|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 19 2018 01:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 01:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 19 2018 01:00 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2018 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 19 2018 00:48 zlefin wrote:On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.
LOL. what's the "LOL" part about? i.e. I don't get what you mean by it in this context. People's perception of bias in the news media relies 100% on their political opinions. All new media outlets have established parameters of what they will call 'fair' and 'unbiased', but it rarely has anything to do with actually being fair and unbiased, it just sticks within those parameters and anything outside it is ridiculed. Look at Corbyn for the first year of his reign of the Labour party. The BBC was basically an anti-Corbyn news outlet, because his views fell outside what the BBC would call established political truth. Most people don't notice it as much with the major news outlets because they are living life within a mythology that aligns with the news they are consuming. To pretend that this is a complete, fair and balanced view of politics, or anything else, is a complete joke. Every day that you read the BBC you are being conditioned to believe in a set of basic assumptions that are really only there to protect those in power. This can be easily counter balanced by reading a couple news sources. News agencies don’t report in an unbiased nature. They just report on sets of facts and stories they hear, while trying to make their potential biases known to the viewer. As an American who listens to BBC radio its world coverage, I’ve never heard the network push that it is reporting on all the facts or that its coverage with the “truth”. It has mostly been the opposite of that, with reporters being careful in saying they do not have all the facts. When it comes to the ind of 'establishment bias' that I believe affects the BBC, reading multiple news sources to get a fair, balanced view of current events is actually counter productive. The truth isn't determined by the majority, and the majority of news outlets will report a very similar, and very narrow interpretation of events. If you are reading multiple sources these are the facts that you will assume are true, but often you will find all the major news outlets failing to report stuff, and I've seen it argued many times on here that if there's no major news source, its probably a conspiracy theory or it didn't happen. One news outlet like the BBC reporting in the way they do isn't a problem, as you've said they try and do their best to be balanced within their parameters, but when these parameters are identical in all the major news outlets you have a problem. Personally, i think having a better understanding of the journalism profession is the solution to this problem. Because when people understand that there is no truth, only information from a specific point of view, they understand that no journalist can provide them with complete information. So when I want more information on a specific story, I might read the local coverage of the story, rather than go to another national paper. And the vast majority of news worthy events in the world do not get reported on. The rise of false or misleading information being peddled through social media sites have made people reluctant to believe stories from unknown sources. Which is just the nature of anonymous internet forums leaking into the wider public discourse. I didn't believe random people on the internet is the last 1990s and I don't think its a good idea to start now. Again, I think people would be well served to find a specific reporter covering a story they are interested in and follow that person on social media. Reporters are generally pretty good a sniffing out a conspiracy theory or when someone is overselling a story that might not have a lot of verifiable information surrounding it. You can learn a lot about a story just by who is covering.
That only works if you know who is a "reporter" and who is a commentator. I'm sure a lot of people follow Hannity and Tucker on Twitter, and eagerly look forward to updates on the "news". But those guys aren't reporters, and they're not honest people in general.
|
On June 19 2018 01:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 01:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 19 2018 01:00 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2018 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 19 2018 00:48 zlefin wrote:On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.
LOL. what's the "LOL" part about? i.e. I don't get what you mean by it in this context. People's perception of bias in the news media relies 100% on their political opinions. All new media outlets have established parameters of what they will call 'fair' and 'unbiased', but it rarely has anything to do with actually being fair and unbiased, it just sticks within those parameters and anything outside it is ridiculed. Look at Corbyn for the first year of his reign of the Labour party. The BBC was basically an anti-Corbyn news outlet, because his views fell outside what the BBC would call established political truth. Most people don't notice it as much with the major news outlets because they are living life within a mythology that aligns with the news they are consuming. To pretend that this is a complete, fair and balanced view of politics, or anything else, is a complete joke. Every day that you read the BBC you are being conditioned to believe in a set of basic assumptions that are really only there to protect those in power. This can be easily counter balanced by reading a couple news sources. News agencies don’t report in an unbiased nature. They just report on sets of facts and stories they hear, while trying to make their potential biases known to the viewer. As an American who listens to BBC radio its world coverage, I’ve never heard the network push that it is reporting on all the facts or that its coverage with the “truth”. It has mostly been the opposite of that, with reporters being careful in saying they do not have all the facts. When it comes to the ind of 'establishment bias' that I believe affects the BBC, reading multiple news sources to get a fair, balanced view of current events is actually counter productive. The truth isn't determined by the majority, and the majority of news outlets will report a very similar, and very narrow interpretation of events. If you are reading multiple sources these are the facts that you will assume are true, but often you will find all the major news outlets failing to report stuff, and I've seen it argued many times on here that if there's no major news source, its probably a conspiracy theory or it didn't happen. One news outlet like the BBC reporting in the way they do isn't a problem, as you've said they try and do their best to be balanced within their parameters, but when these parameters are identical in all the major news outlets you have a problem. Personally, i think having a better understanding of the journalism profession is the solution to this problem. Because when people understand that there is no truth, only information from a specific point of view, they understand that no journalist can provide them with complete information. So when I want more information on a specific story, I might read the local coverage of the story, rather than go to another national paper. And the vast majority of news worthy events in the world do not get reported on. The rise of false or misleading information being peddled through social media sites have made people reluctant to believe stories from unknown sources. Which is just the nature of anonymous internet forums leaking into the wider public discourse. I didn't believe random people on the internet is the last 1990s and I don't think its a good idea to start now. Again, I think people would be well served to find a specific reporter covering a story they are interested in and follow that person on social media. Reporters are generally pretty good a sniffing out a conspiracy theory or when someone is overselling a story that might not have a lot of verifiable information surrounding it. You can learn a lot about a story just by who is covering. We humans like having our world views reinforced. We like to be right.
It doesn't matter that X is not a 'real' journalist or news organization. They say the thing that we are thinking and therefor we like them and listen to more of them.
The modern problem is our unparalleled ability to pick and chose what we see and what we don't see. So its easier then ever before to find your own little echo chamber.
Thinking of rational solutions doesn't help much when the problem is that people are not rational actors to begin with.
|
On June 19 2018 01:34 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 01:30 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2018 01:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 19 2018 01:00 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2018 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 19 2018 00:48 zlefin wrote:On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.
LOL. what's the "LOL" part about? i.e. I don't get what you mean by it in this context. People's perception of bias in the news media relies 100% on their political opinions. All new media outlets have established parameters of what they will call 'fair' and 'unbiased', but it rarely has anything to do with actually being fair and unbiased, it just sticks within those parameters and anything outside it is ridiculed. Look at Corbyn for the first year of his reign of the Labour party. The BBC was basically an anti-Corbyn news outlet, because his views fell outside what the BBC would call established political truth. Most people don't notice it as much with the major news outlets because they are living life within a mythology that aligns with the news they are consuming. To pretend that this is a complete, fair and balanced view of politics, or anything else, is a complete joke. Every day that you read the BBC you are being conditioned to believe in a set of basic assumptions that are really only there to protect those in power. This can be easily counter balanced by reading a couple news sources. News agencies don’t report in an unbiased nature. They just report on sets of facts and stories they hear, while trying to make their potential biases known to the viewer. As an American who listens to BBC radio its world coverage, I’ve never heard the network push that it is reporting on all the facts or that its coverage with the “truth”. It has mostly been the opposite of that, with reporters being careful in saying they do not have all the facts. When it comes to the ind of 'establishment bias' that I believe affects the BBC, reading multiple news sources to get a fair, balanced view of current events is actually counter productive. The truth isn't determined by the majority, and the majority of news outlets will report a very similar, and very narrow interpretation of events. If you are reading multiple sources these are the facts that you will assume are true, but often you will find all the major news outlets failing to report stuff, and I've seen it argued many times on here that if there's no major news source, its probably a conspiracy theory or it didn't happen. One news outlet like the BBC reporting in the way they do isn't a problem, as you've said they try and do their best to be balanced within their parameters, but when these parameters are identical in all the major news outlets you have a problem. Personally, i think having a better understanding of the journalism profession is the solution to this problem. Because when people understand that there is no truth, only information from a specific point of view, they understand that no journalist can provide them with complete information. So when I want more information on a specific story, I might read the local coverage of the story, rather than go to another national paper. And the vast majority of news worthy events in the world do not get reported on. The rise of false or misleading information being peddled through social media sites have made people reluctant to believe stories from unknown sources. Which is just the nature of anonymous internet forums leaking into the wider public discourse. I didn't believe random people on the internet is the last 1990s and I don't think its a good idea to start now. Again, I think people would be well served to find a specific reporter covering a story they are interested in and follow that person on social media. Reporters are generally pretty good a sniffing out a conspiracy theory or when someone is overselling a story that might not have a lot of verifiable information surrounding it. You can learn a lot about a story just by who is covering. That only works if you know who is a "reporter" and who is a commentator. I'm sure a lot of people follow Hannity and Tucker on Twitter, and eagerly look forward to updates on the "news". But those guys aren't reporters, and they're not honest people in general.
Understanding the profession of journalism does a lot to remove the confusion. If the person is behind a desk on the TV each night, they are not a reporter. I was camping with my extended family this weekend. My brother's inlaws-to-be are all Trump supporters and like Fox News(they also watch the local stations). I was still able to have productive discussions with them about the news by focusing on the on site reporting and the lackluster coverage in broadcast media. Not leading off with "Fox News lies" leads to way more productive conversations.
On June 19 2018 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 01:30 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2018 01:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 19 2018 01:00 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2018 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 19 2018 00:48 zlefin wrote:On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.
LOL. what's the "LOL" part about? i.e. I don't get what you mean by it in this context. People's perception of bias in the news media relies 100% on their political opinions. All new media outlets have established parameters of what they will call 'fair' and 'unbiased', but it rarely has anything to do with actually being fair and unbiased, it just sticks within those parameters and anything outside it is ridiculed. Look at Corbyn for the first year of his reign of the Labour party. The BBC was basically an anti-Corbyn news outlet, because his views fell outside what the BBC would call established political truth. Most people don't notice it as much with the major news outlets because they are living life within a mythology that aligns with the news they are consuming. To pretend that this is a complete, fair and balanced view of politics, or anything else, is a complete joke. Every day that you read the BBC you are being conditioned to believe in a set of basic assumptions that are really only there to protect those in power. This can be easily counter balanced by reading a couple news sources. News agencies don’t report in an unbiased nature. They just report on sets of facts and stories they hear, while trying to make their potential biases known to the viewer. As an American who listens to BBC radio its world coverage, I’ve never heard the network push that it is reporting on all the facts or that its coverage with the “truth”. It has mostly been the opposite of that, with reporters being careful in saying they do not have all the facts. When it comes to the ind of 'establishment bias' that I believe affects the BBC, reading multiple news sources to get a fair, balanced view of current events is actually counter productive. The truth isn't determined by the majority, and the majority of news outlets will report a very similar, and very narrow interpretation of events. If you are reading multiple sources these are the facts that you will assume are true, but often you will find all the major news outlets failing to report stuff, and I've seen it argued many times on here that if there's no major news source, its probably a conspiracy theory or it didn't happen. One news outlet like the BBC reporting in the way they do isn't a problem, as you've said they try and do their best to be balanced within their parameters, but when these parameters are identical in all the major news outlets you have a problem. Personally, i think having a better understanding of the journalism profession is the solution to this problem. Because when people understand that there is no truth, only information from a specific point of view, they understand that no journalist can provide them with complete information. So when I want more information on a specific story, I might read the local coverage of the story, rather than go to another national paper. And the vast majority of news worthy events in the world do not get reported on. The rise of false or misleading information being peddled through social media sites have made people reluctant to believe stories from unknown sources. Which is just the nature of anonymous internet forums leaking into the wider public discourse. I didn't believe random people on the internet is the last 1990s and I don't think its a good idea to start now. Again, I think people would be well served to find a specific reporter covering a story they are interested in and follow that person on social media. Reporters are generally pretty good a sniffing out a conspiracy theory or when someone is overselling a story that might not have a lot of verifiable information surrounding it. You can learn a lot about a story just by who is covering. We humans like having our world views reinforced. We like to be right. It doesn't matter that X is not a 'real' journalist or news organization. They say the thing that we are thinking and therefor we like them and listen to more of them. The modern problem is our unparalleled ability to pick and chose what we see and what we don't see. So its easier then ever before to find your own little echo chamber. Thinking of rational solutions doesn't help much when the problem is that people are not rational actors to begin with.
All of this is true. But we need some public buy in if news media is going to overcome its trust issues. Having modern news organizations openly talk about journalism is way get the public to talk about how they receive the news. Of course, regulation and the end of this hands off style of goverment oversight of the news media would be better. But that can't do it alone. The public needs to want better news coverage. From my personal experience, the argument that these 24 news networks are profiting by pitting Americans against other Americans has broad appeal.
|
On June 19 2018 01:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 01:34 Ayaz2810 wrote:On June 19 2018 01:30 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2018 01:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 19 2018 01:00 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2018 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 19 2018 00:48 zlefin wrote:On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.
LOL. what's the "LOL" part about? i.e. I don't get what you mean by it in this context. People's perception of bias in the news media relies 100% on their political opinions. All new media outlets have established parameters of what they will call 'fair' and 'unbiased', but it rarely has anything to do with actually being fair and unbiased, it just sticks within those parameters and anything outside it is ridiculed. Look at Corbyn for the first year of his reign of the Labour party. The BBC was basically an anti-Corbyn news outlet, because his views fell outside what the BBC would call established political truth. Most people don't notice it as much with the major news outlets because they are living life within a mythology that aligns with the news they are consuming. To pretend that this is a complete, fair and balanced view of politics, or anything else, is a complete joke. Every day that you read the BBC you are being conditioned to believe in a set of basic assumptions that are really only there to protect those in power. This can be easily counter balanced by reading a couple news sources. News agencies don’t report in an unbiased nature. They just report on sets of facts and stories they hear, while trying to make their potential biases known to the viewer. As an American who listens to BBC radio its world coverage, I’ve never heard the network push that it is reporting on all the facts or that its coverage with the “truth”. It has mostly been the opposite of that, with reporters being careful in saying they do not have all the facts. When it comes to the ind of 'establishment bias' that I believe affects the BBC, reading multiple news sources to get a fair, balanced view of current events is actually counter productive. The truth isn't determined by the majority, and the majority of news outlets will report a very similar, and very narrow interpretation of events. If you are reading multiple sources these are the facts that you will assume are true, but often you will find all the major news outlets failing to report stuff, and I've seen it argued many times on here that if there's no major news source, its probably a conspiracy theory or it didn't happen. One news outlet like the BBC reporting in the way they do isn't a problem, as you've said they try and do their best to be balanced within their parameters, but when these parameters are identical in all the major news outlets you have a problem. Personally, i think having a better understanding of the journalism profession is the solution to this problem. Because when people understand that there is no truth, only information from a specific point of view, they understand that no journalist can provide them with complete information. So when I want more information on a specific story, I might read the local coverage of the story, rather than go to another national paper. And the vast majority of news worthy events in the world do not get reported on. The rise of false or misleading information being peddled through social media sites have made people reluctant to believe stories from unknown sources. Which is just the nature of anonymous internet forums leaking into the wider public discourse. I didn't believe random people on the internet is the last 1990s and I don't think its a good idea to start now. Again, I think people would be well served to find a specific reporter covering a story they are interested in and follow that person on social media. Reporters are generally pretty good a sniffing out a conspiracy theory or when someone is overselling a story that might not have a lot of verifiable information surrounding it. You can learn a lot about a story just by who is covering. That only works if you know who is a "reporter" and who is a commentator. I'm sure a lot of people follow Hannity and Tucker on Twitter, and eagerly look forward to updates on the "news". But those guys aren't reporters, and they're not honest people in general. Understanding the profession of journalism does a lot to remove the confusion. If the person is behind a desk on the TV each night, they are not a reporter. I was camping with my extended family this weekend. My brother's inlaws-to-be are all Trump supporters and like Fox News(they also watch the local stations). I was still able to have productive discussions with them about the news by focusing on the on site reporting and the lackluster coverage in broadcast media. Not leading off with "Fox News lies" leads to way more productive conversations.
I generally don't open with that either, but it doesn't seem to matter. I've had multiple people claim that everything not coming from the right-wing propaganda machine is literally fake. I once listed for a former friend of mine about 25 news outlets (channels, papers, and websites) that have proven to be reputable and trustworthy in their reporting that I follow. His response was "that's all fake. They're just out to get Trump". You must have friends and family who are less stupid, and I'm jealous.
|
On June 19 2018 01:20 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 01:00 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2018 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 19 2018 00:48 zlefin wrote:On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.
LOL. what's the "LOL" part about? i.e. I don't get what you mean by it in this context. People's perception of bias in the news media relies 100% on their political opinions. All new media outlets have established parameters of what they will call 'fair' and 'unbiased', but it rarely has anything to do with actually being fair and unbiased, it just sticks within those parameters and anything outside it is ridiculed. Look at Corbyn for the first year of his reign of the Labour party. The BBC was basically an anti-Corbyn news outlet, because his views fell outside what the BBC would call established political truth. Most people don't notice it as much with the major news outlets because they are living life within a mythology that aligns with the news they are consuming. To pretend that this is a complete, fair and balanced view of politics, or anything else, is a complete joke. Every day that you read the BBC you are being conditioned to believe in a set of basic assumptions that are really only there to protect those in power. This can be easily counter balanced by reading a couple news sources. News agencies don’t report in an unbiased nature. They just report on sets of facts and stories they hear, while trying to make their potential biases known to the viewer. As an American who listens to BBC radio its world coverage, I’ve never heard the network push that it is reporting on all the facts or that its coverage with the “truth”. It has mostly been the opposite of that, with reporters being careful in saying they do not have all the facts. When it comes to the ind of 'establishment bias' that I believe affects the BBC, reading multiple news sources to get a fair, balanced view of current events is actually counter productive. The truth isn't determined by the majority, and the majority of news outlets will report a very similar, and very narrow interpretation of events. If you are reading multiple sources these are the facts that you will assume are true, but often you will find all the major news outlets failing to report stuff, and I've seen it argued many times on here that if there's no major news source, its probably a conspiracy theory or it didn't happen. One news outlet like the BBC reporting in the way they do isn't a problem, as you've said they try and do their best to be balanced within their parameters, but when these parameters are identical in all the major news outlets you have a problem.
You aren’t reading multiple news outlets to make a determination of what the majority of them say. You’re reading multiple news outlets to see what the other side says and what facts they point out in support of it. Only in the majorly successful coverups do the opposite viewpoints only sound like conspiracy theories.
|
On June 19 2018 01:51 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 01:46 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2018 01:34 Ayaz2810 wrote:On June 19 2018 01:30 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2018 01:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 19 2018 01:00 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2018 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 19 2018 00:48 zlefin wrote:On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.
LOL. what's the "LOL" part about? i.e. I don't get what you mean by it in this context. People's perception of bias in the news media relies 100% on their political opinions. All new media outlets have established parameters of what they will call 'fair' and 'unbiased', but it rarely has anything to do with actually being fair and unbiased, it just sticks within those parameters and anything outside it is ridiculed. Look at Corbyn for the first year of his reign of the Labour party. The BBC was basically an anti-Corbyn news outlet, because his views fell outside what the BBC would call established political truth. Most people don't notice it as much with the major news outlets because they are living life within a mythology that aligns with the news they are consuming. To pretend that this is a complete, fair and balanced view of politics, or anything else, is a complete joke. Every day that you read the BBC you are being conditioned to believe in a set of basic assumptions that are really only there to protect those in power. This can be easily counter balanced by reading a couple news sources. News agencies don’t report in an unbiased nature. They just report on sets of facts and stories they hear, while trying to make their potential biases known to the viewer. As an American who listens to BBC radio its world coverage, I’ve never heard the network push that it is reporting on all the facts or that its coverage with the “truth”. It has mostly been the opposite of that, with reporters being careful in saying they do not have all the facts. When it comes to the ind of 'establishment bias' that I believe affects the BBC, reading multiple news sources to get a fair, balanced view of current events is actually counter productive. The truth isn't determined by the majority, and the majority of news outlets will report a very similar, and very narrow interpretation of events. If you are reading multiple sources these are the facts that you will assume are true, but often you will find all the major news outlets failing to report stuff, and I've seen it argued many times on here that if there's no major news source, its probably a conspiracy theory or it didn't happen. One news outlet like the BBC reporting in the way they do isn't a problem, as you've said they try and do their best to be balanced within their parameters, but when these parameters are identical in all the major news outlets you have a problem. Personally, i think having a better understanding of the journalism profession is the solution to this problem. Because when people understand that there is no truth, only information from a specific point of view, they understand that no journalist can provide them with complete information. So when I want more information on a specific story, I might read the local coverage of the story, rather than go to another national paper. And the vast majority of news worthy events in the world do not get reported on. The rise of false or misleading information being peddled through social media sites have made people reluctant to believe stories from unknown sources. Which is just the nature of anonymous internet forums leaking into the wider public discourse. I didn't believe random people on the internet is the last 1990s and I don't think its a good idea to start now. Again, I think people would be well served to find a specific reporter covering a story they are interested in and follow that person on social media. Reporters are generally pretty good a sniffing out a conspiracy theory or when someone is overselling a story that might not have a lot of verifiable information surrounding it. You can learn a lot about a story just by who is covering. That only works if you know who is a "reporter" and who is a commentator. I'm sure a lot of people follow Hannity and Tucker on Twitter, and eagerly look forward to updates on the "news". But those guys aren't reporters, and they're not honest people in general. Understanding the profession of journalism does a lot to remove the confusion. If the person is behind a desk on the TV each night, they are not a reporter. I was camping with my extended family this weekend. My brother's inlaws-to-be are all Trump supporters and like Fox News(they also watch the local stations). I was still able to have productive discussions with them about the news by focusing on the on site reporting and the lackluster coverage in broadcast media. Not leading off with "Fox News lies" leads to way more productive conversations. I generally don't open with that either, but it doesn't seem to matter. I've had multiple people claim that everything not coming from the right-wing propaganda machine is literally fake. I once listed for a former friend of mine about 25 news outlets (channels, papers, and websites) that have proven to be reputable and trustworthy in their reporting that I follow. His response was "that's all fake. They're just out to get Trump". You must have friends and family who are less stupid, and I'm jealous.
sorry you have a lot of friends who drunk the koolaid and don't understand how truth works and are unable to recognize it. That must be very hard.
|
On June 19 2018 01:23 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 23:50 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2018 23:35 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Can we bring back the fairness doctrine please? I'm so tired of 40% of America missing out on the truth because right-wing media won't report it. This is bullshit. Fox is actively participating in the downfall of American democracy. Also, fuck you Scalia.
"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011." This had more pull when there were only 3 broadcast television networks and people regarded the radio airwaves as a scarce resource. Both are no longer the case. You're just using political rhetoric in a very slanted way to try to enforce your will on others. Fox is a big participant in the downfall of American democracy? Hardly. Liberals have their MSNBC and CNN. You can pick the echo chamber of your choosing if you like that sort of thing. It's eternally hilarious how much talking is done out of both sides of the mouth. Oh Trump is this ridiculous authoritarian and media is under threat. By the way, let's force right wing media to report what I call truth. Because I say they won't report it. Of course my left wing media is fairly reporting the truth. Oh yeah. Also, fuck you Scalia. Rest in peace, Scalia. Your opinions and dissents greatly furthered the cause of democracy. Bullshit. MSNBC and CNN are not the bastions of the liberal media agenda that you claim they are (nor is WaPo, the Times, or any of the other major papers). They report factual information that Fox does not. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and rotten oranges. The only reasons Trump supporters hate MSNBC and CNN are because A. he tells them to and they're easily manipulated and B. those networks call out the blatant lies and hypocrisy that Fox won't. Fox is essentially state media at this point. Is truth and fact somehow part of the "liberal agenda"? Because if it is, I'll be a liberal forever.
See, already we have disagreements at who’s the most biased and reports factual information. You’re wrong. Their opinion shows are just as bad. Their news reporting is just as bad and sometimes worse depending on the host. You’re just biased to believe your own side is actually pretty good, without looking critically at how they manipulate with half truths, outright lies, buried ledes, and opinion spin. That’s another reason why fairness doctrine can and would fail: no neutral arbiter; it’s all a matter of opinion.
Claiming that those networks are somehow an echo chamber is also false. I can recall dozens of occasions in which anchors and guests on those networks have explored the possible benefits of Trump policy, international diplomacy, EOs, and other things. Of course, that fades quickly because most, if not all, of his decisions are fucking awful. I've even heard them give credit for the state of the stock market and economy.
This kind of shit is why I hardly ever debate people anymore. You falsely accuse "the left" or "liberals" of doing the things that Trump and Republicans are doing. You clearly don't watch either of those channels. If more right-wingers did, and weren't brainwashed by the "fake news" mantra, Trump would be out on his ass.
There are few things I hate more than when people go "the other side is just as bad!". Because that's just not fucking true.
Yep. I can also show you instances on Fox where special report or Fox News Sunday went against Trump and mouthpieces. I’m no fan of the channel either. You’re just selectively playing Fox’s worst against lefty media’s best and trying to draw conclusions. And you’re failing.
Similarly, debates of these type generally fall into pointless areas because defenders of left-leaning or left-wing media institutions refuse to admit or even see the problems in their ranks, but will point out everything on the right just fine. Partisanship from beginning to end.
Years in office/Criminal Indictments/Convictions/Prison Sentences
Barack Obama
Democratic 8 0 0 0
George W. Bush
Republican 8 16 16 9
Bill Clinton
Democratic 8 2 1 1
George H. W. Bush
Republican 4 1 1 1
Ronald Reagan
Republican 8 26 16 8
Jimmy Carter
Democratic 4 1 0 0
Gerald Ford
Republican 2.4 1 1 1
Richard Nixon
Republican 5.6 76 55 15
The one valid criticism of "the liberal media" is that they are like a cat chasing a laser pointer when it comes to making stories out of Trump's bullshit. They are so easily distracted it's not even funny.
You’re missing a little explainer in your table of facts. You’re talking administrations? You’re refusing to show methodologies? You’re leaving off impeachment’s and contempts of Congress?
Really it sounds like you’re showing your own belief in biased news journalism by presenting extremely biased breakdowns. That proves the point I made, so thank you very much!
|
On June 19 2018 01:51 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 01:46 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2018 01:34 Ayaz2810 wrote:On June 19 2018 01:30 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2018 01:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 19 2018 01:00 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2018 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 19 2018 00:48 zlefin wrote:On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.
LOL. what's the "LOL" part about? i.e. I don't get what you mean by it in this context. People's perception of bias in the news media relies 100% on their political opinions. All new media outlets have established parameters of what they will call 'fair' and 'unbiased', but it rarely has anything to do with actually being fair and unbiased, it just sticks within those parameters and anything outside it is ridiculed. Look at Corbyn for the first year of his reign of the Labour party. The BBC was basically an anti-Corbyn news outlet, because his views fell outside what the BBC would call established political truth. Most people don't notice it as much with the major news outlets because they are living life within a mythology that aligns with the news they are consuming. To pretend that this is a complete, fair and balanced view of politics, or anything else, is a complete joke. Every day that you read the BBC you are being conditioned to believe in a set of basic assumptions that are really only there to protect those in power. This can be easily counter balanced by reading a couple news sources. News agencies don’t report in an unbiased nature. They just report on sets of facts and stories they hear, while trying to make their potential biases known to the viewer. As an American who listens to BBC radio its world coverage, I’ve never heard the network push that it is reporting on all the facts or that its coverage with the “truth”. It has mostly been the opposite of that, with reporters being careful in saying they do not have all the facts. When it comes to the ind of 'establishment bias' that I believe affects the BBC, reading multiple news sources to get a fair, balanced view of current events is actually counter productive. The truth isn't determined by the majority, and the majority of news outlets will report a very similar, and very narrow interpretation of events. If you are reading multiple sources these are the facts that you will assume are true, but often you will find all the major news outlets failing to report stuff, and I've seen it argued many times on here that if there's no major news source, its probably a conspiracy theory or it didn't happen. One news outlet like the BBC reporting in the way they do isn't a problem, as you've said they try and do their best to be balanced within their parameters, but when these parameters are identical in all the major news outlets you have a problem. Personally, i think having a better understanding of the journalism profession is the solution to this problem. Because when people understand that there is no truth, only information from a specific point of view, they understand that no journalist can provide them with complete information. So when I want more information on a specific story, I might read the local coverage of the story, rather than go to another national paper. And the vast majority of news worthy events in the world do not get reported on. The rise of false or misleading information being peddled through social media sites have made people reluctant to believe stories from unknown sources. Which is just the nature of anonymous internet forums leaking into the wider public discourse. I didn't believe random people on the internet is the last 1990s and I don't think its a good idea to start now. Again, I think people would be well served to find a specific reporter covering a story they are interested in and follow that person on social media. Reporters are generally pretty good a sniffing out a conspiracy theory or when someone is overselling a story that might not have a lot of verifiable information surrounding it. You can learn a lot about a story just by who is covering. That only works if you know who is a "reporter" and who is a commentator. I'm sure a lot of people follow Hannity and Tucker on Twitter, and eagerly look forward to updates on the "news". But those guys aren't reporters, and they're not honest people in general. Understanding the profession of journalism does a lot to remove the confusion. If the person is behind a desk on the TV each night, they are not a reporter. I was camping with my extended family this weekend. My brother's inlaws-to-be are all Trump supporters and like Fox News(they also watch the local stations). I was still able to have productive discussions with them about the news by focusing on the on site reporting and the lackluster coverage in broadcast media. Not leading off with "Fox News lies" leads to way more productive conversations. I generally don't open with that either, but it doesn't seem to matter. I've had multiple people claim that everything not coming from the right-wing propaganda machine is literally fake. I once listed for a former friend of mine about 25 news outlets (channels, papers, and websites) that have proven to be reputable and trustworthy in their reporting that I follow. His response was "that's all fake. They're just out to get Trump". You must have friends and family who are less stupid, and I'm jealous.
Full disclosure, that discussion was the product of several failed arguments and a near friendship ending with my brother about transgender folks in the army. I’m pretty invested in bridging this divide, if only because I like my brother, so I put in a lot of work finding ways to present arguments. I don’t have a great success rate so far. Though, this weekend my brother did ask me about the detention camps for kids and if that was true, so I might be getting someplace.
Personally, when my brother said something to the effect of “All the news organizations are liars” I ask him if he really thought I was stupid. He couldn’t dismiss the news coverage once it was connected to calling me an idiot for believing lies, because he wasn’t willing to insult me to win a political argument. He wasn’t happy about it, but he did stop saying the news he didn't like was fake. I would take that approach with future friends. And if they call you stupid, then you can justify breaking off the friendship over something other than politics.
|
I find myself youtubing more news programs that lean right or discussions that that oppose my natural left leaning self than others. It made me way better at discussing with right wing people and at making leftists really angry with the few good arguments i have taken from shapiro & co... (I still don't touch Hannity, Tucker and other pure shills - shapiro is one too but not to that level... The advantages of mainly answering to teens  ).
Thing is... All this gender studies, victimhood activism is really just moronic... But instead of fighting the good fight the right wing and somehow even the center now embrace/use it too. Result? Everyone immediatly gets angry nowadays or claims their few chosen facts instead of actually listening, everyone is trying to get enraged asap when you touch difficult/controversial topics.
This won't end well..
To add to this, if someone is truely homophobic or something i just tell em to go fuck themselves, luckily this is like a non issue in switzerland despite our laws being behind on these topics.
|
The right adopted the tactic of being oppressed victims while also holding power long ago. They know it is effective at disarming criticism and motivating people to feel like their way of life is under assault. It just took the left a long time to catch that the right was successfully making that argument while also holding power.
|
On June 19 2018 02:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 01:23 Ayaz2810 wrote:On June 18 2018 23:50 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2018 23:35 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Can we bring back the fairness doctrine please? I'm so tired of 40% of America missing out on the truth because right-wing media won't report it. This is bullshit. Fox is actively participating in the downfall of American democracy. Also, fuck you Scalia.
"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011." This had more pull when there were only 3 broadcast television networks and people regarded the radio airwaves as a scarce resource. Both are no longer the case. You're just using political rhetoric in a very slanted way to try to enforce your will on others. Fox is a big participant in the downfall of American democracy? Hardly. Liberals have their MSNBC and CNN. You can pick the echo chamber of your choosing if you like that sort of thing. It's eternally hilarious how much talking is done out of both sides of the mouth. Oh Trump is this ridiculous authoritarian and media is under threat. By the way, let's force right wing media to report what I call truth. Because I say they won't report it. Of course my left wing media is fairly reporting the truth. Oh yeah. Also, fuck you Scalia. Rest in peace, Scalia. Your opinions and dissents greatly furthered the cause of democracy. Bullshit. MSNBC and CNN are not the bastions of the liberal media agenda that you claim they are (nor is WaPo, the Times, or any of the other major papers). They report factual information that Fox does not. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and rotten oranges. The only reasons Trump supporters hate MSNBC and CNN are because A. he tells them to and they're easily manipulated and B. those networks call out the blatant lies and hypocrisy that Fox won't. Fox is essentially state media at this point. Is truth and fact somehow part of the "liberal agenda"? Because if it is, I'll be a liberal forever. See, already we have disagreements at who’s the most biased and reports factual information. You’re wrong. Their opinion shows are just as bad. Their news reporting is just as bad and sometimes worse depending on the host. You’re just biased to believe your own side is actually pretty good, without looking critically at how they manipulate with half truths, outright lies, buried ledes, and opinion spin. That’s another reason why fairness doctrine can and would fail: no neutral arbiter; it’s all a matter of opinion. Show nested quote +Claiming that those networks are somehow an echo chamber is also false. I can recall dozens of occasions in which anchors and guests on those networks have explored the possible benefits of Trump policy, international diplomacy, EOs, and other things. Of course, that fades quickly because most, if not all, of his decisions are fucking awful. I've even heard them give credit for the state of the stock market and economy.
This kind of shit is why I hardly ever debate people anymore. You falsely accuse "the left" or "liberals" of doing the things that Trump and Republicans are doing. You clearly don't watch either of those channels. If more right-wingers did, and weren't brainwashed by the "fake news" mantra, Trump would be out on his ass.
There are few things I hate more than when people go "the other side is just as bad!". Because that's just not fucking true. Yep. I can also show you instances on Fox where special report or Fox News Sunday went against Trump and mouthpieces. I’m no fan of the channel either. You’re just selectively playing Fox’s worst against lefty media’s best and trying to draw conclusions. And you’re failing. Similarly, debates of these type generally fall into pointless areas because defenders of left-leaning or left-wing media institutions refuse to admit or even see the problems in their ranks, but will point out everything on the right just fine. Partisanship from beginning to end.
Honestly if I look at Fox News its just obviously all complete bullshit. The bias is pushed 100% on almost everything. Leftwing news like Huffpost and The Canary are equally bad. It pretty much ruins a News source for me if they get caught telling lies and refuse to apologize.
The more difficult area is in between these, where lots of people seem to be saying the same thing, but the sources don't necessarily back it up at all.
Take coverage of Russia recently, there's articles describing the experiences of Russian citizens under Putin that are hard to argue with. However, much of the recent reporting has used Western government sources without much backup to promote a certain consistent story about Russian foreign policy, in Syria in particular, and this has been ubiquitous on the major news networks, without any good evidence at all, and the cumulative effect of all these stories are that they get presented as a fact, or an assumption.
As a side note, Trump has tried openly pushing a system whereby the media that is uncritical of government sources get preferential treatment. This will only exacerbate this problem, because it allows a government to dictate what the mainstream press is reporting on, and how they report it.
From experience, this is what most governments want, and it is the root of establishment bias in the media.
|
On June 19 2018 02:15 Velr wrote:I find myself youtubing more news programs that lean right or discussions that that oppose my natural left leaning self than others. It made me way better at discussing with right wing people and at making leftists really angry with the few good arguments i have taken from shapiro & co... (I still don't touch Hannity, Tucker and other pure shills - shapiro is one too but not to that level... The advantages of mainly answering to teens ). Thing is... All this gender studies, victimhood activism is really just moronic... But instead of fighting the good fight the right wing and somehow even the center now embrace/use it too. Result? Everyone immediatly gets angry nowadays or claims their few chosen facts instead of actually listening, everyone is trying to get enraged asap when you touch difficult/controversial topics. This won't end well.. To add to this, if someone is truely homophobic or something i just tell em to go fuck themselves, luckily this is like a non issue in switzerland despite our laws being behind on these topics.
YouTube discussion shows have really helped balance the conversation. You can pick your level of politeness and tone from a great number of channels. They’ll link sources in the description. You can judge their arguments on the merits and logic. It’s really nice. No little 15 minute TV segment with a round table where each person gets maybe two or three sentences on a topic before it’s moved on.
Long term I think it’s very healthy.
|
On June 18 2018 23:31 Velr wrote:
Diplomacy back in those days also pretty much was:
"Surrender or we kill you in the most horrific ways."
Yeah, Alexander, the Romans but also Ghengis Khan were great Dealmakers.
Funniily enough, Ghengis genuinely was. The Mongol Empire was a work of brilliance.
|
On June 19 2018 02:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 02:03 Danglars wrote:On June 19 2018 01:23 Ayaz2810 wrote:On June 18 2018 23:50 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2018 23:35 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Can we bring back the fairness doctrine please? I'm so tired of 40% of America missing out on the truth because right-wing media won't report it. This is bullshit. Fox is actively participating in the downfall of American democracy. Also, fuck you Scalia.
"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011." This had more pull when there were only 3 broadcast television networks and people regarded the radio airwaves as a scarce resource. Both are no longer the case. You're just using political rhetoric in a very slanted way to try to enforce your will on others. Fox is a big participant in the downfall of American democracy? Hardly. Liberals have their MSNBC and CNN. You can pick the echo chamber of your choosing if you like that sort of thing. It's eternally hilarious how much talking is done out of both sides of the mouth. Oh Trump is this ridiculous authoritarian and media is under threat. By the way, let's force right wing media to report what I call truth. Because I say they won't report it. Of course my left wing media is fairly reporting the truth. Oh yeah. Also, fuck you Scalia. Rest in peace, Scalia. Your opinions and dissents greatly furthered the cause of democracy. Bullshit. MSNBC and CNN are not the bastions of the liberal media agenda that you claim they are (nor is WaPo, the Times, or any of the other major papers). They report factual information that Fox does not. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and rotten oranges. The only reasons Trump supporters hate MSNBC and CNN are because A. he tells them to and they're easily manipulated and B. those networks call out the blatant lies and hypocrisy that Fox won't. Fox is essentially state media at this point. Is truth and fact somehow part of the "liberal agenda"? Because if it is, I'll be a liberal forever. See, already we have disagreements at who’s the most biased and reports factual information. You’re wrong. Their opinion shows are just as bad. Their news reporting is just as bad and sometimes worse depending on the host. You’re just biased to believe your own side is actually pretty good, without looking critically at how they manipulate with half truths, outright lies, buried ledes, and opinion spin. That’s another reason why fairness doctrine can and would fail: no neutral arbiter; it’s all a matter of opinion. Claiming that those networks are somehow an echo chamber is also false. I can recall dozens of occasions in which anchors and guests on those networks have explored the possible benefits of Trump policy, international diplomacy, EOs, and other things. Of course, that fades quickly because most, if not all, of his decisions are fucking awful. I've even heard them give credit for the state of the stock market and economy.
This kind of shit is why I hardly ever debate people anymore. You falsely accuse "the left" or "liberals" of doing the things that Trump and Republicans are doing. You clearly don't watch either of those channels. If more right-wingers did, and weren't brainwashed by the "fake news" mantra, Trump would be out on his ass.
There are few things I hate more than when people go "the other side is just as bad!". Because that's just not fucking true. Yep. I can also show you instances on Fox where special report or Fox News Sunday went against Trump and mouthpieces. I’m no fan of the channel either. You’re just selectively playing Fox’s worst against lefty media’s best and trying to draw conclusions. And you’re failing. Similarly, debates of these type generally fall into pointless areas because defenders of left-leaning or left-wing media institutions refuse to admit or even see the problems in their ranks, but will point out everything on the right just fine. Partisanship from beginning to end. Honestly if I look at Fox News its just obviously all complete bullshit. The bias is pushed 100% on almost everything. Leftwing news like Huffpost and The Canary are equally bad. It pretty much ruins a News source for me if they get caught telling lies and refuse to apologize. The more difficult area is in between these, where lots of people seem to be saying the same thing, but the sources don't necessarily back it up at all. Take coverage of Russia recently, there's articles describing the experiences of Russian citizens under Putin that are hard to argue with. However, much of the recent reporting has used Western government sources without much backup to promote a certain consistent story about Russian foreign policy, in Syria in particular, and this has been ubiquitous on the major news networks, without any good evidence at all, and the cumulative effect of all these stories are that they get presented as a fact, or an assumption. As a side note, Trump has tried openly pushing a system whereby the media that is uncritical of government sources get preferential treatment. This will only exacerbate this problem, because it allows a government to dictate what the mainstream press is reporting on, and how they report it. From experience, this is what most governments want, and it is the root of establishment bias in the media.
I think you're reading too much into it. Trump promotes Fox, because he's a fan and they fawn over him like blushing schoolgirls. He promotes Breitbart, because they feed his love of ridiculous conspiracy theories. He used to promote Infowars for the same reason.
I think the love affair is over with Alex Jones, though? I heard a bit from his show a while back where he seems to turn on Trump pretty hard.
|
Ann, the show runner and the CEO of Fox News should be dragged before congress to justify lying to Americans like this. This is 1984 levels of state media denying observable facts to our face. Everything we regulated the media not to do after WW2.
|
https://www.quilliaminternational.com/southern-poverty-law-center-inc-admits-it-was-wrong/
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA — The Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc. has apologized to Quilliam and its founder Maajid Nawaz for wrongly naming them in its controversial Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. In a public statement, the SPLC’s president, Richard Cohen, explained that “Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam have made valuable and important contributions to public discourse, including by promoting pluralism and condemning both anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism.” Watch Mr. Cohen’s complete statement at https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists. The SPLC also agreed to pay a $3.375 million settlement, which Quilliam and Nawaz intend to use to fund work fighting anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism. “With the help of everyone who contributed to our litigation fund, we were able to fight back against the Regressive Left and show them that moderate Muslims will not be silenced,” said Nawaz. “We will continue to combat extremists by defying Muslim stereotypes, calling out fundamentalism in our own communities, and speaking out against anti-Muslim hate.”
The SPLC has had to apologize for wrongly labeling people extremists. This is a victory for people who want sensible political debate around things like Islamic extremism and racism, and a loss for those who want to kill debate with labels. I'm posting this here because I remember being in quite a heated discussion in the last thread about the SPLC and a perception that they can do no wrong.
|
United States13815 Posts
On June 19 2018 02:53 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 23:31 Velr wrote:
Diplomacy back in those days also pretty much was:
"Surrender or we kill you in the most horrific ways."
Yeah, Alexander, the Romans but also Ghengis Khan were great Dealmakers. Funniily enough, Ghengis genuinely was. The Mongol Empire was a work of brilliance.
I don't get this especially from a brit. The mongol empire bearly lasted three generations before rapidly disintegrating along religious and cultural lines. They didn't even build or leave anything. The silk road wasn't created by then and was managed by others during the time they could defend it. For all the land they conquered they didnt have a real hold on much. The russians were rebellious until one became strong enough to stare them down. The turks that fled before them paved the way for multiple massively successful sucsessor states. The chinese resisted until their rulers became as chinese as they were. Siberia was nothing but wasteland stayed wasteland and is currently wasteland.
They took from the world much more then they gave especially from the middle east.
|
On June 19 2018 03:47 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/LevineJonathan/status/1008726102850797568Ann, the show runner and the CEO of Fox News should be dragged before congress to justify lying to Americans like this. This is 1984 levels of state media denying observable facts to our face. Everything we regulated the media not to do after WW2.
Just our daily reminder that when it comes to how big their audience is combined with how bullshit their stories and hosts are, Fox are in a class of one.
|
On June 19 2018 02:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 01:23 Ayaz2810 wrote:On June 18 2018 23:50 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2018 23:35 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Can we bring back the fairness doctrine please? I'm so tired of 40% of America missing out on the truth because right-wing media won't report it. This is bullshit. Fox is actively participating in the downfall of American democracy. Also, fuck you Scalia.
"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011." This had more pull when there were only 3 broadcast television networks and people regarded the radio airwaves as a scarce resource. Both are no longer the case. You're just using political rhetoric in a very slanted way to try to enforce your will on others. Fox is a big participant in the downfall of American democracy? Hardly. Liberals have their MSNBC and CNN. You can pick the echo chamber of your choosing if you like that sort of thing. It's eternally hilarious how much talking is done out of both sides of the mouth. Oh Trump is this ridiculous authoritarian and media is under threat. By the way, let's force right wing media to report what I call truth. Because I say they won't report it. Of course my left wing media is fairly reporting the truth. Oh yeah. Also, fuck you Scalia. Rest in peace, Scalia. Your opinions and dissents greatly furthered the cause of democracy. Bullshit. MSNBC and CNN are not the bastions of the liberal media agenda that you claim they are (nor is WaPo, the Times, or any of the other major papers). They report factual information that Fox does not. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and rotten oranges. The only reasons Trump supporters hate MSNBC and CNN are because A. he tells them to and they're easily manipulated and B. those networks call out the blatant lies and hypocrisy that Fox won't. Fox is essentially state media at this point. Is truth and fact somehow part of the "liberal agenda"? Because if it is, I'll be a liberal forever. See, already we have disagreements at who’s the most biased and reports factual information. You’re wrong. Their opinion shows are just as bad. Their news reporting is just as bad and sometimes worse depending on the host. You’re just biased to believe your own side is actually pretty good, without looking critically at how they manipulate with half truths, outright lies, buried ledes, and opinion spin. That’s another reason why fairness doctrine can and would fail: no neutral arbiter; it’s all a matter of opinion. Show nested quote +Claiming that those networks are somehow an echo chamber is also false. I can recall dozens of occasions in which anchors and guests on those networks have explored the possible benefits of Trump policy, international diplomacy, EOs, and other things. Of course, that fades quickly because most, if not all, of his decisions are fucking awful. I've even heard them give credit for the state of the stock market and economy.
This kind of shit is why I hardly ever debate people anymore. You falsely accuse "the left" or "liberals" of doing the things that Trump and Republicans are doing. You clearly don't watch either of those channels. If more right-wingers did, and weren't brainwashed by the "fake news" mantra, Trump would be out on his ass.
There are few things I hate more than when people go "the other side is just as bad!". Because that's just not fucking true. Yep. I can also show you instances on Fox where special report or Fox News Sunday went against Trump and mouthpieces. I’m no fan of the channel either. You’re just selectively playing Fox’s worst against lefty media’s best and trying to draw conclusions. And you’re failing. Similarly, debates of these type generally fall into pointless areas because defenders of left-leaning or left-wing media institutions refuse to admit or even see the problems in their ranks, but will point out everything on the right just fine. Partisanship from beginning to end. Show nested quote +Years in office/Criminal Indictments/Convictions/Prison Sentences
Barack Obama
Democratic 8 0 0 0
George W. Bush
Republican 8 16 16 9
Bill Clinton
Democratic 8 2 1 1
George H. W. Bush
Republican 4 1 1 1
Ronald Reagan
Republican 8 26 16 8
Jimmy Carter
Democratic 4 1 0 0
Gerald Ford
Republican 2.4 1 1 1
Richard Nixon
Republican 5.6 76 55 15
The one valid criticism of "the liberal media" is that they are like a cat chasing a laser pointer when it comes to making stories out of Trump's bullshit. They are so easily distracted it's not even funny. You’re missing a little explainer in your table of facts. You’re talking administrations? You’re refusing to show methodologies? You’re leaving off impeachment’s and contempts of Congress? Really it sounds like you’re showing your own belief in biased news journalism by presenting extremely biased breakdowns. That proves the point I made, so thank you very much!
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/11/1619079/-Comparing-Presidential-Administrations-by-Arrests-and-Convictions-A-Warning-for-Trump-Appointees
Having a guy like Shep call Trump out and a couple instances of pushback from the Fox talking heads does not balance the scales. By and large, Fox pushes VERIFIABLY FALSE INFORMATION. Whether it's Seth Rich, the origins of the Russia investigation, information about Hillary, Information about Obama, the tax "cuts", immigration policy, the NK meeting, the Parkland shooting, or others, I have seen it with my own eyes. Does "Mueller crime family" ring a bell? How about "deep state efforts to bring down Trump"? It's one thing to have opinions, it's another to out and out lie.
What I have not seen is WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, etc doing that. It's not a matter of me twisting or spinning, it's not a matter of some kind of liberal bias, and it's not the result of living in an echo chamber. Right-wing media just peddles falsehoods to protect their hold on the government and to make Trump look less crazy and incompetent than he is.
On Fox now: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/16/trump-says-ig-report-totally-destroys-comey-reveals-dark-and-dangerous-period-in-us-history.html
See, Fox carefully uses the President's words and offers no clarification. His hyperbolic language is left to stand on its own. Trump supporters will watch this and believe it. They neglect to mention that Comey's actions in 2016 helped Trump win the election, nor do they mention that the Strzok and Page messages have no bearing on anything, as they were opinions which resulted in no action.
Seth Rich: FALSE
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/01/media/rod-wheeler-seth-rich-fox-news-lawsuit/index.html
Uranium story: FALSE
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-1117-alt-fact-uranium-one-20171115-story.html
Mueller crime family: FALSE
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-promotes-hannity-episode-describes-mueller-mob-boss-deep-state-crime-883075
Strzok/Page/Comey: FALSE
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/14/mark-levin-ig-report-anti-trump-bias-fbi-and-department-justice
Russia investigation/spying: FALSE
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/22/17039902/fox-news-mueller-probe-steele-dossier
I could sit and put together probably hundreds of instances where Fox was dishonest by omission, or even explicitly dishonest. Not so for other media outlets.
What Fox does is damaging to democracy because it disguises distortions and lies as fact.
|
On June 19 2018 04:08 Jockmcplop wrote:https://www.quilliaminternational.com/southern-poverty-law-center-inc-admits-it-was-wrong/Show nested quote +MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA — The Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc. has apologized to Quilliam and its founder Maajid Nawaz for wrongly naming them in its controversial Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. In a public statement, the SPLC’s president, Richard Cohen, explained that “Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam have made valuable and important contributions to public discourse, including by promoting pluralism and condemning both anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism.” Watch Mr. Cohen’s complete statement at https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists. The SPLC also agreed to pay a $3.375 million settlement, which Quilliam and Nawaz intend to use to fund work fighting anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism. “With the help of everyone who contributed to our litigation fund, we were able to fight back against the Regressive Left and show them that moderate Muslims will not be silenced,” said Nawaz. “We will continue to combat extremists by defying Muslim stereotypes, calling out fundamentalism in our own communities, and speaking out against anti-Muslim hate.” The SPLC has had to apologize for wrongly labeling people extremists. This is a victory for people who want sensible political debate around things like Islamic extremism and racism, and a loss for those who want to kill debate with labels. I'm posting this here because I remember being in quite a heated discussion in the last thread about the SPLC and a perception that they can do no wrong.
That’s good news. More work still to be done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
