Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
New Oxford University research suggests that social media and the internet are not the root of today’s fragmented society, and echo chambers may not be the threat they are perceived to be. In fact, only a small proportion of the population, at most, is influenced by echo chambers.
The argument against echo chambers is well documented: helped by social media algorithms, we are increasingly choosing to interact in safe spaces, with people who think and act like us - effectively preaching our opinions to the converted. As a result, this behaviour is distorting our world view and, in the process, our ability to compromise, which in turn, stimulates political polarisation.
As well as being the home of social media the internet is also a hub of other media choices. These include online news websites and links to print newspapers and magazines, as well as offline media such as TV and radio platforms. Many of our conversations with friends and family also take place online, via our social media and email platforms.
Using a random sample of adult internet users in the UK, researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute and the University of Ottawa examined people’s media choices, and how much they influenced their interaction with echo chambers, against six key variables: gender, income, ethnicity, age, breadth of media use and political interest. The findings reveal that most people use multiple media outlets and social media platforms, and rather than encouraging the use and development of echo chambers, the breadth of multimedia available actually makes it easier for people to avoid them.
Dr Grant Blank, co-author and research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, said: ‘Whatever the causes of political polarisation today, it is not social media or the internet.
‘If anything, most people use the internet to broaden their media horizons. We found evidence that people actively look to confirm the information that they read online, in a multitude of ways. They mainly do this by using a search engine to find offline media and validate political information. In the process they often encounter opinions that differ from their own and as a result whether they stumbled across the content passively or use their own initiative to search for answers while double checking their “facts”, some changed their own opinion on certain issues.’
The research shows that respondents used an average of four different media sources, and had accounts on three different social media platforms. The more media outlets people used, the more they tended to avoid echo chambers.
While age, income, ethnicity nor gender were found to significantly influence the likelihood of being in an echo chamber, political interest significantly did. Those with a keen political interest were most likely to be opinion leaders who others turn to for political information. Compared with the less politically inclined, these people were found to be media junkies, who consumed political content wherever they could find it, and as a result of this diversity they were less likely to be in an echo chamber.
Dr Elizabeth Dubois, co-author and Assistant Professor at the University of Ottawa, said: ‘Our results show that most people are not in a political echo chamber. The people at risk are those who depend on only a single medium for political news and who are not politically interested: about 8% of the population. However, because of their lack of political engagement, their opinions are less formative and their influence on others is likely to be comparatively small.’
Pretty much confirms what I thought, and what I think we see on Dakka. There is a huge range of political opinion on here, we discuss openly and are forced to back up our points and arguments, and do change our views. The odd person who comes on complaining about it all being right or left wing bias generally quickly gets shot down. And those with no interest in politics don't read it anyway and are not going to have their views changed.
I think there's a big assumption that politics is more polarized. US politics are more polarized, but I'm not sure that's the case in that many other countries. And US political polarization began before the internet, and has proceeded at about the same pace since its advent.
We don't like to admit it, but even in an age where we all have a voice, we are still mostly led by a handful of people. They give their arguments, and most of us just repeat them. Even other media people are mostly following. This is why, for instance, FOX News can have an audience of about half of 1% of the adult population, but drive so much of the narrative. So even if we're on the internet, giving our own point of view, thinking our thoughts are independent, they're coming from somewhere.
So what really matters is whether those thoughts are coming from leaders who are reasoned, and considerate. In most places around the world those voices are mostly reasonable, and so what follows is mostly reasonable debate by everyone. Mostly. More or less.
But in places where a lot of the leading voices are not responsible, either because they pursue partisan arguments with no interest in facts, or they're just bonkers or whatever, well then that flows through to the rest of the population.
Oh interesting, I can see the point about the sheer amount of news making finding different opinions easier.
Certainly I do try make a point of reading the Guardian every now and then so that I can see what the 'leftie' views on the issues of the day are. I can't imagine that I'm the only one who tries to read articles which they won't necessarily agree with.
I think politics is more polarised in the UK than it has been in the past, however we have had decades of rule by centrist Prime Ministers (Blair, Cameron etc.) so it is to be expected that opinions would drift out to the wings again.
After all, it is easy to have all the answers when you are not in power
Using a random sample of adult internet users in the UK, researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute and the University of Ottawa examined people’s media choices, and how much they influenced their interaction with echo chambers, against six key variables: gender, income, ethnicity, age, breadth of media use and political interest. The findings reveal that most people use multiple media outlets and social media platforms, and rather than encouraging the use and development of echo chambers, the breadth of multimedia available actually makes it easier for people to avoid them.
This part. Its hard to find a news source that is relatively unbiased. People hole themselves into "news" sources, blogs, and chatrooms that are wholly biased and one dimensional of a viewpoint. Its one reason the OT here is interesting. Multiple viewpoints and issues. I have been banned or shouted down on multiple viewpoints for playing devil's advocate. People are tribing up, at least in the US, on a level approaching Latin America. Moderates need not apply.
Still not sure what your saying is a lie. They are not saying that news sources are unbiased, but that people don’t go looking for media sources just because they support their views and stick to those sources.
The view you express here is common, and far more problematic than information bubbles producing polarisation.
Bias is not the problem. It is okay to have a viewpoint. The problem comes when reports include false information, or exclude important facts.
...which, as a result of bias, is extremely common in all types of journalism. I agree that having a viewpoint or taking a certain stance on an issue is fine, but it is currently extremely common even in the largest and oldest media organizations to omit facts and context or even include information which is demonstrably false, or to present a totally subjective and fact-free op-ed as researched journalism. Even in papers like the Washington Post and New York Times, when an article does include the relevant facts (which is not always the case even in those publications), those that don't support the editorial narrative are buried under subjective language toward the end of the piece where the eyes of the average reader never venture. There are very few news organizations which present only factual content in dispassionate language in an effort to inform the reader and allow them to decide for themselves how they should feel about any given topic. Perhaps there are none. Bias is unavoidable, but it's manipulative and unethical to hide that bias behind whatever veneer of legitimacy you can get away with instead of being transparent about it. To say that such a view is more problematic than the fact that media corporations both large and small regularly and easily massage public opinion through disingenuous reporting is frankly ludicrous.
How many people read full news articles? Honestly, do you? More and more people read only the first, second or third paragraph, or even simply the headline. You don't even have to omit facts or lie to mislead people through media, all you have to do is put together a carefully worded headline and opening paragraph, and hide any facts you don't like at the end. All you have to do is take what would be an objective and factual account, and jazz it up with subjective and emotionally charged language to tell the reader how they should feel about it. It muddies the waters as well as the public mind. You're right though, the problem isn't bias, it's biased opinion masquerading as legitimate journalism.
Luciferian wrote: ...which, as a result of bias, is extremely common in all types of journalism. I agree that having a viewpoint or taking a certain stance on an issue is fine, but it is currently extremely common even in the largest and oldest media organizations to omit facts and context or even include information which is demonstrably false, or to present a totally subjective and fact-free op-ed as researched journalism. Even in papers like the Washington Post and New York Times, when an article does include the relevant facts (which is not always the case even in those publications), those that don't support the editorial narrative are buried under subjective language toward the end of the piece where the eyes of the average reader never venture. There are very few news organizations which present only factual content in dispassionate language in an effort to inform the reader and allow them to decide for themselves how they should feel about any given topic. Perhaps there are none. Bias is unavoidable, but it's manipulative and unethical to hide that bias behind whatever veneer of legitimacy you can get away with instead of being transparent about it. To say that such a view is more problematic than the fact that media corporations both large and small regularly and easily massage public opinion through disingenuous reporting is frankly ludicrous.
Yes, media organisations will sometimes give biased reports. That isn't in dispute. What I am saying is that when people go for that simplistic story of 'media is biased', they drag all media down to a single level, in which merely having an opinion allows the reader to dismiss the story. The effect of this is people reject stories simply because they're telling them something they don't want to hear because 'its biased', rather than trying to work out if its actually true or not.
This in turn opens up the market for media organisations that focus on telling people what they want to hear, even if its dishonest . Ever notice how the media organisations that complain about bias the most are also the crappiest media outfits? There's a reason for that.
So yes, people thinking the issue is simply 'bias' are the problem, because that is the beginning from which all the other problems flow.
I think the requirements for an echoe chamber include a bunch of friends who just say things that confirm your beliefs. of all things, the internet is the last place you want to go to.
Yes, media organisations will sometimes give biased reports. That isn't in dispute. What I am saying is that when people go for that simplistic story of 'media is biased', they drag all media down to a single level, in which merely having an opinion allows the reader to dismiss the story. The effect of this is people reject stories simply because they're telling them something they don't want to hear because 'its biased', rather than trying to work out if its actually true or not.
I think this is pretty much spot on, it's why there's this sort of radical ignorance in a day and age where there's more information available than ever. It's just that repeated "it's biased" meme that allows people to dismiss outside views or anything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions.
Honestly, I think that's one of the big driver of political polarization, particular the unsettling hard shift to the right in the last few years.
Eh... I don't agree with the conclusion that multiple sources = multiple viewpoints. From what I've seen it's just as common for an individual to seek out multiple sources that all agree with a given point of view, and these sources even tend to sync up with each other. I don't so much feel their conclusion is incorrect, I just feel that the evidence presented is insufficient to reach that conclusion.
sebster wrote: I think there's a big assumption that politics is more polarized. US politics are more polarized, but I'm not sure that's the case in that many other countries. And US political polarization began before the internet, and has proceeded at about the same pace since its advent.
Well Reagan was 1981-1989 (but more specifically one could say the parties were reasonably non-polarized in crafting the 1986 tax reform) and the internet launched in 1991, so the rise of US political polarization and the rise of the internet did coincide more than not. Granted this could be coincidental, correlation rather than causation, but I wouldn't dismiss the internet as a significant contributor either. I would go into more detail, but that would probably take this in an off-topic direction.
ScarletRose wrote: I think this is pretty much spot on, it's why there's this sort of radical ignorance in a day and age where there's more information available than ever. It's just that repeated "it's biased" meme that allows people to dismiss outside views or anything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions.
Exactly. There's more information that ever available to be called up with a second's effort, but there's more conspiracy theories than ever, and if anything those conspiracies are getting dumber and more easily rejected. Pizzagate is a lot easier to disprove than the JFK assassination being an inside job. Its almost like the conspiracies now aren't made to last past a few news cycles, after which the job is done. It is, as you say, 'radical ignorance'.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Eh... I don't agree with the conclusion that multiple sources = multiple viewpoints. From what I've seen it's just as common for an individual to seek out multiple sources that all agree with a given point of view, and these sources even tend to sync up with each other. I don't so much feel their conclusion is incorrect, I just feel that the evidence presented is insufficient to reach that conclusion.
Yep, that's another false idea - that reading multiple sources is an improvement in and of itself. I mean sure, reading more sources is better than just reading one source, but its useless if those sources aren't carefully chosen, and the specific claims made in each source aren't properly considered. Especially when, as you say, a person is selecting a range of sources that all agree with each other.
Well Reagan was 1981-1989 (but more specifically one could say the parties were reasonably non-polarized in crafting the 1986 tax reform) and the internet launched in 1991, so the rise of US political polarization and the rise of the internet did coincide more than not. Granted this could be coincidental, correlation rather than causation, but I wouldn't dismiss the internet as a significant contributor either. I would go into more detail, but that would probably take this in an off-topic direction.
I don't mean to dismiss the role of the internet entirely, just to place it as one part in a greater political drift that's occurred in the US. It's facilitated the process, but so did talk radio and cable news.
The rise of the internet has coincided with the rise of polarized politics, but the US isn't the only country that's adopted this internet thing. Elsewhere politics isn't anywhere near as polarized as the US. So the internet, well it doesn't help, but it won't cause the problem by itself.
This has provoked the thought that how can the internet be a worse echo chamber than the old-school guys who read only one tabloid newspaper, every single day, and just accept that it represents the truth, when most are sensationalist at best and horrendously biased at worst.
Even if that same person read the same paper online, they would at least be exposed to the comments section, so would have a better chance of exposure to different views.
Uber_Trooper wrote: I think the requirements for an echoe chamber include a bunch of friends who just say things that confirm your beliefs. of all things, the internet is the last place you want to go to.
My thoughts exactly. I've been on the internet for awhile and am pretty sure I've encountered more people calling me an idiot/hipster/douche/donkey-cave/libtard/<insert other things> than I've encountered anyone even saying the words "I agree" so yeah. Never bought into this whole echo chamber hypothesize. It makes no sense from its outset cause while my experience is anecdotal it seems to be everyone's experience
And to keep up the spirit of the internet:
echoe
I believe you'll find that the correct spelling is "echo" sir. Now feel my righteous indignation washing over you
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pink Horror wrote: It's pretty meaningless if they don't say how they did the categorization of what is and isn't an "echo chamber".
I presume the original study did, as well as laid out how it examined and categorized media outlets, but we're just reading a news article about the study (which are notoriously unreliable in my experience, often dumbing down the study to an unbelievable level, if not outright lying about the conclusions, method, and purpose). We'd have to pull out the actual paper or data set to actually parse out how the researchers did what they did.
It's probably worth noting that there is no link to the study in the article, or even a reference/citation.
sebster wrote: Yep, that's another false idea - that reading multiple sources is an improvement in and of itself. I mean sure, reading more sources is better than just reading one source, but its useless if those sources aren't carefully chosen, and the specific claims made in each source aren't properly considered. Especially when, as you say, a person is selecting a range of sources that all agree with each other.
Another thing to bear in mind is that these multiple sources may all be getting their info from the same place, so really, you've only got one source. Examples of that can be seen in the News and Rumours section of this very forum, where you can often see the same leaks reported multiple times as various forum members pick it up from Spiky Bits, Naftka, etc.
Even if that same person read the same paper online, they would at least be exposed to the comments section, so would have a better chance of exposure to different views.
Uber_Trooper wrote: I think the requirements for an echoe chamber include a bunch of friends who just say things that confirm your beliefs. of all things, the internet is the last place you want to go to.
My thoughts exactly. I've been on the internet for awhile and am pretty sure I've encountered more people calling me an idiot/hipster/douche/donkey-cave/libtard/<insert other things> than I've encountered anyone even saying the words "I agree" so yeah. Never bought into this whole echo chamber hypothesize. It makes no sense from its outset cause while my experience is anecdotal it seems to be everyone's experience
Even if that same person read the same paper online, they would at least be exposed to the comments section, so would have a better chance of exposure to different views.
Have...have you ever seen a comments section?
That's the thing, when 'exposure to different viewpoints' amounts to 'you are wrong and stupid and should go kill yourself' it reinforces the idea that other viewpoints are NOT legitimate. The bunch of guys reading a tabloid are being told one viewpoint is true--the internet doubles down on that by having a bunch of people (indirectly) tell you that other views are not.
Yes, media organisations will sometimes give biased reports. That isn't in dispute. What I am saying is that when people go for that simplistic story of 'media is biased', they drag all media down to a single level, in which merely having an opinion allows the reader to dismiss the story. The effect of this is people reject stories simply because they're telling them something they don't want to hear because 'its biased', rather than trying to work out if its actually true or not.
This in turn opens up the market for media organisations that focus on telling people what they want to hear, even if its dishonest . Ever notice how the media organisations that complain about bias the most are also the crappiest media outfits? There's a reason for that.
So yes, people thinking the issue is simply 'bias' are the problem, because that is the beginning from which all the other problems flow.
You're pretty much saying that if, as customers, people take issue with slanted or biased reporting and seek out alternative sources which they believe can serve them better, they're wrong and they should just suck it up and consume the shoddy journalism because that's what's "good for them" in your opinion. Journalists and news organizations don't have any responsibility for transparency and honest reporting? The onus is not on them as profit-seeking companies to retain their customer base by responding to its needs? They aren't accountable for improving the quality of their product? Nope, it's the consumer's fault for being critical. Outstanding.
This is the era of clickbait "journalism". We're not talking about morally righteous public services with the interests of the people at heart, we're talking about multi-million dollar corporations that have a vested financial interest in current events, as well as financial incentives to be as salacious and sensationalist as possible. We're talking about the business model of viral outrage and tribal signaling. You can take two news organizations from different perspectives, give them the same exact sources and facts to report on, and you're going to get two radically different interpretations of events, neither of which is going to be fully supported by the facts. It isn't even that one of them may lie or omit information where the other doesn't - it's that they both spin the story to suit their own agendas. The only way to get past the messaging to a clear understanding of the facts is to totally disregard the actual language used, separate out the raw information, and check the sources for yourself. Basically, you have to do the job the "journalist" was supposed to be doing in the first place. If one doesn't think critically about where their information is coming from, whether or not the narrative vehicle they receive it through is supported by the very facts it claims to represent, and whether or not there is an attempt to lead them in a certain direction that would benefit the party presenting the information, that makes THEM the dupe. Deflecting all criticism or even critical thought about shoddy reporting by saying that one would simply accept it as true if only they were on the right "side" is a FAR greater enabler of bad journalism than aversion to bias. It's also exactly what someone would say if they were trying to protect their own bias and subjective identification from exposure to information they'd find uncomfortable.
So sebster posits that people treat all media the same by equating all levels of bias with one another and you attempt to rebut his point by treating all media the same by equating all levels of bias with one another. Good job?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So sebster posits that people treat all media the same by equating all levels of bias with one another and you attempt to rebut his point by treating all media the same by equating all levels of bias with one another. Good job?
What? His argument conflates all criticism of bias with a denial of the facts, and very conveniently enshrines his own bias as unassailable.
But you know what, yes, I treat all media the same. I try to give it all the same level of scrutiny. Even if I agree with one viewpoint over the other, I can still see holes in reporting and call subjectivity for what it is. To me, it says a lot that you guys think that's "problematic".
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So sebster posits that people treat all media the same by equating all levels of bias with one another and you attempt to rebut his point by treating all media the same by equating all levels of bias with one another. Good job?
What? His argument conflates all criticism of bias with a denial of the facts, and very conveniently enshrines his own bias as unassailable.
But you know what, yes, I treat all media the same. I try to give it all the same level of scrutiny. Even if I agree with one viewpoint over the other, I can still see holes in reporting and call subjectivity for what it is. To me, it says a lot that you guys think that's "problematic".
I think the impression you've gotten of Seb's position isn't accurate. I'll let him address it directly but it seems to me like you have similar opinions phrased from opposite angles. I can see how someone reading what Seb said without prior knowledge of his stance (from previous posting) would come to the conclusion you did. That's just my impression though.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the impression you've gotten of Seb's position isn't accurate. I'll let him address it directly but it seems to me like you have similar opinions phrased from opposite angles. I can see how someone reading what Seb said without prior knowledge of his stance (from previous posting) would come to the conclusion you did. That's my impression though.
We do disagree on at least one point. He is saying that, due to some unspecified merit, certain news sources should be treated more leniently than others, and that for all intents and purposes, any claim of bias made against those news sources is due to cognitive dissonance as opposed to legitimate criticism.
I am actually being even more cynical. Yes, I am saying that all media is in some way telling you what you want to hear and buttressing you against outside information. Because they clearly have a rational, if short term, interest in doing so. I'm not buying the "some bias is OK, as long as it's my bias" bit. That, to me, is just the same kind of justification against critical thought he is making claims of bias out to be.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the impression you've gotten of Seb's position isn't accurate. I'll let him address it directly but it seems to me like you have similar opinions phrased from opposite angles. I can see how someone reading what Seb said without prior knowledge of his stance (from previous posting) would come to the conclusion you did. That's my impression though.
We do disagree on at least one point. He is saying that, due to some unspecified merit, certain news sources should be treated more leniently than others, and that for all intents and purposes, any claim of bias made against those news sources is due to cognitive dissonance as opposed to legitimate criticism.
The "unspecified merit" is including facts in the story. It's ok for a news article to include bias, it's nearly impossible to not have bias in reporting as journalists are people with opinions too.
