logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Has a left leaning media benefited Democrats?, Media bias and it's effect on the public. (Trump, protest, electio
net2007
post Dec 8 2016, 08:00 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



This thread will surround what this election has meant for what many have seen as a predominately left-wing media. I'll also touch some on how a slanted media can lead to misconception or at worst incite violence.

For years left-wing media bias has been viewed, by some, as a conspiracy theory pushed by conservatives who don't like their ideas challenged. Back in the Bush and Obama years this lead me to seek some form of reliable substantiation for this in polling data, such as with this PewResearch Poll from 2013...

http://www.people-press.org/2013/08/08/ami...ole-stands-out/

QUOTE
Overall, about seven-in-ten (72%) see news organizations in ideological terms. A 46%-plurality says news organizations are best described as liberal, another 26% say they are conservative. Just 19% say news organizations are best described as neither liberal nor conservative.

Most Republicans See a Liberal News MediaThe balance of opinion on this question has changed little in recent years, with a plurality consistently describing news organizations as liberal, and about a quarter saying they are conservative.

Not surprisingly, there are wide partisan divides in perceptions of news organizations’ ideology. By a 65%-17% margin, more Republicans say news organizations are liberal than conservative. By contrast, Democrats are divided: about as many say the press is liberal (36%) as conservative (37%). By about two-to-one (47%-23%), more independents say news organizations are better described as liberal than conservative.


If you deduct the often fixed opinions of the far right and left, you can see here that it was often those undecided independents who held this opinion.

With this election I feel liberal media bias has been exposed to the point that it's an argument that's difficult to counter, this due largely to the media siding with Hillary Clinton and other Democratic nominees all while Donald Trump remained persistent in calling them out in a way that hasn't been done before. In retrospect what good did it do liberals to have a media that speaks to the strength of one candidate so much? According to MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, it gave a false sense of confidence that lead to some Democrats staying home on election night, comfortable with their belief that Hillary Clinton was far ahead.

In his words.... (edited for length)

QUOTE
“The Clinton campaign believed until 9 o'clock that they had a lock on this, that they were going to win. The fault of that, actually, lies with the media. There is some self-reflection, Jim Rutenberg today writes a fascinating article where the New York Times editor and others basically come to terms with the fact that they stopped being journalists for the past month, and began being cheerleaders, and began being people who had a conclusion that they reached, and then searched for facts that Hillary was a 92, 93, 99.999 percent chance winner of this campaign...............It was there the entire time, they didn’t want to hear it, they didn’t want to see it........You were trying to help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump because you thought Donald Trump would be such a malignant cancer on our Constitutional Republic. It was much easier for you to stay in Manhattan and say “they're all voting for Trump because they're racists and bigots." If you really do believe that then you believe that over 50 million people are racists and bigots.......The first thing you did was you put liberals and Democrats and independents who thought like you – you put them in a position where they were complacent, where they really did believe not only in New York but across America and the world – that Hillary Clinton had a 98.99% of being elected president."


If interested watch the full video here....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-8EPmM8Ijk

You also had Michael Moore, who isn't conservative by any stretch, lay out a four-point post-election plan where he's suggesting, more or less, not to trust the media because they weren't acknowledging conservatives and what was really going on. He hasn't turned conservative, my guess is that he's saying this because he thinks the best way to keep the Democratic party strong is for them to acknowledge their opponents and what they really want, he was suggesting that they felt neglected which has been true for the better part of the last 8 years.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-12/l...onest-reporting

For some it may seem redundant to suggest the media is generally left leaning but there are those who don't believe this is accurate so I want to bring it up in the debate questions regardless. The larger purpose of the thread is to talk about what effect this is having. I've mentioned above that I believe it's lead to overconfidence in politicians who are underperforming but I think it goes beyond that. If someone genuinely believes what their news source is telling them, and that news source is telling them that their opponents are racist simpletons, what effect would this have?

For me, it means that someone such as this would be more prone to developing issues of their own. Take the liberal protesting machine, when I look at it, it seems obvious that acts of violence or discrimination are amplified when compared to conservative protest. This will likely be hotly debated because the consensus among Democrats has been the opposite, where for many conservatism is seen as a warning sign for bigotry or problems surrounding racism. To be up front I don't think a political affiliation will define a persons temperament, but when I look at trends, as it stands right now I think Democrats and liberals have a problem they need to address fast.

When I look at this election and the protest that resulted from it I just don't see the same degree of proactive arrogance from the right that I see from the left. I've seen left-wing extremist block up traffic for miles by protesting in the middle of the street, I saw a man sprint at Donald Trump during one of his rallies, he jumped over a barricade and tried to get on stage, bodyguards had to tackle him to stop him. I saw protesters rioting in cities after the election, destroying public property. Then there was this, here you have several people team up on an old man, and this wasn't even at a rally...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9snWgbVt5w

They kick in and punch him in the head while screaming at him for voting for Trump. While I don't think this is a fair representation of all liberals or Democrats, I think this kind of thing is a problem that goes unacknowledged by many. What does all of this have to do with the media? I think discrimination often starts from the top down, you do have these ridiculous things that conservatives say, so there are racist conservatives who don't care. However when you have media pundits who concentrate on this without revealing that this is an issue shared by liberals, and when they fail to reveal the good characteristics of those who think differently then naturally you'll have some who develop a warped view without perspective. I think it starts with our politicians and the media, it then filters down onto parents and college professors who teach a younger generation what others have taught them.

This would be true of conservatives as well, you have media pundits who teach their listeners to distrust or despise their opponents but what I'm looking at here are numbers and percentages. When you have polls coming out that suggest the media is largely left leaning and you have liberal columnist and news organizations acknowledging that it's a problem, the question for me becomes will more people catch on?

So that's my take on it. Regardless of who's at fault more, I see this as an issue that liberals will need to take seriously to move forward. When talking about equality, living by example is the best way to promote that and this election has had a drastic change on how effective it is for prominent Democrats to promote equality if they can't take responsibility for things happening within their own party.

Questions for debate...

1. Does the media favor liberals?
2. What effect do you believe media bias can have on its viewers?
3. Why do you believe Donald Trump was able to win despite the claims of racism and bigotry against him?

Bonus..

4. Share, what you believe to be the worst thing demonstrated by either the Republicans or Democrats (the one you oppose the most), and share something you feel was an act that promotes unity.


This post has been edited by net2007: Dec 8 2016, 08:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 >  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 79)
Julian
post Jan 9 2017, 07:52 PM
Post #61


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,937
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



I think that the idea that a given media source should even make a gesture towards a lack of bias, or at least even-handedness, is itself 'liberal'. That's 'liberal', not 'Democrat'; they are not the same thing, no matter how much the Democrats and their sympathisers try to assert it, or how much the Republicans and their sympathisers try to demonise liberalism. Indeed, I'd argue it's kind of patrician, old-school - the sort of idea someone like Eisenhower would be as likely to support as FDR (in the UK, our rules on balance in mass media mostly trace back to the early days of the BBC, set up and run by conservatives and liberals - the left-of-centre Labour party didn't win power outright until 1945, more than a decade afterwards).

A more conservative, free-market option would be that a given media source can be as biased as it likes, and the Market Will Decide. If the public wish to seek out media sources that suit their perceptions more, then they are free to seek it out, and other media providers will see the gap in the market and step into it (provided they anticipate a return on the investment).

That's why Fox News exists in its current format, after all - Ailes and Murdoch saw a gap in the market for a right-leaning news network, filled it, and made a mint doing so.

It's not a completely free market for new networks to spring up overnight, but that's as much to do with existing corporations lobbying to throw up barriers to entry to protect their own revenues as it is to do with all journalists being lefties who hate Trump and all broadcast regulators being lefties who hate Trump. It isn't all about Trump at all.

And I've watched and listened to your media, and the British media (obviously) and - to a lesser degree, the French, German and Italian media. In my experience, the news media is biased mostly towards the political status quo (or consensus, if you like) of five years before you consume it. They mostly don't lead public opinion, they follow it.

The entertainment media is biased to the left, it always has been and always will be, because it's made up of actors, writers and other professionals who didn't make it for a long time before they did, and are aware of how close they are to not making it again off the back of one bad review, and they all know at least one success who only made it because of their connections over their talent. (We all do, and most of them have the surname Kardashian.) There are always exceptions, of course, but in general I'm not a million miles out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Jan 10 2017, 03:45 AM
Post #62


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,311
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Julian @ Jan 9 2017, 02:52 PM) *
I think that the idea that a given media source should even make a gesture towards a lack of bias, or at least even-handedness, is itself 'liberal'. That's 'liberal', not 'Democrat'; they are not the same thing, no matter how much the Democrats and their sympathisers try to assert it, or how much the Republicans and their sympathisers try to demonise liberalism. Indeed, I'd argue it's kind of patrician, old-school - the sort of idea someone like Eisenhower would be as likely to support as FDR (in the UK, our rules on balance in mass media mostly trace back to the early days of the BBC, set up and run by conservatives and liberals - the left-of-centre Labour party didn't win power outright until 1945, more than a decade afterwards).


I agree! But!....the problem is that so little of the media actually doesn't have a bias, and that that portion seems to be ever dwindling. Due to the capitalistic forces you mention. News organizations have found that there is a lot more $$$ in sensationalizing and giving opinions.

QUOTE
And I've watched and listened to your media, and the British media (obviously) and - to a lesser degree, the French, German and Italian media. In my experience, the news media is biased mostly towards the political status quo (or consensus, if you like) of five years before you consume it. They mostly don't lead public opinion, they follow it.


Yes, but once they latch onto something, they sensationalize it all they can to keep that interest going. The Scott Peterson case was a prime example. MONTHS of coverage of something that quickly became something that didn't merit more than a ticker update. They spent most of one morning talking about how they had nothing to update.

QUOTE
The entertainment media is biased to the left, it always has been and always will be, because it's made up of actors, writers and other professionals who didn't make it for a long time before they did, and are aware of how close they are to not making it again off the back of one bad review, and they all know at least one success who only made it because of their connections over their talent. (We all do, and most of them have the surname Kardashian.) There are always exceptions, of course, but in general I'm not a million miles out.


Yes. But news is now entertainment. So where does that lead....

Keep in mind that even outside of entertainment, who becomes journalists? People with a more liberal outlook on things. Journalists have the highest percentage of voting Democrat of any occupations..over 98% I think it was. So, what bias is naturally going to exist in their coverage of things.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Jan 15 2017, 11:40 PM
Post #63


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,816
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Net2007

QUOTE
As far as news bias goes, corporations are out to make money, but how relevant is that? They make money just fine with news stations that are often biased and unfair. If anything the divisive nature of that attracts attention and improves ratings. With the video you shared, MSNBC didn't want Cenk Uygur in the 6 o'clock time slot because of his overall style, (hand gestures and tone as examples) but were willing to keep him on along with their other liberal commentators and anchors.
Well is it style or ratings that bring money? If we are to believe the evidence provided by Cenk, his ratings were an improvement on what the show had. The other point is that fact that he is saying there are two audiences, like many jobs, management and the viewers.


The relevancy bringing up corporations is to show that like everywhere else you have a consolidation of wealth and power. In 1983, 50 media companies, which still isn't a lot, controlled most media. Within 3 decade we are down to 6. Consolidation of power is a right wing thing. That's not a left wing thing. So my point is that while I can quickly admit to journalism and media arts in general have a liberal calling to the individual, they will work for individuals that are corporate minded. And I believe you can see this, if you were willing to. Take a subject like war coverage, there is very little to no independent coverage like we say in Vietnam. Also

[email="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States"]Pro-power pro-government bias[/email]

QUOTE


Part of the propaganda model is self-censorship through the corporate system (see corporate censorship); that reporters and especially editors share or acquire values that agree with corporate elites in order to further their careers. Those who do not are marginalized or fired. Such examples have been dramatized in fact-based movie dramas such as Good Night, and Good Luck and The Insider and demonstrated in the documentary The Corporation. George Orwell originally wrote a preface for his 1945 novel Animal Farm, which focused on the British self-censorship of the time: "The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. ... [Things are] kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact." The preface was not published with most copies of the book.[citation needed]

In the propaganda model, advertising revenue is essential for funding most media sources and thus linked with media coverage. For example, according to Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR.org), 'When Al Gore proposed launching a progressive TV network, a Fox News executive told Advertising Age (10/13/03): "The problem with being associated as liberal is that they wouldn't be going in a direction that advertisers are really interested in.... If you go out and say that you are a liberal network, you are cutting your potential audience, and certainly your potential advertising pool, right off the bat." An internal memo from ABC Radio affiliates in 2006 revealed that powerful sponsors had a "standing order that their commercials never be placed on syndicated Air America programming" that aired on ABC affiliates. The list totaled 90 advertisers and included major corporations such as Wal-Mart, GE, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Bank of America, Fed-Ex, Visa, Allstate, McDonald's, Sony and Johnson & Johnson, and government entities such as the U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Navy.

....

In 2008 George W. Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan published a book in which he confessed to regularly and routinely, but unknowingly, passing on lies to the media, following the instructions of his superiors, lies that the media reported as facts. He characterized the press as, by and large, honest, and intent on telling the truth, but reported that "the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House", especially on the subject of the war in Iraq.

FAIR reported that between January and August 2014 no representatives for organized labor made an appearance on any of the high-profile Sunday morning talkshows (NBC's Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, Fox News Sunday and CBS's Face the Nation), including episodes that covered topics such as labor rights and jobs, while current or former corporate CEOs made 12 appearances over that same period.


These facts are unlikely to sway your opinion that you have a liberal media, I don't blame you. You have a corporate owned, corporate controlled, "mainstream liberal media" telling you there is a "liberal" bias. Because in your truth it is not the "corporate management" that would make the decisions of media, but the liberal employees that would set the agenda, because ....... somehow, in the case of media, that's how business works. And more importantly, I think you've shown in your own way that facts don't necessarily have to matter.

QUOTE
Okay, so you caught on.

As for Hillary, to an extent yes they were trying to make her look like an angel while demonizing Trump. With your comment on the "so called liberal media" How do you explain the polling over the years and comments like the one below? Michael Moore isn't conservative, right?
Of course I caught on... I'm
very liberal!! Thanks for meeting me halfway. Let's move on.


What FACTS led you to the conclusion that Trump is demonized compared to Clinton? Not to mention the simple fact that Trump negative press came from is own words. Mr. "My supporters are so brainwashed I can shoot someone in the face in the middle of time square and they wouldn't care" (well he didn't say the brainwashed). Clinton was getting negative press when the FBI decides to intervene in the umpteenth "Trump inserts foot again, moment" event one week before election. And the media moved off of Trump onto Clinton.

I mean honestly how many current scandals did Clinton have to run negative press on?

Michael Moore is not conservative. We are in agreement.

QUOTE
As I said in the opening post, he still defends liberals and he's very critical of Trump, but he's also offering some degree of honesty on a liberal media that's failed the left. I don't agree with all of the points in his 5 point post-election plan but it's interesting nevertheless. (Continued below for more substantiation....)
More substantiation?
Alright, if you say so. I get what Michael Moore is trying to get across, but I don't think it is that the media is liberal. I don't necessarily agree with him either. I don't think you are in a bubble to read polls.


QUOTE
What I see out of that report is that they were both trying to spin things to fit their narrative, some of the questions he started with were bait and switch to begin with. He tried to direct her away from the issue of liberal media bias by pointing at Trump.
LOL... I broke that back and forth down... I mean I broke it DOWN,
Net!! And this sentence is all I get. LOL!! What you saw earlier was a bias reporter being caught on the spot. Now you see two people both trying to spin things. You are wrong, both times. What is happening is not with them, but with you.. you in particular, "you" meaning general public, and "you", especially, "the right".


