|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 12 2015 03:54 Introvert wrote:
The large number of left-wing propaganda articles posted in this thread don't help its image.
Or, given all the leftists here, maybe it does.
The good old (new) Russian tactic. As most of the Republican positions can not be justified with facts try instead to obfuscate the discussion and go for the "everybody has a secret agenda, trust nobody!" relativistic angle.
|
On March 12 2015 03:54 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:
My mother who is a Democrat, brother who is a Republican, and I (Independent) were having this discussion. In it we came to the most basic of conclusions that Democrats generally believe that humans are inherently bad and that's why they want more government and more regulations in order to keep people from hurting each other, and Republicans generally believe that humans are inherently good and that's why they believe in small government and great personal freedom.
While this is a way oversimplification, and mostly a false generalization, I still found it interesting enough to agree to the general idea.
The fact that three people with differing views could settle on that conclusion boggles my mind. Although you then go on to say it was an oversimplification and false generalization, so I don't know what to think.
The two party system is flawed for many reasons, but the main one being that it is impossible to fit all politicians, let alone all people, into two distinct parties that have a set platform. It's why Republicans are saddled with the Tea Party, despite that being the worst possible thing they could do, and why while I agree with many forms of conservatism, I can't bring myself to vote for a Republican candidate because the social positions of the far right are crazy to me.
|
On March 12 2015 03:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 06:00 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2015 05:51 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2015 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2015 03:37 oneofthem wrote:
daunt you realize iran is under the threat of israeli nukes much more than vice versa. That's fine with me. Israel is an ally. Iran is not. I'm also much more confident in Israel being rationale with nuclear weapons than Iran. you are, but same cannot be said for iran. iran complaining about israel's nuclear weapons is indeed a legitimate complaint given the strength of ultranationalists in israel. I'm not trying to be fair. The bottom line is that Iran is a geopolitical enemy of the US. It is in our interest to keep the boot on their throats UNLESS we are going to gain something meaningful in return for lifting it. And just to be clear, goading Iran into fighting ISIS isn't enough. Iran is going to do that anyway for obvious reasons germane to their national interests. Negotiating a deal like the Obama administration is doing is both the best way to keep Iran as far away from a nuclear weapon as possible and the best way to stabilize the region by achieving a balance of power between regional powers. Both are in the national interest of the U.S.
As I said, I'll withhold judgment until I see the final deal. But I do not like what I am hearing so far, and Obama's track record on these types of engagements -- such as the Russian "reset" -- has been bad.
And because you're here, I want to revisit your prior post stating that only right-wingers/conservatives consider Obama's foreign policy track record to be bad. Foreign Policy had a panel article last fall in which various experts were asked to liken Obama's first six years to the first three quarters of an American football game. If I remember correctly, every expert had him down in the score -- usually with it being a blowout. Foreign Policy is very far from being a right wing rag. I've tried to find a link to it, but can't. If someone else know what I'm talking about and knows where it is, post away. It is quite enlightening on the subject.
|
On March 12 2015 03:54 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:
My mother who is a Democrat, brother who is a Republican, and I (Independent) were having this discussion. In it we came to the most basic of conclusions that Democrats generally believe that humans are inherently bad and that's why they want more government and more regulations in order to keep people from hurting each other, and Republicans generally believe that humans are inherently good and that's why they believe in small government and great personal freedom.
While this is a way oversimplification, and mostly a false generalization, I still found it interesting enough to agree to the general idea.
I would strongly urge you to reconsider the sorts of heuristics you give example to above. Broad generalizations are not the way to understand how and why the two party system works as it does here in the US, and I can easily flip around your conclusion and show you why this is.
Welfare and food stamps, a common partisan battleground, is a good place to start. The notion of "welfare queens" and the idea that poor people are, as a matter of course, the primary actor in culpability in terms of their predicament are typical conservative pieces of rhetoric. In other words, conservatives oftentimes simply do not trust poor people with government money because, in the eyes of the conservative, poor people are categorically poor because of their inability to responsibly handle money or make fiduciary decisions for themselves and others. The roles of systematic discrimination, the side-effects of late capitalism, and plain old bad luck are accordingly de-emphasized by the conservative point of view.
