Comments
Personally I agree with John Stewart: "The bias of the Media is Lazy and Sensationalist".

Written By: Tito
URL: http://
The Wall Street Journal published the results of a study by a Stanford Economics professor a couple of years ago, which I believe can be found here: here
See also.


Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
Oh, I know studies have been done. I just don’t see any reason why the methodology proves the conclusion. Why, for example, should a comparison of think-tank citations prove dispositive? I don’t’ think it really addresses the question, except tangentially. It’s an interesting component, but far from all.

If you want to talk about media bias, let’s discuss the lack of the libertarian viewpoint. Virtually everybody starts with an assumption of government primacy. I routinely encounter people who are positively aghast at the idea that, maybe, we shouldn’t try to solve our problems via government.

Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
What about the fact that there are overwhelmingly more Democrats in mainstream media (something like 70-80%) than Republicans. I know this doesn’t prove anything, but it is a strong indicator if there is any bias it is to the left.

Written By: IR
URL: http://
*shrug* Maybe Cap’n Ed is defining George Will as more of an Isolationist than a Conservative? I know I’ve gotten that impression from Will from time to time.

Written By: Dave
URL: http://
I’ll second what Jon and Tito have said, though I would add "stupid" to "lazy and sensationalist".

Political bias-hunting as it’s practised among partisans is largely an idiot’s game and more a tribal ritual than anything else. Bias is an unavoidable fact of having a point of view, and will allways be with us. A good heuristic to neutralize bias is to ask: upon reading the article, what is the conclusion the author intends you to come to? This has the benefit of being a very broad test to cover all kinds of biases, and just becoming consciously aware of it helps a lot and allows you to mentally compensate for it.

Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://conjecturesandrefutations.net/weblog/
Incidentally and inexplicably, I note that Captain Ed blogs on this story, writing that George Will "isn’t exactly a conservative, but he usually covers the center well enough." What the...?!?!?! In what alternate political reality is George Will not a conservative?
It is insane (and you are right, also more evidence in support of the Greenwald Thesis). Will is conservative, and has for decades been spot on regarding everything from court appointments to many other positions generally held to be dear by conservatives. He loved Reagan.

He is also a very intellectual, well-read and reasonable man. As such, he recognizes that what the modern GOP has become, as embodied by Bush, is not conservatism as that has previously been understood. Not unless it is that branch which Hayek dismissed for being essentially authoritarian and utterly enthralled to Our Leaders. And that form of conservatism is why Hayek overtly refused to identify as a conservative; he would be so only if it were of the Goldwater variety, not this big government populism of Bush’s GOP.


Written By: Mona
URL: http://
I disagree, Jon. I think there is bias, and I have one very objective measure I use to back that up.

Consider the following incidents:

CNN’s TailWind scandal
RatherGate
Bush’s "Plastic Turkey"
The Presidential IQ fraud (reported as news in Economist magazine, among others)

And there are others I don’t have at my fingertips right now.

What these have in common is:

- They were all reported as news
- They were all objectively incorrect
- They all initally made Republicans, conservatives, or the military look bad

Now, show me the mistakes that mainstream media have made that:

- Were reported as news
- Have been objectively proven as wrong
- Made Democrats or liberals look bad

I know of no such incidents.

This shows to me the bias of media to much more readily believe things that are bad about the conservative side. They leap to conclusions in those areas because that’s what they want to believe. They are much more skeptical of things that make liberals look bad, because they sympathize with liberals.

For more, read Bernard Goldberg’s two books. Yes, they’re anecdotal, but at some point the sheer weight of anecdotes that support liberal bias is so much greater than the ones that go the other way that they should be given some weight.

Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Now, show me the mistakes that mainstream media have made that:

- Were reported as news
- Have been objectively proven as wrong
- Made Democrats or liberals look bad

I know of no such incidents.

This shows to me the bias of media to much more readily believe things that are bad about the conservative side. They leap to conclusions in those areas because that’s what they want to believe. They are much more skeptical of things that make liberals look bad, because they sympathize with liberals.
WTF? This is some kind of joke, right?

Look at what the media did to Al Gore in the run up to the 2000 election - time and again, they misrepresented what he said in order to make him look dishonest. And in Gore’s case, it was worse. Rather than reporting something initially as incorrect, and then correcting the mistake, the media when it came to Al Gore repeatedly exaggerated/misrepresented what he said. And the media never made any effort to back and correct the record.

