MSNBC goes all-out left wing

[Sarkus]

I've found Olbermann, who I used to like, nearly unwatchable lately as he has gone on a blatant anti-McCain offensive. The other night all of this stories were shots at McCain. (Keep in mind that I'm an Obama supporter, I just don't like blatantly biased "news personalities.")

Today I see that MSNBC is replacing Dan Abrams with a very liberal host starting next month. Rachel Maddow is a long-time Air America host and even the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/business/media/20abra.html?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin) sees her promotion to MSNBC as proof of the networks' left leaning strategy.


Ms. Maddow’s appointment is likely to cement MSNBC’s status as a network seeking an audience of Democratic and liberal viewers, many of whom have embraced Mr. Olbermann’s outspoken criticism of both the Bush administration and Fox News.

From what I've seen of Maddow when she's filled in for Olbermann, she's essentially a clone of him, even in her mannerisms.

I guess I find the whole shift to a partisan perspective sad. I really thought MSNBC did the best election coverage in 2000 and 2004. It's ironic that people who criticize Fox for being partisan then respond by creating an equally partisan counter-point network. What's left for those of us who don't want partisan tinted news?

[Midnight Son]

I'm alright with it. There should be an alternative to Fox.

[Gabe Lewis]

Rachel Maddow is much smarter than Olbermann. As long as its a commentary show I don't have a problem with it.

The problem with the Fox is that every show is a commentary show even when they're not supposed to be.

I'm looking forward to it, mainly because Olbermann's show bores me to tears, and its basically a partisan gotcha session. She's much more clear headed in my opinion.

[jeffd]

Rachel Maddow is an incredibly talented and intelligent political analyst. She also happens to be a liberal.

I find it hilarious how people are upset by this decision. Almost all cable political personalities are conservatives, why is it so horrible that there are OMG TWO liberals on TV now?

[Rimbo]

she is rilly rilly butch

[Jason McCullough]

Oh dear (http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_08_17_archive.html#3857158230320583740).

Your Liberal Media

3 hours of Joe Scarborough every morning and MSNBC might be "taking a foolish risk in over-committing itself to a single point of view." (http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2008/08/20/maddow-hire-speeds-msnbcs-leftward-drift?tid=true)

Your liberal media: so liberal that it cannot actually survive the presence of a single liberal.
-Atrios 13:37 (http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_08_17_archive.html#3857158230320583740)

[extarbags]

Yeah, seriously. MSNBC is a full-tilt liberal network because it's adding a second whole hour of left-perspective programming? Gosh, I shudder to think what would happen if they added a third... then they'd have as much liberal programming as they have Joe Scarborough! Onoes!

Anyway, Rachel Maddow is awesome, and I'm happy for her and at least a little excited about her new show.

[Andrew Mayer]

I'm excited to see Maddow get her own show.

She's smart, funny, thoughtful, and deserving.

It's also nice to see some programming that relates to people's actual political perspectives.

[Ryan A]

she is rilly rilly butch

Can you try not to be such an obnoxious misogynist sometime?

[bago]

He's not a misogynist. He's just rilly rilly butch.

[Rimbo]

He's not a misogynist. He's just rilly rilly butch.

He's right about one thing, though. I am incredibly obnoxious.

None of this changes the fact that this chick (like me) is very butch.

[bago]

If not being another long haired blond woman in short skirts on TV is "being butch", then I guess that qualifies. It's not like she is bald with tattoos, funny piercings and likes working on engines.

[Rimbo]

I dunno, when I went looking for photos of her online, this is what I found:
http://jmbell.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/rachel-maddow1.jpghttp://www.ewiseradiotools.com/station_files/jockitems___145_1146595701.jpghttp://upload.moldova.org/movie/actors/k/kevin_costner/thumbnails/tn2_kevin_costner_2.jpghttp://www.ewiseradiotools.com/station_files/jockitem__1124022431.jpg

Hint: One of those photos is not actually Rachel.

[Lum]

Har, har, lesbian public figure, har. Jesus, do some of you people ever leave your house? More to the point, have you actually met lesbians? (Porn does not count.)

More on topic - Dan Abrams wasn't exactly right-wing fodder himself (and I believe he started as Olbermann's producer). This isn't a massive opinion shift for that timeslot or for that network.

[Rimbo]

I didn't say she was a lesbian.

Is she?

Oh... She is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow).

I had no idea. I figured it was just a "soccer mom" haircut on a gal with boyish good looks.

[Funkula]

http://www.ewiseradiotools.com/station_files/jockitem__1124022431.jpg

That one looks like a 10th grade yearbook picture. Of a guy.

[bago]

See, that one in the grey shirt is "a bit butch". The DPW girls or the ones who put together the fucking thunderdome at burning man are "rilly rilly" butch. You need to get out more.

[Rimbo]

I need to get out more so that I can see lots more butch dykes?

[Midnight Son]

I need to get out more so that I can see lots more butch dykes?

Depending on your age it might even be time to grow up.

I've been fighting it for years!

[quatoria]

Har, har, lesbian public figure, har. Jesus, do some of you people ever leave your house? More to the point, have you actually met lesbians? (Porn does not count.)

Rimbo has no time to leave the house, what with all the situps he has to do to keep the insanity at bay, Lum. How dare you be so insensitive to his plight!

[Rimbo]

Depending on your age it might even be time to grow up.

I've been fighting it for years!

Nah.

Rimbo has no time to leave the house, what with all the situps he has to do to keep the insanity at bay, Lum. How dare you be so insensitive to his plight!

Situps? Nonsense. 99 left-armed push-ups. That plus the Sally Struthers diet.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Is the principal attribute of television personalities their attractiveness by Rimbo's standards? That explains Sean Hannity.

[foogla]

he's so dreamy~~

[jerri blank]

He's right about one thing, though. I am incredibly obnoxious.

None of this changes the fact that this chick (like me) is very butch.

So the fuck what?

[Chuck]

QT3: It's like going back to grade school.

Rachel is great. Much better looking than any of the skanks on Faux News.

[noun]

QT3: It's like going back to grade school.

No shit. I used to come here to get AWAY from the stupidity on the rest of the Internet.

[quatoria]

So the fuck what?

You didn't even pick out the real laugh line - the assertion that Rimbo is very butch.

[Dirt]

This was obvious in the primaries when Olbermann and Maddow and co., would be making snide remarks about Hillary (essentially a centrist) whilst lauding, almost worshipping Obama (a far lefty).

Holy shit, she's my age. I feel so professionally behind.

[extarbags]

Obama (a far lefty).

I wish.

[Anders Hallin]

This was obvious in the primaries when Olbermann and Maddow and co., would be making snide remarks about Hillary (essentially a centrist) whilst lauding, almost worshipping Obama (a far lefty).
What? They're essentially equal, policy-wise.

