Yes, you do. Do you think the Brits should be taxed to pay for conservatively-slanted news? Of course not. So enters the elements of hypocrisy.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Godwin's rule doesn't really apply in one sense as no debate was in progress. No winners, no losers. In its purest form that eventually a reference to Nazi's will be made, sure that happened.

I wasn't trying to imply anything about Mike reasoning.

From what Mike said I think I see what he objected to. I thought it was too minor to really be liberal bias. He disagrees. I'm good with that.

Mark

Mike Sigman wrote: I think in the last couple of months I posted a weblink to a story in the Telegraph which detailed the results of an internal BBC investigation in which they admit that they're biased, Neil. Sort of makes your argument here a bit silly.

Not being your librarian, I (and the rest of the readers here) can only go by what you've currently written. Besides, I'm more than willing to believe that their "confession" has been wrung thru a lot of interpretation by you.

I remember a number of discussions at the time Godwin's "law" became trendy... right here on the internet. The unfortunate part about World War II is that at least 50 million people died directly or indirectly from it. I realize those are just statistics to a liberal,

It's statistics to ANYONE, Mike: including YOU. YOU'RE using those deaths to make a political point, just like everyone else. No need attempting to raise yourself above the crowd with this news, cause you aren't.

but those are actual human lives that were lost...

as were lives lost in Vietnam, Russian gulags, the West Bank. But most of us don't need to obsessively point to one event in history, as if it's some sort of Copernican Center of the Political Universe, the way you (and many others who trip over Godwin's Rule) do.

so Hitler can't be trivialized and ignored,

Putting the context of WW2 (something you seem to HATE, which is putting things in their proper context) in its proper perspective

Does not = trivializing, or ignoring Hitler

as much as you'd like the uncomfortable reminder to go away by calling "Godwin's Law".

Nice ad hominem try, Mike: but try making that stick somewhere else. I am not at all discomforted by WW2, Hitler, or anything else. In my youth, I studied WW2, et al, a great deal.

Unlike you, tho: I realize that discussions of WW2 tend to have an emotional weight that distorts comparisons to it, of current political events.

The discussion was about gratuitous comments that show a bias. If you want to claim the statement is not biased, please feel free to do so, Neil. Your views are well known. Actually, it's sort of a joke going around the internet at the moment.

between Mike and his monitor, no doubt. The REST of us have better things to do.

Must be a real laugh riot, when you boys get together...

It shows that the BBC is so liberal it doesn't recognize when it's flaunting its own biases, despite being on the carpet for being so biased over the last few years.

Does Mike make up these things, or does he just piece them together from Conservative blog-o-ramas?

Only the shadow knows...

Honestly... do you think that Brits should be taxed every year to pay for liberally-slanted news? Yes, you do.

Do you think it possible to virtually cram thoughts into my mouth, and play my head like some kind of virtual sock-puppet, spouting out this rehash as if these thoughts were my own??

Sure you can! You just tried!

I think that you like to pretend that you "know it all" about Liberal media bias, based upon your "conclusive findings" (read: castles in the sky, based upon relentless RightWingBlogoNonsense) and your "objective research."

Having convinced yourself, you paradoxically and messianically need to convince others of your "findings" by relentlessly linking every example of "bias" (read, nothing) you find.

OR,

You are really having us all on. You really KNOW that there's no such thing, and it's all a joke on us.

OR,

You're in pay with some sort of FBI/CIA/X-Files-type-program to control ppl's opinions thru forum posts. Ineffective, but so was the attempt to remove Castro's mustache by lacing his cigars with estrogen.

OR, some other reason, I'm not aware. Unlike you, I claim no powers of mindreading.

Do you think the Brits should be taxed to pay for conservatively-slanted news? Of course not. So enters the elements of hypocrisy. Regards, Mike Sigman

Do you think you'll ever make sense? Probably not. But I have hope. So enter the elements of boundless optimism.

