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  « < 3 4 5 6 >  
Start new topic
Replies (80 - 99)
net2007
post Feb 27 2017, 11:32 PM
Post #81


********
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(kimpossible @ Feb 26 2017, 05:01 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?

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.


One thing I tend to do is look for with a news anchor or commentator is whether or not they make consecutive criticisms of one person or party over another. Single stories can give an idea, but there's always the chance that the person who's being criticized did something wrong and that the criticism was justified. Also, often times when a story happens which needs scrutiny I look for whether or not the anchor or commentator mentions positive aspects of the story in question, (if there are any).

For example, if Trump makes a fuss about the media in a press conference, but in the same press conference he mentions something good that he did with revealing business records, or working on a new policy, I pay attention to whether or not an anchor puts emphasis on the work that's being done which could be positive for Trump. Do they give him credit for that, or do they focus primarily on the media criticisms Trump makes which could be interpreted as a distraction from doing the things a President should do? In my opinion, in a situation like that both sides of the story should get attention.

You're very right in saying this.... ."...how do we know its biased, because you (or anyone) says so?" We should all look into this ourselves as well to help develop our own opinions on it, as is true of any debate. smile.gif

Although I can say that it's very revealing that a strong majority has come to the same conclusion, that the media has a liberal majority which is doing a bad job. That may be expected from far right conservative viewers, so I put a lot of emphasis on independent or liberal viewers who hold the same opinion.

This post has been edited by net2007: Feb 27 2017, 11:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kimpossible
post Feb 28 2017, 03:30 PM
Post #82


*******
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 27 2017, 04:57 PM) *
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).


Yes, for an individual to do it in that kind of manual way is certainly a lot of wasted time (though, there are certainly organizations and researchers who have put some effort into measuring and quantifying the issue). I don't mean to suggest that one of us should try and score a certain number of articles, but rather highlight the complexity of the issue.

I think it still gets to the heart of what Droop seems to be arguing (sorry, Droop if Im misrepresenting your arguments!) and what the overall debate about the 'liberal media bias' is lacking, how do we know if there's a liberal bias if we can't come up with broad definitions of what liberal bias is, or even just bias? Otherwise, we're just going on someone's feelings that the media is unfairly presenting an issue. Even the questions I tried to come up with get more to whether or not an article is biased, without trying to define if that bias is liberal or conservative.

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 27 2017, 04:57 PM) *
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).


Sure, bad headliners abound on the internet today. I think we're in agreement here.

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 27 2017, 04:57 PM) *
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Feb 27 2017, 02:43 PM) *
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.


Again, though, this gets to the issue of what counts as 'biased'? At the very least, coming up with a set of criteria that indicates bias to you would help me (and others, Im sure) know how to interpret certain headlines/articles as biased.

If we want to use the specific example from The Hill (while trying to divorce it from my opinion on the specific content), because I saw it as a straightforward title and you found it to be biased. For me, I don't see anything immediately misleading in the title, and it refers to a specific action. The alternative title that you came up with seems more misleading to me because it doesn't specify what 'protections' are being returned, and it seems somewhat disingenuous to point the majority group here, when the initial protections were newsworthy because it focused on a particular minority group.

QUOTE(net2007)
For example, if Trump makes a fuss about the media in a press conference, but in the same press conference he mentions something good that he did with revealing business records, or working on a new policy, I pay attention to whether or not an anchor puts emphasis on the work that's being done which could be positive for Trump. Do they give him credit for that, or do they focus primarily on the media criticisms Trump makes which could be interpreted as a distraction from doing the things a President should do? In my opinion, in a situation like that both sides of the story should get attention.


This is a good strategy, clearly. I agree that the media often reports on many of Trumps actions that are major distractions. But I think this gets back to Droop's point that the media is focused more on ratings and money. Trump and co say a lot of salacious stuff, and while I think we can all find articles that also mention his presidential "work", to me it also feels like we are focusing too much on his rhetoric (and *coughnotenoughonrussiacough*). But articles that focus on the things Trump or his administration say probably (don't have stats on this) generate more clicks and shares than articles on his policies (though, imho, he's saying more outrageous stuff rather than doing actual work...).

However, I will say I think there has been a lot of great investigative work (not just about Trump) coming out within the last few years. #morelongform!

QUOTE(net2007)
You're very right in saying this.... ."...how do we know its biased, because you (or anyone) says so?" We should all look into this ourselves as well to help develop our own opinions on it, as is true of any debate. smile.gif

Although I can say that it's very revealing that a strong majority has come to the same conclusion, that the media has a liberal majority which is doing a bad job. That may be expected from far right conservative viewers, so I put a lot of emphasis on independent or liberal viewers who hold the same opinion.


We probably differ on where we think the 'bad job' is, but I am hard pressed to find anyone think the way the media covers anything is critical enough.

This post has been edited by kimpossible: Feb 28 2017, 03:31 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Mar 1 2017, 09:33 PM
Post #83


*********
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(kimpossible)
I think it still gets to the heart of what Droop seems to be arguing (sorry, Droop if Im misrepresenting your arguments!) and what the overall debate about the 'liberal media bias' is lacking, how do we know if there's a liberal bias if we can't come up with broad definitions of what liberal bias is, or even just bias? Otherwise, we're just going on someone's feelings that the media is unfairly presenting an issue. Even the questions I tried to come up with get more to whether or not an article is biased, without trying to define if that bias is liberal or conservative.


Kim you are right on the money and after a few rounds you see how hard it is to get anyone to define it. Now, Mrs P, I think does understand what we mean by establishing some criteria for us to measure, Net on the other hand, I'm not sure. And Net, that's not a hit on you, but it causes you to think that I am ignoring or dismissing what you believe to be substantiation of the claim the press is left or liberal biased.

Mrs P you know how me and you have differing views on the necessity of secrets. I'm liberal minded, you are conservative minded. This does not mean on every issue I am on the liberal side or that on every issue you are in line with the conservative viewpoint. That being said defining liberal in a non partisan way(if that is possible) is the first and most effective way, because for me, my opinion, is that a "left" or "liberal" biased media would be media that would report in a fashion uncaring and unsympathetic to our needs for secrecy of a nation, even its own. It would report the facts in a very disloyal fashion.

I mean this gets back to the VERY liberal idea of a free press vs state press. We are not a democracy per se, but we are obviously democratic. Informed decisions require information, the more information you have the more likely you can make an informed decision. Basic. But if you say "the government says this, we will parrot what the government told us" then regardless of whether the press is "State sponsored" or not it is not acting with a liberal bias.

