Media Bias

[lilpixieofterror]

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.

The unbiased media hard at work:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/0...bi-corruption/

Compared to:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/0...bi-corruption/

Remember, pointing out the FBI abuses and problems is only wrong when it’s Republicans doing it.

[Mountain Man]

The unbiased media hard at work:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/0...bi-corruption/

Compared to:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/0...bi-corruption/

Remember, pointing out the FBI abuses and problems is only wrong when it’s Republicans doing it.

Reminds me of...

05-14-C6-EditToon-Democrats-And-Comey-1024x669.jpg

[carpedm9587]

The unbiased media hard at work:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/0...bi-corruption/

Compared to:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/0...bi-corruption/

Remember, pointing out the FBI abuses and problems is only wrong when it’s Republicans doing it.

OK, I don't get it. I don't see there is a claim here that "criticizing the FBI is wrong." I see a claim that attacking the FBI with unverified claims for political purposes is wrong. One is an article criticizing the FBI for slow progress in the Nassar case (inefficiency producing harm). The other is an article focusing on Trump's attacks on the FBI (corruption and political bias). The first is based on clear evidence; the second on innuendo and cherry picking data.

I'm not seeing a consistent argument here.

[lilpixieofterror]

Reminds me of...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26376[/ATTACH]

You could write a book about the media’s double standards in reporting the news. They are all biased and it’s nothing new. The media was just as biased before the 24 hour news cycle existed and there’s plenty of historical examples of them going all out on politicians they didn’t like. It’s a legend that bias journalism is new. It goes back to the days where powered wigs were all the rage.

[lilpixieofterror]

OK, I don't get it. I don't see there is a claim here that "criticizing the FBI is wrong." I see a claim that attacking the FBI with unverified claims for political purposes is wrong. One is an article criticizing the FBI for slow progress in the Nassar case (inefficiency producing harm). The other is an article focusing on Trump's attacks on the FBI (corruption and political bias). The first is based on clear evidence; the second on innuendo and cherry picking data.

I'm not seeing a consistent argument here.

And the excuses continue. The FBI abused its power and attempted to rig a presidential election against the republican candidate. Face it, if a republican did this to a democrat, they would be up in arms. Keep those eyes slammed shut and keep pretending you’re a ‘moderate’ because you’re not.

[carpedm9587]

And the excuses continue. The FBI abused its power and attempted to rig a presidential election against the republican candidate. Face it, if a republican did this to a democrat, they would be up in arms. Keep those eyes slammed shut and keep pretending you’re a ‘moderate’ because you’re not.

I see no compelling evidence that this claim is true, other than the Nunes Memo, which I find to be a political hatchet job with questionable basis on multiple fronts. Likewise, I never saw the claim that the FBI sought to undermine the Clinton election as justified either.

[lilpixieofterror]

I see no compelling evidence that this claim is true, other than the Nunes Memo, which I find to be a political hatchet job with questionable basis on multiple fronts. Likewise, I never saw the claim that the FBI sought to undermine the Clinton election as justified either.

Of course you don’t because it comes from a consertives and you’re so biased, you’ll instantly doubt it because of the source. Reality is we have several FBI leaders being fired or demoted based on information from this memo. We have text of FBI agents talking about how Trump can’t be allowed to win. We have the FBI lying about sources and using a bad source to justify a wire tap. We have the former head of the FBI illegally releasing secret information to an unauthorized source. If you dispute any of this, explain why because all of this seems to be confirmed, so why are you okay with any of it?

[carpedm9587]

Of course you don’t because it comes from a consertives and you’re so biased, you’ll instantly doubt it because of the source. Reality is we have several FBI leaders being fired or demoted based on information from this memo. We have text of FBI agents talking about how Trump can’t be allowed to win. We have the FBI lying about sources and using a bad source to justify a wire tap. We have the former head of the FBI illegally releasing secret information to an unauthorized source. If you dispute any of this, explain why because all of this seems to be confirmed, so why are you okay with any of it?

Actually - it has nothing to do with bias, and objections are not just coming from the left (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/...om-nunes-memo/). Mercury News is a left-center news outlet with high reporting accuracy (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/san-jose-mercury-news/).