Mark Gibbons wrote: Godwin's rule doesn't really apply in one sense as no debate was in progress. Mark

No, I don't think so. In his opening statement, he begins the debate.

You see where he quickly leads to, in his argument? An accusation that the BBC is essentially a tax upon the English to express a bias at-odds with the general public. He has made this statement (by his own admission) several times in the past.

Godwin's Rule was made to point out how distorting it can be to bring in references to Hitler, UNLESS the point directly referenced WW2 (example: Our press, with its bias and pressure for profit and big business; suffers from a different kind of pressure and repression than the German press during the Nazi regime, which suffered from state censorship.

This statement doesn't violate Godwin's rule, as I am making a direct reference rather than an unreasonable comparison, designed to play on one's emotions).

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...39;/article.do

The article seems like a super-simplified explanation using current media-accepted terms directed towards young children. Seems quite pointless to argue about the article one way or another, there aren't any downright lies as far as I can see, unlike the words of most major politicians here in Britain or the USA.

Neither the left nor the right of most political parties has much relevance to me, they just don't hold to values I find honourable.

...oh and we ARE taxed by the government to pay for the BBC to continue without commercial advertising, but far less than the damn fuel taxes and electric/phone companies steal.

Edit ;

Mike Sigman wrote: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...39;/article.do

"At the BBC'impartiality summit' last year ; BBC 'diversity tzar' Mary Faitzpatrick claiming women newsreaders should be able to wear what they liked on air, ..."
I say ban those horrible trousersuits!

The biggest problem with the BBC is not that they are left of Mike Sigman (therefore liberal, just like Genghis Khan, Mararet Thatcher, etc)

It's that they do not stand up for themsleves - these are the people who appologise for being correct.

David Chalk wrote: The biggest problem with the BBC is not that they are left of Mike Sigman (therefore liberal, just like Genghis Khan, Mararet Thatcher, etc) It's that they do not stand up for themsleves - these are the people who appologise for being correct.

Well, going by the very words used in the article, they are leftist and liberal. If you want to misconstrue the phrase "politically correct" with the word "correct", it just gives us one more example of leftist ethos. Anyway you cut it, the BBC by its own reckoning is biased... that was the point and it stands.

Mike

Mike Sigman wrote: Well, going by the very words used in the article, they are leftist and liberal. If you want to misconstrue the phrase "politically correct" with the word "correct", it just gives us one more example of

Mike's reading bias into the equation.

Anyway you cut it, the BBC by

Mike's

reckoning is biased... that was the point and

Mike has yet to prove a thing. So, far, all he's presented is ONE link that discusses a study. Look down lower on the page, and you see a host so-called "proof" that the BBC is biased. Most are pretty laughable.

Even the contention that the BBC admitted it's biased is (to borrow my English cousins' slang) bollocks. Mike likes to dig a little till he finds the "proof" that reinforces his own views, before stopping.

Of course, the damning evidence starts well...Mike is no fool:

We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism. A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror. At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians. One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

And so, on the surface of it: Mike's right. But not so fast. The BBC editor Helen Boaden responded to these charges:

