FU - FairAndUNbalanced.com - Latest comments on Media Balance

In response to: Media Balance

Burr Deming [Member] — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 15:18:58 +0000

Thank you, Heathen, for your good advice.

In response to: Media Balance

The Heathen Republican [Visitor] — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 15:18:45 +0000

You did not understand my first comment. A blind squirrel sometimes finds an acorn. A stopped clock is right twice a day. Biased sources sometimes get the facts right.

Instead of first attacking the source, find out if the source has something good to say.

In response to: Media Balance

Burr Deming [Member] — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 23:35:22 +0000

Thank you for your comments, Heathen.

If I understand your first comment correctly, you suggest that, insofar as news is concerned, Americans should consider the source, then do their homework. Moments later, in your second comment, you chastise me for considering the source. You do go further, criticizing me for not considering the content.

You may want to reconsider. If you look more carefully, you may discover that I not only considered the content, I replied to it.

In response to: Media Balance

The Heathen Republican [Visitor] — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 23:32:58 +0000

"You certainly have a sense of humor, going to Glenn Beck's "The Blaze" for an objective analysis."

Second, Burr you immediately attack T.Paine's source (The Blaze) without even considering the content. This strikes me as irresponsible and unfair, but also what's expected here on the internets.

It's possible that The Blaze has an accurate story. It's possible that a writer for The Blaze will write something you agree with. It's possible that the fact check piece is wrong and The Blaze cleared it up.

You will never know because you assume The Blaze is not objective (it's not) and therefore wrong. Isn't the entire point of your post that we need to avoid bias and pay attention to reality?

There is no fair and balanced; every human being has biases. To undermine a source as not objective is to assume that an objective source exists. Let's stop attacking the credibility of sources and examine facts.

In response to: Media Balance

The Heathen Republican [Visitor] — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 23:30:55 +0000

First, I like Ryan's list. The media has proven not to be trustworthy, so informed Americans need to do their own homework.

In response to: Media Balance

T. Paine [Visitor] — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 20:37:52 +0000

Luckily the remaining one quarter of Mr. Romney's campaign is still a powerful argument for voting for him over President Obama, sir.

In response to: Media Balance

Burr Deming [Member] — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:49:51 +0000

Thank you for your agreement, T. Paine.

You do realize that this robs Mr. Romney of three quarters of the rationale for his campaign.

In response to: Media Balance

T. Paine [Visitor] — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:48:05 +0000

Mr. Deming, I do agree that Mr. Romney should not take credit, good or bad, for what Bain did after he left the company.

In response to: Media Balance

Burr Deming [Member] — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:19:50 +0000

Thank you for your comment, T. Paine.

Actually, I addressed the accuracy of the ad you mention and its manifest unfairness here:

http://fairandunbalanced.com/blog1.php/2012/08/10/a-truthful-ad-that-is-way-way-unfair-to-

The ad was superficially accurate, but completely unfair.

I made the additional point in the following link, that Mr. Romney should not be seen as responsible for what happened after he left Bain, including any jobs that were created years later:

http://fairandunbalanced.com/blog1.php/2012/07/13/mitt-romney-not-responsible-after-februa-1999

I'm sure you agree with that, right?

In response to: Media Balance

T. Paine [Visitor] — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:17:03 +0000

Your sense of fair play seems... unbalanced, Mr. Deming.

You criticize a "time travel lie" that Ryan attributed to CANDIDATE Obama having said, but you ignore the actual time travel lie regarding Romney being responsible for the death of a man's wife because Bain Capital caused him to lose his job and health insurance. Never mind that the wife still had her job with insurance and that her death didn't occur until six years later.

Interesting, my friend... :)

In response to: Media Balance

Burr Deming [Member] — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:18:14 +0000

Thank you T. Paine.

You certainly have a sense of humor, going to Glenn Beck's "The Blaze" for an objective analysis. Hard to know whether anything else in their long rebuttal to anything that might be critical of Paul Ryan you meant for me to wade through, but I did eventually find some mention of two of the points I had raised.

Next time, you might do me the courtesy of reading your reference material yourself and pointing out what you want me to see.

