Visit our Popular Forums

**GordMay** · 12-01-2019, 13:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyan

You provided links that contradict your view of the NYT and Washington Post ...

If the NYT is rated “Left-Center biased based on word and story selection that favors the left, but highly factual and considered one of the most reliable sources for information due to proper sourcing and well respected journalists/editors.”

I, personally, get my information (5 W's) from news sources (paper & broadcasts); and my opinion from my wife.

transmitterdan · 12-01-2019, 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

But again - this partisanship is a malaise that predominantly affects the US media.

Err...didn’t Der Spiegel recently prove that media bias and utter stupidity by senior editorial executives is not limited to the US? And for that matter, the entire media ecosystem that gave its highest awards to a complete fraudster journalist should be due for a major house cleaning. There are crackpots on the right and there is utter fraud on the left. Is it any wonder journalism and media have low approval ratings?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1663/Me...valuation.aspx

54% of survey respondents rated their trust in media as “not much” or “none at all”. That is a staggering statistic. And just to “prove” that the media is biased left 43% of respondents think “news media” favor Democrats and only 13% think it favors Republicans.

It is a delusion to think that news reporting in general is centrist. Bias in reporting isn’t even following a Normal distribution. In fact there is a big void in the center as it is rare today to read a news story that isn’t filled with opinions and bias on both the left or the right. But many more news stories are biased left.

News (facts devoid of opinion) doesn’t sell or get clicks since it does not feed endorphins that release when personal biases are confirmed.

Mike OReilly · 12-01-2019, 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

...News (facts devoid of opinion) doesn’t sell or get clicks since it does not feed endorphins that release when personal biases are confirmed.

And this is the heart of the problem — WE are the heart of the problem. If we rewarded facts devoid of opinion, then we’d see more support for it.

Media is a business, and creating opinion content is cheap — far cheaper than quality journalism. This is why I think we’re seeing the steady creep of editorial into news — b/c as you say, it sells.

So the answer is easy: Don’t read the “analysis” pieces. Don’t watch the panel “discussions”. Don’t click on the talking heads telling you what they think.

DO read, listen and watch news from all sources; large, small, local, national, international.

And for those who can no longer tell the difference between news and editorial, if the writer or babbler is somehow part of the piece, then it ain’t news.

heron237 · 12-01-2019, 21:51

yeah getting good reportage in journalism is tough these days. I would not consider the NY Times to be anything but good ol boy stuff at this point. This is the natural evolution of journalism in a crony /fascist state. When the news outlets are wholly owned by corporations what do you think they're going to print, investigative, or opine about?

cyan · 13-01-2019, 00:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by john61ct

...
NYT/ WP / CNN / MSNBC are very right-wing afaic, the whole Overton window has been shifted so far to the near-Fascist Right in this country we are completely out of sync now with the rest of the developed world.
...

I think it would be hard to find any agreement for this viewpoint among folks on either end of the spectrum, in any country. Where did you come up with this?
The Overton thinkers would be quick to point out that the discourse window has been opened wider in both directions recently in the US, where both far-right and far-left politics have gotten FARTHER in their own directions. Socialism was once a dirty word. No longer. Nationalism was once just a feeling among some. No longer.

Regarding media bias, these guys have collected a ton of data...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

john61ct · 13-01-2019, 02:22

Both between the world wars, and in the period of Resistance to our imperial war-mongering and outrageous war crimes, near-genocide in Southeast Asia,

speaking as one who's spent many hours at dozens of parties with Henry Kissinger, Richard Holbrooke and Cyrus Vance,

there were hundreds of thousands of activists proud to be known as Socialists.

Just not properly reflected in the mainstream history books or journalism, as written by the corporate / oligarch victors.

Howard Zinn's" A People's History of the United States" gives a bit of balance, but doesn't go far enough.

transmitterdan · 13-01-2019, 05:23

Appropo to this thread I think:

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-...m-so-confident

heron237 · 13-01-2019, 06:44

To properly gauge how far the mainstream media has changed lets look at history. For instance take FDR,

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”
― Franklin D. Roosevelt

“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”

― Franklin D. Roosevelt

If a president uttered those words today he'd be branded a communist.