My objections come from reading the memo. I formed the opinion before I read any articles about it, which is what I try to do. Yes, we have texts that show that members of government (the FBI) have a political bias. What we don't have is evidence that this bias collored their work. I presume everyone in government has a political orientation (left, center, right). That is not evidence that their work is colored by that bias. I have not seen evidence of "lying about sources" and (as I noted before) the Steele dossier is a combination of verified elements, and unverified elements. The memo obscures that and calls the entire thing "unverified" because it has elements that are unverified. This is the "cherry picking" part. We don't know, based on the memo, what part of the dossier was used in making the case to the FISA courts. I also have no information about the FBI releasing information to an unauthorized source. I'm not sure where that accusation is coming from.

[Mountain Man]

Mercury News is a left-center news outlet with high reporting accuracy (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/san-jose-mercury-news/).

Oh, please, stop throwing around the biased Media Bias Fact Check as if it's the final authority on the matter.

I still find it hilariously ironic that you're allowing that one website to dictate how you feel about all the other websites.

[Mountain Man]

You could write a book about the media’s double standards in reporting the news. They are all biased and it’s nothing new. The media was just as biased before the 24 hour news cycle existed and there’s plenty of historical examples of them going all out on politicians they didn’t like. It’s a legend that bias journalism is new. It goes back to the days where powered wigs were all the rage.

Yep. Historically, newspapers were started by rich businessmen who wanted to give the news from their perspective, and they weren't above flat out inventing stories to drive sales. There's one legend about a newspaper that reported on a non-existent war in some far off country, and their competitor, not to be outdone, immediately published their own story that peace had been declared, and the war was over.

[rogue06]

Yep. Historically, newspapers were started by rich businessmen who wanted to give the news from their perspective, and they weren't above flat out inventing stories to drive sales. There's one legend about a newspaper that reported on a non-existent war in some far off country, and their competitor, not to be outdone, immediately published their own story that peace had been declared, and the war was over.

Newspaper's were often the "mouth piece" of various political^[1] parties and factions. "Yellow journalism" was the norm. It seems that the pendulum is swinging in that direction again.






1. Also, much less frequently, religious groups.

[Mountain Man]

Newspaper's were often the "mouth piece" of various political^[1] parties and factions. "Yellow journalism" was the norm. It seems that the pendulum is swinging in that direction again.

1. Also, much less frequently, religious groups.

I'm not certain the pendulum ever swung meaningfully away from that direction.

[Raphael]

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.

I disagree.

You personally I think are more open to new ideas/challenges.

If you look at the left as a whole, if you're not talking the party line, they're just as narrow-minded and hide bound as any on the right. A comment I heard recently on the whole thing of identity politics: the problem with it is that what becomes more important is the Group and not the Individual. If you look at the Individual who belongs to the Group, who may have a different opinion on one matter will get viciously attacked and ostracized by the Group.

The Left is very quick to point out this behavior on the Right, whilst ignoring that they are just as guilty of it.

[carpedm9587]

I disagree.

You personally I think are more open to new ideas/challenges.

If you look at the left as a whole, if you're not talking the party line, they're just as narrow-minded and hide bound as any on the right. A comment I heard recently on the whole thing of identity politics: the problem with it is that what becomes more important is the Group and not the Individual. If you look at the Individual who belongs to the Group, who may have a different opinion on one matter will get viciously attacked and ostracized by the Group.

The Left is very quick to point out this behavior on the Right, whilst ignoring that they are just as guilty of it.

These are good points, and I certainly did not mean to suggest that the left (or the center) or any other group is less prone to the "herd mentality" problem. Both the left and right suffer from this equally. I guess I was suggesting that the "herd" on the right tends to resist new ideas (hence, "conservative"), where as the herd on the left tends to embrace them more readily (hence, "progressive"). There is no doubt however, that resistance to an idea the herd has adopted leads to ostracism/rejection in most groups.

At least, politically. I suspect it's also true of religions (but I have not been a member of one for a while - except "atheism," but that's not exactly a "group."). It tends to be true if an existing idea in science is challenged with a new paradigm.

[demi-conservative]

You personally I think are more open to new ideas/challenges.

He is open to prog ideas like 'white privilege'. Then 'why don't you far-right accept it???'