The above example is not meant to give liberals the moral high ground (though I'm certainly of the mind that it does  ), and the same flip can be done the other way with things like the 2nd amendment easily enough. The point is that "this group generally trusts, that group generally doesn't" is uselessly over-general, and it'd be more useful to trade the certainty of categorical thinking for a bit more nuance.
|
On March 12 2015 04:02 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 03:54 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:
My mother who is a Democrat, brother who is a Republican, and I (Independent) were having this discussion. In it we came to the most basic of conclusions that Democrats generally believe that humans are inherently bad and that's why they want more government and more regulations in order to keep people from hurting each other, and Republicans generally believe that humans are inherently good and that's why they believe in small government and great personal freedom.
While this is a way oversimplification, and mostly a false generalization, I still found it interesting enough to agree to the general idea. The fact that three people with differing views could settle on that conclusion boggles my mind. Although you then go on to say it was an oversimplification and false generalization, so I don't know what to think. The two party system is flawed for many reasons, but the main one being that it is impossible to fit all politicians, let alone all people, into two distinct parties that have a set platform. It's why Republicans are saddled with the Tea Party, despite that being the worst possible thing they could do, and why while I agree with many forms of conservatism, I can't bring myself to vote for a Republican candidate because the social positions of the far right are crazy to me.
You and I basically have many of the same views. I side with conservatives when it comes to smaller government, greater personal freedom, and greater personal responsibility. But I side with liberals on basically all social positions.
When Obama was first running for president I voted for him, and voted for Republican (im not sure what it was, either senator or representative or both) under my thinking that Obama could have some great ideas but he should have to fight for them and a republican congress could keep him from going overboard. I thought that since Obama was touted as a great orator, and organizer of people, he should be able to get the things done he wanted to get done while appealing to both sides. What actually happened was quite different from what I was hoping for.
Also, I'm not exactly sure how we came to that conclusion. I think my brother said something like "I believe people are inherently good, and that they should have as much freedom as possible while maintaining a strong level of responsibility and that's a strong reason why I'm conservative" and my mom was the one that had the thought about Democrats. I mostly just facilitated the discussion.
edit: to Farva, like I said it was mostly an oversimplification and mostly false generalization. I say mostly b/c sometimes it can be true and other times not. Even though I'm already 27 I feel like I'm still just beginning to learn the nuances of politics in America.
|
Canada11373 Posts
On March 12 2015 02:46 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 01:55 ZasZ. wrote:On March 12 2015 01:26 xDaunt wrote:On March 12 2015 01:07 calgar wrote:On March 12 2015 00:45 hannahbelle wrote:On March 11 2015 16:06 Sandvich wrote:On March 11 2015 15:50 jellyjello wrote:On March 11 2015 15:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Republicans, under fire for a letter signed by 47 senators to the leadership of Iran, said Tuesday that complaints about violating foreign policy convention should be leveled not at them, but at President Barack Obama.
GOP lawmakers spent much of Tuesday being pressed on why Senate party leadership went around the White House with an open letter warning Iran that any nuclear agreement may be undercut in the future by Congress or Obama's successor. Several Republicans sought to distance themselves from the letter, saying that while they may not agree with the direction of nuclear talks with Iran, it was the purview of the president to conduct them.
But those who support the letter -- even some who didn't add their names -- deflected the blame. If it weren't for Obama's failure to consult lawmakers about the negotiations, or his threatened veto of a proposed bill to give Congress the final vote on a nuclear agreement, senators wouldn't have had to speak out in the first place, they argued.
“I think that, no doubt, the fact that the president, you know, issued a veto threat on a very common-sense piece of legislation, probably evoked, you know, a good deal of passion,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. Corker, who is leading the push for a veto-proof majority on the bill to grant Congress oversight of a nuclear agreement, did not sign letter, which was organized by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). Nevertheless, he showed no signs of ill will toward his junior colleague.
“No, no, no,” Corker responded, when asked if he was concerned Cotton’s letter would cost the bill much-needed Democratic votes.
