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 09:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think putting reuters as left biased is a strong (unintentional I assume?) voice of support to the old claim that "reality has a liberal bias". they're about as objective as it can get..
I'll be sure to post some leftist Reuters nonsense in the next few days when my computer is back up and running. I hate copying and pasting on this iPhone.
The fact that you think Reuters is neutral is evident of your own left wing bias.
I don't deny my own left wing bias. But Reuters does not comment the news. It's a news agency, the same as associated press. I'd link you the wikipedia article explaining, but if Reuters is left biased then certainly wikipedia is, too, so what's the point.
On March 12 2015 09:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think putting reuters as left biased is a strong (unintentional I assume?) voice of support to the old claim that "reality has a liberal bias". they're about as objective as it can get..
I'll be sure to post some leftist Reuters nonsense in the next few days when my computer is back up and running. I hate copying and pasting on this iPhone.
The fact that you think Reuters is neutral is evident of your own left wing bias.
I don't deny my own left wing bias. But Reuters does not comment the news. It's a news agency, the same as associated press. I'd link you the wikipedia article explaining, but if Reuters is left biased then certainly wikipedia is, too, so what's the point.
The point is one you missed. You can report facts in a biased manner. Commentary is not needed. The simplest example of fact framing is the classic "is the glass half full or half empty" question. IF I refer to the glass as half empty, people automatically have a negative association. Conversely if I refer to it as half full. Both assessments are factual correct, but the way I frame the fact, half full or half empty, even without commentary, will instill bias.
@Wolfstan Well, I'm not sure our options are that great anyways. Sun Media has a hyper intense Ezra Levant trying to be Hannity. That alone is offputting.
Besides, I don't think CBC is super left. I way prefer their At Issue panel on politics than any pundits I've heard in America left or right. I don't know about in Alberta (which I'm assuming based on your Calgary based stuff) but in BC, the Friday morning political panel on the radio is really great- former Liberal, former NDP, and former Social Credit politicians analyzing current politics. It's not a great shouting match- they have good rapport with each other and it feels like while they have their old party biases, they aren't jockying to get back in the game (like Fox News' once and future presidential candidates) nor does it sound like they are mouthpieces for their respective parties. (Well SoCred isn't even a party anymore.) I quite enjoy their analysis of the provincial politics. If it were very left leaning it ought to have an NDP bias, but I don't really get that from that panel.
On March 12 2015 09:46 zlefin wrote: If you think nigh everything has a strong left bias, that may be a sign that you're not looking at them accurately.
I particularly liked that the only one with a conservative bias was Fox, and that was just "conservative", not "fringe lunatic conservative bias". I guess fringe lunatic biases are reserved for bad quality press like the NYT :D
Even many leftists can admit that the NYT and LAT at least lean left.
When you put NPR as slight conservative, I do think you really out yourself as someone on the far left
I've never heard anyone else say that about NPR. Most liberals I know bow to NPR as a paragon of fair journalism. Which means it probably leans left less than the others!
Also, The Washington Post and Politico most certainly are NOT neutral.
I self identify as a fiscally conservative but otherwise very liberal person. I am all for allowing abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, and legalizing all drugs except for the very worst hard drugs (basically, heroin, crack and crystal meth). I also don't really care whether immigration laws are strict or lenient, but they have to be clear and efficient.
However, financially, I believe there should be a minimum social security and a minimum health care. Everybody should be able to see a doctor and have a home and food. However, they don't come free, and if you use the state supplied provisions you have to do something in return, such as take any job that is offered you. In fact, if I thought Frank Underwood's America Works program was in any way practical I think it would be an amazing solution (too bad it is complete fantasy).
On March 12 2015 10:40 Falling wrote: @Wolfstan Well, I'm not sure our options are that great anyways. Sun Media has a hyper intense Ezra Levant trying to be Hannity. That alone is offputting.
