VP debate - potential for bias?

[afchic]

Originally Posted by tonyz

IMO Raddatz stopped Ryan from making his point on a number of occasions. I do not recall how many times nor do I care at this point. Raddatz, during the course of the night, interrupted both men at one point or another. I do not recall how often nor do I care at this point. What impact these interuptions had on either men in the debate I cannot say at this point. Personally, I would have liked to hear Ryan complete his thoughts. YMMV.

The debate was the debate. Raddatz was Raddatz. I was not overly impressed with any of the participants.

This is all water under the bridge.

I will say it because no one else will, you are an idiot. You made suppositions about the moderator before the debate saying she couldn't be objective. Now that people are pointing out that may not be the case you are saying you don't care how she acted. So either you were wrong before the debate, or disengenuous after the fact. Either way, IMO you are incapable of making a coherent argument in support of your hypothesis.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by afchic

I will say it because no one else will, you are an idiot. You made suppositions about the moderator before the debate saying she couldn't be objective. Now that people are pointing out that may not be the case you are saying you don't care how she acted. So either you were wrong before the debate, or disengenuous after the fact. Either way, IMO you are incapable of making a coherent argument in support of your hypothesis.

excuse me. Excuse me! No one else has called him an idiot? I direct you to post #4 . . . .
Oh sorry, you're right I'm wrong; I called him a troll.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by tonyz

I do not recall how many times nor do I care at this point.
I do not recall how often nor do I care at this point.
What impact these interruptions ...I cannot say at this point.
Personally, I would have liked to ....
This is all water under the bridge.

This isn't the time to practice your Congressional testimony

This is your thread you picked the tune; now it's time to pay the band
You say you do not care now. Really you just don't want to be held responsible for your actions. What you did here was a deliberate attempt to pre-spin this event by questioning a professional's integrity on the flimsiest basis. What you did here was wrong.
But now, after you failed to achieve your goal of destroying her integrity it all becomes a small thing to you. We are talking about Integrity. Integrity is not a small thing. Tonyz, I'm talking about YOUR integrity.

Originally Posted by tonyz

I'm sure that journalistic integrity will negate any possible bias -

These are your words that opened this thread.

Time to man up.
Time to accept the consequences, take responsibility and make amends.
A post addressed to Ms Raddatz is the proper way to close this thread.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

This isn't the time to practice your Congressional testimony

This is your thread you picked the tune; now it's time to pay the band
You say you do not care now. Really you just don't want to be held responsible for your actions. What you did here was a deliberate attempt to pre-spin this event by questioning a professional's integrity on the flimsiest basis. What you did here was wrong.
But now, after you failed to achieve your goal of destroying her integrity it all becomes a small thing to you. We are talking about Integrity. Integrity is not a small thing. Tonyz, I'm talking about YOUR integrity. These are your words that opened this thread.

Time to man up.
Time to accept the consequences, take responsibility and make amends.
A post addressed to Ms Raddatz is the proper way to close this thread.

Being informed as to the possible direction of a moderator's political leanings may be of interest - even if you do not "see" a bias.

If that is not of interest to you - so be it.

But, your personal attacks on the report and those who report is also of interest.

That debate is over.

I posted the information that the MSM was reluctant to post. The information regarding a prior relationship between the moderator and the president - may or may not go to a bias. The potential for bias based on a prior relationship was raised as a discussion question and I take responsibility for raising that question in the first post.

FWIW if Romney had gone to law school with the moderator - had appointed the moderators ex and had attended the moderator's wedding I think folks should know - and I think a discussion of possible bias based on a past relationship is fair game. YMMV.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by afchic

I will say it because no one else will, you are an idiot. You made suppositions about the moderator before the debate saying she couldn't be objective. Now that people are pointing out that may not be the case you are saying you don't care how she acted. So either you were wrong before the debate, or disengenuous after the fact. Either way, IMO you are incapable of making a coherent argument in support of your hypothesis.

I posted a report for discussion on both sides of the issue. I raised a question that the MSM appeared reluctant to address. The MSM should have done the right thing and reported that prior relationship.

IMO, that fact that people may or may not be able to point to bias should not negate the publishing of information that there was a prior relationship.

My argument was for disclosure of a past relationship...with potential for bias raised as a question...if that is not coherent enough for you...

[afchic]

Originally Posted by tonyz

I posted a report for discussion on both sides of the issue. I raised a question that the MSM appeared reluctant to address. The MSM should have done the right thing and reported that prior relationship.

IMO, that fact that people may or may not be able to point to bias should not negate the publishing of information that there was a prior relationship.

My argument was for disclosure of a past relationship...with potential for bias raised as a question...if that is not coherent enough for you...

You basically stated there was no way this professional would be able to be objective due to someone who wasn't even on the stage that night being a guest at her wedding 21 years ago. You stated her husband's relationship with the POTUS would color her views.