[Phil_Stein]

I think Obama was perceived, rightly or wrongly, during the primaries, as being to the left of Clinton.

Swing votes often (but not always) seemed to align behind one or the other in large part based on whether the voter in question was on the left or center/right side of the party...

[Sepiche]

I've listened to Rachel since I first heard her in the mornings on Air America radio and I always enjoyed her analysis. Like others have said she's very smart and always seems to get to the heart of issues. I've been hoping they'd give her a show since she's been on MSNBC more and more these days.

Olbermann may be biased as hell, but at least he doesn't make shit up.

[unbongwah]

So the fuck what?
It's vagina envy - just let it slide.
Much better looking than any of the skanks on Faux News.
I beg to differ (http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&q=Kiran%20Chetry&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi), though I'm a bit biased, since we went to the same high school and we're both Eurasian (or whatever the hell the PC term for us mutts is).

[wisefool]

It's vagina envy - just let it slide.

I beg to differ (http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&q=Kiran%20Chetry&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi), though I'm a bit biased, since we went to the same high school and we're both Eurasian (or whatever the hell the PC term for us mutts is).

My mixed friends just say mixed.

Sounds a lot better in English than it does in Chinese thought.

(Mixed, n. (China) ah too bad what a wholesome young man, he could have married my daughter and had beautiful children.)

[Andrew Mayer]

What's the ugliest
Part of your body?
What's the ugliest
Part of your body?
Some say your nose
Some say your toes
But I think it's
YOUR MIND

[unbongwah]

My mixed friends just say mixed.
That makes us sound like a cocktail.

[Adam B]

omg libruls halp

[Jason McCullough]

Hah, she's a Rhodes scholar. Nice.

[Rimbo]

So the fuck what?

"So what?" is the point.

It matters to me that she is butch in the same way that it matters to me that a TV station I don't receive and wouldn't watch if I did receive has changed the primary person on a show I don't and wouldn't watch from one person I don't know to another I don't know.

It's a superficial observation on a superficial news item. It belongs in this thread.

And to be clear about a few things, just so there's no confusion: (1) I don't watch or care about any other TV news network or program not named "The Daily Show" (which doesn't count because it's fake and meant to entertain, not inform) either because I think 30 minutes of talking heads and video footage selected by an editor based on what would sell the most advertising space is a poor way to learn anything, and (2) I happen to find some butch girls -- including this one -- very sexy.

But those are topics for threads that are actually about worthwhile things.

[Hugin]

Ironically she's more femmy on MSNBC than she's been previously, with longer hair and more makeup. I also think anyone calling her "really butch" has a pretty dim idea of "butch" as a concept.

Anyway, she's smart and she rocks. I'm looking forward to the new show.

[bago]

Like I said, the boy needs to get out more.

[madkevin]

It's a superficial observation on a superficial news item. It belongs in this thread.

This thread was about the perceived notion that American cable news stations can be "too liberal" because they have a whopping two people on the channel who identify as liberal. That's something to have a meaningful conversation about. It wasn't about what she fucking looks like until you came in with another one of your brilliant posts.

[extarbags]

Look, what don't you understand? This thread is about something Rimbo doesn't care about, therefore it's about something that doesn't matter, therefore it's only right that he fill it with more stuff that doesn't matter.

Or to put it as Rimbo originally planned to:

http://www.silentkimbly.com/comics/2008-08-19-Milkshake.jpg

[Ryan A]

(2) I happen to find some butch girls -- including this one -- very sexy.


See only a raging misogynist or an absolute social retard would think that saying HAY I THINK IT'S SEXY somehow covers for the idiotic gaffe they made. I'm tired of the junior high locker room attitude you (and a few other people that would fit better over at neogaf) bring to these boards -- especially to threads that don't have anything to do with the discussion of boobs HUR HUR.

[Gabe Lewis]

It's not sexist because I'm saying in a song. That's right bitch now take off your thong.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/8e5cf85a87

[jerri blank]

"So what?" is the point.

It matters to me that she is butch in the same way that it matters to me that a TV station I don't receive and wouldn't watch if I did receive has changed the primary person on a show I don't and wouldn't watch from one person I don't know to another I don't know.

It's a superficial observation on a superficial news item. It belongs in this thread.

And to be clear about a few things, just so there's no confusion: (1) I don't watch or care about any other TV news network or program not named "The Daily Show" (which doesn't count because it's fake and meant to entertain, not inform) either because I think 30 minutes of talking heads and video footage selected by an editor based on what would sell the most advertising space is a poor way to learn anything, and (2) I happen to find some butch girls -- including this one -- very sexy.

But those are topics for threads that are actually about worthwhile things.

So, to sum up:

1) Your post was pointless;

2) You don't care, so your post was pointless;

3) Your post was pointless, but even in its pointlessness it's on-topic;

4) You don't even watch cable news, so your post is pointless, but some butch chicks are sexy; and

5) This whole topic is pointless.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Rimbo]

That's something to have a meaningful conversation about.

Oh, I guess it's terribly meaningful, if your world revolves around the television and other vapid pop-culture crap. Just because such things are the focus of QT3 doesn't excuse us from keeping such things in their proper perspective.

See only a raging misogynist or an absolute social retard would think that saying HAY I THINK IT'S SEXY somehow covers for the idiotic gaffe they made. I'm tired of the junior high locker room attitude you (and a few other people that would fit better over at neogaf) bring to these boards -- especially to threads that don't have anything to do with the discussion of boobs HUR HUR.

Just because you don't have a pair doesn't mean we have to pretend we don't, man. Are you one of those folks who assumes every pretty girl has no brains? Do you date girls you don't find attractive just to show how "deep" and lacking in superficiality you are?

[madkevin]

Oh, I guess it's terribly meaningful, if your world revolves around the television and other vapid pop-culture crap. Just because such things are the focus of QT3 doesn't excuse us from keeping such things in their proper perspective.

What the fuck are you on about? The problem of the media being perceived as too liberal is "pop-culture crap"?

Look, just post your apology about how you're posting while drunk again, before you make yourself look even more retarded than usual.

[Gabe Lewis]

EDIT: Guy below me said it better

[malphigian]

Just because you don't have a pair doesn't mean we have to pretend we don't, man. Are you one of those folks who assumes every pretty girl has no brains? Do you date girls you don't find attractive just to show how "deep" and lacking in superficiality you are?

I don't want to get off on a rant here, but is it really that hard to understand?

Imagine your average mostly male web forum, one that QT3 is sometimes like. Every time there is a thread which references a woman in any way, someone, for some reason, feels they are required to chime in and comment on the appearance of that woman. Other guys follow suit, and it becomes a steady subtopic (if not the only topic) of the thread.

