AG Holder fires back

[publius]

What were we discussing?

Walking guns and then lying to Congress about it

 

[Mike1234567]

^^^ Oh, that's right. I got lost for awhile.

 

[LongTimeGone]

Neverwinter is the king of strawmen here.

 

[Neverwinter]

Okay -- it does seem that you are, in fact, conceding that there is an imbalance in the media portrayal of events and issues, for which FNC and talk radio were able to take advantage...It would be counter-intuitive to maintain that these sources were filling a void that didn't exist.

Now, I certainly hope you agree that together, FNC and talk radio do not have the collective market share and financial backing of all the other media resources that can be defined as left-of-center to totally left (the Big 3, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NYT, Time, Newsweek, etc.).

So if we drop talk radio and FNC from the discussion, we can agree that the media is overwhelmingly left-leaning in its bias, up to and including the coverage of OF&F?

There indeed was an unmet desire to have news which was more slanted in the opposite direction.

But if we were to compare FNC to broadcast TV of left to center-left(relative to the US landscape), FNC holds its own. The same goes for talk radio.

A while ago, I made a post which was mistaken as a challenge to find non-Republican Tea Party media sources for OF&F. We were regaled with an extensive list of the moderate to left sources on OF&F. They have been covering the story, although perhaps not the extreme that FNC and talk radio have been. Again, it's about maintaining their marketshare in the people who want so badly to blame the administration.

Neverwinter is the king of strawmen here.

Labeling the arguments strawmen makes them so easy to burn down, doesn't it?

 

[2ndAmFan]

I just read the other day that Holder is scheduled to testify before Issa's committee next month regarding OFF.

 

[1911Tuner]

NeverWinter...we get it. You feel that Holder is the victim of rampant racism, and that his feet are in the fire because he's a black man...and I get the feeling that you think that he should be given a pass because of this perceived racism.

We get it.

But a few undeniable facts remain. Glaringly.

The guns got into the hands of violent criminals on his watch, and very likely on his orders.

If he was innocent of any wrongdoing or knowledge of same, he'd have immediately insisted on turning over any and all records instead of stonewalling and delaying...and crying racism. He'd have done that. That would be the response of a man with nothing to hide. Innocent men accused of crimes want all stops pulled in order to clear their names as quickly as possible. Guilty men want to drag it out...dazzle with fancy footwork...and gain time to concoct cover stories...conceal facts...and destroy evidence.

We get that, too.

Contrary to what the ruling elite and their media shills believe in their heart of hearts...most of us aren't stupid.

 

[JFrame]

There indeed was an unmet desire to have news which was more slanted in the opposite direction.

But if we were to compare FNC to broadcast TV of left to center-left(relative to the US landscape), FNC holds its own. The same goes for talk radio.

All right...! I believe we have finally gotten somewhere.

I will leave it up to the pollsters and statisticians to conclude whether ONE cable station and a network of small, limited-range, radio stations across the country can counter-balance the leftist influence on public perception of the rest of the mainstream media (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NYT, Newsweek, Time, etc.) in regard to coverage (or lack thereof) of OF&F.

Suffice to say we have reached agreement that, once we eliminate FNC and talk radio from the equation, there is an overwhelmingly liberal bias on the part of the MSM.


.

 

[Ky Larry]

Haven't we seen this before? Playing the race card changes the whole direction of the argument. Instead of focusing on "What did A.G.Holder know and when did he know it," we're trying to prove we're not in the Klan. As was stated in an earlier post,if A.G.Holder is guilty, it makes no difference who points the finger at him. The implied racism of the great American unwashed majority has no bearing on this issue.

 

[jerkface11]

The Klan is better than the cartels Holder was arming.

 

[Neverwinter]

NeverWinter...we get it. You feel that Holder is the victim of rampant racism, and that his feet are in the fire because he's a black man...and I get the feeling that you think that he should be given a pass because of this perceived racism.

That appraisal which never seems to die regardless of my efforts is a ham-fisted mischaracterization of the position illustrated in my posts. Holder is in the fire because of a variety of reasons, only one factor of which is racism. That was the content of the NYTimes article which was cited, and then misconstrued as claiming that Holder is faultless and plagued solely by racism. I haven't/don't believe that Holder should be given a get-out-of-jail-free card on the basis of the existence of racism.

I apologize if the position presented in my posts is too nuanced in disputing the mythology that racism hasn't played a significant role in supporting any opposition to the administration(OF&F or not).

I will leave it up to the pollsters and statisticians to conclude whether ONE cable station and a network of small, limited-range, radio stations across the country can counter-balance the leftist influence on public perception of the rest of the mainstream media (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NYT, Newsweek, Time, etc.) in regard to coverage (or lack thereof) of OF&F.