I am actually being even more cynical. Yes, I am saying that all media is in some way telling you what you want to hear and buttressing you against outside information. Because they clearly have a rational, if short term, interest in doing so. I'm not buying the "some bias is OK, as long as it's my bias" bit. That, to me, is just the same kind of justification against critical thought he is making claims of bias out to be.
Some bias is ok, as long as the facts are in the story. Generally, NY Times, Wall St Journal and WaPo have bias and all or most of the facts. HuffPo and Fox have spin and some of the facts. Breitbart and InfoWars have propaganda and lies. This chart lays it out all very neatly.
Plus it kinda looks like the NCC-1701-D on there so that's pretty cool
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the impression you've gotten of Seb's position isn't accurate. I'll let him address it directly but it seems to me like you have similar opinions phrased from opposite angles. I can see how someone reading what Seb said without prior knowledge of his stance (from previous posting) would come to the conclusion you did. That's my impression though.
We do disagree on at least one point. He is saying that, due to some unspecified merit, certain news sources should be treated more leniently than others, and that for all intents and purposes, any claim of bias made against those news sources is due to cognitive dissonance as opposed to legitimate criticism.
The "unspecified merit" is including facts in the story. It's ok for a news article to include bias, it's nearly impossible to not have bias in reporting as journalists are people with opinions too.
I am actually being even more cynical. Yes, I am saying that all media is in some way telling you what you want to hear and buttressing you against outside information. Because they clearly have a rational, if short term, interest in doing so. I'm not buying the "some bias is OK, as long as it's my bias" bit. That, to me, is just the same kind of justification against critical thought he is making claims of bias out to be.
Some bias is ok, as long as the facts are in the story. Generally, NY Times, Wall St Journal and WaPo have bias and all or most of the facts. HuffPo and Fox have spin and some of the facts. Breitbart and InfoWars have propaganda and lies. This chart lays it out all very neatly.
Plus it kinda looks like the NCC-1701-D on there so that's pretty cool
NYT, CNN, and Washington Post have minimal bias? HAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm more curious how on earth CNN ended up lower on the "standards" line than MSNBC (and Faux News, but MSNBC is probably more obviously wrong without actually jumping into US politics). Huffpo I can concede, but only on the grounds that Huffpo is really broad, and you'll probably find stuff there that could fit just about anywhere on the chart. Hell why is any TV news media higher than "Basic AF"? I guess their print stuff is better than their TV content but it's still basic as feth XD
I just remember when I first saw it on Dakka and literally no one agreed with the positions and the debate then became about the validity of the chart instead of the topic
djones520 wrote: Slate and Vox "skews liberal". Yeah, that chart is very friendly to the left side of the house.
But Slate is a a great indepth source of news! I was just on Slate...yea ok.
Important Slate topic today: Help! My Future Mother-in-Law Is Calling Me 30 to 50 Times a Day About My Wedding Dress.
Yeah how Slate ended up that high is also beyond me. I could see the left-right axis as loosely valid, if only because there's not really any other "mainstream" than what is placed there, so its either have a massive void in the chart where nothing exists or simply accept reality and say "yeah this is the best 'least bias' we got" but I think the positions of the Top-Bottom axis for some of the sources aren't just wrong their wildly incorrect to the point I question if the person who made it knows what words mean
djones520 wrote: Slate and Vox "skews liberal". Yeah, that chart is very friendly to the left side of the house.
It clearly is. This is why I'm saying it's important to be critical of all media. Give me a news organization and I can show you examples of everything from manipulative wording and article structure to flat out lies in print. That includes NYT and WaPo. The bar for journalistic standards is at this time pathetically low across the board. The whole point of critical thought and analyses is to glean what viable information you can from any source, even if it's only that the source is trying to mislead you. I'm not a flat earther, but how can I debunk it as an idea if I don't even know the content of that idea? On the other side of the coin, sometimes conspiracies are real. How can you think you know what is true if you don't expose yourself to the information in the first place? Granted, the real conspiracies are not the ones being brayed about in dark corners of the internet by those who believe in lizard people, but magical thought is magical thought whether the claims are outrageous or plausible. In fact, the more clout and authority an organization has, the more it should be held to a strict standard. Because a plausible lie that accompanies an appeal to authority is so much easier and more comfortable to believe.
It clearly is. This is why I'm saying it's important to be critical of all media. Give me a news organization and I can show you examples of everything from manipulative wording and article structure to flat out lies in print. That includes NYT and WaPo. The bar for journalistic standards is at this time pathetically low across the board. The whole point of critical thought and analyses is to glean what viable information you can from any source, even if it's only that the source is trying to mislead you. I'm not a flat earther, but how can I debunk it as an idea if I don't even know the content of that idea? On the other side of the coin, sometimes conspiracies are real. How can you think you know what is true if you don't expose yourself to the information in the first place? Granted, the real conspiracies are not the ones being brayed about in dark corners of the internet by those who believe in lizard people, but magical thought is magical thought whether the claims are outrageous or plausible.
Being critical of media is only one side of the coin. Being critical of yourself is the other. You're not going to delve too deep into presented info that aligns with your own views. Trying to catch yourself and take a deeper dive into the reputability of an article's sources is a constant effort.
In fact, the more clout and authority an organization has, the more it should be held to a strict standard. Because a plausible lie that accompanies an appeal to authority is so much easier and more comfortable to believe.
Can't agree more with that. It's annoying when a "reputable" source picks bad info up, then other news media run with it (especially when the story is hot) because the assumption is of course the original source has done their due diligence. A recent example is when the Anti-Defamation League picked up on the Parkland HS shooter's alleged political ties and everybody just trusted the ADL to be correct.
avantgarde wrote: Being critical of media is only one side of the coin. Being critical of yourself is the other. You're not going to delve too deep into presented info that aligns with your own views. Trying to catch yourself and take a deeper dive into the reputability of an article's sources is a constant effort.
I agree, I suppose that's ultimately what I was getting at. Any excuse not to examine your own beliefs is just that, an excuse. Now of course, that's something we're all bad at by our very nature as animals. But it's always something to aspire to.
Some bias is ok, as long as the facts are in the story. Generally, NY Times, Wall St Journal and WaPo have bias and all or most of the facts. HuffPo and Fox have spin and some of the facts. Breitbart and InfoWars have propaganda and lies. This chart lays it out all very neatly.
Plus it kinda looks like the NCC-1701-D on there so that's pretty cool
The diagram had me convinced except for the top part of it. The Guardian, WSJ, and the Economist are the only ones on that list I'd agree belong there. I have a strange relationship with Vox where about 1 out of every 10-20 articles are absolutely incredible, and the rest might as well be cranked out by HuffPo. I also lament CSPAN not being present anywhere. They're one of the most detailed, unbiased, (and boring ) sources of news I've ever read.
I also feel like the Washington Post belongs significantly farther left than it's portrayed as being, but I'm probably nitpicking at this point. I'd have agreed where it is now BEFORE Sith Lord Bezos bought it, but you could see a significant drop in article quality astonishingly quickly after he took over.
Other things strike me as a little weird. I didn't think The Hill was necessarily that right-leaning (or trustworthy), but I've not read them incredibly thoroughly. US Uncut and The Blaize I kind of mentally lump into similar categories because they both tried really hard to spin the so-called Bernie Bros to their respective sides during that big thing that happened in the States a while ago that we're not allowed to talk about. In that sense, I felt like they actually kind of had similar stories with a weird common tertiary bias, but always went back to their own respective corners at the end of the day. One of those things where it was like, "Bernie is cool, but he'll never win. You know who's really evil? It's (Pepsi/Coke). I'm not saying you should vote for (Coke/Pepsi), but at all costs, we gotta prevent (Pepsi/Coke) from ever winning that popularity contest that we can't talk about at Dakkadakka."
I get where it looks like the NCC-1701-D though, and I'm 100% behind that part.
Afterthought disclaimer: I work for one of the corporations listed in the diagram. I'm trying not to have an opinion much beyond what I know having just read some of the other publications listed. And FWIW, I think my employer's position in the diagram is spot on.
I also feel like the Washington Post belongs significantly farther left than it's portrayed as being, but I'm probably nitpicking at this point. I'd have agreed where it is now BEFORE Sith Lord Bezos bought it, but you could see a significant drop in article quality astonishingly quickly after he took over.
Even setting political bias aside, the Washington Post has a financial interest in the CIA via Bezos. That's an organization which has an unknown budget dedicated to the clandestine dissemination of propaganda, to the point where they were found placing 50 assets as journalists and media officials in this country, some of whom are still active and respected journalists. These are the sources that sell us on wars and foreign policy. I'm sure everyone remembers another unmentionable event predicated on the existence of certain phantom objects the media assured us were real. Or tangentially related legislation that basically struck the 4th amendment out of the Constitution, the consequences of which are unimaginably vast but not something you will ever really hear about in mainstream media. You can trace the history of media manipulation in terms of foreign policy back over a hundred years, easily.
Of course, the CIA has publicly claimed that it ceased using its contacts in the domestic media and they really promise they won't ever do anything like that ever again, but it takes a greater leap of the imagination to believe that than the alternative. Especially when they have multi-million dollar contracts with the owner of one of the largest news organizations in the country. The amount of information we're not given about the consequences of our foreign policy is, at the least least, something that should give anyone pause when considering the reliability of our legacy media. The crazy thing to me is that this used to be a pretty leftie position you'd expect to hear from Chomsky types. Now, with no small thanks due to the media itself, it's either just not bought up or dismissed as right-wing apologia.
Just to add one more layer to the puzzle of this discussion - NYT, Washington Post and The Guardian are known in Poland mostly because they notoriously publish VERY biased reprints/guest articles about our internal affairs written by journalists from titles which in polish equivalent of this chart would be to the lower left from HuffPost (which are then in turn reprinted in those very polish titles as "world press reactions"). So just be aware, that while you may have accurate view about "left-right" skew on local politics that does not automatically mean, that your knowledge about global issues is at the same level. For those who are sceptical about this just read into current Polish-Israeli issue in those tites (this is pretty much the most riduculous pre-elections "media stunt" I saw in decades).
And to add a word on "be critical of all media" - my wife works in media analysis here in Poland, her bread and butter is to know ALL the angles, ALL the time (they follow and analyse thousands of sources, her typical report is based on four-five digit numbers of published entries on any given subject) and there is NO SINGLE title which might be called "universally unbiased". "Arsenal" of manipulation techniques used even in titles belonging "somewhere in the middle" of such charts is still huge and widely used and usually even more dangerous than straightforward "warning light" propaganda. Her day-to-day work is very often about tracing of cumulative disinformation that arises on a path from source (be it press agency news snippet or particular twitter or anything else)... Conclusion from her line of work is pretty singular - if you want to be really unbiased and well informed you pretty much have to be in her line of work and have acces to similiar mass data analysis tools as her line of work provides.
Luciferian wrote: You're pretty much saying that if, as customers, people take issue with slanted or biased reporting and seek out alternative sources which they believe can serve them better, they're wrong and they should just suck it up and consume the shoddy journalism because that's what's "good for them" in your opinion. Journalists and news organizations don't have any responsibility for transparency and honest reporting? The onus is not on them as profit-seeking companies to retain their customer base by responding to its needs? They aren't accountable for improving the quality of their product? Nope, it's the consumer's fault for being critical. Outstanding.
I'm not saying that. Your interpretation of my post is utter junk.
What I am saying is that consumers are at fault, because the way in which they critique journalism is bad. Very few will critique articles on their accuracy and completeness. Far more critique articles on whether they support the reader's pre-existing bias. When an article doesn't share the reader's bias, the reader will complain the article is biased. This is both ironic, and the cause of much of the problem with journalism.
This is the era of clickbait "journalism". We're not talking about morally righteous public services with the interests of the people at heart, we're talking about multi-million dollar corporations that have a vested financial interest in current events, as well as financial incentives to be as salacious and sensationalist as possible. We're talking about the business model of viral outrage and tribal signaling. You can take two news organizations from different perspectives, give them the same exact sources and facts to report on, and you're going to get two radically different interpretations of events, neither of which is going to be fully supported by the facts.
I tried to avoid this part of your argument earlier, to stay focused on the actual discussion, but it's becoming obvious your understanding of modern journalism is the big stumbling block. The idea that all of a sudden today we've got an emphasis on sensationalism is wildly ignorant. There's always been sensationalism, and there always will. Because, as you said yourself, media companies are profit-seeking companies who seek to retain their customer base by responding to its needs. Which means the media sensationalizes, it always and it always will.
That isn't great, and it'd be nice if more consumers were aware of this and reacted against it, but in itself it isn't a disastrous situation, as long as that sensationalism is at some level still held to some level of objective fact, even after the event.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So sebster posits that people treat all media the same by equating all levels of bias with one another and you attempt to rebut his point by treating all media the same by equating all levels of bias with one another. Good job?
Man, I used so many words to write an answer, and then in a single sentence you said it perfectly. Nicely done
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luciferian wrote: What? His argument conflates all criticism of bias with a denial of the facts, and very conveniently enshrines his own bias as unassailable.
No, that is not my criticism. Here are the actual words I used to describe the problem;
"The effect of this is people reject stories simply because they're telling them something they don't want to hear because 'its biased', rather than trying to work out if its actually true or not."
Stop ignoring the words I am writing so you can instead complain about a fantasy version of my point. It is wasting everyone's time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luciferian wrote: We do disagree on at least one point. He is saying that, due to some unspecified merit, certain news sources should be treated more leniently than others, and that for all intents and purposes, any claim of bias made against those news sources is due to cognitive dissonance as opposed to legitimate criticism.
I'm not saying that. I am saying that every piece of writing is biased, and it's silly to pretend otherwise and reject something just because it is biased. What should cause people to reject a piece of writing are factual errors and omissions of important information.
I'm not saying that. Your interpretation of my post is utter junk.
What I am saying is that consumers are at fault, because the way in which they critique journalism is bad. Very few will critique articles on their accuracy and completeness. Far more critique articles on whether they support the reader's pre-existing bias. When an article doesn't share the reader's bias, the reader will complain the article is biased. This is both ironic, and the cause of much of the problem with journalism.
Right, it's the consumer's fault that journalism is bad, not the journalist's, and for all intents and purposes criticism of bias is illegitimate. We already got that. Speaking of shoddy reporting, do you have any kind of source for that claim, by the way?
I tried to avoid this part of your argument earlier, to stay focused on the actual discussion, but it's becoming obvious your understanding of modern journalism is the big stumbling block. The idea that all of a sudden today we've got an emphasis on sensationalism is wildly ignorant. There's always been sensationalism, and there always will. Because, as you said yourself, media companies are profit-seeking companies who seek to retain their customer base by responding to its needs. Which means the media sensationalizes, it always and it always will.
So I'm right, but I'm wildly ignorant? You have any other cute asides you want to throw at me? Before you were saying that treating all media the same is this huge cognitive faux-pas that is ruining journalism, but now you're trying to claim that journalism in the age of the internet is exactly the same as it was in the day of the printing press? You don't think that there are perhaps some different market pressures which incentivize different behaviors? Nah, you're right, I'm the one whose understanding of modern journalism is a big stumbling block.
I like how you singled out two sentences from everything I've said, and responded to each with an insult followed by an unsupported generalization. You'd make a great journalist!
Frazzled wrote: NYT, CNN, and Washington Post have minimal bias? HAHAHAHAHAHA
You should note that graphic has been around for possibly 7 or 8 years now, since Breitbart etc. started to be noticed as filling a space even further to right of FOX News. So it's definitions are a little out of date. And yeah, recently WaPo has shifted leftward, really to take a position in opposition to Trump and the media orgs that overtly support him.
However, your complaints about the other two news organisations are hollow, and only show your own bias (and how your bias feeds your understanding of media orgs, reinforcing your bias, exactly as I said to you earlier in this thread).
CNN isn't biased because it doesn't have a viewpoint, because it doesn't have any real interest in news at all. In order to give someone a biased version of events, you would have to actually be telling someone something at all.
The NYT is so intent on both sides it bends over backwards to sacrifice actual news just to appeal to every market segment. During the 2016 election the paper directed 20 journalists to investigate Trump's background, and how many to investigate Clinton? 20. Because balance. It didn't matter who had more scandals or bigger scandals, its decision was entirely based on neutrality. Right now it has opinion writers like the climate change denier Bret Stephens and Erik Prince, the Blackwater guy who's tied to Trump in all the money under the table kind of ways. It gives these kinds of people op ed space simply because it wants 'balance'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I'm more curious how on earth CNN ended up lower on the "standards" line than MSNBC
Because CNN is a mindnumbing exercise in politics treated as sport, that will leave the audience far dumber just for hearing it. Not because 'bias', but because getting a half dozen pundits to 'debate' an issue just by going to each in turn and having them spew a packaged line is an utter waste of time. It's also a waste of talent, because there's a few people on CNN who don't suck, and could do good work if they were at a news organisation that worried just a little about reporting actual news.
I'm not saying that. Your interpretation of my post is utter junk.
What I am saying is that consumers are at fault, because the way in which they critique journalism is bad. Very few will critique articles on their accuracy and completeness. Far more critique articles on whether they support the reader's pre-existing bias. When an article doesn't share the reader's bias, the reader will complain the article is biased. This is both ironic, and the cause of much of the problem with journalism.
Right, it's the consumer's fault that journalism is bad, not the journalist's, and for all intents and purposes criticism of bias is illegitimate. We already got that. Speaking of shoddy reporting, do you have any kind of source for that claim, by the way?
If he did, would you accept it at face value?
His premise is pretty sound to me, even if he's being blunt about it. Ultimately, consumers control what forms of media is presented to them. This is a symbiotic relationship with your clickbait headlines that sell sell sell: The outlets live or die by what the consumers consume, so they set their crap to focus on the emotional reaction, rather than the rational one. Witness your garbage article that shows you what an idiot "the other guy" is, or establishes what a "smart-guy" you are. It's a case of the outlets building a better skinner box, and the consumers just keep doubletapping that Pavlovian response as hard as they can. What the feth do you expect at that point?
Were articles evaluated upon the merit of their completeness and depth, that effect wouldn't be immediately present, but absolutely almost no one* processes news that way.
* I actually know one guy who does handle news this way. He's literally probably the smartest person I have ever met, but he's utterly dysfunctional in real life. Really nice guy too, all things considered. I don't like to bandy the autism label around, but I think he's actually on the spectrum somewhere.
LordofHats wrote: Yeah how Slate ended up that high is also beyond me. I could see the left-right axis as loosely valid, if only because there's not really any other "mainstream" than what is placed there, so its either have a massive void in the chart where nothing exists or simply accept reality and say "yeah this is the best 'least bias' we got" but I think the positions of the Top-Bottom axis for some of the sources aren't just wrong their wildly incorrect to the point I question if the person who made it knows what words mean
Slate spams a lot of junk stories. But it also does a lot of long form investigative journalism. I guess in making these subjective assessments whoever made this chart made the decision to judge just the serious reporting, and not worry if the media site has a lot of crap stories made for circulation. Funnily enough by that standard Buzzfeed should be on there and ranked quite well, as in amidst the 'which Hogwart's character are you?' junk they also have a pretty decent investigative journalism team.
I have more of a problem with Slate as just slightly to the left, because from my reading of their site I think the most neutral pieces I've read have been centre left, with most to the left of that, and some being close to left wing advocacy. They certainly shouldn't be in the same space as The Atlantic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: I also feel like the Washington Post belongs significantly farther left than it's portrayed as being, but I'm probably nitpicking at this point. I'd have agreed where it is now BEFORE Sith Lord Bezos bought it, but you could see a significant drop in article quality astonishingly quickly after he took over.
Honestly, this is something people talk about a lot, and I really think it is people creating a narrative to suit their assumptions. WaPo before and after Bezos is the same. You can tell this because Bezos made literally not one change to the senior editorial staff of the paper. The guy is completely hands off on the running of the paper.
But I think there's been a natural tendency to fantasize about what the Washington Post used to be, before it was bought by one stupidly rich man. Except, you know, before Bezos it was privately owned by the Graham family, who were also stupidly rich. And while the paper has always done good work, it's never been perfect, because its a major paper, employing thousands of writers with daily printing deadlines.