This is annoying not because I "don't have a pair"*, but because it's a mark of immaturity. It gives the forum a locker room feel. And, while I know I'm going to catch hell for this from someone, it does contribute to the objectification of women. I don't think this is intentional or malicious or even that big of a deal, but it does have the effect of making every thread involving a woman about her looks in one way or another.

I've no problem with the hot-or-not game in an appropriate EE thread or whatever, but it's pretty annoying when it's everywhere. I know *why* this happens, it's a perfectly natural response for a guy when they see a picture of woman to check her out and develop an opinion. I just don't think this opinion has to be shared in all cases. There's a time and a place is my point, and the time isn't everytime and that place isn't everywhere.


(*Ok, I lied, they took 'em when I went to Wesleyan)

[Sarkus]

This thread was about the perceived notion that American cable news stations can be "too liberal" because they have a whopping two people on the channel who identify as liberal. That's something to have a meaningful conversation about. It wasn't about what she fucking looks like until you came in with another one of your brilliant posts.

Actually, it's about the fact that American cable news stations are intentionally fielding partisan personalities at all. That includes Fox and their conservative bent as well as MSNBC and what appears to be a move towards a more liberal bent (and I've seen quite a few articles from various sources that have characterized this move as such, regardless of whether Scarbourough or anyone else happens to also be on MSNBC.)

And I agree that the comments about Maddows gender and sexuality shouldn't be part of that discussion, except insofar as they might influence her views. Whether she's "hot" or not is irrelevant.

[JeffL]

Huh. I thought it was pretty openly the strategy for MSNBC to become the liberal alternative to Fox. I've heard various people in various places in the media talk about MSNBC's strategy, and whether it is viable, etc. Made sense at the time.

[Ryan A]

I was wrong: Rimbo does not have a junior high attitude about masculinity, gender, and sexuality. Most junior high kids aren't as unintentionally hilarious and tend to have some clue about when to shut up.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

[I spare you the horror]

That cow has fucking had it with this bullshit.

[Robert Sharp]

I agree with Sarkus on this. Psychologists and sociologists have discovered some pretty scary things about single-minded group dynamics, which lead to more extreme positions. This is why skinheads who hang out together become more and more militant and extreme in their views than they would on their own. Groups tend toward extremes, even when their members are moderate.

So, many members of my family who watch Foxnews (that seems to be most of my family, actually) really take it seriously. They really believe that all liberals are out to ruin the country. It may as well be McCarthyism all over again. I think the same thing happens on liberal stations. I've listened to the Sirius liberal station, and to the Sirius right wing station. Both suffer from this failure of reasoning, which is what it is, in BOTH cases.

Having a liberal news station won't balance Foxnews. People won't watch both. They'll watch one or the other, creating a further imbalance and more polarization in this country, at a time when we REALLY don't need it. It's never a good thing, obviously, but with the economy we have right now and the need for solidarity both for domestic and international affairs, it's something we can't afford as a nation.

[Andrew Mayer]

Huh. I thought it was pretty openly the strategy for MSNBC to become the liberal alternative to Fox. I've heard various people in various places in the media talk about MSNBC's strategy, and whether it is viable, etc. Made sense at the time.

When MSNBC becomes a direct outlet for government generated propaganda, we can have this discussion.

Meanwhile, two commentators on the air not constantly pushing right-wing memes, deliberately distorting or lying, and/or acting as apologists for corporate interests does not a Fox news make.

[JeffL]

When MSNBC becomes a direct outlet for government generated propaganda, we can have this discussion.

Meanwhile, two commentators on the air not constantly pushing right-wing memes, deliberately distorting or lying, and/or acting as apologists for corporate interests does not a Fox news make.

Andrew, I'm curious. How much Foxnews have you watched? Not trying to be a Foxnews defender, etc. but I am interested in how you have formed your opinion of Foxnews and their total content.

[Tim James]

Rimbo may need to get out more often, but some of you guys should probably watch less cable news. :)

[bloo]

I've found Olbermann, who I used to like, nearly unwatchable lately as he has gone on a blatant anti-McCain offensive.

I find myself getting more and more annoyed at his leading questions. He can't seem to ask one of the rotating crew of reporter/commentators a simple question. It's all "could Bush have been more evil if he'd planned it, or was this just another happy accident?" and "is McCain a worse person or the worst person?"

Is anyone beside the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer actually doing news on TV these days (and even that is often stuff with punditry)?

[wisefool]

That makes us sound like a cocktail.

Well, it's very Cosmopolitan.

[Andrew Mayer]

Andrew, I'm curious. How much Foxnews have you watched? Not trying to be a Foxnews defender, etc. but I am interested in how you have formed your opinion of Foxnews and their total content.

I'm not making anecdotal chatter here.

McClellan confirmed that Fox was taking talking points directly from the White House (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/26/mcclellan-fox-talking-points/):

Chris Matthews asked former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan if he saw “FOX television as a tool” to get the White House’s “message out” while he was in the Bush administration. “Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House,” replied McClellan, adding that they were given “talking points.”

Making a distinction between journalists like Brit Hume and commentators like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, McClellan admitted that “certainly” the White House used Fox News talking heads as “spokespeople” with “a script”:

MATTHEWS: So, you wouldn’t use Brit Hume to sell stuff for them, but you’d use some of the nighttime guys?

MCCLELLAN: Yeah, I would separate that out, and certainly I, you know, they’ll say, that’s because they agree with those views in the White House.

MATTHEWS: Well, they didn’t need a script though, did they?

MCCLELLAN: No, well, probably not.

[StGabe]

Andrew, I'm curious. How much Foxnews have you watched? Not trying to be a Foxnews defender, etc. but I am interested in how you have formed your opinion of Foxnews and their total content.

Just to throw out some support there was a really interesting study a few years back which basically showed that Fox News was worse than any other news outlet for informing viewers about Iraq (link (http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf)). I.e. there is actual emprical evidence that Fox News is a poor news source (albeit 5 years old). It would be nice to see an updated study and/or one that included MSNBC (there might be such a study, but I haven't seen anything lately). Not surprisingly, the best media source was NPR followed by print media.

FWIW, I used to have to watch Fox News at a neighbors house. She was blind, elderly lady who I helped out with shopping, chores, etc., and she always had Fox News on. I never had the heart to tell her what I thought of it. I found the coverage to be pretty atrocious. The thing that stuck out to me was how much they presented fluff sorts of pieces that were basically there to feed on typical conservative insecurities and fears. It seemed tailor-made to ensure that viewer's worldviews remained as small and insular as possible.

