Redstate

I do think labels can be useful, in that many if not most readers don't recognize various groups, think tanks, associations and individuals. Go ahead and call the Heritage Foundation conservative, or Brookings liberal. Just be fair about it.

Case in point. Here's a Sun-Sentinel story on nuclear power that uses a fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies as a key source/commentator.

"You can't run a plant on glittering platitudes and generalities and call that a safety program," said Bob Alvarez, a former deputy assistant secretary of Energy and now a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington think tank. "A nuclear detonation accident is a low probability, but it is not incredible."

A Washington think tank, eh? How about, "A left-wing Washington think tank opposed to nuclear power," or "A Washington think tank harshly critical of the Bush administration." Me, I'd say, "left-leaning, communist-sympathizing, anti-American think tank," but I'm biased.

P.S. You do indeed see groups described as left-wing think tanks, but it's less often than conservative or right-wing.

A Washington think tank, eh? How about, "A left-wing Washington think tank opposed to nuclear power," or "A Washington think tank harshly critical of the Bush administration." Me, I'd say, "left-leaning, communist-sympathizing, anti-American think tank," but I'm biased.

You guys want them to editorialize in favor of your views.

Personally I would prefer that they identify groups only by what they describe themselves as. So if a group says that they are "Progressive" or "Conservative" then you should call them that or, if you must, use other terms that are similar to those terms such as Liberal or Left wing or Right Wing.

However if a group doesn't identify themselves in such a way the media should't do it for them.

P.S. - Doing a search on Left Wing Think Tank yields 36 results. Doing a search on Right Wing Think Tank yields 60 results. Given the sample size they are equivalent.

However doing a search on Liberal Think Tank yields 272 results while Conservative Think Tank yields 622. So using those terms there appears to be slight difference although that could be chalked up to the Right's successful demonization of the term liberal in this country.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

that could be chalked up to the Right's successful demonization of the term liberal in this country.

I don't think the right had anything to do with that, the left did it all by themselves.

Oh BTW, they are doing it to themselves again.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

unfair in the images they invoke with their use.

I don't much care for "left wing" or "right wing" and I think proggressive in general was just a way for democrats to try to rename themselves something other than liberal (although I have had proggressives tell me I am wrong, but they sound a lot like liberals to me).

I think using a term that the group hangs on itself is a fair one, but maybe reporters would do better to just reveal known biases of an organization, rather than look to hang a label on those that swing to the right side of the center line.

But the problem with the media is that they hang the label on the right of center groups, revealing their bias, but then pretend as if those that are left of center have no bias and are an unbiased institution.

Frankly I don't much believe in the concept of being politically neutral and unbiased-in the media, advocacy, in research or what have you. Some bias is obvious, most bias is subtle, and is often colored by our own perceptions of the world and groups.

Frankly I don't much believe in the concept of being politically neutral and unbiased-in the media, advocacy, in research or what have you. Some bias is obvious, most bias is subtle, and is often colored by our own perceptions of the world and groups.

Everyone is biased. And every news article has some bias. However that doesn't mean that it is all left leaning or that it much matters.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

left leaning.

Reporters overwelmingly are left of center and in some cases so far left of center they don't know what the center is.

Sure there are some reporters on the right, but when push comes to shove there are far more liberals than there are conservatives, and their perceptions of what the other side is like are biased, and that bias creeps into their message. Hence hanging a conservative label on just about anything that remotely looks like it is right of center, but not going to too much effort to hang a liberal label unless they are way out there to the left of Paul Wellstone (who is I think one of the few democrats that often got a "left wing" or similar label attached to his name).

Those little labels do affect perception, whether you want it to or not.

I mean let's look at the term "religious right" that term gets hung on almost anyone who remotely looks, talks or acts Christian. But what exactly is the religious right? Is your definition of religious right the same as mine? The same as the editors here? The same as Katie Couric? Is there even an established agreed on definition?

Not sure, but the label invokes a picture of those who have it slapped on them-sometimes fairly sometimes unfairly, but all the same the label gets tossed around.

However that doesn't mean that it is all left leaning or that it much matters.

Oh, I think it does matter. There is a reason why the Left is so desirous to see the "Fairness Doctrine" returned.