The only change we've seen has come more recently, and that's in the WaPo taking up a position in pretty stark opposition to the Trump presidency. And that's probably more opportunism than anything - there's a lot of good stories to write about the way this president is going about things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Other things strike me as a little weird. I didn't think The Hill was necessarily that right-leaning (or trustworthy), but I've not read them incredibly thoroughly.
The Hill is a weird one, because its pieces are typically very short, and focused on breaking news so there's little room for bias in the report's themselves. But focusing on Washtington politics, most of their story selections come through leaks and government screw ups. So if this diagram was first made during the Obama presidency (which I think we all believe is the case?), I can see The Hill being designated right leaning, as it would have been more negative stories on Obama's presidency than on anything else. But now Trump's in the Whitehouse their stories are largely about Trump, so technically The Hill should shift to the left.
Luciferian wrote: Right, it's the consumer's fault that journalism is bad, not the journalist's, and for all intents and purposes criticism of bias is illegitimate. We already got that.
Look, its very simple. If consumers purchased hamburgers based entirely on the size of the burger with no regards for its taste, or other factors like it not being 50% sawdust, then when someone noticed that almost all hamburgers in the city were enormous, but tasted awful and were mostly made of sawdust, then it would be pretty obvious that the reason the burgers are like that is because that's what customers are demanding.
This is no different.
Speaking of shoddy reporting, do you have any kind of source for that claim, by the way?
Wha? You claim, unsourced, that journalism had suddenly got worse because clickbait. I respond that its never been that good. I need a source, but you didn't. Bleh.
So I'm right, but I'm wildly ignorant?
Mostly the latter.
You have any other cute asides you want to throw at me?
After that last one, no I think I'm done.
Before you were saying that treating all media the same is this huge cognitive faux-pas that is ruining journalism, but now you're trying to claim that journalism in the age of the internet is exactly the same as it was in the day of the printing press?
No, I'm explaining to you that its more similar than it is different. It isn't exactly the same, but the differences are not as extreme as you understand, nor are they exactly as you understand them. Really, the biggest shift has been from single city, centrist papers to global papers with distinct voices. A reader in LA would once have read the LA Times, now a guy in St Louis might be reading LA Times, while the guy in LA has shifted to WaPo or Breitbart, or maybe even The Daily Mail or The Guardian. That makes it a different news environment, but to claim that now suddenly it is a clickbait environment for the first time ever was a terrible take from you.
As to my statement that treating all media the same is a mistake, its just true. Some media orgs have higher journalistic standards than others. It is a basic reality that orgs like Act Blue or Breitbart have strong political slants to their pieces, and regularly include dubious or just plain false factual statements. In contrast sites like WaPo or the WSJ may still have viewpoints (or bias, if you will), but their stories have reliable factual statements, and generally include most pertinent factors (though WSJ less so since Murdoch bought it). No site should be treated as holy writ, but they shouldn't also be treated identically.
daedalus wrote: I also feel like the Washington Post belongs significantly farther left than it's portrayed as being, but I'm probably nitpicking at this point. I'd have agreed where it is now BEFORE Sith Lord Bezos bought it, but you could see a significant drop in article quality astonishingly quickly after he took over.
Honestly, this is something people talk about a lot, and I really think it is people creating a narrative to suit their assumptions. WaPo before and after Bezos is the same. You can tell this because Bezos made literally not one change to the senior editorial staff of the paper. The guy is completely hands off on the running of the paper.
But I think there's been a natural tendency to fantasize about what the Washington Post used to be, before it was bought by one stupidly rich man. Except, you know, before Bezos it was privately owned by the Graham family, who were also stupidly rich. And while the paper has always done good work, it's never been perfect, because its a major paper, employing thousands of writers with daily printing deadlines.
The only change we've seen has come more recently, and that's in the WaPo taking up a position in pretty stark opposition to the Trump presidency. And that's probably more opportunism than anything - there's a lot of good stories to write about the way this president is going about things.
My only defence is that I think I was the last one to the party to notice that Wapo got bought out, but I could probably go back and find the article when I noticed the shift. Of course, something something cognitive bias and all that. So in this case I'll shrug and accept that you're right on it, even though first instinct tells me something is wrong there. Maybe I'll go back and try to read it objectively tomorrow and see if it doesn't seem more reasonable than I recall. Could be, post-that US based thing we don't talk about? No clue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Other things strike me as a little weird. I didn't think The Hill was necessarily that right-leaning (or trustworthy), but I've not read them incredibly thoroughly.
The Hill is a weird one, because its pieces are typically very short, and focused on breaking news so there's little room for bias in the report's themselves. But focusing on Washtington politics, most of their story selections come through leaks and government screw ups. So if this diagram was first made during the Obama presidency (which I think we all believe is the case?), I can see The Hill being designated right leaning, as it would have been more negative stories on Obama's presidency than on anything else. But now Trump's in the Whitehouse their stories are largely about Trump, so technically The Hill should shift to the left.
They were interesting, because I felt like a lot of their stuff was in that category that I'd put US Uncut and The Blaze in that it seemed to cater to the Bernie Bros, but the difference was (and in this I agree) that it seems like it was mostly oriented around making the current administration look bad, almost with the intent of whomever that might happen to be at the time. Is it still? I stopped reading news outside of what I have to for work because it was noticeably negatively affecting my mental health. That last sentence is meant in a more serious tone than most people usually expect.
Luciferian wrote: Right, it's the consumer's fault that journalism is bad, not the journalist's, and for all intents and purposes criticism of bias is illegitimate. We already got that.
Look, its very simple. If consumers purchased hamburgers based entirely on the size of the burger with no regards for its taste, or other factors like it not being 50% sawdust, then when someone noticed that almost all hamburgers in the city were enormous, but tasted awful and were mostly made of sawdust, then it would be pretty obvious that the reason the burgers are like that is because that's what customers are demanding.
This is no different.
We have that. We call it the Whopper. You can get one at any Burger King and I understand that they have a 2 for $6 deal going on.
His premise is pretty sound to me, even if he's being blunt about it. Ultimately, consumers control what forms of media is presented to them. This is a symbiotic relationship with your clickbait headlines that sell sell sell: The outlets live or die by what the consumers consume, so they set their crap to focus on the emotional reaction, rather than the rational one. Witness your garbage article that shows you what an idiot "the other guy" is, or establishes what a "smart-guy" you are. It's a case of the outlets building a better skinner box, and the consumers just keep doubletapping that Pavlovian response as hard as they can. What the feth do you expect at that point?
Were articles evaluated upon the merit of their completeness and depth, that effect wouldn't be immediately present, but absolutely almost no one* processes news that way.
* I actually know one guy who does handle news this way. He's literally probably the smartest person I have ever met, but he's utterly dysfunctional in real life. Really nice guy too, all things considered. I don't like to bandy the autism label around, but I think he's actually on the spectrum somewhere.
Would I accept it at face value? Probably not, because that's not the kind of person I am. If his source were an article, I would try to find the bias in the article. Which wouldn't be very hard considering that a journalist working for a major news organization has a pretty big interest in defending their appearance. If the source were a study, I would look into its methodology and where it had been published. I try not to accept anything at face value, and part of applying critical thought to the analyses of media is, unquestionably, accounting for bias. Saying that bias doesn't matter at all and that being critical of it is a waste of time or simply a defense mechanism basically precludes critical analysis of media. Note that I'm not saying that one should stop at the detection of bias and use it as an excuse to disregard any possibly truthful information they didn't want to contend with.
I totally agree about the state of our 24 hour news cycle, and that's part of my point. You can go through a news cycle where every major outlet is reporting on the exact same story, citing the exact same sources, yet drawing drastically different conclusions in order to affirm the tendencies of their audiences toward self-identification. They can all be reporting on the same facts. Often, the only relevant difference between one news organization and the next on any given story is their bias. Take Breitbart for example. They don't even really do their own journalism, they just aggregate content and spin it in their own light. From what I've seen, a vast majority of their content comes directly from legacy media organizations. In that case, they're reporting on exactly the same information, but they're seen as less reliable. Why? Their bias. Their spin. You know that they are pushing a subjective interpretation of events, even if their content contains exactly the same objective information. This hypothetical situation where only some news organizations publish falsehoods and misleading content, and the vaunted few are biased but must be accepted because they're the only ones who publish facts, just doesn't exist.
My other problem with what he is saying, is that it's just too convenient as a defense of bias and poor journalistic standards from the right places. Legacy media organizations are feeling the pain right now. People are canceling their subscriptions to papers and cable outlets. Even established blogs and digital media sites are having issues. Just like the internet came for music, retail, film and TV, it is coming for the legacy media. Any random schmuck on YouTube can do exactly the same thing as your average journalist, more efficiently, for little to no money, and possibly reach an even greater audience. People are distrusting the news because they know for a fact it is biased, and they are finding alternatives. The result is a click bait weapons race as legacy media tries desperately to retain its audience share by any means necessary. Of course they are going to push the narrative that their bias is OK, because #pizzagate. But that's an extremely reductive double standard that really isn't based on much except a plea to respect their authority as "experts" with now useless degrees hanging in their offices. So we have a chicken and an egg here. Is it the consumers fault that they receive bad reporting because they are rejecting the main stream media? Or is it the main stream media's fault for doing a bad job and being reduced to competing with trolls and bloggers?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: . In contrast sites like WaPo or the WSJ may still have viewpoints (or bias, if you will), but their stories have reliable factual statements, and generally include most pertinent factors (though WSJ less so since Murdoch bought it). No site should be treated as holy writ, but they shouldn't also be treated identically.
Thing is, that's demonstrably false. WaPo publishes false information quite often, whether it's intentional or not. Both WaPo and the NYT regularly publish stories with no verifiable sources whatsoever. And when they do it, everyone else picks it up and runs with it. Most of the other outlets are simply reporting on what they say and adding their own spin to it.
daedalus wrote: My only defence is that I think I was the last one to the party to notice that Wapo got bought out, but I could probably go back and find the article when I noticed the shift. Of course, something something cognitive bias and all that. So in this case I'll shrug and accept that you're right on it, even though first instinct tells me something is wrong there. Maybe I'll go back and try to read it objectively tomorrow and see if it doesn't seem more reasonable than I recall. Could be, post-that US based thing we don't talk about? No clue.
Cool. And I don't mean to claim authority on this. WaPo is not something I read all the time. In fact I don't even hit the paywall limit that often. But from my observation before the Bezos buy out is the paper was okay, and afterwards its been okay.
Honestly I think Bezos political motivations in buying the paper have been well overstated. Bezos leans left, but he's not a huge activist, the guy's primary motivation is expanding Amazon. And one of Bezos primary methods of expansion is buying operations that he can leverage with Amazon's existing assets - Kindle and WaPo have a lot of synchronicity.
Uurgh, Bezos. He made me say 'synchronicity'.
They were interesting, because I felt like a lot of their stuff was in that category that I'd put US Uncut and The Blaze in that it seemed to cater to the Bernie Bros, but the difference was (and in this I agree) that it seems like it was mostly oriented around making the current administration look bad, almost with the intent of whomever that might happen to be at the time. Is it still? I stopped reading news outside of what I have to for work because it was noticeably negatively affecting my mental health. That last sentence is meant in a more serious tone than most people usually expect.
I have no idea what US Uncut is. Never even heard of it. The Blaze is Glenn Beck's outfit, they're certianly on the far right, but unreliable doesn't really explain The Blaze. I mean, the Daily Caller is far right and unreliable, so it gets put next to The Blaze. But they're very different, because The Blaze isn't so much unreliable as just plain fething nuts. There needs to almost be a third axis, for batshittiness.
We have that. We call it the Whopper. You can get one at any Burger King and I understand that they have a 2 for $6 deal going on.
We have Whoppers as well. We don't have Burger King, instead we have these places called Hungry Jacks, and they have basically everything a Burger King has. Hungry Jacks have deal with Burger King to pay a fee, but they don't use the Burger King name. Its weird.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luciferian wrote: Thing is, that's demonstrably false. WaPo publishes false information quite often, whether it's intentional or not. Both WaPo and the NYT regularly publish stories with no verifiable sources whatsoever. And when they do it, everyone else picks it up and runs with it. Most of the other outlets are simply reporting on what they say and adding their own spin to it.
Oh for feth's sake. Yes, WaPo will make mistakes. Every paper has a retractions section, and I've never seen it blank. Thousands of employees working to daily deadlines mean mistakes happen. But there remains a difference between media orgs making mistakes, because they are not perfect institutions, and media orgs making false statements because they are more interested in selling a conclusion than in getting the facts straight.
Your claim that articles are posted with no verifiable sources is just silly. Journalism uses hidden sources. This has always been a major part of journalism, and complaining about is goofy. Deepthroat was 'not a verifiable source'. This does mean, potentially, a journalist could make up a source and claim they're anonymous, and that's where the paper's editorial standards come in to play, and where the reader should apply judgement.
Oh for feth's sake. Yes, WaPo will make mistakes. Every paper has a retractions section, and I've never seen it blank. Thousands of employees working to daily deadlines mean mistakes happen. But there remains a difference between media orgs making mistakes, because they are not perfect institutions, and media orgs making false statements because they are more interested in selling a conclusion than in getting the facts straight.
WMD's were not a "mistake". The fantastical hacking of the power grid was not a "mistake". ProporNot was not a "mistake". They were, at best, catastrophic failures of the editorial process. Using figurative language that is meant precisely to halt a critical analysis of a news item and engender bias in the reader is not a mistake. Leading with a paragraph that is intentionally constructed to direct the reader toward a desired conclusion, only to reveal at the bottom of the article that that conclusion is totally unsupported by the facts, is not a mistake. It is a cynical attempt to divert away from facts even as they are presented.
Your claim that articles are posted with no verifiable sources is just silly. Journalism uses hidden sources. This has always been a major part of journalism, and complaining about is goofy. Deepthroat was 'not a verifiable source'. This does mean, potentially, a journalist could make up a source and claim they're anonymous, and that's where the paper's editorial standards come in to play, and where the reader should apply judgement.
Apply judgment, like questioning the potential bias of the piece?
Galas wrote: I know so many people that takes Info-Wars as some kind of truth bible. They are so intelligent, and the rest of us are so blind.
But at the same time they are 4chaners (Or the hispanic world's equivalent of 4chan, Forocoches) so... yeah.
I don't personally know anyone who takes Info-Wars seriously. I thought the consensus was that it's, at the very least, tongue in cheek infotainment.
The thing is, even Alex Jones' reporting is largely based on facts. They are just then wildly extrapolated and sensationalized to the nth degree. If you check the sources behind an Info-Wars report, chances are the story is there, but it's just much more mundane and innocuous than they're making it out to be. Unfortunately, even the most reputable news sources are doing the same thing that Alex Jones is, just to a less conspicuous degree. If your claim to legitimacy is that you're less sensational than Alex Jones, you've got problems.
Luciferian wrote: WMD's were not a "mistake". The fantastical hacking of the power grid was not a "mistake". ProporNot was not a "mistake"
Unless you want to claim that WaPo published those stories knowing they were false, but suited some financial or political interest, then yes, they were mistakes. I believe each instance listed had a subsequent retraction or clarification.
They were, at best, catastrophic failures of the editorial process.
That would be a more dramatic way of saying 'mistake'.
Apply judgment, like questioning the potential bias of the piece?
No. For feth's sake, we've been over this. You review the facts and completeness of the story. So, for instance, if NYT's Maggie Haberman ran a story with a Trump inside staffer leaking something critical of the Trump administration, if a person just thought 'oh NYT is left wing and its attacking Trump therefore bias therefore ignore the story'... that person would be an idiot.
Good and sensible judgement would be to note that Haberman has a weird but highly productive relationship with the Trump administration that's given her a lot of leaked info, and then conclude this leak is genuine. But then it would also be important to note that most of the leaks Haberman has gotten are the result of infighting within the Trump campaign, often but not always trying to advance the Jared/Ivanka position, and concluding this leak is part of a political strategy and therefore while the leak is genuine and the story presented is factual, it is probably also a highly political take on the issue and not the complete story.
Get the difference? Ready to move on now?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luciferian wrote: I don't personally know anyone who takes Info-Wars seriously. I thought the consensus was that it's, at the very least, tongue in cheek infotainment.
No, it isn't.
The thing is, even Alex Jones' reporting is largely based on facts.
No, it isn't.
Unfortunately, even the most reputable news sources are doing the same thing that Alex Jones is, just to a less conspicuous degree. If your claim to legitimacy is that you're less sensational than Alex Jones, you've got problems.
No, and this is the exact brain mush nonsense that results from thinking the only problem is 'bias'. Newspapers that have made some mistakes and retracted them are not the same thing as liars selling paranoid conspiracy fantasies.
One other detail to keep in mind about that above chart, other than NPR, all of them are owned and run by four conclomorates. Some of them on seemingly polar ends of the political spectrum.
Luciferian wrote: The thing is, even Alex Jones' reporting is largely based on facts.
I find it interesting that just a page ago I had real respect for your position, which has continually been eroded down to nil. I quote this line in particular because I can't take someone seriously if they believe this. There isn't even a place to start on how false that statement is. I also see double irony in extolling the virtue of criticizing bias while showing a lack of such for your own, and also entirely proving Seb's point of how that leads to ridiculous viewpoints.
No, and this is the exact brain mush nonsense that results from thinking the only problem is 'bias'. Newspapers that have made some mistakes and retracted them are not the same thing as liars selling paranoid conspiracy fantasies.
Yes, they really are. They are businesses which have a vested interest in publishing sensational, misleading, and even conspiratorial accounts. Which they demonstrably have done. Their reporting is less sensational by a matter of degrees, but sometimes not even that. I mean honestly, much of what they report is really no less conspiratorial or misleading. They are just more sophisticated about it, where Alex Jones is crude and over the top.
They are both pushing a subjective interpretation of events that, while ultimately based on facts, is carefully constructed to affirm their narrative.
They both use sensational and subjective language and manipulative formatting to bring attention to facts that affirm their narrative and bury facts that don't.
They both will make salacious claims and then quietly walk them back when they are forced to.
The only way to get to the truth of what either of them are saying is to totally disregard anything they say or print which can not be independently verified and look for yourself at the raw data behind their reporting.
Luciferian wrote: The thing is, even Alex Jones' reporting is largely based on facts.
I find it interesting that just a page ago I had real respect for your position, which has continually been eroded down to nil. I quote this line in particular because I can't take someone seriously if they believe this. There isn't even a place to start on how false that statement is. I also see double irony in extolling the virtue of criticizing bias while showing a lack of such for your own, and also entirely proving Seb's point of how that leads to ridiculous viewpoints.
Don't get me wrong. I'm saying that somewhere under there is a reasonable interpretation of facts, which has been blown out of proportion and twisted beyond recognition. I am pretty sure that Alex Jones knows he is full of gak. He's an act. As such, he is careful to never stray too far from something he can point at and say that he was just reporting on the facts as he saw them. If you don't believe me, check for yourself. That is how he gets away with doing what he does. Otherwise he would have been shut down or sued out of existence already.
Are the global elite satanic pedophiles?! Well, some of them are peripherally interested in the occult or questionable art.
Were the Parkland victims coached actors?! Well, one of them said that CNN asked them to read a prepared question on TV.
The facts are there, they just don't support the conclusions he's drawing. He's using manipulative framing to make it seem like they do.
Compare that to:
Person x shared classified information with the Russians! Well, intelligence officials were there and it was a routine briefing.
What I am saying is that they are both dangerous. In my opinion, the mainstream media has the potential to be far, far more dangerous than Alex Jones. Jones might cause a lone nut to walk into a pizza shop with a gun, but the media can lead us into wars.
Luciferian wrote: Yes, they really are. They are businesses which have a vested interest in publishing sensational, misleading, and even conspiratorial accounts. Which they demonstrably have done. Their reporting is less sensational by a matter of degrees, but sometimes not even that. I mean honestly, much of what they report is really no less conspiratorial or misleading. They are just more sophisticated about it, where Alex Jones is crude and over the top.
