|
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 October 19 2016 00:11 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 23:57 travis wrote:On October 18 2016 23:45 Gorsameth wrote:On October 18 2016 23:42 travis wrote:On October 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote:
Unbiased media isn't a real thing, it's a fantasy conjured up by people who are looking for a way out from underneath the crushing reality of the information surrounding them. lol what? how is unbiased media not a real thing? If I had a news network, and I went out and shown what was happening outside with a camera, that would be unbiased media. As Farvacola said in the post below yours. Where you decide to go with your camera is still a form of bias. No, it actually isn't. Unless you can prove there is an agenda behind it, it is not. Not that this is what anyone is referring to when they talk about the biased media anyways. By definition, you have only a finite amount of resources (including time), so you cannot be “unbiased” or “objective”. You have to make choices, so you commit to such or such perspective. thats such a tame way to look at the bias issue. Thats like saying no one is perfect, well no shit. Unbiased reporting means you try and get both sides on equal time on one issue at a time. Sometimes you might cover something more negative than the other side, but its the goal every day to look at things objectively, and report on it.
|
|
|
On October 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote:
Unbiased media isn't a real thing, it's a fantasy conjured up by people who are looking for a way out from underneath the crushing reality of the information surrounding them.
See, now this is where you "wax poetic," and good job too.
On October 18 2016 23:46 KwarK wrote:
As has been previously pointed out multiple times, the media has actually done Trump favour after favour by trying to draw parallels between shit like the Trump Foundation literally bribing politicians to support Trump's business interests and the Clinton Foundation accepting money from foreign governments in exchange for eight different departments other than Clinton's state department signing off on a deal that was above board and not within her power to approve unilaterally and then using that money to battle AIDS.
There really is no equivalency between the two candidates but in an attempt to appeal to both sides and say six of one, half a dozen of the other they have rounded a ten down to a six and a one up to a half dozen.
Not to mention that when the only votes Trump needed were the deplorables in the primary he loved that the press would repeat his latest gaffe over and over, that's how he built his base. It's only now that people outside of his base are being polled and he's realizing that they hate him that he's upset that the press are reporting on what he says and does.
Clearly Trump should've lobbied for favors in eight different companies, then he'd be off the hook. But seriously, the perception of which scandal's worse is the partisan issue. If you like Clinton, you probably think Trump's got more skeletons in his foundation. If you like Trump, you probably think Clinton's up to her neck if political favor trading. The most partisan will claim one is objectively worse (lol). But you are the subjective reader and will highlight one and dismiss the other repeatedly (Just read the thread to see cherry picking and spin applied). Which is why the AP story was so breathtaking; you can get a meeting with the secretary of state or her attention in a phone call having been a major donor to the foundation, and there's a segment of the population that will diminish the ethics violations. Followed by justifying it given the candidate's perspective on the media (absolutely hilarious given Clinton's track record on free speech), and twist back around and say there is no liberal media bias. It is the world we live in today.
Some media outlets work so close with the Clinton campaign they had full-page spreads on Machado ready with videos to go right after the first debate concluded. + Show Spoiler +. NBC holds onto their Access Hollywood footage until after the primary to help their girl win. From the hacks, we see how campaign operatives can get town hall questions in advance. A presidential debate moderator boasted to the Clinton camp about how well he took down Trump with questions, and to Obama about how bad the opposition party was. And the list goes on and on. Big media outlets excepting Fox are in the tank for Clinton. And if you like reading outlets that are like Breitbart is to Trump, you have it, and congratulations. I wish you all well whistling past the graveyard of American journalism, consciences clean in your own studied ignorance.
|
United States41989 Posts
On October 19 2016 00:24 Hexe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 00:11 TheDwf wrote:On October 18 2016 23:57 travis wrote:On October 18 2016 23:45 Gorsameth wrote:On October 18 2016 23:42 travis wrote:On October 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote:
Unbiased media isn't a real thing, it's a fantasy conjured up by people who are looking for a way out from underneath the crushing reality of the information surrounding them. lol what? how is unbiased media not a real thing? If I had a news network, and I went out and shown what was happening outside with a camera, that would be unbiased media. As Farvacola said in the post below yours. Where you decide to go with your camera is still a form of bias. No, it actually isn't. Unless you can prove there is an agenda behind it, it is not. Not that this is what anyone is referring to when they talk about the biased media anyways. By definition, you have only a finite amount of resources (including time), so you cannot be “unbiased” or “objective”. You have to make choices, so you commit to such or such perspective. thats such a tame way to look at the bias issue. Thats like saying no one is perfect, well no shit. Unbiased reporting means you try and get both sides on equal time on one issue at a time. Sometimes you might cover something more negative than the other side, but its the goal every day to look at things objectively, and report on it.