They acknowledge Paul Ryan's time travel, defending his attack concerning a plant closing partly on the basis of a skeleton crew left to meet tail-end contractual obligations after the rest of the plant was shuttered. They also say that even though it was pretty much closed, it still ... illustrated ... a chose-winners-and-loser philosophy.

Sorry. A time travel lie is a time travel lie. The decision to close the plant and the closing itself happened before President Obama took office.

The 700 billion dollar savings from Medicare remains what I said it was. The Glenn Beck defense does propose that the savings would have gone toward the program under the Ryan plan, but that is not actually true.

The first Ryan plan would have sent pretty much all of it to tax cuts for the wealthy and converted Medicare to a voucher system, complete with coupons. Mitt Romney declared this a good step.

The second plan would have diverted part of the funds back but still would have changed the Medicare system to a "defined contribution" plan, essentially a voucher plan without the coupons.

The Obama plan will indeed use the savings from Medicare to fund health care for an expanded group that will include seniors. Health benefits will increase, not decrease.

Repeating the lie and the accompanying distortion, calling the repetition a fact-check, does not make the desperate attempt any more true.

But keep trying. Obama-hatred does seems to be the core of today's version of contemporary conservatism.

In response to: Media Balance

T. Paine [Visitor] — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:43:13 +0000

Here is a fact check that is pretty fair analysis of the "facts" you claim, Mr. Deming. (Not that I expect the real facts to ever change anyone's mind regarding their political philosophies, especially when it comes to supporting the altruistic and pure Obama campaign.) :)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-heres-a-break-down-of-the-claims-bashing-paul-ryans-speech/

In response to: Media Balance

Ryan [Visitor] — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:56:12 +0000

I certainly don't trust people to do their own fact checking. I don't even trust myself to do it. There is too much information to analyze, too much knowledge necessary to analyze it, too little time to do it, and too little reward per analysis.

But if I am going to let some organization do it for me, then I need to trust that its own claims are factual. (Who watches the watcher?) Shall I, a poor ignorant soul, trust Fox News, believed among liberals and moderates to have a conservative bias? Shall I trust MSNBC, believed among conservatives and moderates to have a liberal bias? Or shall I trust some source that strives to be regarded as politically balanced, perhaps at the cost of journalistic integrity in some other sense?

If I primarily seek to confirm my own political views, then my choice is (usually) clear. If I primarily seek to avoid bias or being perceived as someone with biased sources, then my choice is clear. If I primarily seek accurate information, then my choice is not so clear.

The best I can do is:

1.) Develop the critical thinking skills to know when a source, whether biased or not, is using logical fallacies or making mere guesses.

2.) Get my news, political commentary, and fact checking (I like FactCheck and PolitiFact) from different but well-respected sources in order to reduce the chance that I will confuse fact with opinion.

3.) Favor written news over audiovisual news to reduce or eliminate the influence of the speaker's appearance, charisma, social cues, etc. It also allows me to gather and process information at my own pace.

4.) Be mindful of my source's sources.

5.) Be open to change by being emotionally detached from existing political positions and prior information.

Beyond these standards, the results are a matter of luck and the time I put into investigation. Some information will never cross my path.

In response to: Media Balance

Jack Jodell [Visitor] — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:16:53 +0000

As you know, I have for some time referred to Paul Ryan as Paul RUIN, as I believe his devotion to that oitdated 1920s economic nonsense peddled by the hypocritical Ayn Rand would, if implemented, ruin our economy and set it back more than 100 years. Being as deluded as he is, I expect him to spout out lies. Romney, too. But let's face it: Wolf Blitzer has long been a wimp who wouldn't know Edward R. Murrow-style investigative reporting if it came up and bit him on the rear end! Beyond that, CNN long ago abandoned any claim to balance when it started to feature that not-so-closeted Republican John King in his own show, loaded as it was with GOP spokespersons. Thankfully, they finally cancelled his useless program, but then replaced it with an expanded, still far too bland Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room. One just can't win with such mediocrity from CNN: that's why they have dropped to number 3 in cable news ratings.