They are both pushing a subjective interpretation of events that, while ultimately based on facts, is carefully constructed to affirm their narrative.
Thankyou for proving my original point. I wanted to say that following a simple notion of 'everything is biased' actually makes it harder for people to assess media sources in a constructive, informative way. Funny thing is, it is actually a difficult position to argue as much of the position is counter-intuitive, but this time its been easy because you turned up trying to argue that WaPo and InfoWars are the same.
And I didn't even have to drag it out of you. You just upped and volunteered it yourself. Thanks.
Don't get me wrong. I'm saying that somewhere under there is a reasonable interpretation of facts, which has been blown out of proportion and twisted beyond recognition.
Alex Jones claims Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. He's claimed Obama and Clinton smelled of sulphur, that they are actual, literal devils. He thinks the government has weather weapons its used to create natural disasters. He believed in Pizzagate.
There are no facts for these claims that are being blown out of proportion. It is pure fantasy bs, sold to people who want to believe fantasy bs. It is not just the same as other media. It is absurd nonsense.
Thankyou for proving my original point. I wanted to say that following a simple notion of 'everything is biased' actually makes it harder for people to assess media sources in a constructive, informative way. Funny thing is, it is actually a difficult position to argue as much of the position is counter-intuitive, but this time its been easy because you turned up trying to argue that WaPo and InfoWars are the same.
It's not just counter-intuitive, it's self-contradictory. It's a paradox. You can not critically asses media sources without addressing their bias. OK, Info-Wars and WaPo are not literally the same thing, but they both employ many of the same tactics to disseminate a distorted view of reality. The reason I pivoted to Alex Jones is because of your claim that not all media should be subject to the same level of scrutiny, because there are some that report on facts, even if they do so in a biased manner. My point is that even Alex Jones' reporting has factual elements, so that isn't in itself a proper threshold for reliability. My point is that it is precisely that attitude which allows people to believe in wild claims, because they have been presented with actual facts which seem to support those claims when taken in a certain context.
Don't get me wrong. I'm saying that somewhere under there is a reasonable interpretation of facts, which has been blown out of proportion and twisted beyond recognition.
Alex Jones claims Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. He's claimed Obama and Clinton smelled of sulphur, that they are actual, literal devils. He thinks the government has weather weapons its used to create natural disasters. He believed in Pizzagate.
There are no facts for these claims that are being blown out of proportion. It is pure fantasy bs, sold to people who want to believe fantasy bs. It is not just the same as other media. It is absurd nonsense.
Alex Jones said that the Uniform Crime Reports showed no murders in Newtown in 2012. That is a fact. It's also a fact that since state police handled the investigation instead of municipal police, the murders were counted under the state-wide numbers instead of the city numbers. This is exactly what I'm getting at. Alex Jones presented a fact, whether you like it or not, about the Sandy Hook shooting. It just so happens that this fact was presented in a way which was misleading. Context matters. Language matters. Even facts can be misleading if you don't examine the context they're presented in and the motivations behind that particular presentation. A fact used in a manipulative way is often more dangerous than a flat out lie, because it lends legitimacy and authority. Alex Jones is a perfect example of that.
Luciferian wrote: The thing is, even Alex Jones' reporting is largely based on facts.
I find it interesting that just a page ago I had real respect for your position, which has continually been eroded down to nil. I quote this line in particular because I can't take someone seriously if they believe this. There isn't even a place to start on how false that statement is. I also see double irony in extolling the virtue of criticizing bias while showing a lack of such for your own, and also entirely proving Seb's point of how that leads to ridiculous viewpoints.
What he saying is that they take a real story and twist it into cray cray land.
For instance, jet engines burn jet fuel, which is glorified kerosene. This is twisted into Alien Democrats are poisoning our brains!
No, and this is the exact brain mush nonsense that results from thinking the only problem is 'bias'. Newspapers that have made some mistakes and retracted them are not the same thing as liars selling paranoid conspiracy fantasies.
Yes, they really are. They are businesses which have a vested interest in publishing sensational, misleading, and even conspiratorial accounts. Which they demonstrably have done. Their reporting is less sensational by a matter of degrees, but sometimes not even that. I mean honestly, much of what they report is really no less conspiratorial or misleading. They are just more sophisticated about it, where Alex Jones is crude and over the top.
They are both pushing a subjective interpretation of events that, while ultimately based on facts, is carefully constructed to affirm their narrative.
They both use sensational and subjective language and manipulative formatting to bring attention to facts that affirm their narrative and bury facts that don't.
They both will make salacious claims and then quietly walk them back when they are forced to.
The only way to get to the truth of what either of them are saying is to totally disregard anything they say or print which can not be independently verified and look for yourself at the raw data behind their reporting.
Luciferian wrote: The thing is, even Alex Jones' reporting is largely based on facts.
I find it interesting that just a page ago I had real respect for your position, which has continually been eroded down to nil. I quote this line in particular because I can't take someone seriously if they believe this. There isn't even a place to start on how false that statement is. I also see double irony in extolling the virtue of criticizing bias while showing a lack of such for your own, and also entirely proving Seb's point of how that leads to ridiculous viewpoints.
Don't get me wrong. I'm saying that somewhere under there is a reasonable interpretation of facts, which has been blown out of proportion and twisted beyond recognition. I am pretty sure that Alex Jones knows he is full of gak. He's an act. As such, he is careful to never stray too far from something he can point at and say that he was just reporting on the facts as he saw them. If you don't believe me, check for yourself. That is how he gets away with doing what he does. Otherwise he would have been shut down or sued out of existence already.
Are the global elite satanic pedophiles?! Well, some of them are peripherally interested in the occult or questionable art.
Were the Parkland victims coached actors?! Well, one of them said that CNN asked them to read a prepared question on TV.
The facts are there, they just don't support the conclusions he's drawing. He's using manipulative framing to make it seem like they do.
Compare that to:
Person x shared classified information with the Russians! Well, intelligence officials were there and it was a routine briefing.
What I am saying is that they are both dangerous. In my opinion, the mainstream media has the potential to be far, far more dangerous than Alex Jones. Jones might cause a lone nut to walk into a pizza shop with a gun, but the media can lead us into wars.
Wapo has a financial interest in only publishing issues that support it's target audience or get them riled up - educated coasts elites. Their demographics are not middle class, or working class.
The level of false equivalency trying to be sold here is crazy. It's literally the exact problem being discussed, demonstrated real time.
And to make it extra clear:
Are the global elite satanic pedophiles?! Well, some of them are peripherally interested in the occult or questionable art.
This is made up. Some humans are interested in the occult or questionable art. Nothing about that makes the idea of the global elite being satanic pedophiles anything more than a complete fabrication.
Were the Parkland victims coached actors?! Well, one of them said that CNN asked them to read a prepared question on TV.
This is also made up, being asked to read a prepared question is not acting, nor is it coached acting, nor is the claim that they were coached actors based on fact at all.
The facts are there, they just don't support the conclusions he's drawing. He's using manipulative framing to make it seem like they do.
No, he is making things up and supporters like you are trying to justify it after the fact by claiming 'facts are there' when they are not. If I say I was attacked by a dragon and someone else later says they saw a snake near me at the time that supposedly happened there is still nothing about that story which is based on the facts.
Compare that to:
Person x shared classified information with the Russians! Well, intelligence officials were there and it was a routine briefing.
This is a lie by omission, still a lie but actually based on facts since the statement is true in a warped sense. It is so, so, SO much better (less bad, rather) than the above since unlike those claims it is actually based on the facts. That you are putting these all on an equal level is a literal demonstration about how bias is not being properly evaluated, the only better proof you could offer would be refusing to realize that you aren't evaluating the degree of bias properly.
I could not write a better example of the process in action if I tried.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The level of false equivalency trying to be sold here is crazy. It's literally the exact problem being discussed, demonstrated real time.
Look, if you can write off a paper before even reading it by citing it's target demographic/political leanings/editorial staff/curvature of Bezos' head then you don't even have to read it to know what they're reporting. Don't think of it as closed mindedness, it's really more of a form of hyper efficiency.
Does anyone want to discuss biases in non-english papers? That's more fun. Anyone watching the drama between Yedioth Ahronoth and Bibi? How about the Hankyoreh keeping itself fairly even keeled even though one of their founders was elected president?
Pink Horror wrote: It's pretty meaningless if they don't say how they did the categorization of what is and isn't an "echo chamber".
I presume the original study did, as well as laid out how it examined and categorized media outlets, but we're just reading a news article about the study (which are notoriously unreliable in my experience, often dumbing down the study to an unbelievable level, if not outright lying about the conclusions, method, and purpose). We'd have to pull out the actual paper or data set to actually parse out how the researchers did what they did.
It's probably worth noting that there is no link to the study in the article, or even a reference/citation.
This so much. If an article/blog/video doesn't cite a source then you should on no account assume that the article/blog/video is an accurate interpretation of an actual study.
If it does cite the source, then you should on no account believe what the article/blog/video says the findings are, you should read the study.
Pink Horror wrote: It's pretty meaningless if they don't say how they did the categorization of what is and isn't an "echo chamber".
I presume the original study did, as well as laid out how it examined and categorized media outlets, but we're just reading a news article about the study (which are notoriously unreliable in my experience, often dumbing down the study to an unbelievable level, if not outright lying about the conclusions, method, and purpose). We'd have to pull out the actual paper or data set to actually parse out how the researchers did what they did.
It's probably worth noting that there is no link to the study in the article, or even a reference/citation.
This so much. If an article/blog/video doesn't cite a source then you should on no account assume that the article/blog/video is an accurate interpretation of an actual study.
If it does cite the source, then you should on no account believe what the article/blog/video says the findings are, you should read the study.
This reminds me all those articles about the study on trans-gender people suicide, saying that post-operated trasgender people are 20 times more prone to suicide. Period.
If you read the scientific study, they said that they where 20 more times prone to suicide than non trasgender people, but that the suicides of post-operated transgender people were lower than the suicide rates of non operated transgender people, and basically what their conclusion was that operation helped transgender people, but it wasn't a definitive solution and much more investigation and work should be done.
And you see that study cited and cited again by right wing rethorica about transgender rights, etc... but they are purposefully misinterpreting it to drawn literally the opposite conclusion that the study had reach!
(I have spent the last two days watching yoube videos of John Olliver. Even if I disagree with him some times, oh man he is funny, and he does the job! And is one of the only shows I have seen that actually understand internet culture and memes, and how to use them)
NinthMusketeer wrote: This is a lie by omission, still a lie but actually based on facts since the statement is true in a warped sense. It is so, so, SO much better (less bad, rather) than the above since unlike those claims it is actually based on the facts. That you are putting these all on an equal level is a literal demonstration about how bias is not being properly evaluated, the only better proof you could offer would be refusing to realize that you aren't evaluating the degree of bias properly.
First of all, pointing out that there are some factual elements in Alex Jones' reporting does not make me his supporter. It's simply the truth. This is why sebster's position is actually more reductive and less conducive to critical analysis than mine; it's simply an appeal to authority that allows him, based on the source, to dismiss any information which he doesn't agree with outright without addressing its content. That's exactly what he says the problem is. In my opinion, he is the one being falsely equivocal by establishing two categories of media sources; a select few which can be trusted because of their reputation or status, and everything else. This allows for double standards which excuse a totally false and manipulative story from the latter as an "honest mistake", when otherwise it would be criticized as an intentional lie. Again, not based on content, but on the source of information alone.
I am not saying that you should give the Alex Joneses of the world the benefit of a doubt. I'm saying that you should give no one the benefit of a doubt.
Conspiracy theories are often meticulously based on facts and appeals to authority. That is what makes them so seductive. It allows one to defer to a set of facts which support their worldview, even if those facts are grossly misconstrued as a result of selection bias. Without this property, they would not thrive and spread. Denying this and writing them off as pure fantasy shows a misunderstanding of human psychology and communication.
Like it or not, the same cognitive processes which allow people to believe in conspiracy theories also allow people to view media uncritically. No, the content is not the same, the message is not the same and the motivations are not the same. Not always. But the underlying faults of bias and self-selection, and the ways in which those can be exploited, are the same.
I can't show many specific examples because of the rules, but there are many, many examples of reporting in the mainstream media that are hardly less salacious, conspiratorial and misleading than a claim that Alex Jones might make. Yes, they really can be that ridiculous. Yes, they really can be that divorced from a reasonable interpretation of reality. The Washington Post once reported that Russians had hacked the power grid. Only, this was false. Someone found a piece of malware that is available for purchase by anyone, on a laptop that had nothing to do with the utility systems networks themselves. The utility company itself had to publish a statement which clarified that the Post's representation of events was wholly wrong. They turned one isolated laptop with malware that could have come from anywhere into a literal conspiracy theory about a network of Russian hackers who had penetrated multiple systems in the US power grid and were ready to strike at a moment's notice. They didn't post a retraction until the next day, after the story had undoubtedly been shared breathlessly across social media and other news reports, and even the retraction doesn't represent all of the facts as known. You tell me. How is that meaningfully different from Alex Jones turning an innocuous story about a government research station into a conspiracy to control the weather? Why is it a simple mistake when WaPo does it? How is one more fact-based than the other? Even in terms of degree and scope, they are similar. You can't reasonably say that they are totally different things without resorting to assumptions about intent or motivation, which is exactly what sebster has claimed is worthless.
We go back to the part where I can't take you seriously because you feel Alex Jones' positions are based on facts. Trying to make it out like WaPo is at all on even a similar level to Alex Jones is simply a lie. It just isn't true. To even start equating then on the same level is to chuck logical thinking out the window from the onset. If that's the level you are asking me to respond on then I don't have a response, because I won't offer a rational response without a rational position to respond TO.
NinthMusketeer wrote: We go back to the part where I can't take you seriously because you feel Alex Jones' positions are based on facts. Trying to make it out like WaPo is at all on even a similar level to Alex Jones is simply a lie. It just isn't true. To even start equating then on the same level is to chuck logical thinking out the window from the onset. You are embarrassing yourself at this point.
You can't even admit that Alex Jones' work contains some factual content. Where have I said that those facts are presented in an honest and rational way? Where have I said that his interpretation of reality is correct? It's undeniable that he uses factual content to buttress his claims. He sits there, in front of the camera, with pages and pages of documents and news reports from other sources. Want to talk about chucking logical thinking out the window? How does a factual account from another source become something different when Jones uses it to support his own position?
He. Uses. Facts. To. Support. His. Claims. Period.
The point is that he uses them in a manipulative manner, out of their original context, and selects them according to bias.
You are, at this exact moment, doing exactly what you accuse me of. You're refusing to engage with the content of a message or examine it critically. You don't even have anything to say other than that I'm now anathema because I said that Alex Jones uses factual content in his work, without supporting his conclusions or worldview at all. So who has the lapse in critical thinking?
There are examples of people leaking things to the press as anonymous sources, then using the subsequently generated reports to cite themselves as a primary source. Where are the facts there? Where's the journalistic integrity?
I'm pretty sure you can't find a single place where sebster's said that you shouldn't critically examine some media for the simple reason that he's never said that.
It's a simple exercise of probability: is the Washington Post more likely to publish articles that give a clearer and fairer picture of reality than Alex Jones? The answer is obviously yes. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't critically look at the Washington Post's articles, but it DOES mean that Washington Post generally has a higher quality of journalism than Alex Jones. Trying to equate the two completely ignores the difference in accuracy.
NinthMusketeer wrote: We go back to the part where I can't take you seriously because you feel Alex Jones' positions are based on facts. Trying to make it out like WaPo is at all on even a similar level to Alex Jones is simply a lie. It just isn't true. To even start equating then on the same level is to chuck logical thinking out the window from the onset. You are embarrassing yourself at this point.
You can't even admit that Alex Jones' work contains some factual content. Where have I said that those facts are presented in an honest and rational way? Where have I said that his interpretation of reality is correct? It's undeniable that he uses factual content to buttress his claims. He sits there, in front of the camera, with pages and pages of documents and news reports from other sources. Want to talk about chucking logical thinking out the window? How does a factual account from another source become something different when Jones uses it to support his own position?
He. Uses. Facts. To. Support. His. Claims. Period.
The point is that he uses them in a manipulative manner, out of their original context, and selects them according to bias.
You are, at this exact moment, doing exactly what you accuse me of. You're refusing to engage with the content of a message or examine it critically. You don't even have anything to say other than that I'm now anathema because I said that Alex Jones uses factual content in his work, without supporting his conclusions or worldview at all. So who has the lapse in critical thinking?
Well you ignored when I did exactly that in your last post, so I'm not surprised you are doing so again here. Solid attempt at deflecting though, I'll give you that.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm pretty sure you can't find a single place where sebster's said that you shouldn't critically examine some media for the simple reason that he's never said that.
He is actively engaging in that type of behavior in this thread. He is treating some media sources more leniently and less critically, to the point where he can't even admit that they publish false or misleading material at all except as an honest mistake.
It's a simple exercise of probability: is the Washington Post more likely to publish articles that give a clearer and fairer picture of reality than Alex Jones? The answer is obviously yes. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't critically look at the Washington Post's articles, but it DOES mean that Washington Post generally has a higher quality of journalism than Alex Jones. Trying to equate the two completely ignores the difference in accuracy.
That I'm not disputing. I'm not saying that there aren't varying degrees of accuracy or factual correctness. I'm not saying that the Washington Post is exactly as accurate and factually correct as Alex Jones, or even that they're in the same realm. Though, occasionally, they are, even if the rate at which the Washington Post stoops to that level is much lower than the rate at which Alex Jones does pound for pound.
I'm just calling out the double standard whereby the Washington Post can print something grossly misleading or clearly false, and yet not have its motives questioned.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You know, the fact that people don't agree with your conclusions doesn't mean they aren't critically examining something.
I would agree except that he's actively deflecting criticism of the mainstream media by saying that "news orgs make mistakes" and that it's different when they publish false or misleading information compared to when anyone else does it. Ironically, the only way to justify that is to assume that one is more motivated toward bias and subjectivity than the other.
NinthMusketeer wrote: We go back to the part where I can't take you seriously because you feel Alex Jones' positions are based on facts. Trying to make it out like WaPo is at all on even a similar level to Alex Jones is simply a lie. It just isn't true. To even start equating then on the same level is to chuck logical thinking out the window from the onset. If that's the level you are asking me to respond on then I don't have a response, because I won't offer a rational response without a rational position to respond TO.
Both InfoWars and WaPo are for profit media companies. They decide what stories to present to the public and how to present those stories with the purpose of maintaining and growing their audience to maximize their profits. All media companies are happy to lie, obfuscate, mislead and affirm preconceptions and/or misconceptions in order to fulfill their primary purpose, to make money in a manner that is pleasing to its ownership.
Jeff Bezos owns WaPo. Jeff Bezos is the richest person in the US, owns Amazon, two thirds of American households have an Amazon Prime membership, Amazon has gutted local economies by undercutting small businesses, avoiding sales tax, depressing wages and actively working against efforts of their employees to unionize. All of that plays a significant role in the US economy and the economy is always one of the highest priorities for Americans in political polls/surveys (especially in election years) but the country's political paper of record, WaPo doesn't cover the negative effects of Amazon because it's owned by Jeff Bezos. The purpose of the paper is to make Jeff money not to fulfill some altruistic purpose of being a paragon of journalistic integrity and informing the American public of "important" facts.
InfoWars exists so Alex Jones can get paid for his conspiracy schtick and avoid working a real job. That's why he creates stuff like PizaaGate. He takes real things like John Podesta's hacked emails to the Obama administration about hot dogs, weird footage of Podesta performing in the basement of a pizzeria and wild conjecture/unfounded speculation of a pedophilia ring of transdimensional vampires running the DNC and creates content that spikes up his audience numbers and gets him more money. Podesta really did write those emails and he is a little odd but that doesn't mean that transdimensional pedophile vampires exist it's just a salacious conspiracy manufactured to make Alex Jones more money.
