"Domestic spying" episode as evidence of media bias

[Jim]

The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government's alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi's detention, through the AUMF.

 

Our analysis on that point, set forth below, substantially overlaps with our analysis of Hamdi's principal argument for the illegality of his detention. He posits that his detention is forbidden by 18 U. S. C. §4001(a). Section 4001(a) states that "[n]o citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Congress passed §4001(a) in 1971 as part of a bill to repeal the Emergency Detention Act of 1950, 50 U. S. C. §811 et seq., which provided procedures for executive detention, during times of emergency, of individuals deemed likely to engage in espionage or sabotage. Congress was particularly concerned about the possibility that the Act could be used to reprise the Japanese internment camps of World War II. H. R. Rep. No. 92-116 (1971); id., at 4 ("The concentration camp implications of the legislation render it abhorrent"). The Government again presses two alternative positions. First, it argues that §4001(a), in light of its legislative history and its location in Title 18, applies only to "the control of civilian prisons and related detentions," not to military detentions. Brief for Respondents 21. Second, it maintains that §4001(a) is satisfied, because Hamdi is being detained "pursuant to an Act of Congress"--the AUMF. Id., at 21-22. Again, because we conclude that the Government's second assertion is correct, we do not address the first. In other words, for the reasons that follow, we conclude that the AUMF is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of individuals in the narrow category we describe (assuming, without deciding, that such authorization is required), and that the AUMF satisfied §4001(a)'s requirement that a detention be "pursuant to an Act of Congress" (assuming, without deciding, that §4001(a) applies to military detentions).

 

 

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (emphasis added)

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-6696

[Pangloss]

ABC News ran a story last night that I think serves as a good example. They were talking about record profits in the oil industry, which I've been predicting for some time now. Conoco reported its earnings yesterday and they were up 66% over last year. I predict that when ExxonMobile reports its figures (next week?) it will reveal not only a ~50% increase in profit over its all-time-for-all-corporations record from last year, but it will also be revealed to be the world's largest corporation, making Wal-Mart look like Joe's Pizzaria.

 

That having been said, the oil companies are everyone's favorite whipping boy these days, and everyone seems to forget a number of factors that should (to some degree) ameliorate that sentiment, such as the fact that the price of oil is a commodity, set by an open market (not the oil companies), or that the oil companies are pumping massive stock value into millions of nervous pension funds, or that SUV sales are plumeting, or that the economy as a whole is doing very well.

 

ABC actually reported some of that, but they did so at the start of the story, which of course is a time-honored tradition amongst reporters. You put your stuff that you don't believe at the beginning, and then you refute it with the stuff you believe in.

 

So the story actually ended with this quote from Hawaiian senator (and Democrat) Daniel Inouye, during the Commerce Committee meetings on oil prices last November:

 

...in the midst of suffering, in the midst of sacrifice, record-breaking profits...

 

(That's how they showed the quote.)

Source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110901070.html

 

Um... what suffering? What sacrifice? Americans spent an average of THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS at Christmastime this year. And I'm not seeing any evidence of Americans dying in the streets because they can't buy heating oil. Do these people even exist?

 

This kind of thing happens all the time, it happens on BOTH sides, and the most logical way to counter it is to stand up, recognize it, and learn the truth.

[pcs]

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld' date=' 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (emphasis added)

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-6696[/quote']

 

Moral of the story. Case law is more than just the "who won?", it's the "why did he?".

[Jim]

Moral of the

 

Very much so. Again, I wouldn't purport that this is controlling authority. I do think it establishes that the authorization of force by Congress can override their prior specific legislative prohibitions. Case law is more than just the "who won?", it's the "why did he?". .

[Jim]

ABC News ran a story last night that I think serves as a good example. They were talking about record profits in the oil industry' date=' which I've been predicting for some time now. Conoco reported its earnings yesterday and they were up 66% over last year. I predict that when ExxonMobile reports its figures (next week?) it will reveal not only a ~50% increase in profit over its all-time-for-all-corporations record from last year, but it will also be revealed to be the world's largest corporation, making Wal-Mart look like Joe's Pizzaria.

 

That having been said, the oil companies are everyone's favorite whipping boy these days, and everyone seems to forget a number of factors that should (to some degree) ameliorate that sentiment, such as the fact that the price of oil is a commodity, set by an open market (not the oil companies), or that the oil companies are pumping massive stock value into millions of nervous pension funds, or that SUV sales are plumeting, or that the economy as a whole is doing very well.

