Objective vetting of political topics

[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.

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.

Okay, did someone tell you that your approval was valuable, and people had to justify themselves to you? Source your response.

It's fascinating that you could be such an egomaniac, with so little reason.

 

[jc456]

I can't be a fan of someone who hates my country. I draw my lines there. illegals are illegals. until a demofk can say that, I have no interest in them at all.

 

[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?

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.

I think you’re missing the point of the thread, first work at recognizing your own internal biases, if you don’t understand them it’s FAR easier to mislead you to the wrong conclusions and feed your hardwired confirmation bias.

Second, try playing Devils Advocate from the perspective of the “other side”, it’ll serve you well in any debate as well as often providing with new insights.

Lastly, question and verify ALL sources without regard to any preconceived “left vs. right” notions you might have about them, after all your not looking to formulate your opinions in an echo chamber, correct?

 

[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!

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

I am sure you're right about that particular Socrates' quote as being a reminder to stay humble, to always be open to change and to being wrong, and to remain an active listener. Wow of course...more listening and less talking. Being more open to being wrong...this one I will write down as my own daily reminder.

A quest for knowledge without filters seems to involve swimming below murky waters, and perhaps climbing a few mountain tops to compare/contrast viewpoints. If only I had a good pair of hiking boots at the ready!

So wonderful to exchange ideas with you, and again I appreciate you sharing your flashlight about proceeding with the Greek philosophers...staying relatively in shallow waters until I gain better understanding to dig deeper Have a great day!

 

[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.

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

NPR is DNC reporting. I could explain it to you but it won’t get through the tin foil.

 

[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.

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.

And here we go...

What sources are telling you the election was stolen?
What sources are telling you the election was not stolen?

Seventeen intel agencies told us that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. How many intel agencies (not to mention the DOJ) were willing to carry Trump's water on his baseless claims? None.

I can't articulate why righties think the election is stolen....It makes zero sense. There is no evidence of the massive theft; there are no massive amounts of arrests. At this point..if you were to engage...you'd spin every conspiracy theory there is about how every cop is corrupt, every judge is corrupt, every election official is corrupt....even the Supreme Court (1/3 appointed by Trump) and his hand picked FBI director and AG were corrupt too. Every single person is corrupt! And then of course... Every court case across multiple jurisdictions was thrown out. The allegations were laughable in every possible way. For example...why have someone doctor the ballots or run them through the machine thousands of times when...in another conspiracy theory about the election, the Dominion machines could just change the vote tallies? Righties had ballots from North Korea being dumped off in New England.

Remember the story about the US Army seizing servers in Berlin giving air time to this ridiculous charge....
.
OANN had the same story but have since taken it down.

Several right wing kook sites have apologized for their allegations during the early days of the Big Lie.

The same ones who are propagating the lie about Trump winning the election. So when you do your survey of sources and their credibility....surely you must take the airing of nonsense stories into account...right? I mean <sarcasm> you don't believe them because you WANT TO BELIEVE THEM....right?

Yeah...

NPR and AP have published some things that didn't turn out to be true. But they issue a retraction and a correction. The right wing kook sites have to be sued before they apologize.

 

[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.

And here we go...

What sources are telling you the election was stolen?
What sources are telling you the election was not stolen?

Seventeen intel agencies told us that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. How many intel agencies (not to mention the DOJ) were willing to carry Trump's water on his baseless claims? None.

I can't articulate why righties think the election is stolen....It makes zero sense. There is no evidence of the massive theft; there are no massive amounts of arrests. At this point..if you were to engage...you'd spin every conspiracy theory there is about how every cop is corrupt, every judge is corrupt, every election official is corrupt....even the Supreme Court (1/3 appointed by Trump) and his hand picked FBI director and AG were corrupt too. Every single person is corrupt! And then of course... Every court case across multiple jurisdictions was thrown out. The allegations were laughable in every possible way. For example...why have someone doctor the ballots or run them through the machine thousands of times when...in another conspiracy theory about the election, the Dominion machines could just change the vote tallies? Righties had ballots from North Korea being dumped off in New England.

Remember the story about the US Army seizing servers in Berlin giving air time to this ridiculous charge....
.
OANN had the same story but have since taken it down.

Several right wing kook sites have apologized for their allegations during the early days of the Big Lie.

The same ones who are propagating the lie about Trump winning the election. So when you do your survey of sources and their credibility....surely you must take the airing of nonsense stories into account...right? I mean <sarcasm> you don't believe them because you WANT TO BELIEVE THEM....right?

Yeah...

