Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
#76

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 04:03 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 03:55 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 02:46 PM)Dānu Wrote: Show me where I said there is no liberal bias.  Show me where I denied the existence of liberal bias.  Put up or shut up.

All you're doing is showing the exact type of kooky conservative whining the OP was talking about.

Given how uncrtically you swallowed the Blaze's biased take on the article, it's clear you don't actually notice conservative bias.  You claim to be a skeptic but you're just a poseur.

Wait, are you saying the article does show liberal bias?  Well heck what are we arguing about?  What is wrong with the Blaze, a right slant outlet,  pointing out the liberal bias of that article?  They're not wrong.  If CNN points out a FOX segment that is horribly right wing biased, it doesn't make them wrong in that instant just because they themselves are a liberal slant outlet.

Uh, no, that's not what I said.  I said that I didn't deny liberal bias as you claimed.  Once again you're just obfuscating and moving goalposts.

So just clear it up!  What exactly about liberal bias do you believe?  That it exists but the CBS article isn't a good example of it?  That the Blaze misrepresented it?  Forget goalposts, there are no winners in these things. (only survivors)
Reply
#77

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 04:02 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I simply assume that because journalism is a human activity, it too is susceptible to human biases.

Science, too, is ideally an objective practice, and indeed it has safeguards in methodology to limit bias, but I think it's fair to say there have been instances where bias in science has caused errors -- the initial rejection of Wegener's tectonic hypothesis comes to mind, because "everyone know the continents don't move".

Journalism being a less-rigorous practice, it seems apparent that bias can creep in, and clearly does, in plenty of cases. However, stating that journalistic bias is mostly liberal, or conservative, is a more problematic question and needs to be assessed with each individual outlet, and indeed with each individual reporter.

The problem for Republicans is that reality really does have a liberal bias. News these days is driven by numbers. If the reporting didn't appeal to the largest bloc of people in the center that it could, editorial policies would change. So the MSM has a largely centrist bias. Sure, there are occasional examples of bias, like the title and the composition of the CBS article, but most of what is flagged as "Liberal bias" on the right is simply not catering to the right. They occasionally cater to the left, but it's not as big a problem in MSM as whiny twats like jerry make it out to be. Like it or not, there's no real evidence that the management of mainstream media outlets are pushing for partisan content in the same way that Fox News has historically done. Caught with their dicks in their hands, the right resorts to their standard tu quoque arguments.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
Reply
#78

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 04:01 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 03:56 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 03:12 PM)Dānu Wrote: Remind me again, jerry, who was it that started with the insults and ad hominems?

Just getting a head start is all.  We all know how this is going to end.

You've been nothing but hostile to me from the moment I arrived.  As Thump has observed, you go there very quickly with me for some reason.  You always start this shit, and then you blame me for it.  What the fuck is wrong with you?

Can we have a total reset then?  I sincerely feel the exact same way you are describing towards you, and all due respect to Thump or any third parties, I don't need any other observer to referee "who started it" or who is most unreasonably hostile and insulting.
Reply
#79

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 04:02 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I simply assume that because journalism is a human activity, it too is susceptible to human biases.

Science, too, is ideally an objective practice, and indeed it has safeguards in methodology to limit bias, but I think it's fair to say there have been instances where bias in science has caused errors -- the initial rejection of Wegener's tectonic hypothesis comes to mind, because "everyone know the continents don't move".

Journalism being a less-rigorous practice, it seems apparent that bias can creep in, and clearly does, in plenty of cases. However, stating that journalistic bias is mostly liberal, or conservative, is a more problematic question and needs to be assessed with each individual outlet, and indeed with each individual reporter.

Agreed.  It would be a good starting point to define what we're even talking about when we say "the media" or "the mainstream media" with regards to questions like "Is there a liberal bias in the media?"  Otherwise confusion is inevitable. (see thread, this one)
Reply
#80

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-07-2021, 04:21 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-07-2021, 04:11 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:
(04-07-2021, 01:32 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: ... a non-biased outlet would have a counter-point opinion presented ...

