Objective vetting of political topics

[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.

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

And you've said zilch about their reporting...just complaints and silliness.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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?

It means a biased analysis of what may or may not be a biased subject.

I have as much confidence in "fact checkers" as I do political polls. Which is to say, virtually none.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Do you have any actual facts, or are you just posting your usual bullshit and lies? Do you have any actual criticisms or just the insults you've been fed? When you can go on facts, or debate of issues, you default to the fool's attack - personal insults.

There is a movement in the world to destroy Western democracies and replace them with right wing authoritarianism. The problem with extremes on either side of the political spectrum is that they can only be maintained through the violent suppression of all opposition. See Putin in Russia. I'm sure you're familiar with his history of murder of opponents and critics.

 

[Crepitus]

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

You've just proved you are incapable of it.

Well done.

 

[Crepitus]

Do you have any actual facts, or are you just posting your usual bullshit and lies?

I think you know the answer to that question.

 

[Dragonlady]

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?

It means a biased analysis of what may or may not be a biased subject.

I have as much confidence in "fact checkers" as I do political polls. Which is to say, virtually none.

But you have faith in Trump, FOX and Breitbart, all of whom have been proven to lie to you endlessly.

It's so helpful to Trumpism that you have been effectively trained by billionaires to ignore anything that might stand in the way of their getting all of their taxes eliminated.

 

[EvMetro]

It is interesting that all the lefties on this thread who have actually answered the opening post vet political topics and news stories by limiting their perspective to sources to only the ones who are aligned with their own political agenda. It appears that lefties see "objective" vetting as limiting their sources to sources that are aligned with their own subjective bias. Every lefty who has actually answered the opening post has explained that "subjective" vetting is what "objective" vetting means to them.

 

[EvMetro]

AP and NPR. They have a track record of high journalistic standards.

Those are great subjectively biased sources that cover lefty agenda. Which sources do you balance this subjective selection of information with in order to "objectively" vet your information? Surely you wouldn't think that one could objectively vet political topics and stories by only using sources that all share the same subjective political bias...

 

[EvMetro]

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

You've just proved you are incapable of it.

Well done.

Lol, I'm not surprised to see you evade the opening post.

 

[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

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

I will take you up on your positive suggestion That is now my new task and I thank you greatly. I've only skimmed the surface in philosophy yet have always planned to make the time to at least become able to discuss basic philosophical positions. Now is the time. I will pretend to be a Campbell's Russian Dwarf hamster on a mission! lol.

No truer words have been said than your Socratic quote- about how humans know nothing considering the grand scheme of things. Even after all available resources have been exhausted on one specific topic (if that were even possible) one would still only see and learn what one is capable of seeing and learning. Even when one has a great capacity to learn, has all of the prerequisites to absorb new information at a rapid pace....there will always be more to learn already in existing literature, and so much new information added at such a pace now I can only assume most top experts have learned to cope with very little sleep.

Each day, we see headlines of world news, scientific articles etc. almost like a compass to guide us (limit/control-who knows) with our quest for knowledge. As you eloquently stated, to never stop questioning the veracity of one's own beliefs. Even after spending hours reading 8 to 10 takes on an issue, the more I read the dumber I know I am without question! I have that part down lol...so now on to reading more from and about Socrates to boost my ignorance to being less ignorant. I cannot imagine having that kind of finely tuned mind as the great ancient philosophers. Limited tools mattered not, amazing!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

It means I want to see the source documentation, and I want to hear a variety of opinions and analyses from people on both/all sides of the discussion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

It can be hard to keep an open mind while reviewing the facts, rather than simply leaping to a conclusion. I have to keep reminding myself that the other side is technically capable of being correct once in a while, even if only by accident.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, at least you're honest that your idea of "objective vetting" is to read your favorite leftist media sites and take whatever they say as gospel, and to utterly avoid anyone who might disagree with you on the basis that disagreeing with you means they must be crazy and untrustworthy.

I doubt anyone is surprised that you think "objective" means "knowing my position is always correct".

 

[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.

Well, at least you're honest that your idea of "objective vetting" is to read your favorite leftist media sites and take whatever they say as gospel, and to utterly avoid anyone who might disagree with you on the basis that disagreeing with you means they must be crazy and untrustworthy.

I doubt anyone is surprised that you think "objective" means "knowing my position is always correct".

I'm sure you read NPR and AP all the time...right?

 

[candycorn]

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?

It means I want to see the source documentation, and I want to hear a variety of opinions and analyses from people on both/all sides of the discussion.

Okay..

Did Trump win the 2020 election? Source your response.

