|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
enns
Joined: 02 May 2006
|
 Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 5:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Have you leftist knuckleheads EVEN seen O'Reilly? More than a couple times at least? I guess not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
| Have any of you canadian knuckleheads EVEN seen O'Reilly? I guess not. |
Researchers at a US university are knuckleheads? If they've never seen O'Reilly, how did they do the study?
Oh! You mean US! Well, since WE didn't do the study, why are you asking the question? OH....! Can't take the ehat, so tossing about straw men rather than addressing the SCIENCE.
Brilliant.
BTW, I, the OP, am American. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enns
Joined: 02 May 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you read the poster before me, I was addressing his assertion that I was commenting on O'Reilly without seeing him before, I wasn't talking about the study. Read the previous comments first. Regarding the study, I said before, I disagree with the methods. I don't believe calling someone a "centrist"(for example) is name-calling; I believe this study to be extremely flawed at its core for this reason. Maybe we disagree.
I was surprised at the tame response from you though, EFL. I was expecting more insults. Isn't it ironic that you argue with the same methods that you fault O'Reilly for? You bully and name-call more than anyone on this board, but YOU criticize Bill?
Oh, the double-standard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enns wrote: |
If you read the poster before me, I was addressing his assertion that I was commenting on O'Reilly without seeing him before, I wasn't talking about the study. Read the previous comments first. Regarding the study, I said before, I disagree with the methods. I don't believe calling someone a "centrist"(for example) is name-calling; I believe this study to be extremely flawed at its core for this reason. Maybe we disagree.
I was surprised at the tame response from you though, EFL. I was expecting more insults. Isn't it ironic that you argue with the same methods that you fault O'Reilly for? You bully and name-call more than anyone on this board, but YOU criticize Bill?
Oh, the double-standard. |
Blah, blah, blah. Fire with fire, friend. You all started it. Till we're safe from the tyranny of lies and corporate control of th presidency, I shall continue. Sadly, it is the only way of speaking this nation understands...
And nice job raising an issue that doesn't exist on THIS thread. Straw man, friend. Lie. Thanks for illustrating the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
enns, I was wondering if you've actually read the study. O'Reilly tries to draw a non-existent connection between the study and Media Matters, and attempts to link Soros and IU, but the fact of the matter is that this study was published in Journalism Studies. It has passed peer review, and as such can be taken on its own merit rather dismissed as part of O'Reilly's Sorosian conspiracy theories. Methodologically speaking it's certainly much more sound than that study you endorsed which found that the Wall Street Journal is the most left-wing news outlet in the US.
So yeah, reading the actual study might give more perspective than simply accepting O'Reilly's and Media Matter's claims about it. You can read it here: http://journalism.indiana.edu/papers/oreillyjourstud07.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enns
Joined: 02 May 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
haha, started what, EFL? This is your thread and you threw the first(and only) personal attacks. Why is it ok for you but not right-wingers, such as O'Reilly? Keep your arguments based squarely on the facts, it's hard to take you seriously when you continously throw insults.
gang, of course I read the study. One major contention of mine(among others) is what it classifies as an "insult." If you take words, such as "centrist", as an insult than yes the study is credible. But since I believe these such words are not insults or off limit for an interviewer, I cannot find this study valid or useful. I don't find it more credible than the UCLA study, which also underwent peer review.
I would like to see such a study done, using better criteria of course, on a left-wing news program.
Everyone knows where O'Reilly comes from. Of course he is an aggressive, right-wing commentator. Yet, somehow he still has one of the top rated shows on all of cable. Long live diversity in broadcasting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enns wrote: |
| haha, started what, EFL? This is your thread and you threw the first(and only) personal attacks. Why is it ok for you but not right-wingers, such as O'Reilly? Keep your arguments based squarely on the facts, it's hard to take you seriously when you continously throw insults.. |
1. "You all." Are you seriously telling me you understand that to mean "you?"
What personal attack? None. You lied. I said you lied. That is not personal and it's not an attack. It's a fact.
You: "knuckleheads."
Lying is bad. Don't lie.
| Quote: |
| gang, of course I read the study. One major contention of mine(among others) is what it classifies as an "insult." If you take words, such as "centrist", as an insult than yes the study is credible. But since I believe these such words are not insults or off limit for an interviewer, I cannot find this study valid or useful. I don't find it more credible than the UCLA study, which also underwent peer review. |
Are you an English teacher? I hope not. A word and it's meaning are not restricted to their definition. The way they're inflected lends meaning, also, for example. In BillO's mouth, virtually everthing is an epithet.
| Quote: |
I would like to see such a study done, using better criteria of course, on a left-wing news program.