This article from the Washington Monthly deconstructs the mainstream media’s assault on Al Gore. Time and again, when Gore said X, tghe media misrepresented what he said, exaggerated what he said, or took it out of context, all in an effort to make him look like a liar. I won’t list every example here (and the article misses a couple of more examples, actually), but as the article makes clear, there were several, particularly in the months leading up to the 2000 campaign.

Here is the end summary of the article:
Reasons for this media contempt for Gore vary. Conservative outlets, such as The Washington Times and Murdoch’s media empire, generally want to ensure the election of a Republican conservative to the White House. They are often eager to advance that cause.

In the mainstream press, many reporters may feel that savaging Gore protects them from the "liberal" label that can so damage a reporter’s career. Others simply might be venting residual anger over President Clinton’s survival of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. They might see Gore’s political destruction as a fitting end to the Clinton administration.

Yet, the national media’s prejudice against Gore—-now including fabrication of damaging quotes and misrepresentation of his meanings—-raises troubling questions about this year’s election and how it will be covered:
This was a wholesale effort on the part of the RNC and the mainstream media to paint a portrait of Gore in order to benefit his opponent in the 2000 election - Bush. What is even more interesting is the effect of the right wing echo chamber - each pundit would repeat what the last one said, rather than going back and actually examining what Gore in fact said and the context in which he said it.

And remember - this is just one guy. The Gore smearing is part and parcel of a larger problem that the media has with non-GOP’ers.

Sorry Billy, but you don’t know what the he** you are talking about.


Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Jon Henke has endorsed these quotes from George Will as being worthwhile:

I will fisk Henke by way of fisking Will.
"Administration supporters incoherently argue that the AUMF also authorized the NSA surveillance — and that if the administration had asked, Congress would have refused to authorize it. The first assertion is implausible: None of the 518 legislators who voted for the AUMF has said that he or she then thought it contained the permissiveness the administration discerns in it. [...]"
And none in congress addressed the matter at the time, so why should this administration assume that this declaration of war (AUMF), granted it any fewer reasonable and in the past uncontroversial powers than have other statutory instruments authorize the millitary to go kill people in the name of the United States? The feeling Congress would attempt to restrict if it were brought to their attention does not create a legally or ethically binding obligation. Now, the feeling that something is unconstitutional does, I think, create such an obligation—but it is quite ahistorical to think the Constitution requires warrants for intercepting such communications. Neither Will’s nor by extension Henke’s suppositions follow, it isn’t administration supporters who are amking an argument that’s incoherent, that honor goes to Mr. Bow Tie and, by his approval, to Mr. Henke.
"The administration’s argument about the legality of the NSA program also has been discordant with its argument about the urgency of extending the USA Patriot Act. Many provisions of that act are superfluous if a president’s wartime powers are as far-reaching as today’s president says they are.[...]"
This is a claim that taking a belt and suspenders approach legitimizes the suspenders while delegitimizing the belt. Again, this simply doesn’t follow, the one does not disparage the other.
"...53 months later, Congress should make all necessary actions lawful by authorizing the president to take those actions, with suitable supervision. It should do so with language that does not stigmatize what he has been doing, but that implicitly refutes the doctrine that the authorization is superfluous."
Congress may do what congresses traditionally does, and the Adminstration will very likely do what administrations have traditionally done: each attempts to poach on the Constitutional perogative sof the other, and their is nothing more sinister or honorable in that that human nature is inherently sinister or honorable.

Henke wrote:
"I don’t hold out too much hope that the Democrats and liberals currently demanding restraints on government power will maintain their skepticism under a more liberal-friendly government."
You’ve got that right, and if that Democrat runs the executive the way the last one did, they’ll change the Patriot Act to cover domestic law enforcement activities to make their incidentally acquired citizen FBI files fatter.

"And much of the current batch of Republicans will have no limited government credibility left after 8 years of rationalizing every Bush administration encroachment."

Maybe you’re a touch pessimistic there, we’ll see. So far I’m not impressed.

"In what alternate political reality is George Will not a conservative?"