Media companies are not your friend, they are not here to help you they are only here to profit from you.
TBH the most surprising thing I learned from this thread is that Bezos is considered a leftie. He's one of the richest men in the owrld, off the back of a workforce that is highly exploited and actively supresses worker's rights.
To offer an outsider view on Washington Post from a foreginer, on a subject that, as a Pole, I have a lot more insight than anyone in this thread. I just took my time to read through some more of the Washington Post articles/guest articles about current Polish-Israeli issue and all I can tell is this - there are no actual facts there, to a point where Americans reading those "analysis" are actively missinformed on the exaact word of the law in question AND Poland situation, both modern and IIWW era. So called "analysis" on this matter in WaPo are nothing more than journalists/academics opinions, showing where exactly said journalist/academics (Monkey Cage "analysis") lands on the left-right spectrum but nothing more. And everything is rendered from a clearly liberal POV, with direct detracting of right wing media/government/parties motivations/actions.
From where I stand the only difference between Washington Post and Huffington Post on this subject is the statistical lenght of sentences and "seriousness" of used vocabulary. Amount of unjustified opinion shown as undeniable facts is pretty much the same.
feeder wrote: TBH the most surprising thing I learned from this thread is that Bezos is considered a leftie. He's one of the richest men in the owrld, off the back of a workforce that is highly exploited and actively supresses worker's rights.
Does he drive a Tesla or something?
I always considered him to be more libertarian. Socially liberal, economically conservative. Maybe people are getting caught up on his left-leaning social views.
NinthMusketeer wrote: We go back to the part where I can't take you seriously because you feel Alex Jones' positions are based on facts. Trying to make it out like WaPo is at all on even a similar level to Alex Jones is simply a lie. It just isn't true. To even start equating then on the same level is to chuck logical thinking out the window from the onset. If that's the level you are asking me to respond on then I don't have a response, because I won't offer a rational response without a rational position to respond TO.
Both InfoWars and WaPo are for profit media companies. They decide what stories to present to the public and how to present those stories with the purpose of maintaining and growing their audience to maximize their profits. All media companies are happy to lie, obfuscate, mislead and affirm preconceptions and/or misconceptions in order to fulfill their primary purpose, to make money in a manner that is pleasing to its ownership.
Jeff Bezos owns WaPo. Jeff Bezos is the richest person in the US, owns Amazon, two thirds of American households have an Amazon Prime membership, Amazon has gutted local economies by undercutting small businesses, avoiding sales tax, depressing wages and actively working against efforts of their employees to unionize. All of that plays a significant role in the US economy and the economy is always one of the highest priorities for Americans in political polls/surveys (especially in election years) but the country's political paper of record, WaPo doesn't cover the negative effects of Amazon because it's owned by Jeff Bezos. The purpose of the paper is to make Jeff money not to fulfill some altruistic purpose of being a paragon of journalistic integrity and informing the American public of "important" facts.
InfoWars exists so Alex Jones can get paid for his conspiracy schtick and avoid working a real job. That's why he creates stuff like PizaaGate. He takes real things like John Podesta's hacked emails to the Obama administration about hot dogs, weird footage of Podesta performing in the basement of a pizzeria and wild conjecture/unfounded speculation of a pedophilia ring of transdimensional vampires running the DNC and creates content that spikes up his audience numbers and gets him more money. Podesta really did write those emails and he is a little odd but that doesn't mean that transdimensional pedophile vampires exist it's just a salacious conspiracy manufactured to make Alex Jones more money.
Media companies are not your friend, they are not here to help you they are only here to profit from you.
You just used a whole lot of text to state 'media can't be trusted' which is agreed on by all parties here and has never been in contention within the thread. I... Kinda want that minute I spent reading back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You know, the fact that people don't agree with your conclusions doesn't mean they aren't critically examining something.
I am amused by him ignoring my post which doesn't line up with his argument, makes claims which require ignoring my post to even make sense, then I call him out on ignoring it and he suddenly drops the line of conversation.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You know, the fact that people don't agree with your conclusions doesn't mean they aren't critically examining something.
I would agree except that he's actively deflecting criticism of the mainstream media by saying that "news orgs make mistakes" and that it's different when they publish false or misleading information compared to when anyone else does it. Ironically, the only way to justify that is to assume that one is more motivated toward bias and subjectivity than the other.
Care to quote where he stated that opinion? And if you deliberately take a quote out of context to twist the facts into suiting your bias I am going to laugh.
nou wrote: To offer an outsider view on Washington Post from a foreginer, on a subject that, as a Pole, I have a lot more insight than anyone in this thread. I just took my time to read through some more of the Washington Post articles/guest articles about current Polish-Israeli issue and all I can tell is this - there are no actual facts there, to a point where Americans reading those "analysis" are actively missinformed on the exaact word of the law in question AND Poland situation, both modern and IIWW era. So called "analysis" on this matter in WaPo are nothing more than journalists/academics opinions, showing where exactly said journalist/academics (Monkey Cage "analysis") lands on the left-right spectrum but nothing more. And everything is rendered from a clearly liberal POV, with direct detracting of right wing media/government/parties motivations/actions.
From where I stand the only difference between Washington Post and Huffington Post on this subject is the statistical lenght of sentences and "seriousness" of used vocabulary. Amount of unjustified opinion shown as undeniable facts is pretty much the same.
This is definitely part of what I'm talking about. A huge amount of content from the mainstream media is subjective language presented in the guise of objective or researched reporting. Even when a piece does contain factual content, surrounding that content in figurative language which is intended to elicit a certain response from the reader is plainly manipulative. When it doesn't contain any hard factual content, it's an op-ed piece that escaped its cage. It's also incredibly common to mischaracterize the views, words and actions of people who don't fit the editorial narrative, sometimes in ways which barely skirt the boundaries of slander and libel.
There is a big psychological difference between an objective account of events:
"The chairman gave a press conference today in which he called the allegations against him unfounded, and pledged to end the leaks emanating from within the company."
And one which uses subjective language to manipulate the reader:
"The beleaguered chairman, gripping the podium in bellicose fury, threatened to hunt down and punish any would-be whistle blowers."
That stuff makes a difference. Given two stories with the same exact factual content, the public is going to react in a significantly different manner depending on the language used. Hiding behind a veneer of legitimacy and journalistic integrity is simply not an excuse for that type of reporting.
Care to quote where he stated that opinion? And if you deliberately take a quote out of context to twist the facts into suiting your bias I am going to laugh.
Oh for feth's sake. Yes, WaPo will make mistakes. Every paper has a retractions section, and I've never seen it blank. Thousands of employees working to daily deadlines mean mistakes happen. But there remains a difference between media orgs making mistakes, because they are not perfect institutions, and media orgs making false statements because they are more interested in selling a conclusion than in getting the facts straight.
Unless you want to claim that WaPo published those stories knowing they were false, but suited some financial or political interest, then yes, they were mistakes. I believe each instance listed had a subsequent retraction or clarification.
He's handwaving specific examples of WaPo publishing false and misleading information as honest mistakes. He's not even addressing the instances themselves, just making an assumption based on good will.
NinthMusketeer wrote: We go back to the part where I can't take you seriously because you feel Alex Jones' positions are based on facts. Trying to make it out like WaPo is at all on even a similar level to Alex Jones is simply a lie. It just isn't true. To even start equating then on the same level is to chuck logical thinking out the window from the onset. If that's the level you are asking me to respond on then I don't have a response, because I won't offer a rational response without a rational position to respond TO.
Both InfoWars and WaPo are for profit media companies. They decide what stories to present to the public and how to present those stories with the purpose of maintaining and growing their audience to maximize their profits. All media companies are happy to lie, obfuscate, mislead and affirm preconceptions and/or misconceptions in order to fulfill their primary purpose, to make money in a manner that is pleasing to its ownership.
Jeff Bezos owns WaPo. Jeff Bezos is the richest person in the US, owns Amazon, two thirds of American households have an Amazon Prime membership, Amazon has gutted local economies by undercutting small businesses, avoiding sales tax, depressing wages and actively working against efforts of their employees to unionize. All of that plays a significant role in the US economy and the economy is always one of the highest priorities for Americans in political polls/surveys (especially in election years) but the country's political paper of record, WaPo doesn't cover the negative effects of Amazon because it's owned by Jeff Bezos. The purpose of the paper is to make Jeff money not to fulfill some altruistic purpose of being a paragon of journalistic integrity and informing the American public of "important" facts.
InfoWars exists so Alex Jones can get paid for his conspiracy schtick and avoid working a real job. That's why he creates stuff like PizaaGate. He takes real things like John Podesta's hacked emails to the Obama administration about hot dogs, weird footage of Podesta performing in the basement of a pizzeria and wild conjecture/unfounded speculation of a pedophilia ring of transdimensional vampires running the DNC and creates content that spikes up his audience numbers and gets him more money. Podesta really did write those emails and he is a little odd but that doesn't mean that transdimensional pedophile vampires exist it's just a salacious conspiracy manufactured to make Alex Jones more money.
Media companies are not your friend, they are not here to help you they are only here to profit from you.
You just used a whole lot of text to state 'media can't be trusted' which is agreed on by all parties here and has never been in contention within the thread. I... Kinda want that minute I spent reading back.
No, what has been agreed on by all parties here is that all media companies have bias. Multiple people in this thread have stated that while all media companies are based some media companies are trustworthy and some media companies are not.
No media companies are trustworthy. Media companies don't present bullet point lists of objective facts or universal truths, they crafts stories in which they select which facts are included, how the included facts and events are characterized, which viewpoints are acknowledged, who is interviewed, what quotes are used, and what opinions are endorsed. That's why we get reactions like the person from Poland thinks that WaPo's coverage of Polish politics is just opinion disguised at facts. I don't know anything about Polish politics but why should I accept what WaPo publishes about it at face value? Numerous times I see examples of media companies reporting on something that either I or somebody I know is enough of an SME on to see the media got a wrong. If they're getting topic A wrong why should they get the benefit of the doubt on topic B?
Nobody should have blind faith in the trustworthiness of media companies' reporting that they don't have the ability to fact check for themselves. That's just putting yourself in a bubble of a reality created by media reports.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: This thread has certainly proven the idea that everyone, including me, are manipulated more by 'muh feels' rather than any kind of objective reality.
And your feelings about things that are outside of your own anecdotal experiences are created by the media reports on those things and we all agree that media reports are biased. So are those really your feelings or are those the feelings that certain media companies have crafted narratives to make you feel?
A word on the sebster-vs-Luciferian debate on ">All media is biased< as a fundamental cognitive lockpick to dismiss all unwanted content" vs ">All media is biased< as a fundamental problem of journalism":
- the former, in an overall social landscape, is definitely true as there exist people who do sort news by such logic on an axis of trustworthiness. But personal media strategy resulting from this position is not universall safe nor "idiot proof". It is very easy to unconsiously "spread" the authority of particular ethical journalists over entire media title (as seen above with Washington Post example). It can also lead to a sort of "laziness", when title falsely treated as trustworthy shifts it's dominant narration, and because of previously established assumption/conclusion about particular's title objectivity, one can then become a victim of a "boiled frog" kind of effect of shifting one's viewpoint unconsiously. This happened a lot in Poland because of shifting ownership of strongly-biased titles exactly to bait unaware electorates. So caution is strongly advised if ones want to be actually well informed, not just "well and cosy misinformed";
- the latter mainly addresses the fact, that typical media consumer is totally unequipped to verify information - either lacks time, skill or means to cross check everything - and ends up with a biased personal POV. This seems trivial, as this can sometimes translate to positions of simply "you should not trust anyone" or "media should be ethical while they aren't". But on the other hand, awareness of the simple fact, that all (without exceptions) media is biased and cannot be universally trusted, can lead to one of IMHO the best personal media strategies there is - if only one can derive a sort of "weight" to measure bias of any particular source, one can then "debias" content. It requires quite a lot of knowledge about means and techniques of propaganda and manipulation, personal history of journalists and ownership of media, but after the initial learning curve can significantly reduce amount of time spent on sorting out facts from fiction. The added bonus is that it is much more involving than simply dividing media by trustworthiness and in the result can lead (can, not always leads) to much more in-depth understanding of more obscure mechanisms of social manipulation. But same as with the above strategy, this is not "idiot proof" nor universally usefull approach, as it can lead to "conspiracy theories everywhere" paranoia or straight up helplessness and catching all the "good enough quality bait" there is...
My personal favourite strategy however is to kind of "hack" the first method by utilising the second method and identify and establish "bias weights" of media totally oposite to your personal viewpoint and then follow mostly those and applying negation sign to their narrative bias. This way you never get into echo chamber, you don't reinforce your unsupported positions by neither crowd or authority and are constantly subject to verification and defending your point of view, either publicly or just mentally. As with both previous ones however, this is also not "idiot proof" nor universal strategy, as it can lead to "siege mentality" if you are not ready to admit your mistakes.
No, what has been agreed on by all parties here is that all media companies have bias. Multiple people in this thread have stated that while all media companies are based some media companies are trustworthy and some media companies are not.
That'll probably depend on your definition of trustworthy and how you apply it.
Do I trust that if ABC news airs a report about a bill in the senate that there is actually such a bill in the Senate? Yeah probably. Be kind of weird to just make up a bill. Even the conspiracy nuts don't generally do that.
Do I trust that if ABC says "insiders report that this bill is actually just a ploy by party X to embarrass official Y" I probably trust that someone said that somewhere but I'm not taking it as "true" in the sense that that is actually what the bill is.
And of course some media is more trustworthy than others. Declaring all media equally untrustworthy is absurd. The Daily Mail got banned from Wikipedia for being so absurd, and there's even a song about their more ludicrous headlines, and when Wikipedia won't take you there's something wrong cause Wikipedia's standards for source quality are basically "is it in English" and "does it say what we say it says" (and they're not to good with that last one).
No one has proposed media companies lack bias or that there exist unquestionably trustworthy ones. This thread has basically become a few posters arguing past each other to grind their respective strawmen into dust, which is ironically an example against the echo chamber which is the original point of this thread XD
Do I trust that if ABC news airs a report about a bill in the senate that there is actually such a bill in the Senate? Yeah probably. Be kind of weird to just make up a bill. Even the conspiracy nuts don't generally do that.
Just a fun, educative fact - you would have had a very hard time in Poland for the last two years trusting all those reported bills... Seriously, we even had two major demonstrations against such "virtual bills". We also had probably the first such occurence in history of democracies: a demonstration of one oppostiion party against the actions of the rest of the opposition... Our last two years of medial history could be a great source of case studies of all kinds of misinformation and propaganda in every media of all possible sides (we have more than two here).
Luciferian wrote: It's not just counter-intuitive, it's self-contradictory. It's a paradox. You can not critically asses media sources without addressing their bias.
You continue to rail against fantasy versions of the actual debate. I've never said that people should just ignore any bias in a piece. I've said, repeatedly now, to accept that everything has a bias, it is inherent in simply having a viewpoint, and not disqualifying in itself. Instead a piece should be judged for accuracy and completeness.
OK, Info-Wars and WaPo are not literally the same thing, but they both employ many of the same tactics to disseminate a distorted view of reality.
Except that's some ridiculous bs. The existence of mistaken reporting at an organisation like WaPo does not make it the same as a conspiracy mongering lunatic.
The reason I pivoted to Alex Jones is because of your claim that not all media should be subject to the same level of scrutiny, because there are some that report on facts, even if they do so in a biased manner.
You have no idea what my actual point is, do you?
Alex Jones said that the Uniform Crime Reports showed no murders in Newtown in 2012. That is a fact. It's also a fact that since state police handled the investigation instead of municipal police, the murders were counted under the state-wide numbers instead of the city numbers. This is exactly what I'm getting at. Alex Jones presented a fact, whether you like it or not, about the Sandy Hook shooting.
Alex Jones took a minor statistical quirk, and reframed it to make it appear to support his conspiracy. This was done with an intent to deceive the reader. It was a plain and simple lie, and you are being ridiculous in trying to pretend otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Wapo has a financial interest in only publishing issues that support it's target audience or get them riled up - educated coasts elites. Their demographics are not middle class, or working class.
Not quite. WaPo are educated coastal elites. They write their viewpoint, which resonates with people like them, who are also educated coastal elites.
Yes, this means they have a viewpoint which isn't the same as everyone else. But that's just a reality of anyone who wants to write anything that says anything at all - it will reflect your viewpoint. The point is that when read WaPo or anything else, you don't just say 'oh they've got a bias so I can ignore that'. Instead you look at what is actually written, whether their claims are backed by accurate facts, whether they've included all relevant information, and use that to determine whether the piece is something that needs to be accounted for in your understanding of events.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luciferian wrote: In my opinion, he is the one being falsely equivocal by establishing two categories of media sources; a select few which can be trusted because of their reputation or status, and everything else.
It should be noted that I have not at any point made a claim even remotely similar to what is claimed here. Luciferian is making things up.
I am not saying that you should give the Alex Joneses of the world the benefit of a doubt. I'm saying that you should give no one the benefit of a doubt.
And it should be noted at no point did I say any article from any organisation should be accepted simply because of the source. Luciferian is making things up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luciferian wrote: You can't even admit that Alex Jones' work contains some factual content.
The problem is you've created a completely false standard, to push a completely non-sensical argument. You should note I've said, repeatedly, that as well as accurate facts a piece should also be considered in terms of completeness. This means including all relevant information, not just some random factoids cherry picked to support fantastical nonsense.
sebster wrote: The existence of mistaken reporting at an organisation like WaPo does not make it the same as a conspiracy mongering lunatic.
[...]
The point is that when read WaPo or anything else, you don't just say 'oh they've got a bias so I can ignore that'. Instead you look at what is actually written, whether their claims are backed by accurate facts, whether they've included all relevant information, and use that to determine whether the piece is something that needs to be accounted for in your understanding of events.
I have only one question for you as I don't see an answer to it in any of your previous posts: at what point exactly does perpetually making "honest mistakes" in a given subject become a "forcing false narrative"? Because all I can see on WaPo about the subject I brought up is pushing one, very clearly identifiable agenda and not in any way reporting anything on that matter in an objective way... It's way beyond "having a viewpoint", it's incepting a viewpoint. I get that this is a very sidenote subject for you or most Americans, but exactly because of that it shows how "high standards" WaPo actually has when it comes to veryfying content. What I would expect from a media tilte that simply "has a viewpoint" when publishing content on a subject such irrelevant for a typical reader is to actually try to show at least a couple of angles, not pushing a very clear and singular one, because you simply cannot "have a viewpoint" on subjects you don't typically dwell in or don't have in-depth understanding of; in such cases you have presupposition which is very much bias. I'm not expecting it to be left, centre or right adherent, I'm expecting it to be fact-based and not misleading to give a title a credit of good intentions. And I don't see any of that so yes, now I most certainly can have a "oh, they've got bias so I can ignore that" view on WaPo objectivism untill I'm proven otherwise.
No, what has been agreed on by all parties here is that all media companies have bias. Multiple people in this thread have stated that while all media companies are based some media companies are trustworthy and some media companies are not.
That'll probably depend on your definition of trustworthy and how you apply it.
Do I trust that if ABC news airs a report about a bill in the senate that there is actually such a bill in the Senate? Yeah probably. Be kind of weird to just make up a bill. Even the conspiracy nuts don't generally do that.
Do I trust that if ABC says "insiders report that this bill is actually just a ploy by party X to embarrass official Y" I probably trust that someone said that somewhere but I'm not taking it as "true" in the sense that that is actually what the bill is.
And of course some media is more trustworthy than others. Declaring all media equally untrustworthy is absurd. The Daily Mail got banned from Wikipedia for being so absurd, and there's even a song about their more ludicrous headlines, and when Wikipedia won't take you there's something wrong cause Wikipedia's standards for source quality are basically "is it in English" and "does it say what we say it says" (and they're not to good with that last one).
No one has proposed media companies lack bias or that there exist unquestionably trustworthy ones. This thread has basically become a few posters arguing past each other to grind their respective strawmen into dust, which is ironically an example against the echo chamber which is the original point of this thread XD
If ABC published a story that a bill was proposed in congress, would I believe that such a bill existed? Yes.