No, it would try to not be opinionated in the first place and/or clearly indicate when an opinion is presented and not news.

Example:
We have a wekly news show every sunday at 22:00 in one of the two public TV stations. First they report news, then comes the "commentary" segment where one of the journalists gives an opinion about the news.

Its really not that hard.  Facepalm

Does the "commentary" segment on that news show generally present commentary and opinion from only one place on the political spectrum?

Any answer to this Deesse?  It's really not that hard. Facepalm
Reply
#81

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 04:05 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: What exactly about liberal bias do you believe?  That it exists but the CBS article isn't a good example of it?  That the Blaze misrepresented it? 

I'd say that's accurate. They've got a right to complain about the headline, but the rest of the Blaze article is just bullshit. CBS News made it abundantly clear they were reporting what the activists wanted and there's little to suggest otherwise.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
Reply
#82

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 04:22 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 04:02 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I simply assume that because journalism is a human activity, it too is susceptible to human biases.

Science, too, is ideally an objective practice, and indeed it has safeguards in methodology to limit bias, but I think it's fair to say there have been instances where bias in science has caused errors -- the initial rejection of Wegener's tectonic hypothesis comes to mind, because "everyone know the continents don't move".

Journalism being a less-rigorous practice, it seems apparent that bias can creep in, and clearly does, in plenty of cases. However, stating that journalistic bias is mostly liberal, or conservative, is a more problematic question and needs to be assessed with each individual outlet, and indeed with each individual reporter.

Agreed.  It would be a good starting point to define what we're even talking about when we say "the media" or "the mainstream media" with regards to questions like "Is there a liberal bias in the media?"  Otherwise confusion is inevitable. (see thread, this one)

I think "the media" is pretty self-explanatory. "The mainstream media" is more problematic, because now we have to rate levels of influence and the credibility assigned by society at large. Even that I think can find a swathe of agreement if we use metrics like viewership or readership.
On hiatus.
Reply
#83

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 04:34 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 04:05 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: What exactly about liberal bias do you believe?  That it exists but the CBS article isn't a good example of it?  That the Blaze misrepresented it? 

I'd say that's accurate.  They've got a right to complain about the headline, but the rest of the Blaze article is just bullshit.  CBS News made it abundantly clear they were reporting what the activists wanted and there's little to suggest otherwise.

The headline is truly biased and offensive if they pretend to be an objective presenter of the news of the day.  Technically, yes, the article is merely reporting what activists want done...telling us in great detail and with no counter-balancing opinion, what activists- only certain activists, mind you, no opinion from activists in favor of voter security reforms- want done.  It's pretty clearly carrying water for a political point of view.  It's downright partisan advocacy.  (and of course Fox is as bad or worse)

("whiny twat"?  I'm not whiny!)
Reply
#84

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 04:10 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 04:02 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I simply assume that because journalism is a human activity, it too is susceptible to human biases.

Science, too, is ideally an objective practice, and indeed it has safeguards in methodology to limit bias, but I think it's fair to say there have been instances where bias in science has caused errors -- the initial rejection of Wegener's tectonic hypothesis comes to mind, because "everyone know the continents don't move".

Journalism being a less-rigorous practice, it seems apparent that bias can creep in, and clearly does, in plenty of cases. However, stating that journalistic bias is mostly liberal, or conservative, is a more problematic question and needs to be assessed with each individual outlet, and indeed with each individual reporter.

The problem for Republicans is that reality really does have a liberal bias.  News these days is driven by numbers.  If the reporting didn't appeal to the largest bloc of people in the center that it could, editorial policies would change.  So the MSM has a largely centrist bias.  Sure, there are occasional examples of bias, like the title and the composition of the CBS article, but most of what is flagged as "Liberal bias" on the right is simply not catering to the right.  They occasionally cater to the left, but it's not as big a problem in MSM as whiny twats like jerry make it out to be.  Like it or not, there's no real evidence that the management of mainstream media outlets are pushing for partisan content in the same way that Fox News has historically done.  Caught with their dicks in their hands, the right resorts to their standard tu quoque arguments.

