Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Media Bias

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Or, perhaps, the right dislikes any suggestion that their favorite news sources are biased, and the left is more willing to look at it?
    No, it's the other way around. This web site is a prime example of packs of leftists who refuse to acknowledge the left wing bias of particular institutions. lao tzu once tried to argue media matters was not a progressive outlet... even though they explicitly identified themselves as such. It's completely bonkers.

    Conversely, right wingers here happily acknowledge fox or breitbart lean right (heavily in the case of the latter)
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      I'm curious, why do you think that would be the case? Do you think that the Left are generally more open minded, and less biased in general?
      Note how after claiming there is no liberal bias became an indefensible position many on the left started declaring how "reality has a liberal bias" in order to now justify their slant.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Note how after claiming there is no liberal bias became an indefensible position many on the left started declaring how "reality has a liberal bias" in order to now justify their slant.
        That started out as a joke by Stephen Colbert, but then liberals mistook it for a legitimate argument.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          I'm curious, why do you think that would be the case? Do you think that the Left are generally more open minded, and less biased in general?
          Less biased, no. More open to new ideas/challenges, yes.

          That is pretty much the very definition of "conservative" and "liberal/progressive," right? In general, conservative is slow to change, and resistant to new ideas/directions. Progressive/liberal is more open to new ideas/directions. Sometimes, the openness is too broad - resulting in a "change for change's sake" phenomenon. That's the "dark side" of progessivism/liberalism. Likewise, sometimes conservativism is too stuck in the "golden days" and resistant to any form of change.

          In an ideal world, when there is interaction/debate between the two sides, they serve as effective checks on one another. Progresssives/liberals are the agents for change; conservatives are the agents resisting change for change's sake. We're not in an ideal world anymore. The two sides have polarized to a point where they see one another as enemies that need to be "overcome," rather than balancers that provide for a more rational way to move forward.

          That's how I tend to see it.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            I, of course, could accuse you of the same.
            You could, but since I have demonstrated, several times, a willingness to change views with adequate information, your accusation would fail.

            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            But then you're the one who had a good opinion of CNN until this website told you to think otherwise. What does that suggest?
            Actually, I saw CNN as "soft left" and "high" in their reporting. The best opinion would be "centrist" and "very high" for accuracy. So my view of CNN was "fair-to-good," and now it is "poor-to-fair." What it suggests is that I am open to new information that can cause my perspective to change. I do not see that openness in you, frankly. You pretty much seem to assume that you are the best expert on assessing resources, and anything that disagrees with you is wrong.
            Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-04-2018, 04:43 PM.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              Less biased, no. More open to new ideas/challenges, yes.

              That is pretty much the very definition of "conservative" and "liberal/progressive," right?
              I don't think so, no. I gave my opinion about that subject in a post you replied to last month here, http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post506283

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Actually, I saw CNN as "soft left" and "high" in their reporting. The best opinion would be "centrist" and "very high" for accuracy. So my view of CNN was "fair-to-good," and now it is "poor-to-fair." What it suggests is that I am open to new information that can cause my perspective to change. I do not see that openness in you, frankly. You pretty much seem to assume that you are the best expert on assessing resources, and anything that disagrees with you is wrong.
                I still find it curious that you needed this website to tell you that you should change your perspective about CNN when anybody even a little informed and capable of assessing sources without being told what to think has known for years that CNN is biased and inaccurate. There's a reason they're jokingly referred to as "the Clinton News Network", and more recently as "the Communist News Network" since the Clintons are no longer relevant political figures.

                You say that you don't see "openness" in me, but, of course, your perception is not reality. I don't change my opinions with every shifting of the wind because arrive at a firm position only after a lot of study and thought, and unless you can come to me with an extremely compelling argument, or present to me information that I'm not already familiar with, then, no, I'm not going to suddenly change my mind about something.