Helen Boaden's Blog

Helen Boaden wrote: I am not surprised that some readers of the Mail on Sunday, the Daily Mail and the Express are furious with the BBC. If I had paid my licence fee in good faith for an organisation which claims it is passionately committed to impartiality, only to discover -- according to the Mail on Sunday -- that the organisation itself has admitted it is biased, I would be pretty livid. According to the Mail on Sunday, and other recent press reports, we have admitted that we are an organisation of trendy, left-leaning liberals who are anti-American, biased against Christianity, in favour of multiculturalism, and staffed by people who wouldn't know an unbiased fact if it hit them on the head. The Mail on Sunday based its story on a leak from what it called a "secret" meeting of BBC executives and governors, and claims that it was our former political editor, Andrew Marr himself, who confessed to the liberal bias of the organisation. His take was reinforced by Jeff Randall, who until recently was our business editor. "If they say it, then it must be true" was the thrust of the story. Well I was one of the people who was at the "secret" meeting. and I have to say the reality was somewhat different to the way the press are reporting it. For a start, this wasn't a secret meeting... it was streamed live on the web. The meeting was made up of executives, governors and lots of non-BBC people like John Lloyd from the FT and Janet Daley from the Daily Telegraph. It was planned as a serious seminar to investigate and understand better the BBC's commitment to impartiality in an age in which spin and opinion riddle much of the world's journalism. The seminar was part of a bigger project kicked off by Michael Grade earlier this year to re-examine the underlying principles of impartiality in the digital age when boundaries between conventional broadcasting and the new platforms will increasingly disappear. To keep us all on our toes, a rich variety of formats was used during the day. I was on a "Hypothetical" -- where a panel of people in charge is given a series of mounting "real life" crises and asked how they would handle each of them. It was fun, occasionally illuminating, and often very challenging. There was for example a heated debate about the whether or not a Muslim newsreader should be allowed to wear a headscarf. Jon Snow was all in favour. BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb was vehemently against. I had deep reservations because I felt a scarf would be a distraction from the news but pointed out - in the interests of debate - that if we banned the headscarf, how would we justify that cross which I was sure I had once seen Fiona Bruce wearing. From this discussion emerged the wholly untrue newspaper story that the BBC had banned Fiona's cross. The point of the Hypothetical is to generate discussion, debate and ideas. The situations aren't real; the discussions aren't binding and they certainly don't define BBC policy. There was discussion of the BBC's culture and some provocative points were made. Jeff Randall made a few good jokes about the occasional examples of political correctness he found among some BBC colleagues. I remembered an incident about 15 years ago when a freelance reporter working for me on a programme about bullying in Feltham Young Offenders' Institution asked me if it was acceptable to broadcast what they had discovered: that most of the bullies in Feltham at that time were black and most of the victims were white. Not only was it acceptable, I told the reporter, if he had evidence of this he had a duty to report it. And so we did. Andrew Marr made some comments about BBC culture being more liberal than the rest of the country -- points he makes in his book on journalism. The main thing is, however, they were both giving their personal opinions. That is entirely their right and what they had been asked to do in the interests of discussion. I disagree with them. I found their claim of liberal bias unconvincing -- based on anecdote and attitude rather than evidence. The BBC employs more than 20,000 people across the UK. It is not a chattering class club of the kind depicted by the papers. It is a hugely varied organisation with many different cultures and a huge variety of opinions on every single issue among its staff. What does unite BBC staff however, is a deep commitment to BBC values and at the heart of those values is a commitment to impartiality. When I first joined the BBC I asked a very experienced and subtle journalist what was meant by BBC impartiality. "It means we don't take sides," he said. "We don't take sides either explicitly or implicitly. We test all opinion toughly but fairly and we let the audience make up their own minds." It's a simple but absolutely correct definition which audiences see, hear and read in our output everyday. In the end, the personal views of our staff are not the point. The issue is that their views and opinions never stray on air. And that's where the broad audience comes in. What really counts is not what a group of BBC executives and VIPs think, or indeed what a few columnists believe. The important thing is whether or not our audiences think we are biased. And on that the evidence is robust. Asked recently which of the four main broadcasters they would term "trustworthy", nearly two thirds - 60% - cited the BBC. In contrast, 26% said ITV, 16% mentioned Channel 4, and 14% Sky. (Mori, 2006) That research is very cheering but it never allows us to rest on our laurels. Impartiality is not so much a fixed point as a process of open mindedness which should be the basis for everything we do in journalism. Part of that open mindedness is being tested in exercises like the Hypothetical which ran at the impartiality seminar. No one has all the answers on any subject and debate and discussion are vital if we are to ensure that impartiality remains a living reality rather than an empty claim. It's a shame that the newspapers have made mischief with the seminar, but we won't let this small storm put us off trying to get impartiality right.