If any one of the Big Three networks decided that it was going to assiduously check and make sure that its staff was evenly balanced between Left and Right ...

Try to imagine ABC being bought and "re-organized" by Richard Mellon Scaife or T. Boone Pickens, with the help of Roger Ailes and Brit Hume.

Media bias would suddenly start to really matter to you then ...

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

It all boils down to the fact that flyer's ox is not being gored.

I like the labels Left wing, right wing, libertarian, and green.
Those are useful labels. Conservative/liberal/progressive those are no longer useful because they can mean so many things.

For instance a liberal before WW2 would be a conservative today.
or for that matter, a liberal in Europe means a free marketeer.
Progressives were a unique set of people at the turn of the last
century, and most of them were Republicans, that last real progressive was W H Taft, he died in 1937.
Even conservative does not cut it today, it can mean a conservative -libertarian, or a religious fundamentalist.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

wing are probably more that they aren't clearly defined either.

When I think right wing or left wing-I am thinking the extreme ends of the parties, not the party itself, therefore I don't care for the term "right wing" being placed on politicians that aren't really all that much to the extreme end of the party.

Just goes back to what I was pointing out to flyerhawk-in general the problem with the labels is that they come with certain images in mind, but very loose definitions with very little agreement on exactly what each entails.

I want them to be fair. Think tank is a neutral term, right? Categorizing one with catch-all terms like conservative or liberal explains, however grossly, the reason for their various statements.

Compare these statements:

You do learn something from those characterizations. The first implies impartiality. The conservative critic is unexpected, the liberal critic par for the course.

So the media use the term, "conservative think tank" roughly 3.5 times more than "liberal think tank." That tells us that it is more important for the reporters to explain the reasoning -- explain away, perhaps -- of the conservative groups more than those of the liberal groups. Why is that? I think it's because most reporters consider liberal to equal neutral.

The better journalistic practice is to characterize the groups more specifically by what they stand for. Hence, "the Institute for Policy Studies, a group critical of the Bush administration," or "an anti-nuclear-power group." Those are accurate, objective descriptions. In the case of the IPS story, it would have informed the reader if the reporter had identified Bob Alvarez as being a member of the Clinton Administration, or a former Democratic Senate staffer, or an anti-nuclear activist. All of those would have been accurate, informative descriptions.

Using the terms the groups with which the groups describe themselves is an abdication of reporting. "A progressive think-tank." That means nothing, unless it's a think tank devoted to Wisconsin politics of 1910.

Well given the 3 examples you provided I prefer the first one regardless of the position because the other 2 have the writer swaying the reader, intentionally or not.

Your example of the IPS story is illustrative of the problem. You want the reporter to essentially invalidate the source. Consider your examples.

Say I work for a Conservative media source, yes they do exist. Some think tank just released a report that is highly critical of the White House's policy in Iraq. I have the following 2 options.

1. "Bush's plan in Iraq is bad" - says foundation think tank.

2. "Bush's plan in Iraq is bad" - says liberal foundation think tank with ties to Clinton administration and stated objective of opposing the Bush White House.

The first is straight forward. The reader can either take the comment at face value or the reader can find out what foundation think tank is all about.

Now consider the 2nd. The reader is led to believe that foundation think tank is simply carrying out a partisan hit job. Based on the information given there is little reason to investigate further. Foundation think tank is just another partisan group. However the reader has no way of knowing whether the think tank opposes Bush on this particular policy or if the Clinton operative has any actual influence.

The 2nd choice is actually done with alarming frequency on both sides of the aisle. And given the remarkable ease in which the writer can inject bias by qualifying sources I much prefer the don't qualify them unless there is a clear and unmistakable reason to qualify such as the think tank being a 527 or somesuch.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

How about something like this. First of all, I think the probability of readers knowing anything about the vast majority of "think tanks" is pretty minimal. As an example, Cato is often thought to be a source for "conservative" thought, while in fact it is libertarian and rather far from what most would consider "conservative".

Rather than the example you've cited, "Bush's plan in Iraq is bad" - says liberal foundation think tank with ties to Clinton administration and stated objective of opposing the Bush White House. How about something like this...
"Bush's plan in Iraq is bad" says Foundation. Foundation is a center-left organization that advised the Clinton Administration on foreign policy matters.