You have read both sides right? You do know that all 50 states certified the results. That there have been (and will be) no outsized arrests for voter fraud. You do know that every court challenge failed in every jurisdiction--red states included. You do know that the re-counts only confirmed Biden's victory.
And you do know that of the 8,000 or so losers on Election Day, only your blob is complaining about election fraud.

So show us how you can, after supposedly taking in all of the different sources....you can still say your blob was cheated.

I'm sure you'll have some snarky response that will have nothing to do with the challenge before you.

 

[EvMetro]

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.

Well, at least you're honest that your idea of "objective vetting" is to read your favorite leftist media sites and take whatever they say as gospel, and to utterly avoid anyone who might disagree with you on the basis that disagreeing with you means they must be crazy and untrustworthy.

I doubt anyone is surprised that you think "objective" means "knowing my position is always correct".

I'm sure you read NPR and AP all the time...right?

Don't know about him, but I most certainly do. Huffpost, slate, and vox too. Fringe right to fringe left.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I like to look at how both sides portray the story in the media.

Usually that gives me a good perspective of the two extremes and I can make my mind up from there.

I think it’s also helpful to ask the opposing side very direct questions. If I think the story is bullshit, I suspect that they will just spew some baseless hyperbole and won’t actually say anything substantive.

 

[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?

It means I want to see the source documentation, and I want to hear a variety of opinions and analyses from people on both/all sides of the discussion.

Okay..

Did Trump win the 2020 election? Source your response.

You have read both sides right? You do know that all 50 states certified the results. That there have been (and will be) no outsized arrests for voter fraud. You do know that every court challenge failed in every jurisdiction--red states included. You do know that the re-counts only confirmed Biden's victory.
And you do know that of the 8,000 or so losers on Election Day, only your blob is complaining about election fraud.

So show us how you can, after supposedly taking in all of the different sources....you can still say your blob was cheated.

I'm sure you'll have some snarky response that will have nothing to do with the challenge before you.

If you are not able to accurately articulate why righties claim that the election was stolen, yet you can clearly articulate why lefties think it was not, then you have not "objectively" evaluated the situation. This is not about if the election was stolen or not, it is simply about doing an "objective" analysis of the topic. Evaluating the topic using only sources that satisfy your bias and ignoring sources that you don't tell you what you want to hear is not objective vetting at all.

 

[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

I will take you up on your positive suggestion That is now my new task and I thank you greatly. I've only skimmed the surface in philosophy yet have always planned to make the time to at least become able to discuss basic philosophical positions. Now is the time. I will pretend to be a Campbell's Russian Dwarf hamster on a mission! lol.

No truer words have been said than your Socratic quote- about how humans know nothing considering the grand scheme of things. Even after all available resources have been exhausted on one specific topic (if that were even possible) one would still only see and learn what one is capable of seeing and learning. Even when one has a great capacity to learn, has all of the prerequisites to absorb new information at a rapid pace....there will always be more to learn already in existing literature, and so much new information added at such a pace now I can only assume most top experts have learned to cope with very little sleep.

Each day, we see headlines of world news, scientific articles etc. almost like a compass to guide us (limit/control-who knows) with our quest for knowledge. As you eloquently stated, to never stop questioning the veracity of one's own beliefs. Even after spending hours reading 8 to 10 takes on an issue, the more I read the dumber I know I am without question! I have that part down lol...so now on to reading more from and about Socrates to boost my ignorance to being less ignorant. I cannot imagine having that kind of finely tuned mind as the great ancient philosophers. Limited tools mattered not, amazing!

Great post ClaireH ! You quest for learning is definitely infectious as well as invigorating.

Your take on that Socrates quote is quite interesting, my impression was the he said that to himself as a reminder that you learn more by observation and listening than you do by talking. But I like your take on it as well.

I would strongly encourage you to venture into the philosophical realm and try to make your venture as broad and as deep as possible (I’d start with the Greeks myself but anywhere you choose will work), seems like a field that you’re really going to appreciate and enjoy!

Good luck on your quest for wisdom!

As a thanks for the stimulating conversation, allow me to share another of my favorite old dead dudes quotes:

“I have no reason to suppose, that he who would take away my Liberty, would not when he had me in his power take away everything else” — John Locke

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, at least you're honest that your idea of "objective vetting" is to read your favorite leftist media sites and take whatever they say as gospel, and to utterly avoid anyone who might disagree with you on the basis that disagreeing with you means they must be crazy and untrustworthy.

I doubt anyone is surprised that you think "objective" means "knowing my position is always correct".

I'm sure you read NPR and AP all the time...right?

Far more often than you read ANYTHING from the right, by your own admission.

Just a tip, Cornhole: If you want to issue sanctimonious judgements of other people for being biased and partisan, it's probably not a good idea to proudly proclaim how biased and partisan you are first.