Bring back that old time populism, we don't need no more stinkin billionaires running for office, as they have about as much in common with the common man as I do to an alien. Why, why then is populism, so derided in NYT's for one, because it's dangerous to the status quo. Roosevelt was a traitor to his class, and endured lasting animus far beyond his mortal coil. I was called out on this board for my contention that we currently live in capitalistic fascist state, I hadn't realized one of our greatest presidents said essentially the same thing over 80 years ago.

That's how far the mainstream media has moved to the right!

**boatman61** · 13-01-2019, 07:04

To be Intellectually Humble.. one needs an intellect to begin with.. which opens a whole new can of worms..
What is Intellect.. who gets to define it and Why.???

Exile · 13-01-2019, 07:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by heron237

To properly gauge how far the mainstream media has changed lets look at history. For instance take FDR,

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”
― Franklin D. Roosevelt

“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”

― Franklin D. Roosevelt

If a president uttered those words today he'd be branded a communist.

Bring back that old time populism, we don't need no more stinkin billionaires running for office, as they have about as much in common with the common man as I do to an alien. Why, why then is populism, so derided in NYT's for one, because it's dangerous to the status quo. Roosevelt was a traitor to his class, and endured lasting animus far beyond his mortal coil. I was called out on this board for my contention that we currently live in capitalistic fascist state, I hadn't realized one of our greatest presidents said essentially the same thing over 80 years ago.

That's how far the mainstream media has moved to the right!

The rather humorous irony of your post is that FDR was exactly the sort of wealthy populist politician that had "about as much in common with the common man as I do to an alien."

Both FDR & Eleanor came from old, patrician families going back to the Dutch merchants who settled in NYC in the 1600's, and both lived off inherited family money with generous trust funds.

https://www.theclassroom.com/what-wa...-12078550.html

I don't think such factors necessarily qualify or disqualify people from high office, any more than gender, race or ethnicity. But then I also don't necessarily believe everything that comes out of politicians' mouths.

Exile · 13-01-2019, 07:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by john61ct

Both between the world wars, and in the period of Resistance to our imperial war-mongering and outrageous war crimes, near-genocide in Southeast Asia,

speaking as one who's spent many hours at dozens of parties with Henry Kissinger, Richard Holbrooke and Cyrus Vance,

there were hundreds of thousands of activists proud to be known as Socialists.

Just not properly reflected in the mainstream history books or journalism, as written by the corporate / oligarch victors.

Howard Zinn's" A People's History of the United States" gives a bit of balance, but doesn't go far enough.

You should write your own book!

Exile · 13-01-2019, 07:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

News (facts devoid of opinion) doesn’t sell or get clicks since it does not feed endorphins that release when personal biases are confirmed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyan

Regarding media bias, these guys have collected a ton of data...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

Interesting that when you plug in media sources to this website that are deemed to have either a left or right bias, the consistent explanation coming back is that "they often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor [liberal or conservative] causes."

It's little wonder why the more partisan/ideological amongst us who confine their reading to such sources often then use emotion & stereotypes to make their case. I don't think a lot of people fully understand the extent of their own bias, or the sources from which they're getting all of their information. Probably helps explain why so many seem genuinely shocked or angered when they encounter opinions contrary to what they're constantly surrounding themselves with.

**boatman61** · 13-01-2019, 07:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

Interesting that when you plug in media sources to this website that are deemed to have either a left or right bias, the consistent explanation coming back is that "they often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor [liberal or conservative] causes."

It's little wonder why the more partisan/ideological amongst us who confine their reading to such sources often then use emotion & stereotypes to make their case. I don't think a lot of people fully understand the extent of their own bias, or the sources from which they're getting all of their information. Probably helps explain why so many seem genuinely shocked or angered when they encounter opinions contrary to what they're constantly surrounding themselves with.

:swordsup :