What biased journalism looks like

[bripat9643]

No, what he is saying is that democrats are NOT the left.

They sure as hell are.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Actually, the left and conservatives have far more in common than in difference.

I have difficulty coming up with a list of things Conservatives share with the modern Left in America, but if you are referring to the historical Liberals who wanted The Man to mind his own business, I agree.

...

3) By failing to form a coalition with the left against Democrats, conservatives weaken themselves.

"Coalition" seems like a bit of a strong term to me, but it's a good point that there are probably some ways to appeal to what your refer to as the Left. What were you thinking specifically? I struggle with it, but have a couple of thoughts.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It looks like this:



That is "Face the Nation" from one week ago. Haven't watched it much in years, but I used to be a regular viewer. The segment purports to be about the 2022 election, but it focused entirely on Subject Number One, Donald Trump.

The guests were four writers of anti-Trump stories and a book about him called "The Divider." They analyzed the psychology of Trump, how much harm he did and is doing to the nation, and then tried to figure out why anyone would possibly vote for him. This is a news show on a network licensed to act in the public interest, not a wingnut podcast.

Finally the guy who appears to be the host asked the guest author of the anti-Trump book if it could be slighly possible that his voters like the results he got, i.e. the tax cuts, the de-regulation, and the resulting economic successes. The author said in a lengthy non-answer that his book wasn't really about that. I guess not.

If I remember right, the FtN tradition used to be to have some feckless and weak-minded Republican on the show to provide a claim of balance. I assumed that he would say that Trump was bad for the GOP, and that a new breed of Republicans are waiting to step up in the post-Trump era, or something like that. But I guess that dude was taking a bathroom break for that segment, so it was nothing but nine minutes of crying about Trump.

I guess I see why Democrats are the way they are.

All journalism is "biased". Some is more biased than others. But in the US, journalism is about making money, so they give people what they want.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

No, there are lots of democrats, just hardly and leftists any more.

Is that a fact. How many dem politicians answered this simple question…..Define what a woman is?
Now how many registered democrats would refuse to vote for a politician that can’t or won’t answer that simple question?

 

[forkup]

It looks like this:



That is "Face the Nation" from one week ago. Haven't watched it much in years, but I used to be a regular viewer. The segment purports to be about the 2022 election, but it focused entirely on Subject Number One, Donald Trump.

The guests were four writers of anti-Trump stories and a book about him called "The Divider." They analyzed the psychology of Trump, how much harm he did and is doing to the nation, and then tried to figure out why anyone would possibly vote for him. This is a news show on a network licensed to act in the public interest, not a wingnut podcast.

Finally the guy who appears to be the host asked the guest author of the anti-Trump book if it could be slighly possible that his voters like the results he got, i.e. the tax cuts, the de-regulation, and the resulting economic successes. The author said in a lengthy non-answer that his book wasn't really about that. I guess not.

If I remember right, the FtN tradition used to be to have some feckless and weak-minded Republican on the show to provide a claim of balance. I assumed that he would say that Trump was bad for the GOP, and that a new breed of Republicans are waiting to step up in the post-Trump era, or something like that. But I guess that dude was taking a bathroom break for that segment, so it was nothing but nine minutes of crying about Trump.

I guess I see why Democrats are the way they are.

Where do you get your information? Going by your previous posts, Fox news, Gateway pundit and the like sound about right.

If you want to make the claim that Democrats watch biased information sources you wont get an argument from me. Trying to imply its something only Democrats are guilty of is laughable.

I watch biased information sources. But I'm perfectly aware these sources are biased. So I've set up some rules for myself in how much importance I attach to any source in forming my opinion.

Best possible source is a primary source. Meaning if I form an opinion about something legal I read legal briefs. If I form an opinion about how previous presidents handled presidential records, I read the press statements form the national archives. Since they are in charge of the presidential records, (something you should try). If I want to know what someone has said I watch them actually saying it, in its entirety so I won't be duped by selective quoting. Etc, etc.

Next best thing is a source that has the opposite bias that I have. If Breitbart has the same opinion as me, its safe to assume it is true. If a Trump appointed judge makes a ruling that I agree with, chances are the ruling is correct. Etc, etc.