So ideally for you the news on September 11th 2001 should have looked like this
"President Bush condemned the attacks in a statement today and promised retribution against any who would attack America. And now we have a spokesman from Al Qaeda on the line to explain why all infidels must die."
|
On October 18 2016 23:57 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 23:45 Gorsameth wrote:On October 18 2016 23:42 travis wrote:On October 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote:
Unbiased media isn't a real thing, it's a fantasy conjured up by people who are looking for a way out from underneath the crushing reality of the information surrounding them. lol what? how is unbiased media not a real thing? If I had a news network, and I went out and shown what was happening outside with a camera, that would be unbiased media. As Farvacola said in the post below yours. Where you decide to go with your camera is still a form of bias. No, it actually isn't. Unless you can prove there is an agenda behind it, it is not. Not that this is what anyone is referring to when they talk about the biased media anyways.
Bias != agenda. Having an agenda is definitely a form of bias, but there are plenty of other biases, many of which you don't even notice you have until someone points them out.
|
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough.
|
Why are we always limited to two sides? What if there are 8 different perspectives on a story, all equally complex?
On October 19 2016 00:31 travis wrote:
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough.
Almost all journalists do this and try to provide what they feel is fair coverage. And they count on their peers to cover the aspect of the story that they missed. The common complaint about biased media comes when a publication does not provide enough time for the specific reader’s viewpoint, even though that viewpoint is covered by other news outlets.
|
On October 19 2016 00:04 ImFromPortugal wrote:
Sounds like a pretty good act to me, assuming he was afraid the Hillary emails had something potentially compromising the peace talks?
|
On October 19 2016 00:31 travis wrote:
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough.
And the point was that you can both privately donate money to Hillary, because you believe Trump is one of the largest opponents of free press to threaten the USA in a long time, and *attempt* to keep that bias out of your journalistic work.
|
On October 19 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 00:31 travis wrote:
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough. And the point was that you can both privately donate money to Hillary, because Trump is one of the largest opponents of free press to threaten the USA in a long time, and *attempt* to keep that bias out of your journalistic work.
but the bias(agenda) *is* in the journalistic work, from the top down. do you guys really not know this? I thought this was common knowledge at this point. There is literal, intentional agendas being pushed in basically all of the mainstream media. Like, the actual goal is to specifically not be fair and not be objective.
|
United States41989 Posts
On October 19 2016 00:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote:
Unbiased media isn't a real thing, it's a fantasy conjured up by people who are looking for a way out from underneath the crushing reality of the information surrounding them. See, now this is where you "wax poetic," and good job too. Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 23:46 KwarK wrote:
As has been previously pointed out multiple times, the media has actually done Trump favour after favour by trying to draw parallels between shit like the Trump Foundation literally bribing politicians to support Trump's business interests and the Clinton Foundation accepting money from foreign governments in exchange for eight different departments other than Clinton's state department signing off on a deal that was above board and not within her power to approve unilaterally and then using that money to battle AIDS.
There really is no equivalency between the two candidates but in an attempt to appeal to both sides and say six of one, half a dozen of the other they have rounded a ten down to a six and a one up to a half dozen.
Not to mention that when the only votes Trump needed were the deplorables in the primary he loved that the press would repeat his latest gaffe over and over, that's how he built his base. It's only now that people outside of his base are being polled and he's realizing that they hate him that he's upset that the press are reporting on what he says and does. Clearly Trump should've lobbied for favors in eight different companies, then he'd be off the hook. But seriously, the perception of which scandal's worse is the partisan issue.
Sorry, I'm confused. Do you genuinely think that the only thing that makes the two not comparable is that there were eight other agencies (and countless regulatory and advisory bodies) involved in the uranium deal? Are you sure you understand both of the cases? Because it seems a lot like you don't.
Again, the Trump Foundation, a non profit that is supposed to do charitable work, bribed Pam Bondi to stop investigating Trump University. The Clinton Foundation, a non profit that actually does charitable work, accepted money from donors who, through several degrees of separation, were associated with Russians seeking to purchase a mining company that has some uranium mines in the United States which, according to the Trump narrative, was approved because of those donations even though the decision was not in Clinton's power to approve, was approved by countless other people who did not receive money and didn't actually do anything to lead to the export of the uranium from that mine because no export license was granted. 100% of the "bribes" happened during the Bush administration and 94% of it was from a single donor in 2005 who was the founder of Uranium One and sold it in 2007, three years before the merger and two years before Clinton became Secretary of State.
The two are objectively not comparable. You're not as stupid as you're pretending to be Danglars. Nobody is. Please stop.