Well, in this reality, he’s forgotten what activities adminstrations have usually undertaken, hence the ahistorical and ill thought out comments I fisked above. That said, in the early 80’s he was strong conservative voice but the center has moved towards him, he is proportionlly closer to the center than he was. In 20/30 years, he’ll be flat centrist or even relatively left, if trends continue.
"Perhaps this is evidence of Glenn Greenwald’s hypothesis that "’conservatism’ is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as "liberal" is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government."
The conservatism that Buckley raised after the doldrums of Hooverism is not especially conservative of what was best and unique in America, it is more a conservatism of a European mold, and more styled towards opposing the action of a European style collectivist and redistributionist left than what was once liberal and good in America, with respect to Europe—its main tool is promising to buy off the electorate as cheaply as possible. In the strictest terms, what was once liberal and uniquely good in America is the native conservatism of this nation, neither Buckley nor Greenwald will succeed in redefining it.
"It might be interesting to see a comprehensive, objective academic analysis of media bias, but I doubt it’s really possible."
Err. Okay.

Prof proves bias.
Media Bias Measured

I spent two minutes looking and linking, Daou’s mileage will vary of course. There’s more where those came from, too.
"All of those, I think, are problems with the media, and they may lead to either a left- or right-leaning bias, but they don’t necessarily lean to one or the other."
No, it is safe to assume most mainstream media putlets are minimally competent and/or pull for the left.

It isn’t a scandal anymore than most other aspects of society that have endured for 80 or so years and are likely to endure for a while longer.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Jon, so if my two links (to studies done by professors at major research universities) don’t qualify as "comprehensive, objective academic analysis of media bias", what does?

How would you undertake a study in a manner different from the cited studies?

Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
Err. Uh...

To be clear, I am not "a fine scotch" even though one may well be what one eats and drinks.

Which would make me part haggis, by a recent accounting ;^)

I think Dave Kopel put it pretty well:

"They are "conservative" in the sense that they cling to America’s unique pre-modern tradition—a non-feudal society with a sort of medieval liberty writ large for everyman."

That is what is good, truly human, and conservative for an American to adhere to in the way of an ideal.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
And none in congress addressed the matter at the time, so why should this administration assume that this declaration of war (AUMF), granted it any fewer reasonable and in the past uncontroversial powers than have other statutory instruments authorize the millitary to go kill people in the name of the United States?


FISA. And had Congress wanted to create an exception to FISA through AUMF, it would have said so in AUMF.

Any resolution of force prior to 1978 is inapposite.
This is a claim that taking a belt and suspenders approach legitimizes the suspenders while delegitimizing the belt. Again, this simply doesn’t follow, the one does not disparage the other.
What?
You’ve got that right, and if that Democrat runs the executive the way the last one did, they’ll change the Patriot Act to cover domestic law enforcement activities to make their incidentally acquired citizen FBI files fatter.
Bill Clinton never violated FISA. Not once. Bush has reportedly done it hundreds of times. Case closed.

Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
And by the way, Tom, AUMF was not a declaration of war.

Are you always this sloppy?

Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
If the media is liberal, how do you explain the entire run up to the Iraq war?(N.B. I don’t want to rehash those arguments, only discuss the coverage the media gave the arguments.)

The ENTIRE media acted as cheerleader for the invasion. Almost no arguments against were shown in the initial year or so of the preperation. It wasn’t until much later than the media actually began to start asking questions.

Written By: Tito
URL: http://
Also, as a note, "the number of articles making X look bad" is hardly a valid case for bias. It makes the fundamental assumption that for all values of X, they did the same number of bad things.

Written By: Tito
URL: http://
MK wrote:

"And by the way, Tom, AUMF was not a declaration of war."

And it barely deserves a response.

MK, do you see in the Constitution where Congress can declare half a war? I don’t either, it’s inherently an all or nothing thing. If the AUMF was a daclaration of war, what do propose that it was?

MK previously displayed it’s perspicacity by writing:

"FISA." And it would have a point if FISA did not have an entire exemption to its other provisions expressly allowed for by other statutes. Like all other declarations of war, with respect to the powers traditionally used to prosecute a war, the AUMF was such an exemption. Absent a statement by Congress to the contrary, why should the administration agree with you?