Corker's comments were more diplomatic than those offered by other Republicans on Tuesday. But they nevertheless reflected a defensiveness within the GOP, which is taking heat for the letter not just from Democrats, but from leading foreign policy analysts as well. Source Typical huffingtonpost journalism. Typical ambiguous attack on the huffington post. Care to clarify what you think is wrong? On March 11 2015 13:03 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2015 11:34 hannahbelle wrote:On March 11 2015 11:00 oneofthem wrote:
congress hasn't been involved in the quite lengthy negotiation process. it's backseat driving apart from the choice of politics. Not backseat driving. Advise and consent. to do that they should have been involved in the process, or it's akin to trying to drive without seeing the road. Yes, they should have been involved. And who is to blame for their lack of involvement? You know, any experienced leader knows if you are involved in an important task, you should build consensus during every step of the project within your team. Obama has failed to do that. He has engaged in these negotiations with Iran, over a very controversial and longstanding issue, with zero involvement from the organization that is responsible for advising and consenting on foreign treaties. In short, Obama wants to do whatever he wants to do, and throws a fit like a petulant child, when he can't give a fancy speech and get everyone to drink the kool-aid. You can disagree with the Republicans actions, but you have to acknowledge they have legitimate grievances here. It is absolutely the purview of the executive branch to conduct foreign diplomacy, but it is the Constitutional obligation of the Senate to advise and consent on these negotiations. The president has the responsibility to allow the Senate to perform its Constitutional duties. But then again, he has shown only disdain for the Constitution, so I wouldn't expect him to change now. Your rhetoric is so polarized and biased that you make it impossible to have any meaningful discussion. The frequent condescension doesn't help at all. You automatically assume the best possible intentions for Republican actions and the worst possible intentions for Obama. Putting all of the blame on him in the greater context of obstructionism is short-sighted and leads to people dismissing your opinion. Posts like this are hilarious to me, because hannahbelle is a mirror reflection of most of the liberal posters in this thread. I don't know, while the left outnumbers the right in this thread I don't think there are very many lefties as left as hannahbelle is to the right. Who's conservative in this thread? I mean, I only come by every once in a while but it seems to me that it's more of a difference between who's further left and who's middle left as apposed to left vs. right. I'm independent myself. I dislike the 2 party system and feel like it's too rigid. I like to say that I'm independent because I like to take the best from both sides. I really do believe that both sides have some amazing points, but both sides also have some insane points.
I vote for right of centre parties in Canada- but right of centre means very different things from country to country.
|
On March 12 2015 04:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 03:54 Introvert wrote:
The large number of left-wing propaganda articles posted in this thread don't help its image.
Or, given all the leftists here, maybe it does. The problem is that y'all never actually engage in an analysis in order to substantiate the claim of propaganda. Sure, there are huffpo articles that take linguistic liberties with things here and there, but in many cases, the general angle of the story is one of fact. When it seems like conservatives literally label every single piece of news that isn't from a very narrow selection of sources "left-wing propaganda," that's when sayings pertaining to the liberal bias of reality start getting formed.
Because it's overwhelming. The sheer volume TPM links is too much for anyone. Combine that with the fact that if you use any source besides the NYT or WaPo, it's automatically suspect. Even the WSJ gets a giant disclaimer attached. So why bother? I'd have to do in depth looking ( or googling) all for the sake of countering no effort articles spammed throughout the day.
I only have time to respond to some of the bs. (Like "what is it with Republicans and Rape?" ROFL.)
|
On March 12 2015 05:17 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 04:00 farvacola wrote:On March 12 2015 03:54 Introvert wrote:
The large number of left-wing propaganda articles posted in this thread don't help its image.