+ Show Spoiler [made this to explain the differences] +
The comparisons only exist because the media loves to feed narratives. There is no real comparison to be made.
|
On October 19 2016 00:36 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On October 19 2016 00:31 travis wrote:
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough. And the point was that you can both privately donate money to Hillary, because Trump is one of the largest opponents of free press to threaten the USA in a long time, and *attempt* to keep that bias out of your journalistic work. but the bias(agenda) *is* in the journalistic work, from the top down. do you guys really not know this? I thought this was common knowledge at this point. There is literal, intentional agendas being pushed in basically all of the mainstream media. Like, the actual goal is to specifically not be fair and not be objective.
You say MSM as if it means something. MSM is Fox, with a clear Republican agenda (see what I did there), MSNBC with a clear Democrat agenda, CNN with a clear *this isn't dumb enough, news needs to be even stupider* agenda. It is also Washington Post (no clear agenda), LA Times (Republican agenda), NY Times (Democrat agenda), etc. etc. And nowadays it probably includes Buzzfeed, HufPo, Google News, Facebook, millions of other web feeds and news aggregators (all with their own biases introduced by whatever algorithms they use and sources they use) as well as foreign "MSM" like Guardian, BBC, RT, Al Jazeera, Le Monde, El Pais, etc. etc. etc. most of which are either easily translated (introducing bias) or provide an English language version.
So yes, some media is pushing an agenda. Some (I'd say most) is not.
|
On October 19 2016 00:36 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On October 19 2016 00:31 travis wrote:
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough. And the point was that you can both privately donate money to Hillary, because Trump is one of the largest opponents of free press to threaten the USA in a long time, and *attempt* to keep that bias out of your journalistic work. but the bias(agenda) *is* in the journalistic work, from the top down. do you guys really not know this? I thought this was common knowledge at this point. There is literal, intentional agendas being pushed in basically all of the mainstream media. Like, the actual goal is to specifically not be fair and not be objective.
Are you saying all the public media is working toward a common goal or perspective?
|
On October 19 2016 00:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 00:36 travis wrote:On October 19 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On October 19 2016 00:31 travis wrote:
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough. And the point was that you can both privately donate money to Hillary, because Trump is one of the largest opponents of free press to threaten the USA in a long time, and *attempt* to keep that bias out of your journalistic work. but the bias(agenda) *is* in the journalistic work, from the top down. do you guys really not know this? I thought this was common knowledge at this point. There is literal, intentional agendas being pushed in basically all of the mainstream media. Like, the actual goal is to specifically not be fair and not be objective. Are you saying all the public media is working toward a common goal or perspective?
I'd say that *almost* all of the big media is pushing some sort of agenda, and the majority of it tends to be unified in whatever agenda they push.
Do i think they are actually working towards a goal? I don't know about things like that. I don't know what is going on behind the scenes or the level of complication or what kinds of grand conspiracies do or do not exist. But some things are obvious just by observing.
So anyways yeah, I think that when most people talk about "unbiased media", they mean media that isn't what we are talking about now.
|
On October 19 2016 00:49 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 00:44 Plansix wrote:On October 19 2016 00:36 travis wrote:On October 19 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On October 19 2016 00:31 travis wrote:
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough. And the point was that you can both privately donate money to Hillary, because Trump is one of the largest opponents of free press to threaten the USA in a long time, and *attempt* to keep that bias out of your journalistic work. but the bias(agenda) *is* in the journalistic work, from the top down. do you guys really not know this? I thought this was common knowledge at this point. There is literal, intentional agendas being pushed in basically all of the mainstream media. Like, the actual goal is to specifically not be fair and not be objective. Are you saying all the public media is working toward a common goal or perspective? I'd say that *almost* all of the big media is pushing some sort of agenda, and the majority of it tends to be unified in whatever agenda they push. Do i think they are actually working towards a goal? I don't know about things like that. I don't know what is going on behind the scenes or the level of complication or what kinds of grand conspiracies do or do not exist. But some things are obvious just by observing.
