Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘media’ Category

Interacting with people in various college campuses and universities for the purpose of evangelism and apologetics, I’m amazed at how regularly in the beginning of the conversation, some tell us to read things beyond what we believe, assuming that our Christian faith and Conservative views imply our ignorance of “the other side”.

Here’s a summary of two different studies on this topic of reading “the other side”

Originally from Yahoo, “People Choose News that Fits their Views”,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/peoplechoosenewsthatfitstheirviews

Conservatives buck the trend

Some findings from both researchers suggest that individual confidence and certainty play a role in what people choose to read.

People with stronger party affiliation, conservative political views, and greater interest in politics proved more likely to click on articles with opposing views, according to the Ohio State study.

“It appears that people with these characteristics are more confident in their views and so they’re more inclined to at least take a quick look at the counterarguments,” Knobloch-Westerwick noted.

However, Knobloch-Westerwick added that her latest study was not designed to assess reader motives, and that she hopes to more carefully study the issue in the future.

The Brigham Young University survey found that journalists also tended to read liberal blogs – perhaps a reflection of journalists’ political beliefs, although even conservatives said liberal blogs were often better-written, Davis pointed out.

Among the political blog readers, a similar trend emerged in which “liberals read almost exclusively liberal blogs, but conservatives tend to read both,” Davis said.

Davis offered another possible explanation for this trend among blog readers. Conservative views dominate talk radio, and so conservatives may feel more satisfied by that outlet and are willing to check out opposing views on blogs.

Read Full Post »

Who should cool down????

News Busters puts it in perspective of LA Times article that “Both sides need to cool down”:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2008/11/16/lats-rutten-both-sides-calif-marriage-debate-need-cool-down

It’s good enough that I need to share portion of it here:

Let’s see if I got this straight: Hundreds of supporters of gay marriage, opponents of California Proposition 8, have picketed a Mexican restaurant in L.A. and shouted vulgarities at innocent customers just because one employee – a daughter of the owner – gave a modest $100 donation in support of the measure protecting traditional marriage. Opponents of Proposition 8 have threatened and harassed several other businesses – including a radio station, a theatre, and a chain of health food stores – because employees gave money in support of Prop 8. Opponents of Prop 8 have knocked a cross from the hands of an elderly woman and stomped on it during a demonstration in Palm Springs. Suspicious white powder has been sent in an envelope to a Mormon temple in Westwood. (Mormons were big supporters of Prop 8.)

And the supporters of Proposition 8? Well, their measure – which sought to restore the definition of marriage between only a man and a woman – won in a statewide referendum by a 52 to 48 margin. They simply want judges to respect the vote and uphold its result.

So what does the Los Angeles Times’ Tim Rutten have to say about all of this? He says in his November 15 column that “both sides” “are going too far” and “need to cool down.”

Both sides” “need to cool down”? “Both sides”? Wait a minute. It seems one side is a tad bit hotter than the other! A number of the episodes I’ve cited above are from Rutten’s own paper. Has he checked it out lately?

+_+_+_+_+_+

Rutten’s column also bemoans the “unprecedented intervention” and “distasteful business” of the Catholic and Mormon churches voicing their support of traditional marriage and Proposition 8. He’s upset that they have “leap[t] into the political process” as religious organizations. “[I]t raises hackles, and rightly so,” Rutten asserts.

Gee, Tim. Your paper didn’t seem too upset about any “distasteful business” or “unprecedented intervention” a few years back when your paper published a favorable editorial about Cardinal Mahony “saying the right things about illegal immigrants” and “reinforcing the right of religious leaders to speak out on the moral ramifications of political issues.”

Hey, Tim. What about that same right now? Ohhh, wait. This time the Church has the opposite view of your own, and that is “raising your cackles.”

All together now: “Double … standard.”

Read Full Post »

Tuesday’s GOP YOutube/CNN Sponsored Debate have been warned by Conservative Blogger Hugh Hewitt as being dangerous back on July 26th, 2007 (concerned of the lack of reasoned and informed discussion), which was followed by a heated discussion this past Tuesday with Steve Grove, director of news and politics for YouTube  that was very revealing.

Now that the debate is over, concern of neutrality of those who ask questions are exposed.

Some of these guys were actually lying about who they were.

As always, Michelle Malkin’s blog does a good job of expose of some of these questioners…from CAIR intern, gay Republican general, etc…

Click HERE

Now, I’m not against people who are Democrats asking tough questions to Republicans; I wish the other way could also occur (like when the Democrats turned down Fox for a debate); my post is specifically about the deception that was involved by these questioners.

Read Full Post »