Here is what happened. Trump said something that can not be factually verified. When one of his surrogates(I guess) is questioned about this (which is what the media IS supposed to do) the surrogate goes to a very common practice nowadays... they attack the media. And you posting that as the example shows that this is a very effective strategy or that you don't care know whether Trump is telling the truth or both.

QUOTE
By the way, this doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what the media is doing. Speaking of TYT and Cenk Uygur, here's a review from someone who describes himself as liberal, as with Michael Moore he's okay with being critical of like-minded individuals. When I hear him talk it's obvious that he has the best interest of the left in mind, but here again he's offering some honesty. He talks about TYT lacking facts when reporting, using strawman arguments, and getting over emotional, all of which are true. I looked at your video so I encourage you to actually watch the ones I post to get an idea of where I'm coming from....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXyiUi5fPWc

This further substantiates how misleading and dishonest the media can be. Although this is a Youtube news channel, it's a popular one that reaches a lot of people. Also, as you (rather unwittingly) pointed out, Cenk Uygur was part of the MSM as well
.


Hold on the media is left, but its out to make money.. Cenk is popular, but MSNBC the most left of the left wing media, wouldn't give Cenk a show. ... and now a youtube channel is part of the mainstream media?? Am I understanding you correctly? Now I looked at that video and there is quite a bit I agree on, which is why I rarely watch TYT.

QUOTE
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix...m=.0cb9ddb46789

As a CNN commentator, she was fine with feeding debate questions to Hillary Clinton because it could help her win, that's all that mattered. Someone who shared her own political views was given an advantage in a debate that should have been fair. Very disingenuous, but I'm sure you'll downplay and dismiss every one of these right? If your position is that liberal news outlets are composed of non-biased truth distributors then all of this will be foreign to you.
Downplay... hmmm... maybe you will feel that way. Let me ask you a question, does CNN employ both Republican and Democratic strategist, not just liberals or conservatives.. but actual political party strategists?


If yes, why. Is it for conflict? Is it so they can pose a pseudo debate of "both sides". Do they create this conflict so the media can be more informative or have more representative of ALL OPINIONS. Let me use your own words:

QUOTE(net2007)
If anything the divisive nature of that attracts attention and improves ratings.
So they do it for money? Is that a
liberal thing? You see what I mean about the way Conservatives digest information. The media is liberal even though it a.) causes divisiveness and b.) primary goal of making money. You see as a fair person I don't mind saying that what Donna did was wrong. But I am trying to understand how you don't see this as a problem created by a news agency hiring political pundits and strategists in order to create controversy for financial reasons but rather see it as evidence that the news is liberal.


QUOTE
You're saying that every human is subject to bias but that it may, or may not influence their job. You're saying this in a way to convince me that I shouldn't assume bias, (which I already understand) but through this statement, the truth comes out. If every human is subject to bias, and it may or may not effect their job, would it follow that liberals aren't human? You were suggesting before that liberals only report facts and don't have a bias, then contradict yourself here whether or not you realized it.
The fact that you say that means you didn't digest when I said this:


QUOTE
"The left" and "the right" are both psyche we all exhibit depending on what we talk about. I think the issue determines whether we are "to the left" or to "the right". The sum of where we find ourselves on the myriad of issues is how we will define ourselves as left or right. I might consider myself very liberal, but I'm sure I hold conservative views here and there. But, enough of this seemingly off topic context lets get into it.
That was my opening post. So no, you are not understanding correctly. When you see a Black Republican or Gay Republican or a Racist White Democrat did the world spin out of control? No, I think not. There are many issues... many many many issues, to which we may find ourselves to the left or right on. In other words we may want to keep it more the way it is or progress to what some would call a more equitable outcome.


Let me give you an example: Gay marriage. Homosexual marriage. Same-sex Marriage. Now I've been in many debates with in this subject against other people that identify themselves as liberals. See for me, gay marriage is not an issues of equality, it was an issue of changing the status quo understanding of what marriage is. Change from a union of "man and women" to a union of "two people". So step 1 is to misinform, which is not liberal at all in my opinion. Some stated they fought for marriage equality, but in my experience they did not fight for marriage equality, but rather wanted to change the concept of marriage so that they could be included. So as a liberal I have always had problem in the means by which Gay Marriage agenda was achieved.

Now here comes the thing I hope doesn't confuse you. I have always been for same sex marriage... always. But I also believe in the right of polygamist too, because I actually believe in marriage equality in the sense that a person should be able to choose who you make a family with, not just "two homosexuals should be able to make a family".

The point of this digression is to show you the spectrum of political leanings within each of us, so it would not be correct to say someone who identifies themselves as a liberal, only reports news in what I think of as a liberal fashion.

QUOTE
Droop, you're taking one thing and assuming it means something else, you're oversimplifying and generalizing. I hope this doesn't become too personal but in reply to you suggesting that you have a better understanding of racism, while suggesting mine is limited. It seems to me that you do have a high understanding of racism, but it's the kind of racism that affects you and like minded individuals. There's nothing wrong with that, we all want to be aware of things that are hurting us but if you had a higher understanding of racism you'd know how far reaching it is, meaning beyond white conservatism. Look at post #24 and tell me those videos don't demonstrate severe problems on behalf liberals and Democrats. When I say problems, I'm talking discrimination and in some cases hate crimes. If you had a high overall understanding you'd be aware of how deep an issue this is amongst liberals.

Don't take my word for it, look at this video with some degree of objectivity....


LOL I do have a high overall understanding. Do you understand why you felt compelled to show that video? This reminds me of Jane Elliot, who is this older White lady that goes around trying to explain racism to White people. And she does so in such a mean and nasty way, purposefully, IMO. Anyways, there was this one video [/size]when she is in Britain. Its a long video so I would just say go to 27:30 to 29:00. If it peaks your interest feel free to see more. Anyways, in that part you see the White woman being told statistics, and she says something to the effect "You keep talking to me about statistics, but...." A most amazing statement and one I could see you stating.

You can show me a hundred videos and you would get the same reaction. " I feel you, that was wrong..." but it still wouldn't be you grasping racism. Its not a White|Black thing either, there are plenty of minorities that don't truly understand the difference between systemic racism and say.. someone shouting racial slurs. Any minority has the ability to say a racial slur, to harm the property or the person of another individuals on the basis of race. A Black man is just as capable of calling a White man "Cracker" just as a White man can call a Black man "N-something". Right. You will get no argument from me on that. And many people want to define racism in such simple terms.

But how often do you see communities of Blacks policing Whites? How often have you heard studies that showed that White sounding names were not getting hired? I could go on and on... and on. But a.) you'd have to care and B.) we shouldn't use this debate for that discussion. Net I know that Blacks commits crimes against Whites, sometimes because they are White. You don't need to show me videos for me to understand this or concede this truth. Yes I know that racism plays it part in more conservative White democrats as well. In terms of liberalism.

But Net do you know the difference between a liberal and a Democrat?

QUOTE
I'm not saying that the divisiveness we see right now isn't a problem, but have you made an attempt to individualize your opponents? Do you acknowledge problems seen within the Democratic party or with those who share your beliefs or skin color? Just an observation here, but you don't seem to take your conservative opponents very seriously. No hard feelings, but how did that work out for the Democrats in this election?
I take you all as serious as a teenager with a gun. On one hand, its just a teenager... on the other hand... he\she has a gun. Look, one of the things I think you see from is I've always had is extreme contempt for the White working class that vote Republican. That's as honest as I can be. I mean if you've got the good job or family income in the 100,000 (maybe more in some expensive areas) then I get why you vote Republican, regardless of race. It's hard not to have contempt for you all.


If your argument is that the working class White man has it just as bad as minorities, well the statistics do not back you up. But lets put that aside. Let's for the sake of argument agree that the average White Conservative has it just as bad. You underline something earlier as if to stress it to me it was:

QUOTE
What you mean to say is that you were in a bubble and weren't paying attention to your fellow Americans and their despair. YEARS of being neglected by both parties, the anger and the need for revenge against the system only grew.
"Despair" You all are in despair... and your solution... the person the poor, uneducated, white voter chose in the Republican Primary who conservative chose in the general to provide relief is the son of a millionaire, born with a silver spoon, now multi billionaire, whose legacy has only been to enrich himself, and sits his family on chairs of gold while doing interviews. This is the guy you all think will make it better for you in your "despair". Its hard not to have contempt for that level of naivety. That being said Net, I am honestly open to the fact that I am wrong. You may not believe that, but I am. However, I'm hard pressed to see any of Trump's actions prior or current that show him as anyone that feels entitled. I mean to the point he actually says... "You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's like incredible" You know what I find incredible... how many conservatives call the man that came from a broken home and a mama on food stamp as an elitist who liberals treated like a King, yet Conservative elect the multi billionaire real estate mogul that praises their loyalty by stating he could abuse it and they would not care.

There is something warped there that can not be penetrated by any form of logic or reasoning. And part of that is the media to take this back to the topic of debate. This debate has shown in a way how that warping has occurred. Conservatives don't want to get facts from left wing biased media... and when asked "well what is the left wing media?" you all seem to be saying "ALL OF IT!!!! main stream media except the media that has a rightwing bias is biased to the left wing." I just find that kind of thinking very prone to manipulation and it shows in conservative politics and voting.

QUOTE
I think that the idea that a given media source should even make a gesture towards a lack of bias, or at least even-handedness, is itself 'liberal'. That's 'liberal', not 'Democrat'; they are not the same thing, no matter how much the Democrats and their sympathisers try to assert it, or how much the Republicans and their sympathisers try to demonise liberalism. Indeed, I'd argue it's kind of patrician, old-school - the sort of idea someone like Eisenhower would be as likely to support as FDR (in the UK, our rules on balance in mass media mostly trace back to the early days of the BBC, set up and run by conservatives and liberals - the left-of-centre Labour party didn't win power outright until 1945, more than a decade afterwards).

A more conservative, free-market option would be that a given media source can be as biased as it likes, and the Market Will Decide. If the public wish to seek out media sources that suit their perceptions more, then they are free to seek it out, and other media providers will see the gap in the market and step into it (provided they anticipate a return on the investment).

That's why Fox News exists in its current format, after all - Ailes and Murdoch saw a gap in the market for a right-leaning news network, filled it, and made a mint doing so.


I don't want echo you too much because we stand in agreement with so much. Especially that a liberally biased media would actually lead to an open media without agendas outside of disseminating information. Its when the primary agenda becomes "make money" that the media becomes less liberal. The mainstream media, more than not, shows consistently (as links I provide above illustrate) that it has a "pro status quo" bias. And what ironic about that is that the "pro status quo" is generally a staple of conservatism.

Which leads me to my itty bitty small contention with the idea that their was "a gap" that was filled. Right-wing radio was already showing itself to be successful following the removal of the FCC "Fairness Doctrine" in the 80's. This goes to your point about "free market media". The conservative, unlike their liberal counter parts ate it up. So it wasn't a matter of providing new information but actually providing extreme conservative bias and opinion in the information and televising it. Liberals have tried to replicate this. They have tried in television with MSNBC (which only later became the left wing biased format it is today) and they have tried on radio with "Air America". MSNBC has less viewership than CNN, and Fox News. Air America failed. In fact MSNBC is bragging about becoming more right... because that's where the money is at. Bottom line the liberal and Conservative don't consume news the same and are less likely to be enthralled in the opinions of popular personalities.

So I feel like its not as if the Conservative was getting TOO MUCH liberal bias and in moves Right wing media, but rather they weren't getting bias at all. And you think about it you can almost understand the psychology. What was the conservative "struggle". If the liberal was fighting for equality of sexes, races, what was the conservative fighting for? inequality? If the liberal is fighting for equality of homosexuals, what is the conservative fighting for? inequality? If the liberal is fighting for the end of war, what is the conservative fighting for? More war?

So here I am, a conservative, I'm a good person... just cause I think Blacks should be slaves doesn't make me bad. See I'm still good. Just cause I support dropping Nukes on humans don't make me evil? Just because I think Blacks should sit at the back of the bus or that Blacks should drink from their own water fountains, doesn't make me amoral bigot. Just because I think homosexuality is an abominations doesn't make me a bad person.

Conservatives want their goodness reaffirmed regardless of their actions and so there was a demand for media that did this.

QUOTE
The entertainment media is biased to the left, it always has been and always will be, because it's made up of actors, writers and other professionals who didn't make it for a long time before they did, and are aware of how close they are to not making it again off the back of one bad review, and they all know at least one success who only made it because of their connections over their talent. (We all do, and most of them have the surname Kardashian.) There are always exceptions, of course, but in general I'm not a million miles out.


[size="2"]Here we are in disagreement. The same 'pro status quo" exist in most entertainment media as well. But again its so engrained its hard to see. If I am looking at a show from a political, military, economic perspective I am likely to see a pro-western democracy bias. I mean I can watch a movies, fictional or based on fact, where the characters are an invading force, in someone else's land. They kill indigenous people of that land who are combatants. And through out the whole thing, I'm going to feel like the people invading the country and killing the locals are the good guys. I mean how many murders and tortures can I see before Jack Bower(Bauer) is deemed a homicidal, murderous evil man. Well apparently its infinite because I LOVE 24!! Damn jack just threw that woman and her son out the window, what an American hero!! This goes for dramas that revolve around politics as well. I will say that in the area of domestic social issues you can see a bit of liberal bias, but it isn't extreme.

I mean looking at TV today I would think that 1 out of 5 men are gay, 75% of women are gay or bi-curious, half of Americans are actually Jewish... and weed is legal rather than felony that will get you locked up for years!

Hobbes

QUOTE
Keep in mind that even outside of entertainment, who becomes journalists? People with a more liberal outlook on things. Journalists have the highest percentage of voting Democrat of any occupations..over 98% I think it was. So, what bias is naturally going to exist in their coverage of things.....
How does that logic work exactly? If I find a job field that is filled with more conservatives than liberals than the job field itself has that bias in its functionality?


This post has been edited by droop224: Jan 15 2017, 11:46 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Jan 22 2017, 09:41 PM
Post #64


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Droop, I'm starting in on another reply now but it'll be a couple days before I wrap it up, things got busy in a hurry over here but I have some input to what you said.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Jan 27 2017, 05:10 AM
Post #65


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Droop

QUOTE
Of course I caught on... I'm very liberal!! Thanks for meeting me halfway. Let's move on.


QUOTE
I take you all as serious as a teenager with a gun. On one hand, its just a teenager... on the other hand... he\she has a gun. Look, one of the things I think you see from is I've always had is extreme contempt for the White working class that vote Republican. That's as honest as I can be. I mean if you've got the good job or family income in the 100,000 (maybe more in some expensive areas) then I get why you vote Republican, regardless of race. It's hard not to have contempt for you all.


I want to address these things first and foremost before moving on because it's important. Addressing the first quote. You're saying, of course, you caught on because you're very liberal? Liberal or conservative doesn't determine comprehension levels. I know you believe it does, but consider how complicated humans are, and how complicated society is. Comprehension and smarts are determined by upbringing/surroundings, genetics, and the level of effort being put into understanding others and the world around us. I remember you suggesting something similar, perhaps a year ago, and it's actually a sure way to block out information you might be surprised with otherwise, in doing so making you less perceptive. All of this is quite simply because there's information coming to you from those you consider inferior.

It's not so surprising that this comment comes in combination with the second one where you're saying "It's hard not to have contempt for you all." while suggesting that conservatives are about as good as teenagers with guns. I like how you make a dozen picks and pokes with emotion icons and excessively use... (!!!!!) in debates all while comparing others to teenagers.