This example points out that the organization is "center-left", avoiding the hotbutton "liberal" word while giving the comment perspective. It also gives a CV that the organization has had involvement in the formulation of foreign policy. If you think both "c-l" and "Clinton" is overkill, drop the "c-l".

This provides information on the source so the comment has some perspective. Simply saying "Foundation says 'Bush bad'" gives no perspective and could be said to push the view that the comment is correct or widely accepted.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

it isn't so much that a label is "bad" but that the label should be the right kind of label.

Your example also provides the reader with an honest and more objective guage to judge the foundations opinion than just hanging "left wing" or "close ties to Clinton" on it.

I think have the problem with the various labels the media uses or really anyone is that they are subjective labels-and don't reveal as much about the person labeled as much as the person doing the labeling.

Word choice does mean a lot.

Becker's formulation below is a good way to handle identifications, using characterizations instead of short labels, to be sure.

Do I want the reporter to illegitimize IPS? Well, how does accurately identifying IPS as leftist, or anti-nuclear, or anti-Bush, or anti-Administration deligitimize it? Those are all apt descriptions, certainly more informative for the reader than merely calling it a Washington think tank.

Any delegitimization comes from its views, not from the description...if the description is fair.

Now, one point newspaper people have in their favor is, "Hey, I've got only so much space to work with. Don't have enough space to describe everybody."

Pretty long Sun-Sentinel story, though.

“The editors in Los Angeles killed the story. They told Witcover that it didn’t ‘come off’ and that it was an ‘opinion’ story. …The solution was simple, they told him. All he had to do was get other people to make the same points and draw the same conclusions and then write the article in their words.” (emphasis in original) Timothy Crouse, Boys on the Bus, 1973, p. 116.

WHat think tanks are saying is not usually the subject. They do provide a convenient way for the reporter to spice up the story with some analysis and opinion. A study of media bias has rated specific media's leanings based on how often they refer to specific think tanks.
John E.

But I'm not sure what your quote is trying to say.

So writers can use their think tank of choice to advocate a point. Ok. So?

Not sure how you know whether that is usual or not usual.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

if describing moder day Men of Athens it might be like comparing us to the denizens of San Francisco, Fire Island, or Key West.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

you might just as well read Kos, same talking points, same bias, only the sheer amount of left wing rage is subdued a little in the Times.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Is that some here actually believe that.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

That's the scary part.

The only sections left worth reading are the Science times (As long as they aren't talking about the environment) and the Arts sections (As long as they aren't reviewing conservative books, which they rarely do)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Well that speaks more to your political migration than to the quality of the New York Times.

Whether you like it or not the New York Times is vastly superior to just about any political blog. For that matter so is just about any other notable newspaper or TV news program. Why? Because they actually report news. Blogs comment on the news reported by the media. They are wholly dependent on the media to provide them the news in the first place.

You want to say that you don't like the New York Times? Ok. That's your choice. But it is nowhere near like DailyKos.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

If by vastly better you mean less transparent in their aims. Then yes. At least with the Kos and such the point they are pushing is obvious.

As to political evolution not really. It much more speaks to the availability of other superior sources of news. Its sad that I gave up reading the Times of my home city to read the Times of London online.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Well, as I said, I find it troubling when people compare legitimate news sources with partisan blogs. It doesn't matter if its your guys comparing Kos to the NYT or Leftys comparing FoxNews to LittleGreenFootballs. They are not even close to the same.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

but as I said, the bias is the same. Besides, I actually don't understand how anyone can trust the NYTimes, my god man how many times do they have to be caught making crap up before they lose credibility with you?

Or how many times will you forgive them for leaking classified information that endangers the nation? maybe you will forgive them an infinite number of times as long as a Republican is in the white house right?

And this is nothing new for the Times, ever since the days of Walter Durranty and the cover up of Stalin's crimes, they have been willing to lie in any way to promote left wing ideas.

It is shameful that you people on the left fail to realize what a craphole of corruption it is.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

So because they don't adhere to your political desires that makes them corrupt. Ok.

Perhaps if people on left weren't so busy fighting a jihad against the Times I would take the criticisms more seriously.

FTR, the whole leaking classified information scandal is utterly meaningless to me. It was manufactured outraged.