                Finally, I will say that there is a subtle but significant difference between thinking something wrong because you disagree with it, and disagreeing with it because it's wrong.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  I still find it curious that you needed this website to tell you that you should change your perspective about CNN when anybody even a little informed and capable of assessing sources without being told what to think has known for years that CNN is biased and inaccurate. There's a reason they're jokingly referred to as "the Clinton News Network", and more recently as "the Communist News Network" since the Clintons are no longer relevant political figures.
                  Since I do not frequent CNN, do not watch TV, and very rarely go to articles from CNN that come up in my news feed, my view of CNN is "old." I recognize that the right hates them, but the right hates a lot of things, IMO, without a balanced perspective. So my assessment of CNN was based on old information, and turned out to be skewed too far to the right. I've never looked up CNN on other assessment sites. I did so on this one as part of trying to evaluate the overall site. When I saw the CNN rating, it caused me to go look up CNN on other media-ranking sites, and I found similar views. So I adjusted my assessment accordingly. I adjust my perspective on the basis of verifiable data - not on the basis of polarized assertions.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  You say that you don't see "openness" in me, but, of course, your perception is not reality. I don't change my opinions with every shifting of the wind because arrive at a firm position only after a lot of study and thought, and unless you can come to me with an extremely compelling argument, or present to me information that I'm not already familiar with, then, no, I'm not going to suddenly change my mind about something.

                  Finally, I will say that there is a subtle but significant difference between thinking something wrong because you disagree with it, and disagreeing with it because it's wrong.
                  From what I can see, MM, evidence is irrelevant to you. Your existing perspective rules, pretty much always. No amount of evidence seems to shift you if you have already determined you know "the truth." You have been confronted with multiple sources that rank Brietbart poorly, multiple examples of ways in which their reporting is badly skewed, and periodically inaccurate - with no attempt on their part to correct/retract. You wave them all away. I conclude that evidence is not relevant to you - your pre-existing mindset is. I evaluate you as more likely to believe something is wrong because you disagree with it than to disagree with it because it's wrong. Ergo, if a site ranks Brietbart badly, the site is wrong - automatically. Their methodology makes no difference. The fact that they poorly ranked a site you frequent and that regularly affirms your worldview is all that appears to matter. You say no one has ever showed them wrong - but that is not a surprise: you dismiss any evidence that they are wrong, so you canhold on to your view that they are an excellent news source.

                  I'm sure you see me in the same light. I guess that is where we will have to leave it.
                  Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-04-2018, 05:55 PM.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    From what I can see, MM, evidence is irrelevant to you.
                    You're wrong. And that's all the further response you deserve on this topic.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      Yeah - I'm aware that you reject any site that doesn't rate things the way you think they should. That's a rather circular mindset.
                      Kind of ironic coming from someone in the habit of dismissing nearly everything you don't like as some right-wing meme.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Kind of ironic coming from someone in the habit of dismissing nearly everything you don't like as some right-wing meme.
                        That is demonstrably not true. When it's a meme - I call it out as a meme. When it's not, I don't. The left also has meme's and I do the same. And when I think it is a meme and someone shows me it is not (e.g., the journalist Obama expressed concern about), I acknowledge it.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          I was recently introduced to this site: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

                          I have been doing some digging, and I have to say that I find them excellent. Their results have a high correlation with other sites I admire (e.g., www.allsides.com), with general media classification in the press, and with my perspective in general. Although I am constantly accused of being "liberal" or "ultra liberal" on this site, I actually hold views across the spectrum, more conservative on fiscal matters, more liberal on social matters. I work pretty hard to try to vet out any given claim and find support/refutation for it from various sources across the political spectrum.

                          Based on this site, I am also adjusting my assessment of both Fox News and CNN. I have considered both of them to be "soft" left and right (respectively). Mediabiasfactcheck refers to this as "right-center" and "left-center" respectively. These news outlets, however, are rated as "right" and "left" respectively (which puts them far out on the bias metric), and (more importantly) the factual nature of their reporting is considered "mixed," which means they tend to use highly partisan language and are not particularly consistent with accuracy. I am not that surprised by Fox News, but I am surprised by CNN. I actually have not watched/read them for a bit, but I had thought better of them. It's sad to see they've slipped so badly.