[Tim James]

That cow has fucking had it with this bullshit.I laughed, because it reminded me of a fairly funny college football blog meme (fucking hell, my two least-favorite Internet words right in a row!!!) about Rich Brooks, Kentucky's coach.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/2735445879_9ecee15e94_m.jpg

[Inuvix]

The thing that stuck out to me was how much they presented fluff sorts of pieces that were basically there to feed on typical conservative insecurities and fears. It seemed tailor-made to ensure that viewer's worldviews remained as small and insular as possible.

The thing that sticks out to me about Qto3 P&R is how many topics that are basically there to feed on typical liberal insecurities and fears. It seems tailor-made to ensure that the reader's worldviews remain as small and insular (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=42009&highlight=election) as possible.

[Andrew Mayer]

The thing that sticks out to me about Qto3 P&R is how many topics that are basically there to feed on typical liberal insecurities and fears. It seems tailor-made to ensure that the reader's worldviews remain as small and insular (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=42009&highlight=election) as possible.

Hey! Look over there!

[Inuvix]

Hey! Look over there!


Yeah, you're right, not really on topic.

I personally don't really have a problem with MSNBC moving to the left. What I do have a problem with is when these organizations don't admit it.

[Rimbo]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/06/27/arts/28ratiings-600.jpg
^-- "Nobody gives a shit about this" expressed in graphical format.

[Gabe Lewis]

The thing that sticks out to me about Qto3 P&R is how many topics that are basically there to feed on typical liberal insecurities and fears.

I'm surprised that anyone is surprised that an internet forum, inhabited mainly by people in the entertainment industries, namely video games, is also mostly liberal.

What a shock.

Also, isn't your dismissal of those "insecurities" and "fears" exactly what makes you a conservative (I'm guessing based on your posts, feel free to dispute)? I could easily go to a conservative forum and dismiss their fears about a "big government" and "tax-and-spend" policies and make the exact same statement.

It would however be just as meaningless.

[JeffL]

I'm not making anecdotal chatter here.

McClellan confirmed that Fox was taking talking points directly from the White House (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/26/mcclellan-fox-talking-points/):

In other words, you haven't formed your opinions from watching it.

BTW, the McClellan claimed was challenged directly by several people at Fox who he claimed were taking talking points from the White House, including O'Reilly who flat out called him a liar and challenged him to provide one piece of proof, and McClellan later backed down into a much more "well, maybe, can't be sure, but it would make sense."

I ask because I really don't find blanket criticisms of a media outlet, be it the NYT, CNN, Foxnews, etc. very valid from someone who has never spent time actually watching or reading the source. And just so you don't think I'm just picking on you, I ask the same question for those who call CNN a purely liberal network that is a reliable outlet for the Democrats.

[Rimbo]

I don't want to get off on a rant here, but is it really that hard to understand?

Imagine your average mostly male web forum, one that QT3 is sometimes like. Every time there is a thread which references a woman in any way, someone, for some reason, feels they are required to chime in and comment on the appearance of that woman. Other guys follow suit, and it becomes a steady subtopic (if not the only topic) of the thread.

This is annoying not because I "don't have a pair"*, but because it's a mark of immaturity. It gives the forum a locker room feel. And, while I know I'm going to catch hell for this from someone, it does contribute to the objectification of women. I don't think this is intentional or malicious or even that big of a deal, but it does have the effect of making every thread involving a woman about her looks in one way or another.

I've no problem with the hot-or-not game in an appropriate EE thread or whatever, but it's pretty annoying when it's everywhere. I know *why* this happens, it's a perfectly natural response for a guy when they see a picture of woman to check her out and develop an opinion. I just don't think this opinion has to be shared in all cases. There's a time and a place is my point, and the time isn't everytime and that place isn't everywhere.


(*Ok, I lied, they took 'em when I went to Wesleyan)


My comments were specifically direct at Ryan A, because he and I have already had this conversation, and Ryan A made it clear that "Oh, I don't see the body, I see the woman behind them" is how he makes himself feel superior to others -- blissfully unaware of the irony in such an attitude -- and as such isn't interested in discussing the matter intelligently. I tried the intelligent approach with him already, and he's not interested in hearing it.

As for blaring my comments in this thread, it was appropriate for any discussion about who some barely-watched cable news network hires to read off a TelePrompTer two or three heavily edited market-tested sentences about Robert Downey Jr's most recent stumble off the wagon.

[JeffL]

Just to throw out some support there was a really interesting study a few years back which basically showed that Fox News was worse than any other news outlet for informing viewers about Iraq (link (http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf)). I.e. there is actual emprical evidence that Fox News is a poor news source (albeit 5 years old). It would be nice to see an updated study and/or one that included MSNBC (there might be such a study, but I haven't seen anything lately). Not surprisingly, the best media source was NPR followed by print media.

FWIW, I used to have to watch Fox News at a neighbors house. She was blind, elderly lady who I helped out with shopping, chores, etc., and she always had Fox News on. I never had the heart to tell her what I thought of it. I found the coverage to be pretty atrocious. The thing that stuck out to me was how much they presented fluff sorts of pieces that were basically there to feed on typical conservative insecurities and fears. It seemed tailor-made to ensure that viewer's worldviews remained as small and insular as possible.

I don't watch many of the commentary shows, though I do watch an occassional O'Reilly if the guest is interesting, but I do Tivo the Fox News at 6 and watch it pretty regularly. I do the same with other networks (yeah, I'm a junkie.) It is interesting to watch CNN news and Fox News for the same day back to back. I actually think Fox provided better balance and coverage of the Dem primary than CNN. No doubt that it is a conservative network, but (speaking just for the news hour) I don't see it as National Enquirer type tabloid.

[Ryan A]

My comments were specifically direct at Ryan A, because he and I have already had this conversation, and Ryan A made it clear that "Oh, I don't see the body, I see the woman behind them" is how he makes himself feel superior to others -- blissfully unaware of the irony in such an attitude -- and as such isn't interested in discussing the matter intelligently. I tried the intelligent approach with him already, and he's not interested in hearing it.

As for blaring my comments in this thread, it was appropriate for any discussion about who some barely-watched cable news network hires to read off a TelePrompTer two or three heavily edited market-tested sentences about Robert Downey Jr's most recent stumble off the wagon.

Rimbo's off his meds again. Does anybody else here see a way to paraphrase this message into "I don't see the body"?

The crap you're pulling the SC4 thread really makes me want to flame the hell out of you for dragging the level of discourse here down to neoGAF levels, but I remembered that you seem like a decent guy when you don't think you have an audience (people are laughing at you, not with you). So I'm hoping this abrasively worded PM will cause your better judgement to intervene and edit out your ridiculous posts... you're hetero, we get it... you don't need to be such an overcompensating 13 year old about teh boobies on a forum frequented by professionals and women.