While I agree in large part with what you're saying here, I want to point out that "News these days is driven by numbers.  If the reporting didn't appeal to the largest bloc of people in the center that it could, editorial policies would change" implies a bias towards viewer desires (as opposed to just reporting what has happened).

In other words, even the selection of coverage can itself be a form of bias. It's why Fox is now crowing about immigration issues at the border, when two years ago they were all "Kids? what kids?" The other side of the coin is that current media coverage of immigration issues, from more-liberal outlets, downplays the fact that kids are still being held in detention at very high levels. Mind you, I'm not talking about the different policies at all, but rather how the outlets are addressing them now, versus two years ago.

@trdsf has a lot of good things to say about how the evolution of news departments into profit-centers in our media has changed how we digest news. I'd be interested to hear his comments on this discussion some more.
On hiatus.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Dom
Reply
#85

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 05:13 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 04:22 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 04:02 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I simply assume that because journalism is a human activity, it too is susceptible to human biases.

Science, too, is ideally an objective practice, and indeed it has safeguards in methodology to limit bias, but I think it's fair to say there have been instances where bias in science has caused errors -- the initial rejection of Wegener's tectonic hypothesis comes to mind, because "everyone know the continents don't move".

Journalism being a less-rigorous practice, it seems apparent that bias can creep in, and clearly does, in plenty of cases. However, stating that journalistic bias is mostly liberal, or conservative, is a more problematic question and needs to be assessed with each individual outlet, and indeed with each individual reporter.

Agreed.  It would be a good starting point to define what we're even talking about when we say "the media" or "the mainstream media" with regards to questions like "Is there a liberal bias in the media?"  Otherwise confusion is inevitable. (see thread, this one)

I think "the media" is pretty self-explanatory. "The mainstream media" is more problematic, because now we have to rate levels of influence and the credibility assigned by society at large. Even that I think can find a swathe of agreement if we use metrics like viewership or readership.

With "media" we got bogged down pretty quick as print and broadcast are different enough animals to present different difficulties and different issues.  I suppose in it's broadest sense we could imagine (for Americans) CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox, both their television news programs and their websites, mainstream?  NPR maybe; they might be next level down.
Reply
#86

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 04:12 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 04:01 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 03:56 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Just getting a head start is all.  We all know how this is going to end.

You've been nothing but hostile to me from the moment I arrived.  As Thump has observed, you go there very quickly with me for some reason.  You always start this shit, and then you blame me for it.  What the fuck is wrong with you?

Can we have a total reset then?  I sincerely feel the exact same way you are describing towards you, and all due respect to Thump or any third parties, I don't need any other observer to referee "who started it" or who is most unreasonably hostile and insulting.

It ain't my horse to ride. I do think that, having admitted your pre-emptive strike, you should perhaps reconsider that tactic, seeing as how it clouds rather than clarifies conversation.
On hiatus.
Reply
#87

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 05:23 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 04:34 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 04:05 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: What exactly about liberal bias do you believe?  That it exists but the CBS article isn't a good example of it?  That the Blaze misrepresented it? 

I'd say that's accurate.  They've got a right to complain about the headline, but the rest of the Blaze article is just bullshit.  CBS News made it abundantly clear they were reporting what the activists wanted and there's little to suggest otherwise.

The headline is truly biased and offensive if they pretend to be an objective presenter of the news of the day.  Technically, yes, the article is merely reporting what activists want done...telling us in great detail and with no counter-balancing opinion, what activists- only certain activists, mind you, no opinion from activists in favor of voter security reforms- want done.  It's pretty clearly carrying water for a political point of view.  It's downright partisan advocacy.  (and of course Fox is as bad or worse)

("whiny twat"?  I'm not whiny!)