The point of free press, especially as it concerns our government, is to inform us on the interworking's. If they find a leak, use the leak, so that it can inform us. The government, IMO(stated before) is a tool for society, used by citizens/groups of our society. A hammer is a tool. Now its ok to tell me when someone takes a hammer and uses it to bang nails in wood, but not that important. Its even better if that person took that hammer and built something for the greater good, like a house or school. But the most urgent report is if someone takes a hammer and starts smashing in skulls or tearing down structures.

So the government being a tool of ALL Americans, it is the duty of a free press to inform Americans what groups are doing with this tool that belongs to us all, without regard to our governments desire to be secretive or save face. The less the American journalist cares about his\her American identity when investigating and reporting, the more liberal that medium will be.

Lets go to a quote I want to address from you Mrs P.

QUOTE
That’s a good question. I’m swimming in confirmation bias as much as anyone else.
Are you though? Its a seemingly unfair question, but for me just an observation for myself, the more I see conservative viewpoints the more I see someone (to include myself) swimming in confirmation bias. In fact, I'd argue that confirmation bias is a pretty big part of conservatism as a whole, wherever it is found in the world.

For instance, where am I more likely to find conservatism, in diverse areas or homogenous areas in our country. We've all seen the electoral maps we know where it is more likely to go blue vs red. Its not always the case, just predominant. Also the need to strip humanity from groups to reinforce a bias is a conservative thing, for example, the need to label terrorism as Islamic Extremist Terrorism. The need exists for the sole purpose of confirming ones bias that Islam is tied to extremism which is in turn tied to terrorism. You don't see this same necessity to make this connection amongst liberals, as you do conservatives.

Also pertinent to the debate is the creation of "right wing" media in the first place. Net2007 remember when you stated this

QUOTE
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.
also to Kim you state :
QUOTE
For example, if Trump makes a fuss about the media in a press conference, but in the same press conference he mentions something good that he did with revealing business records, or working on a new policy, I pay attention to whether or not an anchor puts emphasis on the work that's being done which could be positive for Trump. Do they give him credit for that, or do they focus primarily on the media criticisms Trump makes which could be interpreted as a distraction from doing the things a President should do?


Net in these statement it is my opinion you are actively looking for confirmation bias and most conservatives are. You know how often I hear conservatives refer to the founding fathers as terrorists? Not...never!! Nor did I hear a lot of conservative media call the people in Oregon terrorist. Both these groups fit the definition of terrorist to a "T" But I seem to often hear conservative media refer to Black lives Matter groups as a terrorist group. There is no reason that the media should "give credit...". They should report facts.

Lastly, its the way that Mrs P and Net have chosen to define (not define) liberal media. It is done... with examples. You all have to know on some level that this is not a good way to measure anything. The discussion between Mrs P and Kimpossible provides an excellent example of why. But aside from that, hear me out, aside from that... wouldn't we need to establish some threshold, in the form of a percentage, that would have to be reached to show the MSM has a liberal or left bias?

Net you say I have seen over 17 examples provided by you for substantiation. Again, same way I did with Mrs P, lets say for the sake of argument I agree that EVERY single one is a valid example of liberal bias. That's 17 article of various outlets and medium, some broadcast, some print. Think about the sheer number pieces of news that would have come out using, ONLY the span of time and media outlets you used in your examples. You are going to have somewhere in the hundreds of thousands if not millions of other pieces of media coverage. so you could have 17 or 1700 or 17, 000 examples of qan article that is liberally biased and you aren't going to come close to a percentage to substantiate a belief that the Mainstream Media has a left or liberal bias.

It would be like if the four of us walked into an octagon room and Net and Mrs P says "this guy really has a thing for white", to which me and Kimpossible give perplexed looks, because only one wall even looks white, but is actually cream. To which Kim and Mrs P start discussing whether this color is actually a shade of white or yellow, because lets face it, it could go either way. And Net tells me I am purposefully ignoring his evidence that the painter loves white because I am paying too much attention to the 7 other walls.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Mar 3 2017, 12:16 PM
Post #84


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 @ Mar 1 2017, 05:33 PM) *
QUOTE
That’s a good question. I’m swimming in confirmation bias as much as anyone else.
Are you though? Its a seemingly unfair question, but for me just an observation for myself, the more I see conservative viewpoints the more I see someone (to include myself) swimming in confirmation bias. In fact, I'd argue that confirmation bias is a pretty big part of conservatism as a whole, wherever it is found in the world.


Go to a PETA meeting with a piece of pepperoni pizza. Then get back to me with your observations.
Or just wear a pro-Trump shirt in California (or on just about any college campus).

This is a good article that supports what I alluded to above about "advertisement" and sensationalist titles (on a human chemical psych level).
It's neither liberal nor conservative, calls out both.
News re Trump comes toward the end of the piece.

QUOTE
So in addition to the damage to your mental health and likely descent into nihilistic political apathy, there's the corruption of your (expletive) Detector. You will judge the value of stories not on whether they are true, but on whether they feed your addiction. Hell, how many of you reacted to the stories I linked above with something like "Well, that may not have happened, but lots of similar incidents probably did." You need the worst to be true. Nuance isn't going to get anybody high.

Well, after my railing against alarmism, let me be a little alarmist myself:

This is new.

The citizens of previous democracies did not have one tiny fraction of the information streams slamming into their brains. They didn't have smartphones they checked every 20 seconds in a desperate attempt to feel something. I personally believe that a certain percentage of Trump voters went with him just to see what would happen, to "shake things up" not in the political sense, but in the entertainment sense. Because, in other words, they were bored. "Did you hear the (expletive) about how we should use our nukes? This dude's crazy as hell! If nothing else, you know he'll be entertaining!"

There is no playbook for managing this kind of sustained information overload because it has literally never happened before, ever. I, personally, don't think our brains are built to handle it. I think there is evidence that the need for constantly escalating stimulation is a sickness, one we're all vulnerable to.


This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Mar 3 2017, 12:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Mar 3 2017, 09:04 PM
Post #85


********
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(kimpossible @ Feb 28 2017, 10:30 AM) *
QUOTE(net2007)
For example, if Trump makes a fuss about the media in a press conference, but in the same press conference he mentions something good that he did with revealing business records, or working on a new policy, I pay attention to whether or not an anchor puts emphasis on the work that's being done which could be positive for Trump. Do they give him credit for that, or do they focus primarily on the media criticisms Trump makes which could be interpreted as a distraction from doing the things a President should do? In my opinion, in a situation like that both sides of the story should get attention.