Everyone knows where O'Reilly comes from. Of course he is an aggressive, right-wing commentator. Yet, somehow he still has one of the top rated shows on all of cable. Long live diversity in broadcasting. |
This is a ridiculous implication. Viewership = legitimacy?  Tell me, how many people in this country still approve of Bush? 28%. 84,000,000. How many does O'Reilly pull in? 5% of that?
Diversity is fine. Have I ever said he should be removed from TV? Have I said he should be silenced? Have I said anything at all that would indicate a restriction of his behavior? No. But the man is a scumbag and a liar. The channel he works for lies in its own self-description: it is not fair, it is not balanced and it is not news. For those who do not realize that, I'm happy to help disabuse them of their delusions.
Perhaps you say otherwise. Where is your EVIDENCE or PROOF? I have offered mine, and it says he's a propagandist. We didn't need a scientific study to know that, but since it was done, well... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enns wrote: |
| gang, of course I read the study. One major contention of mine(among others) is what it classifies as an "insult." If you take words, such as "centrist", as an insult than yes the study is credible. But since I believe these such words are not insults or off limit for an interviewer, I cannot find this study valid or useful. |
enns, are we talking about the same study? Because "centrist" is not defined as an 'insult'; indeed, the word "insult" as you put it is not present on any of the 27 pages. Here is what is written in the study I'm talking about here:
| Quote: |
Name Calling gives a person or idea a bad label to make the audience reject them without examining the evidence. This is, by definition, a negative device. The terms conservative, liberal, left, right, progressive, traditional, or centrist were treated as name calling, if they were associated with a problem or social ill or if coupled with a derogatory
term. The term ��left�� is not a derogatory term in itself, but used with ��kool-aid�� (referring to the Jim Jones orchestrated mass suicide) raises ��left�� to the level of name calling. (p203) |
Emphasis mine. Under this criteria, 'leftist' is not counted as name calling if used in a positive or neutral manner; however, 'leftist knuckleheads' would be counted as two instances of name calling. As you can see, "centrist" by itself is not defined as an insult, or even as name calling. I haven't seen the raw data for the study, but I'd guess that there were no instances where the word was counted as name calling. The same is probably true for 'conservative', 'right' and 'traditional'.
We can use the same criteria to analyse any political discourse - even this board. I'd say that stevemcgarrett and Gopher name call with political terms the most, and most political name calling seems to use the terms 'left' and 'liberal'. After that I guess the most common would be 'neocon'. 'Conservative' and 'right' don't seem to get that much play, but perhaps I've missed it.
| enns wrote: |
| I don't find it more credible than the UCLA study, which also underwent peer review. |
Well, you're in a minority there. Any methodology that classifies WSJ as far left is obviously absurdly flawed. I doubt that study would have passed peer review if they had tried to publish it within field (i.e. communications). Anyway, my point was more that the study should be associated with Journalism Studies and not with Media Matters. I don't think the study has anything to do with Media Matters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enns
Joined: 02 May 2006
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You: "knuckleheads." |
Ah, EFL, just read the post. Clearly I was mimicking W.T. Carl by using his exact phrase in the post before me. How can you not see that? I personally would never use such a sophomoric term.
I'm am glad that you agree that O'Reilly should be on television. However, I think you throw around the word "propaganda" too lightly. Your "evidence" typically seems to be empty rhetoric("tyranny of lies" comes to mind) but this time you actually produced some evidence.
However, and this is to gang too, I find this study highly problematic. First, my aforementioned concerns of the researchers criteria. Second, because O'Reilly is aggressive doesn't prove that he is a propagandist whatsoever. Foxnews is as credible as any other outlet; most of which are positioned on the left-wing(including the Wall Street Journal). In the other thread I listed 3 studies showing a clear leftist media. I don't view the news as "propaganda" simply because it is left-wing. There is the evidence you wanted; discredit those 3 studies and we'll have a serious discussion.
So your "evidence" doesn't prove at all that Fox is propaganda. How would saying that O'Reilly is aggressive make me think that the Foxnews channel is propaganda?
And just get your facts straight, the latest poll had bush at 38%. And clearly you realize that not everyone is free to watch tv at the same time.....come on, use some common sense.
I am out for a while now....see you on the next thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enns wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You: "knuckleheads." |
Ah, EFL, just read the post. Clearly I was mimicking W.T. Carl by using his exact phrase in the post before me. How can you not see that? I personally would never use such a sophomoric term.
I'm am glad that you agree that O'Reilly should be on television. However, I think you throw around the word "propaganda" too lightly. Your "evidence" typically seems to be empty rhetoric("tyranny of lies" comes to mind) but this time you actually produced some evidence.
However, and this is to gang too, I find this study highly problematic. First, my aforementioned concerns of the researchers criteria. Second, because O'Reilly is aggressive doesn't prove that he is a propagandist whatsoever. Foxnews is as credible as any other outlet; most of which are positioned on the left-wing(including the Wall Street Journal). In the other thread I listed 3 studies showing a clear leftist media. I don't view the news as "propaganda" simply because it is left-wing. There is the evidence you wanted; discredit those 3 studies and we'll have a serious discussion.