If you're covering, say, Iranian views on the sanctions stand-off, how much sense does it make to quote American officials?
On hiatus.
Reply
#88

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 05:34 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 04:12 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 04:01 PM)Dānu Wrote: You've been nothing but hostile to me from the moment I arrived.  As Thump has observed, you go there very quickly with me for some reason.  You always start this shit, and then you blame me for it.  What the fuck is wrong with you?

Can we have a total reset then?  I sincerely feel the exact same way you are describing towards you, and all due respect to Thump or any third parties, I don't need any other observer to referee "who started it" or who is most unreasonably hostile and insulting.

It ain't my horse to ride. I do think that, having admitted your pre-emptive strike, you should perhaps reconsider that tactic, seeing as how it clouds rather than clarifies conversation.

Oh yeah?  Well FUCK YOU.  j/k.  I dunno, nice Jerry tends to get sand kicked in his face.  And actually if you look she was calling my opinion "bullshit" before I called her pissy.
Reply
#89

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 05:27 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: With "media" we got bogged down pretty quick as print and broadcast are different enough animals to present different difficulties and different issues.  I suppose in it's broadest sense we could imagine (for Americans) CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox, both their television news programs and their websites, mainstream?  NPR maybe; they might be next level down.

Written media is still a factor, and still part of the landscape. I'd say that excluding them is not really justified, given the gravitas that outlets like NYT or WSJ carry. They are certainly significant media presences, and ignoring them shunts the conversation.
On hiatus.
Reply
#90

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 05:36 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 05:23 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 04:34 PM)Dānu Wrote: I'd say that's accurate.  They've got a right to complain about the headline, but the rest of the Blaze article is just bullshit.  CBS News made it abundantly clear they were reporting what the activists wanted and there's little to suggest otherwise.

The headline is truly biased and offensive if they pretend to be an objective presenter of the news of the day.  Technically, yes, the article is merely reporting what activists want done...telling us in great detail and with no counter-balancing opinion, what activists- only certain activists, mind you, no opinion from activists in favor of voter security reforms- want done.  It's pretty clearly carrying water for a political point of view.  It's downright partisan advocacy.  (and of course Fox is as bad or worse)

("whiny twat"?  I'm not whiny!)

If you're covering, say, Iranian views on the sanctions stand-off, how much sense does it make to quote American officials?

I guess if I want to learn more about the issue I could read CBS's  "Three Ways the Iranian Sanctions Suck Balls, and What You Can Do About it!"
Reply
#91

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 05:39 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Oh yeah?  Well FUCK YOU.  j/k.  I dunno, nice Jerry tends to get sand kicked in his face.  And actually if you look she was calling my opinion "bullshit" before I called her pissy.

There's a difference between calling an opinion "bullshit" and making a personal attack, don't you agree? It might not be the nicest choice of word, but it is attacking your opinion, not yourself.

Anyway, as you said, I'm no referee and won't be playing one on TV.
On hiatus.
Reply
#92

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 05:42 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: I guess if I want to learn more about the issue I could read CBS's  "Three Ways the Iranian Sanctions Suck Balls, and What You Can Do About it!"

When trying to learn about anything, it behooves me to look at it from all sides.

I'm into military history. It chaps my hide when I read crap like "the victors get to write the history", because that ignores the fact that the defeated do as well. If I want to learn about, say, D-Day, and I want to really learn what happened, I should not only read Allied source materials, but German as well.

That doesn't mean that I expect Allied sources to accurately reflect German thinking, or vice-versa. I think that expectation is silly. In the same light, when I want to read about current issues afflicting us, I shouldn't expect every single source to properly air every single perspective on any given issue. I reckon I have to look for both angles on my own. How can a journalist in Beijing report on decisions made in Washington, except insofar as Chinese reactions are concerned? I don't expect to get interviews with Americans in that case, because such is not germane to Chinese reactions. See what I'm saying?

If I'm looking into Dem responses to the Georgia laws, having a Republican counterpoint being mandatory in the article gives me no information on Democrat views.