This is a good strategy, clearly. I agree that the media often reports on many of Trumps actions that are major distractions. But I think this gets back to Droop's point that the media is focused more on ratings and money. Trump and co say a lot of salacious stuff, and while I think we can all find articles that also mention his presidential "work", to me it also feels like we are focusing too much on his rhetoric (and *coughnotenoughonrussiacough*). But articles that focus on the things Trump or his administration say probably (don't have stats on this) generate more clicks and shares than articles on his policies (though, imho, he's saying more outrageous stuff rather than doing actual work...).

However, I will say I think there has been a lot of great investigative work (not just about Trump) coming out within the last few years. #morelongform!

QUOTE(net2007)
You're very right in saying this.... ."...how do we know its biased, because you (or anyone) says so?" We should all look into this ourselves as well to help develop our own opinions on it, as is true of any debate. smile.gif

Although I can say that it's very revealing that a strong majority has come to the same conclusion, that the media has a liberal majority which is doing a bad job. That may be expected from far right conservative viewers, so I put a lot of emphasis on independent or liberal viewers who hold the same opinion.


We probably differ on where we think the 'bad job' is, but I am hard pressed to find anyone think the way the media covers anything is critical enough.


On the topic of the media being focused on ratings or money, I think they are to a large degree but I don't think it's evidence that the media isn't focused on promoting or protecting one party or group over another. Much like I was asking Droop, why couldn't the media pull in money while simultaneously favoring one party or political group over another?

I believe that by playing favorites they're able to attract viewers who think like they do and to go further, a heated and divisive atmosphere also creates drama which leads some viewers to ask "I wonder what they'll say or report next?", which is a point you seem to agree on. Although, from what I gather, you're figuring it's primarily due to money or ratings rather than a personal bias or desire to help the liberal base and hurt conservatives. I believe they're trying to kill two birds with one stone, but is it working? Those types of viewers (ones who like drama) will always be out there but on that point, I think there's a limit to how much drama they can push without consequences. They can always give a liberal viewpoint and attract liberal viewers, but when it gets to the point of dishonest or unfair things happening back to back, that can backfire. So perhaps in large part, they've simply lost control.

This is why I believe they're struggling financially and with low approval ratings, it's because they've gone too far. The state that they're in is important to point out when suggesting that money and ratings are important to them, I'd also ask if it's the most important thing? Perhaps not. If it is, then protecting those who think like they do, while attacking those who don't is a close second to money and ratings, and the public got tired of it. You can tell it's personal for some pundits because their's emotion tied to the things they say in many circumstances. For example, some news pundits and celebrities were genuinely upset when Trump won, that's not because being upset is good for ratings, Hillary's defeat hit some of them on a personal level.

Droop,

when you say something like this....

"Lastly, its the way that Mrs P and Net have chosen to define (not define) liberal media. It is done... with examples. You all have to know on some level that this is not a good way to measure anything."

Can you explain how this was an example of media bias in action rather than being an explanation of it....

"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.......

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."


You're trying to make the argument that we've had to rely on specific (in your mind) cherry picked examples of bias in action. But polls were presented, the opinions of liberals who are critical of the media were presented, along with a stream of other sources and explanations. It's okay to disagree with these things, but those other sources were presented, right?

As far as your belief that examples of media bias are like finding needles in a haystack, I can present a number of things but couldn't do something like sit down with you on a daily basis, watch the news, and then explain how each story stands up. With that said I presented a great deal to substantiate (I thought). I could show more but I think it'll still come down to you holding your position, which is fine, I'm not here to change your mind. Also, have you been wanting to know this whole time what liberal media bias is, or what it looks like? There's a difference so that's important.

I felt I explained what liberal bias is definition wise and I was quick with showing you some examples of it, but more or less you're saying examples are insignificant or irrelevant. There is an interesting undertone here, though. I'm curious as to whether or not you've come around on liberals being capable and willing to spread unfair or biased information. You started out with many comments such as this one...

"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."

Right now you're trying to distance the rest of the media from what you're explaining as rare reports, is it because you see the wrong in some of these reports? Do you believe any of the stories reveal something that's unfair or biased, exceptions to your statement above? So many opinions are given on a daily basis by news anchors and celebrities. Given that this, in particular, is so easy to demonstrate, it has me wondering how you came to that conclusion.

This post has been edited by net2007: Mar 3 2017, 09:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Mar 6 2017, 10:54 PM
Post #86


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,404
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



We have media which is very much church. What is church?

Church is where people congregate who have similar ideas. Church is the echo chamber for those ideas. It is reassuring that others think like you do. There is not criticism nor critical thinking at church. There is no skepticism at church. Church helps to make you feel good about yourself and your ideas.

Left leaning media, as well as right leaning media, have found it to be profitable to be church. Being an echo chamber is good business. Church is good business.

Both the right and left share the church of statism. Turn over decision making to trusted elected leaders to make decisions for everyone.

Left leaning church does seem to dominate. Left leaning progressives are out in the open about desiring state control. Right leaning is not out in the open. They want to pretend they are not progressives but actions speak loudly. The left leaning progressives are more populist. Right leaning caters towards conservative religion. All progressives love war. War means more government power, more control. Progressive love control. Get rid of ACA? Not without replacing it with another government control program ( the establishment right are such liars ).

I look at the situation of media and who reads it. Why do people love progressive media such as the NY TImes, network news, cable news? I think about the chicken and the egg. Is there so much progressive bias in the media because that is what the population wants or is the progressive mentality promoted by the media?

I think the answer is in our public schools. Our schools teach the masses that progressive government is the way. Through our formative years we are blasted with the state is great message. Mere mention is made of classic liberal ideas, libertarian if you wish. People are prepped to be progressive through our education. Our kids are taught by union based teachers. Government sets curriculum. History is what government says it is.

Media is what it is. It is church. It is not information. It is not news.

Look at current events. The hidden government loves progressives. Progressive voting has created and allowed hidden government. They had a good thing going for years. The voter saps hand over power to the hidden government openly via Democrats or via subterfuge as Republicans . Trump is an annoyance. Not a true person of conviction against progressivism, he is never-the-less not under their control of hidden government. The left leaning media is all over Trump. The list of false government principles pours out where Trump is concerned.