Suffice to say we have reached agreement that, once we eliminate FNC and talk radio from the equation, there is an overwhelmingly liberal bias on the part of the MSM.

The first problem with that assessment is the discounting of the pivotal role that CBS played in breaking the story. Does this make CBS not leftist? MSNBC, who I would consider the most left of those channels, has ~1000 search results for OF&F relative to the ~2200 of FNC. The idea that they are lacking coverage doesn't seem that strong.

Which leads to the second point, which is the folly of using FNC and talk radio as the barometer for what it means to be right and left(given that the provided separation is based on those lines). In their function of filling the uncaptured the market segment, they are best served by achieving the level of rightist bias which achieves the best ratings. It is also in their best interests to present everyone else as being leftist biased, regardless of how left they actually are. The infighting between the assorted elites with media interests have been largely successful: Democrats distrust Fox, and Republicans trust Fox. Independents distrust everyone.

Haven't we seen this before? Playing the race card changes the whole direction of the argument. Instead of focusing on "What did A.G.Holder know and when did he know it," we're trying to prove we're not in the Klan. As was stated in an earlier post,if A.G.Holder is guilty, it makes no difference who points the finger at him. The implied racism of the great American unwashed majority has no bearing on this issue.

The claim that the race card is being brought out for OF&F is laughable. The race card was played against the administration well before OF&F broke, all the way back to the primary election. It is being continually played, as demonstrated in numerous citable incidents. I can PM the references to you, if you would like.

 

[jerkface11]

The race card was played against the administration well before OF&F broke, all the way back to the primary election. It is being continually played, as demonstrated in numerous citable incidents.

Racism isn't an excuse for his actions so why bring it up?

 

[armarsh]

...I apologize if the position presented in my posts is too nuanced in disputing the mythology that racism hasn't played a significant role in supporting any opposition to the administration(OF&F or not). ...

 

[Neverwinter]

Racism isn't an excuse for his actions so why bring it up?

You'll have to ask the original poster why they brought up racism:

MOre Holder stuff...


Eric Holder Claims Racism Responsible for Fast and Furious Criticism

 

[JFrame]

The first problem with that assessment is the discounting of the pivotal role that CBS played in breaking the story. Does this make CBS not leftist? MSNBC, who I would consider the most left of those channels, has ~1000 search results for OF&F relative to the ~2200 of FNC. The idea that they are lacking coverage doesn't seem that strong.

You are misdirecting the fact that CBS reported on something at all, with the emphasis they (or any "news" services) are placing on it. And has already been pointed out to you, it's one journalist at CBS (Sharyl Attkisson) doing all the heavy lifting for them. Without her, who knows what amount of investigative journalism CBS would be exhibiting on it?

I'm not sure I see the relevance of search results. A thousand hits on the same news release is still one news release (or whatever the actual percentage might be).

Which leads to the second point, which is the folly of using FNC and talk radio as the barometer for what it means to be right and left(given that the provided separation is based on those lines). In their function of filling the uncaptured the market segment, they are best served by achieving the level of rightist bias which achieves the best ratings. It is also in their best interests to present everyone else as being leftist biased, regardless of how left they actually are. The infighting between the assorted elites with media interests have been largely successful: Democrats distrust Fox, and Republicans trust Fox. Independents distrust everyone.

"The folly of using..." The fact that FNC represents the "right" of the spectrum is something you submitted. The fact that they were meeting a need is also something you submitted. I didn't insinuate anything at all until you brought it up, so I suppose the folly is yours.

Frankly, your attitude was captured perfectly when you said, "But if we were to compare FNC to broadcast TV of left to center-left(relative to the US landscape)..." Clearly, you view the mainstream media in general as being spot-on and balanced, and it is the American public that is extremist -- a classically elitist view, I think. Someone earlier mentioned your derogatory term for the TEA Party -- it all certainly fits the narrative for you.

Your dismissal of any criticism of the MSM with a convenient "scholarly study" (perhaps the same scholastic standards as applied to MMGW, hm?) -- "It is also in their best interests to present everyone else as being leftist biased, regardless of how left they actually are" -- is humorous. In other words, ignore all evidence of all perception being submitted by the MSM day after day -- the MSM has no agenda; the only agenda being perpetrated is on the part of the "right wing" FNC and talk radio.

The claim that the race card is being brought out for OF&F is laughable. The race card was played against the administration well before OF&F broke, all the way back to the primary election. It is being continually played, as demonstrated in numerous citable incidents. I can PM the references to you, if you would like.