Thanks,

Ryan

[unbongwah]

My favorite little anecdote about how Fox News massages their coverage (in this case of Iraq) was when John Moody - then senior vice president for news - directed staffers to call Marine snipers "sharpshooters" rather than "snipers" because of the "negative connotations" of the latter. Only trouble is the Marine snipers took a bit of umbrage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58618-2004Jul17.html): they want to be called snipers because they earned the designation the hard way, thanks.

It's a small example of the subtle and not-so-subtle ways they choose to present the news in a particular light.

[Ryan A]

Isn't it all a chicken-and-egg debate though? It seems that the hard core partisans are going to choose the news shows that appeal to their bias while the much coveted (and possibly apocryphal?) swing-voting moderates watch Oprah and read USA Today to find out what to think.

[Inuvix]

I'm surprised that anyone is surprised that an internet forum, inhabited mainly by people in the entertainment industries, namely video games, is also mostly liberal.

What a shock.

Also, isn't your dismissal of those "insecurities" and "fears" exactly what makes you a conservative (I'm guessing based on your posts, feel free to dispute)? I could easily go to a conservative forum and dismiss their fears about a "big government" and "tax-and-spend" policies and make the exact same statement.

It would however be just as meaningless.

Yeah, it's not really surprising to me that people flock to forums/newscasts which support their predispositions and biases. I think it's human nature. My point was simply to illustrate that StGabe is partakes in these "insular and small" forums just as the blind, elderly lady choose to partake in "insular and small" Fox News.

MSNBC is moving towards a more "insular and small" viewpoint. Whether that is a good thing or not probably depends upon whether or not you agree with their biases.

[Andrew Mayer]

MSNBC is moving towards a more "insular and small" viewpoint. Whether that is a good thing or not probably depends upon whether or not you agree with their biases.

Putting on a few hours of programming from a different point of view that is currently unrepresented on cable news is the opposite of insular.


I personally don't really have a problem with MSNBC moving to the left. What I do have a problem with is when these organizations don't admit it.

I'm thinking the tagline "Fair and Balanced" might be appropriate.

In other words, you haven't formed your opinions from watching it.

Of course I've watched it.

I ask because I really don't find blanket criticisms of a media outlet, be it the NYT, CNN, Foxnews, etc. very valid from someone who has never spent time actually watching or reading the source. And just so you don't think I'm just picking on you, I ask the same question for those who call CNN a purely liberal network that is a reliable outlet for the Democrats.

I don't necessarily agree with your criteria.

It's about accountability and openness. Fox has neither.
CNN is a mess as well.

[madkevin]

Rimbo's off his meds again. Does anybody else here see a way to paraphrase this message into "I don't see the body"?

I'm trying to figure out how to tell when Rimbo is intelligently discussing something. Is it when he posts pictures of graphs instead of panels of terrible webcomics?

[Gabe Lewis]

People don't come here because they know everyone agrees with them. Thats just nonsense. Nobody decided to join Qt3 because the political discussion was left-leaning.

It's left leaning because of the nature of the industry that this forum revolves around. I don't really see anybody here shying away from conflicting view points. They get dismissed usually when they are uninformed or "drive-by" statements that Dirt and Bob Cherub are so fond of.

I'd personally love to see news that doesn't revolve around the need for advertising dollars on television. Thats why I listen to NPR and read newspapers.

On the topic of MSNBC, they just do whatever they think is going to make them money. They think Keith Olbermann makes them money, so they'd like to put up someone whose kinda like Keith Olbermann.

Tucker is a good example of what I mean. "Tucker" wasn't canceled because it was right-wing and the network wanted to be more left-wing. It was canceled because "Tucker" is a moronic, shrill twat who couldn't charm a sedated cat into sleeping on his lap. Also listening to him talk reminds everybody of at least one word that rhymes with Tucker*.

*It's fucker.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I'm trying to figure out how to tell when Rimbo is intelligently discussing something.

What a coincidence, I'm trying to figure out a way to install a thermometer in hell.

[Tim James]

Also, isn't your dismissal of those "insecurities" and "fears" exactly what makes you a conservative (I'm guessing based on your posts, feel free to dispute)? I could easily go to a conservative forum and dismiss their fears about a "big government" and "tax-and-spend" policies and make the exact same statement.Actually it is kind of funny for me because although I've never been one to debate politics online until recently, one forum I read consistently is a bunch of Republican shills and it's funny how each group reacts to the same news. Expected, normal, and perfectly okay, but still hilarious.

I can't stand most of either viewpoint and tribe, nor do I watch cable news, so pretty much everyone hates me.

Except UncleSmoothie.

[dashingly]

O'Reilly who flat out called him a liar and challenged him to provide one piece of proofIn other words, what Mcclellan said is almost certainly true. Got it.

[Fooey]

I'm surprised that anyone is surprised that an internet forum, inhabited mainly by people in the entertainment industries, namely video games, is also mostly liberal.

What a shock.


Why would I have any expectation about the average political views of people in the games industry? Do you have some data to back up your assertion that they are particularly left wing?

[Sarkus]

Meanwhile, two commentators on the air not constantly pushing right-wing memes, deliberately distorting or lying, and/or acting as apologists for corporate interests does not a Fox news make.

While Fox news has a conservative editorial bent, it's not as if all it's hosts are O'Reilly's. Even Hannity is offset, to a degree, by Holmes.

So while you can point to Scarbourough and others on MSNBC as "proof" that they aren't going liberal, I could just as easily ask you what other Fox personalities are so blatantly conservative that we should discount it's total credibility.

I'll list the show hosts (others than those already mentioned) that actually get ratings so you can tell me:

Greta Van Susteren
Shepard Smith
Neil Cavuto
Brit Hume

While you might be able to make an argument on Smith, the others are pretty tame in partisan terms.

[Tim James]

Why would I have any expectation about the average political views of people in the games industry? Do you have some data to back up your assertion that they are particularly left wing?I hope someone who knows this field more than I do can come up with a good joke about a communism scare in the games industry during the mid 80s.

[Matthew Gallant]

Do you have some data to back up your assertion that they are particularly left wing?
Yes, what evidence do you have that young, educated people who live in San Francisco, L.A., Seattle, or Austin would have liberal tendencies?

[Gabe Lewis]

Well theres this: http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=42009&highlight=election

Not hard data obviously, but I'm not sure any studies have been done about this particular issue.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3166275

This article would suggest just the opposite, although there are quite a few CEO's, who tend to have different political views than their underlings. Also lots or Ron Paulites, which belong in their own category. Again not hard data.

So all I can do is generalize, but I think I'm correct that nerd culture is a liberal community or at least a libertarian (lowercase) community. Every nerd has had their favorite nerd item black-listed by some reactionary.

