Intermarkets' Privacy Policy Support
Donate to Ace of Spades HQ! Recent Entries
Gun Thread: Six Frickin' Years (Plus a Week) Edition!
Food Thread: Brisket And Sauterelles Dans La Pâtisserie First-World Problems... Here Are Some Numbers We Need To Remember: 10/23/1983...241 Sunday Morning Book Thread - 09-22-2024 ["Perfessor" Squirrel] Daily Tech News 22 September 2024 Saturday Overnight Open Thread (9/21/24) Saturday Evening Movie Thread [moviegique]: Deadpool & Wolverine vs. Victory Hobby Thread - Sept 21, 2024 [TRex] Ace of Spades Pet Thread, September 21 Absent Friends
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024 Captain Hate 2023 moon_over_vermont 2023 westminsterdogshow 2023 Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022 Dave In Texas 2022 Jesse in D.C. 2022 OregonMuse 2022 redc1c4 2021 Tami 2021 Chavez the Hugo 2020 Ibguy 2020 Rickl 2019 Joffen 2014 AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published.
Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups
|
« Victory in Oz |
Main
| Another Election-- This One More Important »
October 09, 2004
Another Memo Proves Political BiasIt's pretty mind-blowing, actually: We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that," the memo continued. Let us postulate that Halperin is an honest man, or is at least not conscious of any dishonest motives he may have. This memo is the smoking-gun that proves that the liberal media simply cannot, as they claim, report the news neutrally. Halperin's assumption is that Bush's alleged "distortions" are much worse than Kerry's. That assumption is certainly a politically-sensitive one. Certainly I don't share it, and if you're reading this blog, you probably don't either. The tricky thing about logic and reasoning and argumentation is that, as formalistic as a piece of formal logic might be, it almost always relies, at its base, upon inherently unproveable assumptions which are just something one believes in one's gut. Even mathematics relies on numerous key assumptions which haven't yet been proved (and, in a couple of cases, upon assumptions which by their own implications cannot ever be proven-- they can only be accepted provisionally, with all logic flowing therefrom). Even the common dictionary is, at its heart, built unavoidably upon assumptions. It's been noted, for example, that there is no good definition for the word "word" -- all definitions of "word" are ultimately just tautologies which use the word "word" in order to define the word "word." Reporters can claim -- certainly incorrectly and probably often dishonestly -- that their logic and reasoning and analysis proceeds, to the extent possible, along non-partisan and neutral tracks. But they cannot avoid the fact that all that analysis is built inevitably upon a foundation of assumptions -- nearly all of them liberal -- which they cannot prove and in fact are utterly unproveable. They don't even attempt to prove these assumptions, probably for the disingenuous reason that attempting to prove these assumptions would reveal, in piercing starkness, that these assumptions exist in the first place. And that's something they will just never admit. Halperin thinks that Bush's "distortions" are more important than, say, John Kerry's obvious demogoguery on recruiting additional "allies" to sacrifice blood and treasure to do America's (and Iraq's) job for us. Can he explain why he believes that to be the case -- and, more importantly, prove in objective terms that that is in fact the case? Of course he can't, and he dares not try. Instead, he just circulates an internal memo -- meant for liberal eyes only, of course -- instructing his liberal colleagues to act upon the assumptions they all know in their bones are true. And yet which cannot be proven. Halperin will of course just claim that he's trying to give ABCNews' audience the (dubious) benefit of his professional news judgment. But that gives the game away, doesn't it? For years the media has attempted to explain away liberal bias as simple, neutral, objective "news judgment." What they seem to mean is that the fact that they went to journalism school, and work in in the paid legacy media, gives them some special insight on "the truth," especially with regard to matters political, an insight apparently not to be found quite so well developed among any other class of Americans. And furthermore, we now see that "news judgment" is just a euphemism for "liberal political assumptions." The full memo is here, republished by the indispensible Drudge. Now, Matt: This is a hurricane. Or a "hellstorm," as you like to say. Thanks to Ron for bringing this to my attention. posted by Ace at 12:33 PM
CommentsDefine "word"? That's nothing. I had a friend who was once asked in a *job interview* to define the word "the." I guess it was asked to see how he'd react. Vigorous laughter was his answer. Cheers, Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on October 9, 2004 01:14 PM
Well I am glad that this memo suffaced. Full steam ahead and let's get them the same way we did on Rathergate. Bet he was surprised to see that memo on the air!! Posted by: Carl on October 9, 2004 01:24 PM
Goedel's theorem. In any consistent formalization of mathematics that is strong enough to define the concept of natural numbers, one can construct a statement that can be neither proved nor disproved within that system. I have a hard time extending principles like this to everyday life... I prefer to "hold these truths to be self evident" and understand that people who can't agree with me on the fundamentals are the enemy. Posted by: vtrtl on October 9, 2004 02:24 PM