Ah -- I guess you were one of those charging Bill Clinton as being racist in the SC Democrat primary, eh?


.

 

[Ky Larry]

As has been stated before, a crook is a crook. Race and charges of racism make no difference. A.G.Holder either lied to Congress or he didn't. He either allowed guns to "walk" across the border illegally or he didn't. Neverwinter, if he is guilty, why should he get a pass because of the color of his skin? Are you saying he should be held to a lower legal standard because 50 years ago he had to sit in the back of the bus?

 

[Neverwinter]

You are misdirecting the fact that CBS reported on something at all, with the emphasis they (or any "news" services) are placing on it. And has already been pointed out to you, it's one journalist at CBS (Sharyl Attkisson) doing all the heavy lifting for them. Without her, who knows what amount of investigative journalism CBS would be exhibiting on it?[/color]

So what is the arbitrary point at which the number of reporters becomes acceptable? We would still be having this discussion if it were two reporters instead of one.

I'm not sure I see the relevance of search results. A thousand hits on the same news release is still one news release (or whatever the actual percentage might be).

Search engines have a vested interest in not duplicating search results. A quick sample examination doesn't exhibit repeats. They're at least an objective measure of coverage.

"The folly of using..." The fact that FNC represents the "right" of the spectrum is something you submitted. The fact that they were meeting a need is also something you submitted. I didn't insinuate anything at all until you brought it up, so I suppose the folly is yours.

It's my fault for not clearly enumerating the nuance of the position. Using FNC as a baseline for the right and claiming that all other sources are left based on the separation is folly, when it there exists the very plausible possibility that FNC is sufficiently skewed right that you lose the dynamic range that would differentiate moderate from left.

Frankly, your attitude was captured perfectly when you said, "But if we were to compare FNC to broadcast TV of left to center-left(relative to the US landscape)..." Clearly, you view the mainstream media in general as being spot-on and balanced, and it is the American public that is extremist -- a classically elitist view, I think.

You will have to explain how being aware that the US landscape doesn't necessarily reflect the global landscape can be construed as elitist. There is a slightly right shift on the US landscape compared to the rest of the world, if you haven't noticed.

I am not claiming that all of the mainstream media is spot-on and balanced. But I don't accept the proposed method of using FNC and talk radio to decide that all of the mainstream media is "overwhelmingly leftist".

]Your dismissal of any criticism of the MSM with a convenient "scholarly study" (perhaps the same scholastic standards as applied to MMGW, hm?) -- "It is also in their best interests to present everyone else as being leftist biased, regardless of how left they actually are" -- is humorous. In other words, ignore all evidence of all perception being submitted by the MSM day after day -- the MSM has no agenda; the only agenda being perpetrated is on the part of the "right wing" FNC and talk radio.

That is selective filtering that ignores the text right below it mentioning how Democrats have complementary failings in their trust for the left to center-left sources compared to independents.

And maligning MMGW? Do you want to champion YEC as well? We just had another thread that didn't do so well with THAT scientific inaccuracy.

Ah -- I guess you were one of those charging Bill Clinton as being racist in the SC Democrat primary, eh?

Bill Clinton was involved in the birther charge? You learn something new every day.

As has been stated before, a crook is a crook. Race and charges of racism make no difference. A.G.Holder either lied to Congress or he didn't. He either allowed guns to "walk" across the border illegally or he didn't. Neverwinter, if he is guilty, why should he get a pass because of the color of his skin? Are you saying he should be held to a lower legal standard because 50 years ago he had to sit in the back of the bus?

That appraisal which never seems to die regardless of my efforts is a ham-fisted mischaracterization of the position illustrated in my posts. Holder is in the fire because of a variety of reasons, only one factor of which is racism. That was the content of the NYTimes article which was cited, and then misconstrued as claiming that Holder is faultless and plagued solely by racism. I haven't/don't believe that Holder should be given a get-out-of-jail-free card on the basis of the existence of racism.

 

[Davek1977]

And what on earth is the point of typing in white text on a white background? Talk about annoying and pointless.....of course, those same words could be used to describe many a post in this particular thread. Neverwinter, we are WELL AWARE of your feelings and opinions on this issue. However, no matter HOW many times you say the same thing...in white text or black...you aren't changing any minds or making your position any more inviting to us. Repeating the same tired responses, and somehow seeming to think that reposting them adds to their validity has gotten stale and old. You seem to be a one trick pony, and I think anyone that cares to has already seen the show......... just saying

 

[Mike1234567]

Am I a racist if I distrust the human race as a general rule?