Or, given all the leftists here, maybe it does. The problem is that y'all never actually engage in an analysis in order to substantiate the claim of propaganda. Sure, there are huffpo articles that take linguistic liberties with things here and there, but in many cases, the general angle of the story is one of fact. When it seems like conservatives literally label every single piece of news that isn't from a very narrow selection of sources "left-wing propaganda," that's when sayings pertaining to the liberal bias of reality start getting formed. Because it's overwhelming. The sheer volume TPM links is too much for anyone. Combine that with the fact that if you use any source besides the NYT or WaPo, it's automatically suspect. Even the WSJ gets a giant disclaimer attached. So why bother? I'd have to do in depth looking ( or googling) all for the sake of countering no effort articles spammed throughout the day. I only have time to respond to some of the bs. (Like "what is it with Republicans and Rape?" ROFL.)
lol... Republicans are going to be running against a Woman. There will be plenty more dumb things said about rape and women in general. The "legitimate rape" language out of Missouri last year will likely just be the tip of the iceberg this season.
|
On March 12 2015 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 05:17 Introvert wrote:On March 12 2015 04:00 farvacola wrote:On March 12 2015 03:54 Introvert wrote:
The large number of left-wing propaganda articles posted in this thread don't help its image.
Or, given all the leftists here, maybe it does. The problem is that y'all never actually engage in an analysis in order to substantiate the claim of propaganda. Sure, there are huffpo articles that take linguistic liberties with things here and there, but in many cases, the general angle of the story is one of fact. When it seems like conservatives literally label every single piece of news that isn't from a very narrow selection of sources "left-wing propaganda," that's when sayings pertaining to the liberal bias of reality start getting formed. Because it's overwhelming. The sheer volume TPM links is too much for anyone. Combine that with the fact that if you use any source besides the NYT or WaPo, it's automatically suspect. Even the WSJ gets a giant disclaimer attached. So why bother? I'd have to do in depth looking ( or googling) all for the sake of countering no effort articles spammed throughout the day. I only have time to respond to some of the bs. (Like "what is it with Republicans and Rape?" ROFL.) lol... Republicans are going to be running against a Woman. There will be plenty more dumb things said about rape and women in general. The "legitimate rape" language out of Missouri last year will likely just be the tip of the iceberg this season.
Well there's no point in speculating about what Republicans will say about rape in the future because we just don't know. But it's far from bullshit to call out what they've said in the past, which is a mindnumbing insensitivity and lack of knowledge of basic female anatomy. The fact that there are humans that think a rape pregnancy is a blessing is astonishing. The fact that there are humans in elected office who think the digestive tract is the same as the reproductive system is astonishing.
Literally all they need to do is say "rape is bad," and leave it at that.
|
I was referencing a specific post in this thread as an example of a time when I decided to point out the fact that the point being made was actually quite stupid. Though in that case the article was fine, it was the poster who couldn't read.
I agree there is no point in speculating, though some people apparently look foward to the next slip up, of any type.
|
On March 12 2015 05:17 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 04:00 farvacola wrote:On March 12 2015 03:54 Introvert wrote:
The large number of left-wing propaganda articles posted in this thread don't help its image.
Or, given all the leftists here, maybe it does. The problem is that y'all never actually engage in an analysis in order to substantiate the claim of propaganda. Sure, there are huffpo articles that take linguistic liberties with things here and there, but in many cases, the general angle of the story is one of fact. When it seems like conservatives literally label every single piece of news that isn't from a very narrow selection of sources "left-wing propaganda," that's when sayings pertaining to the liberal bias of reality start getting formed. Because it's overwhelming. The sheer volume TPM links is too much for anyone. Combine that with the fact that if you use any source besides the NYT or WaPo, it's automatically suspect. Even the WSJ gets a giant disclaimer attached. So why bother? I'd have to do in depth looking ( or googling) all for the sake of countering no effort articles spammed throughout the day. I only have time to respond to some of the bs. (Like "what is it with Republicans and Rape?" ROFL.)
Honestly, you could cite any source that is written by decent journalists. The problem comes when you link to Fox, the Telegraph or other sources that don't fact check anything before posting it on their websites. In that case it either has to refer to something rather well known, or it has to have an independent source. The Huffington Post does a far better job of making sure that at least the underlying stuff is true, even if they give a liberal spin to it.