You provide a news source that is never wrong and perhaps you may have a point.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

you are willfully trusting a bunch of people who are not worthy of your trust and have not been for decades. So don't lecture us
anymore, your own credibility is shot.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Today you say that yes, the Press is biased to the Left and that you have always said it. Tomorrow you point to the fact that the Left sometimes complains about media bias as proof that the media is ... what?

Reporting "straight down the middle?"

Look, the fact is that you are a liberal, and that's fine. But one of the things that means is that when you read the New York Times, or watch CBS, or skim through the Boston Blobe, outlets all owned, run and staffed by liberals like you, you'd hardly see anything that offends you.

So DailyKos being described as just a "prominent liberal blog" while Redstate is characterized as "red-meat conservative rhetoric served up with a little dash of populist anger" is not going to register as biased to you. The Heritage Foundation being labelled Conservative while the Economic Policy Institute is labelled "non-partisan" would not strike you as odd.

We conservatives see different. We also tend to believe that the news sources one is exposed to do tend to color one's political views and choices over time. This is not a new thing - we have been complaining about media bias since the '60s so you pointing at liberals complaining that the New York Times is not far enough to the Left doesn't really throw us for a loop.

Either way, you've been all over this thread accusing people of "projecting" and wanting the MSM to editorialize in favor of our views. Have you ever considered that you are not exactly objective so you telling us as a liberal, examining political reporting by people who share your political views, that you see nothing wrong is not exactly convincing?

Let's be honest, flyer ... this is one of those topics where your contributions would not shift anyone's position. It would just wastes your time.

Believe me I am fully aware of the Quixotic task I have regarding this matter and oftentimes I feel overwhelmed but sometimes I do feel up to the task. So on to the debate....

To clear up the point you make in the first few paragraphs I willingly concede that what is generally considered the MSM is generally Liberal. The Northeast and Hollywood are liberal places and that is where most of the MSM resides.

My point was never to suggest that the New York Times or the CBS evening news are bastions of objectivity. However there are LOTS of other news sources that are, taken in aggregate, far more influential than the MSM.

How many people watch the networks evening news programs? A few million? Roughly 1% of the population? Throw in the total circulation of the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal(hardly a beacon of Liberalism) and you are still at less than 10 million regular readers/watchers.

So about 3% of America may or may not be influenced by the so called MSM. Compare that with the thousands of local newspapers and TV news programs that tend to be generally more representative of the people they serve.

So, no, I don't think that the MSM is nearly as influential as you suggest. And there is little evidence to support your claim unless you assume that everyone would be a Conservative if it wasn't for the MSM. Conservatives pretty much own the White House. Conservatives held Congress for the past 12 years and would have kept holding it if not for some exceptional stupidity on their part.

The country is moving rightward and has been for 20 years. So I would like to seem some quantifiable measurement to support the claim that the MSM is actually influencing anything.

The Heritage Foundation being labelled Conservative while the Economic Policy Institute is labelled "non-partisan" would not strike you as odd.

Well when the Heritage Foundation describes themselves as " a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies" it is hard for me to get all up in arms about calling them a Conservative think tank.

We conservatives see different. We also tend to believe that the news sources one is exposed to do tend to color one's political views and choices over time.

And I'll counter that your parents political beliefs are more influential towards what you believe than what the MSM does or does not say. People who lean Conservative will accept that which they believe and reject that which they don't. Same goes for the Liberals. A Conservative will accept the claim that Barack Obama went to a Muslim school because they WANT to. A Liberal will accept the claim that George Bush lied about, well everything, because they WANT to. And when evidence is brought up that contradicts those beliefs they simply discard it as biased.

Have you ever considered that you are not exactly objective so you telling us as a liberal, examining political reporting by people who share your political views, that you see nothing wrong is not exactly convincing?

I don't consider myself truly objective. I suspect that is probably impossible. But I try very hard to be as objective as possible. This is why I tend to post on Conservative boards so that I don't just accept arguments that I can swallow easily.

