But the complaints you're making about the press only being reporters and not digging for the 'truth' suggests you think the objective truth can be determined. Now, you're saying it can't. Which we we going with this thing?

I think you're confusing two different conversations here, Bit.

If you doubt what I claim to be true, then you can prove it wrong, or I can prove it right, but in the end truth is discovered, nobody decides it.

But the complaints you're making about the press only being reporters and not digging for the 'truth' suggests you think the objective truth can be determined. Now, you're saying it can't. Which we we going with this thing?

And Brian Doherty? Clearly you don't know the difference between a libertarian and a conservative.

No, Putin is not a leftist. He's an authoritarian. And I stand by my description of Doherty (though I fail to see how describing him as a libertarian proves your assertion that the publisher pushes liberal writing).

Gee, they only published Black after 2007? And your point is....? BTW, when did they publish McLellan?

I guess you had no answer on the rest of the post.

And who gets to decide what is objective truth?

What part of "objective truth" makes you think that anybody gets to decide? It is what it is.

If you doubt what I claim to be true, then you can prove it wrong, or I can prove it right, but in the end truth is discovered, nobody decides it.

And who gets to decide what is objective truth?

Apparently the liberals running the press do, by your lights.

we also seem to have proven you consider that lean to have no consequence. Would you be quite so generous if most reporters were conservative? You know better.

If a liberal says the earth is round, is that statement biased because they are liberals? If you don't like the statements, show them to be wrong, accusing someone of bias doesn't matter if their statements are true.

Seriously, Bit, the truth coming from a liberal is the same as the truth coming from a conservative. Again, unless you think that truth is subjective, in which case it'd be a waste of time to try and convince your of anything.

All you've proven is that people who report the news self-identify as liberals.

we also seem to have proven you consider that lean to have no consequence. Would you be quite so generous if most reporters were conservative? You know better.

But as I've demonstrated the evidence is all around... seems every week another study proves the point yet again.

All you've proven is that people who report the news self-identify as liberals. What you haven't shown is that their reporting is due to their self-identification, and not the other way around.

Thing is, by your own standards, you're now going to need to prove that statement.

Prove what, that truth doesn't have a liberal bias? Unless you're crazy enough to think that truth is subjective, your anthropomorphic labels are logically false.

I kinda assumed that was your answer. It's an easy one.

The truth sometimes works that way. OTOH, sometimes it's the hardest thing.

But if that's the reason the book is getting all of the attention, than Soros is irrelevant, isn't he?

Soros himself has always been so. That's the point that many seem to miss. His money, on the other hand, is another matter.

Careful Bit, you're starting to sound like one of those people who thinks they can prove the existence of God by saying "Look around you, that's proof!". Sorry, but I need scientific, mathematical or logical evidence, or it's not proof of anything.

But as I've demonstrated the evidence is all around... seems every week another study proves the point yet again. Such have been coming with some degree of regularity since the Johnson Administration, and before. I note with some interest a study of the election coverage posted over at Q&O, though I've not had a chance to read it through yet... but I'll mention it as the most recent example.

Yes, and a majority of biologists believe in evolution, and a majority of climate scientists believe in global warming, and a majority of highly educated people are liberal. The truth doesn't have a liberal bias, it's just the truth.

Thing is, by your own standards, you're now going to need to prove that statement.

And you know about all the rest. I don't need to prove that to you or anyone else; It's been proven thousands of times per day.

Careful Bit, you're starting to sound like one of those people who thinks they can prove the existence of God by saying "Look around you, that's proof!". Sorry, but I need scientific, mathematical or logical evidence, or it's not proof of anything.

The book among it's other findings, reports that 40 percent of journalists think of themselves as being on left side of the political spectrum whereas conservatives make up only 25 percent. Moderates made up 33 percent.

Yes, and a majority of biologists believe in evolution, and a majority of climate scientists believe in global warming, and a majority of highly educated people are liberal. The truth doesn't have a liberal bias, it's just the truth.

I suppose you would need to ignore the last 60 years of left-leaning by our press to make such a statement. As such, it dodn't seem worth a response.

I kinda assumed that was your answer. It's an easy one.

But if that's the reason the book is getting all of the attention, than Soros is irrelevant, isn't he? Any and all left-leaning books would get more attention, Soros or no Soros.

As for Conrad Black, I note he only got published there after July of 2007. I'll leave investigating the point behind that date, to you.

And Brian Doherty? Clearly you don't know the difference between a libertarian and a conservative.

Michael
I give you the NY Times.

And you know about all the rest. I don't need to prove that to you or anyone else; It's been proven thousands of times per day.

A new survey confirms that liberals and Democrats dominate the major media.

As an example: I commend to your reading a book I've just finished: "The American Journalist in the 21st Century: US News People at the Dawn of a New Millennium."

The book among it's other findings, reports that 40 percent of journalists think of themselves as being on left side of the political spectrum whereas conservatives make up only 25 percent. Moderates made up 33 percent. (But of course as Bush and McCain show us, moderates are liberals, as well.

On the matter of party affiliation, the book reports 36 percent of journalists said they're Democrats, but only 18 percent sau they were Republicans.

Are you getting all of this?

Now, Gallup, a few years back did a similar study on the political makup of the Aerican people. The findings?

Remember, 40 percent of the journalists are liberal. Gallup reports only 17 percent of the public is.

Looking at it the other way, 41 percent of the public is conservative, but only 25 percent of the journalists are.

The pattern's there, Michael, your pretending it doesn't exist not withstanding...

I'm willing to bet you can't actually prove the existence of a pattern.

(a) Public Affairs publishes books by noted liberals Conrad Black, Vladimir Putin, Charles Duelfer, Brian Doherty, etc.

(b) Perseus also seems to own Basic Books, whose satble includes liberals William F. Buckley and Richard Brookhiser.