So, to review:

1. The charges were based upon a supposedly "secret" meeting, which was filmed live, online.
2. The seminar took the stance of a hypothetical, which others interpreted as RL.
3. Helen Boaden makes the good point that even IF the BBC thinks itself biased: the REAL test is what the viewers feel.
4. The whole thing has a feel of a hit-job, an attempt to throw mud (by the Daily Mail, and others), that Mike ran with (not the first time he's taken supposition and spin, and commented on it as if it were fact).

You can get a much fuller picture of the controversy on wikipedia.

Criticism of the BBC

Neil Mick wrote: Mike's reading bias into the equation.

Yeah, well, I'm sure you would argue that Santa Cruz is not really as a whole biased liberally, too, Neil, but there comes a point where some of your defenses conflict too much with reality.

3. Helen Boaden makes the good point that even IF the BBC thinks itself biased: the REAL test is what the viewers feel.

Really? Let's take Santa Cruz as an example. Do most people in Santa Cruz think that there is a heavy liberal bias or do they think that people there just "think the right things"? Let's put it another way. If a bunch of grammar school kids in Kansas have been raised to believe in Santa Claus and the local paper keeps talking about Santa Claus, do you think the kids would suggest the paper has a bias? Of course not.

In other words, your argument is silly.... the victims of propaganda against Jews think that Jews are bad people. The victims of constant propaganda against Bush or Clinton think they're both bad, right? So the question under discussion is whether a news organization presents only one point of view. One of the recent trends has been, for example, to count the number of negative commentaries about "Illegal Immigrants" for instance and compare it with articles that stand in favor of allowing illegal immigrants to stay regardless of the law. When shown that liberal newpapers overwhelmingly publish stories that are pro-illegal-immigrant, the papers simply refused to publish that poll. That's the heart of the argument..... dishonesty behaviour under the guise of "The Greater Good" (the liberal equivalent of "Jehovah"). Incidentally, Neil, you post the numbers of Iraqis killed in the war.... why isn't the number of American citizens killed by illegal immigrants easy to find in the papers or on your posts? You don't care about American citizens?

In the case of the BBC, for instance, a recent report by BBC Watch caused a stir in UK news when it showed that they did indeed have an anti-Israel bias http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html (BBC IIRC agreed to try to do better). But if you've ever watched the BBC (which I do a fair amount of), it's pretty obvious they have a bias by watching how they simply never report some sides of the news. You don't need to run polls and have discussions. If the BBC does not freely publish all sides of the issues, it is biased and normal people spot it fairly quickly.

Your attempt to try to argue against the obvious and skew your own "reportage" is one of the reasons I like to point things out to you. Mainly because I dislike dishonest reportage and commentary. I don't believe in skewing the facts or flat-out lying "for the Greater Good".

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman wrote: Yeah, well, I'm sure you would argue that Santa Cruz is not really as a whole biased liberally, too, Neil, but there comes a point where some of your defenses conflict too much with reality.

Give 'em enough rope...

Really? Let's take Santa Cruz as an example.

Yes, lets.

As I was saying: give 'em enough rope...

and Mike will willingly hang himself, just to dance the jig a few more rounds. That's what I love about you, Mike: you're so EASY. Your strawmen fall apart with the slightest breath.

Do most people in Santa Cruz think that there is a heavy liberal bias or do they think that people there just "think the right things"?

Some do: some don't. Just as in Durango, CO (where there was a "World Can't Wait" rally, PROVING that Liberals in Durango exist, CONTRARY to Mikey's protestations): some are Liberal, some Conservative.

But, just to let you dance your silly hangman's jig awhile longer: I went to the Santa Cruz Sentinel site, and took a quick look around.

BRACE YOURSELF, MIKE! World shattering info ahead!!

I was looking in the editorial section, poss to show that, yes, Virginia: Conservatives DO live in Santa Cruz...and lo, look what I found (took me all of about 30 seconds)!