Besides, I don't think CBC is super left. I way prefer their At Issue panel on politics than any pundits I've heard in America left or right. I don't know about in Alberta (which I'm assuming based on your Calgary based stuff) but in BC, the Friday morning political panel on the radio is really great- former Liberal, former NDP, and former Social Credit politicians analyzing current politics. It's not a great shouting match- they have good rapport with each other and it feels like while they have their old party biases, they aren't jockying to get back in the game (like Fox News' once and future presidential candidates) nor does it sound like they are mouthpieces for their respective parties. (Well SoCred isn't even a party anymore.) I quite enjoy their analysis of the provincial politics. If it were very left leaning it ought to have an NDP bias, but I don't really get that from that panel.
CBC may not be super left, but a organisation subsidized by government will tend to be biased toward bigger less conservative stories.
Canadian politics are a different animal than our American friends. Our parties generally try to fight over the center because that's how we tend to vote while Dems/Reps seem to be drifting further to the left/right(maybe 24 hour sensationalist news organization skew that perception). Thus we don't get great "shouting matches" very often. PC are generally the only party that stands to the right of the political spectrum(other than Alberta's Wildrose) while Liberal, NDP, Green and Bloc split the vote on the left. So if a news outlet has a panel consisting of a rep from each party, the program would naturally tend to lean left.
On March 12 2015 09:46 zlefin wrote: If you think nigh everything has a strong left bias, that may be a sign that you're not looking at them accurately.
I particularly liked that the only one with a conservative bias was Fox, and that was just "conservative", not "fringe lunatic conservative bias". I guess fringe lunatic biases are reserved for bad quality press like the NYT :D
Even many leftists can admit that the NYT and LAT at least lean left.
When you put NPR as slight conservative, I do think you really out yourself as someone on the far left
I've never heard anyone else say that about NPR. Most liberals I know bow to NPR as a paragon of fair journalism. Which means it probably leans left less than the others!
Also, The Washington Post and Politico most certainly are NOT neutral.
I self identify as a fiscally conservative but otherwise very liberal person. I am all for allowing abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, and legalizing all drugs except for the very worst hard drugs (basically, heroin, crack and crystal meth). I also don't really care whether immigration laws are strict or lenient, but they have to be clear and efficient.
However, financially, I believe there should be a minimum social security and a minimum health care. Everybody should be able to see a doctor and have a home and food. However, they don't come free, and if you use the state supplied provisions you have to do something in return, such as take any job that is offered you. In fact, if I thought Frank Underwood's America Works program was in any way practical I think it would be an amazing solution (too bad it is complete fantasy).
NYT - slightly left HuffPo - left Al Jazeera - not rated Politico - center NPR - center
While Underwood's may be a fantasy, I think a universal employment program could work, at least to a reasonable and useful extent. I'd be happy to give such a system a try at any rate.
On March 12 2015 10:33 oneofthem wrote: nyt isn't even liberal.
Well I agree that socialistic is a more appropriate term.
You do not know what socialism is. Most socialists in the past and present, both radical and reformist have a lot of problems with the NYT. Chris Hedges is probably the most well known example of this. And if the NYT and Huffpost are considered left-wing, then that shows just how shallow the American political spectrum really is.
So if a news outlet has a panel consisting of a rep from each party, the program would naturally tend to lean left.
Maybe, but I don't think that's what happened.
At Issue is made up of journalists- Bruce Anderson has liberal ties, but Andrew Coyne is quite likely to argue a more conservative view. Whereas Chantale Hebert might have left viewpoint, but what is more obvious to me is her French-Canadien viewpoint, irrespective of a left-right divide.
But the Friday panel in BC is Liberal- which are our small government, economic conservatives (and silent on social conservative issues, similar to Harper), NDP- left, and SoCred, which despite it's foundations was economic conservatives so that's two rights and one left, although I find the Norman Spector, the SoCred usually very centralist and the most agreeable.
On March 12 2015 10:33 oneofthem wrote: nyt isn't even liberal.
Well I agree that socialistic is a more appropriate term.
You do not know what socialism is. Most socialists in the past and present, both radical and reformist have a lot of problems with the NYT. Chris Hedges is probably the most well known example of this. And if the NYT and Huffpost are considered left-wing, then that shows just how shallow the American political spectrum really is.
From what I just read on Truth Dig, that place just copies Times articles word for word.