But no, it doesn't have to be WaPo or NYT, it just has to be something better than whatever rightwing website you found it on. Just as from the left I disregard anything from Indymedia.
|
On March 12 2015 05:58 Introvert wrote:
I was referencing a specific post in this thread as an example of a time when I decided to point out the fact that the point being made was actually quite stupid. Though in that case the article was fine, it was the poster who couldn't read.
I agree there is no point in speculating, though some people apparently look foward to the next slip up, of any type.
What was the point that was stupid?
I'm not "looking forward to it" I just find it comical that you don't see the issue some republicans have talking about rape (and related issues).
i/ I guess I could be better at making that part more clear.
|
On March 12 2015 06:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 05:58 Introvert wrote:
I was referencing a specific post in this thread as an example of a time when I decided to point out the fact that the point being made was actually quite stupid. Though in that case the article was fine, it was the poster who couldn't read.
I agree there is no point in speculating, though some people apparently look foward to the next slip up, of any type. What was the point that was stupid? I'm not "looking forward to it" I just find it comical that you don't see the issue some republicans have talking about rape (and related issues). i/ I guess I could be better at making that part more clear.
I was referring to your post with the article outlining the changes to the University of Wisconsin's relationship to the state.
I think we are over the rape stuff now. The early days of the Tea Party were interesting times. We have much better candidates and representatives now.
|
On March 12 2015 06:19 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 05:17 Introvert wrote:On March 12 2015 04:00 farvacola wrote:On March 12 2015 03:54 Introvert wrote:
The large number of left-wing propaganda articles posted in this thread don't help its image.
Or, given all the leftists here, maybe it does. The problem is that y'all never actually engage in an analysis in order to substantiate the claim of propaganda. Sure, there are huffpo articles that take linguistic liberties with things here and there, but in many cases, the general angle of the story is one of fact. When it seems like conservatives literally label every single piece of news that isn't from a very narrow selection of sources "left-wing propaganda," that's when sayings pertaining to the liberal bias of reality start getting formed. Because it's overwhelming. The sheer volume TPM links is too much for anyone. Combine that with the fact that if you use any source besides the NYT or WaPo, it's automatically suspect. Even the WSJ gets a giant disclaimer attached. So why bother? I'd have to do in depth looking ( or googling) all for the sake of countering no effort articles spammed throughout the day. I only have time to respond to some of the bs. (Like "what is it with Republicans and Rape?" ROFL.) Honestly, you could cite any source that is written by decent journalists. The problem comes when you link to Fox, the Telegraph or other sources that don't fact check anything before posting it on their websites. In that case it either has to refer to something rather well known, or it has to have an independent source. The Huffington Post does a far better job of making sure that at least the underlying stuff is true, even if they give a liberal spin to it. But no, it doesn't have to be WaPo or NYT, it just has to be something better than whatever rightwing website you found it on. Just as from the left I disregard anything from Indymedia.
I only post from the mainstream sources. It's just easier that way. But it's undeniable that lefty posters get away with more, whether it's TPM or ThinkProgress ( even Huff and Puff Post, which somehow became respectable).
|
On March 12 2015 06:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 06:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 12 2015 05:58 Introvert wrote:
I was referencing a specific post in this thread as an example of a time when I decided to point out the fact that the point being made was actually quite stupid. Though in that case the article was fine, it was the poster who couldn't read.
I agree there is no point in speculating, though some people apparently look foward to the next slip up, of any type. What was the point that was stupid? I'm not "looking forward to it" I just find it comical that you don't see the issue some republicans have talking about rape (and related issues). i/ I guess I could be better at making that part more clear. I was referring to your post with the article outlining the changes to the University of Wisconsin's relationship to the state. I think we are over the rape stuff now. The early days of the Tea Party were interesting times. We have much better candidates and representatives now.
You have more faith in social conservatives than I do. We'll see what happens though.
|
On March 12 2015 06:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 06:19 Acrofales wrote:On March 12 2015 05:17 Introvert wrote:On March 12 2015 04:00 farvacola wrote:On March 12 2015 03:54 Introvert wrote:
The large number of left-wing propaganda articles posted in this thread don't help its image.