Santa Cruz Conservative

As the GW hysteria, driven by the liberal press, politicians and their green "Messiah" Albert Gore, more and more scientists are publishing articles in scientific journals that rebutting the GW crowd. The evidence is mounting that the GW is not as serious as movie "The misguided truth" presents and is nothing more than the natural warming and cooling cycles the earth has been going through for millions of years.

So, yes, Mike: people living in an area DO have a range of opinions, not just one. I know, I know: you're shocked and awed, you gotta sit down, etc.

But I DID notice that you totally ignored the meat of the last post which shot down your contention that the BBC "outed" itself, a long-claimed contention of yours. The truth must really hurt...

But of course, Mikey's not through. WHAT Mike Sigman post would be complete without a total ad hominem, thrown into the mix?

Incidentally, Neil, you post the numbers of Iraqis killed in the war.... why isn't the number of American citizens killed by illegal immigrants easy to find in the papers or on your posts? You don't care about American citizens?

Um, how about the statistics of American citizens killed by LEGAL immigrants? Or, the number of American's killed by plastic silverware?

Or, when DID I stop beating my wife??

In the case of the BBC, for instance, a recent report by BBC Watch caused a stir in UK news when it showed that they did indeed have an anti-Israel bias http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html (BBC IIRC agreed to try to do better).

Oh, yeah, bastions of objectivity...BBCWATCH???

But if you've ever watched the BBC (which I do a fair amount of), it's pretty obvious

that I, Mike Sigman, can find a

bias by watching how they simply never report some sides of the news. You don't need to run polls and have discussions.

I, Mike Sigman, can smell a bias from MILES away (unless, of course: it involves someone I believe). Polls and discussions?? We don' need no stinkin' "polls and discussions!"

If the BBC does not freely publish all sides of the issues, it is biased and

the Rightwingblogosphere

spot it fairly quickly.

Your attempt to try to argue against the obvious and skew your own "reportage" is one of the reasons I like to point things out to you.

I attempt to inject a little balance into your harshly skewed and one sided view of the media. You like to pretend that you're "pointing" things out to me...which makes it all the sadder when your strawmen tumble into dust, again and again.

Mainly because I dislike dishonest reportage and commentary.

Again, to quote you:

Mike Sigman wrote: Thanks. Haven't had a guffaw like that one in years!

Too funny, Mike. That's got to be the single-most packed sentence filled with self-deception that I've read in quite a while. Thanks for the chuckle.

Mike S wrote: I don't believe in

facts. You seem to enjoy following the adage of a fave ex-Prez of yours:

Ronald Reagan wrote: Facts are stupid things

Neil Mick wrote: Give 'em enough rope... Some do: some don't. Just as in Durango, CO (where there was a "World Can't Wait" rally, PROVING that Liberals in Durango exist, CONTRARY to Mikey's protestations):

I've never protested any such thing, Neil. Durango certainly leans liberal. Everyone except some of the liberal nutballs openly acknowledge it and they know they would appear foolish if they tried to pretend otherwise.

You, on the other hand, are once again trying to dispute the obvious and well-known about Santa Cruz .... proving my point, as usual and thereby dissolving your protestations about the BBC.

Mike

BTW, in defense of the British press other than the BBC, note what happens when the Washington Post tries to borrow a story and be politically correct about it:

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_011002.htm

The moral? Tell the flat truth, whether it favors the Left or the Right.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman wrote: I've never protested any such thing, Neil. Durango certainly leans liberal.

Actually, you pooh-pooh'd the few "liberal nutballs" who came out to protest as some sort of minority.

You, on the other hand, are once again trying to dispute the obvious and well-known about Santa Cruz

Um...OK. Just to parse this out for you readers...the world, according to Mike:

1. Given: It is "obvious" and "well known" that Santa Cruz is a hotbed of Liberalism (a debatable label, but DEFINITELY not some broad-brush to predict ppl's opinions, here. We have our Conservatives here, too: and they're quite welcome to parade their W'04 bumperstickers, free from harassment.

