Media bias.

[Hayabusa Rider]

I came across this just now and I think it's pretty close to my perception of how things are.

Something to kick around besides Trump and his.

 

[soundforbjt]

Wasn't this a thread about a month or two ago?

 

[Commodus]

Wasn't this a thread about a month or two ago?

It was. Won't object to this being locked, but the gist: most of the media outlets Trump fans claim are part of the "biased liberal media" are not only pretty centrist, but far more accurate than their outlets of choice.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It was. Won't object to this being locked, but the gist: most of the media outlets Trump fans claim are part of the "biased liberal media" are not only pretty centrist, but far more accurate than their outlets of choice.

I missed that one. Back to the Border and Trump I guess.

 

[trenchfoot]

Nobody likes to be pointed out that they're on the side of the tracks that a train wreck is happening and they're getting run over by the wreckage. They'd rather just stand there in defiance to prove that it really isn't happening because the Trump Train and Carnage Works told them so.

Thus we have a whole pile of stubborn victims being victimized by the very folks who lied to them that they were instead being victimized by those "fake alarmist chicken little's" who were yelling and waving their arms high in the air in order to warn them of their certain impending doom...............................to no avail.

 

[KMFJD]

Am i blind or do i not see Fox anywhere on that chart?

/edit im blind

 

[Jimzz]

I came across this just now and I think it's pretty close to my perception of how things are.

Something to kick around besides Trump and his.

Yea seems pretty down the line from my perception as well. At least for the bigger names on there. I have never heard of any on the bottom Left side but I have heard of a good half on the bottom Right side. Not sure what that says about myself but just what I have been exposed to.
I also do not have cable TV so that may play into it.

Am i blind or do i not see Fox anywhere on that chart?

Bottom right with Daily Wire.

 

[fskimospy]

Am i blind or do i not see Fox anywhere on that chart?

It's in the bottom right of highly partisan, misleading news.

Yes this chart was posted a while back but it's a pretty good one. As I read today somewhere there's a pretty stark choice that media organizations have to make. You can either present objective facts and be accused of bias against conservatives or you can make news that conservatives will like that's not based in objective facts. That's the choice. The fact that the 'liberal media' that conservatives say is utterly untrustworthy almost entirely occupies the 'non-biased - high journalistic standards' part of the chart should speak volumes.

 

[dank69]

It's in the bottom right of highly partisan, misleading news.

Yes this chart was posted a while back but it's a pretty good one. As I read today somewhere there's a pretty stark choice that media organizations have to make. You can either present objective facts and be accused of bias against conservatives or you can make news that conservatives will like that's not based in objective facts. That's the choice. The fact that the 'liberal media' that conservatives say is utterly untrustworthy almost entirely occupies the 'non-biased - high journalistic standards' part of the chart should speak volumes.

Yes it does speak volumes. Obviously this chart is biased.

 

[realibrad]

Why is TMZ not on there? Seems very incomplete.

 

[nakedfrog]

Why is TMZ not on there? Seems very incomplete.

TMZ is not a news site, that's why.

 

[realibrad]

TMZ is not a news site, that's why.

So I thought an obvious joke was obvious.

 

[Blackjack200]

The New York Times, which employs Bari Weiss, Brett Stephens, Ross Douthat, David Brooks and craven Trump Administration mouthpiece Maggie Haberman is left of center?

Okay.

 

[Moonbeam]

What is objectivity and what is bias? Suppose those two things exist and can be differentiated. Would a person with real bias give the same answer as a person of real objectivity? How would they be able to communicate with each other? How do you know if your opinions are objective or the product of being brainwashed? What would drive a person to want to be one or the other? Why does one person question his or her beliefs and not another?

How was the rankings on that graph determined?

 

[vi edit]

What is objectivity and what is bias? Suppose those two things exist and can be differentiated. Would a person with real bias give the same answer as a person of real objectivity? How would they be able to communicate with each other? How do you know if your opinions are objective or the product of being brainwashed? What would drive a person to want to be one or the other? Why does one person question his or her beliefs and not another?

How was the rankings on that graph determined?

One can be both objective and biased. If you report on something after verifying all of the facts it's objective. If you only report on objectively true things that support one party or another then you are biased. You aren't necessarily wrong, but you are feeding into a narrative that shows your side is "better".