NPR and AP have published some things that didn't turn out to be true. But they issue a retraction and a correction. The right wing kook sites have to be sued before they apologize.

It looks like you may be trying to get away from discussing objective vetting, and are instead presenting a subjective analysis of the stolen election topic.

Can you demonstrate that you understand the difference between objective and subjective?

 

[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.

I think you’re missing the point of the thread, first work at recognizing your own internal biases, if you don’t understand them it’s FAR easier to mislead you to the wrong conclusions and feed your hardwired confirmation bias.

Second, try playing Devils Advocate from the perspective of the “other side”, it’ll serve you well in any debate as well as often providing with new insights.

Lastly, question and verify ALL sources without regard to any preconceived “left vs. right” notions you might have about them, after all your not looking to formulate your opinions in an echo chamber, correct?

Nah, I get the point.

I think if you are a news agency and you keep giving audience to people who come on your airwaves and lie their ass off...it should hurt your credibility as a news agency.

 

[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.

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.

And here we go...

What sources are telling you the election was stolen?
What sources are telling you the election was not stolen?

Seventeen intel agencies told us that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. How many intel agencies (not to mention the DOJ) were willing to carry Trump's water on his baseless claims? None.

I can't articulate why righties think the election is stolen....It makes zero sense. There is no evidence of the massive theft; there are no massive amounts of arrests. At this point..if you were to engage...you'd spin every conspiracy theory there is about how every cop is corrupt, every judge is corrupt, every election official is corrupt....even the Supreme Court (1/3 appointed by Trump) and his hand picked FBI director and AG were corrupt too. Every single person is corrupt! And then of course... Every court case across multiple jurisdictions was thrown out. The allegations were laughable in every possible way. For example...why have someone doctor the ballots or run them through the machine thousands of times when...in another conspiracy theory about the election, the Dominion machines could just change the vote tallies? Righties had ballots from North Korea being dumped off in New England.

Remember the story about the US Army seizing servers in Berlin giving air time to this ridiculous charge....
.
OANN had the same story but have since taken it down.

Several right wing kook sites have apologized for their allegations during the early days of the Big Lie.

The same ones who are propagating the lie about Trump winning the election. So when you do your survey of sources and their credibility....surely you must take the airing of nonsense stories into account...right? I mean <sarcasm> you don't believe them because you WANT TO BELIEVE THEM....right?

Yeah...

NPR and AP have published some things that didn't turn out to be true. But they issue a retraction and a correction. The right wing kook sites have to be sued before they apologize.

It looks like you may be trying to get away from discussing objective vetting, and are instead presenting a subjective analysis of the stolen election topic.

Can you demonstrate that you understand the difference between objective and subjective?

It looks like you may be dodging the question I asked you.

When a news source repeatedly gives voice to the Big Lie...does it hurt their credibility or not?

 

[EvMetro]

Looks like lefties have a hard time wrapping their minds around the concept of objectively vetting political topics and stories. Sometimes I wonder if lefties would still be lefties if they objectively analyzed and vetted the news that they take in. Perhaps objectivity is a partisan characteristic?

 

[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.

I think you’re missing the point of the thread, first work at recognizing your own internal biases, if you don’t understand them it’s FAR easier to mislead you to the wrong conclusions and feed your hardwired confirmation bias.

Second, try playing Devils Advocate from the perspective of the “other side”, it’ll serve you well in any debate as well as often providing with new insights.

Lastly, question and verify ALL sources without regard to any preconceived “left vs. right” notions you might have about them, after all your not looking to formulate your opinions in an echo chamber, correct?

Nah, I get the point.

I think if you are a news agency and you keep giving audience to people who come on your airwaves and lie their ass off...it should hurt your credibility as a news agency.

I don't believe or trust ANY news agencies from either side of the aisle, but I sure use them in my search to find the most likely truth. I assume they are ALL lying, until I can properly vet whatever is being presented.

 

[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.

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

Nope. I proved it's nonsense. You are obviously incapable of objectively getting anything.

 

[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.

And here we go...

What sources are telling you the election was stolen?
What sources are telling you the election was not stolen?

Seventeen intel agencies told us that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. How many intel agencies (not to mention the DOJ) were willing to carry Trump's water on his baseless claims? None.

I can't articulate why righties think the election is stolen....It makes zero sense. There is no evidence of the massive theft; there are no massive amounts of arrests. At this point..if you were to engage...you'd spin every conspiracy theory there is about how every cop is corrupt, every judge is corrupt, every election official is corrupt....even the Supreme Court (1/3 appointed by Trump) and his hand picked FBI director and AG were corrupt too. Every single person is corrupt! And then of course... Every court case across multiple jurisdictions was thrown out. The allegations were laughable in every possible way. For example...why have someone doctor the ballots or run them through the machine thousands of times when...in another conspiracy theory about the election, the Dominion machines could just change the vote tallies? Righties had ballots from North Korea being dumped off in New England.