"What?" I think the metaphor is clear to persons who can think. To be more clear, already having authorization to do something is not impaired by seeking political cover by seeking further pleasant but unneeded endorsements for the exercise of the authority.

"Bill Clinton never violated FISA"

And since I wasn’t talking about FISA, but instead was thinking about The Patriot Act and how future possible Democratic presidents would abuse it, FISA has nothing to do with it anyway, does it? Although I don’t know that you should feel comfortable with the idea that Clinton didn’t "violate" it every bit as much as Bush has; Clinton’s was one of the administrations along with Carter’s that produced briefs disparaging the idea that FISA could in any way apply to national intelligence gathering as opposed to dometic law enforcement...And you do remember the FBI files on political opponents that Clinton’s political staffers had that they shouldn’t have had, right?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
"was a daclaration of war, what do propose that it was" /= "was not a daclaration of war, what do you propose that it was"

When I wrote "Absent a statement by Congress" the "statement" I refer to would have to be a valid statute in order to be even potentially binding, meaning it would be subject to presidential veto and require an over ride to pass.

TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Tito wrote:

"If the media is liberal, how do you explain the entire run up to the Iraq war?(N.B. I don’t want to rehash those arguments, only discuss the coverage the media gave the arguments.)"

Because there was general agreement that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq needed to be dealt with effectively, and that not removing him right after 1991 was a mistake, the idea that there should have more discussion didn’t become liberal truth until later. Also, before they are leftists, they are showmen shilling tabloid news, war sells better than no-war. There was nothing pro-administration in failing to ask what seemed obvious at the time—remember the left has made sure their anti-Saddam statements calling for war have gone down the memory hole, and in failing to adequately report that editing, the mainstream media also shows its bias.

""Also, as a note, "the number of articles making X look bad" is hardly a valid case for bias. It makes the fundamental assumption that for all values of X, they did the same number of bad things."

A) Actually read the studies, they don’t do that, by and large.

B) Oh heck, A is sufficient for now.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp



Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
mkultra wrote:
And by the way, Tom, AUMF was not a declaration of war.


"M: (Inaudible) Talbot(?). Senator, thank you for this broad gauged approach to the problems we face. My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom? (Scattered Laughter)

JB: The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I’m the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what ... against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President."

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=229598&&


Written By: Anon
URL: http://
"And by the way, Tom, AUMF was not a declaration of war."

And it barely deserves a response.

MK, do you see in the Constitution where Congress can declare half a war? I don’t either, it’s inherently an all or nothing thing. If the AUMF was a daclaration of war, what do propose that it was?
I am going to take a wild guess that you are not a lawyer. But I am also going to guess that you lived during the 1970’s. If you did, then you are probably familiar with the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (commonly, but incorrectly, called the War Powers Act).

Here is the Wikipedia summary of the War Powers Resolution (It is a bit incomplete, but accurate):
Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).pp
AUMF was simply an authorization of force - not a declaration of war - pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

Now, I won’t wait for any apologies. But before you start spouting off about there being no alternative to a declaration of war, I suggest you research more and write less.

I have explained this before in some detail.
"FISA." And it would have a point if FISA did not have an entire exemption to its other provisions expressly allowed for by other statutes. Like all other declarations of war, with respect to the powers traditionally used to prosecute a war, the AUMF was such an exemption. Absent a statement by Congress to the contrary, why should the administration agree with you?
Again with the silliness. AUMF made no reference whatsoever to FISA. Moreover, AUMF was not a declaration of war - see supra.

FISA does have exceptions when war is declared. (The now well known 15 day exception, for example.) But what the Bush administration has admitted to doing wouldn’t even comply with these exceptions. Indeed, your argument is that Bush has more authority under AUMF (he can ignore the 15 day exception) than he does under a former declaration of war (he must comply with the 15 day exception).

Stated another way, your argument is both factually incorrect and insane.
The Patriot Act and how future possible Democratic presidents would abuse it, FISA has nothing to do with it anyway, does it? Although I don’t know that you should feel comfortable with the idea that Clinton didn’t "violate" it every bit as much as Bush has. Clinton’s was one of the administrations along with Carter’s that produced briefs disparaging the idea that FISA could in any way apply to national intelligence gathering as opposed to dometic law enforcement.
Neither Clinton nor Carter ever violated FISA, a law designed to protect American citizens from government intrusion and warrantless spying. Bush did. Why is this distinction so hard for you to understand?