There are some really brilliant people here, yourself included. I can see that in what you write and how you write it. And yet there are so many points that are simply accepted as gospel here. It's human nature. I will freely admit that there are certain things that I accept as gospel as well. I try not to but we all MUST HAVE some things we find incontrovertible otherwise we have nothing to hold onto.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind here on anything. I only hope to give people a little bit more perspective on their own views as I gain perspective on mine.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

1-that the GOP doesn't control the senate and house with 60%+ of the seats
2-the intimidation of elected GOP reps in dc to do what they get elected to do
3-gays out of the closet
4-greenie message that has kept us dependent on foreign oil
5-the liguini spined smug blame america first lib I had to endure at a party last week
6-that clinton was not forced to resign
7-that kerry got more votes than dukakis
8-jack cafferty and olberman are not in straight jackets

more to come

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

not saturate everything-their articles are often picked up by smaller newspapers in smaller areas.

My local paper almost entirely does its national news from the AP and New York Times-very little of it is done by an original reporter out of their office.

Their reporters mostly cover the local stuff-the national stuff they get off the wire.

And liberal bias in this way can pervade everything.

Although newspaper readership is going down, it isn't going down that much.

Also, how the network news chooses to cover a story can and does influence how people perceive things. They probably aren't going to do much about the die hard base, but that mushy middle is always there.

And like I said the bias of the news isn't so much in what they do cover, but in what they choose to not cover.

I subscribed for 15+ years, the editorial page has always had a liberal viewpoint. However, lately their political viewpoint has spread to all sections of the paper. Additionally, so much of what they report is factually incorrect. Shoddy journalism, little editorial oversight. If it fits their viewpoint - they print it. I stopped reading because so much of what is written is either incomplete or factually incorrect. I don't have the time to sort out the few grains of truth from the liberal beach. They've become the worst thing a newspaper can be

Irrelevant.

====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

You guys here at RedState sure do get your knickers in a bunch over them an awful lot.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

the lie by omission is still a lie, revealing secret programs at a time of war or any other is not a good practice and besides there is just so much to work with when it comes to that old gray hag....

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I meant that what they 'report' as well as their editorial opinion is not important or carries any weight. A news item in the old NYT was regarded as fact. That's not the case anymore.
They are looked as the liberal viewpoint. Nothing more.
Next stop, they become more like the Weekly World News.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

you say they carry no weight. Others here say they are dangerously influential.

I'm confused.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

conservatives the Times is irrelevant as far as trusting the information that is in it.

So it is kind of both, but in general I think the Times is fairly influential-although I think in a world of cable news and the internet, it is becoming less so, but the stories in the times often drive the news.

I think print news is struggling, but not to the point that they no longer have any influence.

Its a great read in the checkout line. Considerably more entertaining than the times and without the pretension to credibility.

Of course any day now, I expect the times to headline CIA resurrects saddam's corpse for interrogation.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

That the larger you are, the more the Boston Globe feels it's OK to mischaracterize your content and the quality of the debate that goes on at your website?

I think that it absolutely does demonstrate their bias, because they recognize Kos's influence and are wary of it -- therefore they "play nicer" with DKos than with RedState. It's the "celebrity effect" or, to put it more bluntly, abject butt-kissing, because they're a little worried about what Kos might write if the Globe found some harsh words for him. Lord knows that the Washington Post has never forgotten about the time Kos went off on Richard Cohen inre: Karl Rove.

However, that doesn't speak very highly of their judgment or their journalistic integrity, does it?

Maybe someone needs to break DKos up before they become too powerful...

But that is an entirely different sort of bias than the one normally proferred. You are speaking of a bias generated by fear. Ironically that is what is at the heart of the claims on Noam Chomsky regarding media bias.

Truth be told I think that the description of Red State is far more beneficial to Red State than the description of Kos is of Kos.

Had they said "Prominent conservative blog" I doubt anyone would even take notice. Some relatively unknown blog. However in using the description they did, people on both sides might take notice and go check it out.

I harken back to the old adage, there ain't no such thing as bad press. And provacative descriptions are more likely to draw interest than drab comments like prominent.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I think that by making RedState look "strange" and then featuring mild-mannered reporter (!) Erick Erickson in an interview and inviting people to visit will help make guarantee that people are pleasantly surprised. Either way, Boston Globe readers are welcome to come and share some "red meat" with me any time...

;)

It's not that the Kos is so powerful -- they're kind of like a little yappy dog -- kind of silly, annoying and very noisy.

What amazes me is that US Democrats think the Daily Kos is going to saaaave them! Get your mind around that insanity ...