Can't wait to see Eric Alterman spin this. Posted by: Dave in Texas on October 9, 2004 03:09 PM
A well written piece. Outstanding! Posted by: Roundguy on October 9, 2004 03:50 PM
So you're a deconstructionist now, I take it? Posted by: Bryan on October 9, 2004 10:16 PM
I think few people are surprised that this type of thinking goes on at the networks, only that it surfaced in the Halperin memo. My question is whether there is more to this than a single network wanting to make sure Kerry was given a pass on whoppers in the debate. It simply doesn't work if only a single network with 6-8% coverage lays off. It only works if you can get a consensus. Don't know if anyone remembers 4 years ago when all 3 networks and several major print outlets chimed in simultaneously at the "lack of gravitas" in Bush's character. This was a term that had rarely been used, but in 3 days it had been used over a thousand times to describe Bush. Evidence of a working together or following the lead of a single source (DNC)? Very possibly. I have never been a conspiracy theorist until i began analyzing network coverage of campaigns and the Clinton/Lewinsky impeachment story. But there is something there. Posted by: Crosby Boyd on October 9, 2004 10:31 PM
I remember watching a TV documentary-style show about the making of the CBS's '60 minutes.' The producer talked about how when Gennifer Flowers erupted on the scene, they felt that they had to help Bubba out and provide some favorable coverage and clear the air. This information was provided in the documentary totally, like...BLASE, without any additional comments or explanation of any kind...this type of action was obviously matter-of-course. I'd love it if anybody could find that footage today. I was thinking 'HELLO - WTF is it any of CBS's business to HELP OUT any candidate for this country's highest office??' And that was before I really understood myself as a conservative. As far as 'gravitas'-- THE MAN'S NICKNAME WAS BUBBA, fer cryin' out loud. And he has a thing for a particular brand of chunky, erm...'inelegant' ladies. They have not even begun to slow down with the bullshit. And they are starting to get buried with it. Posted by: lauraw on October 10, 2004 08:28 PM
Does knowledge require certainty? To know a proposition, must we have reasons that establishs it beyond a shadow of doubt? Say you and one million people all bought a lottery ticket. Your chance of winning is one in a million. You have a very good reason for believing that you will lose. But do you know that you will lose? No. Maybe you will win! If knowledge requires certainty, there is little that we know, for there are precious few propositions that are absolutely indutable. There are possibilities that, because they can't be ruled out, undermine our certainty. To demand that a proposition be certain in order for it to be known would severely restrict the extent of our knowledge, perhaps to the vanishing point. The point that we can't know what isn't certain is often espoused by philosophical skeptics. According to these thinkers, most of us are deluded about the actual extent of our knowledge. But there are good reasons to suggest this is not so; There are things that, while inconclusive, we know; That the earth is inhabated, that cows produce milk, that water freezes at 32 degrees Farenheit, and so on. We claim to know these things, yet none are absolutely certain. In the light of this can philosophical skeptics legitimately claim to know that knowledge requires certainty? No, for unless they are certain that knowledge requires certainty, they can't know that it does! Philosophical skeptics claim that we can only know what is certain, yet they can't be certain that knowledge requires certainty. The examples above provide good reason for doubting that it does require certainty. Heavy borrowation from; "How Think About Weird Things" critical thinking for a new age, by Theodore Schick, Jr. and Lewis Vaughn. Posted by: Joseph Reinhart on October 10, 2004 10:46 PM
Post a comment
| The Deplorable Gourmet A Horde-sourced Cookbook [All profits go to charity] Top Headlines
In solidarity with the MSM, Rich Lowry and National Review vilified the Covington Kids as racist agitators back in 2019. Now, it’s Rich Lowry being canceled for an accidental slip of the tongue that sounded like a forbidden word. There’s a lesson here for the Polite Right, but they won’t learn it. [Buck]
Forgotten 70s Mystery Click: Pop Princess Edition
'Cause it gets me nowhere to tell you no/ And it gets me nowhere to make you go From the same album
Are Lebanese citizens making up songs praising the #pager bombs?
Olympics judo star Nemanja Majdov banned for 5 months after making sign of cross at Paris Games [CBD]
The Lost Classics of Yacht Rock
You know you can't fool me I've been loving you too long It started so easy You want to carry on I'm not sure this is even Yacht Rock. This might just be very soft rock. I can't see myself sniffing cocaine from a Boat Hoe's cleavage to this song, which is the primary criterion of Yacht Rock. But I think this song more crosses from the shallows of soft rock to the cresting majesty of Yacht Rock. This is definitely bouncy enough for Hoe Snow. Very smooth, a little folky, a little jazzy. It's got that Hoe Snow snap.
From Andycanuck: Hezballah members reporting for work today, a little bit skittish about entering the code on an electronic keypad lock
I don't know if this is real. It's certainly accurate -- no one in Hezballah is happy to be handling any kind of electronic device today.