I didn't see any liberal blogs complaining about "virtual rape simulations" in Mass Effect.

[Tim James]

Yes, what evidence do you have that young, educated people who live in San Francisco, L.A., Seattle, or Austin would have liberal tendencies?When I first started reading QT3 and noticed the bias (not like I care or that anyone else cares what I think), I had to chuckle when I scrolled down the page and every other "Location:" said Seattle. :)
So all I can do is generalize, but I think I'm correct that nerd culture is a liberal community or at least a libertarian (lowercase) community. Every nerd has had their favorite nerd item black-listed by some reactionary.Don't know if this has been discussed before, but this has been my perception. (Gross generalization follows.) I blame it on either thinking you know better than the "stupid" plebes (liberal) or loving the mathematical construct of libertarianism that really hasn't been tried in 150 years.

[Lum]

I'll list the show hosts (others than those already mentioned) that actually get ratings so you can tell me:

Greta Van Susteren
Shepard Smith
Neil Cavuto
Brit Hume

While you might be able to make an argument on Smith, the others are pretty tame in partisan terms.

Van Susteren is a crime/Hollywood reporter, Cavuto is a business reporter, and Brit Hume is far more partisan than Shepard Smith (he left ABC for Fox because it wasn't right wing enough for him).

also, Greta Van Susteren is a Scientologist, which disqualifies me from taking her seriously.

[Fooey]

Yes, what evidence do you have that young, educated people who live in San Francisco, L.A., Seattle, or Austin would have liberal tendencies?

I work with a lot of highly educated young people in New York City. I don't know of a single one of them who supports Obama. So I guess all young educated people in New York are Republicans?

[dashingly]

I work with a lot of highly educated young people in New York City. I don't know of a single one of them who supports Obama. So I guess all young educated people in New York are Republicans?Or all that you encounter.

[Fooey]

Well theres this: http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=42009&highlight=election

Not hard data obviously, but I'm not sure any studies have been done about this particular issue.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3166275

This article would suggest just the opposite, although there are quite a few CEO's, who tend to have different political views than their underlings. Also lots or Ron Paulites, which belong in their own category. Again not hard data.

So all I can do is generalize, but I think I'm correct that nerd culture is a liberal community or at least a libertarian (lowercase) community. Every nerd has had their favorite nerd item black-listed by some reactionary.

I didn't see any liberal blogs complaining about "virtual rape simulations" in Mass Effect.

Something like a hundred people posted on that poll out of how many thousand QT3 users. And it's not like the P&R ghetto is overrun by the site's game developers.

[Ryan A]

I work with a lot of highly educated young people in New York City. I don't know of a single one of them who supports Obama. So I guess all young educated people in New York are Republicans?

Maybe you just work at a company full of mormons?

[Fooey]

Or all that you encounter.

Uh, I think you may have just had my point fly right over your head. A handful of game industry people on an internet forum express liberal opinions. So that means that the games industry is overwhelmingly staffed by people who are liberal in political orientation?

[antlers]

Maybe you just work at a company full of mormons?

Or investment bankers...

[Gabe Lewis]

I guess you missed the part where I acknowledged the lack of hard data. I work at EA in Los Angeles and have met 2 Republicans, 1 Libertarian and about 100 Liberals/Democrats and another 50-60 people who just don't care.

Theres no way to "prove" this argument one way or the other. No studies, as far as I know, have been done on people in game industry specifically. All I can do is make assumptions based on extrapolations; the major seats of the games industry are in Democratic states where the majority is Democrats and liberal independents, it's likely that the people who work in these cities reflect the opinions of the populace. Especially when you take into account the average ages of people in that industry, and how that age group tends to vote.

You haven't given me anything more solid than that to tell me I;m wrong. All you've told me is that I'm wrong.

Also am I wrong in generalizing that the Entertainment Industries have been predominantly liberal groups? If I'm wrong I'd at least like to hear why you think that is.

[Tim James]

Also am I wrong in generalizing that the Entertainment Industries have been predominantly liberal groups? If I'm wrong I'd at least like to hear why you think that is.I think Mel Gibson made a couple movies one time that appealed to fundamentalist hicks.

Oh, and those Left Behind cult books.

[Lum]

Something like a hundred people posted on that poll out of how many thousand QT3 users. And it's not like the P&R ghetto is overrun by the site's game developers.

Many of the most active P&R ghetto participants are game developers.

[Ranulf]

Like Gabe my general impression of most gaming forums is that they lean liberal or left or whatever. Some of the attitudes I just don't get in terms of the "nerd perspective". You've been shit on a lot in your life for being a nerd and yet you buy into a lot of the politics of the left? Or the politics of the right? As well as the chivalry variants both sides spew forth as righteous? Both Fox and CNN/MSNBC piss me off, the latter usually more though.

[Inuvix]

Although I would agree that gamers tend to tilt to the left (because they tend to be younger, and nerdier), there is no way that it even approaches the 9:1 ratio that the Qt3 poll demonstrates here.

I bet there are a bunch of conservatives in the games forums who just won't post in P&R because of the flames that rain down on them when they post their opinion.

[Gabe Lewis]

Well, I obviously don't buy into the attitudes towards censorship prominent in the democratic party, because I like subversive art, comics, music, and video games.

But I think when you've had conservative parents or media telling you the things you like are ruining our culture you're probably going to take the rest of what they say with a grain of salt.

Perhaps it inspires more independence than it does leftist or conservative political views. But I perceive the Right-Wing in our country to have an active dislike directed at my particular hobbies. The left is involved, but generally it's folks like Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman, and they can suck one.

[JeffL]

Gotta go find it again, maybe someone else has the link saved, but there was a fascinating study done a few years ago, I believe it was published by Stamford. The results weren't very surprising - the summary was that almost everyone believed that a news source that presented the news with the slant that matched their view believed that the news was fair and unbiased, and that it took an extremely large move in their own political direction and very little move in the other direction for it to be seen as biased in any way. I.e. - a very liberal person will view any news/media that presents the news with a liberal slant as being fair and unbiased (and obviously the same for the conservative analog.) Basically because they don't see their bias as bias - they see it as truth. They saw no differences in this behavior between conservatives and liberals.

[Tim James]

But I perceive the Right-Wing in our country to have an active dislike my particular hobbies.Jeez, and people criticize me for using guns as a litmus test** when it's really a non-issue these days. Has subversive entertainment been a political topic in the last 2 or 3 decades?

I think I am too young to understand the fear of the conservative right-wing fundamentalist hicks rising up again.

** If you're curious, this quote might be why:

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."
-- Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp (TX)

Of course they all think the latter, but the quote is really nice, coming from someone who ought to know.