On March 12 2015 10:33 oneofthem wrote: nyt isn't even liberal.
Well I agree that socialistic is a more appropriate term.
times is only actively liberal on social issues really. you probably think everything after leviticus is leftist on that front.
i consider huffington post to be very liberal. their slanting is bad enough that you don't know the entirety of the issue from their pieces, but times usually gives equal time
On March 12 2015 09:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think putting reuters as left biased is a strong (unintentional I assume?) voice of support to the old claim that "reality has a liberal bias". they're about as objective as it can get..
Do you seriously think youll convince someone who thinks NYT is socialist of the quoted statement?
On March 12 2015 09:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think putting reuters as left biased is a strong (unintentional I assume?) voice of support to the old claim that "reality has a liberal bias". they're about as objective as it can get..
Do you seriously think youll convince someone who thinks NYT is socialist of the quoted statement?
Not to mention climate change being a academia conspiracy.
Speaking as a centrist, NYT is definitely left-leaning. The editorial page is unambiguous, but it comes out also in analysis pieces and the like on a regular basis. That said, the paper is generally good journalism for what it does.
NPR is left-leaning as well, if somewhat less so.
The Economist is an interesting source because it's self identified as "Liberal" but comes across as "centrist" in the US political scheme, endorsing Republican and Democratic ideas and candidates with similar frequency. The reason is it means "classically liberal," which is similar but distinct from libertarian. They're pro-drug legalization, pro-science, quite far left socially, but are also free traders who support a minimum wage, but not excessively high.
My English teacher once recommend that I learn deconstruction and binary opposition just for American politics. In regards to American politics, if someone uses the left-right spectrum as a way to identify positions using just two parties in a two party system, then yes, I guess words like "far-left" and "liberal" has meaning in the same sentence. http://i.imgur.com/oPRlda6.png I have always been disturbed by the use of "leftist" being referred to Democrats and New Labour largely because of their destruction of the welfare state, support for NAFTA, and taking capitalism so far to the point that reading Adam Smith makes people wonder if he was really the father of capitalism. These actions can be argued to be "liberal" but not "left-wing." Perhaps the most clear and concise definition of liberalism can be found in this video. Perhaps we have forgotten what liberal politics really is when radicals on the left and the right dissipated for quite some time.
If you want the screech to stop, just turn town the YouTube volume and increase the volume on your speakers/headphones
Wait if everything posted so far is left or some degree thereof, can we get some examples of what counts as right of center, right and far right?
I'd say that Fox is probably right, Washington Times is right (but shitty journalism), the Blaze is pretty far right (and again shitty journalism). Funny thing, the other day I found a column ragging on the Iran negotiations that cited the Borowitz report (which is a humor column in the New Yorker) as a real news source.
On March 12 2015 14:32 ticklishmusic wrote: Wait if everything posted so far is left or some degree thereof, can we get some examples of what counts as right of center, right and far right?
I'd say that Fox is probably right, Washington Times is right (but shitty journalism), the Blaze is pretty far right (and again shitty journalism). Funny thing, the other day I found a column ragging on the Iran negotiations that cited the Borowitz report (which is a humor column in the New Yorker) as a real news source.
On March 12 2015 14:32 ticklishmusic wrote: Wait if everything posted so far is left or some degree thereof, can we get some examples of what counts as right of center, right and far right?
I'd say that Fox is probably right, Washington Times is right (but shitty journalism), the Blaze is pretty far right (and again shitty journalism). Funny thing, the other day I found a column ragging on the Iran negotiations that cited the Borowitz report (which is a humor column in the New Yorker) as a real news source.
Lol... It still says it... And of course the people making comments haven't even noticed.
also from her lil bio blurb
Susan is also an avid investigative researcher having honed her skills in the legal profession.
That strikes me as especially funny considering my most recent blog.
Finally if you click "The Borowitz Report" in the cited article the first thing you see is:
Hillary Releases Twenty Thousand Spam E-Mails From Old Navy BY ANDY BOROWITZ
I can accept describing Huff as far left, but what is the comparable far right equivalent then? I would of guessed Fox but apparently it's got to be further right than that.... right?
EPT