 

[JFrame]

So what is the arbitrary point at which the number of reporters becomes acceptable? We would still be having this discussion if it were two reporters instead of one.

I have no idea -- but I am submitting a relativistic point to your relativistic point that the MSM is being overwhelmingly fair.

Search engines have a vested interest in not duplicating search results. A quick sample examination doesn't exhibit repeats. They're at least an objective measure of coverage.

Not really -- I get redundant hits on virtually everything I search. And your "quick sample" may not be very empirical or conclusive.

It's my fault for not clearly enumerating the nuance of the position. Using FNC as a baseline for the right and claiming that all other sources are left based on the separation is folly, when it there exists the very plausible possibility that FNC is sufficiently skewed right that you lose the dynamic range that would differentiate moderate from left.

Again, I did not submit that premise either. I was simply eliminating FNC from the discussion to preclude any possibility of dismissing the lack of OF&F coverage due to the fact that FNC covers it.

You will have to explain how being aware that the US landscape doesn't necessarily reflect the global landscape can be construed as elitist. There is a slightly right shift on the US landscape compared to the rest of the world, if you haven't noticed.

Your world view betrays itself again. Is it possible that there has been a global shift to the LEFT?

I am not claiming that all of the mainstream media is spot-on and balanced. But I don't accept the proposed method of using FNC and talk radio to decide that all of the mainstream media is "overwhelmingly leftist".

That is selective filtering that ignores the text right below it mentioning how Democrats have complementary failings in their trust for the left to center-left sources compared to independents.

We clearly have different filters with which we view a sense of proportion. I believe yours is significantly skewed by your left-leaning predisposition -- just like Andrea Mitchell could not say that she thought news rooms across the country were largely left-leaning, even though 90+ percent of all journalists belong to and/or donate to the Democrat party (not an ad hom -- merely a clinical observation). To my way of thinking, anyone who cannot see the predisposition toward a left-leaning viewpoint of people like Mitchell, Brian Williams, Charles Gibson, Katie Couric, etc., can only be one of two things -- a person predisposed toward the left himself, or a liar.

And maligning MMGW? Do you want to champion YEC as well? We just had another thread that didn't do so well with THAT scientific inaccuracy.

Okay, forget MMGW. Let's talk about all those scholarly works that have been written "proving" that gun control works. In the programming world, we had the term "GIGO" -- meaning garbage in, garbage out. Statistical analyses are only as good as the data used (or not used).

Bill Clinton was involved in the birther charge? You learn something new every day.

Uhm -- YOU were the one that talked about the racist attacks against Obama during the presidential primary. AFAIK, Obama only ran in the Democrat primary.


.

 

[jerkface11]

You'll have to ask the original poster why they brought up racism:

No Holder brought it up.

 

[Sam1911]

And what on earth is the point of typing in white text on a white background? Talk about annoying and pointless.....

[Don't know what was up with that. Probably a dumb browser glitch or something. Fixed it.]

 

[Neverwinter]

And what on earth is the point of typing in white text on a white background? Talk about annoying and pointless

[Don't know what was up with that. Probably a dumb browser glitch or something. Fixed it.]

Post white-out, in reference to the link that was mentioned in the Editing Reason. Given the timing, it shouldn't have been that hard to notice in perspective with the other events happening around the rest of the web.

However, no matter HOW many times you say the same thing...in white text or black...you aren't changing any minds or making your position any more inviting to us. Repeating the same tired responses, and somehow seeming to think that reposting them adds to their validity has gotten stale and old. You seem to be a one trick pony, and I think anyone that cares to has already seen the show......... just saying

The misunderstanding of my position in contravention to the words as written does suggest that you are right about the possibility of changing minds. My position has been decided by their minds, and no reason or citations can dislodge that. Any demonstrations of argument inefficacy are seen as repeating the same tired responses.

I have no idea -- but I am submitting a relativistic point to your relativistic point that the MSM is being overwhelmingly fair.

Again, I did not submit that premise either. I was simply eliminating FNC from the discussion to preclude any possibility of dismissing the lack of OF&F coverage due to the fact that FNC covers it.

Okay, forget MMGW. Let's talk about all those scholarly works that have been written "proving" that gun control works. In the programming world, we had the term "GIGO" -- meaning garbage in, garbage out. Statistical analyses are only as good as the data used (or not used).

Within the spectrum, there are midpoints between "overwhelmingly left" and "overwhelmingly fair". Just because I'm disagreeing with "overwhelmingly left" doesn't mean that I believe that they're "overwhelmingly fair", and my previous citation regarding trust levels of other Independents suggests this.