Third best is a neutral source. Pure news sources that avoid any commentary. Reuter, AP and the like.

Fourth, and one I try to avoid is those sources that are ideologically aligned with me. Doesn't mean they are wrong, but I tend to be wary simply because like any other person I'm susceptible to conformation bias.

This is all time consuming, but it does give a person a better chance to form a correct opinion.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Where do you get your information? Going by your previous posts, Fox news, Gateway pundit and the like sound about right.

Fox, yes. Gateway pundid, no, but I'll check it out. I actually watch opinion shows first, and then I look for evidence to back the opinions.

If you want to make the claim that Democrats watch biased information sources you wont get an argument from me. Trying to imply its something only Democrats are guilty of is laughable.

I was not implying that at all. If you want to admit right here that the networks who are license to broadcast in the public interest are no better than Democratic Party versions of Foxnews, I'll certainly agree. It's not what the networks promised when they accepted the incredibly valuable gift of monopoly access to the national airwaves, though.

I watch biased information sources. But I'm perfectly aware these sources are biased. So I've set up some rules for myself in how much importance I attach to any source in forming my opinion.

Best possible source is a primary source. Meaning if I form an opinion about something legal I read legal briefs. If I form an opinion about how previous presidents handled presidential records, I read the press statements form the national archives. Since they are in charge of the presidential records, (something you should try). If I want to know what someone has said I watch them actually saying it, in its entirety so I won't be duped by selective quoting. Etc, etc.

Next best thing is a source that has the opposite bias that I have. If Breitbart has the same opinion as me, its safe to assume it is true. If a Trump appointed judge makes a ruling that I agree with, chances are the ruling is correct. Etc, etc.

Third best is a neutral source. Pure news sources that avoid any commentary. Reuter, AP and the like.

Fourth, and one I try to avoid is those sources that are ideologically aligned with me. Doesn't mean they are wrong, but I tend to be wary simply because like any other person I'm susceptible to conformation bias.

This is all time consuming, but it does give a person a better chance to form a correct opinion.

All the above is very true, and in an ideal world we would all do that. But the average Foxnews viewer is too busy working for a living to do all that, and the average MSM viewer is too busy smoking weed (admittedly those are stereotypes).

What you're describing is what professional journalists are supposed to do so we can read a condensed version of the news. If that version is filtered, or embellished to fit the journalist's political goals, we are done a disservice.

I doubt that we've ever had the kind of professionalism from journalists that they are supposed to aspire to. What I see now, is that they don't even pretend to aspire to that anymore.

 

[forkup]

I actually watch opinion shows first, and then I look for evidence to back the opinions.

You are literally describing confirmation bias. I hope you realize that?

If you want to admit right here that the networks who are license to broadcast in the public interest are no better than Democratic Party versions of Foxnews, I'll certainly agree.

Most reporters on those networks aren't, but some sure are. I'll agree.

All the above is very true, and in an ideal world we would all do that. But the average Foxnews viewer is too busy working for a living to do all that

Lol. If you want to claim only Fox news viewers work hard just say so. I'll gladly switch my work schedule with most of them.

By the way. Either you look for evidence to back your opinions or you don't have time to do so. Pick your argument.

As for time. We both spend time a lot of days typing and arguing with total strangers. Lack of time to decently source what we say doesn't sound like any kind of excuse.

I think the trouble isn't lack of time. I think the trouble lays in not wanting to be confronted with actual proof that your opinions might be wrong.

What you're describing is what professional journalists are supposed to do

Most of them do. Go to any reputable news source. Most of the time you'll find hyperlinks or statements that are direct quotes. Stuff that will easily lead you to a primary source if you're at all adept at using the internet.

 

[OldFlame]

Actually, the left and conservatives have far more in common than in difference.

Conservatives attacking the left and smearing them as Democrats only accomplishes the following:

1) It helps Democrats enormously by making them appear to support the left.

2) It damages conservatives by making them appear ignorant.

3) By failing to form a coalition with the left against Democrats, conservatives weaken themselves.