Or, given all the leftists here, maybe it does. The problem is that y'all never actually engage in an analysis in order to substantiate the claim of propaganda. Sure, there are huffpo articles that take linguistic liberties with things here and there, but in many cases, the general angle of the story is one of fact. When it seems like conservatives literally label every single piece of news that isn't from a very narrow selection of sources "left-wing propaganda," that's when sayings pertaining to the liberal bias of reality start getting formed. Because it's overwhelming. The sheer volume TPM links is too much for anyone. Combine that with the fact that if you use any source besides the NYT or WaPo, it's automatically suspect. Even the WSJ gets a giant disclaimer attached. So why bother? I'd have to do in depth looking ( or googling) all for the sake of countering no effort articles spammed throughout the day. I only have time to respond to some of the bs. (Like "what is it with Republicans and Rape?" ROFL.) Honestly, you could cite any source that is written by decent journalists. The problem comes when you link to Fox, the Telegraph or other sources that don't fact check anything before posting it on their websites. In that case it either has to refer to something rather well known, or it has to have an independent source. The Huffington Post does a far better job of making sure that at least the underlying stuff is true, even if they give a liberal spin to it. But no, it doesn't have to be WaPo or NYT, it just has to be something better than whatever rightwing website you found it on. Just as from the left I disregard anything from Indymedia. I only post from the mainstream sources. It's just easier that way. But it's undeniable that lefty posters get away with more, whether it's TPM or ThinkProgress ( even Huff and Puff Post, which somehow became respectable).
I've been through this before, and is why I took a big step back from TL politics. I posted an article and someone, instead of arguing over any point I or the article was making, simply stated that my source shouldn't be trusted (this was in the previous incantation and now-closed US politics thread). That's pseudo-intellectualism in a nutshell. It's high-horse BS.
There is no reason to simply attack the source. I don't care if it's a Democrat/Republican-website-propaganda-machine. Don't just discredit information by shooting the messenger.
If an article has erroneous information, say what that erroneous information is. Simple as that. People should be able to use any source they want. Yeah, it'd be great if there were one all-trusted source for all worldly information, but that never has or will exist.
|
On March 12 2015 02:46 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:
Who's conservative in this thread? I mean, I only come by every once in a while but it seems to me that it's more of a difference between who's further left and who's middle left as apposed to left vs. right.
I'm independent myself. I dislike the 2 party system and feel like it's too rigid. I like to say that I'm independent because I like to take the best from both sides. I really do believe that both sides have some amazing points, but both sides also have some insane points.
Heh I'm with you there. Just yesterday I volunteered to go on my daughter's field trip to a local university where they preached (indoctrinated) tons of kids from elementary schools about water conservation. Now, I'm fairly ignorant about the subject, but they spent the entire time telling them what to do to save water, but never explained why. I asked at one of the presentations why it's not possible to create fresh water from salt water, and the answer was that it is expensive- it is actually possible (desalinization) but turns political. So, my conclusion is that it is all about conserving money (always is) rather than a precious resource.
Ironic how many times Liberals are conservative and Conservatives are liberal in how we live our lives. What's in a name? :D
|
I went back 40 pages and tallied the number of times "mainstream" sources were quoted. This is heavily skewed by StealthBlue's quotes, although I left out talkingpointsmemo as a source despite him quoting it relatively often:
HuffPo: 7
CNN: 3
Politico: 5
Bloomberg: 1
Dailymail: 1
NPR: 5
Al Jazeera: 6
NYT: 8
Reuters: 2
Yahoo: 1
WaPo: 3
Guardian: 1
The Hill: 2
NBC: 1
WSJ: 1
ABC: 1
LA Times: 1
Fox: 1
National Geographics: 1
Washington Times: 1
This does not seem to have a strong bias either way. The most quoted sites:
HuffPo has a liberal bias
Al Jazeera doesn't fall into a neat box, but not liberal
NYT has no significant bias
Politico has no significant bias
NPR has a slight conservative bias
Obviously that's just my opinion on the bias. If you take into account the influence of StealthBlue on these sources, and that StealthBlue likes HuffPo, the rest seems pretty central.
|
On March 12 2015 06:49 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 06:38 Introvert wrote:On March 12 2015 06:19 Acrofales wrote:On March 12 2015 05:17 Introvert wrote:On March 12 2015 04:00 farvacola wrote:On March 12 2015 03:54 Introvert wrote:
The large number of left-wing propaganda articles posted in this thread don't help its image.