Trump and the media is a sideshow. Can we question the state of the world as was taught to us? We are a long ways from freedom. Trump is a minor bump in the road towards empire (and look how upsetting it is to hidden government.) The big show is the loss of freedom and the emergence of empire.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Mar 7 2017, 04:22 AM
Post #87


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



1. Does the media favor liberals?

A large portion of it does...with often amusing results like this


QUOTE
SAME NY Times Reporter Said Trump Team Was Wiretapped In Jan., But Said TRUMP Lacked Evidence In March

On January 19th and 20th 2017, The NY Times reported that wiretaps of people on the Trump team were passed along to the Obama White House, one of the story’s authors was Michael S. Schmidt. On Saturday that same Michael S. Schmidt was one of the reporters who wrote the story, “Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones.” That’s right, the same NY Times reporter who was one of the sources for the President’s claim, said that there was no evidence for the claim.
The first story by Mr. Schmidt appeared on the NY Times website the evening of January 19, 2017 and appeared on the front page of the paper the morning of Inauguration Day, January 20, 2017:

http://lidblog.com/same-ny-times-reporter/

But ya it IS the NYT rag that rarely gets accused of being unbiased

This post has been edited by Ted: Mar 7 2017, 04:22 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Mar 7 2017, 05:55 PM
Post #88


********
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(Gray Seal @ Mar 6 2017, 05:54 PM) *
We have media which is very much church. What is church?

Church is where people congregate who have similar ideas. Church is the echo chamber for those ideas. It is reassuring that others think like you do. There is not criticism nor critical thinking at church. There is no skepticism at church. Church helps to make you feel good about yourself and your ideas.

Left leaning media, as well as right leaning media, have found it to be profitable to be church. Being an echo chamber is good business. Church is good business.

Both the right and left share the church of statism. Turn over decision making to trusted elected leaders to make decisions for everyone.

Left leaning church does seem to dominate. Left leaning progressives are out in the open about desiring state control. Right leaning is not out in the open. They want to pretend they are not progressives but actions speak loudly. The left leaning progressives are more populist. Right leaning caters towards conservative religion. All progressives love war. War means more government power, more control. Progressive love control. Get rid of ACA? Not without replacing it with another government control program ( the establishment right are such liars ).

I look at the situation of media and who reads it. Why do people love progressive media such as the NY TImes, network news, cable news? I think about the chicken and the egg. Is there so much progressive bias in the media because that is what the population wants or is the progressive mentality promoted by the media?

I think the answer is in our public schools. Our schools teach the masses that progressive government is the way. Through our formative years we are blasted with the state is great message. Mere mention is made of classic liberal ideas, libertarian if you wish. People are prepped to be progressive through our education. Our kids are taught by union based teachers. Government sets curriculum. History is what government says it is.

Media is what it is. It is church. It is not information. It is not news.

Look at current events. The hidden government loves progressives. Progressive voting has created and allowed hidden government. They had a good thing going for years. The voter saps hand over power to the hidden government openly via Democrats or via subterfuge as Republicans . Trump is an annoyance. Not a true person of conviction against progressivism, he is never-the-less not under their control of hidden government. The left leaning media is all over Trump. The list of false government principles pours out where Trump is concerned.

Trump and the media is a sideshow. Can we question the state of the world as was taught to us? We are a long ways from freedom. Trump is a minor bump in the road towards empire (and look how upsetting it is to hidden government.) The big show is the loss of freedom and the emergence of empire.


It's been interesting narrowing this down to progressives, which I think is a solid point. I believe that right-leaning Democrats don't get quite the same protection from the media as the more progressive individuals within the party. I think a lot of it has to do with how individuals talk as well, if for example someone does associate with the Democratic party, but comes to the defense of someone like Donald Trump (who is perceived to be conservative by many) then the treatment changes a bit.

I think we're on similar ground here, this may not be how you phrase it but to address parties, I believe the Democrats are leading us to a position where the government has greater power more adamantly than Republicans, but both parties are headed in that direction. In my view, one party is taking us there in a supersonic jet, while the other is taking us there in a bus. I'm wondering though if you define a progressive on more than fiscal matters and matters of government control.

What a person believes on social political issues has perhaps been my primary focus. The left's progressive movement has redefined what it means to be a progressive. They've nearly destroyed the cause with wild reactions and beliefs on matters of race, or social justice. These types also get a degree of special treatment from the media, but whether or not they should be referred to as progressives would be a good question. They call themselves progressives but don't honor or understand what that word really means.

I hear you on what's happening in schools, our educators are indoctrinating America's youth. In the college environment, this has gone as far as discrimination against those who identify with conservatism. Conservative students are excluded, sometimes violently. It's a sad situation that the left needs to address for this to get better. Hold whatever viewpoint you want but be respectful of others because that is at the core of "individual liberty", a progressive fundamental belief by definition.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Mar 7 2017, 06:54 PM
Post #89


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,404
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Progressive, liberal, conservative, left, right, Democrat, Republican...a bunch of term which have various applications and hence definitions. To make sense of all these terms I found James Ostrowski's book "Progressivism: A Primer on the Idea Destroying America" a good means towards bringing that much needed sense of all the terms.

Progressive politics is contrary to classic liberalism. Individuality, freedom, is the core of classic liberalism. At the core of progressivism is belief that government is the means to solve life's ills. Problems are solved by the use of government force to make people good. Creeping totalitarianism is the result of progressive politics. Conservatism is nothing more than a variation of progressivism. Your analogy to a supersonic jet and a bus supports this notion. (I would pick a subsonic jet rather than a bus).

Left progressives are treated better than right progressives by mass media. Both "sides" share so much. Big government and more power is sought by the left and the right. The sides like to squabble over the spoils they get from progressive voters giving power to them. The generated hidden government is the product of the dual package of progressive parties.

Media is all in for progressive politics. The media is more left leaning (it seems nicer than right progressivism). Left leaning progressivism fits the education propaganda we teach in our schools. Left leaning media is the church for most.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Mar 8 2017, 05:50 PM
Post #90


********
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(Gray Seal @ Mar 7 2017, 01:54 PM) *
Progressive, liberal, conservative, left, right, Democrat, Republican...a bunch of term which have various applications and hence definitions. To make sense of all these terms I found James Ostrowski's book "Progressivism: A Primer on the Idea Destroying America" a good means towards bringing that much needed sense of all the terms.

Progressive politics is contrary to classic liberalism. Individuality, freedom, is the core of classic liberalism. At the core of progressivism is belief that government is the means to solve life's ills. Problems are solved by the use of government force to make people good. Creeping totalitarianism is the result of progressive politics. Conservatism is nothing more than a variation of progressivism. Your analogy to a supersonic jet and a bus supports this notion. (I would pick a subsonic jet rather than a bus).

Left progressives are treated better than right progressives by mass media. Both "sides" share so much. Big government and more power is sought by the left and the right. The sides like to squabble over the spoils they get from progressive voters giving power to them. The generated hidden government is the product of the dual package of progressive parties.