Remember the story about the US Army seizing servers in Berlin giving air time to this ridiculous charge....
.
OANN had the same story but have since taken it down.

Several right wing kook sites have apologized for their allegations during the early days of the Big Lie.

The same ones who are propagating the lie about Trump winning the election. So when you do your survey of sources and their credibility....surely you must take the airing of nonsense stories into account...right? I mean <sarcasm> you don't believe them because you WANT TO BELIEVE THEM....right?

Yeah...

NPR and AP have published some things that didn't turn out to be true. But they issue a retraction and a correction. The right wing kook sites have to be sued before they apologize.

It looks like you may be trying to get away from discussing objective vetting, and are instead presenting a subjective analysis of the stolen election topic.

Can you demonstrate that you understand the difference between objective and subjective?

It looks like you may be dodging the question I asked you.

When a news source repeatedly gives voice to the Big Lie...does it hurt their credibility or not?

No. The have no credibility in the first place. They all have political agenda.

 

[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.

Nope. I proved it's nonsense. You are obviously incapable of objectively getting anything.

If I only had a dollar for every time a lefty claimed to have already posted what they cannot post. It's always posted "somewhere," but of course there is always a reason why we will never know where it is or what it was. Cheating like this is innate behavior for lefties.

 

[Dadoalex]

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?

When the author uses emotional rhetoric rather than objectively citing the facts, I quit reading.

We all like to read "news" that reinforces our own beliefs but I don't want that "reinforcement."
I have my own views and those views are based on 50 years of being a news junkie. Observing and studying. I don't care and won't read stuff that's spoon-feeding me opinion rather than fact.

For example,
if a story refers to "Trump" instead of "President Trump"
when a story speaks of "voter fraud"
When a story refers to either "progressives" or "conservatives" in favorable or unfavorable terms.
I am immediately suspicious.

I know these are terms I use often with derision but, I'M ALLOWED.
I'm here expressing opinions.
My rhetoric is often important to that expression.
When I see a news story that contains these terms used as labels, I move on.

 

[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.

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.

And here we go...

What sources are telling you the election was stolen?
What sources are telling you the election was not stolen?

Seventeen intel agencies told us that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. How many intel agencies (not to mention the DOJ) were willing to carry Trump's water on his baseless claims? None.

I can't articulate why righties think the election is stolen....It makes zero sense. There is no evidence of the massive theft; there are no massive amounts of arrests. At this point..if you were to engage...you'd spin every conspiracy theory there is about how every cop is corrupt, every judge is corrupt, every election official is corrupt....even the Supreme Court (1/3 appointed by Trump) and his hand picked FBI director and AG were corrupt too. Every single person is corrupt! And then of course... Every court case across multiple jurisdictions was thrown out. The allegations were laughable in every possible way. For example...why have someone doctor the ballots or run them through the machine thousands of times when...in another conspiracy theory about the election, the Dominion machines could just change the vote tallies? Righties had ballots from North Korea being dumped off in New England.

Remember the story about the US Army seizing servers in Berlin giving air time to this ridiculous charge....
.
OANN had the same story but have since taken it down.

Several right wing kook sites have apologized for their allegations during the early days of the Big Lie.

The same ones who are propagating the lie about Trump winning the election. So when you do your survey of sources and their credibility....surely you must take the airing of nonsense stories into account...right? I mean <sarcasm> you don't believe them because you WANT TO BELIEVE THEM....right?

Yeah...

NPR and AP have published some things that didn't turn out to be true. But they issue a retraction and a correction. The right wing kook sites have to be sued before they apologize.

It looks like you may be trying to get away from discussing objective vetting, and are instead presenting a subjective analysis of the stolen election topic.

Can you demonstrate that you understand the difference between objective and subjective?

It looks like you may be dodging the question I asked you.

When a news source repeatedly gives voice to the Big Lie...does it hurt their credibility or not?

No. The have no credibility in the first place. They all have political agenda.

I agree.

Now...did they earn having "no credibility" or is this just the baseline "nobody has any credibility" position?

 

[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?

When the author uses emotional rhetoric rather than objectively citing the facts, I quit reading.

We all like to read "news" that reinforces our own beliefs but I don't want that "reinforcement."
I have my own views and those views are based on 50 years of being a news junkie. Observing and studying. I don't care and won't read stuff that's spoon-feeding me opinion rather than fact.