You're right by saying that I saw this in advance, all the indicators for contempt are there. I'll give you credit for being honest, but this is how I know that you're not in a position to speak of the limited sight I (in your mind) have on race matters. All encompassing and negative views on groups who think or look different makes it hard to communicate, much less educate others on race matters. Perhaps that's lost potential in your case, not all of your points are bad ones, but the approach you're taking effectively ends constructive conversation and leads to incomplete or inaccurate conclusions.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 15 2017, 06:40 PM) *
Net2007

QUOTE
As far as news bias goes, corporations are out to make money, but how relevant is that? They make money just fine with news stations that are often biased and unfair. If anything the divisive nature of that attracts attention and improves ratings. With the video you shared, MSNBC didn't want Cenk Uygur in the 6 o'clock time slot because of his overall style, (hand gestures and tone as examples) but were willing to keep him on along with their other liberal commentators and anchors.
Well is it style or ratings that bring money? If we are to believe the evidence provided by Cenk, his ratings were an improvement on what the show had. The other point is that fact that he is saying there are two audiences, like many jobs, management and the viewers.


The relevancy bringing up corporations is to show that like everywhere else you have a consolidation of wealth and power. In 1983, 50 media companies, which still isn't a lot, controlled most media. Within 3 decade we are down to 6. Consolidation of power is a right wing thing. That's not a left wing thing. So my point is that while I can quickly admit to journalism and media arts in general have a liberal calling to the individual, they will work for individuals that are corporate minded. And I believe you can see this, if you were willing to. Take a subject like war coverage, there is very little to no independent coverage like we say in Vietnam. Also


Okay, but if you're trying to jump from a "consolidation of power" argument (or the number of companies who have ownership of news networks), straight to liberal news anchors and commentators never deciding to spread information that's either incomplete or in some cases false, then I don't see your point. I say this because, obviously, they're doing it for starters and I believe larger companies compartmentalize to various degrees, every decision isn't determined at the top. As long as individual shows aren't stepping too far off base or causing severe problems then they're given a degree of freedom of choice. I'm not saying that's not risky if they go too far, but I see evidence that they do it. Even if it were true that they weren't given any freedom of choice at all, again it's simple enough to point out that the ones with the most power could, and probably do have a bias of their own. Your theory is based on the assumption that consolidation of power is a right wing principle, which I don't believe applies in this context. Also in contrast to the opinions of some, I don't see consolidation of power as strictly a "right-wing thing". It depends on what you're talking about and if you take note of what the word consolidation actually means and drop the debatable political interpretation of it, it becomes clear as to how many things this can apply to....

Consolidation definition... Combine (a number of things) into a single more effective or coherent whole.

I'm not suggesting you don't know what the word means, I just think you're not considering its applications. If you look at (again the media), college campuses and the choices made by politicians, the scope of this should become obvious.




QUOTE


[email="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States"]Pro-power pro-government bias[/email]

Part of the propaganda model is self-censorship through the corporate system (see corporate censorship); that reporters and especially editors share or acquire values that agree with corporate elites in order to further their careers. Those who do not are marginalized or fired. Such examples have been dramatized in fact-based movie dramas such as Good Night, and Good Luck and The Insider and demonstrated in the documentary The Corporation. George Orwell originally wrote a preface for his 1945 novel Animal Farm, which focused on the British self-censorship of the time: "The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. ... [Things are] kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact." The preface was not published with most copies of the book.[citation needed][/size][/font]

In the propaganda model, advertising revenue is essential for funding most media sources and thus linked with media coverage. For example, according to Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR.org), 'When Al Gore proposed launching a progressive TV network, a Fox News executive told Advertising Age (10/13/03): "The problem with being associated as liberal is that they wouldn't be going in a direction that advertisers are really interested in.... If you go out and say that you are a liberal network, you are cutting your potential audience, and certainly your potential advertising pool, right off the bat." An internal memo from ABC Radio affiliates in 2006 revealed that powerful sponsors had a "standing order that their commercials never be placed on syndicated Air America programming" that aired on ABC affiliates. The list totaled 90 advertisers and included major corporations such as Wal-Mart, GE, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Bank of America, Fed-Ex, Visa, Allstate, McDonald's, Sony and Johnson & Johnson, and government entities such as the U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Navy.

....

In 2008 George W. Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan published a book in which he confessed to regularly and routinely, but unknowingly, passing on lies to the media, following the instructions of his superiors, lies that the media reported as facts. He characterized the press as, by and large, honest, and intent on telling the truth, but reported that "the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House", especially on the subject of the war in Iraq.

FAIR reported that between January and August 2014 no representatives for organized labor made an appearance on any of the high-profile Sunday morning talkshows (NBC's Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, Fox News Sunday and CBS's Face the Nation), including episodes that covered topics such as labor rights and jobs, while current or former corporate CEOs made 12 appearances over that same period.


QUOTE
These facts are unlikely to sway your opinion that you have a liberal media, I don't blame you. You have a corporate owned, corporate controlled, "mainstream liberal media" telling you there is a "liberal" bias. Because in your truth it is not the "corporate management" that would make the decisions of media, but the liberal employees that would set the agenda, because ....... somehow, in the case of media, that's how business works. And more importantly, I think you've shown in your own way that facts don't necessarily have to matter.


With your sources, I didn't see anything clear or specific enough to demonstrate that liberals aren't spreading misleading or inaccurate information, that's a very strong claim. It's not as if you're trying to substantiate that this is done equally by both sides, or that conservatives do it more often. In this debate, more or less, you've suggested that news networks have a liberal majority but don't spread incomplete or inaccurate information. For that, you're going to need to show something groundbreaking to be convincing....

"I acknowledge that journalism is a liberal art with more liberals, but it does not favor liberals. When facts are given in its most unfiltered nature it favors us all. Facts are not bias, but opinions are."

Liberals are humans with faults just like anyone else. Sometimes they develop strong opinions as anyone else could, and sometimes they defend that strong opinion no matter what it takes. Lies, misdirection, strawman arguments, and for the most extreme, violence.

QUOTE
What FACTS led you to the conclusion that Trump is demonized compared to Clinton? Not to mention the simple fact that Trump negative press came from is own words. Mr. "My supporters are so brainwashed I can shoot someone in the face in the middle of time square and they wouldn't care" (well he didn't say the brainwashed). Clinton was getting negative press when the FBI decides to intervene in the umpteenth "Trump inserts foot again, moment" event one week before election. And the media moved off of Trump onto Clinton.

I mean honestly how many current scandals did Clinton have to run negative press on?


Now, this is a point that makes sense. I don't agree with your conclusion but Hillary did get hit hard by some. Both candidates were criticized so to elaborate, I believe Hillary was favored by the majority of the media and that the number of news anchors and commentators who defended her outnumbered those who did the same for Trump. Trump does say things that are polarizing, at times saying things he shouldn't but if you listen to him for an extended period it becomes clear that media pundits are seeking out the most condemning things he says because the vast majority of his message is positive reinforcement of his base, or even America as a whole if you take him at his word. In many cases, the media has interpreted him in a way which would suggest his divisive comments are more descriptive of who he is, thus getting into opinions. With all of this considered, you could say that he contradicts himself with his message, I think that'd be fair if they put emphasis on his positive traits more than they do.

Trump is complicated and difficult to figure out so many liberals have taken the easy route and oversimplified him, making him out to be hateful and dangerous. They've done the same with conservative politicians and their followers throughout recent history, so this isn't necessarily all about Trump. It's an obtuse mindset when used to generalize and for some a strategy that has worked to the benefit of liberals. Although, right now, it's not working out so well for them.

Getting back to media deception, along with other examples I've shown it's revealing that Rachel Maddow hugged Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders after a debate, darn near cried when learning about the reopening of the email investigation, and had a breakdown when Trump won. This helps verify the media's connection with liberalism (as you're acknowledging) but additionally, that's journalism based on emotion. I'm sure she feels she has facts as well, and perhaps sometimes she does, but emotions and bias will drive the type of research someone like that will do. Like the time she and her team did lazy research on, then reported an entire hoax news story from a satire website. It would have been embarrassing to Sarah Palin supporters, so she ran with it. http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/rachel-madd...ake-story/52101

With all of this, I'm not suggesting we don't have conservatives in the media who have a bias and criticize Hillary disproportionally to Trump, but what I'm looking at are numbers. In the MSM, Fox News is the major news network with a conservative bias, I don't know of any other major network where you could say Trump is favored by most.

QUOTE
QUOTE
What I see out of that report is that they were both trying to spin things to fit their narrative, some of the questions he started with were bait and switch to begin with. He tried to direct her away from the issue of liberal media bias by pointing at Trump.
LOL... I broke that back and forth down... I mean I broke it DOWN,
Net!! And this sentence is all I get. LOL!! What you saw earlier was a bias reporter being caught on the spot. Now you see two people both trying to spin things. You are wrong, both times. What is happening is not with them, but with you.. you in particular, "you" meaning general public, and "you", especially, "the right".


Here is what happened. Trump said something that can not be factually verified. When one of his surrogates(I guess) is questioned about this (which is what the media IS supposed to do) the surrogate goes to a very common practice nowadays... they attack the media. And you posting that as the example shows that this is a very effective strategy or that you don't care know whether Trump is telling the truth or both.


And I disagree with how you broke it down, you're focusing on the validity of what Trump said rather than the primary topic of their discussion, which was media bias. Again, Stelter brought up something Trump said to direct her away from the issue of media bias, and he had to backtrack after making a claim that he obviously wasn't sure on, that's pretty straight forward. As for Trump, I didn't support him and still take issue with some of what he says. Having said that, every time I see someone who thinks he says rude or ridiculous things, counter that by saying or doing rude and ridiculous things (in some cases much worse things) I think to myself, perhaps he's not all that bad. I have a better opinion of him than in months prior given the circumstances. If he has a major policy success or two and the economy improves, I could see myself supporting him.


QUOTE
QUOTE
By the way, this doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what the media is doing. Speaking of TYT and Cenk Uygur, here's a review from someone who describes himself as liberal, as with Michael Moore he's okay with being critical of like-minded individuals. When I hear him talk it's obvious that he has the best interest of the left in mind, but here again he's offering some honesty. He talks about TYT lacking facts when reporting, using strawman arguments, and getting over emotional, all of which are true. I looked at your video so I encourage you to actually watch the ones I post to get an idea of where I'm coming from....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXyiUi5fPWc

This further substantiates how misleading and dishonest the media can be. Although this is a Youtube news channel, it's a popular one that reaches a lot of people. Also, as you (rather unwittingly) pointed out, Cenk Uygur was part of the MSM as well
.


Hold on the media is left, but its out to make money.. Cenk is popular, but MSNBC the most left of the left wing media, wouldn't give Cenk a show. ... and now a youtube channel is part of the mainstream media?? Am I understanding you correctly? Now I looked at that video and there is quite a bit I agree on, which is why I rarely watch TYT.


You'd understand just fine if you take into account what I said, rather than the rehashed version that reflects how you feel about what I said. Simply put, Cenk Uygur is biased, he's emotional, he creates strawman arguments, by all accounts he's an example of someone who does journalism the wrong way. It appears that you're conceding to this by agreeing with the video and by suggesting TYT is a show you rarely watch due to mentioned criticisms.

TYT is important to mention for two reasons, Cenk Uygur has experience in the MSM and worked for MSNBC. Additionally, non-traditional news sources can be considered media, not MSM but it's media nevertheless. As far as Cenk Uygur's tie in with the MSM goes, you're suggesting here that MSNBC "didn't give him a show", that's poor phrasing if not intentional. He was acceptable enough to the network to have a show already, and he was acceptable enough for them to offer to keep him with the network. The only thing you're going on is that they didn't promote him by giving him the 6 O'clock time slot. Given they left the later times for other liberal Anchors, I'm not seeing this as groundbreaking.

QUOTE
QUOTE
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix...m=.0cb9ddb46789

As a CNN commentator, she was fine with feeding debate questions to Hillary Clinton because it could help her win, that's all that mattered. Someone who shared her own political views was given an advantage in a debate that should have been fair. Very disingenuous, but I'm sure you'll downplay and dismiss every one of these right? If your position is that liberal news outlets are composed of non-biased truth distributors then all of this will be foreign to you.
Downplay... hmmm... maybe you will feel that way. Let me ask you a question, does CNN employ both Republican and Democratic strategist, not just liberals or conservatives.. but actual political party strategists?


If yes, why. Is it for conflict? Is it so they can pose a pseudo debate of "both sides". Do they create this conflict so the media can be more informative or have more representative of ALL OPINIONS. Let me use your own words:

QUOTE(net2007)
If anything the divisive nature of that attracts attention and improves ratings.
So they do it for money? Is that a
liberal thing? You see what I mean about the way Conservatives digest information. The media is liberal even though it a.) causes divisiveness and b.) primary goal of making money. You see as a fair person I don't mind saying that what Donna did was wrong. But I am trying to understand how you don't see this as a problem created by a news agency hiring political pundits and strategists in order to create controversy for financial reasons but rather see it as evidence that the news is liberal.


I'd say the bias can be indicated by how the network is interacting with those commentators and what roles they're given. It's true that networks like CNN hire both Republican and Democratic strategist, and to answer your question I do think it's so they can pose a pseudo-debate of "both sides". I view what they're doing in a similar way I viewed Hannity and Colmes when Alan Colmes was part of the show. Colmes was there to give an opinion, but it was a conservative show regardless. Colmes was often talked over and appeared to have a secondary role on the show.

What I'm using here is cumulative knowledge. Some of this wouldn't be quite as bad if it didn't come in combination with a number of other questionable things that also point to a problem with liberal bias. There's the everyday tone that liberal media sources and networks take along with questionable actions on the part of some pundits. As we've seen recently, Time Magazine reporter Zeke Miller had what I describe as a knee-jerk reaction when he suggested the MLK bust was removed from the White House by Trump. If that had been true it would be something they could point at to suggest Trump doesn't care about equal rights.

Ironically enough Zeke Miller worked for Buzzfeed until 2013, and we've all heard about what happened with them in regards to the unsubstantiated dossier they reported, linking Trump to Russia. Some are defending what Buzzfeed did, yet even CNN is taking measures to distance themselves from them at this point, (it doesn't help that they already partnered with them in 2013). Things like this are suspicious and show how liberals in the media flock together to achieve a common goal, but all you really have to do to get substantiation for networks like CNN or MSNBC having a liberal bias and by and large favoring Hillary is turn on the TV.

QUOTE
QUOTE
You're saying that every human is subject to bias but that it may, or may not influence their job. You're saying this in a way to convince me that I shouldn't assume bias, (which I already understand) but through this statement, the truth comes out. If every human is subject to bias, and it may or may not effect their job, would it follow that liberals aren't human? You were suggesting before that liberals only report facts and don't have a bias, then contradict yourself here whether or not you realized it.
The fact that you say that means you didn't digest when I said this:


QUOTE
"The left" and "the right" are both psyche we all exhibit depending on what we talk about. I think the issue determines whether we are "to the left" or to "the right". The sum of where we find ourselves on the myriad of issues is how we will define ourselves as left or right. I might consider myself very liberal, but I'm sure I hold conservative views here and there. But, enough of this seemingly off topic context lets get into it.
That was my opening post. So no, you are not understanding correctly. When you see a Black Republican or Gay Republican or a Racist White Democrat did the world spin out of control? No, I think not. There are many issues... many many many issues, to which we may find ourselves to the left or right on. In other words we may want to keep it more the way it is or progress to what some would call a more equitable outcome.