 

ABC actually reported some of that, but they did so at the start of the story, which of course is a time-honored tradition amongst reporters. You put your stuff that you don't believe at the beginning, and then you refute it with the stuff you believe in.

 

So the story actually ended with this quote from Hawaiian senator (and Democrat) Daniel Inouye, during the Commerce Committee meetings on oil prices last November:

 

 

 

(That's how they showed the quote.)

Source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110901070.html

 

Um... what suffering? What sacrifice? Americans spent an average of THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS at Christmastime this year. And I'm not seeing any evidence of Americans dying in the streets because they can't buy heating oil. Do these people even exist?

 

This kind of thing happens all the time, it happens on BOTH sides, and the most logical way to counter it is to stand up, recognize it, and learn the truth.[/quote']

 

Don't get me started on this. I've represented oil companies in a few pollution cases which are often bogus. Living in Oklahoma, I know several small time oil guys who are finally making a profit on stripper wells. These guys work their tails off keeping these old wells alive and finally are about to make some money yet to the press this story is all about the obscene profits made by the majors...

[john5746]

This less than profound observation that we can identify a diverse range of political views in specially sampled sets of media products apparantly hasn't stopped scholars from scientifically studying media bias as a genuine phenomenon. Or should we now pay attention to kooks who declare the concept of relative passage of time meaningless for similarly shallow reasons?

 

Google Scholar had only 1150 hits for "media bias", 3,550,000 hits for media and 1,730,000 hits for bias.

[bascule]

That doesn't mean that there's no liberal bias in the mainstream media. One cannot dismiss the bias issue as a mere partisan talking point for one side or the other.

 

Oh really? It seems like conservatives see a liberal bias and liberals see a conservative bias. FAIR at least supports their views with a continually growing list of case examples, one that certainly vastly outweighs Jim's single example. However I see FAIR as an extreme liberal group that just sees the bias it wants to see, much in the same way I feel that conservatives shouting "media bias" see only the bias they want to see.

 

I'll happily concede that liberals dominate television. Anything else, I just don't see it. When a conservative tries to group everything under the auspices of "the media" (or even "the mass media"), then I think they're just being ridiculous.

[pcs]

Google Scholar had only 1150 hits for "media bias", 3,550,000 hits for media and 1,730,000 hits for bias.

 

Restricting searches to titles:

 

1. Media and bias appear in the same title in 176 searches, and consecutively in 79.

2. News and bias, 105 (28 concurrently), and 5 hits for news, bias and political with the first return a proposed quantitative measure.

3. Newspaper and bias, 29 (2 consecutively).

4. Tribal loyalty, 0 (and 0 consecutively). Separately, "tribal" garners 3180 hits and loyalty just 3030.

 

[pcs]

Oh really? It seems like conservatives see a liberal bias and liberals see a conservative bias[/url']. FAIR at least supports their views with a continually growing list of case examples...

 

And MRC supports their views with statistical evidence. Add to that, the scholarship holds that nationally journalists are overwhelmingly liberal compared to the national audience, and that variation geographically places national news outlets in the most liberal of journalist enclaves (namely, NY and Washington DC). It seems FAIR has a long way to go before their FAQ can topple the body of scholarly work. [1], all of which admits to a left leaning slant not only amongst the reporting population, but in the reporting itself.

 

...one that certainly vastly outweighs Jim's single example.

 

But not the body of research. Your ability to fish out a handful cases of conservative bias compared to Jim's thimble-full doesn't abrogate your responsibility to actually characterize the bias, if it exists, with due diligence.

 

However I see FAIR as an extreme liberal group that just sees the bias it wants to see, much in the same way I feel that conservatives shouting "media bias" see only the bias they want to see.

 

And on the basis of interest group involvement on the issue, you dismiss not only scientific evidence of bias but an entire body of scholarship devoted to the subject.

 

I'll happily concede that liberals dominate television.

 

Then you'll also happily concede that television news consumption by far outsrips newpaper and talk radio circulation. At which point Jim's point holds, there is a mass media and that bias tilts left.

 

Anything else, I just don't see it.