Would ABC publish a story that simply said bill X was coming up for a vote? Doubtful.
Chances are if ABC or any other media company puts out an article on a bill it is couched as Here’s what you should know about bill X, how it affects you and why your representative should vote for/against it. That is something I wouldn’t trust at face value. I’ve seen misleading synopsis of bills and their impact from numerous sources and viewpoints. If I am interested in learning about the content of the legislation I’ll read it on the .gov website.
I’m not a big media consumer I primarily use it to learn about opinions/viewpoints. Finding out what different pundits opine on an issue helps me figure out how the issue will be framed in public discourse which is usually a debate that is only tangentially related to the actual contents of the legislation. The media will show me how something will be discussed but actual facts get left behind and ignored in a hurry.
Luciferian wrote: He is actively engaging in that type of behavior in this thread. He is treating some media sources more leniently and less critically, to the point where he can't even admit that they publish false or misleading material at all except as an honest mistake.
Let's say you've got two kids. One runs a consulting business teaching honesty and ethics, and is widely respected for his forthright, direct approach focusing on truth and integrity. Your second kid is a meth addict, in and out of jail repeatedly for credit fraud. The meth addict comes to you with a business opportunity, asks you to cut a cheque for $10,000 to get the ball rolling. The next week your other son comes to you with a different business opportunity, also asking for $10,000 to get the ball rolling.
You shouldn't just accept either offer without really reviewing it. But you're being absolutely delusional if you think both the meth addict and the ethics teacher should both be given exactly the same skepticism. That isn't how the world works, and it isn't how the world should work.
And you are being ridiculous pretending otherwise. People and organisations with a long record of telling frequent absurd lies are treated with more skepticism. Because obviously they are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: No, what has been agreed on by all parties here is that all media companies have bias. Multiple people in this thread have stated that while all media companies are based some media companies are trustworthy and some media companies are not.
Nope, not an argument that's been made by anyone. That's just some crap you've made up.
There is no media that shouldn't be critically judged. No source should be taken at face value. Even when you are convinced that a particular writer is trying his absolute best to be accurate as possible you should still analyse his argument, because his point of view will shape how he presents the situation.
But, this doesn't mean any and all media should be treated equally. Orgs with a proven record of manipulative and dishonest writing should be treated far more skeptically, and if they're bad enough like InfoWars they should be ignored entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: I have only one question for you as I don't see an answer to it in any of your previous posts: at what point exactly does perpetually making "honest mistakes" in a given subject become a "forcing false narrative"? Because all I can see on WaPo about the subject I brought up is pushing one, very clearly identifiable agenda and not in any way reporting anything on that matter in an objective way... It's way beyond "having a viewpoint", it's incepting a viewpoint.
I've tried to ignore the nuts and bolts on WaPo because as noted earlier I don't read it that much, and I don't read its foreign policy stuff at all. So I just can't comment about the paper on that issue.
On the general issue of when you go from 'honest mistake' to 'forcing false narrative', it's complex, because there's a lot of points between those two. To use an example that was raised earlier in the thread, a story has gone through the media recently, about an allegation that CNN was scripting the student's questions in the gun forum debate. One of the starting points for this was a claim from the dad of one kid who was withdrawn from the event, he provided an email that seemed to confirm that allegation. CNN then showed the complete email chain, and it revealed that the words 'that he submitted' were deleted from the end of one sentence to change the meaning of the email. The dad then said he deleted that one part of one sentence 'by mistake'.
There's a lot of potential ways a site might have covered that story.
If an organisation got the Dad's email, checked with CNN, confirmed the Dad's email was manipulated to give a false version of events, and then not run the story at all, that'd be good journalism. It would also be good journalism if the news org ran counter stories afterwards, if it saw the false story appear in other media.
If an org got the Dad's email, checked with CNN, and CNN didn't get back by the story deadline and ran the false story, then I think that could be seen as an honest mistake, if the news org ran with a retraction afterwards and gave the 'dad manipulated the email' story as much coverage as the original piece.
If an org didn't bother to check with CNN, that'd be reckless journalism.
If an org didn't bother to check with CNN, and when it was shown the Dad's email was manipulative, then the org didn't bother with a retraction, or gave little or no time to giving the full story, then they'd be a dishonest organisation.
And then, once you figure out where they fit in all those options, then you look at a pattern of behaviour in the org. Is this something they do regularly? And if so, does it always happen to support one set of political opinions? If so, then you've got a someone forcing a narrative over accurate, complete reporting.
And then to add one more layer of complexity, you have to note that organisations are complex - they may be biased and unreliable on one matter, and have excellent reporting elsewhere. For instance, the WSJ is a Murdoch paper these days, but its actually still okay as long as you stay clear of the opinions section.
So yeah, I hope that gives something of an answer.
Luciferian wrote: He is actively engaging in that type of behavior in this thread. He is treating some media sources more leniently and less critically, to the point where he can't even admit that they publish false or misleading material at all except as an honest mistake.
Let's say you've got two kids. One runs a consulting business teaching honesty and ethics, and is widely respected for his forthright, direct approach focusing on truth and integrity. Your second kid is a meth addict, in and out of jail repeatedly for credit fraud. The meth addict comes to you with a business opportunity, asks you to cut a cheque for $10,000 to get the ball rolling. The next week your other son comes to you with a different business opportunity, also asking for $10,000 to get the ball rolling.
You shouldn't just accept either offer without really reviewing it. But you're being absolutely delusional if you think both the meth addict and the ethics teacher should both be given exactly the same skepticism. That isn't how the world works, and it isn't how the world should work.
And you are being ridiculous pretending otherwise. People and organisations with a long record of telling frequent absurd lies are treated with more skepticism. Because obviously they are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: No, what has been agreed on by all parties here is that all media companies have bias. Multiple people in this thread have stated that while all media companies are based some media companies are trustworthy and some media companies are not.
Nope, not an argument that's been made by anyone. That's just some crap you've made up.
There is no media that shouldn't be critically judged. No source should be taken at face value. Even when you are convinced that a particular writer is trying his absolute best to be accurate as possible you should still analyse his argument, because his point of view will shape how he presents the situation.
But, this doesn't mean any and all media should be treated equally. Orgs with a proven record of manipulative and dishonest writing should be treated far more skeptically, and if they're bad enough like InfoWars they should be ignored entirely.
No it was posted by AlmightyWaltus, partially in your defense and nobody disagreed with it. Media has bias, should be viewed critically and some media is more trustworthy than others.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm pretty sure you can't find a single place where sebster's said that you shouldn't critically examine some media for the simple reason that he's never said that.
It's a simple exercise of probability: is the Washington Post more likely to publish articles that give a clearer and fairer picture of reality than Alex Jones? The answer is obviously yes. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't critically look at the Washington Post's articles, but it DOES mean that Washington Post generally has a higher quality of journalism than Alex Jones. Trying to equate the two completely ignores the difference in accuracy.
Media companies are manipulative and profit driven. The fact somebody is accepting of the level of manipulation employed by WaPo more so than the manipulation employed by InfoWars doesn’t make WaPo objectively better. Every article WaPo publishes no matter how factually accurate it may be is selected based on its subjective value as perceived by the editors, the content is carefully created, which quotes are used, what adjectives are used, what pictures are paired with it, what narrative is forged, what conclusion is drawn, etc it’s all manipulation geared to generate interest and views to leverage into higher profits and to shape public opinion. Those are the same motivations behind the manipulation done by other media companies whether it’s InfoWars or the NYT or Fox or CNN etc. Different stories will have different ratios of truth:lies or wheat:chaff but they’re all churned out by companies following the same business model and employing the same fungible ethics.
Prestor Jon wrote: No it was posted by AlmightyWaltus, partially in your defense and nobody disagreed with it. Media has bias, should be viewed critically and some media is more trustworthy than others.
Oh dear. For starters, you're trying to walk back your claim and hoping no-one notices. You claimed people said some media was trustworthy, now you've swapped to 'more trustworthy'. Those are not the same thing.
And of course, your summary of AlmightyWalrus post is dreadful. A post that states 'This doesn't mean that we shouldn't critically look at the Washington Post's articles...' cannot in any way be taken as a claim that some media should be treated as trustworthy, and its quite dishonest to claim otherwise.
The fact somebody is accepting of the level of manipulation employed by WaPo more so than the manipulation employed by InfoWars doesn’t make WaPo objectively better.
I can't say this clearly enough - the sentence you just typed is absolute flying rodent gak lunacy.
Every article WaPo publishes no matter how factually accurate it may be is selected based on its subjective value as perceived by the editors, the content is carefully created, which quotes are used, what adjectives are used, what pictures are paired with it, what narrative is forged, what conclusion is drawn, etc it’s all manipulation geared to generate interest and views to leverage into higher profits and to shape public opinion. Those are the same motivations behind the manipulation done by other media companies whether it’s InfoWars or the NYT or Fox or CNN etc. Different stories will have different ratios of truth:lies or wheat:chaff but they’re all churned out by companies following the same business model and employing the same fungible ethics.
This is the very core of everything that is absolutely broken with the pure, unfiltered gak that is 'everything has a bias'. It pretends to be a call for a skepticism, but it is actually just a means to reject news you don't want to hear, and instead just absorb whatever reinforces your opinion.
Yes, there is a viewpoint in every story, that is unavoidable. That doesn't mean every news org holds itself to the same standards of fact checking, doesn't mean every org works to make stories as complete as possible. It doesn't mean every org is equally willing to publish facts and stories that run counter to their overall view of the world.
So treating all orgs equally in terms of facts and completeness is a deliberate pretense, a pretend belief that allows the reader to avoid actually assessing the accuracy and completeness of the information he's been given. It is a game played to avoid honestly looking at the media pieces and asking 'is one of these pieces bullshitting me'.
And of course, people are avoiding that question because if they asked it honestly, they wouldn't like the answer.
2) misrepresenting other users posts is rude. Saying they said something they flat didn't is rude. Future instances of this will be warned.
3) double check your posts for swearing. I don't give a flying feth what you are posting on or how much of a rush you're in. Any swear words that slip through from here get a warning.
sebster wrote: For instance, the WSJ is a Murdoch paper these days, but its actually still okay as long as you stay clear of the opinions section.
I find HuffPo runs into this problem as well. It's reputation comes from the overwhelming bulk of its articles and editorials (and is quite well deserved) but they have a few good writers and some good blogs under their banner, including the only Libertarian who I think actually critically considers the weaknesses and flaws of Libertarianism and tries to come up with reasoned solutions (he tries okay he gets credit ).
LordofHats wrote: I find HuffPo runs into this problem as well. It's reputation comes from the overwhelming bulk of its articles and editorials (and is quite well deserved) but they have a few good writers and some good blogs under their banner, including the only Libertarian who I think actually critically considers the weaknesses and flaws of Libertarianism and tries to come up with reasoned solutions (he tries okay he gets credit ).
Cool. I wouldn't mind some names if you care to give them. PM is you want. I admit I never go there, and if I see links to their stuff I don't click. I've stumbled on to some real crap on their site, but it was ages ago. It might have left me with far too broad an understanding of the site.
I'd like to state my opposition to the idea that media is driven by profit to the exclusion of all else, because it just isn't true. It's the idea of the rational man writ large, and runs into the same problem as that theory does on an individual level in that it completely ignores things like ideology or altruism, to name a few.
LordofHats wrote: I find HuffPo runs into this problem as well. It's reputation comes from the overwhelming bulk of its articles and editorials (and is quite well deserved) but they have a few good writers and some good blogs under their banner, including the only Libertarian who I think actually critically considers the weaknesses and flaws of Libertarianism and tries to come up with reasoned solutions (he tries okay he gets credit ).
Cool. I wouldn't mind some names if you care to give them. PM is you want. I admit I never go there, and if I see links to their stuff I don't click. I've stumbled on to some real crap on their site, but it was ages ago. It might have left me with far too broad an understanding of the site.
Some of the best people who write stuff for HuffPo are the outside contributors. Diane Ravitch is one of my favorite commentators on education, both because she can admit when she is wrong and because she's one of the few sensible policy commentators on the subject. Phil Radford (former executive director of Greenpeace USA) also writes articles from time to time on environmental issues, and I like his approach of directly engaging corporate culture as the most effective way to advocate for better environmental policy even if he's opinions of the political-industrial complex can get... a little crazy. The Libertarian I speak of is The Volokh Conspiracy which I now realize is actually under the Washington Post They both have post in their name okay it's gets confusing at 4 AM XD The place is a blog edited by Libertarian leaning lawyers and law experts (and they are political) but they are least have a certain self-awareness about it all that I find endearing and the blog itself is insightful even when I find the ideology of Libertarianism to be wildly short sighted. Like I said. They get credit for putting in effort.
I’m not trying to hide or walk back anything. If I wanted people to overlook something I wanted continue to further a discussion about it. It’s Dakka OT it’s not something to take personally or seriously.
Trustworthy doesn’t mean infallible or should be taken at face value at all times. Trustworthy means something you can have confidence in that something is more reliable and honest. The argument was made that some media companies can be relied upon to have acceptable levels of accuracy and journalistic practices.
If my posts came across as looking like I was claiming that posts were made that said media shouldn’t be viewed critically than I worded them poorly.
Media companies exist to manipulate and sway opinion/ideaology and they need to do so in a manner that is profitable enough to keep their business running.
All media is manipulative it tries to persuade you to think or feel a certain way. Some media manipulation is easier to accept than others because it pushes us towards a position we already hold or approve of. I know that I can easily be persuaded by media that is pro gay marriage equality because that is a position I am comfortable with and that I cannot be easily persuaded to agree with the position that the federal govt uses chem trails in the sky to conduct illicit mind control experiments on people because I am predisposed to disbelieve such a claim and it makes me uncomfortable to believe in such a thing.
I’m not making any assertions that some media companies are better than others or better for society than others. I view media companies like fast food restaurants, they come in many flavors, everyone has their favorites, the food is comforting but not very healthy, nobody should eat their regularly or often.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd like to state my opposition to the idea that media is driven by profit to the exclusion of all else, because it just isn't true. It's the idea of the rational man writ large, and runs into the same problem as that theory does on an individual level in that it completely ignores things like ideology or altruism, to name a few.
I concede that profit isn’t the only motive just a necessary one. Relevance is probably more important to media companies than profit margin as a relevant trend setter can shape and manipulate public opinion which is as important or more important to a media brand than how much money they make. I do think that profit overrides altruism in media, we see media companies go out of business all the time because readership/viewership/web traffic goes down so the company loses relevance and revenue. Although that is really the old media / mainstream media business model. New media like blogs and podcasts can be far more altruistic because the operating costs to produce a podcast or host a blog are so low. The negative with new media is that it is much harder to gain relevance because there is so much content it’s hard to stand out and gain a following.
Luciferian wrote: He is actively engaging in that type of behavior in this thread. He is treating some media sources more leniently and less critically, to the point where he can't even admit that they publish false or misleading material at all except as an honest mistake.
Let's say you've got two kids. One runs a consulting business teaching honesty and ethics, and is widely respected for his forthright, direct approach focusing on truth and integrity. Your second kid is a meth addict, in and out of jail repeatedly for credit fraud. The meth addict comes to you with a business opportunity, asks you to cut a cheque for $10,000 to get the ball rolling. The next week your other son comes to you with a different business opportunity, also asking for $10,000 to get the ball rolling.
You shouldn't just accept either offer without really reviewing it. But you're being absolutely delusional if you think both the meth addict and the ethics teacher should both be given exactly the same skepticism. That isn't how the world works, and it isn't how the world should work.
And you are being ridiculous pretending otherwise. People and organisations with a long record of telling frequent absurd lies are treated with more skepticism. Because obviously they are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: No, what has been agreed on by all parties here is that all media companies have bias. Multiple people in this thread have stated that while all media companies are based some media companies are trustworthy and some media companies are not.
Nope, not an argument that's been made by anyone. That's just some crap you've made up.
There is no media that shouldn't be critically judged. No source should be taken at face value. Even when you are convinced that a particular writer is trying his absolute best to be accurate as possible you should still analyse his argument, because his point of view will shape how he presents the situation.
But, this doesn't mean any and all media should be treated equally. Orgs with a proven record of manipulative and dishonest writing should be treated far more skeptically, and if they're bad enough like InfoWars they should be ignored entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: I have only one question for you as I don't see an answer to it in any of your previous posts: at what point exactly does perpetually making "honest mistakes" in a given subject become a "forcing false narrative"? Because all I can see on WaPo about the subject I brought up is pushing one, very clearly identifiable agenda and not in any way reporting anything on that matter in an objective way... It's way beyond "having a viewpoint", it's incepting a viewpoint.
I've tried to ignore the nuts and bolts on WaPo because as noted earlier I don't read it that much, and I don't read its foreign policy stuff at all. So I just can't comment about the paper on that issue.
On the general issue of when you go from 'honest mistake' to 'forcing false narrative', it's complex, because there's a lot of points between those two. To use an example that was raised earlier in the thread, a story has gone through the media recently, about an allegation that CNN was scripting the student's questions in the gun forum debate. One of the starting points for this was a claim from the dad of one kid who was withdrawn from the event, he provided an email that seemed to confirm that allegation. CNN then showed the complete email chain, and it revealed that the words 'that he submitted' were deleted from the end of one sentence to change the meaning of the email. The dad then said he deleted that one part of one sentence 'by mistake'.
There's a lot of potential ways a site might have covered that story.
If an organisation got the Dad's email, checked with CNN, confirmed the Dad's email was manipulated to give a false version of events, and then not run the story at all, that'd be good journalism. It would also be good journalism if the news org ran counter stories afterwards, if it saw the false story appear in other media.
If an org got the Dad's email, checked with CNN, and CNN didn't get back by the story deadline and ran the false story, then I think that could be seen as an honest mistake, if the news org ran with a retraction afterwards and gave the 'dad manipulated the email' story as much coverage as the original piece.
If an org didn't bother to check with CNN, that'd be reckless journalism.
If an org didn't bother to check with CNN, and when it was shown the Dad's email was manipulative, then the org didn't bother with a retraction, or gave little or no time to giving the full story, then they'd be a dishonest organisation.
And then, once you figure out where they fit in all those options, then you look at a pattern of behaviour in the org. Is this something they do regularly? And if so, does it always happen to support one set of political opinions? If so, then you've got a someone forcing a narrative over accurate, complete reporting.
And then to add one more layer of complexity, you have to note that organisations are complex - they may be biased and unreliable on one matter, and have excellent reporting elsewhere. For instance, the WSJ is a Murdoch paper these days, but its actually still okay as long as you stay clear of the opinions section.
So yeah, I hope that gives something of an answer.
By the logic of this post alone:
WaPo coverage of Polish-Israeli issue is at this point a series (so that meet "on regular/methodical basis" cryteria by my standards) of articles landing between "reckless journalism" and "plain manipulation, dishonest organisation" as you defined them. If I apply your suggestion of "Orgs with a proven record of manipulative and dishonest writing should be treated far more skeptically, and if they're bad enough like InfoWars they should be ignored entirely." I then should ignore WaPo entirely, because I have absolutely no means of judging if they are truthfull or manipulative on subjects I know less about than the one I caught them being manipulative on (and by now I have a pretty good view on how much of "liberal viewpoint" this title is). If I were to read on some American internal matters, then reading about them in WaPo is pretty much meaningless as I have to at least tripple the amount of reading on a subject (kind of the most primitive media equivalent of parity check) to even start to have a somewhat unbiased view. Do I have to the same with InfoWars or Alex Jones? Of course I do, so by that metric they all have exact same usefulness untill I could establish a more adequate "bias weight" on all three of those.