 

[Noah Abrams]

What is objectivity and what is bias? Suppose those two things exist and can be differentiated. Would a person with real bias give the same answer as a person of real objectivity? How would they be able to communicate with each other? How do you know if your opinions are objective or the product of being brainwashed? What would drive a person to want to be one or the other? Why does one person question his or her beliefs and not another?

How was the rankings on that graph determined?

Good post. Here are some examples of objectivity:

- A person's height, with reference to ground level on planet earth.
- Number of fingers on a person's hand.

As for media and human beings are concerned, there is no such thing as objectivity. As proved even scientifically by Einstein, an event is dependent itself on the observer.

 

[Moonbeam]

One can be both objective and biased. If you report on something after verifying all of the facts it's objective. If you only report on objectively true things that support one party or another then you are biased. You aren't necessarily wrong, but you are feeding into a narrative that shows your side is "better".

Yes, OK, but a long time ago I realized I see what I believe. I noticed when I stopped believing some things. So what you are saying is that those who believe they have verified the facts is what actually makes them facts, but is the verification objective? And do we ever really know all the facts. I think you are describing an attitude that it is a virtue to strive for objectivity. Is such an attitude really a virtue? I am not trying to argue against what you say. I want to examine what I hear in light of my personal experience. I have trouble accepting things owing to the unexamined assumptions I am wont to make.

 

[nickqt]

Ah yes, one of the most long-term lies that conservatives have been trained to believe in.

As if the fucking mainstream media aren't huge corporations designed to sell advertisements to as many people as possible.

It's why they're always refrain with BothSidesDoIt™.

Yes, this elected Republican is a total piece of shit, but look, some liberal blogger with an audience of 12 says something equally shitty.

Now, go to McDonalds, set up a reverse mortgage, and buy these dick pills. because BothSidesDoIt™.

 

[Moonbeam]

Good post. Here are some examples of objectivity:

- A person's height, with reference to ground level on planet earth.
- Number of fingers on a person's hand.

As for media and human beings are concerned, there is no such thing as objectivity. As proved even scientifically by Einstein, an event is dependent itself on the observer.

I think you mean that Einstein observed that using the scientific method. But the objectivity you offered is based on a common agreement as to what a person and level ground are and what fingers are. Those things are just conscious recreations of photons that enter our eyes. Those photons obey laws that cause us to see what we see. It is typical, I believe, to assume all humans have the same basic frame of reference as a ground for what we call objectivity.

 

[repoman0]

As proved even scientifically by Einstein, an event is dependent itself on the observer.

Second time I’ve seen this from you, still just as incorrectly applied. That result doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Edit: Not to mention the result is due to Neils Bohr, not Einstein, and in fact Einstein argued against it his entire life.

 

[Noah Abrams]

And do we ever really know all the facts.

We can, if we know each and every thing that has happened since the creation of universe. Because that is where the causal chain of every thing leads to. So in reality we can’t.

 

[hal2kilo]

Second time I’ve seen this from you, still just as incorrectly applied. That result doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Edit: Not to mention the result is due to Neils Bohr, not Einstein, and in fact Einstein argued against it his entire life.

Lol.

 

[shortylickens]

I honestly dont know how reporting on aliens and bat boys is even slightly biased for conservatives but whatever, the National Enquirer is still better than about 90 percent of agencies.

 

[hal2kilo]

I honestly dont know how reporting on aliens and bat boys is even slightly biased for conservatives but whatever, the National Enquirer is still better than about 90 percent of agencies.

Apparently, you haven't looked at the headlines on the Enquirer's front page for the last 15 or so months (or don't go through the grocery store check out lanes). It absolutely fed the Clinton health rumors throughout the campaign. Totally negative for her and 100% positive for Trump. But hey yea, they were only slightly biased for conservatives.

 

[Moonbeam]

We can, if we know each and every thing that has happened since the creation of universe. Because that is where the causal chain of every thing leads to. So in reality we can’t.

As interesting as those kinds of speculations are, I am interested here in what I feel is a fact that everybody thinks their opinions are objective and since opinions vary massively, it would seem they can't all be right. And if they can't all be right, might objective be where opinions cluster, where there is indifference to result, where there is some sort of training, what? I think everybody feels that some opinions are more objective than others. It's kind of what science is about, but some things are hard to test. Is it nobler of the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them?, as an example.