Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
I dont mind bias, I do mind stories being invented. Thats why I always seek.confirmation when fox.breaks something.
Like the study showed, people are less informed if they watch fox than if they watch no news at all.
And high unemployment is the.new normal, too much automation and too many jobs going overseas.
People accuse the unemployed and underemployed of being lazy or stupid...the facts are we dont have enough jobs, and more are going to college than ever. But degrees dont equal jobs these days.
|
I looked at that second link of Rupert's, and not only do many of the quotes have nothing to do with whether journalists are personally liberal in their views, four of the quotes are from Mark Halperin, who is notorious for following the money in the course of his career. Not to mention, a bunch of quotes doesn't exactly count as research. As they say, the plural of anecdote is not data. So you're right; beaucoup de bias.
As for the Quinnepac poll, it's bad polling, for a number of reasons, the big one being that Presidents experience an upswing in favorability after they leave office (call it the nostalgia effect). In a poll run during GW's administration, he was regarded as the worst, by about the same percentage (34 percent GW to 33 percent BO). If Quinnepac runs the same poll five years after BO's Administration is over, it's unlikely he'll get the "worst" rank; it'll either be whoever is in the WH, or GWB. Because he really was the worst.
I'm going to try to attach a Gallup poll jpeg of the difference between "in office" ratings and retrospective ratings for the Presidents since Kennedy.