"And then to add one more layer of complexity, you have to note that organisations are complex - they may be biased and unreliable on one matter, and have excellent reporting elsewhere." that is pretty much what I wrote a post earlier in my quick summary of your position. Individual journalist may be trustworthy, entire organisations/titles never are. What you seem to assume is that somehow knowledge about publication history and bias of a given title is well known and cannot be a subject of debate or cannot be twisted according to one's personal viewpoint, which I find quite puzzling. You said earlier, that NYT is not biased because of covering all of the possible angles, including those outside of a spectum of rationality. Such "not sorting at all" is in itself a form of missinformation to an extent, that some years ago BBC discontinued it's practice of "ballancing debates by including representation of every prevailing point of view" because it lead to overrepresenting views like creationism, anti-vaccine movement or climate change denialist as being on equal footing with well established and predictive scientific theories. Because of this, NYT is as unreliable source of information as WaPo is for someone unfamiliar with history of their publications and does not know which journalists writing for NYT are trustworthy. (In a subject that interest me personally, NYT did in fact published pretty one of the most outrageous, one sided and entirely made-up article on Polish-Israeli issue but it is true, that it was not the only angle on this subject presented in NYT).
As to overall editiorial standards deterioration and increase in clickbait sensationalism: we now have only one printed title left in Poland which still practices multi-issue, ongoing debates on a single matter, written by authors of opposite but well established and documented viewpoints in reaction to one another or does "themed" issues in which different but supported viewpoints are presented in an unbiased (but sometimes in necessary simplified or abridged manner). One. And even this title cannot be seen as universally trustworhty as it has strong catholic-conservative bias in "standard subjects" part of their publications. All ad-driven titles have visibly deteriorated in quality in last couple of years due to shift to online publishing being main income source and internet is a "continuous publishing" medium which requires shorter lifespan of articles to generate large enough income. And because of that there is a constant shift towards titles become more of a "blog platforms" than editorial entities, which leads to landscapes of missinformation much in nature of how NYT operates.
To be crystal clear: I do undestand your position of "bias is not a binary property but can be percieved as binary by some people, which in turn makes them vulnerable to all kinds of manipulations" but pretty much no one, including Luciferian, is debating this. From where I stand you pretty much both agree, that there is no universal metric to sort media by and one can only try to stay well informed by constantly contesting everything one reads. But somehow your post leave an impression that you indeed believe, that some titles are more "manipulation free" than others and that this virtue is universally clear to see. It isn't, "central circle" media (according to the chart linked previously) simply use more convoluted ways of misrepresent informations according to their line of business/agenda/viewpoint which makes them more often than not even more dangerous than straight-up propaganda titles as readers who follow only a handfull of titles may stay unaware of their methods longer. This does not mean you personally, as you are aware of that, but for "statistical reader" with an IQ of 100 and 15 minutes a day to follow news reports.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the other hand, all we have on the Polish-Israeli coverage in the WaPo is your word, which we shouldn't take blindly either.
But do I expect you to? I use this subject as an example because it is something we all have common acces to, otherwise I would have to operate on abstract qualities only, as I do not know other US news and topics and you have no knowledge about polish media. It is a simple means of my more pronounced participation in such global-related thread as this one which still has to operate on detailed examples. If I knew more about missrepresented internal American issues I would use them, as there most certainly are plenty, as everywhere, and they would indeed provoke a more involved discussion. But I do not follow your politics as closely.
This whole thread is a front for spreading the idea that nothing and no one can be trusted and therefore your "ideas" are just as valid as anyone elses; no matter how crazy!
Easy E wrote: This whole thread is a front for spreading the idea that nothing and no one can be trusted and therefore your "ideas" are just as valid as anyone elses; no matter how crazy!
No, it is pretty much the oposite - "your ideas" if unquestioned by self are probably a result of accumulated media misinformation so you should always cross-check your facts and narratives. There is a very fundamental difference between "no singular media is to be unquestionably trusted" and "entirety of the media is so untrustworthy that you live in an entirely made-up matrix sp you can as well make up everything by yourself".
nou wrote: At what point exactly does perpetually making "honest mistakes" in a given subject become a "forcing false narrative"?
Just to address this specifically; while the reality is obviously complex I've found a pretty good rule of thumb is when a news organization stops publishing retractions or corrections of false claims, it's crossed from normal bias/mistakes into willful deception.
WaPo coverage of Polish-Israeli issue is at this point a series (so that meet "on regular/methodical basis" cryteria by my standards) of articles landing between "reckless journalism" and "plain manipulation, dishonest organisation" as you defined them.
You said earlier in this thread that Polish media itself is a clusterfeth of misinformation and deception. I don't think WaPo and other North American journalism gives enough of a feth about Poland* to actually invest in responsible journalism on the ground in Poland, and so reprint whatever their reporter's contacts feed them. If I was interested in Poland's interal politcs, I wouldn't go to a North American media outelt, even a major one like WaPo for info. I'd look for translated Polish sources.
*Not an attack on Poland. I'm Canadian, and no one outside Canada gives a feth about us unless our dreamy PM is doing something swoon-worthy.
WaPo coverage of Polish-Israeli issue is at this point a series (so that meet "on regular/methodical basis" cryteria by my standards) of articles landing between "reckless journalism" and "plain manipulation, dishonest organisation" as you defined them.
You said earlier in this thread that Polish media itself is a clusterfeth of misinformation and deception. I don't think WaPo and other North American journalism gives enough of a feth about Poland* to actually invest in responsible journalism on the ground in Poland, and so reprint whatever their reporter's contacts feed them. If I was interested in Poland's interal politcs, I wouldn't go to a North American media outelt, even a major one like WaPo for info. I'd look for translated Polish sources.
*Not an attack on Poland. I'm Canadian, and no one outside Canada gives a feth about us unless our dreamy PM is doing something swoon-worthy.
edit: phrasing
No offence is taken, we know very well, that no one gives a feth about Poland
And you'll probably end up with the same biased narrative as simply reading WaPo or similiar North American journal, because you would have no means of solving this Polish media clusterfeth yourself. Which is pretty much what I'm talking about in context of sebster's position. But as I've already replied to AlmightyWalrus, I used this subject only as a reference for discussing more "meta" problems with modern journalism. BTW, not having your own abroad journalists on your payroll is one of signs of deterioration of media quality in the last two decades or so.
But just to give you a brief explanation on why I'm checking with American media on this particular matter is that one of the earliest reactions to our "crisis" with Israel were an open letter from a handfull of your congresmen to our government to stop our legislation and then Israel went out seeking your congress support on this matter. So it is not a case of "how do US media report internal polish politics" but me trying to get a view on how this subject is framed in US media in US involvement context, exactly because what you wrote in your post translates to Polish media groups not investing in responsible journalism in the US as well (this goes even deeper here, as fake "voices from abroad" - that is citing articles from your titles (or Western European titles), guest written by our own journalists because your media don't give enough feth about Poland to have their own journalists here, and then reprinting them back in our own titles as a part of "US/German/French/etc public opinion/media is concerned by actions of polish government/party/group/etc" narrative is one of missinformation techniques popular in some media in Poland).
And yes, your dreamy PM's socks were center point of some of our's mainstream media coverage about World Economic Forum in Davos.
Honestly in my community Canada is pretty much viewed as a culture of nicer people who is much better off for it. But the weather really sucks so it's kinda a wash.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd like to state my opposition to the idea that media is driven by profit to the exclusion of all else, because it just isn't true. It's the idea of the rational man writ large, and runs into the same problem as that theory does on an individual level in that it completely ignores things like ideology or altruism, to name a few.
That's a really good point that we shouldn't have left unchallenged as long as we have in this thread. Kudos.
LordofHats wrote: Some of the best people who write stuff for HuffPo are the outside contributors. Diane Ravitch is one of my favorite commentators on education, both because she can admit when she is wrong and because she's one of the few sensible policy commentators on the subject. Phil Radford (former executive director of Greenpeace USA) also writes articles from time to time on environmental issues, and I like his approach of directly engaging corporate culture as the most effective way to advocate for better environmental policy even if he's opinions of the political-industrial complex can get... a little crazy. The Libertarian I speak of is The Volokh Conspiracy which I now realize is actually under the Washington Post They both have post in their name okay it's gets confusing at 4 AM XD The place is a blog edited by Libertarian leaning lawyers and law experts (and they are political) but they are least have a certain self-awareness about it all that I find endearing and the blog itself is insightful even when I find the ideology of Libertarianism to be wildly short sighted. Like I said. They get credit for putting in effort.
Thanks. I'll definitely look up Ravitch's stuff, education is an issue I want to read about more.
Prestor Jon wrote: I’m not trying to hide or walk back anything. If I wanted people to overlook something I wanted continue to further a discussion about it.
It appeared that you shifted from 'trustworthy' to 'more trustworthy'. That is a significant difference in meaning. However that probably wasn't what you were doing.
It’s Dakka OT it’s not something to take personally or seriously.
There's nothing personal meant or intended in telling someone they're shifting their argument. It just is, and needs to be addressed in order for the discussion to move forward. And raising it has helped clarify the point, so its all good. I apologise if I sounded harsh.
Trustworthy doesn’t mean infallible or should be taken at face value at all times. Trustworthy means something you can have confidence in that something is more reliable and honest.
It can mean the former, in the right context. And this is the context you used the word, "Multiple people in this thread have stated that while all media companies are based some media companies are trustworthy and some media companies are not."
I took it to mean that you think some people were saying some organisations are completely trustworthy. Because the alternative interpretation would basically boil down to you commenting that people think some media organisations are more trustworthy than others, which I took as a statement so obvious and so non-controversial that it couldn't be what you meant. Having discussed this some more, it does seem that was your intent.
Media companies exist to manipulate and sway opinion/ideaology and they need to do so in a manner that is profitable enough to keep their business running.
All media is manipulative it tries to persuade you to think or feel a certain way. Some media manipulation is easier to accept than others because it pushes us towards a position we already hold or approve of. I know that I can easily be persuaded by media that is pro gay marriage equality because that is a position I am comfortable with and that I cannot be easily persuaded to agree with the position that the federal govt uses chem trails in the sky to conduct illicit mind control experiments on people because I am predisposed to disbelieve such a claim and it makes me uncomfortable to believe in such a thing.
You're mixing up bias and manipulation. The phrase 'all media has a bias' is a statement that all media has a viewpoint, that even when they try to write as objectively as possible, what they say will come from how they understand the world.
Whereas manipulation is when a media source only gives you part of the story, because they want to present a specific slant that matches their political aims.
It is the difference between sub-conscious and conscious filtering. And it is a big fething difference. And some media companies are mostly the former, and some media companies are exclusively the latter, with a lot sitting somewhere in between. And its a problem that so many people try to deny this reality. They deny it by taking up a kind of post-modern cynicism, 'oh everybody is biased', but it's a dishonest position because they're not actually trying to review all media with a critical eye - if they were the first thing they'd note is that there are some really bad media companies that regularly publish some ridiculous nonsense. But they don't notice that, because the actual motivation isn't to apply a critical eye to all media, the motivation is to give themselves cover to ignore the awful problems with their favourite media, by pretending those problems are equal in all media.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: WaPo coverage of Polish-Israeli issue is at this point a series (so that meet "on regular/methodical basis" cryteria by my standards) of articles landing between "reckless journalism" and "plain manipulation, dishonest organisation" as you defined them. If I apply your suggestion of "Orgs with a proven record of manipulative and dishonest writing should be treated far more skeptically, and if they're bad enough like InfoWars they should be ignored entirely." I then should ignore WaPo entirely, because I have absolutely no means of judging if they are truthfull or manipulative on subjects I know less about than the one I caught them being manipulative on (and by now I have a pretty good view on how much of "liberal viewpoint" this title is). If I were to read on some American internal matters, then reading about them in WaPo is pretty much meaningless as I have to at least tripple the amount of reading on a subject (kind of the most primitive media equivalent of parity check) to even start to have a somewhat unbiased view. Do I have to the same with InfoWars or Alex Jones? Of course I do, so by that metric they all have exact same usefulness untill I could establish a more adequate "bias weight" on all three of those.
No, that's not even close. First up, note I wrote this "And then to add one more layer of complexity, you have to note that organisations are complex - they may be biased and unreliable on one matter, and have excellent reporting elsewhere." You've expressly ignored that, because otherwise you wouldn't get to stretch "I think their reporting on Poland is terrible, therefore something, something US domestic politics".
And then you've invented some kind of rule where the only way to assess truthfulness is by past record. Past record is a factor, but it is far from the only factor.
And you seem to have done all this to reach a conclusion where WaPo is listed alongside InfoWars. It's very silly.
Individual journalist may be trustworthy, entire organisations/titles never are.
No organisation or journalist is ever completely foolproof, because no human or human institution is ever perfect. But that doesn't mean thy're all the same.
What you seem to assume is that somehow knowledge about publication history and bias of a given title is well known and cannot be a subject of debate or cannot be twisted according to one's personal viewpoint, which I find quite puzzling.
Of course there's a lot of scope for debate, but there are in which in which that debate can be sensible. It is reasonable to ask if NYT has a sufficient reputation that we should assume that story based on three anonymous sources can be assumed to be likely true, people could reasonably fall on both sides of that debate. It is not reasonable to claim NYT is as unreliable as The Daily Caller.
I've perhaps sounded more definite because I'm arguing for the existence of those bounds, a position a lot of people in this thread a ridiculously arguing against.
You said earlier, that NYT is not biased because of covering all of the possible angles, including those outside of a spectum of rationality.
No, I didn't, I never said NYT wasn't biased. Because as I've said from the very start every media org has a bias. I said that the NYT makes a conscious efforts towards a 'both sides' position, so that they assign equal numbers of journalists to investigate both sides in a political campaign, regardless of whether one side might have more to uncover than another. This position is actually its own form of bias, because it produces a false equivalency in debates where the two sides are not equal, and also tends to restrict published opinion down to only those held by major institutions.
To be crystal clear: I do undestand your position of "bias is not a binary property but can be percieved as binary by some people, which in turn makes them vulnerable to all kinds of manipulations" but pretty much no one, including Luciferian, is debating this. From where I stand you pretty much both agree, that there is no universal metric to sort media by and one can only try to stay well informed by constantly contesting everything one reads.
Not quite. That's pretty much what Luciferian believes. That theory has led him to trying to defend InfoWars which is a pretty good sign there's something wrong with a theory. Instead, my view is that all media has a bias, but that most definitely does not mean all media is equal - some orgs are working to present complete, fact based articles, and while those articles will still impacted by their pov, this places them miles above orgs that are happy to use incomplete and even false facts in order to make sure their story aligns with their politics.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd like to state my opposition to the idea that media is driven by profit to the exclusion of all else, because it just isn't true. It's the idea of the rational man writ large, and runs into the same problem as that theory does on an individual level in that it completely ignores things like ideology or altruism, to name a few.
That's a really good point that we shouldn't have left unchallenged as long as we have in this thread. Kudos.
LordofHats wrote: Some of the best people who write stuff for HuffPo are the outside contributors. Diane Ravitch is one of my favorite commentators on education, both because she can admit when she is wrong and because she's one of the few sensible policy commentators on the subject. Phil Radford (former executive director of Greenpeace USA) also writes articles from time to time on environmental issues, and I like his approach of directly engaging corporate culture as the most effective way to advocate for better environmental policy even if he's opinions of the political-industrial complex can get... a little crazy. The Libertarian I speak of is The Volokh Conspiracy which I now realize is actually under the Washington Post They both have post in their name okay it's gets confusing at 4 AM XD The place is a blog edited by Libertarian leaning lawyers and law experts (and they are political) but they are least have a certain self-awareness about it all that I find endearing and the blog itself is insightful even when I find the ideology of Libertarianism to be wildly short sighted. Like I said. They get credit for putting in effort.
Thanks. I'll definitely look up Ravitch's stuff, education is an issue I want to read about more.
Prestor Jon wrote: I’m not trying to hide or walk back anything. If I wanted people to overlook something I wanted continue to further a discussion about it.
It appeared that you shifted from 'trustworthy' to 'more trustworthy'. That is a significant difference in meaning. However that probably wasn't what you were doing.
It’s Dakka OT it’s not something to take personally or seriously.
There's nothing personal meant or intended in telling someone they're shifting their argument. It just is, and needs to be addressed in order for the discussion to move forward. And raising it has helped clarify the point, so its all good. I apologise if I sounded harsh.
Trustworthy doesn’t mean infallible or should be taken at face value at all times. Trustworthy means something you can have confidence in that something is more reliable and honest.
It can mean the former, in the right context. And this is the context you used the word, "Multiple people in this thread have stated that while all media companies are based some media companies are trustworthy and some media companies are not."
I took it to mean that you think some people were saying some organisations are completely trustworthy. Because the alternative interpretation would basically boil down to you commenting that people think some media organisations are more trustworthy than others, which I took as a statement so obvious and so non-controversial that it couldn't be what you meant. Having discussed this some more, it does seem that was your intent.
Media companies exist to manipulate and sway opinion/ideaology and they need to do so in a manner that is profitable enough to keep their business running.
All media is manipulative it tries to persuade you to think or feel a certain way. Some media manipulation is easier to accept than others because it pushes us towards a position we already hold or approve of. I know that I can easily be persuaded by media that is pro gay marriage equality because that is a position I am comfortable with and that I cannot be easily persuaded to agree with the position that the federal govt uses chem trails in the sky to conduct illicit mind control experiments on people because I am predisposed to disbelieve such a claim and it makes me uncomfortable to believe in such a thing.
You're mixing up bias and manipulation. The phrase 'all media has a bias' is a statement that all media has a viewpoint, that even when they try to write as objectively as possible, what they say will come from how they understand the world.
Whereas manipulation is when a media source only gives you part of the story, because they want to present a specific slant that matches their political aims.
It is the difference between sub-conscious and conscious filtering. And it is a big fething difference. And some media companies are mostly the former, and some media companies are exclusively the latter, with a lot sitting somewhere in between. And its a problem that so many people try to deny this reality. They deny it by taking up a kind of post-modern cynicism, 'oh everybody is biased', but it's a dishonest position because they're not actually trying to review all media with a critical eye - if they were the first thing they'd note is that there are some really bad media companies that regularly publish some ridiculous nonsense. But they don't notice that, because the actual motivation isn't to apply a critical eye to all media, the motivation is to give themselves cover to ignore the awful problems with their favourite media, by pretending those problems are equal in all media.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: WaPo coverage of Polish-Israeli issue is at this point a series (so that meet "on regular/methodical basis" cryteria by my standards) of articles landing between "reckless journalism" and "plain manipulation, dishonest organisation" as you defined them. If I apply your suggestion of "Orgs with a proven record of manipulative and dishonest writing should be treated far more skeptically, and if they're bad enough like InfoWars they should be ignored entirely." I then should ignore WaPo entirely, because I have absolutely no means of judging if they are truthfull or manipulative on subjects I know less about than the one I caught them being manipulative on (and by now I have a pretty good view on how much of "liberal viewpoint" this title is). If I were to read on some American internal matters, then reading about them in WaPo is pretty much meaningless as I have to at least tripple the amount of reading on a subject (kind of the most primitive media equivalent of parity check) to even start to have a somewhat unbiased view. Do I have to the same with InfoWars or Alex Jones? Of course I do, so by that metric they all have exact same usefulness untill I could establish a more adequate "bias weight" on all three of those.
No, that's not even close. First up, note I wrote this "And then to add one more layer of complexity, you have to note that organisations are complex - they may be biased and unreliable on one matter, and have excellent reporting elsewhere." You've expressly ignored that, because otherwise you wouldn't get to stretch "I think their reporting on Poland is terrible, therefore something, something US domestic politics".
And then you've invented some kind of rule where the only way to assess truthfulness is by past record. Past record is a factor, but it is far from the only factor.
And you seem to have done all this to reach a conclusion where WaPo is listed alongside InfoWars. It's very silly.
Individual journalist may be trustworthy, entire organisations/titles never are.
No organisation or journalist is ever completely foolproof, because no human or human institution is ever perfect. But that doesn't mean thy're all the same.
What you seem to assume is that somehow knowledge about publication history and bias of a given title is well known and cannot be a subject of debate or cannot be twisted according to one's personal viewpoint, which I find quite puzzling.