Let me give you an example: Gay marriage. Homosexual marriage. Same-sex Marriage. Now I've been in many debates with in this subject against other people that identify themselves as liberals. See for me, gay marriage is not an issues of equality, it was an issue of changing the status quo understanding of what marriage is. Change from a union of "man and women" to a union of "two people". So step 1 is to misinform, which is not liberal at all in my opinion. Some stated they fought for marriage equality, but in my experience they did not fight for marriage equality, but rather wanted to change the concept of marriage so that they could be included. So as a liberal I have always had problem in the means by which Gay Marriage agenda was achieved.

Now here comes the thing I hope doesn't confuse you. I have always been for same sex marriage... always. But I also believe in the right of polygamist too, because I actually believe in marriage equality in the sense that a person should be able to choose who you make a family with, not just "two homosexuals should be able to make a family".

The point of this digression is to show you the spectrum of political leanings within each of us, so it would not be correct to say someone who identifies themselves as a liberal, only reports news in what I think of as a liberal fashion.


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...droop&st=60

I agree with this actually, but it contradicts how you go about identifying other groups. Read back on the forum above to post#67. In the middle of my reply, I quoted you in black, your original post is higher on the page if curious. You have that, along with other posts, and here where you're saying "It's hard not to have contempt for you all." If you understand that there are differences seen within political groups (which has been my point from the get-go), then why are you taking all encompassing negative views on another group? That's the kind of thing that liberals like to pound conservatives over. I'm not the oversensitive type, I think we're better to at least try to be civil and individualize our opponents, my largest concern is in regards to hypocrisy.

When it comes to not grouping people together based on skin color, political groups, religious groups, etc. It's easy to say, (look at each person as an individual and judge them according to their character), or (everyone is different). This idea is thrown around A LOT, and because I think it's a good idea I don't like to see it used to advance a political party or mischaracterize entire groups. When it's used in an argument, it should come from a genuine place. For example, when this Democrat goes about comparing Trump to Hitler while suggesting name calling is bad it becomes a joke. When protesters do something like spray two 8 and 11-year-old girls in the face with pepper spray because Trump and his followers are seen as divisive and discriminatory, it becomes a joke. These are true wolves in sheep's clothing, they abuse the concept of equal rights/treatment to say what they want or do what they want. Not to say you fit that description so closely, in your case I think you probably believe the things you say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VY9tPc2DfU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh78DBIdPtU

I agree with much of what you said in this section of your reply, I just think that these types of arguments should be taken seriously if they're used. This segment of liberalism has made it impossible for the left to thrive on the idea that everyone who's different is important and has helped conservatives stay in the game because there are enough people who can see through it. Personally, I could have potentially voted Democrat in a prior election. I have a few liberal views myself, strongest of all on environmental issues. The number one thing that bothers me is that the liberal base within the Democratic party has too often made a mockery of equal rights/treatment issues.

By the way, I remember your stance on gay marriage, all done through the power of a limited conservative brain. tongue.gif

QUOTE
LOL I do have a high overall understanding. Do you understand why you felt compelled to show that video? This reminds me of Jane Elliot, who is this older White lady that goes around trying to explain racism to White people. And she does so in such a mean and nasty way, purposefully, IMO. Anyways, there was this one video [/size][size=3]when she is in Britain. Its a long video so I would just say go to 27:30 to 29:00. If it peaks your interest feel free to see more. Anyways, in that part you see the White woman being told statistics, and she says something to the effect "You keep talking to me about statistics, but...." A most amazing statement and one I could see you stating.

You can show me a hundred videos and you would get the same reaction. " I feel you, that was wrong..." but it still wouldn't be you grasping racism. Its not a White|Black thing either, there are plenty of minorities that don't truly understand the difference between systemic racism and say.. someone shouting racial slurs. Any minority has the ability to say a racial slur, to harm the property or the person of another individuals on the basis of race. A Black man is just as capable of calling a White man "Cracker" just as a White man can call a Black man "N-something". Right. You will get no argument from me on that. And many people want to define racism in such simple terms.

But how often do you see communities of Blacks policing Whites? How often have you heard studies that showed that White sounding names were not getting hired? I could go on and on... and on. But a.) you'd have to care and B.) we shouldn't use this debate for that discussion. Net I know that Blacks commits crimes against Whites, sometimes because they are White. You don't need to show me videos for me to understand this or concede this truth. Yes I know that racism plays it part in more conservative White democrats as well. In terms of liberalism.

But Net do you know the difference between a liberal and a Democrat?


I'm showing the videos I do to demonstrate that there's another side to the story, apart what's being revealed through a liberal dominated media. From what you're saying here, you understand much of that. If I felt these things were covered as extensively as stupid things Trump says, stupid things Trump followers say, or racist things that conservatives say or do, then I wouldn't feel compelled to show these. Although trends change and I don't think a political label determines whether or not someone is violent or has a prejudice, as far as this election cycle goes I didn't see anywhere near the degree of hateful or ugly things demonstrated by conservatives, yet the focus is on conservatives by many news networks, Hollywood, college educators, etc.

This example isn't of the media, but I found it interesting that Hillary would say something like "I am sick and tired of the negative, dark, divisive, dangerous vision from people who support Donald Trump." She has no idea what her opposition has had to deal with in this election cycle, and if she does realize it, she's intentionally misguided her base, much in the same way liberal media pundits have done. The liberal protesting machine makes groups like the tea party look as docile as a tea party between a 5-year-old girl and her father. That's not meant to sound mean, I just think it's accurate. Although like you, I'm open to being wrong (if you meant that) I just see no evidence. I'll maintain that liberals who are behaving this way remain a part of a fringe group because I do see evidence for that, but this election cycle was a clear demonstration that the left has a serious problem to deal with.

With what you're saying, you're trying to differentiate between different aspects of racism. Systemic racism compared to someone simply saying or doing racist things, I can appreciate that. To get to the guts of that, it gets into whether or not racist acts are a reaction to something deeper that predates the act itself. I think that's fair to mention, but that it's a complicated issue. You could say that our police forces hold a white majority and that puts them in a position of power. Therefore (I'd say some) of the acts of violence against police officers is a reaction to when that power is abused. That's fair, although I think you need to look at the cases individually. I've never been fond of absolutes when describing the activities of groups, so I'd say other factors are at play. Even with the media, on my end, I should mention that some pundits are worse than others.

I think what you're missing in all of this is that there are things that are putting the left in a position of power as well, some would argue that they have more things that put them in a position of power. For example, when the educators in colleges are generally liberal, and some of them proceed to indoctrinate their students, that helps the left to secure the youth vote and puts conservative students in a position where they've been pushed around or discriminated against if they express their opinion. You could also view this as an indirect advantage for minority groups given that they usually side with liberals. There aren't enough influential people explaining to our youth that hate or racism doesn't define conservatism, it's a part of conservatism just as with other political groups. The way you're defining power is to address those things which affect liberals or minorities.

Apart from some of the bigger things such as politicians like Obama expanding the size and scope of government in the best interest of groups who support him, you have numerous other little things which add up. Even in your reply, a hint of that comes out unintentionally. You mentioned N-word VS. Cracker, with this I take into consideration that one of the words has to be censored while the other one doesn't (at least in many environments). To me, this means that there is a war of words going on where whites are held to a higher standard based on events of the past. That doesn't sound like it comes from a position of power to me, it sounds like a disadvantage. I don't like words like that regardless, but the double standard is obvious. I don't think one group should take priority over another when it comes to sensitivity.

To answer your question, I do understand the difference between liberal and Democrat, that's necessary for political debates. Are you confident you know the difference between conservative and racist, or conservative and those who overemphasize the importance of money and power? I don't remember grouping liberals and Democrats together but do remember you saying you have contempt for an entire group, among other things.

QUOTE
You all are in despair... and your solution... the person the poor, uneducated, white voter chose in the Republican Primary who conservative chose in the general to provide relief is the son of a millionaire, born with a silver spoon, now multi billionaire, whose legacy has only been to enrich himself, and sits his family on chairs of gold while doing interviews. This is the guy you all think will make it better for you in your "despair". Its hard not to have contempt for that level of naivety. That being said Net, I am honestly open to the fact that I am wrong. You may not believe that, but I am. However, I'm hard pressed to see any of Trump's actions prior or current that show him as anyone that feels entitled. I mean to the point he actually says... "You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's like incredible" You know what I find incredible... how many conservatives call the man that came from a broken home and a mama on food stamp as an elitist who liberals treated like a King, yet Conservative elect the multi billionaire real estate mogul that praises their loyalty by stating he could abuse it and they would not care.

There is something warped there that can not be penetrated by any form of logic or reasoning. And part of that is the media to take this back to the topic of debate. This debate has shown in a way how that warping has occurred. Conservatives don't want to get facts from left wing biased media... and when asked "well what is the left wing media?" you all seem to be saying "ALL OF IT!!!! main stream media except the media that has a rightwing bias is biased to the left wing." I just find that kind of thinking very prone to manipulation and it shows in conservative politics and voting.


I can't defend everything Trump says or does, or argue against all of your points on him because I agree with some of it. I voted outside of the Republican party for the first time due to some of the nonsense. With the left keeping up with their nonsense as well, I voted independent. There isn't much more to say here other than what I've addressed, you don't seem to think so, but I (along with many others) have been specific in pointing out examples of left wing media bias and I was more detailed in my descriptions than you're suggesting.

Examples of bias are everywhere; if you want to, do additional research, but with objectivity. The media has an approval rating in the teens, demonstrating how far gone some of our news sources have gotten and most seem to be in agreement that the MSM, along with many other forms of media are generally liberal. You've acknowledged this yourself but don't acknowledge they can also be unfair or dishonest. Some people with an extreme bias will go as far as to omit information or fib to get point across, that's generally speaking for liberals, conservatives, whites, blacks, Christians, and atheist alike. It could very well be that if conservatives had a majority in the media, that most of the slanted reporting (or comments) would be coming from them. That's not the case, so along with the evidence I've seen, this is a no-brainer.

Anyway, this will be my last substantial trade off with you, I may touch on some stuff if I have time but mine is limited here now. Sorry to hear about your low opinion of conservatives, that could be different if you absorbed more about what they might be going through, we all have struggles, along with those character flaws and strong points. In terms of temperament and intentions, the left and the right aren't so different. Our beliefs are what separate us above anything which doesn't have to lead to unfortunate scenarios.

This post has been edited by net2007: Jan 27 2017, 05:13 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Jan 28 2017, 12:58 AM
Post #66


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,816
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



I hear you Net, the depth of replying seems exhausting, so I will try not to take go to do to many quotes just to make the task less daunting in case you or others want to continue. On the subject of contempt, yes, I do have it and I'm not really sorry. And it may turn many away, but if they read my posts, then hopefully, they get some of the points I am making. Learning does require the ability and, more importantly, the willingness to receive information. You think my contempt blocks my ability, it does not, I don't know how I can prove that to you, but I assure you it doesn't.

Let's take the Gay marriage debate real quick. I can listen and examine the argument and say a.) I think liberal are debating this topic in a very dishonest fashion. b.)Bob marrying John does not affect my marriage. Bob marrying john, sally, and JoJo does no affect my marriage.

I'm not saying every liberal thinks like me, but my process of absorbing facts objectively AND being compassionate when identifying with other people point of view is what leads me to thoughts and beliefs associated with liberalism. See often my conservatism is a hurdle to overcome, so generally I have already identified the conservative point of view within myself to get to liberal point of view And ALWAYS remember my position that I think there is conservatism and liberalism in each and everyone one of us, it is just the sum of those positions that will make us identify as "a liberal" or "a conservative".

Now give me a conservative position that you believe in, as a conservative, and give me your process. Often I feel like when I look at conservative position it boils down to self absorption, not every time, but a good 90% of the time. My religion, My country, my safety, my money, my.. mi... mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, starts sounding like the birds off of "Finding Nemo"!

And the contempt for me starts to form when thinking like that actually begins to work against the self interest of all of us, because we ARE individuals that LIVE in society.

From here we can transition back into the debate real easy, but first: Lets talk about my generalizations for you to understand what I feel I am doing and to cast understanding of what you, and to be honest, what I feel conservatism as a whole seems to do.

OK, generalization. Lets say, me and you walk by a crowd of hundred or so protestors. Now, I say "Net look at that crowd of screaming protestors, they're over there going crazy cause Trump won" I just made a generalization that the crowd is screaming. I fully admit to doing this type action in debates for expediency. Now lets say you "Well look Droop, that person right there isn't screaming" I acknowledge you are correct. Then you begin to point out more examples... "that girl there isn't screaming just picketing, that elderly man is breathing through oxygen tanks he isn't either, nor that person or that person or that kid... 1, 2 , 3 ...10, 15 examples. Then you may get a little craftier and even point out for a period of time the screaming people aren't screaming, because maybe they had to do something, I don't know, like breathe.

Now I can honestly say that I think I can make a generalization that the crowd is screaming and acknowledge your examples of individuals in the crowd that are not screaming without being intellectually dishonest, misleading or deceptive in saying the crowd is screaming. The very nature of a generalization is that I will be less precise.

Now lets flip that and let me explain what you do. You go to the crowd and focus on the example of quiet people protesting to the point where you state "droop, not only is the crowd not screaming its not even loud, I've given you like 10 examples of quiet people... how many more do you need?"

I HOPE this is illustrative on multiple levels. Now go read back through your posts and tell me how wrong I am. "Droop look at this video to understand what I mean about racism, Donna Brazille gave questions to Clinton, Rachel Maddow hugged her and was sad when she didn't win." Ok yes I acknowledge these things, but examples don't even attempt to present a complete picture... but example do help you see what you want to see.

So I can go look at studies and statistics to see that minorities are disproportionally doing far worse than Whites, socially and economically to inform me on how racism is working or I can see a you tube video that shows white people get beat down by Blacks and say "you know what Net, you are right racism really does work both ways... yeah wow you are right look at the example of Obama, Oprah, Jay-Z its all a thing of the past."

Exact same thing goes for media bias. You cherry pick example of dishonest or misleading actions of media people that go against some conservative person, generally a Republican. And lets be honest there are ALOT of examples, but you ignore the vast, and I mean VAST, amount of news that comes out every day that has no liberal bias whatsoever. You don't believe me... on any given day pick up the "gawd dang" paper and count the articles or pieces of information and see how much of it is liberal by your own estimation. Take the time to actually try to prove your point.

That should be easy, because here is the kicker... you keep saying the media has liberal bias without ever explaining what it is. What does it look like? For instance I would say that conservative news in America openly slants against Democratic politician. I think conservative bias is openly nationalistic with rhetoric tending to say how great our country is. So when I see media that is openly nationalistic and attacks democrats I think that is "right wing media bias". MSNBC does this in the opposite direction.. but it is in no way on the level in terms of misleading as Fox and other right wing news in terms in sheer audience size. See that is demonstrable fact.

There is one consistent fact that I completely acknowledge. The media is filled with people that self identify as liberals. But then every conservative takes that fact, as you have done in this debate and so had Hobbes, that because most people in the media identify as a liberal it MUST follow that the media has a liberal bias slant.

But let me ask you all this, have any of you asked yourselves when we apply this for professions that have higher percentage of people that are conservative filling the position. The military has a lot of conservative, never heard of the conservative bias when they do their jobs, "you killing Iraqis like a conservative you should kill them like a liberal"... what about police... or construction workers... "The building is leaning a bit too much to the right.. laugh.gif "

So first thing in any good debate is what??? That we are arguing about the same thing. I don't have any clue...ANY what you all's objective definition of "liberal bias" is. So its not even like I am arguing your criteria, you don't even have a criteria to debate. And you need a criteria so that you can hold the position that most of the media is liberal.. else liberal could mean.. "the media is saying something I don't like" You get that? Think about it. You know the media is liberal, but you don't even know how you know.