I honestly wouldn't mind "accurate" but when you use a descriptor like "red meat" for the conservative blog, but "prominent" to describe the other-you are putting a picture in the heads of the people reading the article.

"Prominent" invokes an image of important, respected, well thought of.

"Red meat" invokes an image of the Roman gladitorial games or sharks.

I won't quibble with the word prominent or even the words "red meat" except that they were used to describe two blogs from different ends of the political spectrum, and both invoke certain images-one positive, the other more negative.

And that is bias-my guess is it isn't an intentional bias, but I tend to think the majority of media bias isn't really intentional. When a liberal reporter sees an R by the name of a GOP congressmember or politician they think "right wing" and use the term. When the liberal reporter sees a D by the name, they think mainstream or much like them.

Sometimes a qualifier is a good move, but the qualifiers should at the very least be comparable in the image they invoke.

You infer certain things from those words and then make assumptions based on the inferences.

Just because the 2 descriptions may evoke different images doesn't mean that one is good or the other is bad. They are just different. And, IMO, Kos and Redstate are completely different blogs, although they use the same software. :)

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I'm no expert in blog traffic, but I question that scheme of ranking. I know Kos is big, but I can think of blogs that are higher than a large mammal (say mortal human) that don't have anywhere close to the traffic of Redstate.

We avoided those discussions.

.

In general when you hear the word rhetoric it doesn't have a positive spin.

Granted there are non negative definitions for the word, so the person using it can generally appeal to that use of the word, but generally it does come with a negative connotation-and I think paired with the words "red meat" it probably wasn't meant as one of the more flattering descriptions.

It certainly can be negative, when the writer means propaganda or sophistry, or empty words without action.

But I always took it in the neutral sense as the art or technique of persuasion through language. They teach rhetoric in schools to budding writers and politicians, or those interested in studying the techniques. Rhetoric is often a very positive thing -- the 50 greatest speeches in American history are 50 wonderful examples of rhetoric.

I also disagree that "prominent" means authentic or is always positive, it just means conspicuous or well known. Examples: A prominent conspiracy theory is espoused by 9/11 cranks; the study of logic includes several prominent fallacies. Hitler and Saddam were prominent brutal dictators. Her prominent feature was the extensive facial scarring. Etc.

At its best, RedState offers some good, persuasive rhetoric. And whatever you think of the level of discourse or quality of thought, DKos is a prominent liberal blog.

The Academy: Your Logic Service Provider

that rhetoric paired with the other descriptors doesn't come across as positive.

Had the words persuasive or similar been used, I could go more with the positive connotation.

I didn't initially read the comments as being negative to RedState or particularly positive to DKos (except that it is well known) but I see your point and the points of others, after thinking about it a bit.

And far be it for me to argue the nuances of rhetoric with Socrates, heh.

In terms of real political influence, Daily Kos probably has to be considered far and away the most "prominent" blog on the internet.
---
"Promoting democracy requires attention to specific circumstances and to the limitations of U.S. leverage. Both because of what the United States is, and because of what is possible, we cannot engage either in promoting democracy or in nation-building as an exercise of will."
-Paul Wolfowitz, 2000

you don't read this site enough to form anything like an informed opinion.

whereas Redstate and other conservative blogs are more of an echo chamber for traditional conservative ideas.

This is just stupid. Do you really think the editorial direction taken here looks at all like National Review or the Weekly Standard? And if not how can there be multiple, but different, echo chambers. And if yoiu do, does your doctor know you stopped taking your thorozine?

"Promoting democracy requires attention to specific circumstances and to the limitations of U.S. leverage. Both because of what the United States is, and because of what is possible, we cannot engage either in promoting democracy or in nation-building as an exercise of will."

you have something constructive to add to the discussion on this site, drop me a line and we can talk.

Until then, tchuss.

A: When you're a visitor from the other side of the political Grand Chasm - it's not smart to follow-up idiocy with snark. And it's really not smart to engage in said practice with a hall-monitor.

Thus endeth the lesson.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

that red meat is part of our stock in trade. Not ashamed of it at all. But "populism", this befuddles me because I don't think we are populist in the least. Most often we are heading against the direction of public opinion which would make us anti-populist or even elitist.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson