If only there were a solution for political opinions poping up on the football forum.
Interesting Paul Zeise interview
- Thread starter RaleighPittFan
- Start date
This was and is the truth , but 99% of this board thinks Nordy was great, he was an idiot when it came to sports!
They are liberals. Newsrooms all over America are disproportionally, overwhelmingly populated by people who self-identify as liberals and Democrats. Because of that their news coverage leans to their side, which certainly shouldn't surprise anyone who has even a basic understanding of human nature. We all have the tendency to make "our side" look better and the "other side" look not as well.
Ok, so "left wing" is the new "liberal." I do not accept that equivalency but it doesn't really matter. I agree with you that everyone is biased, and that bias can play out in news coverage. But leaning to one side is not "fake news." The main stream media is still in the main stream, and it is still owned and controlled by major corporate interests. And those corporate interests are not left wing by any stretch. They are in business to make money, the same as Donald Trump and Steve Mnucin.
Actually unlike Clinton and the Obama's, Trump is losing money as president. If you run bigger education like a government entity then you will get crap. We always hear of BIG OIL etc to attack it, why do we never hear of BIG EDUCATION which is a financial mess for families these days.
And you would know President Trump's financial situation because he has released his tax returns, correct? Except, as we all know, he has refused to do that. So you have no idea how he is doing financially as president.
Education is extremely important and vital. Too bad too many in this country allow schooling get in the way of education.
Wait, so your argument is that liberals are not on the left wing of the American political spectrum, and I guess conversely that conservatives are not on the right wing? Really?
"Left wing" isn't the "new liberal", the "left wing" has ALWAYS been liberal. And liberals have ALWAYS been on the "left wing". Just as the "right wing" has always been conservative. Pretty much by definition.
My point is that conservatives have typically used terms like "liberal" media and "liberal" elite, and it seems that the word "liberal" has been supplanted by "left wing." People self-describe as "liberal," not "left wing." I understand "left wing" and "right wing" to be further left and right of "liberal" and "conservative," respectively.
But using either term to describe the main stream media is an oversimplification. Individual reporters may lean one way or the other, based on their personal views, but that does not mean that they cannot accurately report what is happening in the world.
I had an idea of creating a separate board that people could do stuff like this on. It would be like chatting with your friends in a locker room.
The thread was about pitt football and Paul zeise until some hijacked it and turned it into a political discussion on fake news. We don't need an locker room board so much as people could just stick to football topics at hand.
Yep. If this keeps up, either the Locker Room will re-appear or whole threads which began as decent FB discussions will disappear entirely after being hijacked when the mods will delete them..
Or the people that hijack threads could be given timeouts
Pitt has been fortunate to have people in the media like Paul Zeise. Listening to him speak about Pitt historically through the 90s and 00s makes me realize it wasn’t as bad as I thought going to only 1 major bowl game. How about having the character and integrity to not report that Todd Graham was leaving even though he knew several months before? Speaks volumes about him. I am pulling for Elijah to have a great year for both he and his family. Great story.
Of course it doesn't mean that they theoretically couldn't do that. But in practice basically none of them do. Now of course they say they do, but that's simply because most people have a hard time recognizing their own biases and recognizing how they are acting on them. Or they find it easier to lie to themselves about what they do and why they do it. One or the other.
You say you don't watch any TV news but yet you lecture us on it. You definitely are a left wing/liberal/progressive(if you need me to explain what this is let me know)kook.
Yeah, I noticed that immediately. He opines on a media that he never even views. Is there any term that can adequately define the mental disconnect that would lead to someone who bases their opinion upon nothing but their own imagination?
Oh yeah, that's right, you said it...."liberal". I prefer the term fool for someone like him. Kook implies some form of insanity. Foolishness is not necessarily a form of insanity.
I liked that interview
I often wondered what exactly led Graham to leave after one year.
Now I know.
Makes one wonder......had Nordenberg made a correct decision and NOT rehire Pederson.....would Graham have stayed?
Btw......please......for the love of God......please tell me that posters here dont actually believe Graham left because Penny hated Pittsburgh......
I often wondered what exactly led Graham to leave after one year.
Now I know.
Makes one wonder......had Nordenberg made a correct decision and NOT rehire Pederson.....would Graham have stayed?
Btw......please......for the love of God......please tell me that posters here dont actually believe Graham left because Penny hated Pittsburgh......
I wish Pederson was never rehired but I am glad Graham left after one year. I never liked the hire.
What is the point, then? Do you just not pay attention to any news outlet? If everyone is biased, then no one can be believed. The whole "you can't trust the media" mindset seems to be some sort of grand conspiracy theory.
Once Pederdon was hired back, what idiot would do this after the way he left, only a matter of time before he was going to go after Wannstedt. That's the type of person he was , and my dad called it the minute he was hired back. Hiring FK was really stupid , and should have showed EVERYONE what a moron Nordy was as well. That's only a few mistakes those two clowns made as a team.
The point is that mainstream American media slants their stories to their political leanings, and that their political leaning is to the left. In other words, it's the same point that I made in my original post in response to your ridiculous notion that the main stream media doesn't have a left wing bias.
Is that really so hard to understand?
Your proof of bias is that more people who work in newsrooms are Democrats or liberals, compared to conservatives or Republicans. But that does not prove anything about a particular reporter or news story. You are lumping all reporters in the main stream media into a single category, and saying that they slant their stories to the left. I just don't buy that conclusion. I think that good reporters know that the goal is to stay neutral and get the facts right. That doesn't mean that it always plays out that way.
And even if a story is slanted one way or another, that does not make it fundamentally inaccurate or "fake news." Reporting on politics, in particular, is complicated. There are usually at least 2 sides to a story, and even the best reporters can miss something.
I think you are bending over backwards to reach a false point that you hope will validate your narrative.
I don’t see why it’s so hard to admit that what Joe is saying about media bias is correct. It has nothing to do with which side is correct about their opinion, but to ignore the obvious doesn’t make any sense.
What is obvious is that individuals have biases. But what is not obvious is that those biases then lead to reporting that is slanted in one direction. The "main stream media" is not a single entity. It is composed of thousands of individuals, working at various media outlets. And they have different biases. And reporters are, or at least should be, schooled to overcome their biases in their reporting.
I think that this topic has really run its course, and we should agree to disagree. Fortunately, no humans were harmed in the making of these posts.
And you think the Chancellor of an internationally ranked university (largely thanks to his tenure) is involved in a decision to not replace a piece of carpeting in a shared athletic facility? OK. No way you got accepted into Pitt.
Seems to me that under Nordy Pitt ended up in a pretty lucrative P5 conference that made sense geographically.
The funny thing is that basically every independent study done on mainstream American media has come to the same conclusion. If it isn't obvious to a person "consuming" mainstream media there have been plenty of people who have studied it that back it up.
The next thing you silly guys are going to tell me is that in this country, college professors share the same liberal slant as the media.
Where would anyone come up with such craziness?
Here is a very detailed, independent study that does not back up what you are saying:
http://www.adfontesmedia.com/
The bulk of what we would call main steam media is right in the middle, based on comparisons of the actual stories that they produce.
LMAO, you just linked a chart created by a blogger that has CBS News skewing conservative. Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.
See, that's the thing. People who agree with the way the media is leaning don't see anything wrong with it. So it's no surprise that some liberal blogger might think that CBS is conservative. Because they aren't as liberal as he is, so they must be conservative.
You have rejected the chart and its lengthy explanation of methodology, apparently without reading it, because it doesn't fit with your notion of media bias. And she, not he, does not think that CBS is conservative.
Likewise when conservative leaning folks find non conservative leaning media to be liberal?
Sure, but since there really aren't any mainstream (television) media that are conservative other than Fox that doesn't happen very often.
But yeah, if some conservative tried to argue that Fox News or the Wall Street Journal wasn't conservative leaning media then yeah, that person would be just as wrong as a liberal arguing that CBS or NBC wasn't liberal leaning media.
If she didn't think that CBS was conservative and didn't want to give people looking at her chart that impression then she shouldn't have put CBS on the conservative side of the center line. If you make a centerline with everything to the left of the line trending more liberal and everything to the right of the line trending more conservative then things on the right of the line are, by definition, more conservative.
So either she's someone who has no idea what liberal and conservative are and which media is which, or she's really bad at making charts that get across the point she is trying to make.
Or both. Don't discount that possibility. Because it actually looks like it's both.
If you mean the oped section of the Wall Street journal I’d agree-
The actual news and articles aren’t biased and are terrific.
I think that’s the point attempted to be made here-
The news isn’t inherently biased , regardless of the source.
It’s not all editorialized.
That every one needs a tit for tat expectation of bias- has only polarized and marginalized The populace- as we’re getting dumber as a society.
It shouldn’t be about “teams”
This chart is just a visual summary of her results. The problem is that there are too many names for the size of the chart. But she has CBS, as well as NBC and ABC, in the "Neutral" category. The chart design is actually very good - she manages to get three different aspects of reporting into one presentation.
You have to read her posts to get the full picture of what she means by the categories and terms that she uses. She tells the reader how she defines "liberal" and "conservative," and encourages feedback. She makes it clear that this analysis is fluid, and that it is not meant to be a precise depiction of each of these news outlets. You can quibble with the exact placement of any of them, but she is not claiming that kind of precision. Her goal is to give people a tool to evaluate the places they get their news.
Of course "the news" isn't biased. But you cannot seriously believe that "the sources" are not. You're too smart for that.