So let me give you my personal belief\opinion:

Conservatives don't like how facts made them look. So they decided to create and tune in to right wing radio to reinforce their own self image. They like to see the world like a GI JOE cartoon (as I have said before). They are the good guys fighting evil both in America and around the world. But if they get all the facts it doesn't look that way. So in comes the right wing media and the first thing it does is begins to present a conservative favorite "us vs them" mentality. So the fringe right media well that us. Now they have self identified themselves right wing media so who is the left wing media they are against? All of it. All of it? That's right... ALL OF IT!! Think about it. The MSM, break those words down, Main Stream Media... so yeah that is pretty all encompassing. So now you have the right wing media telling you all of the other media is liberal biased and can't be trusted.. "You got to get your news from us if your conservative" Wow, that's not self serving in the least ermm.gif

Here comes my contempt again, huh?

hence begins the great modern day mind screw... I mean have you ever seen Richard Prior standup involving his pet monkeys? "ying ying ying ying ying" Feel free to youtube it if you want .

So you have a media source saying don't trust any other source but us because they all have bias and are misleading. No criteria and very little logic involved in creating this reality. Then they go further and decide they will become the "alternate right" or the "alt right". Again this isn't the left liberal biased main stream media naming them alt right. They are self describing themselves as this. But the right wing media is doing to the mind of its listeners what McDonald does to our body. Fills us with crap, but its crap that feels good going down. "ying ying ying ying ying" Once again, not in your interest if you are working class.

And you start seeing the effects in the beliefs of the Right. All of a sudden the elites aren't the filthy rich, but the people are educated and artists. The billionaire CEO's and OIL tycoons aren't the elitists, its the actors, its people that teach law or philosophy. Yeah those are the elitist, the scientist telling you about climate change. "yin ying ying ying ying"

So far gone is the right that a win and they are winning produces a Presidency of Mr. Donald "you fired" Trump. This guy lies sooo much that people are starting to question if he is being dishonest or simply delusional. So you went from "alt-right media" to a President that seems to live in an "alt-reality", where it is perfectly fine for them to tell the American public "Alt-Facts" (you all knew this was coming). Alternative Facts ?!?!?! ALTERNATIVE FACTS!!!! Are you Mother-bleep-bleep-ing kidding me. You want to talk about contempt for the working class conservative Republican. The Republican leader are so confident in their mind stroke "ying ying ying ying ying" of you guys that they are giving you guys "alternative facts". Because just like a religion you all have chosen to listen for the truth you want, rather than the truth that is.












Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Feb 1 2017, 04:58 AM
Post #67


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 27 2017, 07:58 PM) *
I hear you Net, the depth of replying seems exhausting, so I will try not to take go to do to many quotes just to make the task less daunting in case you or others want to continue. On the subject of contempt, yes, I do have it and I'm not really sorry. And it may turn many away, but if they read my posts, then hopefully, they get some of the points I am making. Learning does require the ability and, more importantly, the willingness to receive information. You think my contempt blocks my ability, it does not, I don't know how I can prove that to you, but I assure you it doesn't.

Let's take the Gay marriage debate real quick. I can listen and examine the argument and say a.) I think liberal are debating this topic in a very dishonest fashion. b.)Bob marrying John does not affect my marriage. Bob marrying john, sally, and JoJo does no affect my marriage.

I'm not saying every liberal thinks like me, but my process of absorbing facts objectively AND being compassionate when identifying with other people point of view is what leads me to thoughts and beliefs associated with liberalism. See often my conservatism is a hurdle to overcome, so generally I have already identified the conservative point of view within myself to get to liberal point of view And ALWAYS remember my position that I think there is conservatism and liberalism in each and everyone one of us, it is just the sum of those positions that will make us identify as "a liberal" or "a conservative".

Now give me a conservative position that you believe in, as a conservative, and give me your process. Often I feel like when I look at conservative position it boils down to self absorption, not every time, but a good 90% of the time. My religion, My country, my safety, my money, my.. mi... mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, starts sounding like the birds off of "Finding Nemo"!

And the contempt for me starts to form when thinking like that actually begins to work against the self interest of all of us, because we ARE individuals that LIVE in society.

From here we can transition back into the debate real easy, but first: Lets talk about my generalizations for you to understand what I feel I am doing and to cast understanding of what you, and to be honest, what I feel conservatism as a whole seems to do.

OK, generalization. Lets say, me and you walk by a crowd of hundred or so protestors. Now, I say "Net look at that crowd of screaming protestors, they're over there going crazy cause Trump won" I just made a generalization that the crowd is screaming. I fully admit to doing this type action in debates for expediency. Now lets say you "Well look Droop, that person right there isn't screaming" I acknowledge you are correct. Then you begin to point out more examples... "that girl there isn't screaming just picketing, that elderly man is breathing through oxygen tanks he isn't either, nor that person or that person or that kid... 1, 2 , 3 ...10, 15 examples. Then you may get a little craftier and even point out for a period of time the screaming people aren't screaming, because maybe they had to do something, I don't know, like breathe.

Now I can honestly say that I think I can make a generalization that the crowd is screaming and acknowledge your examples of individuals in the crowd that are not screaming without being intellectually dishonest, misleading or deceptive in saying the crowd is screaming. The very nature of a generalization is that I will be less precise.

Now lets flip that and let me explain what you do. You go to the crowd and focus on the example of quiet people protesting to the point where you state "droop, not only is the crowd not screaming its not even loud, I've given you like 10 examples of quiet people... how many more do you need?"

I HOPE this is illustrative on multiple levels. Now go read back through your posts and tell me how wrong I am. "Droop look at this video to understand what I mean about racism, Donna Brazille gave questions to Clinton, Rachel Maddow hugged her and was sad when she didn't win." Ok yes I acknowledge these things, but examples don't even attempt to present a complete picture... but example do help you see what you want to see.

So I can go look at studies and statistics to see that minorities are disproportionally doing far worse than Whites, socially and economically to inform me on how racism is working or I can see a you tube video that shows white people get beat down by Blacks and say "you know what Net, you are right racism really does work both ways... yeah wow you are right look at the example of Obama, Oprah, Jay-Z its all a thing of the past."

Exact same thing goes for media bias. You cherry pick example of dishonest or misleading actions of media people that go against some conservative person, generally a Republican. And lets be honest there are ALOT of examples, but you ignore the vast, and I mean VAST, amount of news that comes out every day that has no liberal bias whatsoever. You don't believe me... on any given day pick up the "gawd dang" paper and count the articles or pieces of information and see how much of it is liberal by your own estimation. Take the time to actually try to prove your point.

That should be easy, because here is the kicker... you keep saying the media has liberal bias without ever explaining what it is. What does it look like? For instance I would say that conservative news in America openly slants against Democratic politician. I think conservative bias is openly nationalistic with rhetoric tending to say how great our country is. So when I see media that is openly nationalistic and attacks democrats I think that is "right wing media bias". MSNBC does this in the opposite direction.. but it is in no way on the level in terms of misleading as Fox and other right wing news in terms in sheer audience size. See that is demonstrable fact.

There is one consistent fact that I completely acknowledge. The media is filled with people that self identify as liberals. But then every conservative takes that fact, as you have done in this debate and so had Hobbes, that because most people in the media identify as a liberal it MUST follow that the media has a liberal bias slant.

But let me ask you all this, have any of you asked yourselves when we apply this for professions that have higher percentage of people that are conservative filling the position. The military has a lot of conservative, never heard of the conservative bias when they do their jobs, "you killing Iraqis like a conservative you should kill them like a liberal"... what about police... or construction workers... "The building is leaning a bit too much to the right.. laugh.gif "

So first thing in any good debate is what??? That we are arguing about the same thing. I don't have any clue...ANY what you all's objective definition of "liberal bias" is. So its not even like I am arguing your criteria, you don't even have a criteria to debate. And you need a criteria so that you can hold the position that most of the media is liberal.. else liberal could mean.. "the media is saying something I don't like" You get that? Think about it. You know the media is liberal, but you don't even know how you know.

So let me give you my personal belief\opinion:

Conservatives don't like how facts made them look. So they decided to create and tune in to right wing radio to reinforce their own self image. They like to see the world like a GI JOE cartoon (as I have said before). They are the good guys fighting evil both in America and around the world. But if they get all the facts it doesn't look that way. So in comes the right wing media and the first thing it does is begins to present a conservative favorite "us vs them" mentality. So the fringe right media well that us. Now they have self identified themselves right wing media so who is the left wing media they are against? All of it. All of it? That's right... ALL OF IT!! Think about it. The MSM, break those words down, Main Stream Media... so yeah that is pretty all encompassing. So now you have the right wing media telling you all of the other media is liberal biased and can't be trusted.. "You got to get your news from us if your conservative" Wow, that's not self serving in the least ermm.gif

Here comes my contempt again, huh?

hence begins the great modern day mind screw... I mean have you ever seen Richard Prior standup involving his pet monkeys? "ying ying ying ying ying" Feel free to youtube it if you want .

So you have a media source saying don't trust any other source but us because they all have bias and are misleading. No criteria and very little logic involved in creating this reality. Then they go further and decide they will become the "alternate right" or the "alt right". Again this isn't the left liberal biased main stream media naming them alt right. They are self describing themselves as this. But the right wing media is doing to the mind of its listeners what McDonald does to our body. Fills us with crap, but its crap that feels good going down. "ying ying ying ying ying" Once again, not in your interest if you are working class.

And you start seeing the effects in the beliefs of the Right. All of a sudden the elites aren't the filthy rich, but the people are educated and artists. The billionaire CEO's and OIL tycoons aren't the elitists, its the actors, its people that teach law or philosophy. Yeah those are the elitist, the scientist telling you about climate change. "yin ying ying ying ying"

So far gone is the right that a win and they are winning produces a Presidency of Mr. Donald "you fired" Trump. This guy lies sooo much that people are starting to question if he is being dishonest or simply delusional. So you went from "alt-right media" to a President that seems to live in an "alt-reality", where it is perfectly fine for them to tell the American public "Alt-Facts" (you all knew this was coming). Alternative Facts ?!?!?! ALTERNATIVE FACTS!!!! Are you Mother-bleep-bleep-ing kidding me. You want to talk about contempt for the working class conservative Republican. The Republican leader are so confident in their mind stroke "ying ying ying ying ying" of you guys that they are giving you guys "alternative facts". Because just like a religion you all have chosen to listen for the truth you want, rather than the truth that is.


When describing conservative positions I agree with, for me, it often comes down to how much I agree with them. In the 2008 election, I did a questionnaire for fun, the point of it was to give a suggestion as to who you're better aligned with to cast a vote, Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. The results that came back suggested I should vote for Romney because I agree with him on more issues by 2%. Not that I listen to a questionnaire to cast a vote but it was interesting to see exactly how mixed my opinions are.

I agree with conservatives that wealth redistribution can be ineffective because in my personal life I've witnessed some that I know abuse government assistance they have. I can think of two people who give things like pot and video games a higher priority than something that's crucial for improving their situation. However, I'm far separated from those who believe government assistance has no place. For me, balance is key. The poor should pay less, and I think programs like SSI, EBT cards, and Medicaid/medicare are important. With that said you don't want to make things so lopsided that it discourages the rich or middle class. I'd concede that they usually have it better, but the ones who achieved that through hard work and ingenuity deserve what they have. I'm complicated on many of these issues, a common theme in my debates is that I tend to not speak in absolutes unless it's clear to me that the position is right or wrong.

On traditional marriage vs. gay marriage, I'm conservative and agree with those who didn't want it legalized in every state. Biblically, marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman long before this became an issue that was in mainstream American politics. I'm not religious or gay, so this debate is irrelevant to me personally, but when I go by definitions Christians are in the right on that one. At most, gay marriage should have been left up to the states because this sweeping countrywide law has forced Christians to conform to something they believe is morally wrong. While everyone should have the same legal rights, I can't agree with those who suggest the new law was one of inclusion where everyone is being considered because the thoughts and beliefs of many Christians were disregarded. So I'd say this is a definitive conservative position if you're wanting one.

I feel I am considering our society as a whole, and I agree that a position of "me me me" on everything isn't good if there isn't some form of consideration of others. However, when someone (usually on the left) can't give credit to our country, makes us out to be worse than we are, and can't call a terrorist a terrorist, I find that sad. I don't see what's so bad about doing that, half of the time liberals are winning elections and there are a lot of people here who represent and defend liberals, so what's the problem with cheering in support of our country and denouncing those who want to hurt us?

To me, the other end of this would be something like making sure we take care of our planet for the benefit of everyone. I'm fairly researched on climate change and the problem we're facing with mass extinctions, and I think we need to figure that out. We've gone as far as putting man on the Moon and can transform a desert into a place we can thrive in (as seen in Las Vegas), so the idea that we couldn't do something like change our climate and effect our ecosystem for the worse is a position that isn't well thought out.

Onto you asking about how liberal bias is being defined, I'm not going by any special interpretation of it. I'm going by the word bias as defined in a dictionary. I think this definition describes it well...

"Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair."

That's the first definition that shows up in google if you simply type "bias" in the search bar. I'm not sure what else you would have thought others were going by when they say the media is biased in favor of liberals. The only addition I could think to add to that is that I think most people have a bias to some degree but some will be more unfair than others.

I think it's good to make that distinction and I agree with you that there is accurate and straightforward reporting going on as well, but I'd no doubt disagree with you on how much of it is fair. I think the media has the sad approval ratings it does for good reasons, it isn't fair or straightforward as much as it should be. I've given you several examples and haven't needed to cherry pick them. As I've hinted at before, I don't believe liberals are inherently more biased than others, but the fact that there's more of them in the media makes it obvious that most of the slanted or unfair reporting comes from the left.

There's only one hesitation I have when I suggest that liberals aren't inherently more biased than conservatives. When I witness how acts of aggression and offensive language among left-wing protesters are amplified by comparison to what conservatives have done in recent elections, I sometimes think it must come from being more biased, and more defensive when ideas are being challenged. However, I come back down from that position pretty fast.

I think the left and right are inherently the same when it comes to bias, ironically I've come to that conclusion because of the media and college educators. Since there is a liberal majority in these fields more people are being emotionally provoked and intellectually guided into a position which would have them believe conservatives are racist and/or nieve. I put that on the ones who are spreading bias information more than those receiving it. Although everyday folks can be guilty as well, media pundits, college educators (who are in a majority), and politicians are in a position of power, therefore they hold the most responsibility for what's happened here.

That's my position on some of the questions I presented in this forum and I say these things with a great degree of confidence that it's accurate. I'd be willing to shift or adjust that position if I saw convincing substantiation that I'm in the wrong here. When I see polls and look at data which reveal that the media and colleges have a liberal majority, see that the media has an approval rating in the upper teens, and combine that with the fact that most of the unfair reporting I'm seeing personally is coming from the left (with some liberals even admitting it), that helps verify the polling data. Acts of aggression on college campuses are also noticably more prevalent from liberal students, I mention that because I believe it's a similar phenomenon.

Hopefully, all of this along with the specific examples I've given explains my position and defintion on bias. It might just come down to you disagreeing with the position rather than not understanding it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Feb 13 2017, 02:49 AM
Post #68


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,816
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



net2007




Lets start with the definition. No you didn't really explain what "liberal bias in media" is at all. I already knew what bias means. here is what liberal means when I Google the word.

Liberal
QUOTE
1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
"they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people"

-favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
"liberal citizenship laws"

- (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.

2. (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.


Which one of these definitions of liberal do you want to say that the media is bias towards? I'm not surprised at you lack of ability to defining what "liberal bias in media" would mean, we could actually measure it if you ever did. But as long as it never goes defined you can just throw up example and go "see... that how we know liberal bias exist" So we aren't at a point where we disagree we are at a point where I can't understand how "liberal bias" is being defined to see if it observable and measurable in a way that it permeates all the media except for very few conservative sources.