I judge presidents by what they do. Bush broke the law. I guess that doesn’t matter to you.

It’s funny, but you seem more concerned with a Democratic President complying with the Patriot Act than you do with a GOP President violating FISA.

Why am I not surprised. But then, as Glenn Greenwald has noted, for wingers, Bush is the movement and the cause. Whatever Bush does is legal, because Bush did it.

Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
mkultra wrote:
I am going to take a wild guess that you are not a lawyer.

Senator Joe Biden claims to be:
"I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law."

mkultra continues:
AUMF was simply an authorization of force - not a declaration of war - pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

Senator Joe Biden (professor of ConLaw) says:
"I’m the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed... I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever."

See above post for link.





Written By: Anon
URL: http://
NRO recently posted a few rebuttals to George Will’s opinion.
Mark Levin: George Will Is Wrong
Andrew McCarthy: Checked and Unbalanced

Written By: David Ross
URL: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/blog/zimblog.html
Senator Joe Biden (professor of ConLaw) says:
"I’m the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed... I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever."
Ok - let’s look at what Old Joe claims he drafted - at least in part. Here is a portion of section 3 of AUMF:
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.—
(1) Specific statutory authorization.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.—Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.
And here is section 5(b)
b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
Gosh - if old Joe thought he was drafting a declaration of war, he has a funny way of saying it. He had a choice between a declaration of war and specfic statutory authorization. He chose the latter. When Tom says that AUMF is a declaration of war, he is wrong. Simple as that.

Now, it is true that there is no reference in the constitution to an authorization of the use of force, as opposed to a declaration of war. And that is all that Biden seems to be saying.

But, logically speaking, of course, if Congress has the greater power (to declare war), Congress has the lesser power (to authorize force).

Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
NRO recently posted a few rebuttals to George Will’s opinion
NRO reminds one of those Japanese soldiers that were out there in 1946 on those Pacific islands still fighting World War II.

Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
But, logically speaking, of course, if Congress has the greater power (to declare war), Congress has the lesser power (to authorize force).
Disagree. The declaration of war is the ultimate signal of military commitment. It would be perfectly reasonable for the framers to wish the President a certain limited freedom of military action, but reserve to the Legislature the power to make the ultimate commitment.

Written By: CNH
URL: http://
MK, as usual, you misread, purposely or not, so you don’t have to face the truth.

The incidents I named were all simple, and objectively proven to be false reporting. No "misquotes", no "taking things out of context", etc. They were wrong.. We’re talking fabrication, fraud, etc. taken as fact. And later recanted, because, as I said, they were objectively wrong - no opinion needed.

Al Gore’s coverage in 2000 does not come anywhere near meeting that definition. Yep, there were times he was misquoted. He didn’t get half of what the media did to Dan Quayle. Welcome to the world. On balance, I think he got treated better than he deserved because he’s a dunce. And his treatment must have not been too bad because he came with a few hundred votes of winning the presidency.

No, no, we’re looking here for simple cases where they reported something objectively wrong, and if Al Gore’s coverage is the best you can come up with, I stand by my claim.

Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
MK wrote about me:
"I am going to take a wild guess that you are not a lawyer."
No I’m not, and I’m proud of that, although several I know have said I’d make an excellent one. As for you, if you really are a lawyer, I’ll bet you suck.
"AUMF was simply an authorization of force - not a declaration of war - pursuant to the War Powers Resolution."
MK, I asked you to find where in the Constitution it empowered the Congress to declare half a war. If the War Powers Act is inconsistent with the Constitution, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. Here’s the passage you imagine has great significance—"and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b))."—and here I reiterate what someone who knows more about it than you do has to say about the topic, hat tip to Anon.
"there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever.""
I can read the Constitution and it provides no authority for Congress authorizing military actions against any one short of war, and this guy Biden agrees with me.

I repeat.

"As for you, if you are a lawyer, I’ll bet you suck."

Then you wrote:
"I suggest you research more and write less."


Which means you’ve got nothing and are covering.

But hey. You’re the lawyer. You can surely cite at least one example that unambiguously supports your case.

