Untitled Essay, Research Paper

Innocence

In the nation Katha Pollitt argues in her article “Kissing & Telling”

that the media is against liberals, and or her views. Allan Levite in his

article for the National review, “Bias Basics,” Levite argues that the medial

is biased against conservatives. Both authors present arguments with

deficiencies. They both have motives to be biased. One of them has to be

right, but using the proof the two authors sight you could not tell which

one. The two columnists each write biased columns that do not prove their

points well.

In Pollitt’s argument she says that the media ignores the real issue.

Which is a male harassing a female. She says that the media ignores the other

cases of more serious offenses dealing with the same subject. She sights

two other cases that she would have us believe are more commonplace than

incredibly stupid elementary school kids. Her first example is the case dealing

with the sixth grader who received death threats does not even clearly state

what kind of hate was involved. It could have been sexual harassment, or

it could have been because she carried Spam around on her forehead. She only

names two cases as her examples. So in her magical “evil people bash feminism

land” her argument is just as common as what she is complaining about, or

maybe less common. No one is trying to bash feminism. This was not planned

out to happen. (I hope)

Also, kids in elementary school always are not thinking about getting their

secretaries to have sex with them for raises. Personally, I think kids are

stupid. Even I was a stupid kid. When I was in third grade a guy, Tommy,

bit my ear. Because he bit my ear I have not become accustomed to Sado Masochist

gay sex dealing around ear biting. Tommy has not been going around biting

people’s ears and getting turned on by this. He now cleans pools for

a living. I doubt either of us cared at the time. Although I remember some

crying. People who pee in their pants in grade school usually do not pee

in their pants when they are grown up to be heads of the country. We would

know about it if they did. Many children form weird attractions to doing

many things when they are small. I used to think Bon Jovi was the coolest

band ever. Now I laugh at my obvious immaturity, because I do not believe

that anymore. Kids have no idea what the hell they are doing they’re

“dumb” and “cute.” (And getting more sexual activity than me and those bastards

can’t even multiply)

Even Pollitt justifies my argument of the kid does not know what the hell

he is doing. “De’ Andre’s whole family was famous, until they stopped

returning reporters’ calls after he punched and bit a teacher.” The

kid probably will not grow up, and go around biting and punching teachers.

Pollitt also tries to argue the point when she asks “And how can we raise

children to respect another’s limits at 13– and– 30 if we think it’s

cute when we do not.” She compares what the kids did to “sexual aggression

and violence.” This is a little bit strong comparison for a bunch of kids

who probably have wet their bed’s recently. They do not exactly have

secretaries to bribe with raises yet, or wives to beat. When I think of violence

the first thing that comes to my mind is tearing one button from a skirt.

(Really) I do not think these kids are anyway dealing with anything but their

own ignorance. Charge them with stupidity or immaturity. Come on, these kids

are not even old enough to laugh in health class everytime someone says the

word “penis.”

Another completely bogus thing that Pollitt suggest is if John Leo, who wrote

the column on if he would have though it was so cute if the boys had kissed

other boys. Would the principal have thought that it was sexual harassment

and suspended them in the first place? I doubt it.

It would appear also that because of Pollitt’s past history she does

hold some anger towards people who mess with others when they are children.

She does not appear to be too much a centrist when it comes to punishment

of kids mistreating others. In fact, she probably holds some deep psychological

grudge against kids who annoy others. Maybe to get back at the ones who annoyed

and mistreated her she decided to write this column thinking that Johnathan

and De’ Andre are just like the ones who angered her. This is the first

reason for bias. There is probably a really good reason why this article

is in a magazine that is so left winged it is probably communist.

Levite’s using the most incredibly dense, and stupid idea I have seen

in quite a while. To decide whether the media is liberally or conservatively

biased he uses a keyword search. Putting words into a keyword search is by

no stretch of the imagination reliable for anything. Example: If I type “free

porn” into the Internet search, InfoseekÒÓÔ I get some

crap against child pornography, some Palmala Anderson non porn stuff, some

crap on pay me some money “free” service, and actually only one real “Free

Porn” site. Keyword searches take two words and find them anywhere in the

document. If I said, “I can see out over the airplane’s wing and on

the right side I see a bird,” according to his search I am a pinko commie

liberal bastard. A better example of keyword searches: I put the words ultra

left and right wings into the searches. Right wing gives me information on

cults. Left wing gives me information on flying. Consider Waco, and Montana

cults and militias. That was front page news every day, and I do not seem

to know of any left wing cults. Probably because using a true Democrat a

left wing cult cannot exist unless it happens to be a separate country. (See

Aaron Burr) The fact that Levite did not actually check to see what ever

the articles are on, or he just neglected to mention what they were about.

If he did not mention them, might it be because it might hurt his argument

so he left that subject out? If he did not even check the articles, why?

Does he have an actual life? Or do his statistics prove what he wants to

say so he decides why go any further?

I also wonder how he decided upon what terms were considered offensive to

each party. Some terms considered to describe the right wing consist of

everything from white supremacist rich capitalist to Nazi. Many of the

psychotically dangerous right wing people I know skip the talk of “ultra

liberal” and “liberal attack,” and go straight to “you pinko commie bastard”

or the ever popular and multi-useful derogatory comment, “fag.” As other

essay’s discussed in class columnist can use the terminology more often

than others, but there is still the same amount of columns biased on both

sides. This is also effected by other factors, such as editors who value

comic strips more than columnist etc.

The methods used by Levite are not sufficient proof of the claim he does

so well to argue in the first paragraph. He uses data that is based on the

actual amount of reporters and editors who are liberal and conservative from

the Los Angeles Times, and The Media Elite. If he would have used more data

like the ones he used in the first paragraph then there would be no way to

actually argue his entire essay. The first paragraph of the essay goes to

prove his point beautifully. Damn shame the other three pages are completely

useless because of the data he uses. (unless you run out of toilet paper)

Quite possibly Levite’s data could be read by a left wing supporting

columnist and turned around in his face with a look into the actual articles

Levite uses in his search.

If you plan on showing how something such as the media is biased then the

one collecting the research should not be biased in the first place. Biased

researchers look for what they are trying to prove instead of the whole truth,

and might disregard something that does not prove their point. My suggestion

is to get someone who hates both sides and will try to ruin them both.