So why do it?

Define 'the left' and their policies.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You are literally describing confirmation bias. I hope you realize that?

Not at all but I get why you would think so. I mainly look for sources for factual evidence that backs opinions I disagree with. As in maybe they're right I'll check that out. If an opinion I agree with includes a fact I haven't seen I'll verify it before I repeat it and look foolish.

Compare that to the Demedia and its reliance on unnamed sources never to be verified and Democrats eating those stories up so long as they confirm the bias.

Most reporters on those networks aren't, but some sure are. I'll agree.

Lol. If you want to claim only Fox news viewers work hard just say so. I'll gladly switch my work schedule with most of them.

It was a generalization. There are exception obviously. Democrats on MV showed astonishingly single minded effort in getting rid of a whole fifty asylum seekers when they landed in Democrats' back yard.

By the way. Either you look for evidence to back your opinions or you don't have time to do so. Pick your argument.

I have time to verify stories that psrticularly interest me. It would be great if we had journalists from whom to get well researched and unbiased stories.

As for time. We both spend time a lot of days typing and arguing with total strangers. Lack of time to decently source what we say doesn't sound like any kind of excuse.

I think the trouble isn't lack of time. I think the trouble lays in not wanting to be confronted with actual proof that your opinions might be wrong.

Pick an opinion of mine and present your proof.

Most of them do. Go to any reputable news source. Most of the time you'll find hyperlinks or statements that are direct quotes. Stuff that will easily lead you to a primary source if you're at all adept at using the internet.

Maybe you're right. What news sources do you recommend? Be specific please and I'll check them out.

 

[Billiejeens]

The subject is Democrats, not the left.

Confusing the left with Democrats is like calling a Jew a Nazi.

you keep saying that -
It's boring and wrong.

 

[Billiejeens]

Democrats control the left. I'll stand by my statement

Prolly more the other way around.

 

[Billiejeens]

The bias is so blatant. I don't understand how anyone can watch such shows except for enjoying critiquing them. It's really astonishing.

Examples...

1:00 "Trump falsely claimed that there was an invasion at the Southern border."
3:40 Trump voters are willing to accept anything, including Herschel Walker.
4:00 Herschel Walker reportedly paid for an abortion, he's a hypocrite
6:35 "Trump radicalized the Republican Party." She's calling me a radical.
7:00 "Election denialism is a foundation of the Republican Party ideology."
That's some utter BS. You won't find that in any written summaries of
the Party platform, but you might find information about ensuring elections
are secure and fair.
7:15 "It's a crisis in American Democracy."
8:25 Q: Did Trump do anything good during his term, anything at all?
A: He made everyone realize what a threat to Democracy is.

They vilify over 70 million Americans as if we are some kind of radical fringe group
as they erroneously describe the most important things we stand for.

Those people all produce shows for each other.

They have no idea that there is an actual real world out here, outside of their cult.

 

[Billiejeens]

All journalism is "biased". Some is more biased than others. But in the US, journalism is about making money, so they give people what they want.

False -

The Democrat Media is about pushing the Democrat narrative.
That is of more value than money.

 

[frigidweirdo]

False -

The Democrat Media is about pushing the Democrat narrative.
That is of more value than money.

It's actually not.

 

[forkup]

Not at all but I get why you would think so. I mainly look for sources for factual evidence that backs opinions I disagree with. As in maybe they're right I'll check that out. If an opinion I agree with includes a fact I haven't seen I'll verify it before I repeat it and look foolish.

Compare that to the Demedia and its reliance on unnamed sources never to be verified and Democrats eating those stories up so long as they confirm the bias.

It was a generalization. There are exception obviously. Democrats on MV showed astonishingly single minded effort in getting rid of a whole fifty asylum seekers when they landed in Democrats' back yard.

I have time to verify stories that psrticularly interest me. It would be great if we had journalists from whom to get well researched and unbiased stories.

Pick an opinion of mine and present your proof.

Maybe you're right. What news sources do you recommend? Be specific please and I'll check them out.

I mainly look for sources for factual evidence that backs opinions I disagree with. As in maybe they're right I'll check that out.