FAA fines SpaceX $633K for acting without its permission "These fines therefore are simply because FAA management has hurt feelings because SpaceX wouldn't wait for it to twiddle its thumbs for a few more weeks. The fines also suggest that FAA management is either being pressured to hinder SpaceX's commercial operations by higher ups in the White House, or that management itself is trying to exert more power over the company, for apparently very petty reasons." [CBD]
1) Individuals, on camera and audio, stating what they saw is "unconfirmed" with "no specific reports"
Rep. James Comer writes letter to criminal Christopher Wray, seeking information about Tim Walz's many, many suspicious trips to China
The FBI investigated whether Trump was a Russian agent based upon... nothing. Think they're investigating Walz, or nah?
Sopranos vs. Star Trek
Thanks to "NYT c*cksuckers"
Film Threat's Alan Ng gives Am I Racist? 8 1/2 out of ten, calling it "consistently hilarious"
Opens today. This is another one I have to see. It's being shown at AMC theaters so it will be on enough screens that people will be able to see it.
New book edited by Michael Walsh and featuring essays by Glenn Reynolds, Kurt Schlichter, and others: Against the Corporate Media: Forty-Two Ways the Press Hates You
Michael Walsh asked me to contribute a chapter to this book. I bailed out when I couldn't find a new angle on topic. But Walsh found a bunch of writers who do have new things to say. I'll review the book soon. Definitely consider buying it.
Supposedly a Twitter account called "The Black Insurrectionist" has a signed affidavit from an anonymous ABC "News" staffer, alleging that Muir and Kamala's sorority sister exchanged questions behind the scenes. I don't know if this is true. He says he's keeping the name of the staffer anonymous, so there will be no way to verify it even if he publishes it. Shrug. It's not much but a claim.
Recent Comments
nurse ratched :
"Happy anniversary, weasel-San!
Shotguns are ..."
Weasel: "Hells yes! Getting excited now. Posted by: She Ho ..." wferrin: "http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86&post=411592#c401 ..." Mark Andrew Edwards, Buy ammo: "So I haven't been able to make the gun thread basi ..." MD_Mike: "28 Just got to do some shooting out to 400 yards w ..." RI Red: "Van Owen, confirming what rhomboid said. I starte ..." Weasel: "Posted by: Operator who wears a 48mm watch at Sept ..." blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1): "Ben Had, you, Rancher Bob and CHQ are the ones who ..." She Hobbit: "You going to be in TX next month? Posted by: Weas ..." Notorious BFD: "[i]Smith & Wesson 686 Absolutely one of my favori ..." [/i][/s][/b][/u]Oddbob: "Getting in a bit late but as Weasel mentioned up t ..." blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1): "Thanks again, weasel! Tips for shooting with a ..." Bloggers in Arms
Behind The Black CutJibNewsletter The Pipeline Second City Cop Talk Of The Town with Steve Noxon Belmont Club Chicago Boyz Cold Fury Da Goddess Daily Pundit Dawn Eden Day by Day (Cartoon) EduWonk Enter Stage Right The Epoch Times Grim's Hall Victor Davis Hanson Hugh Hewitt IMAO Instapundit JihadWatch Kausfiles Lileks/The Bleat Memeorandum (Metablog) Outside the Beltway Patterico's Pontifications The People's Cube Powerline RedState Reliapundit Viking Pundit WizBang Some Humorous Asides
Kaboom!
Thanksgivingmanship: How to Deal With Your Spoiled Stupid Leftist Adultbrat Relatives Who Have Spent Three Months Reading Slate and Vox Learning How to Deal With You You're Fired! Donald Trump Grills the 2004 Democrat Candidates and Operatives on Their Election Loss Bizarrely I had a perfect Donald Trump voice going in 2004 and then literally never used it again, even when he was running for president. A Eulogy In Advance for Former Lincoln Project Associate and Noted Twitter Pestilence Tom Nichols Special Guest Blogger Rich "Psycho" Giamboni: If You Touch My Sandwich One More Time, I Will Fvcking Kill You Special Guest Blogger Rich "Psycho" Giamboni: I Must Eat Jim Acosta Special Guest Blogger Tom Friedman: We Need to Talk About What My Egyptian Cab Driver Told Me About Globalization Shortly Before He Began to Murder Me Special Guest Blogger Bernard Henri-Levy: I rise in defense of my very good friend Dominique Strauss-Kahn Note: Later events actually proved Dominique Strauss-Kahn completely innocent. The piece is still funny though -- if you pretend, for five minutes, that he was guilty. The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility The Dowd-O-Matic! The Donkey ("The Raven" parody) Archives
Contact
Ace:aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com CBD: cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com Buck: buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com joe mannix: mannix2024 at proton.me MisHum: petmorons at gee mail.com J.J. Sefton: sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com |