But this goes back to the logical flaw in your argument that you won't address. Net2007 why do you believe examples of your belief substantiate your belief applied to a greater portion. For instance, I can find examples of police killing unarmed people unjustly, those examples can't be used to substantiate a claim that most cops who kill, do so unjustly, can it? Opinion polls don't substantiate claims unless the claim is about opinion. Examples don't substantiate claims.

Go back to my analogy in the previous post and ask yourself... does it make sense to say a screaming crowd is quiet because you focus on a few quiet people in the crowd and hold them up as examples? Well does it?

So now you still have these two things going on. 1) you aren't really defining liberal bias you are just giving examples of bad or unethical behavior 2) you are taking those examples and trying to apply them to a claim which you believe substantiates your claim.

Now if you want to think that I am being purposefully dense, I assure you I am not. You have defined bias and I have defined liberal and we both used common definitions that we found online. If I go your route than "liberal bias in the media" would be

a. media in favor of individual rights and freedom

b. media prejudicially favoring in maximizing individual liberty in political and social reform

c. media that is unfairly concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience

Now Net check me if I am wrong, please check me, but I am pretty sure none of those three are what you are suggesting. Am I wrong? You get AkaCG, Mrs P, Hobbes, and of the well known conservative voices out there and I am willing to bet A, B, or C is not how they would define liberal bias. That's why I am not being intellectually dishonest or dense, but really engaging you because the irony is this:

If we actually defined liberal bias , in a factual way, none of you would say "yeah that's the bias I am talking about" As I've tried in my way, and Julian tried in his, to explain, if the media was biased in a liberal way it would function exactly how it is supposed to function, which is to deliver facts free of national, economic, and political interests. What you see is a media that is biased toward western democracies when it does show its bias. And a media that uses sensationalism to gain revenue for capitalistic reasons, nothing that deals with journalism.

An illustrative example of this would be Hillary Clinton. There are a lot of other you have discussed. See you see Hillary and think she had the media, but the media played a huge part in exaggerating the idea that Clinton wrong doings were so "extreme", rather than giving you the information that would have led us to put her action in proper perspective. Whether we are talking about the email scandal, Benghazi, or something else "Hillary". What if the media actually investigated how wide spread security spillages were. Or how often do people use a private email server to do government business. This being a field I have worked I have the knowledge to put this in proper perspective, but I recognize most people don't.

But the "liberal media" didn't do this. My opinion is because it would kill the controversy thus killing business. Drama sells, not facts. And the right wing media, as we see with you and other conservative, operates under the same logical process of "if we can find examples of something happen then it must be the way it happens most of the time". So we have the "liberal media" concerned with its economic interests, while the right wing media feeds its audience whatever it chooses.

Benghazi is another example. Someone asked me\said to me "imagine what the media would have been like if the fiasco that happened in Yemen under Trump would have happened under Hillary." Well I know there is no point in debating this, because of its hypothetical nature. But Benghazi is a good illustration where we saw the sensational nature of the media to create revenue at work.

Couple of quote I wanted to address directly:

QUOTE
I think the left and right are inherently the same when it comes to bias


We are not, IMO. I think I think the Right is bias towards the greatness of the individual and the left is bias toward the greatness of people.

QUOTE
I feel I am considering our society as a whole, and I agree that a position of "me me me" on everything isn't good if there isn't some form of consideration of others. However, when someone (usually on the left) can't give credit to our country, makes us out to be worse than we are, and can't call a terrorist a terrorist, I find that sad. I don't see what's so bad about doing that, half of the time liberals are winning elections and there are a lot of people here who represent and defend liberals, so what's the problem with cheering in support of our country and denouncing those who want to hurt us?


And you aren't alone. And this is why right wing media exists. Its there to cheer your country on. To call the people YOU want to call terrorist, terrorists. Its there to shape the world, just the way its conservative audience wants it. "Them bad guys\we good guys" As a liberal I don't need those reassurances in some kind of echo chamber someone telling me "how good I am!" My nation is powerful, extremely so, the facts and statistics show me that.

I have to ask what is a terrorist? Someone that practices terrorism? If so then I would only see someone as a terrorist someone that commits a terrorists act, or DIRECTLY aids in it. Also I am going to rationally process the political underpinnings of the definition of the word:

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Well why does the word unlawful exist as part of that definition? Really why? So "the use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." is not terrorism only if it is unlawful. See that's just my process, I guess if I was more conservative I could just be like: "I don't think all Muslims are bad, just all the brown skinned ones in the middle east, those are Islamic extremist terrorists."

Islam is a religion. Terrorism is an act of violence(lets not forget unlawful) for political ends. The concepts have nothing in common and ... AND ... its a completely unnecessary distinction the right and the right wing media has latched onto. "That was a Muslim that went on a shooting spree, not a White man! Let's make sure we make that distinction!" And speaking of which, back to showing the true bias of the media, which is no liberal bias.

Why are attacks by Muslims highlighted in the manner they are by the press, which absurdly, Trumps says "not enough"? We kill MILLIONS, through sanctions, destabilization in governments, and direct military action. Millions. We won't see that press in the same way we se one lone terrorist with LOOSE ties to some terrorist organization who kill 2-10 people. We see the deaths in the tens of thousands because firearm proliferation in this nation and that won't get any of the national press if one muslim that goes to work on a shooting spree.

See but because of our "oh so liberal press" you aren't really going to "see" we are killing millions of them, but you will "see" over, and over, and over, and over.... and over, again that they killed 5 of us. That's programming. But I get it, you'd prefer to hear how great you are and how good your country is. This was really illustrated when Trump made his little list of "terrorist attacks that aren't reported" Here is an article that talks in greater detail with the issues, but it illustrates the perverse nature in which this list was put together by America's new conservative administration.

perverse, "showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences. "


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Feb 15 2017, 05:40 AM
Post #69


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,344
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Looks to me that it isn't liberal bias in the media but a strong bias against unsubstantiated assertions being spewed forth from the Trump White House. Even conservatives can't swallow the swill.

But if anyone's interested, there's a documentary on the lengthy history of hijacking the truth that reaches back to Joe McCarthy and his antics regarding commies being everywhere. The title is The Brainwashing of My Dad, just watched it on Hulu. A cursory glance on YouTube brings it up, but the whole thing will probably cost you. Trailer and snippets appear to be free.

This is a fairly good, and free, rundown on Kellyanne Conway's tricks, for those who might not have picked up on her particular brand of lying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-7fzHy3aG0

It's a perversion of sales techniques mixed with stuff kids do. I'm particularly irritated with her overuse and misuse of naming who she's talking to. If she were talking to me and tried to pull that stunt, I'd want to slap her smug face. But walking away while shaking head works too, with the added benefit of not being criminal assault. She did get doinked on the Flynn thing, which made me feel just a tad sorry for her. But hey, she should have known what she was getting herself into. There were signs and signals galore that going with Trump would lead to nothing but heartache.

Maybe the Trump admin will be the last one gained through transparent deception, like when Carter followed Nixon (Mr. Peace-with-honor, Mr. I'm-not-a-crook), but this time there's no Reagan to mess up one of the more honest POTUS's, relatively speaking. Maybe normal is a better qualifier.

Anyway, the media is pushing back with greater gusto after Trump got in. His admin is bad at governing but worse at lying. Guess this had to happen in order to shake the country awake to the dangers of playing fast and loose with the truth to an extremely high degree. Makes Hillary's transgressions appear pretty darn tame. For example, her private server was nothing compared to top secret documents being examined in a country club full of smart phone low-light cameras.

And we're still within the first 100 days. Seems that growing journalistic backbones doesn't take very much time in this kind of environment.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Feb 15 2017, 05:55 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Feb 18 2017, 05:23 PM
Post #70


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 12 2017, 09:49 PM) *
net2007




Lets start with the definition. No you didn't really explain what "liberal bias in media" is at all. I already knew what bias means. here is what liberal means when I Google the word.

Liberal
QUOTE
1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
"they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people"

-favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
"liberal citizenship laws"

- (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.

2. (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.


Which one of these definitions of liberal do you want to say that the media is bias towards? I'm not surprised at you lack of ability to defining what "liberal bias in media" would mean, we could actually measure it if you ever did. But as long as it never goes defined you can just throw up example and go "see... that how we know liberal bias exist" So we aren't at a point where we disagree we are at a point where I can't understand how "liberal bias" is being defined to see if it observable and measurable in a way that it permeates all the media except for very few conservative sources.

But this goes back to the logical flaw in your argument that you won't address. Net2007 why do you believe examples of your belief substantiate your belief applied to a greater portion. For instance, I can find examples of police killing unarmed people unjustly, those examples can't be used to substantiate a claim that most cops who kill, do so unjustly, can it? Opinion polls don't substantiate claims unless the claim is about opinion. Examples don't substantiate claims.

Go back to my analogy in the previous post and ask yourself... does it make sense to say a screaming crowd is quiet because you focus on a few quiet people in the crowd and hold them up as examples? Well does it?

So now you still have these two things going on. 1) you aren't really defining liberal bias you are just giving examples of bad or unethical behavior 2) you are taking those examples and trying to apply them to a claim which you believe substantiates your claim.

Now if you want to think that I am being purposefully dense, I assure you I am not. You have defined bias and I have defined liberal and we both used common definitions that we found online. If I go your route than "liberal bias in the media" would be

a. media in favor of individual rights and freedom

b. media prejudicially favoring in maximizing individual liberty in political and social reform

c. media that is unfairly concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience

Now Net check me if I am wrong, please check me, but I am pretty sure none of those three are what you are suggesting. Am I wrong? You get AkaCG, Mrs P, Hobbes, and of the well known conservative voices out there and I am willing to bet A, B, or C is not how they would define liberal bias. That's why I am not being intellectually dishonest or dense, but really engaging you because the irony is this:

If we actually defined liberal bias , in a factual way, none of you would say "yeah that's the bias I am talking about" As I've tried in my way, and Julian tried in his, to explain, if the media was biased in a liberal way it would function exactly how it is supposed to function, which is to deliver facts free of national, economic, and political interests. What you see is a media that is biased toward western democracies when it does show its bias. And a media that uses sensationalism to gain revenue for capitalistic reasons, nothing that deals with journalism.

An illustrative example of this would be Hillary Clinton. There are a lot of other you have discussed. See you see Hillary and think she had the media, but the media played a huge part in exaggerating the idea that Clinton wrong doings were so "extreme", rather than giving you the information that would have led us to put her action in proper perspective. Whether we are talking about the email scandal, Benghazi, or something else "Hillary". What if the media actually investigated how wide spread security spillages were. Or how often do people use a private email server to do government business. This being a field I have worked I have the knowledge to put this in proper perspective, but I recognize most people don't.

But the "liberal media" didn't do this. My opinion is because it would kill the controversy thus killing business. Drama sells, not facts. And the right wing media, as we see with you and other conservative, operates under the same logical process of "if we can find examples of something happen then it must be the way it happens most of the time". So we have the "liberal media" concerned with its economic interests, while the right wing media feeds its audience whatever it chooses.

Benghazi is another example. Someone asked me\said to me "imagine what the media would have been like if the fiasco that happened in Yemen under Trump would have happened under Hillary." Well I know there is no point in debating this, because of its hypothetical nature. But Benghazi is a good illustration where we saw the sensational nature of the media to create revenue at work.

Couple of quote I wanted to address directly:

QUOTE
I think the left and right are inherently the same when it comes to bias


We are not, IMO. I think I think the Right is bias towards the greatness of the individual and the left is bias toward the greatness of people.

QUOTE
I feel I am considering our society as a whole, and I agree that a position of "me me me" on everything isn't good if there isn't some form of consideration of others. However, when someone (usually on the left) can't give credit to our country, makes us out to be worse than we are, and can't call a terrorist a terrorist, I find that sad. I don't see what's so bad about doing that, half of the time liberals are winning elections and there are a lot of people here who represent and defend liberals, so what's the problem with cheering in support of our country and denouncing those who want to hurt us?


And you aren't alone. And this is why right wing media exists. Its there to cheer your country on. To call the people YOU want to call terrorist, terrorists. Its there to shape the world, just the way its conservative audience wants it. "Them bad guys\we good guys" As a liberal I don't need those reassurances in some kind of echo chamber someone telling me "how good I am!" My nation is powerful, extremely so, the facts and statistics show me that.

I have to ask what is a terrorist? Someone that practices terrorism? If so then I would only see someone as a terrorist someone that commits a terrorists act, or DIRECTLY aids in it. Also I am going to rationally process the political underpinnings of the definition of the word:

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Well why does the word unlawful exist as part of that definition? Really why? So "the use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." is not terrorism only if it is unlawful. See that's just my process, I guess if I was more conservative I could just be like: "I don't think all Muslims are bad, just all the brown skinned ones in the middle east, those are Islamic extremist terrorists."

Islam is a religion. Terrorism is an act of violence(lets not forget unlawful) for political ends. The concepts have nothing in common and ... AND ... its a completely unnecessary distinction the right and the right wing media has latched onto. "That was a Muslim that went on a shooting spree, not a White man! Let's make sure we make that distinction!" And speaking of which, back to showing the true bias of the media, which is no liberal bias.

Why are attacks by Muslims highlighted in the manner they are by the press, which absurdly, Trumps says "not enough"? We kill MILLIONS, through sanctions, destabilization in governments, and direct military action. Millions. We won't see that press in the same way we se one lone terrorist with LOOSE ties to some terrorist organization who kill 2-10 people. We see the deaths in the tens of thousands because firearm proliferation in this nation and that won't get any of the national press if one muslim that goes to work on a shooting spree.

See but because of our "oh so liberal press" you aren't really going to "see" we are killing millions of them, but you will "see" over, and over, and over, and over.... and over, again that they killed 5 of us. That's programming. But I get it, you'd prefer to hear how great you are and how good your country is. This was really illustrated when Trump made his little list of "terrorist attacks that aren't reported" Here is an article that talks in greater detail with the issues, but it illustrates the perverse nature in which this list was put together by America's new conservative administration.

perverse, "showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences. "


To address where you're asking what liberal media bias is. Admittedly, yes that line of questioning has appeared a little dense. To address it further, I think in some cases the media aims to protect classic liberalism or progressives as Grey Seal pointed out, but with how liberalism has degraded with time they've had to take on defending those who aren't for individual liberty at all. Your definitions of liberals describe what liberalism should be, not what it's become and this may be where some of your confusion lies. If this is how you're viewing liberalism, I'm not going to say that there aren't those who try to live by that or want that, but as with architecture or automobile design, something can look good on paper then not come together in a real world scenario. The liberal base has seen some branch off into, what some are now calling, the Regressive Left and it's a movement that's picking up momentum.

This short video from Prager University explains it better than I can, take a look...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8


To recap, In this debate, you've dismissed nearly everything, apart from agreeing that acts of violence seen on the left are wrong. I don't blame you, it's not as if you could maintain your position if you took any of this seriously. You haven't acknowledged polls and information which demonstrate that the media has a liberal majority. You've acknowledged that it's true, but not in the sense that it's significant to the argument of bias. Logically speaking if there is a liberal majority, there would be a lot of unfair or bias arguments being distributed from the left as a result. That's not to say they're doing something conservatives aren't but when you have a majority the amount of bias seen should be expected to be substantial, that's straightforward in itself but it comes with a number of other things that should be considered.

You haven't acknowledged polling information which demonstrates that the news media has an approval rating in the upper teens (or low 20's depending) an all-time low and that says a lot. It's not because they're standing up with the best interest of the public in mind, that's for sure. Select groups get nurtured and it's obvious. Polls can be wrong but that's way outside the margin of error. This is a one-two punch, in combination with their being a liberal majority things start to become clear.