Media is all in for progressive politics. The media is more left leaning (it seems nicer than right progressivism). Left leaning progressivism fits the education propaganda we teach in our schools. Left leaning media is the church for most.


I think I understand and I've heard similar comparisons between progressivism and totalitarianism. I'm not sure if you saw this video from before...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8&t=92s

Dave Rubin draws a similar comparison to yours and spoke of some of the reasons that modern progressivism is actually losing us individual freedoms in many aspects.

When you say the Republican party is taking us to a position of more government control and more spending in a subsonic jet, (nearly as fast as the Democratic party) I think many would agree with that. I have doubts that Trump will be able to (at minimum) balance the budget. Personally, that's where I believe we need to be, I do believe government should play a role, but that balance is key. If we're increasing our national debt, then we're doing something wrong, (a common moderate belief).

This post has been edited by net2007: Mar 8 2017, 06:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Mar 8 2017, 06:53 PM
Post #91


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,404
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Fairly decent video exploring progressive versus freedom.

I did disagree with the presenter's use of words when he said protecting his liberal ideas is now a conservative position. Conservative is the wrong word as this is the right wing progressives. It is simply classic liberal as he previously stated. Calling it conservative confuses the issue.

I like discussing this connected issues with you, net2007. It is obvious to me how you have grown in your depth of understanding issues and underlying principles of the current world.

Getting back to your topic a bit more, I will assert that the issue of left leaning media is just one aspect of the progressive leaning media and progressive leaning education system. If these leanings were the Tower of Piasa it would have toppled. The bias for authoritarian government instead of freedom based government is so dominated by one side today. The church of progressive has a firm grip on the attention of most Americans. Skepticism lives here at ad.gif but there in not much of it in easy mass media nor much on social media.

Progressive media has been beneficial to both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats have received more benefits. The Trump arising is a confused revolt against left leaning progressives. Nothing much is going to change if right leaning progressives is the "new" government.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Mar 10 2017, 05:56 PM
Post #92


********
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(Gray Seal @ Mar 8 2017, 01:53 PM) *
Fairly decent video exploring progressive versus freedom.

I did disagree with the presenter's use of words when he said protecting his liberal ideas is now a conservative position. Conservative is the wrong word as this is the right wing progressives. It is simply classic liberal as he previously stated. Calling it conservative confuses the issue.

I like discussing this connected issues with you, net2007. It is obvious to me how you have grown in your depth of understanding issues and underlying principles of the current world.

Getting back to your topic a bit more, I will assert that the issue of left leaning media is just one aspect of the progressive leaning media and progressive leaning education system. If these leanings were the Tower of Piasa it would have toppled. The bias for authoritarian government instead of freedom based government is so dominated by one side today. The church of progressive has a firm grip on the attention of most Americans. Skepticism lives here at ad.gif but there in not much of it in easy mass media nor much on social media.

Progressive media has been beneficial to both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats have received more benefits. The Trump arising is a confused revolt against left leaning progressives. Nothing much is going to change if right leaning progressives is the "new" government.


I appreciate that, when I came here in 07 I had a lot to say very loudly. Sharing a viewpoint that I felt was the right one mattered more than a trade off of thoughts. That's died down a good bit, but it's something I need to keep working on too. The serious debaters, (often the long time members), have a lot to share and different perspectives than what I may see in a news article or from the MSM.

As far as this topic goes. I'd have no problem with the strong progressive presence in both academia and in the media if a few fundamental things changed. First and foremost it'd change things up if the conservative movement wasn't discriminated against with such ferocity. For example, it's easy to see that stories about conservative students being bullied for the opinions they hold are common, but personally, I can't recall many cases where the opposite has happened.

For that not to happen I believe progressive educators need to explain that they're progressive, that it's one of many belief systems, and that students should be respectful of the viewpoints of those who think differently. I think this is the case with the media as well, there's got to be a reason why the left has a movement where violence or hateful rhetoric is more common than what's seen within the conservative base. The left likes to point to Trump and his rhetoric, while I think they have a point I don't see conservative groups smashing up public property, or blocking up traffic for miles. Conservatives are held to such a high standard for how they talk and behave, but where is that accountability for groups on the left, partiuarly the progressive movement? If it's primarily conservative and independant groups asking these types of questions, I'm doubting they'll be able to change this.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post May 22 2017, 10:34 AM
Post #93


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

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Media bias, Exhibit 4,851,037:
QUOTE
...
In a sign of the vigor of the party’s distaste for the president, outgoing party Chair John Burton, a longtime Democratic lawmaker and powerbroker known for his blunt and profane manner, extended two middle fingers in the air as the crowd cheered and joined him.

“F--- Donald Trump,” he said.
...

Pop quiz:

Imagine for a moment a scenario whereby a Republican party chair in, say, Texas had said "F--- Barack Obama" and been enthusiastically joined by those in attendance. What are the chances that the AP would have described it as "a sign of vigor"? Closer to nil, or closer to none?


ps:
Here are a couple more, courtesy of CNN's John Berman (note: his job description is news anchor, not pundit):

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/21/cnn-fudg...or-light-video/

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/05/cnn-h...g-saudi-speech/

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post May 22 2017, 11:40 AM
Post #94


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



A Harvard study confirms a very strong media bias against Trump.

(If you needed a Harvard study to prove that)

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: May 22 2017, 11:41 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post May 26 2017, 04:39 AM
Post #95


********
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
A Harvard study confirms a very strong media bias against Trump.

(If you needed a Harvard study to prove that)


I saw that one, there's so much substantiation for there being a left-wing bias in the media that I wonder what the skeptics are going on. Some of the more radicalized environmentalists take the position that if you don't agree that the planet is warming and humans are responsible that you're damaged in the head. While I can't go that far, for me this is one of those topics where I don't understand exactly how this isn't easy to see if you look at all of the information together.

This has gotten to the point that the MSM is working in conjunction with those leaking classified information from Washington, some of which is sensitive enough to hurt our relations with other nations, most recently (as I'm hearing today) Britain. There are those who want Trump to fail regardless of the consequences, losing integrity to achieve that is now yesterday's news. For some, breaking the law seems a reasonable enough option so long as Trump is, in some way, affected by it.

UK police stop passing Manchester bombing information to US over leaks

This post has been edited by net2007: May 26 2017, 05:15 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post May 27 2017, 06:42 AM
Post #96


*********
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 and Net2007,

I read this interesting opinion article about that study from Forbes. Is Forbes a liberal publication now? Hard to tell with you guys I mean you hear or read something you don't like and its proof of left wing bias. From the report

QUOTE
As the report details, "reporters are tuned to what's new and different, better yet if it's laced with controversy. Trump delivers that type of material by the shovelful."
and
QUOTE
"The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising," the Harvard report says. "The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever."