Of course there's a lot of scope for debate, but there are in which in which that debate can be sensible. It is reasonable to ask if NYT has a sufficient reputation that we should assume that story based on three anonymous sources can be assumed to be likely true, people could reasonably fall on both sides of that debate. It is not reasonable to claim NYT is as unreliable as The Daily Caller.
I've perhaps sounded more definite because I'm arguing for the existence of those bounds, a position a lot of people in this thread a ridiculously arguing against.
You said earlier, that NYT is not biased because of covering all of the possible angles, including those outside of a spectum of rationality.
No, I didn't, I never said NYT wasn't biased. Because as I've said from the very start every media org has a bias. I said that the NYT makes a conscious efforts towards a 'both sides' position, so that they assign equal numbers of journalists to investigate both sides in a political campaign, regardless of whether one side might have more to uncover than another. This position is actually its own form of bias, because it produces a false equivalency in debates where the two sides are not equal, and also tends to restrict published opinion down to only those held by major institutions.
To be crystal clear: I do undestand your position of "bias is not a binary property but can be percieved as binary by some people, which in turn makes them vulnerable to all kinds of manipulations" but pretty much no one, including Luciferian, is debating this. From where I stand you pretty much both agree, that there is no universal metric to sort media by and one can only try to stay well informed by constantly contesting everything one reads.
Not quite. That's pretty much what Luciferian believes. That theory has led him to trying to defend InfoWars which is a pretty good sign there's something wrong with a theory. Instead, my view is that all media has a bias, but that most definitely does not mean all media is equal - some orgs are working to present complete, fact based articles, and while those articles will still impacted by their pov, this places them miles above orgs that are happy to use incomplete and even false facts in order to make sure their story aligns with their politics.
I'll start my answer with an earlier quote from you:
"However, your complaints about the other two news organisations are hollow, and only show your own bias (and how your bias feeds your understanding of media orgs, reinforcing your bias, exactly as I said to you earlier in this thread).
CNN isn't biased because it doesn't have a viewpoint, because it doesn't have any real interest in news at all. In order to give someone a biased version of events, you would have to actually be telling someone something at all.
The NYT is so intent on both sides it bends over backwards to sacrifice actual news just to appeal to every market segment. During the 2016 election the paper directed 20 journalists to investigate Trump's background, and how many to investigate Clinton? 20. Because balance. It didn't matter who had more scandals or bigger scandals, its decision was entirely based on neutrality. Right now it has opinion writers like the climate change denier Bret Stephens and Erik Prince, the Blackwater guy who's tied to Trump in all the money under the table kind of ways. It gives these kinds of people op ed space simply because it wants 'balance'."
This reads as "both CNN and NYT are not biased because" and then two different reasons why those titles should not be treated as biased. If you wanted to express what both you and I wrote in our last posts about NYT type of bias you failed to write it clearly enough... But since you have now expanded on this matter, you and I are on exactly same page on what exact type of skew NYT produces.
"First up, note I wrote this "And then to add one more layer of complexity, you have to note that organisations are complex - they may be biased and unreliable on one matter, and have excellent reporting elsewhere." You've expressly ignored that, because otherwise you wouldn't get to stretch"
I've literally adressed this AND AGREED paragraph later (and an entire post earlier).
"And then to add one more layer of complexity, you have to note that organisations are complex - they may be biased and unreliable on one matter, and have excellent reporting elsewhere." that is pretty much what I wrote a post earlier in my quick summary of your position. Individual journalist may be trustworthy, entire organisations/titles never are.
You seem so focused on your point of view here, that you can no longer discern when I agree with you; when I agree with you but have something to add; or when I'm in opposition to you... So let me explain one last time, without any abridging, the story behind my experience with WaPo and why it is a good example of "treating all media as biased" (no one here states "equally biased", what I say is "all media are biased sufficiently enough to not be up-frontly trusted":
- up untill a week ago I had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about quality of journalism in WaPo. I have never read it before.
- my very first contact with this title is an article, where factual value is exactly as follows: "there is a crisis between Poland and Israel", "the crisis is about a law being passed", "the law is related to IIWW era". That's all. Everything else in that article is missinformation (on the exact wording and scope of the law in question and following conclusions/interpretations of that law; you can verify this by having the law in question translated to english while I can simply go to government site and read the law in question directly), and direct anti-right handwaiving interpretation of reasoning behind the law being passed. I also see that this article is signed by a Polish doctoral student from a very left-wing skewed university, so I have additional information on editorial standards in WaPo.
- but with my previous experience of my history with NYT publications on this subject covering all the possible (and impossible) angles I give WaPo another chance and take my time to read more articles they published on this subject and they are just more of the same. I could link you a more objective article on this even from Jerusalem Post. Also, all articles on this in WaPo utilise the same means of skewing presentation of data and "forging a narrative" which are common to fairly biased or straight up untrustworthy titles in polish media landscape (just a sidenote here - media from all sides of political spectrum utilise those).
- it is now 5:0 agains WaPo objectivism on a subject that I have enough knowledge about to be sure of both facts and existing interpretations landscape. At this point, if I were now to read in WaPo about a topic I have no clue about, be it American internall afairs, Uganda natural history or world population of walrusses I don't have any reson to believe that what is published in WaPo is accurate and non-biased. To verify this, I now have to read at least one other source to cross check facts to have at least weak basis to separate facts from opinions, but usually it takes more sources and more time to verify because you either need to have a pool of even patially skewed articles or a hard data, scientific article. So it would be easiest to verify walrusses population but hardest to verify American internal affairs.
- for WaPo to gain my trust after initial 5:0 score against it would take quite a lot of spot-on, unbiased articles to confirm, that this was just an untypical mistake on their part. No media I know of have such a flawless record so I assume (based on my vast knowledge about polish and european media landscape, you can read more about it in my first post in this thread) that while not all WaPo articles are useless I can only utilise WaPo as an insight to left-leaning perspective on social and political issues untill I can identify individual journalists in WaPo that are trustworthy/objective enough or I'm otherwise convinced that this was just a bad luck me stumbling upon such skewed subject as a first contact. Everything being discussed in this thread about WaPo position in US media landscape reaffirms this conclusion.
Luciferian never did defend InfoWars or Alex Jones informational value. What he wrote exactly is that to construct a believable enough lie one must anchor his narrative on at least some or partial facts for readers to fail their fact-check on and that nearly all media do that to some extent or another in more or less wide spectrum of their coverage. Which you yourself pretty much agree with, the difference between you and Luciferian or myself is your personal threshold of what is "prooven trustowrthy" or "what level of minutiae is being catchy". I added one in-depth case study of intentional and repeated missinformation and forging an artificial narrative from WaPo to illustrate my position, but it is not the only case study possible or existing. It was just coincidential, that I had this Polish-Israeli subject readily available as illustration, as it is simply current news.
Last word - you probably missed or did not fully understood my initial post in this thread: I base my position not on personal opinion build upon following few selected titles on day-to-day basis, but on meta analysis of literally thousands of media titles. I have acces (through my wife's line of work) to tools which can give us the whole media coverage about any given subject in the scope of months or years even, be it UE-funded roadbuilding, polish-german relations, or such "trivial" topics as printed and social media coverage about a single brand of cat food, you name it, she can find it, extract it and analyse it in the most objective way there is (and then I have to listen to some of those boring topics over dinner ). You literally cannot be more informed on media manipulation techniques than she is, as it is her bread and butter to unskew those informations to be usefull for largest companies or government entities to base their PR relations/crisis management/diplomacy upon on or identify advertising strategies adequate to any given title's target audience. You are literally discussing, that the whole huge branch of business and their even bigger corporate clientelle has irrational opinion about all media being skewed and manipulative and that you can have an in-depth, factual knowledge about any social subject only by meta-analysis. I hope this clears our entire previous conversation a bit because I've spent too much time in this thread already to repeat myself once again. Cheers!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think I found a simpler way to characterise difference in our positions, a kind of "glass half full vs half empty" situation. You seem to believe, that most competent meda titles have their truthfull-to-missinforming ratio in orders of 90:10 and that those 10% of misinformation is mostly mistakes and human/process flaws whlie the least reliable media titles have a ratio of 0% facts/100% BS. Luciferian places the bottom line of closer to 1/99 facts-vs-BS while I know that even the most reliable media titles nowadays have truth-to-missinformation ratios closer to 50/50 if you count their entire spectrum of coverage. They may go near 90:10 ratio only in a single, most specialised area if their funding is independent from said area, which pretty much never occurs in mainstream, politically backed/oriented media. Local or technical newspapers are statistically more reliable on their coverage than large, "all-in-one" nationwide titles and there exist particular journalists that can have a near 100% reliable coverage (and number of said journalist decline in recent decades), but that's it.
Uber_Trooper wrote: I think the requirements for an echoe chamber include a bunch of friends who just say things that confirm your beliefs. of all things, the internet is the last place you want to go to.
No, I think it's perfect. Just because you're talking to people and being expose to other views doesn't say anything about how that information is being used. One thing that really made me stop and think was a video on the horribleness that was Gamergate, where the author didn't endorse either side, but made a point that the argument could never be settled because neither side wanted to win.
And I think you can apply that to a lot of the modern world, or human interaction in general--a lot of things make more sense if you consider that conflict isn't a means, it's an end in itself. You engage in a bit of safe ritual combat with those who disagree with your obviously correct facts, your bias is just necessary to offset their bias, and everyone comes away tingling with sweet righteous anger and a vindication that only idiots could disagree with them.
And of course some media is more trustworthy than others. Declaring all media equally untrustworthy is absurd. The Daily Mail got banned from Wikipedia for being so absurd, and there's even a song about their more ludicrous headlines, and when Wikipedia won't take you there's something wrong cause Wikipedia's standards for source quality are basically "is it in English" and "does it say what we say it says" (and they're not to good with that last one).
NinthMusketeer wrote: Well Reagan was 1981-1989 (but more specifically one could say the parties were reasonably non-polarized in crafting the 1986 tax reform) and the internet launched in 1991, so the rise of US political polarization and the rise of the internet did coincide more than not. Granted this could be coincidental, correlation rather than causation, but I wouldn't dismiss the internet as a significant contributor either. I would go into more detail, but that would probably take this in an off-topic direction.
I agree with you.
I'm also going to give only so much weight to a single study that attempts to quantify something that's inherently difficult to quantify.
The Internet's effect on news organizations is also a key part of the puzzle here, IMO.
nou wrote: This reads as "both CNN and NYT are not biased because" and then two different reasons why those titles should not be treated as biased. If you wanted to express what both you and I wrote in our last posts about NYT type of bias you failed to write it clearly enough... But since you have now expanded on this matter, you and I are on exactly same page on what exact type of skew NYT produces.
That quote is a good pick up, and shows I haven't been entirely clear here. I used bias there in terms of left/right bias, elsewhere I've used it to mean any kind of bias/point of view. I used it differently that time because we were discussing that graphic that broke orgs down on their left/right bias and people were questioning whether some orgs should be that close to the centre. However, given I'd emphasized the other meaning of bias through most of my other posts in the thread, it was weak usage on my part.
Anyway my mistake.
You seem so focused on your point of view here, that you can no longer discern when I agree with you; when I agree with you but have something to add; or when I'm in opposition to you
I think a lot has been lost in the back and forth. I'm happy to accept blame for a lot of that, I haven't been in good form in this thread.
Luciferian never did defend InfoWars or Alex Jones informational value.
He did, though. "Unfortunately, even the most reputable news sources are doing the same thing that Alex Jones is, just to a less conspicuous degree." He wasn't defending Alex Jones so much as claiming all media was as deceptive as Alex Jones, but the result is the same.
Later on he did walk that back a little bit, but the fact he thought that was a reasonable claim even for a little while tells you something about the scope of the 'all media is biased' problem.
I think I found a simpler way to characterise difference in our positions, a kind of "glass half full vs half empty" situation. You seem to believe, that most competent meda titles have their truthfull-to-missinforming ratio in orders of 90:10 and that those 10% of misinformation is mostly mistakes and human/process flaws whlie the least reliable media titles have a ratio of 0% facts/100% BS. Luciferian places the bottom line of closer to 1/99 facts-vs-BS while I know that even the most reliable media titles nowadays have truth-to-missinformation ratios closer to 50/50 if you count their entire spectrum of coverage. They may go near 90:10 ratio only in a single, most specialised area if their funding is independent from said area, which pretty much never occurs in mainstream, politically backed/oriented media. Local or technical newspapers are statistically more reliable on their coverage than large, "all-in-one" nationwide titles and there exist particular journalists that can have a near 100% reliable coverage (and number of said journalist decline in recent decades), but that's it.
Not quite. I'd say my central idea is there is such a thing as a reality based community. This community isn't always right, there is disgreement within this community based on lots of things, and there's plenty of scope for difference based on bias/points of view. And within that community there will be factual errors, though I'd say assigning a percentage to this is arbitrary and fairly meaningless.
The point is that community and how it operates differs wildly to the people who operate outside it. Alex Jones has been used as an example, but there's plenty of others, both media figures and political activists. These are people for whom facts don't matter so much, people who can be caught repeatedly in lies without any penalty, because the audience coming to them doesn't much care about facts, it cares about being given a version of reality it wants to hear.
The line where one community ends and the liars take over isn't a clean line, especially not on an organisational level (FOX News for instance, has some really good actual news reporting, it also has opinion sections with people like Tucker Carlson). But what is important is to recognise that these are very different places, which operate on very different rules. Pretending there is no distinction is something a lot of people do, precisely so they can pretend they're getting just as good a quality information by tuning in to the liars.
nou wrote: This reads as "both CNN and NYT are not biased because" and then two different reasons why those titles should not be treated as biased. If you wanted to express what both you and I wrote in our last posts about NYT type of bias you failed to write it clearly enough... But since you have now expanded on this matter, you and I are on exactly same page on what exact type of skew NYT produces.
That quote is a good pick up, and shows I haven't been entirely clear here. I used bias there in terms of left/right bias, elsewhere I've used it to mean any kind of bias/point of view. I used it differently that time because we were discussing that graphic that broke orgs down on their left/right bias and people were questioning whether some orgs should be that close to the centre. However, given I'd emphasized the other meaning of bias through most of my other posts in the thread, it was weak usage on my part.
Anyway my mistake.
You seem so focused on your point of view here, that you can no longer discern when I agree with you; when I agree with you but have something to add; or when I'm in opposition to you
I think a lot has been lost in the back and forth. I'm happy to accept blame for a lot of that, I haven't been in good form in this thread.
Luciferian never did defend InfoWars or Alex Jones informational value.
He did, though. "Unfortunately, even the most reputable news sources are doing the same thing that Alex Jones is, just to a less conspicuous degree." He wasn't defending Alex Jones so much as claiming all media was as deceptive as Alex Jones, but the result is the same.
Later on he did walk that back a little bit, but the fact he thought that was a reasonable claim even for a little while tells you something about the scope of the 'all media is biased' problem.
I think I found a simpler way to characterise difference in our positions, a kind of "glass half full vs half empty" situation. You seem to believe, that most competent meda titles have their truthfull-to-missinforming ratio in orders of 90:10 and that those 10% of misinformation is mostly mistakes and human/process flaws whlie the least reliable media titles have a ratio of 0% facts/100% BS. Luciferian places the bottom line of closer to 1/99 facts-vs-BS while I know that even the most reliable media titles nowadays have truth-to-missinformation ratios closer to 50/50 if you count their entire spectrum of coverage. They may go near 90:10 ratio only in a single, most specialised area if their funding is independent from said area, which pretty much never occurs in mainstream, politically backed/oriented media. Local or technical newspapers are statistically more reliable on their coverage than large, "all-in-one" nationwide titles and there exist particular journalists that can have a near 100% reliable coverage (and number of said journalist decline in recent decades), but that's it.
Not quite. I'd say my central idea is there is such a thing as a reality based community. This community isn't always right, there is disgreement within this community based on lots of things, and there's plenty of scope for difference based on bias/points of view. And within that community there will be factual errors, though I'd say assigning a percentage to this is arbitrary and fairly meaningless.
The point is that community and how it operates differs wildly to the people who operate outside it. Alex Jones has been used as an example, but there's plenty of others, both media figures and political activists. These are people for whom facts don't matter so much, people who can be caught repeatedly in lies without any penalty, because the audience coming to them doesn't much care about facts, it cares about being given a version of reality it wants to hear.
The line where one community ends and the liars take over isn't a clean line, especially not on an organisational level (FOX News for instance, has some really good actual news reporting, it also has opinion sections with people like Tucker Carlson). But what is important is to recognise that these are very different places, which operate on very different rules. Pretending there is no distinction is something a lot of people do, precisely so they can pretend they're getting just as good a quality information by tuning in to the liars.
I'm to be blamed as well, as initially I wasn't really intending to get so involved in this thread, so my first post was rather brief and when I finally decided to go full throttle trenches were already set and Alex Jones was already on the table... I probably should have started with something along the lines of my last post and refine from that, as I'm focused solely on central circle or wide audience media - there is enough disinformation there alone to write dissertations. I must also add, that english is not my native language, and while I feel I'm fluent enough, some things still get lost in translation and this goes both ways - understanding and being understood.
I really do feel that I understand your POV on what you now call "real based community" from the start, what I'm trying to show is that this view is somewhat overly optimistic. Earlier in this thread, NinthMusketeer suggested a "good rule of thumb is when a news organization stops publishing retractions or corrections of false claims, it's crossed from normal bias/mistakes into willful deception.". This is unfortunately untrue, as making a manipulated cover story and then publishing a retraction/correction later on in much less exposed way is quite common way of manipulation by itself. In times of continuous publishng media like internet, it sometimes even takes a quite grotesque form of changing leads and titles of articles on hour-to-hour basis, after enough audience have been already presented with misleading article (which is perfectly measurable in the online media) or presenting retractions/corrections/apologies in places so obscure, that they hardly reach any audience at all. It was exactly one of such cases which snowballed into current Polish-Israeli crisis - some time ago there was a defamation court case of mr.Tendera vs ZDF (the whole thing started in 2013 with court cases lasting through 2015-2017). ZDF lost the case couple of times already in different polish and german courts, but as an execution of court order, they presented their apologies as a highly enigmatic link in a footnote section of their site. This in turn jump-started two Europe-wide defamation campaigns, another court verdict against ZDF (which still have not been met) and sped up the legislation of the current anti-defamation law in Poland. And ZDF is most certainly the center circle media in equivalent Germany chart.
Couple of further methods of misinformation are only measurable by meta-analisys. You might be surprised how widespread and effective manipulation by ommision is, or how overrepresentation/underrepresentation (perfecty measurable value of time/volume split) of facts (not even opinions) can bias the typical reader's reception of any given media, while leaving an impression of being "ballanced or just slightly biased" in the eyes of those readers.
If I may propose a classic read for you - "A short history of disinformation" by Vladimir Volkoff. Presented therein are all kinds of "white" disinformation techniques still utilised by mainstream media. Many of such techniques are designed specifically to be court-proof so no retractions/corrections are ever even needed. Many of those reach as far back as XIX century Czar Russia and were refined over the last century (especially during the Cold War era, but internet made them even more prevalent). This is pretty much a field of knowledge, science and craft like any other and have been a subject of progress exactly as any other.
We have covered this in one way over NYT/BBC type of bias subthread, but just as a food for thought: imagine two interviews, one where interviewer is absolutely professional and gives only "transparent" questions but interviewee is totally biased; the second one, where interviewer pushes his clear agenda and interviewee is not skilled enough to avoid being manipulated or even if he is, the resulting interview is further presented in a way, that "compensates" for that skill in "white disinformation" ways. Both interviews are then published and their measurable reception by the audience gives exactly same resulting view on the matter in question. Which media is then to be treated as more objective - the one which manipulated by intentionally choosing to publish a biased POV but otherwise having their hands clear or the one actively manipulating the content of the interview? Typical, day-to-day common reader cannot really resolve this question in a definite way, meta-analysis tools can.