You haven't acknowledged the numerous examples of bias opinions being distributed which reflect the polling information. With your protester analogy, you're trying to make the argument that the majority of news stories don't demonstrate bias as in the examples I shared. I don't have to demonstrate that to substantiate my argument, I just have to demonstrate that it happens a lot, which it does on a daily basis on multiple networks. My point is that it's a problem that's severe enough to cause problems, it's also a problem that's gotten worse as time has progressed.

Lastly, you don't think it's significant that some liberals have come forward about this problem. There are those who don't aknowledge the substantial amount of liberal media bias (The 19% who think the media is doing a good job are no doubt primarily on the left) so this point is something additional rather than being proof on its own but with that said I have a lot of respect for anyone who can do this. Many people don't want to acknowledge the problems of those who share their point of view. That makes some sense, we want those who share our beliefs to be successful. While this is natural, I think in order to be successful, those problems have to be acknowledged and addressed.

I wasn't thrilled that Donald Trump became our president, one who is representing conservatism, but I'm critical of him when the issue at hand is a legitimate one. Perhaps you don't believe liberal media bias is a legitimate problem but the reason a majority disagrees with you is due to overwhelming evidence and revealing daily observations. I don't think the media's primary goal is to speak out for "individual rights and freedoms", at least not for everybody. That's part of the reason they're struggling, the other half of it is that the approach they've taken to defend the left comes with dishonesty.

I've just discovered Prager University within the last couple days, here again they explain the issue well, this time on the subject of why people don't trust the news media...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B0HV_GQut4

Take a look at that if you wish, if you're really looking for answers (a genuine effort) I believe you'll find them. I've been trying to be clear and specific, but it hasn't worked. Outside opinions may help as well, this issue hasn't emerged because Trump or conservatives can't take criticisms, there are those who can't but liberal media bias has been a problem for years, one which is acknowledged by more than the conservative base. If the news media has an approval rating that's as low as it is, it means independents and liberals are concerned about it as well.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Feb 15 2017, 12:40 AM) *
Anyway, the media is pushing back with greater gusto after Trump got in. His admin is bad at governing but worse at lying. Guess this had to happen in order to shake the country awake to the dangers of playing fast and loose with the truth to an extremely high degree. Makes Hillary's transgressions appear pretty darn tame. For example, her private server was nothing compared to top secret documents being examined in a country club full of smart phone low-light cameras.

And we're still within the first 100 days. Seems that growing journalistic backbones doesn't take very much time in this kind of environment.


I'm not so sure it's been the media that's pushing back, perhaps Trump and conservatives are the ones pushing back. The problems with the media predate Trump being in the picture. The news media, in particular, is in a lot of trouble both rating wise and financially speaking. I think that's because they were the instigators in many cases.

Trump, as always, has done and said things which don't help him. However, if we're to talk about what he's done within the first 100 days, in my opinion, some of it has been impressive as well. As far as I can tell his popularity has increased, but for me, it's too early to tell if he'll maintain that. Being polarizing doesn't exactly help him win over liberals or minorities, but if his policies are successful, for many that may take priority over some of the nonsense that comes out of his mouth.

This post has been edited by net2007: Feb 18 2017, 05:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Feb 22 2017, 12:34 PM
Post #71


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



I'm going to post a link as a test.

President Trump Officially Won't Be the Shortest-Serving US President

This is an example of a left-leaning news piece. It doesn't outright SAY "we hope Trump will be assassinated", but it implies as much....citing history. I do not believe this would've washed when Obama was into his 32nd day of the Presidency.
(and every other day there's some photo of Obama playing golf, fishing, at the beach...oh, look at Michele having fun! Does anyone remember anything like this in previous years?)

The "test"? I have no doubt people will disagree with me and read something entirely different from that article. "Oh, they're just citing history!" and so forth.
Which is an indication we're experiencing two entirely different paradigms of reality. We're taking the same information and processing it differently.
That's why some of us believe the news is so strongly left leaning and others can't see it.

Interesting video regarding social media, and something called "throttling"
(WARNING: VERY bad language)

Honestly, my Homepage (and I'm assuming it's the same for everyone) is filled with clickbait now. Every news article is titled like clickbait too it's almost impossible to tell which is a real article and which is clickbait.

One "clickbait" piece was titled, with description, from Health Yahoo Canada Style
"Mom's shocking photo of 10-year-old son depicts painful reality of cancer
A mom posted this harrowing photo of her son to Facebook. This photo of a 10-year-old boy, bald, pained look on his face, standing in his pull-ups diaper while clinging on to the bathroom sink is quickly going viral on Facebook. The photo may not be pretty, it’s....


Okay, so some mom is a crappy enough mother to video tape her 10 year old son in pain, crapping himself and pulling up his diaper and then puts it on the internet to go viral.
I wonder how many "likes" this generated?!?
How far we have fallen as a society. This is insane. Is this Yahoo News? Or is it an advertisement? I don't know, and I'm not going to click the link to find out.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Feb 22 2017, 12:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Feb 23 2017, 05:47 AM
Post #72


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,816
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Mrs. P

QUOTE
I'm going to post a link as a test.

President Trump Officially Won't Be the Shortest-Serving US President

This is an example of a left-leaning news piece. It doesn't outright SAY "we hope Trump will be assassinated", but it implies as much....citing history. I do not believe this would've washed when Obama was into his 32nd day of the Presidency.
(and every other day there's some photo of Obama playing golf, fishing, at the beach...oh, look at Michele having fun! Does anyone remember anything like this in previous years?)

The "test"? I have no doubt people will disagree with me and read something entirely different from that article. "Oh, they're just citing history!" and so forth.
Which is an indication we're experiencing two entirely different paradigms of reality. We're taking the same information and processing it differently.
That's why some of us believe the news is so strongly left leaning and others can't see it.
Good test and good synopsis of what is happening. We are absorbing and processing information in a different ways creating vastly different perspectives on our versions of realities. Now, if you are willing to engage Mrs P, how can we test\measure\discuss the veracity of our differing perspectives on reality.

For instance, why infer the article was suggesting a hope that the President get assassinated, rather than die of illness? I mean both were historical references mentioned.

Also, there are other ways to absorb that story in a pro conservative way. Some prominent liberals claim that Trump will be impeached or not even reach inauguration. This could be an article to address those critics. Or it could be what it looks like to me a headline so someone can click on it with nothing but "filler" to make money off of ads.

Now lets just say, for the sake of argument, that I don't make an argument that this isn't liberal\left biased article. Lets just pretend that we both agree this is definitely an example of left\liberal biased news article. How many articles like this are written a day? thousands? tens of thousands? What percentage of news articles would it take that is like this example, to prove, in your opinion, that the media is biased left. How do you measure the veracity of your reality?

One of the things I am still struggling with Net is the idea that examples of something happening, somehow substantiates the belief that the thing is happening widespread.

I'll give you what I think is an example of why the media bias is not towards liberalism\left, but rather towards status quo or financial gain. How much 24-hour news coverage have we devoted to the terrorist that wanted to blow up Target stores up and down the east coast? I did a search on "google news" this was the extent of the list of articles covering this. In none of these headlines is this even referred to as a terrorist attempt. This guy was setting to blow up bombs in the aisles of ten department stores and it is a blip. Now here is my turn to be rhetorical, I wonder how a plot this scope would be covered if it was a Syrian refugee or any Arab Muslim for that matter? Now does this example prove the media isn't biased to the left, for you?

I think the best way to test the veracity of our reality is to define what it is you want to test, create a methodology on how measure, create a methodology on how to test, then test. And none of those steps need be complex for the purpose of this debate or any debate on AD. I can't even get brotha Net or any conservative on this board to get past step 1. Define liberal bias in the media. Yes you all will give "examples" of your opinion of a left biased article, but that just leaves me with the impression of "ehhhhhh I'll know it when I see it"

Net
QUOTE
To addr0ess where you're asking what liberal media bias is. Admittedly, yes that line of questioning has appeared a little dense.
Not dense, just not one for the "
ol' okey doke" (definition 2). Let recap my take on this discussion.

You are saying that the media has a liberal bias that is hurting the Democrats. I am contesting whether the media has a liberal bias at all. I am asking you to define liberal bias. You define "bias" and say its pretty straight forward. Well since its straight forward, I then give you definitions of "liberal" to which you state "Your definitions of liberals describe what liberalism should be, not what it's become and this may be where some of your confusion lies." and then in substitute of defining what liberal is to you(and this is significant because I am just asking you to give me your OPINION of how we define it) you send me off to watch a 5 minute video. Net what is your definition of liberal. How can you or any other conservative be so sure of "liberal bias in the media" if you all have this much trouble defining liberal?

This goes back to what I am trying to say to Mrs P as it concerns our diverging realities and measuring the veracity of them.

That being said let me set the record straight. I did not dismiss ANY of your points. I am saying none of your points substantiate the claim the "the MSM has a liberal bias". If you show me an example of liberal democrat giving debate question to Hillary, I am not dismissing that point. It happened. if you give me an opinion poll I am not dismissing the poll. The results of an opinion poll may support any claim that deals with the OPINION of people. ETC. Stop telling yourself I am dismissing your points, I am not. I am saying that these points do not substantiate your claim and I am saying you NEED to be able to define liberal, even if it takes a paragraph so that we can begin on trying to measure it.

Can you do it? Can you define liberal? So we can define liberal bias. So I can debate you... and really start dismissing your points.

Lastly I looked at both videos in their entirety. The first guy I agreed with about 90%, I just don't agree that its as widespread as he believes in terms of "regressivism" The second one seemed to have an agenda to me. Let me briefly explain why. at one point she says that in the media self proclaimed Democrats out number Republican 4 to 1 She presents her facts to back up this claim with a poll that shows 7 percent going Republican and 28 proclaiming themselves Democrats. 65% identify as "independent" But then this lady says ..."but IMO the number of people that are democrats is waaaaay higher"(not a direct quote) So she cites a statistic to back up her claim only to then turn around to tell people the statistic isn't right in her opinion. WHAT?!?! Use a stat to validate your claim and question the validity of that EXACT same stat 10 seconds later because it doesn't substantiate your claim enough. That's that BULL I'm talking about.

This post has been edited by droop224: Feb 23 2017, 05:48 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoneWisdom
post Feb 23 2017, 08:51 AM
Post #73


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



When I look at the title for the debate I see "Has a left leaning media benefited Democrats?" Debating the definition of the term 'liberal' when it is clearly being used as synonymous with 'left leaning' is a straw man. I consider the use of a straw man destructive to civil debate when the point is to address some condition that we all are being subjected to. I expect some of us couldn't care less about the definition of the term 'liberal,' when it is clearly being used as a label for one team in a conflict. We could have just as easily used the terms 'left' and 'right' or 'wrong' and 'right' to label the teams. So, devolving the conversation to using word salad supporting straw man arguments is pure hog swill and I expect many are not willing to sit at the table to drink it.

Edited to add: I realize the first question used the term 'liberals,' but took it to mean 'the left.' I don't believe net2007 really meant to set up the straw man.



This post has been edited by LoneWisdom: Feb 23 2017, 08:58 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Feb 23 2017, 01:12 PM
Post #74


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,816
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Feb 23 2017, 03:51 AM) *
When I look at the title for the debate I see "Has a left leaning media benefited Democrats?" Debating the definition of the term 'liberal' when it is clearly being used as synonymous with 'left leaning' is a straw man. I consider the use of a straw man destructive to civil debate when the point is to address some condition that we all are being subjected to. I expect some of us couldn't care less about the definition of the term 'liberal,' when it is clearly being used as a label for one team in a conflict. We could have just as easily used the terms 'left' and 'right' or 'wrong' and 'right' to label the teams. So, devolving the conversation to using word salad supporting straw man arguments is pure hog swill and I expect many are not willing to sit at the table to drink it.

Edited to add: I realize the first question used the term 'liberals,' but took it to mean 'the left.' I don't believe net2007 really meant to set up the straw man.


I'm glad you added that "edited note" at the bottom. Look I agree straw man arguments do devolve debates, so no arguments. However in this case I think you see Net struggling and are trying to throw him a bone. As you point out and I was going to point out, the term liberal is used throughout the opening post (more than ten times) not to mention, the combination of words "With this election I feel liberal media bias has been exposed to the point that it's an argument ...". Also lets be fair and intellectually honest "liberal media bias" is a common colloquial used, especially in conservative circles.

Further, to provide an analogy you saying I am introducing a straw man in this discussion is akin to saying that talking about carbon emissions is a straw man when discussing air pollution. When someone talks about the "left leaning media" are they not talking about the perceived liberal bias in the media?

Lastly

QUOTE
I expect some of us couldn't care less about the definition of the term 'liberal,' when it is clearly being used as a label for one team in a conflict. We could have just as easily used the terms 'left' and 'right' or 'wrong' and 'right' to label the teams.


The one point we agree on. When this concept of "liberal bias in the media" rears its head, it doesn't take much to expose it for what it is. Its partisan diatribe. Its something created by right wing media in an effort to "make teams", not just label, but actually create it. And conservatives love "choosing teams" when teams actually don't exist, but that's another debate. And once your team is chosen, their points are parroted; "liberal media" is parroted to the point where people on the left are repeating it.

But the minute you get someone to challenge you on, "OK explain to me what 'liberal bias' is.." you get people accusing you of straw man arguments even though you are directly on topic. You get people saying its "hog swill" to define the thing they are talking about. Truthfully, I think I'm just kicking butt, but that's just another unsubstantiated opinion. mrsparkle.gif

Why is this important? Journalism, as I have said before, is a liberal art. The purpose of a free speech and the use of media to speak truth to power is an ideal of "the left", "liberalism", "the liberals" etc etc So depending on how you define "liberal" or "the left" is pertinent because calling something innately left, "bias to the left" as a criticism, makes absolutely no sense.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Feb 23 2017, 10:32 PM
Post #75


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 23 2017, 01:47 AM) *
Good test and good synopsis of what is happening. We are absorbing and processing information in a different ways creating vastly different perspectives on our versions of realities. Now, if you are willing to engage Mrs P, how can we test\measure\discuss the veracity of our differing perspectives on reality.

For instance, why infer the article was suggesting a hope that the President get assassinated, rather than die of illness? I mean both were historical references mentioned.


True. I concede the article only suggested the hope that Trump die in SOME manner, and soon. Not necessarily assassination.

QUOTE
Also, there are other ways to absorb that story in a pro conservative way. Some prominent liberals claim that Trump will be impeached or not even reach inauguration. This could be an article to address those critics. Or it could be what it looks like to me a headline so someone can click on it with nothing but "filler" to make money off of ads.


Doubtlessly it is written in a similar format to clickbait.
My oldest son claims that currently article headlines must meet that criteria or they are rejected.
I don't know where he found the information to support this claim but from observation (and logic, they do after all want the articles to be read and this is what they are competing with) I believe it to be credible.

QUOTE
Now lets just say, for the sake of argument, that I don't make an argument that this isn't liberal\left biased article. Lets just pretend that we both agree this is definitely an example of left\liberal biased news article. How many articles like this are written a day? thousands? tens of thousands? What percentage of news articles would it take that is like this example, to prove, in your opinion, that the media is biased left. How do you measure the veracity of your reality?


That’s a good question. I’m swimming in confirmation bias as much as anyone else. To test the “veracity of my reality”/worldview I generally change the players. What would I think if the person in question were someone else from the other side? I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t wash well in this instance.