Here is the criteria and example of what is a story with a "negative" tone.

QUOTE
Tone is judged from the perspective of the actor. Negative stories include stories where the actor is criticized directly. An example is a headline story where Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer criticized Trump when the Labor Department's April economic report showed that fewer jobs were created than had been predicted. Schumer was quoted as saying, in part: "Eleven weeks into his administration, we have seen nothing from President Trump on infrastructure, on trade, or on any other serious job-creating initiative." Negative stories also consist of stories where an event, trend, or development reflects unfavorably on the actor. Examples are the stories that appeared under the headlines "President Trump's approval rating hits a new low"and "GOP withdraws embattled health care bill, handing major setback to Trump, Ryan."


As the article points out, if you had a sports team that played horribly, consistently , you wouldn't blame the report bias because it made the team look like they loss.

President Trump was just caught on camera shoving someone out of the way so he can be seen at the front. Now you have even more "negative" toned stories and headlines. But those stories exist not because of bias, but because of the actions of Trump.

Net2007

QUOTE
I saw that one, there's so much substantiation for there being a left-wing bias in the media that I wonder what the skeptics are going on. Some of the more radicalized environmentalists take the position that if you don't agree that the planet is warming and humans are responsible that you're damaged in the head. While I can't go that far, for me this is one of those topics where I don't understand exactly how this isn't easy to see if you look at all of the information together.
You haven't even substantiated what left-wing bias is other than news coverage that makes conservatives feel icky about themselves. When I ask you guys what "left wing bias in media" is and how does it work I get statistics of how more liberals are in the media than conservatives. If I were to make an argument that police are bias against liberals and as evidence show that most cops are conservative, it would be poor proof of my assertion.

QUOTE
This has gotten to the point that the MSM is working in conjunction with those leaking classified information from Washington, some of which is sensitive enough to hurt our relations with other nations, most recently (as I'm hearing today) Britain. There are those who want Trump to fail regardless of the consequences, losing integrity to achieve that is now yesterday's news. For some, breaking the law seems a reasonable enough option so long as Trump is, in some way, affected by it.
There is nothing that the "liberal media" can do to lose more integrity for our nation, than what our voters did in electing President Trump. The MSM has always worked with people willing to leak classified information. I know secrecy is important to conservatism. Control the information control the people. It allows you all to live in ignorant bliss.

But let me just ask you, what is it that President Trump want to do that "some" want him to fail out regardless of consequence?

This post has been edited by droop224: May 27 2017, 06:43 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post May 27 2017, 08:18 PM
Post #97


********
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 @ May 27 2017, 02:42 AM) *
Mrs P and Net2007,

I read this interesting opinion article about that study from Forbes. Is Forbes a liberal publication now? Hard to tell with you guys I mean you hear or read something you don't like and its proof of left wing bias. From the report

QUOTE
As the report details, "reporters are tuned to what's new and different, better yet if it's laced with controversy. Trump delivers that type of material by the shovelful."
and
QUOTE
"The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising," the Harvard report says. "The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever."


Here is the criteria and example of what is a story with a "negative" tone.

QUOTE
Tone is judged from the perspective of the actor. Negative stories include stories where the actor is criticized directly. An example is a headline story where Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer criticized Trump when the Labor Department's April economic report showed that fewer jobs were created than had been predicted. Schumer was quoted as saying, in part: "Eleven weeks into his administration, we have seen nothing from President Trump on infrastructure, on trade, or on any other serious job-creating initiative." Negative stories also consist of stories where an event, trend, or development reflects unfavorably on the actor. Examples are the stories that appeared under the headlines "President Trump's approval rating hits a new low"and "GOP withdraws embattled health care bill, handing major setback to Trump, Ryan."


As the article points out, if you had a sports team that played horribly, consistently , you wouldn't blame the report bias because it made the team look like they loss.

President Trump was just caught on camera shoving someone out of the way so he can be seen at the front. Now you have even more "negative" toned stories and headlines. But those stories exist not because of bias, but because of the actions of Trump.

Net2007

QUOTE
I saw that one, there's so much substantiation for there being a left-wing bias in the media that I wonder what the skeptics are going on. Some of the more radicalized environmentalists take the position that if you don't agree that the planet is warming and humans are responsible that you're damaged in the head. While I can't go that far, for me this is one of those topics where I don't understand exactly how this isn't easy to see if you look at all of the information together.
You haven't even substantiated what left-wing bias is other than news coverage that makes conservatives feel icky about themselves. When I ask you guys what "left wing bias in media" is and how does it work I get statistics of how more liberals are in the media than conservatives. If I were to make an argument that police are bias against liberals and as evidence show that most cops are conservative, it would be poor proof of my assertion.

QUOTE
This has gotten to the point that the MSM is working in conjunction with those leaking classified information from Washington, some of which is sensitive enough to hurt our relations with other nations, most recently (as I'm hearing today) Britain. There are those who want Trump to fail regardless of the consequences, losing integrity to achieve that is now yesterday's news. For some, breaking the law seems a reasonable enough option so long as Trump is, in some way, affected by it.
There is nothing that the "liberal media" can do to lose more integrity for our nation, than what our voters did in electing President Trump. The MSM has always worked with people willing to leak classified information. I know secrecy is important to conservatism. Control the information control the people. It allows you all to live in ignorant bliss.

But let me just ask you, what is it that President Trump want to do that "some" want him to fail out regardless of consequence?


"You haven't even substantiated what left-wing bias is..."

No? I've seen that you're still pushing this narrative that problems are being identified without being defined but I beg to differ. Looking back, here was one of the multiple times I personally addressed it in this debate...

QUOTE
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?


That conversation came to an end here Droop...

QUOTE
"You're trying to make the argument that we've had to rely on specific (in your mind) cherry picked examples of bias in action. But polls were presented, the opinions of liberals who are critical of the media were presented, along with a stream of other sources and explanations. It's okay to disagree with these things, but those other sources were presented, right?"


You had nothing to say after that, and while I'm trying hard to be patient and keep in mind that I don't know how busy your schedule may be I can't help but notice that you have the time to keep pressing for answers on things you believe are unfair. You're suggesting that conservatives aren't defining the problems they address, but on the contrary, I don't believe you've explained your position on some pretty bold claims. As I said in the other thread, I'll do exchanges with you but if you and I are going to have two simultaneous conversations I don't want to be held to a higher standard than you're meeting. I'll offer you some of my insight, assuming you're actually interested and not fishing for sound bites to reinforce a negative stereotype of the right. However, for this exchange to continue further I'd want you to address the quotes above. Do so at your leisure, I see that you have a few exchanges going on but I want a little give with the take, if that makes sense.