[Gabe Lewis]

That study jeff mentioned reminds me of a Patton Oswalt bit,

"Science: we're all about coulda, not shoulda."

[Fooey]

But I perceive the Right-Wing in our country to have an active dislike directed at my particular hobbies. The left is involved, but generally it's folks like Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman, and they can suck one.

I really think you're extrapolating your dislike of the right into a perceived bias by the right broadly against gaming that just doesn't exist. There are people on both sides of the aisle who want to play nanny state and tell other people what to do, and Hillary and Lieberman on your side are very far from being isolated examples (just for one other huge example, have people already forgotten Tipper Gore, with full backing from Al that included heading Congressional hearings at which he got smacked down by Dee Snider, leading a music censoring crusade?).

[StGabe]

I agree that it's a bit unfair to pin anti-video game bias in politics on conservatives. One of my many beefs with Hillary was that I thought she had a particularly poor understanding of the issue of violence in video games. If I recall correctly, even Obama has made some comments that aren't exactly positive.

That said, put me down for confirming that the game developers I know skew to the left. There are a lot of possible reasons for that. Generally game developers are intelligent, well-educated and live in larger metropolitan areas on the coast or Austin. Studies tend to show that intelligence correlates with areligiosity (which has a negative correlation to conservativism), college education correlates with liberalism and coastal metropolitans (and even Austin to an extent) correlate with liberalism.

In the interest of full disclosure, game developers I've met also tend to skew towards libertarianism more than the average.

[Sidd_Budd]

Studies tend to show that intelligence correlates with areligiosity (which has a negative correlation to conservativism), college education correlates with liberalism and coastal metropolitans (and even Austin to an extent) correlate with liberalism.
I don't know enough game developers to form an opinion on their political views, but I'm pretty sure we've covered the "demographic variable X correlates with liberalism" thing here in the past. If I remember correctly, it's not as simple as college education correlates with liberalism. I think it's a U-shape. Folks with no college and folks with graduate or professional degrees tend to be liberal. Folks in the middle -- associates and bachelors degrees -- tend to be conservative.

Pretty sure you are correct on the other two points, though -- people in metro areas tend to be liberal, and people testing higher on IQ tests are more likely to be atheist or agnostic.

[Gabe Lewis]

I really think you're extrapolating your dislike of the right into a perceived bias by the right broadly against gaming that just doesn't exist. There are people on both sides of the aisle who want to play nanny state and tell other people what to do, and Hillary and Lieberman on your side are very far from being isolated examples (just for one other huge example, have people already forgotten Tipper Gore, with full backing from Al that included heading Congressional hearings at which he got smacked down by Dee Snider, leading a music censoring crusade?).

I remember that, but he's long since moved on, seeing that its a losing battle, just as Hillary basically has. And people are right when they say this really isn't a big issue these days, but I think the neoconservative movement (see: conservatives with power) are pretty open about their love of censorship. True conservatives and true liberals alike think censorship is usually a heaping pile of bullshit.

So I'm going to go ahead and back off that statement, because it has very little to do with my initial point that you should not be surprised if a gaming related forum has a liberal bent, which incidentally really has very little to do with this thread.

[StGabe]

I don't know enough game developers to form an opinion on their political views, but I'm pretty sure we've covered the "demographic variable X correlates with liberalism" thing here in the past. If I remember correctly, it's not as simple as college education correlates with liberalism. I think it's a U-shape.

I'm pretty certain that it's been well-demonstrated that receiving a bachelor's degree correlates well with liberalism. I know the relationship between IQ and voting patterns doesn't have as clear a picture (and is particularly muddied by a hoax analysis that the Economist published back in 2004 and later retracted).

For example this (http://www.ontheissues.org/AskMe/Education_vs_voting.htm) seems fairly sound.

P.S. it would be pretty odd if education/intelligence correlated to areligiosity, areligiosity correlated to liberalism, and yet education/intelligence did not correlate to liberalism.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I work with a lot of highly educated young people in New York City. I don't know of a single one of them who supports Obama. So I guess all young educated people in New York are Republicans?

That's nothing. I advise a group of College Republicans, and every single one of them agrees that if Obama is elected, his government will be an Islamic jihad against America, and it will then be our patriotic duty to take up arms for Christ.

Some of you who are bigoted against conservatism and its values may unkindly suppose that there is a uniform and unflattering consensus among these College Republicans about everything, like their pick for President. But that's not the case. There is much wistful talk about a Wallace/Thurmond ticket, but with both of them dead, there is a distinct split between promoters of Tancredo and adherents of Buchanan. Some people even say Mitt Romney is the one.

But on Obama, all are agreed: anyone but him. Anyone but a terrorist. Anything but a fist-bump that bumps the country into Share Ya law. It's a rising tide that will see the country saved. Unless you think all College Republicans are Republicans.

[Inuvix]

And people are right when they say this really isn't a big issue these days, but I think the neoconservative movement (see: conservatives with power) are pretty open about their love of censorship.

I would agree that conservatives probably lead the charge against "obscene" related free speech, but liberals are behind the push to ban "hate" free speech. I wouldn't be so quick to brand "neoconservatives" as censorship lovers. Just ask Mark Steyn (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7273870.stm).

I'm pretty certain that it's been well-demonstrated that receiving a bachelor's degree correlates well with liberalism.

No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states)

[Matthew Gallant]

I work with a lot of highly educated young people in New York City. I don't know of a single one of them who supports Obama. So I guess all young educated people in New York are Republicans?
Not supporting Obama doesn't make you a Republican.

I'm guessing that you leaving out who they do actually support means that answer would be "Ron Paul". Which would mean they're liberal in a crazy, "what's a robber baron, all I know is that if my taxes were $200 less a month I could buy a lot of weed" and "hmm, maybe the free market really can prevent racism" sort of way.

That or they like Giuliani. A little hometown boostering.

[JeffL]

I'm pretty certain that it's been well-demonstrated that receiving a bachelor's degree correlates well with liberalism. I know the relationship between IQ and voting patterns doesn't have as clear a picture (and is particularly muddied by a hoax analysis that the Economist published back in 2004 and later retracted).

For example this (http://www.ontheissues.org/AskMe/Education_vs_voting.htm) seems fairly sound.

P.S. it would be pretty odd if education/intelligence correlated to areligiosity, areligiosity correlated to liberalism, and yet education/intelligence did not correlate to liberalism.

There must be other factors, because I have worked in areas for 25 years where almost everyone in the building (talking hundreds of people) is a Ph.D., with a scattering of M.S. and B.S. degree people, and I'd guess it was about 75% conservative, 25% liberal. And that is in multiple geographic locations, and across 4 companies.