Now, if I just want straight news, I go back to Journalism 101: Who, what, when, where, and sometimes why. But if I'm looking in-depth, I expect that an article will have to focus on a particular angle, rather than paying lip-service to every.single.caveat out there.
On hiatus.
Reply
#93

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 05:39 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 05:34 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 04:12 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Can we have a total reset then?  I sincerely feel the exact same way you are describing towards you, and all due respect to Thump or any third parties, I don't need any other observer to referee "who started it" or who is most unreasonably hostile and insulting.

It ain't my horse to ride. I do think that, having admitted your pre-emptive strike, you should perhaps reconsider that tactic, seeing as how it clouds rather than clarifies conversation.

Oh yeah?  Well FUCK YOU.  j/k.  I dunno, nice Jerry tends to get sand kicked in his face.  And actually if you look she was calling my opinion "bullshit" before I called her pissy.

Watch it! Bite your tongue or something.  Sadcryface
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
Reply
#94

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 05:39 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 05:34 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 04:12 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Can we have a total reset then?  I sincerely feel the exact same way you are describing towards you, and all due respect to Thump or any third parties, I don't need any other observer to referee "who started it" or who is most unreasonably hostile and insulting.

It ain't my horse to ride. I do think that, having admitted your pre-emptive strike, you should perhaps reconsider that tactic, seeing as how it clouds rather than clarifies conversation.

Oh yeah?  Well FUCK YOU.  j/k.  I dunno, nice Jerry tends to get sand kicked in his face.  And actually if you look she was calling my opinion "bullshit" before I called her pissy.

No offense jerry, but following a request for a total reset with a comment like this doesn't make your request seem very sincere.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
Reply
#95

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 07:06 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 05:39 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 05:34 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: It ain't my horse to ride. I do think that, having admitted your pre-emptive strike, you should perhaps reconsider that tactic, seeing as how it clouds rather than clarifies conversation.

Oh yeah?  Well FUCK YOU.  j/k.  I dunno, nice Jerry tends to get sand kicked in his face.  And actually if you look she was calling my opinion "bullshit" before I called her pissy.

No offense jerry, but following a request for a total reset with a comment like this doesn't make your request seem very sincere.

Well it was sincere but that doesn't mean my balls dropped off.  I'm still not going to like my opinion being called bullshit.
Reply
#96

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 06:29 PM)Dom Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 05:39 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 05:34 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: It ain't my horse to ride. I do think that, having admitted your pre-emptive strike, you should perhaps reconsider that tactic, seeing as how it clouds rather than clarifies conversation.

Oh yeah?  Well FUCK YOU.  j/k.  I dunno, nice Jerry tends to get sand kicked in his face.  And actually if you look she was calling my opinion "bullshit" before I called her pissy.

Watch it! Bite your tongue or something.  Sadcryface

Am passing peace pipe around table.  Wanna hit?
Reply
#97

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 07:24 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 07:06 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 05:39 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Oh yeah?  Well FUCK YOU.  j/k.  I dunno, nice Jerry tends to get sand kicked in his face.  And actually if you look she was calling my opinion "bullshit" before I called her pissy.

No offense jerry, but following a request for a total reset with a comment like this doesn't make your request seem very sincere.

Well it was sincere but that doesn't mean my balls dropped off.  I'm still not going to like my opinion being called bullshit.

It's about acting in good faith jerry. One doesn't extend an olive branch while simultaneously pointing fingers. I don't think you're capable of honoring such an agreement.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
Reply
#98

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 06:01 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 05:42 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: I guess if I want to learn more about the issue I could read CBS's  "Three Ways the Iranian Sanctions Suck Balls, and What You Can Do About it!"

When trying to learn about anything, it behooves me to look at it from all sides.

I'm into military history. It chaps my hide when I read crap like "the victors get to write the history", because that ignores the fact that the defeated do as well. If I want to learn about, say, D-Day, and I want to really learn what happened, I should not only read Allied source materials, but German as well.

