Two differences in the Dana Bash interviews

does it have anything to do with blatant falsehoods being claimed. generally the less honest you are, the more times you are going to be challenged

 

That sounds pretty unfair. The media is so bad and unfair. You are victims.

Also, which media sources do you watch and believe? The ones who knowingly spread lies about an election, lies which they KNEW were untrue, requiringthemtopay a $1 billion settlement?

You enable that attack on the truth but you want to find some sympathy here for your sad, sad victimhood?

Not gonna happen. You're gonna have to look in the dictionary between syphilis and sh!t.

 

Correct, no response whatsoever. None. Because I didn't read it, or watch it, or whatever you may have desired. And I won't.

Why? Because, and I don't mean to sound uncivil, but just for the sake of open discourse : I don't care what you say, or about your opinion, or whether you feel mistreated, or frankly all that much whether you ARE mistreated (beyond certain bounds.)

Why? Because you emphatically support a criminal and a traitor who himself cares about none of those things, but unlike me has had immense amounts of power to inflict harm beyond a contentious message board post.

Specifically : You support a traitor who enacted a criminal conspiracy to overturn an election through illegal means. You support a person who tried to illegally disenfranchise 10s of millions of people. A person who intentionally and repeatedly, ad nauseum, attacked our democracy and by extension our country. Re-read that until it sinks in, because it is true.

So you want someone to pay attention to YOUR concerns after THAT? Not gonna happen. At least not with me. You want other people's tears about alleged media unfairness......but you will cast a vote for a person who has and does attack our democracy and country?

All i got for you is the world's smallest violin and it's playing you a mournful song. Hope you can hear it.

 

Numerous reasons. Which don't include having sympathy for the feelings of anyone who wholeheartedly supports a person who repeatedly, intentionally, and criminally attacks our democracy and our country.

 

I mean, don’t go Full George Jefferson railing on us honkies, seems she’s the still the less disgusting.

Or did she? Didn’t watch, just like I didn’t watch DJT on TwitterXButworse.

 

They own objective reality. Get over it. Assimilate.

This is why I don't bother having honest conversations with any of these liberals. Like I said in numerous threads, they are simply the most unpleasant and unhappy people acting morally and intellectually superior to everyone. Oh and they claim to be inclusive as well.. go figure.

 

The incredibly self-evident truths that just seem to slip by some people..the same people who wonder why they aren't taken seriously.

 

I'm certain a lot of people you interact with act as though they are intellectually and morally superior to you, but not to everyone.

 

You don't have to consider everyone's opinion worthy of consideration in order to participate on a message board. Why else have a block feature?

 

I appreciate your effort here, CF. Bias is extremely prevalent, and no one should just dismiss your hypothesis outright, especially as you’ve actually tried to quantify rather than assume it.

Of course media bias is also notoriously difficult to assess because it doesn’t usually offer controlled comparisons. To your credit, you were able to control one variable: host identity. Unfortunately there are other large ones out there. The biggest is probably the one that @G8trGr8t noted, which is that these different interviewees are going to behave differently. If Bash ended the interview after Kamala threw a glass of water on her, we would record the metric of times interview ended as: Vance 0, Kamala 1. But this likely wouldn’t indicate bias against Kamala, as Kamala acted in a very different way.

Another important variable I see here is interview duration. It seems Vance’s interview is almost 23 min and Kamala/Walz’ is less than 17. So, I’d expect all interactions to occur 35% more frequently with Vance. And Kamala is sharing her time with Walz, so if they split their time 50:50, it would actually be 8.5 min for Kamala vs Vance’s 24. Controlling for interview duration using these figures, we get these numbers:

Vance:

Interruptions / min: 0.65
Challenges / min: 0.57​

Kamala:

Interruptions / min: 0.24
Challenges / min: 0.83
​

And then we have all kinds of smaller variables, like that Vance is a man, Bash might have had less sleep or a fight with her son, etc. (There’s a great book, Noise, which demonstrates how much these seemingly small variables can impact our judgements).

And of course, our sample size is also pretty small. If we had 10 hrs of interviews with each, all four of these numbers likely get revised quite a bit.

In sum, CF, I hope you don’t think that I’m dismissing your hypothesis without consideration. I really am open to the existence of bias in our media, and your evidence of bias is among the best that a TH poster has brought forth. Unfortunately, this problem is just damn hard, so even the best evidence isn’t definitive. Plus, as you astutely acknowledge, you brought your own viewpoint to the study, and another examiner would likely see the data differently. E.g. while you saw Bash’s dress choices as “strength” vs “tranquility”, I wondered whether we were simply seeing “Republican” vs “Democrat” colors.

 

You do seem to consider every question she asked Vance to be a challenge, but not every question she asked Harris. Are these not challenges?

During the Biden-Harris administration, there were record numbers of illegal border crossings. Why did the Biden-Harris administration wait three and a half years to implement sweeping asylum restrictions?

You raised your hand when asked whether or not the border should be decriminalized. Do you still believe that?

You insisted that President Biden is extraordinarily strong. Given where we are now, do you have any regrets about what you told the American people?

Or Walz:

You said that you carried weapons in war, but you have never deployed actually in a war zone. A campaign official said that you misspoke. Did you?

And the — the idea that you said that you were in war, did you misspeak, as the campaign has said?

 

He said Harris was challenged 7 times and gave 4 examples. You gave another 3.