A BIG group of Conservatives here are the bikers who come in and ignore the noise ordinances...yet seem to get few tickets).

2. Conflate the "Liberal" view to mean a broad category of things. Assume that the majority of Santa Cruzians believe these things, as Mikey has no need for polls, and such.

Mike S wrote: Do most people in Santa Cruz think that there is a heavy liberal bias or do they think that people there just "think the right things"?

3. Make one-ended statements using such large gaps in logic, and round off by

4. Proving to yourself that you are right, because your own, circular logic took you back to square 1.

.... proving my point, as usual

5. Garnish with dill, serve with a pithy comment (nothing special...some bon mot that you find simultaneously witty, and dismissive).

and thereby dissolving your protestations about the BBC. Mike

And serve!

Please don't ever stop posting, Mike. I don't know what I'd do without that little ego-boost I get after crashing another of your strawman chestnuts.

Well there you have it, folks... a Far Left liberal trying to argue that Santa Cruz (very well known in the US) is not really liberal.

You decide.

Actually, the interesting part I find about listening to liberals (and sometimes conservatives) arguing that they really do not hold those views is trying to decide whether they are:

1. "In denial" (which I think is a cover term for the 2 below)

2. They are making the choice to lie thinking that they actually fool anyone.

3. They are not intelligent enough to really figure it out.

It's interesting. The question is that if someone cannot really figure obvious things out, why do they have the same vote as everyone else?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Neil, having only visited Santa Cruz once (the California coast is quite nice, I would love to ride my motorcycle around there), I can't say what it is like to live there, but it is a bit disingenuous to say that Santa Cruz is not a liberal area, as it is one of the two cities in the US to have elected a socialist mayor, has a nuclear free zone, voted 3x1 for John Kerry, "measure k" etc. Wikipedia indicates it was once predominantly republican until a large population of UCSC alums decided to stay in the area.

There is nothing wrong with being liberal, but if you are surrounded by like minded people all the time of any political persuasion, then it is easy to think that everyone else thinks/feels the same way.

As for the topic at hand, I find the BBC's bias to be one of word choice, story selection and omission (much like NPR which I listen to every time I am in the car because while they are quite biased, there are no commercials). Much like how the Washington Post consistently refers to illegal immigrants, or illegal aliens merely as "immigrants", the BBC usually fails to distinguish between civilian and militant deaths in their broadcasts on NPR.

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: Neil, having only visited Santa Cruz once (the California coast is quite nice, I would love to ride my motorcycle around there), I can't say what it is like to live there, but it is a bit disingenuous to say that Santa Cruz is not a liberal area,

I never said it wasn't. And, barring Mike's rather sad and self-aggrandizing attempts to put words in my mouth, I didn't even imply that.

What I SAID was that you cannot simply "assume" an average Santa Cruz'ian's position on ANYTHING (as, Mike likes to do), merely because of where we live. And besides, 2 Liberals might disagree on a lot of issues. It's not accurate to suggest that just because a person is "Liberal" means that we all agree on the same things. My views in the Gun thread, for example: could well be termed Conservative by other Liberals.

I'm not even sure what the "average" SC'an thinks of gun control, net neutrality, or vagrancy laws. Did you know, for instance, that in spite of our Liberal reputation, we have some pretty fierce laws against homelessness? That it's against the law to SLEEP in Santa Cruz, for pity's sake?? Or that the City gov't was SUPPOSED to organize a citizen's police review committee, but have yet to do so after more than 3 years? What may appear to be "Liberal" on the surface, can be much more complex under the skin, if you decide to look beneath the labels.

There is nothing wrong with being liberal, but if you are surrounded by like minded people all the time of any political persuasion, then it is easy to think that everyone else thinks/feels the same way.