 

Because you haven't studied the issue. Given that you are adamantly place your faith in other scientific claims that experience political and social controversy, I'm surprised at your reaction to Jim's.

 

When a conservative tries to group everything under the auspices of "the media" (or even "the mass media"), then I think they're just being ridiculous.

 

Then so are the social scientists who do this for a living. And when it comes to that value judgement, should we take your unlearned opinion of this scholarly work over their studied point of view?

[pcs]

Very much so. Again, I wouldn't purport that this is controlling authority. I do think it establishes that the authorization of force by Congress can override their prior specific legislative prohibitions. Case law is more than just the "who won?", it's the "why did he?". .

 

I sincerely believe more people would enjoy law and how it's practice more if they just bothered to learn a little bit about how the game is played.

[swansont]

Good grief. I had fully intended not to address anything further here. Is reading comprehension a general problem on the politics board?

 

Flaming. Try again without the personal attack if you like.

 

I can only imagine what that was when this gets through:

How is it any different to regurgitate the views of administration critics seeking to do the same thing?

Yet for some reason you feel justified in reselling their point of view wholesale.

American citizens have also been exposed to the Tooth Fairy in possible violation of their 19th Amendment rights. Isn't it cute how the word possible can make even the most absurd statement reasonable?

you've apparantly decided

Perhaps this should tell us something about speaking authoritatively on subjects you know nothing about.

what intellectual hoops will you leap through

So now you're in the unique position of attacking the other side's view as spin while explaining the load your shoveling--straight out of the Senate Democrat's manure patch--is the bright line of truth.

Would an operative for the DNC' date=' Code Pink, NARAL, and those other left-leaning, Bush-bashing organizations feeding you talking points be allowed to be interviewed if her position was that Bush wasn't guilty?

a contemptful commentary not only on the character but the intellect of those working in this Administration. And who are you to make that evaluation?

apparantly harbors enough contempt for law as an intellectual field[/quote']

 

strawmen and ad hominem

 

Much of what I said was opinion, and I have a right to an opinion just as anyone else does. Feel free to disagree. Do not, however, feel free to attack me, or assume that you know what my position is on other topics (disagreeing with a position on the right does not mean I agree with every — or any particular — position on the left, nor that I disagree with all positions on the right).

 

I will refrain from urging you to perform an impossible biological task.

 

I have no illusions that me saying I'm not coming back to a discussion is considered any great loss, but it's disappointing that a quality science forum descends to this level outside of the science discussions. In science you attack the argument, because you are discussing isses of fact that can be decided, and opinion does not matter. In politics and religion, opinion is much more at the forefront. It is baffling to me that anyone thinks that personal attacks are going to change anyone's mind, or at least give someone some food for thought. Unless that's not your point.

[swansont]

This is a great way to never listen to anything said by the administration which is inconsistent with your world view. Gonzales is the Attorney General of the United States and, possibly, you might learn something about the administration’s legal position if you listen with an open mind.

 

The thread, started and named by you, is labeled '"Domestic spying" episode as evidence of media bias.' I wasn't making an argument about the legal position, I was pointing out that a presidential appointee, who serves at the pleasure of the president, is not to be looked at as an independent source of information, like he's an impartial outside observer. I used "Duh" as I though you were — that this is a fairly obvious point. The details of the legal argument are a separate issue.

 

Rather than assume that I'm engaging in some dishonest debating "tactic" of which you must take your leave (just as you appear to assume that Gonzales is not sincere in his statements)' date=' why not give me the benefit of the doubt?

 

You said, “And ‘Duh’ is an equally valid response to someone who works for the "agree or else" administration, who is acting as a public spokesperson, trying to sway public opinion.” Frankly, I didn’t know what you meant by this sentence and wanted to draw you out. Notice how my sentence ends with a question mark? I used the question mark because I wanted you to explain your position, as I did not understand it. I actually thought it would be obvious I didn't think you meant that every one was stupid in the administration and thought you would explain yourself.

[/quote']

 

 

How about something like "I didn't understand your point, can you clarify it?" That also ends with a question mark, but does not create the strawman of accusing me of calling anyone/everyone "stupid."

[Pangloss]

I tell you what I need more than anything else is a penalty box. Some place where I can put people who've lost their temper until they cool off and can return to civil discourse.

 

Lacking that, this subject is now closed. Y'all can blame Swansont if you like, but trust me: it was a group effort.