The only thing I'll say for now on the rest of your reply is that I do believe some of the criticism that Trump receives is warranted. There are things he should be criticized on but a person can be critical and be fair at the same time. I also know that there are those who try to fill in the blanks with speculation, who also choose to not cover or put emphasis on positive stories. If you're to believe CNN, 7% of what he does is good enough for positive coverage, yet his job approval rating is about 40% if you look at an average of polls...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot...roval-6179.html

Even the worst national poll on this list gives him a 35% approval rating, and what this tells me is that he's not as bad as networks like CNN want you to believe, and with how low the approval rating is of the news media why should we take their opinion as if it's truth? I think we should get a range of opinions and think for ourselves, if a person or network is usually negative with members of another group, I think it's smart to look into whether or not they're the common denominator. That doesn't mean disregard everything they say, it means I want to know I'm getting a second opinion so that I can decide what's what.

This post has been edited by net2007: May 27 2017, 09:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post May 28 2017, 05:29 AM
Post #98


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

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

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Net

Allow me to address your quotes

QUOTE
With that said, I define liberalism, by what the movement is actually doing.
I really shouldn't have to tell you that is NOT a definition. So if you see some liberals do this that is what "liberalism" is? And if you see some self described liberal do "that" then that becomes what liberalism is. I remember reading your posts, and I remember feeling a little frustrated, not a lot, because it is such a uphill battle if your personal definition of liberalism and thus liberal is "whatever I see liberals do" And my guess is it will only be what you want to apply to liberalism, when you want it to apply.

Can you get how impossible a moving target you have made for me to debate? I have simply asked you define "liberal" in the context of "liberal media bias". I'm not going to hold you to it for the rest of your life. But you have to be FAIR enough to realize that defining liberal "what (you perceive, don't forget it just your perception) the movement is actually doing." 1. like I said it s a moving target for a definition; 2. there is nothing concise or concrete about your definition to debate.

QUOTE
You're trying to make the argument that we've had to rely on specific (in your mind) cherry picked examples of bias in action. But polls were presented, the opinions of liberals who are critical of the media were presented, along with a stream of other sources and explanations. It's okay to disagree with these things, but those other sources were presented, right?"
So look at the two logical fallacies you are trying to offer.

1. Fallacy of Mass appeal - "Look at my opinion polls Droop." I'm not saying they are unimportant, in fact if ever I argue with you that most people DON'T think the media is crappy, please reintroduce those polls. But those polls aren't going to help you define what liberal media bias is and they can't add to your point that the media has a liberal bias.

2. Appeal to authority "look at my videos droop" I've looked every video you have posted and I don't agree or disagree 100%. But they are stating their opinion. One woman as I pointed out, countered HER OWN evidence she provided saying it was inaccurate because she believed their were more liberals not self identifying.

So now I have addressed both points, I'm not merely saying youwon't define it as your 2 quotes show... YOU won't define it, you just keep saying you did. I mean your response does make me chuckle.

"Net, what's is liberalism?"

"Whatever I think the movement is doing!"

"Huh?!?!?! unsure.gif hmmm.gif blink.gif "

But it kind of fits because if "liberalism" is whatever you think the movement is doing then liberal media bias would be whatever you think it is. Which is why I don't think it exists like you do. Another point that is important. At any time you or any other fellow conservative could have just went to a dictionary to define liberal in a way to support the context of "liberal media bias", but you guys haven't. My guess, you looked up the definition didn't like what you saw and turned a blind eye.




-"you close your eyes to look around"




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post May 31 2017, 05:38 PM
Post #99


********
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 @ May 28 2017, 01:29 AM) *
Net

Allow me to address your quotes

QUOTE
With that said, I define liberalism, by what the movement is actually doing.
I really shouldn't have to tell you that is NOT a definition. So if you see some liberals do this that is what "liberalism" is? And if you see some self described liberal do "that" then that becomes what liberalism is. I remember reading your posts, and I remember feeling a little frustrated, not a lot, because it is such a uphill battle if your personal definition of liberalism and thus liberal is "whatever I see liberals do" And my guess is it will only be what you want to apply to liberalism, when you want it to apply.

Can you get how impossible a moving target you have made for me to debate? I have simply asked you define "liberal" in the context of "liberal media bias". I'm not going to hold you to it for the rest of your life. But you have to be FAIR enough to realize that defining liberal "what (you perceive, don't forget it just your perception) the movement is actually doing." 1. like I said it s a moving target for a definition; 2. there is nothing concise or concrete about your definition to debate.

QUOTE
You're trying to make the argument that we've had to rely on specific (in your mind) cherry picked examples of bias in action. But polls were presented, the opinions of liberals who are critical of the media were presented, along with a stream of other sources and explanations. It's okay to disagree with these things, but those other sources were presented, right?"
So look at the two logical fallacies you are trying to offer.

1. Fallacy of Mass appeal - "Look at my opinion polls Droop." I'm not saying they are unimportant, in fact if ever I argue with you that most people DON'T think the media is crappy, please reintroduce those polls. But those polls aren't going to help you define what liberal media bias is and they can't add to your point that the media has a liberal bias.

2. Appeal to authority "look at my videos droop" I've looked every video you have posted and I don't agree or disagree 100%. But they are stating their opinion. One woman as I pointed out, countered HER OWN evidence she provided saying it was inaccurate because she believed their were more liberals not self identifying.

So now I have addressed both points, I'm not merely saying youwon't define it as your 2 quotes show... YOU won't define it, you just keep saying you did. I mean your response does make me chuckle.

"Net, what's is liberalism?"

"Whatever I think the movement is doing!"

"Huh?!?!?! unsure.gif hmmm.gif blink.gif "

But it kind of fits because if "liberalism" is whatever you think the movement is doing then liberal media bias would be whatever you think it is. Which is why I don't think it exists like you do. Another point that is important. At any time you or any other fellow conservative could have just went to a dictionary to define liberal in a way to support the context of "liberal media bias", but you guys haven't. My guess, you looked up the definition didn't like what you saw and turned a blind eye.




-"you close your eyes to look around"





As you've done in the past, you're trying to make this about the proper usage of words. If this is a smoke and mirrors tactic it isn't a good one. Consider the word define...

QUOTE
1. State or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.

ex "the contract will seek to define the client's obligations"


A person doesn't have to go to a dictionary to do this. You can go by the textbook definition of the word liberal if you want but I don't think it's going to be as accurate as addressing the actual people who identify with the left unless we're in a parallel universe where dictionaries have grown legs, voted, and managed to gain the attention of the media tongue.gif Words in a book only give a rough idea, especially titles or labels such as Liberal, Conservative, Muslim, or Christian. They all have more to them than what you're going to read in a dictionary quite simply because they refer to people and people are inconsistent.

Some liberals completely disregard what the word liberal means and, for example, do not stand up for the individual rights and liberties of others yet if I were to ask a person such as this, which group they most identify with, the answer would be "Liberals", "The Left", or "Progressives" in many circumstances. Complicating the movement wasn't my doing, that rest on them, I'm simply pointing it out.

As for the media, to a degree, they've taken an all-inclusive approach to defending the left because they know that the various smaller groups within the movement associate and depend on each other. This is especially true of liberal groups within the Democratic party, where they need to collaborate to win elections. The media generally wants these groups to thrive so that they can work together to achieve common goals. To a degree, the media even protects the most vile and destructive elements on the left. If someone was to learn exactly how vulgar and destructive anti-Trump protesters have been in prior months, they couldn't do so on networks like CNN because they'll either leave stories out or give a watered down version of what's been happening. However, they will spend hours explaining the unsavory sides of Trump or his supporters.

In regards to what you said here....

"Can you get how impossible a moving target you have made for me to debate?"

Not really, because I've worked to narrow it down for you....

"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?"

To your credit, words like liberal are broad ones but not unidentifiable by any stretch of the imagination. If you're to take that position it'd be very convenient to do the same when anyone criticizes the left. This is where examples and comments like the one above have come into play but you've disregarded them. A lot has been provided, Gray Seal got into the distinction between liberal and progressive which I think help narrows it down some as well. I believe progressives to be the subgroup within the liberal base who's causing the movement the majority of its problems, the Prager-U clip I shared explained where that movement has gotten. You actually said you agree with most of it but you come back to a dismissive position on the topic pretty fast.

So I'm torn between believing that you're having trouble connecting the dots, or doing this intentionally because delegitimizing the opposition (attempting to) is easier than trying to understand them. On my end, I've tried to be fair by suggesting that the textbook definition of the word liberal offers some of your answer. Perhaps that's the one you're more comfortable with, regardless of your reasons for adhering to that, when asking who's the media defending, I think it's only fair to suggest that some of it has been an attempt to stand up for individual rights and freedoms, classic liberal beliefs which I can respect. However, somewhere along the way more people have forgotten what that really means.

Anyway, I don't know where this goes from here. When very specific examples of media bias are given, you say things like this...

"Lastly, its the way that Mrs P and Net have chosen to define (not define) liberal media. It is done... with examples. You all have to know on some level that this is not a good way to measure anything."

Which is quite simply not true and misleading with everything else that was shared. Then, when explanations are given your argument becomes that it's a moving target as if it can't be narrowed down.

The polls are also considered irrelevant, I think it's important to point out that you said "polls" (plural). It's not just a single fluke poll that addresses Trump, most of them have addressed the media favoring the left in general and they keep coming out. By the way, those alone don't define liberal media bias, they help substantiate that it's a problem.

Your approach seems to be a bit of a moving target in itself, instead of confronting or disagreeing with information, you disregard or attempt to delegitimize it. You've done the same with conservatives as a group, they're not taken seriously so where do we go from here? I don't feel you were able to explain this comment...

"You haven't even substantiated what left-wing bias is..."

and expect that you'll continue to push narratives like that but I'll address your opinion article a little more. As I said I do believe some of the criticism on Trump is warranted, he's sloppy and says stupid things at times. The writer of the article isn't wrong by pointing that out, but I disagree with the conclusion that he drew from that. The funny thing about this is that the media doesn't even have to embellish in order to criticize Trump but they do it anyway and that really demonstrates the lack of control they have.

I saw that you had mentioned that this opinion article comes from Forbes, and, in so many words, pointing out that it isn't a liberal publication. I'm not too familiar with Forbes, can you show that the man who wrote the article is a conservative? Sometimes conservative publications make room for a liberal article or two. When reading his BIO he says he's worked for CNN and other typically liberal sorces. He also speaks about conservatives as if he's on the outside of the movement.

________________________

Sorry for the delays in my responses, life is hectic right now but I'll be back in to write whenever I can.

This post has been edited by net2007: May 31 2017, 05:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post May 31 2017, 06:27 PM
Post #100


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

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

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Net,

QUOTE
Your approach seems to be a bit of a moving target in itself, instead of confronting or disagreeing with information, you disregard or attempt to delegitimize it. You've done the same with conservatives as a group, they're not taken seriously so where do we go from here? I don't feel you were able to explain this comment...

"You haven't even substantiated what left-wing bias is..."

and expect that you'll continue to push narratives like that but I'll address your opinion article a little more.
How the media treated Obama was horrendous with the whole Jeremiah Wright supposed controversy. How the media treated Clinton during Benghazi and email "scandal" was horrendous. How the media treated Bill Clinton with the Monica Lewinsky was horrendous. The way the media has treated minorities The media has become more corporate, soulless and out to get PAID!! They need to be first and they need to sensational.

Remember my comment about contempt, this is why. Conservatism continues to side with a philosophy I call, M.O.E. (Money Over Everything) You all call it "being successful" yet here is an example of you all crying about something which that philosophy has wrought upon us.

For me to make money in media that is not state sponsored I need what? Ad revenue, maybe. For me to get ad revenue, I need what?? Viewership, subscriptions, maybe. So my goal is not to inform in any meaningful way, it is to get you look at my headlines or lead stories.

The problems you are seeing in the media deal with a sensational media looking for anything, ANYTHING, to blow out of proportion with out ruffling to many corporate feathers. And look the last two Republican Presidents were walking gold mines.

Benghazi shouldn't have been a scandal. it really shouldn't of. 4 people died. 4.

But stop... please don't address any of the above. Here is what I want you to do. Please, Net. I will give you 4 sentences, 4 WHOLE sentences. Prove me wrong. In the context of liberal media bias, define liberal. That's all. Don't let it get lost in paragraphs of information or 5 - 10 minute long videos. Don't make it self-defining or circular, like "liberal means whatever liberals or people on the left do."

Net, I don't want to lie anymore, I don't want to pretend I don't know what you mean, take me to task, good sir. You or anyone of you other conservatives. Without anything else, and since you have done it so much it should be a 5 -10 minute cut and paste. In the context of liberal media bias, what do you mean by liberal.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 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 20th, 2018 - 01:38 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.