Then this is a glaring fallacy. Sorry, but I have NO IDEA what the "average" New Yorker thinks, altho NYC is supposed to be Liberal. I ALSO have no idea what the "average" North Dakotan thinks about a lot of other issues, either: even tho it's simple to find out their voting patterns.

Again, we have a very vocal Conservative minority here in SC. It is oversimplification to suggest that ALL SC'ans think alike on issues.

As for the topic at hand, I find the BBC's bias to be one of word choice, story selection and omission (much like NPR which I listen to every time I am in the car because while they are quite biased, there are no commercials). Much like how the Washington Post consistently refers to illegal immigrants, or illegal aliens merely as "immigrants", the BBC usually fails to distinguish between civilian and militant deaths in their broadcasts on NPR.

Maybe (I can come up with some examples showing a Conservative bias, in choice of words as well). But, at least you're not misrepresenting the BBC as "outing themselves as Liberally-baised," unlike certain OTHER post'ers, here (how's it going, Mike? ).

Neil Mick wrote: 5. Garnish with dill, serve with a pithy comment (nothing special...some bon mot that you find simultaneously witty, and dismissive).

(or, outright disingenuous...)

Mike Sigman wrote: Well there you have it, folks... a Far Left liberal trying to argue that Santa Cruz (very well known in the US) is not really liberal.

Right on time...like clockwork.

On whether Santa Cruz is a liberal place:

Neil Mick wrote: I never said it wasn't.

Without getting into some more lengthy parsing, of course you took the position that Santa Cruz was not really liberal. You attempted to argue against it or at least to confound the argument. The problem is that Santa Cruz is obviously and well-known as an arch-liberal place, on the whole. If I'd have been in Neil's place in the discussion, I'd have simply conceded that in order to maintain my credibility. But that's not why liberals argue they are not liberal and why conservatives will sometimes (not as much, granted) argue that they are not conservative. If they concede that there is a bias, then the "rightness" ('we do it because it's the right thing to do') comes into question. Once the correctness of a position, as opposed to the actual partisan preference, is revealed then many statements are exposed as simply self-serving. There is no other reason to deny a bias.... admitting a bias undermines the absolutes of a debate position.

It's the same with the BBC bias. Interestingly, most polls show that liberals fall into 2 camps about journalistic bias. Many liberals freely admit it and argue positions around it. A number of journalists have admitted that the majority of their brethren approach the news from a liberal angle. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for example, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas predicted that sympathetic media coverage would boost Kerry’s vote by “maybe 15 points,” which he later revised to five points. In 2005, ex-CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter confessed he stopped watching his old network: “The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me.” Many other liberals deny that there is any bias, spotting that it weakens their position and brings into question hypocrisy.... which is not good in a "do it because it's the right thing to do" argument.

But when you have something as obvious as the question "is Santa Cruz, California a liberal place" and someone begins arguing and parsing, the denial is indication enough of either (1.) an inablility to see the obvious or (2.) a deliberate choice to avoid the truth. There's a third possibility that has to do with propaganda.... if someone has been raised in a schooling and environment where the peer-belief and teachings all point to certain positions, then those people probably can't recognize reality in relation to pertinent topics.

The same thing can be said about the BBC. Many liberal-leaning Brits I know simply shrug and acknowledge that the BBC is biased to the Left. But many Brits don't see any bias.... they've been raised on the BBC-tilted positions their whole life, both in school and on the telly. They'll deny any BBC bias in the same way a child brought up to believe in Santa Claus will adhere to his beliefs.

The several large reports in the last few years about the BBC have indicated that it is indeed biased to the Left, parse it how you will. To pretend that the BBC is not biased puts someone in the awkward position that is similar to Neil pretending there is a debate about whether Santa Cruz is liberal (a socialist mayor is a fairly good indicator of the voting public, BTW). Continually trying to spin out the obvious in order to suggest that black is actually white not only is a waste of time, but it also brings into question the ethics and motivation of someone who will spend so much time arguing speciously against the obvious.

Regards,

Mike Sigman