                          I recommend this site to anyone interested in trying to find a balance in news reporting.
                          Back when News was something you watched at 6 and 11 on network TV, I think we had a much more balanced media. but once News became cable News and 24 hours a day, it got filled up with pundits who are very biased. and they reinforced the biases and played to their audiences and brought on experts to confirm their views, etc. Both the left and right media were born and grew. The network broadcast news eventually got their own cable news channels like MSNBC and they became just as biased since they had to fill up 24 hours a day with "news"

                          At least that is my opinion of it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Back when News was something you watched at 6 and 11 on network TV, I think we had a much more balanced media. but once News became cable News and 24 hours a day, it got filled up with pundits who are very biased. and they reinforced the biases and played to their audiences and brought on experts to confirm their views, etc. Both the left and right media were born and grew. The network broadcast news eventually got their own cable news channels like MSNBC and they became just as biased since they had to fill up 24 hours a day with "news"

                            At least that is my opinion of it.
                            I'm not sure that the 24-cycle was what led to bias. I think the 24-hour cycle led to sensationalism. To justify their existence, and "get eyeballs," news stories that would have gotten passing mention in the former model, suddenly get major coverage. Then along comes Murdoch and Ailes who foresee "news" as a variation on "reality TV" and anticipate the "entertainment" dynamic of news. Because existing news outlets did tend to have a left-of-center bias, they saw a massive opportunity for market on the right (as Trump basically did in 2016), and skewed their programming far to the right, immediately tapping into this gap and quickly becoming a major voice for this poorly represented segment. Thei rmodel was SO successful, outlets like CNN and MSNBC began adopting it, but to the left. Just how much they had realized this I did not appreciate until I looked closely at the mediabiasfactcheck.org site. As I said, I don't frequent CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC, so I was largely unaware of how much CNN and NBC has slipped to the left.

                            A good deal of the bias I see in the electorate is, I think, largely due to these media outlets. But they, in turn, are simply reacting to what the market is demanding, and there is a feedback loop in place magnifying the effect. That leads us to elect people who "won't compromise," resulting in a dysfunctional government.

                            None of this is going to change until "we the people," are willing to change it - but I have no idea how we're going to terminate that feedback loop. Maybe, in an odd way, Trump will contribute to this. He is making the feedback loop so obvious, I think there is a possibility we may find ourselves with a collective "enough!" reaction in 2018 and 2020, and a return to a more civil/sane government. I hope so.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Back when News was something you watched at 6 and 11 on network TV, I think we had a much more balanced media. but once News became cable News and 24 hours a day, it got filled up with pundits who are very biased. and they reinforced the biases and played to their audiences and brought on experts to confirm their views, etc. Both the left and right media were born and grew. The network broadcast news eventually got their own cable news channels like MSNBC and they became just as biased since they had to fill up 24 hours a day with "news"

                              At least that is my opinion of it.
                              Back then only one side was presented or with few exceptions they'd have a liberal/Democrat on to explain his view in a few sentences, cut back to the anchor who would say something like "Conservatives/Republicans disagree." The times they would actually have a conservative speak for himself they would always have a liberal so as to provide "balance" but such "balance" was rarely if ever seen necessary when talking to a liberal.

                              The pundit shows like This Week in Washington (later named Washington Week) were rigged always having five panelists with three being center-left, one conservative and one far left. The conservative and far leftist would argue and then the three center-left members would step in and present the "moderate" view which of course was center-left. About the only show that did not follow this format was The McLaughlin Group which was a genuine mix but with a conservative host.
                              Last edited by rogue06; 02-05-2018, 10:33 AM.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Back when News was something you watched at 6 and 11 on network TV, I think we had a much more balanced media. but once News became cable News and 24 hours a day, it got filled up with pundits who are very biased. and they reinforced the biases and played to their audiences and brought on experts to confirm their views, etc. Both the left and right media were born and grew. The network broadcast news eventually got their own cable news channels like MSNBC and they became just as biased since they had to fill up 24 hours a day with "news"

                                At least that is my opinion of it.
                                Actually, the news has always been extremely biased, even back in the days of Walter "The Most Trusted Man In America" Cronkite. They pretty much had a monopoly on what stories would run, what the narrative would be, who would be allowed to comment on it, and so on, almost exclusively from a liberal/Democrat perspective. Nobody really noticed, however, because there was nobody to call them out on it. This changed with the rising popularity of Rush Limbaugh in the late-80's, and people started to realize that maybe the mainstream media wasn't telling them the whole story, and a whole new "alternative media" industry was born which reached its peak around the end of Obama's first term and has remained fairly steady since then.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                50 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                190 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                315 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X