For example,
if a story refers to "Trump" instead of "President Trump"
when a story speaks of "voter fraud"
When a story refers to either "progressives" or "conservatives" in favorable or unfavorable terms.
I am immediately suspicious.

I know these are terms I use often with derision but, I'M ALLOWED.
I'm here expressing opinions.
My rhetoric is often important to that expression.
When I see a news story that contains these terms used as labels, I move on.

If only one could objectively evaluate or vet political topics or news stories by subjectively finding information sources that would satisfy one's bias...

I doubt that you could ever demonstrate that you know the difference between objective and subjective. This seems to be a weak link for lefties.

 

[Dadoalex]

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

You do understand it is impossible to "isolate oneself" from their own thoughts and beliefs?

Whatever you do, don't think of a purple horse. (From a movie but apropos)

It is impossible to not think of something by thinking about not thinking about it.

Here in Buddha-Land they said "clear your mind of all thoughts"
and I said "well that's stupid and impossible."
I didn't understand the meaning.
It means "don't hold on to any thoughts. Let them flow, peek at them, then let them go."
And I'm like...
"well there's 2 years wasted. Why didn't you say that in the first place?" Stupid teacher!
But I was little more intelligent after 2 years that I was at the beginning.

Rather than try to "isolate," accept the thoughts but don't hold on to them.
This will allow the thinking to evolve and next time those thoughts appear, you may not view them the same.

 

[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.

And here we go...

What sources are telling you the election was stolen?
What sources are telling you the election was not stolen?

Seventeen intel agencies told us that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. How many intel agencies (not to mention the DOJ) were willing to carry Trump's water on his baseless claims? None.

I can't articulate why righties think the election is stolen....It makes zero sense. There is no evidence of the massive theft; there are no massive amounts of arrests. At this point..if you were to engage...you'd spin every conspiracy theory there is about how every cop is corrupt, every judge is corrupt, every election official is corrupt....even the Supreme Court (1/3 appointed by Trump) and his hand picked FBI director and AG were corrupt too. Every single person is corrupt! And then of course... Every court case across multiple jurisdictions was thrown out. The allegations were laughable in every possible way. For example...why have someone doctor the ballots or run them through the machine thousands of times when...in another conspiracy theory about the election, the Dominion machines could just change the vote tallies? Righties had ballots from North Korea being dumped off in New England.

Remember the story about the US Army seizing servers in Berlin giving air time to this ridiculous charge....
.
OANN had the same story but have since taken it down.

Several right wing kook sites have apologized for their allegations during the early days of the Big Lie.

The same ones who are propagating the lie about Trump winning the election. So when you do your survey of sources and their credibility....surely you must take the airing of nonsense stories into account...right? I mean <sarcasm> you don't believe them because you WANT TO BELIEVE THEM....right?

Yeah...

NPR and AP have published some things that didn't turn out to be true. But they issue a retraction and a correction. The right wing kook sites have to be sued before they apologize.

It looks like you may be trying to get away from discussing objective vetting, and are instead presenting a subjective analysis of the stolen election topic.

Can you demonstrate that you understand the difference between objective and subjective?

It looks like you may be dodging the question I asked you.

When a news source repeatedly gives voice to the Big Lie...does it hurt their credibility or not?

No. The have no credibility in the first place. They all have political agenda.

I agree.

Now...did they earn having "no credibility" or is this just the baseline "nobody has any credibility" position?

The media industry as a whole has earned my distrust. I have to vet EVERYTHING I read or hear before I can commit it to my perception of the political landscape. I also insist on studying what sources of opposing political bias have to say when I vet my info.

 

[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

You do understand it is impossible to "isolate oneself" from their own thoughts and beliefs?

Whatever you do, don't think of a purple horse. (From a movie but apropos)

It is impossible to not think of something by thinking about not thinking about it.

Here in Buddha-Land they said "clear your mind of all thoughts"
and I said "well that's stupid and impossible."
I didn't understand the meaning.
It means "don't hold on to any thoughts. Let them flow, peek at them, then let them go."
And I'm like...
"well there's 2 years wasted. Why didn't you say that in the first place?" Stupid teacher!
But I was little more intelligent after 2 years that I was at the beginning.

Rather than try to "isolate," accept the thoughts but don't hold on to them.
This will allow the thinking to evolve and next time those thoughts appear, you may not view them the same.

Obviously, the best one can hope for when engaging into an objective frame of mind is being "subjectively objective," since we do in fact have bias that we cannot forget.

How would you "objectively vet a political news story?