So perhaps there are other factors. For example, I've also worked closely with university faculty my entire career, and I'd guess that they were split about 90% liberal, 10% conservative. Other potential factors: almost all of the people I have worked with in my companies are in various forms of the sciences. I'd suspect that the numbers would be very different if the Ph.D.s were all in liberal arts.

[JeffL]

Not supporting Obama doesn't make you a Republican.


True - ask all the blue collar Democrats who overwhelmingly voted against Obama. There are large numbers (as we saw in the primaries) of racist Democrats.

[antlers]

So perhaps there are other factors. For example, I've also worked closely with university faculty my entire career, and I'd guess that they were split about 90% liberal, 10% conservative. Other potential factors: almost all of the people I have worked with in my companies are in various forms of the sciences. I'd suspect that the numbers would be very different if the Ph.D.s were all in liberal arts.

Various polls (which I am too lazy to dig up) suggest that Ph.D's in the physical sciences are statistically just as liberal as Ph.D's in liberal arts. I imagine there would be some industries where more conservatives concentrate, though.

[JeffL]

Various polls (which I am too lazy to dig up) suggest that Ph.D's in the physical sciences are statistically just as liberal as Ph.D's in liberal arts. I imagine there would be some industries where more conservatives concentrate, though.

You know, I always see people bring that up, that polls show things like that, but then I've worked in various industries over my career and never see it. I guess my feelings about that would be the same as the people here who work in the gaming industry if someone said studies and polls show that people who work in the computer gaming software business are predominantly conservative.

[Andrew Mayer]

There were a lot more hardcore conservatives when I started out in the industry in the early nineties.

Since then I've seen fewer and fewer of the frothing winger types in production. Anectdotally, a number of the ones I knew self-destructed when they decided that they knew how to do it "right" no matter what management wanted. The other issue is that they tend to work outside of the major development hubs, and there are only so many game companies in Virginia and Texas (minus Austin).

There's plenty of libertarians however, of every flavor.

[JeffL]

There were a lot more hardcore conservatives when I started out in the industry in the early nineties.

Since then I've seen fewer and fewer of the frothing winger types in production. Anectdotally, a number of the ones I knew self-destructed when they decided that they knew how to do it "right" no matter what management wanted. The other issue is that they tend to work outside of the major development hubs, and there are only so many game companies in Virginia and Texas (minus Austin).

There's plenty of libertarians however, of every flavor.

The latter is a good point. Many of the people to whom I am referring as conservatives are not necessarily hard core Republicans, in fact many of them are pretty unhappy with the Republican party. And when I say conservative, I'm not saying hard core right wing. Just as when I say liberal, I'm not saying hard core left wing.

[bago]

My sample size might be biased, as I am a Seattle burner in San francisco , but even among the biz guys there is a bush hangover. I l know ex-NSA guys, ex-Eli guys who are all about not sending kids to die for mccains war jones

[StGabe]

No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states)

You just supported my argument. Both Nader and Kerry's did better among those those with a Bachelor Degree and those with some graduate study than with those who just have a HS degree. The difference is particularly clear among those with a graduate degree.

Also, you didn't really challenge the validity of the link I posted which says all the same things, more strongly, and seems to be based on very sound data (Census data, arguably a lot more comprehensive than exit polling).

There must be other factors, because I have worked in areas for 25 years where almost everyone in the building (talking hundreds of people) is a Ph.D., with a scattering of M.S. and B.S. degree people, and I'd guess it was about 75% conservative, 25% liberal. And that is in multiple geographic locations, and across 4 companies.

Statistics are just statistics and it's obviously possible to have clusters of those who defy them. That said, I think the numbers get the most clear as you start to talk about those with graduate degrees.

To counter your anecdotal evidence with my own, when I was a graduate student (in the conservative midwest) the vast majority of graduate students I knew were liberal with some libertarians and very few Republicans. The green had a really big following. I knew mostly people studying computer science, mathematics, chemistry and music.

[Sidd_Budd]

Also, you didn't really challenge the validity of the link I posted which says all the same things, more strongly, and seems to be based on very sound data (Census data, arguably a lot more comprehensive than exit polling).
Here's a couple of problems with the analysis of the link you provided:

1) It investigates the relation between the average educational attainment of state residents and the presidential votes for that state. That's a different question from what we're discussing here, which is the relation of an individual person's political preference and his or her educational level. The questions are related, but not identical. For example, if people with a given level of education are much more or less likely to vote, that will bias the analysis you provided.

2) The level of analysis is the state, not the person. Each state is counted as one data point, whether there were 3 thousand or 3 million voters. We were discussing the relation of the average person's education with his or her ideology. For the analysis to be more relevant to our interests, it should have been weighted by the number of voters in each state.

3) The analysis uses multiple data samples - some from 2000, some from 2003 . That introduces problems, relative to a single dataset. In addition, the measures of educational attainment are different between the two samples. In some cases, it's the proportion of people with a given level of education. In other cases, it's the proportion of people with a given level of education or more.

The or more is a problem, because people with graduate & professional degrees skew liberal. The analysis you cite effectively double & triple counts the highly educated, because all the Ph.D.'s are included in both the "high school or more" and the "Bachelor's or more" analyses. You won't see the U-shape I predict with that non-independent sample bias. You have to examine non-overlapping groups. For example, you could examine state proportions of a) a high school degree or less, b) some college to a bachelor's degree, and c) some graduate/professional school or above. The analysis you provide doesn't do that, mainly because it relies on multiple samples collected different ways.

4) The analysis uses correlational analysis with proportional data (percentages of voters). Proportional data usually violate the multivariate normal distribution required for accurate correlational statistics. The author should have transformed the data.

Another source of data is exit polls. Exit polls from both 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html) and 2000 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html) show the U-shape I mentioned earlier. Specifically, people with moderate levels of education (some college and college graduates) were the groups with the lowest percentage of votes for the democratic candidate in both elections. People at the highest & lowest educational levels reported more support.

The exit polls I provided don't suffer from the limitations 1 through 3, above. I'm not doing any statistical analysis, so 4 doesn't apply. The biggest disadvantage of exit polls is that people may lie about either their educational attainment or their vote. In the analysis StGabe cited, people could have lied about educational attainment on their census questionnaires, but the presidential votes are actual numbers, not self-report.

I think the exit polls, as individual-level data, are a better proxy for what we're interested in, compared to the state-wide analysis StGabe provided. What we really need is a political scientist or sociologist, and I bet there's lurkers here. Provide some academic references!

[StGabe]

I think you're right, even though it confounds my expectations. :-P Certainly the problems you cite with the data I method are valid and I actually misread part of the Wikipedia data (looking at college grads instead of people who stopped with a Bachelor's).

I still want to find some more data. However to put one more correlation in for game developers and liberalism: game developers tend to be younger, and youth tends to correlate with liberalism.