Because all previous declarations of war have authorized the executive to seize international mails and authorized—among other things—warrantless wiretaps for intelligence gathering purposes, and this has been uncontroversially accepted, therefore the AUMF would have had to specifically cite the FISA as being still in effect for it and your argument to begin to have a feather’s weight, like your brain.

"Now, it is true that there is no reference in the constitution to an authorization of the use of force, as opposed to a declaration of war. And that is all that Biden seems to be saying."
Which means it can’t really do that in any way that is legally distinct from a declaration of war. That’s what the constitution is, although you cannot admit it. It is a list of things that the national government—and in a few cases all jurisdictions in the country—can and can not do. AUMF’s aren’t in it, therefore just like it and Biden says, and AUMF is just a different term for a declaration of war.

He’s not saying one isn’t mentioned, he’s saying there’s no difference between an AUMF and a declaration of war.

I am just astounded at your inability to see and admit Biden did write what he thought and said he did, and I am astounded you assert he wrote it so poorly that your interpretation should be given more weight than his—in spite of the fact the Constitution of the United States contradicts you.

You’re just, special.

Yours, TDP,

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
"Ithink Dave Kopel put it pretty well:

"They are "conservative" in the sense that they cling to America’s unique pre-modern tradition—a non-feudal society with a sort of medieval liberty writ large for everyman."

That is what is good, truly human, and conservative for an American to adhere to in the way of an ideal."

I am no historian, but just what kind of liberty, exactly, is "medieval liberty"??? I am also curious about the dividing line between modern and pre-modern. When was that?


"Senator Joe Biden claims to be:
"I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law.""

Bill Clinton was also at one time a professor of constitutional law. Why am I not impressed anymore by the title "professor of consttutional law"?



Written By: timactual
URL: http://
ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I’m not going to get into the AUMF issue. I have a few opinions on that, but the only authoritative way to settle it is to have Congress issue another piece of legislation clarifying their intent, or to have the Supreme Court rule on it. Meanwhile, we desperately need to cut out these half-hearted authorizations and bring back declarations of war. Let’s vote on that and quit with the eternal quibbling.
Now, show me the mistakes that mainstream media have made that:

- Were reported as news
- Have been objectively proven as wrong
- Made Democrats or liberals look bad

I know of no such incidents.
None come to mind in the 2-3 seconds I thought about it, but that’s hardly dispositive. I’m sure they exist, but this gets back to my comment about the subjective nature of these analyses. Why is that the standard? Peter Daou pointed to quite a lot of "narratives" that favored the Republicans. Narratives are at least as important as those incidents.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t deny bias at all. I just deny anything like a monolithic media bias in one political direction. There are examples in every direction and I think we confuse the cause of those biases.
Jon, so if my two links (to studies done by professors at major research universities) don’t qualify as "comprehensive, objective academic analysis of media bias", what does?
I’ll refer you back to my post, in which I wrote that "I doubt it’s really possible. Too many components of any such analysis are necessarily subjective."

It’s as if we were asking reseachers to look into whether girls or boys were more likely to listen to bad music. I’m not sure that absolute, objective definitions are even possible.


Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I don’t need to rely on the media’s portrayal of big Al. I have also heard/read his speeches, read his book, and watched him on television, in particular his "debates" with Bush; as we used to say down home, "They’s somthin wrong wid dat boy". Stick two slices of bread on him and he is the world’s largest peanut butter sandwich.

Written By: timactual
URL: http://
None come to mind in the 2-3 seconds I thought about it...
I thought about it a lot longer than 2-3 seconds, and I couldn’t come up with a single one against the left as unambiguous as the ones I listed were against the right. I really do believe this is indicative of what I suggested - that they want to believe the worst of the right and the best of the left. Obviously this contrast of incidents against one side but none against the other is not conclusive, but I do believe it is highly suggestive.

I believe I get your main point - that the subject of bias is inherently resistant to any objective analysis. But I find that position unconvincing, perhaps because it smacks of post-modernism. I’ve reviewed the UCLA study cited, and I see no evidence that the researchers allowed bias to enter into their conclusions. Merely asserting that there must be bias in there someplace, without being able to say where, does not do anything to change my opinion.

Furthermore, they came up with some surprising (to me, anyway) conclusions about specific media outlets (such as PBS) in addition to their general conclusion about leftist bias in the MSM.

Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools: Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment: