Objective vetting of political topics

[EvMetro]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

 

[ClaireH]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

That's a great topic EM. Objective vetting is a goal for me currently. I was just on a religious thread attempting to define a true Christian, even though I am a soft agnostic.

Objectivity takes effort and practice. As a way of practicing, perhaps defending oppositional political viewpoints can lead to a light bulb moment or even two for partisans? I have never tried to switch up in this way during political discussions, but can see the value of having a longer-term impact on how one approaches a problem/solution.

Objective thinking would be an amazing gift to the world-at-large, particularly within the realm of politics. That would require a humongous overhaul requiring discarding all waste: greed for power, greed for wealth, greed for recognition, greed for territory, greed for resources, oh and did I mention greed? Yes, not likely going to happen within out lifetimes but absolutely a worthy goal on the individual level. After all, that's really where it all starts. Individuals grouping together in united causes, groups growing forming community missions, expanding to the city level, to statewide, and eventually to national level. Things work best from the bottom up approach in this light, since the abuses and fiascos from the other way around are historically notable.

 

[EvMetro]

To me, objectively vetting of political topics or stories involves isolating myself from my own political bias, during the time that I am researching what the most likely truth is. If it is a polarizing political topic and the agenda that I am vetting is opposite of my own position, I will privately attempt to prove that it is true. From my experience, attempting to prove that my political opponent is actually correct is an easier way to isolate myself from my own beliefs and feelings.

In regard to vetting media politics, one cannot limit himself to media that is aligned with his own ideology. Diving into the media that is aligned with the political opposition and comparing it is essential for objective vetting.

 

[EvMetro]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

 

[kyzr]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

LOL! Democrats live for their double standard. If Harvard did their study and proved that there was no bias in network news, everyone would be Republican.

 

[ClaireH]

To me, objectively vetting of political topics or stories involves isolating myself from my own political bias, during the time that I am researching what the most likely truth is. If it is a polarizing political topic and the agenda that I am vetting is opposite of my own position, I will privately attempt to prove that it is true. From my experience, attempting to prove that my political opponent is actually correct is an easier way to isolate myself from my own beliefs and feelings.

In regard to vetting media politics, one cannot limit himself to media that is aligned with his own ideology. Diving into the media that is aligned with the political opposition and comparing it is essential for objective vetting.

What an excellent strategy to learn how to isolate yourself from your own political biases. I understand that is harder than it sounds for most of us, mostly because of the loyalty factor. Holding on to my political loyalties (past ties I've had still affecting my judgement) I've been aware how this knocks out a chunk of clarity at the get-go. Breaking away from one's political loyalties is going to be required, whether that be to a party or to specific people, with the sole purpose of achieving clear eyes and an open mind. I've resisted, knowing full well I have specific pre-determined ideas that are partly based upon loyalty to a party that I was formerly a member.

If participants of a discussion put in the effort to use this type of approach, what a difference we'd see. As a rule I keep the dialogue respectful, but to attempt to prove my "opponent" right? I can't say I've ever done that and what a concept! Your post couldn't be more perfectly timed. I've needed a spark plug to keep me honest, and wanting to make these political conversations as worthwhile as possible and suddenly voila! Thanks. I will look for opportunities on USMB, as they are presented typically by the minute I won't have the excuse to delay

I can't wait to say, to some unsuspecting poster I've previously butted heads with, "Oh, by the way, after giving that issue we discussed a few weeks back a closer look, it seems that you are 89% correct in your assessment. I admit now I was using a filter!" lol

 

[ClaireH]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

Now, now, EvMetro-are you demonstrating the old way of using personal biases instead of following your own OP's exceptional logic? lol

 

[EvMetro]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

Now, now, EvMetro-are you demonstrating the old way of using personal biases instead of following your own OP's exceptional logic? lol

Although laced with subjective agenda, my comments also based upon my experience over many years on many, many political forum sites. I've been blessed to have encountered a few lefties who can objectively evaluate political topics and media, even on this very site. I've even followed a few of them who have left this forum for greener pastures. What I have learned though, is that lefties "typically" have a harder time being objective. Let's watch their replies and see.

 

[ClaireH]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

Now, now, EvMetro-are you demonstrating the old way of using personal biases instead of following your own OP's exceptional logic? lol

Although laced with subjective agenda, my comments also based upon my experience over many years on many, many political forum sites. I've been blessed to have encountered a few lefties who can objectively evaluate political topics and media, even on this very site. I've even followed a few of them who have left this forum for greener pastures. What I have learned though, is that lefties "typically" have a harder time being objective. Let's watch their replies and see.

It's a real find when you do have discussions that are like that, people with differing viewpoints but able to engage and maybe even learn something. That's the top goal for me-to learn, and a close second is finding humor.

I am not a fan of leftist political agendas, but I happen to like many leftists...a few relatives included. I try to keep that in mind on this message board when I catch myself making broad assessments. People are people first, and almost all deserve respect. Political agendas are better left in the cornfields where most belong.

 

[EvMetro]

To me, objectively vetting of political topics or stories involves isolating myself from my own political bias, during the time that I am researching what the most likely truth is. If it is a polarizing political topic and the agenda that I am vetting is opposite of my own position, I will privately attempt to prove that it is true. From my experience, attempting to prove that my political opponent is actually correct is an easier way to isolate myself from my own beliefs and feelings.

In regard to vetting media politics, one cannot limit himself to media that is aligned with his own ideology. Diving into the media that is aligned with the political opposition and comparing it is essential for objective vetting.

What an excellent strategy to learn how to isolate yourself from your own political biases. I understand that is harder than it sounds for most of us, mostly because of the loyalty factor. Holding on to my political loyalties (past ties I've had still affecting my judgement) I've been aware how this knocks out a chunk of clarity at the get-go. Breaking away from one's political loyalties is going to be required, whether that be to a party or to specific people, with the sole purpose of achieving clear eyes and an open mind. I've resisted, knowing full well I have specific pre-determined ideas that are partly based upon loyalty to a party that I was formerly a member.

If participants of a discussion put in the effort to use this type of approach, what a difference we'd see. As a rule I keep the dialogue respectful, but to attempt to prove my "opponent" right? I can't say I've ever done that and what a concept! Your post couldn't be more perfectly timed. I've needed a spark plug to keep me honest, and wanting to make these political conversations as worthwhile as possible and suddenly voila! Thanks. I will look for opportunities on USMB, as they are presented typically by the minute I won't have the excuse to delay

I can't wait to say, to some unsuspecting poster I've previously butted heads with, "Oh, by the way, after giving that issue we discussed a few weeks back a closer look, it seems that you are 89% correct in your assessment. I admit now I was using a filter!" lol

I also learn a lot from being a progressive lefty on a couple other political sites under a different name. Debating with righties like myself from a lefty profile isn't as easy, and it takes quite a bit of researching from a lefty point of view in order to maintain my cover. This research forces me away from my own bias, so I ultimately end up researching both sides subjectively in order to come up with an objective combination of research.

 

[EvMetro]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

Now, now, EvMetro-are you demonstrating the old way of using personal biases instead of following your own OP's exceptional logic? lol

Although laced with subjective agenda, my comments also based upon my experience over many years on many, many political forum sites. I've been blessed to have encountered a few lefties who can objectively evaluate political topics and media, even on this very site. I've even followed a few of them who have left this forum for greener pastures. What I have learned though, is that lefties "typically" have a harder time being objective. Let's watch their replies and see.

It's a real find when you do have discussions that are like that, people with differing viewpoints but able to engage and maybe even learn something. That's the top goal for me-to learn, and a close second is finding humor.

I am not a fan of leftist political agendas, but I happen to like many leftists...a few relatives included. I try to keep that in mind on this message board when I catch myself making broad assessments. People are people first, and almost all deserve respect. Political agendas are better left in the cornfields where most belong.

I have found that my dogs and all of my pets are lefties by default, and that I am still able to love them. I can love lefties.

 

[NightFox]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

Good question EvMetro , I haven’t really considered it given that my biases in general aren’t primarily political since I have no political loyalties to any party or person. I generally suffer from philosophical bias (libertarian) but my operating principle is; that at the end of the day, the majority of people desire the same things for themselves and for others, they just have oddly different ways of going about achieving them. I have to keep reminding myself of that in the face of some of the outlandish things people say.

As far as objectively vetting “news” stories, that’s a tough one given that today’s environment contains so many deceptive tactics practices by “news” outlets geared towards attracting eyeballs in a world awash with “news” outlets. Everything from intentionally provocative headlines, opinion interspersed with fact, lots of hyperbole and rumor, it makes ones head hurt at times. My general practice is to apply healthy doses of skepticism and look for multiple sources of verification before lending any given story/article any credence. Takes more time & effort but generally results in clearer more objective view of reality.

Thanks for putting up a thought provoking, worthwhile thread.

 

[Jets]

I’m a mugwump. I tend to call out balls and strikes. All of us can be objective to a degree. The question becomes how much effort one wants to put into it.

 

[NightFox]

I’m a mugwump. I tend to call out balls and strikes. All of us can be objective to a degree. The question becomes how much effort one wants to put into it.

Just out of curiosity, on a scale of 1 to 11 how would you rate your level of “mugwumpiness” ?

 

[candycorn]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

AP and NPR. They have a track record of high journalistic standards. Of course you guys will point out the times they failed. Why do you know they failed? They retracted or corrected a story and admitted they failed. You won't see the right wing kook sites ever admit their nonsense stories were completely false. Like the story about the shreds ballots in Maricopa County....

Moreover, when I see Washington times or Gateway pundit or any of the other kook sites like breitbart, downhill, restate, etc...I just assume the story is false.

Anyone who contacts them with a "bombshell" can contact legitimate news sources with the same story.

Then, of course, the conspiracy theories start---"they are suppressing the story".... Which is silly.

 

[Jets]

I’m a mugwump. I tend to call out balls and strikes. All of us can be objective to a degree. The question becomes how much effort one wants to put into it.

Just out of curiosity, on a scale of 1 to 11 how would you rate your level of “mugwumpiness” ?

I have to ruminate on that. Never thought of assigning a numerical value to it.

 

[NightFox]

I’m a mugwump. I tend to call out balls and strikes. All of us can be objective to a degree. The question becomes how much effort one wants to put into it.

Just out of curiosity, on a scale of 1 to 11 how would you rate your level of “mugwumpiness” ?

I have to ruminate on that. Never thought of assigning a numerical value to it.

Grand Master Six says the balance between your mug and your wump is suspect, suggests adding more cruciferous vegetables to your diet to resolve it.

 

[NightFox]

To me, objectively vetting of political topics or stories involves isolating myself from my own political bias, during the time that I am researching what the most likely truth is. If it is a polarizing political topic and the agenda that I am vetting is opposite of my own position, I will privately attempt to prove that it is true. From my experience, attempting to prove that my political opponent is actually correct is an easier way to isolate myself from my own beliefs and feelings.

In regard to vetting media politics, one cannot limit himself to media that is aligned with his own ideology. Diving into the media that is aligned with the political opposition and comparing it is essential for objective vetting.

What an excellent strategy to learn how to isolate yourself from your own political biases. I understand that is harder than it sounds for most of us, mostly because of the loyalty factor. Holding on to my political loyalties (past ties I've had still affecting my judgement) I've been aware how this knocks out a chunk of clarity at the get-go. Breaking away from one's political loyalties is going to be required, whether that be to a party or to specific people, with the sole purpose of achieving clear eyes and an open mind. I've resisted, knowing full well I have specific pre-determined ideas that are partly based upon loyalty to a party that I was formerly a member.

If participants of a discussion put in the effort to use this type of approach, what a difference we'd see. As a rule I keep the dialogue respectful, but to attempt to prove my "opponent" right? I can't say I've ever done that and what a concept! Your post couldn't be more perfectly timed. I've needed a spark plug to keep me honest, and wanting to make these political conversations as worthwhile as possible and suddenly voila! Thanks. I will look for opportunities on USMB, as they are presented typically by the minute I won't have the excuse to delay

I can't wait to say, to some unsuspecting poster I've previously butted heads with, "Oh, by the way, after giving that issue we discussed a few weeks back a closer look, it seems that you are 89% correct in your assessment. I admit now I was using a filter!" lol

Young Padawan, show great promise you do. Embrace the Socratic side of the force, you must, let it guide you, let it flow through you, overcome the forces of darkness you will.

Never forget, the moment you stop questioning the veracity of your own beliefs is the moment ignorance will seize control of your mind and put it to sleep.

Have an excellent day.

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." -- Socrates

 

[badger2]

#2 points to the pathology early in the thread. Yes, it’s impossible to vet the mental disease that a Homo sapiens, passing nearby you on the street, may be suffering from, compromised by.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

AP and NPR. They have a track record of high journalistic standards. Of course you guys will point out the times they failed. Why do you know they failed? They retracted or corrected a story and admitted they failed. You won't see the right wing kook sites ever admit their nonsense stories were completely false. Like the story about the shreds ballots in Maricopa County....

Moreover, when I see Washington times or Gateway pundit or any of the other kook sites like breitbart, downhill, restate, etc...I just assume the story is false.

Anyone who contacts them with a "bombshell" can contact legitimate news sources with the same story.

Then, of course, the conspiracy theories start---"they are suppressing the story".... Which is silly.

NPR. Taxpayer funded radio because the left is so pathetic nobody listens to them. Radio America was a massive failure.