It was just one example, Droop. Every day when I open my computer (and, keep in mind, I'm pretty conservative so if the social bots are working properly, assuming they exist, they should be modifying my title page to suit my bias) it's ubiquitous. My husband has noticed this too.
Titles for this morning’s news articles on my Yahoo homepage (ignoring the most obvious clickbait)
“U.S. Homeland Secretary Kelly warns Guatemalans to stay home” (he actually said people should not attempt to enter ILLEGALLY Gasp! So controversial…)
“Rex Tillerson Is Already Underwater”
“The New Executive Order is shaking up US Retirement”
“Trump administration withdraws protections for transgender students”

Here is an example of an even-handed title:
“Russia and the Ukraine Clash Over Tribute to UN Ambassador”
See the difference?
Worded to fit the media spin on US politics, the above title would be more like, “Ukraine forced to bend over and get theirs on Friday!” (okay I’m embellishing…but not by much)
or (more accurately) “Ukraine no longer the shortest lasting country!”

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Feb 23 2017, 10:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Feb 26 2017, 06:44 PM
Post #76


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 23 2017, 12:47 AM) *
Mrs. P

QUOTE


One of the things I am still struggling with Net is the idea that examples of something happening, somehow substantiates the belief that the thing is happening widespread.

I'll give you what I think is an example of why the media bias is not towards liberalism\left, but rather towards status quo or financial gain. How much 24-hour news coverage have we devoted to the terrorist that wanted to blow up Target stores up and down the east coast? I did a search on "google news" this was the extent of the list of articles covering this. In none of these headlines is this even referred to as a terrorist attempt. This guy was setting to blow up bombs in the aisles of ten department stores and it is a blip. Now here is my turn to be rhetorical, I wonder how a plot this scope would be covered if it was a Syrian refugee or any Arab Muslim for that matter? Now does this example prove the media isn't biased to the left, for you?

I think the best way to test the veracity of our reality is to define what it is you want to test, create a methodology on how measure, create a methodology on how to test, then test. And none of those steps need be complex for the purpose of this debate or any debate on AD. I can't even get brotha Net or any conservative on this board to get past step 1. Define liberal bias in the media. Yes you all will give "examples" of your opinion of a left biased article, but that just leaves me with the impression of "ehhhhhh I'll know it when I see it"

Net
QUOTE
To addr0ess where you're asking what liberal media bias is. Admittedly, yes that line of questioning has appeared a little dense.
Not dense, just not one for the "
ol' okey doke" (definition 2). Let recap my take on this discussion.

You are saying that the media has a liberal bias that is hurting the Democrats. I am contesting whether the media has a liberal bias at all. I am asking you to define liberal bias. You define "bias" and say its pretty straight forward. Well since its straight forward, I then give you definitions of "liberal" to which you state "Your definitions of liberals describe what liberalism should be, not what it's become and this may be where some of your confusion lies." and then in substitute of defining what liberal is to you(and this is significant because I am just asking you to give me your OPINION of how we define it) you send me off to watch a 5 minute video. Net what is your definition of liberal. How can you or any other conservative be so sure of "liberal bias in the media" if you all have this much trouble defining liberal?

This goes back to what I am trying to say to Mrs P as it concerns our diverging realities and measuring the veracity of them.

That being said let me set the record straight. I did not dismiss ANY of your points. I am saying none of your points substantiate the claim the "the MSM has a liberal bias". If you show me an example of liberal democrat giving debate question to Hillary, I am not dismissing that point. It happened. if you give me an opinion poll I am not dismissing the poll. The results of an opinion poll may support any claim that deals with the OPINION of people. ETC. Stop telling yourself I am dismissing your points, I am not. I am saying that these points do not substantiate your claim and I am saying you NEED to be able to define liberal, even if it takes a paragraph so that we can begin on trying to measure it.

Can you do it? Can you define liberal? So we can define liberal bias. So I can debate you... and really start dismissing your points.

Lastly I looked at both videos in their entirety. The first guy I agreed with about 90%, I just don't agree that its as widespread as he believes in terms of "regressivism" The second one seemed to have an agenda to me. Let me briefly explain why. at one point she says that in the media self proclaimed Democrats out number Republican 4 to 1 She presents her facts to back up this claim with a poll that shows 7 percent going Republican and 28 proclaiming themselves Democrats. 65% identify as "independent" But then this lady says ..."but IMO the number of people that are democrats is waaaaay higher"(not a direct quote) So she cites a statistic to back up her claim only to then turn around to tell people the statistic isn't right in her opinion. WHAT?!?! Use a stat to validate your claim and question the validity of that EXACT same stat 10 seconds later because it doesn't substantiate your claim enough. That's that BULL I'm talking about.


On definitions, if you're to take the position that liberal media bias hasn't, or can't be defined then that renders the substantiation useless. I'm trying to take you at your word that this isn't an intentional attempt to find a way to null the substantiation. I guess you could say that I'm not understanding exactly how you don't understand what liberal media bias is. This is easier to understand than you might realize. To clarify some more for you, the terms (politically left, or right) are generally associated with liberal and conservative respectively. I've bounced between usage of those two terms (as many do) but in the context that I'm using them, they have similar meanings. (in case this was confusing).

My title mentions the Democratic party because that party rises or falls on the success or failure of its liberal and progressive members, given they make up a majority of the party. If for example, too many members of the party are doing and saying things which create a divisive atmosphere, that tells members of other parties that they're not much different that those they criticize (as far as temperament goes). In turn, this type of hypocrisy becomes a drain on the Democratic party as a whole, where elections are a stake. They're suffering the consequences of the mistakes and damaging rhetoric of the majority groups within the party. (In case this was unclear)

When you brought up definitions of the word liberal, such as this one.... "-favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms" I was simply suggesting to you in the last reply that media pundits often do favor that kind liberal. So that's a partial answer to your question of "what is liberal media bias?" by agreeing that your definitions reveal some of the answer. With that said, I define liberalism, by what the movement is actually doing. Again, I feel some do try to live by what liberalism should be (as defined in a dictionary). I'd actually be on board with the liberal base much more than I am if those values were exercised but as you seem to understand many don't live by textbook definitions of the word liberal. Those who identify as liberals are, in many cases, stepping away from that as seen in the PragerU video I shared. If you agree with 90% of that video, then you know what I'm talking about.

If Liberals have veered away from promoting individual rights and freedoms with issues such as school choice, or by not being concerned with how easy things are for conservative or religious groups, it's apparent to many of us that the media has taken on defending that kind of liberal as well. There's also a very destructive element within the liberal base which the media doesn't cover thoroughly. That's likely out of embarrassment and part of a concentrated effort to protect the liberal base as a whole, but by minimalizing this group they've demonstrated how deep their problem is.

So here are your baseline of groups that the media is prone to protecting or promoting. If you want to get more specific you could use a particular media pundit and look at how they cover someone with well known political viewpoints. For example, how did Rachel Maddow cover Hillary Clinton, and what kind of liberal do you believe Hillary Clinton to be? When I ask those types of questions on multiple media pundits and celebrities I'm able to pick out that there's a trend, as many others have. Speaking of which I'd add that when mentioning the media as a whole, it's important to point out that each news pundit or celebrity has their own style and set of beliefs, so we're talking about trends rather than each pundit protecting or criticizing the same exact type of person.

As much as I love these types of discussions I can't go much further than I have here to explain and substantiate my position. I've posted about 17 sources for substantiation. (After subtracting a couple duplicate links). Some links were demonstrating media bias in action, some were polls, some were to demonstrate what effect bias coverage may be having on the public. The latter being what I found to be a bit of a "struggle". The media having a liberal bias is straight forward to me, demonstrating that the high amount of violent protest and vile rhetoric on the left is a result of that is what's tricky. I think more factors are at play, such as what's happening in academia with young students being indoctrinated and exposed primarily to one viewpoint (a liberal or progressive one). In most cases, I don't think the educators and media pundits who are doing this kind of thing understand that it's starting to backfire.

In honesty Droop, I hope these things get worked out. I'm not the type who's happy that the left is self-destructing in many ways. We could argue that it helps conservatives and the Republican party gain ground but I think our country thrives on the best ideas from multiple constituencies. One thing I'm considering now is that if the right and left hate each other this much, that every 4 - 8 years each president will be reversing the actions of the last. For example, I think that Trump will succeed in building his wall but it needs to be patrolled to be an effective plan. He'll make sure that it is but I guarantee that the next Democratic president will initiate a catch and release type policy. Trump success is dependent on there being some cooperation from the left, and vice versa. Whether or not we can reverse the toxic political atmosphere we've created remains to be seen. dry.gif

This post has been edited by net2007: Feb 26 2017, 07:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kimpossible
post Feb 26 2017, 10:01 PM
Post #77


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 698
Member No.: 245
Joined: November-8-02

From: on top of spaghetti
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



I may be misunderstanding Droop, but I think he's asking for a definition of 'liberal bias', in an attempt to understand how to judge articles as 'biased'. But even he's not, I do think its something that's missing from this debate.

Is there a set of criteria one can use to judge an article and determine what its bias may be? Otherwise, how do we know its biased, because you (or anyone) says so?

For example, Mrs. P listed a few headlines and identified some she saw as biased. In particular, one of them did not seem biased to me (“Trump administration withdraws protections for transgender students”). Who's definition of bias do we use? Mine or Mrs Ps?

Are there some broader characteristics we can point to that help identify the bias of an article? Once that happens, then we can start measuring/quantifying instances of biases.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Feb 26 2017, 11:39 PM
Post #78


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(kimpossible @ Feb 26 2017, 06:01 PM) *
I may be misunderstanding Droop, but I think he's asking for a definition of 'liberal bias', in an attempt to understand how to judge articles as 'biased'. But even he's not, I do think its something that's missing from this debate.

Is there a set of criteria one can use to judge an article and determine what its bias may be? Otherwise, how do we know its biased, because you (or anyone) says so?

For example, Mrs. P listed a few headlines and identified some she saw as biased. In particular, one of them did not seem biased to me (“Trump administration withdraws protections for transgender students”). Who's definition of bias do we use? Mine or Mrs Ps?


Great example, let's test this one.
What is the precise change in legislation?
Here is an article.

QUOTE
The Trump administration on Wednesday night withdrew Obama-era protections for transgender students in public schools that let them use bathrooms and facilities corresponding with their gender identity.


I've addressed this topic before Here.

The following title could be stated with exactly the same degree of veracity:
"The Trump Administration Gives Back Protections to Students"
Either title would be erroneous, both equally biased.
They would be erroneous because Trump did not take away nor restore protections.
What he did was return the decision to the states.

In the great scheme of things, it probably doesn’t matter a whole lot which bathroom someone uses.
…but a large percentage of the population don’t want their daughters in a bathroom with guys.
Which is kind of understandable.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Feb 27 2017, 02:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kimpossible
post Feb 27 2017, 06:43 PM
Post #79


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 698
Member No.: 245
Joined: November-8-02

From: on top of spaghetti
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 26 2017, 05:39 PM) *
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Feb 26 2017, 06:01 PM) *
I may be misunderstanding Droop, but I think he's asking for a definition of 'liberal bias', in an attempt to understand how to judge articles as 'biased'. But even he's not, I do think its something that's missing from this debate.

Is there a set of criteria one can use to judge an article and determine what its bias may be? Otherwise, how do we know its biased, because you (or anyone) says so?

For example, Mrs. P listed a few headlines and identified some she saw as biased. In particular, one of them did not seem biased to me (“Trump administration withdraws protections for transgender students”). Who's definition of bias do we use? Mine or Mrs Ps?


Great example, let's test this one.
What is the precise change in legislation?
Here is an article.

QUOTE
The Trump administration on Wednesday night withdrew Obama-era protections for transgender students in public schools that let them use bathrooms and facilities corresponding with their gender identity.


I've addressed this topic before Here.

The following title could be stated with exactly the same degree of veracity:
"The Trump Administration Gives Back Protections to Students"
Either title would be erroneous, both equally biased.
They would be erroneous because Trump did not take away nor restore protections.
What he did was return the decision to the states.

In the great scheme of things, it probably doesn’t matter a whole lot which bathroom someone uses.
…but a large percentage of the population don’t want their daughters in a bathroom with guys.
Which is kind of understandable.


I dont want to derail this thread (again), so let's not discuss the actual topic of the article (as it also has been discussed elsewhere).

But do you think the Hill article is biased towards a certain political view? If yes, what in particular makes it biased? And can we apply those bias criteria to other articles?

Personally, I think the Hill is usually fairly neutral in tone, but it's really difficult for me to quantify what that means. Most of my attempts center around language (nothing too sensational) and an inclusion of third parties that might be affected/have an opinion on the issue (and no, I don't necessarily think that "all" sides need to be presented equally; however, I do think relevant views should be addressed. A lot of that is dependent on type of article/news/media, in addition to the particular story).

As a quasi social scientist (a lot of my current job tries to address how to measure best social behavior in particular to students and faculty at a particular university), the "simplest" way to gauge bias in news articles would be to come up with a set of 3-5 questions (either yes/no, or scaled [like, 1 - 5]) and come up with a 'score' based on those questions. Higher scores indicate more bias, lower scores indicate less bias.

For fun, here's some of the stuff that I came up with: "Is there leading language throughout the article?"
"Does the article include more than one source?"
"Does the article use credible sources?"
"Does the article address more than one relevant viewpoint?"
"Is the author of the article listed?"

Obviously, you can see the difficulty even using these questions. A lot of the questions are subject to interpretation. We could define terms like "leading language", "relevant" and "credible", that would guide us through how to read an article. But even with that, these criteria would still only work on a certain type of article (in particular, shorter news articles meant to inform, rather than long-form articles or investigative reports...Though we could still apply some of these).

One interesting tidbit though, this article notes that most people feel a story is biased against them (their in-group) regardless of what is being reported, an effect known as the 'hostile media effect.' However, if everyone is unhappy with the media coverage of a particular issue, then what does that mean the media is 'doing it's job'? biggrin.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Feb 27 2017, 10:57 PM
Post #80


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(kimpossible @ Feb 27 2017, 02:43 PM) *
But do you think the Hill article is biased towards a certain political view?


Remember I"m speaking of only titles now.
Specifically one morning, writing to Droop, just looking over the first few titles of articles on my homepage as a for instance (after supplying an obviously biased piece, or more accurately...what I believe to be an obviously biased piece).

I guess I could scour the internet for similar examples but what would that do? It would be a lot of wasted time for me. A LOT of wasted time.
Hours of answering all the "fun questions" for each and every piece would only bring me be right back at square one (as you've indicated). If I did that 100+ times and spent months on that sort of writeup it still wouldn't be sufficient evidence (there are millions upon millions of news pieces out there).

Have you noticed that the most effective messages tend to be succinct?
An obviously biased news title does not ipso facto translate into an obviously biased spin piece in its entirety.
Why?
Well, for the same reason an advertisement offers a lot of flash in the beginning even if it tells you the real story in fine print somewhere.
It's a persuasion technique. People tend to remember (and internalize) the "flash" at the beginning, not as much the "real stuff" (if they bother to read or listen to the whole thing at all).

QUOTE
One interesting tidbit though, this article notes that most people feel a story is biased against them (their in-group) regardless of what is being reported, an effect known as the 'hostile media effect.' However, if everyone is unhappy with the media coverage of a particular issue, then what does that mean the media is 'doing it's job'? biggrin.gif


That is an interesting piece. In my case, I've read Al Jazeera and don't find it to be a more biased nor less credible source than any other (probably more credible than CNN, actually...and I should clarify I"m speaking of the real Al Jazeera, not the spammer website with same name, ends in net, I won't link to here).
I recognize that FOX is biased to the right. I'm not suggesting that Fox is 'balanced", I'm asserting that most other media sources are 180 out the other way. Case in point, the titles of articles that greet me in the morning when I open my laptop to the home page.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Feb 28 2017, 12:19 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: June 18th, 2018 - 05:33 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.