Did you actually do any real digging on this? The reason I ask is that she has an ex-husband, not a husband. I think that is valuable information as well. It might go to show there was no bias on her part. I have been around alot of divorced couples and they don't usually keep the ex-spouses friends. But you didn't do that research because it may prove your hypothesis wrong.

And even after all was said and done you couldn't admit that maybe your hypothesis was wrong. Sounds like something my children do when things don't go their way.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by afchic

You basically stated there was no way this professional would be able to be objective due to someone who wasn't even on the stage that night being a guest at her wedding 21 years ago. You stated her husband's relationship with the POTUS would color her views.

Did you actually do any real digging on this? The reason I ask is that she has an ex-husband, not a husband. I think that is valuable information as well. It might go to show there was no bias on her part. I have been around alot of divorced couples and they don't usually keep the ex-spouses friends. But you didn't do that research because it may prove your hypothesis wrong.

And even after all was said and done you couldn't admit that maybe your hypothesis was wrong. Sounds like something my children do when things don't go their way.

I raised an issue. A reasonable response might have been:

1). The relationship did not exist; or

2). The relationship did exist - but was so distant and trivial as to be a non-issue.

Or, perhaps, you could have responded that such a disclosure of a prior relationship might unfairly prejudice the jury of public opinion.

But, these discussions of bridges, warts, trolls, guns, idiots and children appear to speak more of the commentators than to the issue itself.

Have you never inquired about prior relationships or activities when considering someone for a position or a clearance - even if to ultimate dismiss the issue as to be no longer relevant ?

All I can say is wow, just wow.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by tonyz

I'm sure that journalistic integrity will negate any possible bias - or perhaps should have already resulted in recusal?

BMT merely posts items to "raise an issue" - adding the sardonic bit of opinion to a posted item is not "merely raising an issue" as you are fixed on trying to convince everyone here.

Ricshard

[MR2]

I take exception to referring to journalists/journalism as a profession.

With a profession defined as: (a) a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation (b) the whole body of persons engaged in a calling (c) containing a enforced standard level of education, ethics, and practice.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Richard

BMT merely posts items to "raise an issue" - adding the sardonic bit of opinion to a posted item is not "merely raising an issue" as you are fixed on trying to convince everyone here.

Ricshard

Richard, you are correct. I raised an issue and expressed an opinion - on a couple of occasions in this thread. I thought that was self evident. Guilty as charged.

MOO, I do think that we, as a country, might benefit if more folks would consider recusing themselves, on occasion. Don't get me started on Justice Kagen and the Obamacare decision...for another day.

MOO, I do not think Raddatz should have accepted the gig. However, If she accepts the gig, folks should be aware of her prior relationship with the president - and arrive at their own conclusion.

Same thing if Romney had attend law school with Raddatz, appointed her ex and attended her wedding.

This has been an interesting discussion. The moderator, the moderator, the mean man questioned the moderator...while the world burns and this administration continues to cover up arguably criminally negligent behavior.

All water under the bridge.

[ZonieDiver]

All water under the bridge.

That's an interesting phrase to use, considering Dozer's characterization!
Seen any billy goats lately?

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

That's an interesting phrase to use, considering Dozer's characterization!
Seen any billy goats lately?

Yup, now that is funny.

[Sigaba]

IRT to the definition of profession offered in post #39, FWIW, a literature review of sociological definitions of "profession" can be found in R.D. Hughes's doctoral dissertation, "Transforming Professions: A Case Study of Social Work in the Australian Defence Organization" (2006), pages 41-62. This document is available here.

The short version is, "It's complicated." A thumbnail is that there's no single acceptable definition of what constitutes a profession because various professions define themselves (a) after the fact, (b) in a manner that justifies a monopolization of a field of knowledge/expertise, and (c) so that a particular profession can corner a sector of the political economy. (A fourth part of her definition centers around a profession's role as an agent of cultural hegemony. YMMV.)

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

IRT to the definition of profession offered in post #39, FWIW, a literature review of sociological definitions of "profession" can be found in R.D. Hughes's doctoral dissertation, "Transforming Professions: A Case Study of Social Work in the Australian Defence Organization" (2006), pages 41-62. This document is available here.

The short version is, "It's complicated." A thumbnail is that there's no single acceptable definition of what constitutes a profession because various professions define themselves (a) after the fact, (b) in a manner that justifies a monopolization of a field of knowledge/expertise, and (c) so that a particular profession can corner a sector of the political economy. (A fourth part of her definition centers around a profession's role as an agent of cultural hegemony. YMMV.)

Thanks Sig, but at 415 pages - no thanks. I'm still wading through 47,683 pages of new regulations over at HHS...

In short, they saying we don't need no stinkin' standards.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by MR2

I take exception to referring to journalists/journalism as a profession.

With a profession defined as: (a) a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation (b) the whole body of persons engaged in a calling (c) containing a enforced standard level of education, ethics, and practice.

My Journalism Major from the school "those kids at Columbia couldn't get in to" will whup up on you if she reads this