I have never gotten that impression from “all media”. There are a couple networks that clearly pander to specific demographics and viewpoints. But adding some level of intent beyond catering to their biases is a big leap for me. When it comes to published news, like the Times, Post and WSJ, I don’t believe they are pushing any agenda. Their editorial team might have a view point, but their reporting is what it is.
|
On October 19 2016 00:49 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 00:44 Plansix wrote:On October 19 2016 00:36 travis wrote:On October 19 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On October 19 2016 00:31 travis wrote:
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough. And the point was that you can both privately donate money to Hillary, because Trump is one of the largest opponents of free press to threaten the USA in a long time, and *attempt* to keep that bias out of your journalistic work. but the bias(agenda) *is* in the journalistic work, from the top down. do you guys really not know this? I thought this was common knowledge at this point. There is literal, intentional agendas being pushed in basically all of the mainstream media. Like, the actual goal is to specifically not be fair and not be objective. Are you saying all the public media is working toward a common goal or perspective? I'd say that *almost* all of the big media is pushing some sort of agenda, and the majority of it tends to be unified in whatever agenda they push. Do i think they are actually working towards a goal? I don't know about things like that. I don't know what is going on behind the scenes or the level of complication or what kinds of grand conspiracies do or do not exist. But some things are obvious just by observing.
Yes. The agenda is called money.
Other than that, it's mostly your own bias reflecting the content.
|
On October 19 2016 00:49 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 00:44 Plansix wrote:On October 19 2016 00:36 travis wrote:On October 19 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On October 19 2016 00:31 travis wrote:
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough. And the point was that you can both privately donate money to Hillary, because Trump is one of the largest opponents of free press to threaten the USA in a long time, and *attempt* to keep that bias out of your journalistic work. but the bias(agenda) *is* in the journalistic work, from the top down. do you guys really not know this? I thought this was common knowledge at this point. There is literal, intentional agendas being pushed in basically all of the mainstream media. Like, the actual goal is to specifically not be fair and not be objective. Are you saying all the public media is working toward a common goal or perspective? I'd say that *almost* all of the big media is pushing some sort of agenda, and the majority of it tends to be unified in whatever agenda they push. Do i think they are actually working towards a goal? I don't know about things like that. I don't know what is going on behind the scenes or the level of complication or what kinds of grand conspiracies do or do not exist. But some things are obvious just by observing. So anyways yeah, I think that when most people talk about "unbiased media", they mean media that isn't what we are talking about now.
When people talk about unbiased media they actually mean "whatever media agrees with me".
|
The vagueness of the term “agenda” is a problem for this discussion.
|
On October 19 2016 00:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 00:49 travis wrote:On October 19 2016 00:44 Plansix wrote:On October 19 2016 00:36 travis wrote:On October 19 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On October 19 2016 00:31 travis wrote:
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough. And the point was that you can both privately donate money to Hillary, because Trump is one of the largest opponents of free press to threaten the USA in a long time, and *attempt* to keep that bias out of your journalistic work. but the bias(agenda) *is* in the journalistic work, from the top down. do you guys really not know this? I thought this was common knowledge at this point. There is literal, intentional agendas being pushed in basically all of the mainstream media. Like, the actual goal is to specifically not be fair and not be objective. Are you saying all the public media is working toward a common goal or perspective? I'd say that *almost* all of the big media is pushing some sort of agenda, and the majority of it tends to be unified in whatever agenda they push. Do i think they are actually working towards a goal? I don't know about things like that. I don't know what is going on behind the scenes or the level of complication or what kinds of grand conspiracies do or do not exist. But some things are obvious just by observing. Yes. The agenda is called money. Other than that, it's mostly your own bias reflecting the content.
Money, self preservation, and some level human decency. Even as much as the media is a huge let down, claiming they're biased isn't going to help. If you dig beyond the major ones the remaining credible media sources still all agree Trump is a giant asshole.
|
On October 19 2016 00:55 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 00:49 travis wrote:On October 19 2016 00:44 Plansix wrote:On October 19 2016 00:36 travis wrote:On October 19 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On October 19 2016 00:31 travis wrote:
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough. And the point was that you can both privately donate money to Hillary, because Trump is one of the largest opponents of free press to threaten the USA in a long time, and *attempt* to keep that bias out of your journalistic work. but the bias(agenda) *is* in the journalistic work, from the top down. do you guys really not know this? I thought this was common knowledge at this point. There is literal, intentional agendas being pushed in basically all of the mainstream media. Like, the actual goal is to specifically not be fair and not be objective. Are you saying all the public media is working toward a common goal or perspective? I'd say that *almost* all of the big media is pushing some sort of agenda, and the majority of it tends to be unified in whatever agenda they push. Do i think they are actually working towards a goal? I don't know about things like that. I don't know what is going on behind the scenes or the level of complication or what kinds of grand conspiracies do or do not exist. But some things are obvious just by observing. So anyways yeah, I think that when most people talk about "unbiased media", they mean media that isn't what we are talking about now. When people talk about unbiased media they actually mean "whatever media agrees with me".
Okay this is probably more on the money in general :/
not always though. There are a lot of people still I think that just want fair reporting (in particular I think many people want better coverage of a broader spectrum of current events)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jeSo2ik.png)