So your "evidence" doesn't prove at all that Fox is propaganda. How would saying that O'Reilly is aggressive make me think that the Foxnews channel is propaganda?
And just get your facts straight, the latest poll had bush at 38%. And clearly you realize that not everyone is free to watch tv at the same time.....come on, use some common sense.
I am out for a while now....see you on the next thread. |
Enns, you're too much.
1. The "liberal" media hasn't been "liberal" for a couple decades now. Many studies over a long period of time. You know this, or should. The "liberal" media did nothing while the Neo-con cadre did their worst for the last six years. How can you even say this crap?
2. "I would never..." but you did.
3. The study is not flawed, your loyalties are. ANYONE that would say, "Foxnews is as credible as any other outlet" is just either lying or not quite right. That's not rude, it's just a fact. There is something seriously wrong with your world view, your politics, your logic, your reality... something.... if you truly believe that.
I have pointed out that I do not give a darn if a "source" is left, right or upside down, but blatantly misleading your audience as to the very nature of your programming is bull. That is what Fox does. That is why they are ridiculed. They use all of the propaganda tricks on that channel. ALL of them. You KNOW they skew their stories based on talking points from the owner. This is not fantasy, it is FACT. You also know a normal editorial board does NOT do this.
Believe what you want, but don't expect me to participate in your delusion.
Etc., etc... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's not us, it's THEM!
Yeah, it's not the Republicans with a Project for the New American Century asking for a new Pearl Harbor; it's not the neocon/conservatives leading us to hell in Iraq; it's not the neocon/conservatives making the US the most unpopular and reviled it has EVER been; it's not the neocon/conservatives gutting the treasury; it's not the neocon/conservatives mortgaging the future; it's not the neocon/conservatives doing nothing about climate change, and even worsening the situation; it's not the neocon/conservatives raping the Constitution... etc., etc.....
it's George Soros...
What a nut bag. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enns wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You: "knuckleheads." |
Ah, EFL, just read the post. Clearly I was mimicking W.T. Carl by using his exact phrase in the post before me. How can you not see that? I personally would never use such a sophomoric term.
I'm am glad that you agree that O'Reilly should be on television. However, I think you throw around the word "propaganda" too lightly. Your "evidence" typically seems to be empty rhetoric("tyranny of lies" comes to mind) but this time you actually produced some evidence.
However, and this is to gang too, I find this study highly problematic. First, my aforementioned concerns of the researchers criteria. |
You have seen that your concerns in this respect were groundless. You had the mistaken impression (shared by O'Reilly, no doubt) that 'centrist' was defined as an 'insult'. Reading the study shows that this is not the case.
| enns wrote: |
| Second, because O'Reilly is aggressive doesn't prove that he is a propagandist whatsoever. |
You've read the study, right? Because that is not the claim.
| enns wrote: |
| And just get your facts straight, the latest poll had bush at 38%. |
Huh? Did O'Reilly tell you that? Because it's not true.
| ABC News wrote: |
| May 7 - President Bush's approval rating has dropped to 28 percent in a Newsweek poll released this weekend, the lowest of any president in a generation. |
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=politics&id=5280835 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
It's not us, it's THEM!
Yeah, it's not the Republicans with a Project for the New American Century asking for a new Pearl Harbor; it's not the neocon/conservatives leading us to hell in Iraq; it's not the neocon/conservatives making the US the most unpopular and reviled it has EVER been; it's not the neocon/conservatives gutting the treasury; it's not the neocon/conservatives mortgaging the future; it's not the neocon/conservatives doing nothing about climate change, and even worsening the situation; it's not the neocon/conservatives raping the Constitution... etc., etc.....
it's George Soros...
What a nut bag. |
EFL you got it all wrong.
9-11 was the new pearl harbor and it happened cause the US didn't what the Project for a New American Century recommends.
Bathists , Khomenists and Al Qaedists declared war against the US a long time ago. The US was more or less oblivious to this during the 1990s and the US paid for it on 9-11.
If the US had made preemptive war on the Taliban in the 1990 there would have been no 9-11.
If the US had kidnapped and violated the human rights of Bin Laden and Khomeni and thrown them into secret prisons then there would have been no 9-11 and Khomeni's government would have never come to power.
And just remember that there would have been no gulf war II if Saddam had given up his war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
O'Reilly is a television personality. Rush Limbaugh is a radio personality.
They will be the first to tell you that they are entertainers. This is entertainment people. Ever hear something called "ratings"?
Anyone who takes television personalities seriously need to understand that they are just that, television personalities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