The survey and the scholarly article which was flippantly dismissed demonstrate the efforts to emphasis the perception of media bias for the explicit purpose of increasing trust and marketshare by showing how the trust for FOX is split on party lines. Being scholarly doesn't somehow discredit a paper, it is the methodology which can discredit it. The failings in the procedures of the pro gun control papers cannot and do not cast a shadow on other scholarly papers.

Your world view betrays itself again. Is it possible that there has been a global shift to the LEFT?

The comparisons of the relative US political party positions to their past positions is capable of dispelling that possibility.

We clearly have different filters with which we view a sense of proportion. I believe yours is significantly skewed by your left-leaning predisposition -- just like Andrea Mitchell could not say that she thought news rooms across the country were largely left-leaning, even though 90+ percent of all journalists belong to and/or donate to the Democrat party (not an ad hom -- merely a clinical observation).[/COLOR] To my way of thinking, anyone who cannot see the predisposition toward a left-leaning viewpoint of people like Mitchell, Brian Williams, Charles Gibson, Katie Couric, etc., can only be one of two things -- a person predisposed toward the left himself, or a liar.

Is the numbers for the 90+% derived from this CRP study, or from some other source? One notable highlight of that study are the limitations in scope to the three major broadcast stations. The fact that your specific individuals are picked from those networks does support the study findings.

However, the data is insufficient to indicate that all journalists conform to those statistics.

Uhm -- YOU were the one that talked about the racist attacks against Obama during the presidential primary. AFAIK, Obama only ran in the Democrat primary.

It was anonymous emails from the Hillary supporters which first started the rumor. Of course, it doesn't surprise me that the first assumption is that it had to be the doing of the upper management.

 

[Davek1977]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...noXnCw&usg=AFQjCNEFavjiFQwlnfheKnHuDkFTLDcVBQ

And now we have people taking the 5th instead of revealing what they know to Congress.....

 

[JFrame]

Within the spectrum, there are midpoints between "overwhelmingly left" and "overwhelmingly fair". Just because I'm disagreeing with "overwhelmingly left" doesn't mean that I believe that they're "overwhelmingly fair", and my previous citation regarding trust levels of other Independents suggests this.

Either the MSM is fair or it is not fair in your mind. Your unwillingness to stake a position is duly noted.

The survey and the scholarly article which was flippantly dismissed demonstrate the efforts to emphasis the perception of media bias for the explicit purpose of increasing trust and marketshare by showing how the trust for FOX is split on party lines. Being scholarly doesn't somehow discredit a paper, it is the methodology which can discredit it. The failings in the procedures of the pro gun control papers cannot and do not cast a shadow on other scholarly papers.

...And simply sticking a link on your post, as if slapping down a royal flush and saying, "Read 'em and weep," doesn't work either. I gained my perception by watching ABC, NBC, and CBS for perhaps 45 years, and reading the WaPo, Newsweek, Time, etc., for nearly as long. I guess I learned the hard way.

The comparisons of the relative US political party positions to their past positions is capable of dispelling that possibility.

You're bringing Obamacare into the discussion? What happened to thread drift, o mighty context policeman? Of course, you once again betray your leftist viewpoint -- or haven't you noticed a total assimilation of the Democrat party by the radical left wing in the past decade or so? Your radar only seems to point in one direction.

Is the numbers for the 90+% derived from

this CRP study, or from some other source? One notable highlight of that study are the limitations in scope to the three major broadcast stations. The fact that your specific individuals are picked from those networks does support the study findings.

However, the data is insufficient to indicate that all journalists conform to those statistics.

Actually, I'd heard and read that number on a few occasions, and it stuck in my head. There are any number of sources that substantiate it.

Just one I happened to pull up:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2004/report063004_p1.asp

If you want to minimize any findings by saying they only apply to the Big 3, fine -- although I doubt you will find much support on this thread to deny that the same percentage likely doesn't hold true for other influential mainstream media outlets such as NYT, WaPo, Newsweek, Time, NPR, or PBS.

As they say -- denial ain't just a river in Africa.

It was anonymous emails from the Hillary supporters which first started the rumor. Of course, it doesn't surprise me that the first assumption is that it had to be the doing of the upper management.

Clever deflection -- segueing away from the admission that you can't distinguish between a primary and general election.


.

 

[JFrame]

And now we have people taking the 5th instead of revealing what they know to Congress.....

Veeeeeery interesting...!

This schism is the first big break in what has been a unified front in the government’s defense of itself in the gun-running scandal. Cunningham claims he is a victim of a conflict between two branches of government and will not be compelled to be a witnesses against himself, and make a statement that could be later used by a grand jury or special prosecutor to indict him on criminal charges.

.