That doesn't mean that I expect Allied sources to accurately reflect German thinking, or vice-versa. I think that expectation is silly. In the same light, when I want to read about current issues afflicting us, I shouldn't expect every single source to properly air every single perspective on any given issue. I reckon I have to look for both angles on my own. How can a journalist in Beijing report on decisions made in Washington, except insofar as Chinese reactions are concerned? I don't expect to get interviews with Americans in that case, because such is not germane to Chinese reactions. See what I'm saying?

If I'm looking into Dem responses to the Georgia laws, having a Republican counterpoint being mandatory in the article gives me no information on Democrat views.

Now, if I just want straight news, I go back to Journalism 101: Who, what, when, where, and sometimes why. But if I'm looking in-depth, I expect that an article will have to focus on a particular angle, rather than paying lip-service to every.single.caveat out there.

I agree with most of that.  If I'm looking into Dem and Repub responses to the Georgia laws, with a few exceptions you have to check two (or more) sources because most sources have a bias that doesn't air a fair look at the entire issue.  The denial of bias, liberal or conservative, in various outlets seems bewildering to me, almost like wishful thinking.  "I only read the truth, not like those Faux RepubliKKKunts!"
Reply
#99

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 07:36 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 07:24 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 07:06 PM)Dānu Wrote: No offense jerry, but following a request for a total reset with a comment like this doesn't make your request seem very sincere.

Well it was sincere but that doesn't mean my balls dropped off.  I'm still not going to like my opinion being called bullshit.

It's about acting in good faith jerry.  One doesn't extend an olive branch while simultaneously pointing fingers.  I don't think you're capable of honoring such an agreement.

Peace pipe retracted then.  I do think you're an okay person overall despite your gross misreading and misunderstanding of me.
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 07:42 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 06:01 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 05:42 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: I guess if I want to learn more about the issue I could read CBS's  "Three Ways the Iranian Sanctions Suck Balls, and What You Can Do About it!"

When trying to learn about anything, it behooves me to look at it from all sides.

I'm into military history. It chaps my hide when I read crap like "the victors get to write the history", because that ignores the fact that the defeated do as well. If I want to learn about, say, D-Day, and I want to really learn what happened, I should not only read Allied source materials, but German as well.

That doesn't mean that I expect Allied sources to accurately reflect German thinking, or vice-versa. I think that expectation is silly. In the same light, when I want to read about current issues afflicting us, I shouldn't expect every single source to properly air every single perspective on any given issue. I reckon I have to look for both angles on my own. How can a journalist in Beijing report on decisions made in Washington, except insofar as Chinese reactions are concerned? I don't expect to get interviews with Americans in that case, because such is not germane to Chinese reactions. See what I'm saying?

If I'm looking into Dem responses to the Georgia laws, having a Republican counterpoint being mandatory in the article gives me no information on Democrat views.

Now, if I just want straight news, I go back to Journalism 101: Who, what, when, where, and sometimes why. But if I'm looking in-depth, I expect that an article will have to focus on a particular angle, rather than paying lip-service to every.single.caveat out there.

I agree with most of that.  If I'm looking into Dem and Repub responses to the Georgia laws, with a few exceptions you have to check two (or more) sources because most sources have a bias that doesn't air a fair look at the entire issue.  The denial of bias, liberal or conservative, in various outlets seems bewildering to me, almost like wishful thinking.  "I only read the truth, not like those Faux RepubliKKKunts!"

My point is that insisting that every source cater to one's desire for balance is unrealistic, because if you're wanting to report on, say, Kurdish opinions on Iraqi central governance, inviting the Iraqi Interior Minister is not actually balancing the article. It's introducing an opinion that doesn't represent what the aim of the article is. It's a subtle point, but understandable.

By demanding that every article provide counterpoint, you're also demanding that every article provide for perspectives that do not themselves support the goal of the article.

"Oh, and by the way, Interior Minister Hussein insists that there was no gassing of Kurds in 1988" does nothing to either clarify facts, or clarify why the Kurds might have grievances.

Just one example.
On hiatus.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)