Or, given all the leftists here, maybe it does. The problem is that y'all never actually engage in an analysis in order to substantiate the claim of propaganda. Sure, there are huffpo articles that take linguistic liberties with things here and there, but in many cases, the general angle of the story is one of fact. When it seems like conservatives literally label every single piece of news that isn't from a very narrow selection of sources "left-wing propaganda," that's when sayings pertaining to the liberal bias of reality start getting formed. Because it's overwhelming. The sheer volume TPM links is too much for anyone. Combine that with the fact that if you use any source besides the NYT or WaPo, it's automatically suspect. Even the WSJ gets a giant disclaimer attached. So why bother? I'd have to do in depth looking ( or googling) all for the sake of countering no effort articles spammed throughout the day. I only have time to respond to some of the bs. (Like "what is it with Republicans and Rape?" ROFL.) Honestly, you could cite any source that is written by decent journalists. The problem comes when you link to Fox, the Telegraph or other sources that don't fact check anything before posting it on their websites. In that case it either has to refer to something rather well known, or it has to have an independent source. The Huffington Post does a far better job of making sure that at least the underlying stuff is true, even if they give a liberal spin to it. But no, it doesn't have to be WaPo or NYT, it just has to be something better than whatever rightwing website you found it on. Just as from the left I disregard anything from Indymedia. I only post from the mainstream sources. It's just easier that way. But it's undeniable that lefty posters get away with more, whether it's TPM or ThinkProgress ( even Huff and Puff Post, which somehow became respectable). I've been through this before, and is why I took a big step back from TL politics. I posted an article and someone, instead of arguing over any point I or the article was making, simply stated that my source shouldn't be trusted (this was in the previous incantation and now-closed US politics thread). That's pseudo-intellectualism in a nutshell. It's high-horse BS. There is no reason to simply attack the source. I don't care if it's a Democrat/Republican-website-propaganda-machine. Don't just discredit information by shooting the messenger. If an article has erroneous information, say what that erroneous information is. Simple as that. People should be able to use any source they want. Yeah, it'd be great if there were one all-trusted source for all worldly information, but that never has or will exist.
The problem with accepting any information as a valid source is that refuting it is often tedious, whereas simply pointing out that the source almost invariably posts bullshit claims is easy. For instance, if I were to post an article stating that Obama was really an alien, sourcing ufosightingsdaily.com as the source, it is far easier to refute the claim stating that that website is just plain stupid.
If you then retort that you sourced the info and it must be responded to in a serious manner, and to point out all the bullshit in it, it gets really stupid really fast.
|
On March 12 2015 07:20 Acrofales wrote:I went back 40 pages and tallied the number of times "mainstream" sources were quoted. This is heavily skewed by StealthBlue's quotes, although I left out talkingpointsmemo as a source despite him quoting it relatively often: Show nested quote +
HuffPo: 7
CNN: 3
Politico: 5
Bloomberg: 1
Dailymail: 1
NPR: 5
Al Jazeera: 6
NYT: 8
Reuters: 2
Yahoo: 1
WaPo: 3
Guardian: 1
The Hill: 2
NBC: 1
WSJ: 1
ABC: 1
LA Times: 1
Fox: 1
National Geographics: 1
Washington Times: 1
This does not seem to have a strong bias either way. The most quoted sites: HuffPo has a liberal bias Al Jazeera doesn't fall into a neat box, but not liberal NYT has no significant bias Politico has no significant bias NPR has a slight conservative bias Obviously that's just my opinion on the bias. If you take into account the influence of StealthBlue on these sources, and that StealthBlue likes HuffPo, the rest seems pretty central.
Really? NPR and NYT both seem like they tend to have more of a liberal bias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