Yet I've seen you cling to specific claims although I personally presented you with factual evidence to the contrary.

It was a generalization.

Generalizations are dangerous things in my opinion. At best they are lazy arguments. At worst it's a debating strategy designed to not have to engage the actually premise being presented.

Pick an opinion of mine and present your proof.

Sure.

Every single president in history has taken documents produced by federal agencies out of the White House when they left. The Presidential Records Act was passed in 1978. When they get finished prosecuting Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, they can start on Trump.

Press Statements in Response to Media Queries About Presidential Records

In response to recent media reports that generated a large number of queries about presidential records, we issued the following statements to the media: January 17, 2024, statement December 4, 2023, statement September 2, 2023, statement August 11, 2023, statement June 9, 2023, statement April...

www.archives.gov

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), in accordance with the Presidential Records Act, assumed physical and legal custody of the Presidential records from the administrations of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan, when those Presidents left office.

Reports that indicate or imply that those Presidential records were in the possession of the former Presidents or their representatives, after they left office, or that the records were housed in substandard conditions, are false and misleading.

Maybe you're right. What news sources do you recommend? Be specific please and I'll check them out.

Reuters and AP for clear fact-based reporting with a bare minimum of opinion. The hill has opinions but from both sides. For instance, Rich Lowry is a regular opinion contributor. Politico is a bit more partisan but in general pretty straightforward news. And my personal favorite, although it is partisan in the sense it is anti-Trump and mostly opinion pieces. The bulwark. Which by the way is staffed by almost exclusively long-time Republican political operatives. It regularly attacks Democrats by the way. And they are most definitely to the right of my political preferences. More nitty-gritty in law, lawfare. And for older stuff I use Wikipedia. but not the main article but the footnotes which are archives for older articles. I also use fact-check sites but mainly so I can click the hyperlinks that lead to primary sources. This is also something I want to stress again. Hyperlinks are your friend since they lead to primary sources often. So is specific claims made in an article that can be fact-checked if you are so inclined.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yet I've seen you cling to specific claims although I personally presented you with factual evidence to the contrary.

Generalizations are dangerous things in my opinion. At best they are lazy arguments. At worst it's a debating strategy designed to not have to engage the actually premise being presented.

You just generalized about generalizations.

Democrats hate generalizations because they want each of their ideas to be judged entirely on its own with no analogies or historical precedents considered.

Sure.

Press Statements in Response to Media Queries About Presidential Records

In response to recent media reports that generated a large number of queries about presidential records, we issued the following statements to the media: January 17, 2024, statement December 4, 2023, statement September 2, 2023, statement August 11, 2023, statement June 9, 2023, statement April...

www.archives.gov

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), in accordance with the Presidential Records Act, assumed physical and legal custody of the Presidential records from the administrations of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan, when those Presidents left office.

Reports that indicate or imply that those Presidential records were in the possession of the former Presidents or their representatives, after they left office, or that the records were housed in substandard conditions, are false and misleading.

An incredibly biased organization not to be trusted. That they played persnickity librarian to give the FBI a lame excuse to raid the home of a former president tells me all I need to know about their credibility.

Reuters and AP for clear fact-based reporting with a bare minimum of opinion. The hill has opinions but from both sides. For instance, Rich Lowry is a regular opinion contributor. Politico is a bit more partisan but in general pretty straightforward news. And my personal favorite, although it is partisan in the sense it is anti-Trump and mostly opinion pieces. The bulwark. Which by the way is staffed by almost exclusively long-time Republican political operatives. It regularly attacks Democrats by the way. And they are most definitely to the right of my political preferences. More nitty-gritty in law, lawfare. And for older stuff I use Wikipedia. but not the main article but the footnotes which are archives for older articles. I also use fact-check sites but mainly so I can click the hyperlinks that lead to primary sources. This is also something I want to stress again. Hyperlinks are your friend since they lead to primary sources often. So is specific claims made in an article that can be fact-checked if you are so inclined.

