Thursday, December 06, 2012

The Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show, 12.6.12



We spend the whole hour vigorously debating whether MSNBC has a so-called pro-Obama bias. Bob says no, I say yes, and we definitely go at it. Brought to you by Bubble Genius.

There’s political talk and much more in this week’s After Party -- Friday at Noon eastern time.

Listen and subscribe for free on iTunes

Download the mp3 (55 minutes, 23mb)

Listen on your smartphone via Stitcher.com

7 comments:

daver said...

You (both) kept dancing around the definition of 'bias', and neglected to define it (or even look it up, apparently).

It has a definite connotation of distortion away from the truth toward a preferred viewpoint. To assert bias you should argue that MSNBC not only has a viewpoint, but distorts the facts away from reality and toward that viewpoint.

Whether or not they do it deliberately is another issue.

You appear to believe that MSNBC as a whole deliberately distorts the facts away from reality toward their point of view. All I can say is that I don't think it's "delusional" not to hold that opinion. I'm with Bob on this one.


Chez said...

And you're enetitled to that opinion, despite the fact that your definition of bias is faulty because it doesn't account for a willingness to overlook certain points of view or to not lend them credence. In other words, you're reaching. But have at it.

Mart said...

As a card carrying liberal I can no longer watch the "liberal" MSNBC. They never attack Obama from the left, and they never attack other "liberal" pundits when they are talking conventional beltway crap. Also too, recently found Lawrence O' spent a lot of time one night saying the must read is the NYT article saying Romney has a sad cause he lost. WTF? This is a "must read" story while the world continues to go mad?

Chez said...

And, as always, I find hardcore liberalism to be mostly insufferable.

Bob Cesca said...

@Mart --

>>They never attack Obama from the left, and they never attack other "liberal" pundits when they are talking conventional beltway crap.

Not true. I named multiple examples on the show.

Bob Cesca said...

@Chez --

>>And you're enetitled to that opinion, despite the fact that your definition of bias is faulty because it doesn't account for a willingness to overlook certain points of view or to not lend them credence. In other words, you're reaching.

I don't think he was. He defined bias, and the definition does in fact imply omissions -- distorting away from the truth can absolutely include omitting inconvenient facts. As such, I'd like to know how often MSNBC deliberately ignores facts that refute the president.

Chez said...

Jesus, Bob. Enough, man. I realize you're never going to give up on this and I could not possibly disagree with you more. This is one fight you're not going to win, although, as much as I love you, I know it's important for you to APPEAR to have won in an effort to hopefully bring people over to your point of view.

I've made every single point I think I can on this and it's worthless for me to argue it further. Sometimes you just have to let things go. Any further pushing from you just makes you look obstinate and so convinced of your own righteousness that it immediately calls into question whether YOUR OWN biases are what prevent you from seeing any viewpoint other than your own.