You believe those are unbiased because they confirm your own biases. Those are the sources that I often read, but when I check other primary sources besides the links they provide, I find they leave too much out to be relied on as the only sources for news. They are very liberal, which is fine. It's a free country. But you must look at both sides in order to find the truth.

Honesty check: Look at this thread, watch the video, and tell me whether tax-funded PBS is biased:

In AZ, if you refuse to debate your opponent, they get thirty minutes of air time to answer questions, that you don't get. Unless you're a Democrat

Then the Democrats gets thirty minutes after you speak for thirty minutes, so it's like a debate in which they get to see what you say, rebutt it for thirty minutes unchallenged and that's the last word. It sounds like "Clean Elections" has tried hard to motivate politicians to present...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[forkup]

You just generalized about generalizations.

No, I didn't. I gave 2 possible reasons for making generalizations. If you have a third that makes it valid when discussing something go ahead and enlighten me.

Democrats hate generalizations

I hate generalizations not because I'm a Democrat. I hate it because it is a fallacious argument. Hasty Generalization Fallacy: Definition And Examples - Fallacy In Logic

An incredibly biased organization not to be trusted.

This is a hilarious statement. And it proves that you don't look for "factual evidence". The only place you can look for factual evidence on the handling of presidential records is the National Archives. Because they are in charge of the presidential records.

That they played persnickity librarian to give the FBI a lame excuse to raid the home of a former president tells me all I need to know about their credibility.

They aren't playing a " persnickity librarian". They are charged BY LAW to handle those records. Some of which in this case included documents with the highest level of classifiaction wihtin the United States. This is NOT "persnickity". https://www.congress.gov/bill/95th-congress/house-bill/13500

What you are doing is making your claims unfallsifiable in science. Or a catch 22, or more germane, "heads I win tails you lose." If I present you with proof by the only source that can be expected to have knowledge of the situtation , you dismiss it not as proof you are wrong but rather as a confirmation that they are biased, and naturally if it would confirm your claim it simply means you are right. It's circular reasoning.

You believe those are unbiased because they confirm your own biases.

No, I believe those sources are unbiased. Because most of them don't offer color on what they are claiming but simply report what has happened. Often offering links to primary sources. And those that do offer color, actually do so on both sides of a particular issue. For instance. An article today in the Bulwark. The most biased of the sources I recommended. Progressive Bigotry and the L.A. City Council Controversy

Again the problem you have is that you are simply not interested in anything but confirming your own biases. To the point that I can give you primary sources and you will still claim that the reason those sources aren't confirming what you say is that they are biased against you.

 

[Billiejeens]

It's actually not.

It actually is -

It's power and can be turned into whatever they then want it to be -

Also, I really don't care what you opinion is.

 

[Independent thinker]

It looks like this:



That is "Face the Nation" from one week ago. Haven't watched it much in years, but I used to be a regular viewer. The segment purports to be about the 2022 election, but it focused entirely on Subject Number One, Donald Trump.

The guests were four writers of anti-Trump stories and a book about him called "The Divider." They analyzed the psychology of Trump, how much harm he did and is doing to the nation, and then tried to figure out why anyone would possibly vote for him. This is a news show on a network licensed to act in the public interest, not a wingnut podcast.

Finally the guy who appears to be the host asked the guest author of the anti-Trump book if it could be slighly possible that his voters like the results he got, i.e. the tax cuts, the de-regulation, and the resulting economic successes. The author said in a lengthy non-answer that his book wasn't really about that. I guess not.

If I remember right, the FtN tradition used to be to have some feckless and weak-minded Republican on the show to provide a claim of balance. I assumed that he would say that Trump was bad for the GOP, and that a new breed of Republicans are waiting to step up in the post-Trump era, or something like that. But I guess that dude was taking a bathroom break for that segment, so it was nothing but nine minutes of crying about Trump.

I guess I see why Democrats are the way they are.

It was just last week on ABC's This Week that the biased panel members were talking with Chris Christee about Trump stuff and the panel members said that there is only one side.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It actually is -

It's power and can be turned into whatever they then want it to be -

Also, I really don't care what you opinion is.

Then why the fuck do you bother coming on to forums like this if you're not willing to discuss things?

Bye