Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To be fair, for some people bias simply means "they cover stories that I don't like or agree with".

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Oldmike wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I agree that all the well-known cognitive biases that humans are prone to make it practically impossible for a single person to be truly objective, and group think creates dangers for small teams too.

Big reputable organisations like the BBC are about as reliable as you can ever get, and it's always useful to look at a variety of sources.

Facebook of course isn't remotely a reputable news organisation and doesn't pretend to be. Anyone who relies on their "trending" stream inevitably will be led astray even if it's only due to the inherent bias caused by trend selection which is due to people picking on popular stories first.

BBC is far from unbiased it's like clamming fox is unbiased. Humans will be biased for whoever is giving them cash and fits thier ideology

In contradiction of your unsupported and untrue assertion, various university studies have shown a remarkably low degree of bias by the BBC.

Essentially they always lean slightly towards the government of the day, but always get blamed for bias against the government of the day.

They seem pretty biased towards Manchester united to me, actually.

No, no, no, no:


As much as I empathize... government is *not* the answer.

Simply a full public report of any malfeasance, if any, should suffice. Let's the public punish/reward FB's actions.

 whembly wrote:
No, no, no, no:

Spoiler:

NO, NO, NO!

As much as I empathize... government is *not* the answer.

Simply a full public report of any malfeasance, if any, should suffice. Let's the public punish/reward FB's actions.

Surprisingly, I agree with Whembly here... but mostly because FB is NOT a news site. It's a social media site. The intent, design and purpose was to connect friends separated by distance. Yes, it has morphed a bit into something else maybe, but you can still see all of the original aspects of the site still present.

Really, people shouldn't put any credence to the idea that the Republicans are the party of less government. They just want government to regulate different things than the Democrats...

Yea not sure what the issue is, FB is allowed to control its own website?

 skyth wrote:
Really, people shouldn't put any credence to the idea that the Republicans are the party of less government. They just want government to regulate different things than the Democrats...

Often this appears to be correct.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Yea not sure what the issue is, FB is allowed to control its own website?

I'm not sure if I can get upset about a private business manipulating their product... I'm more upset at the idea that we must rely on the government to address these sorts of issues. But then again since the govt forces you to make a cake, and as of yesterday use whatever bathroom you like or face federal discrimination, I would say the Rubicon was crossed some time ago.

How is a story about Justin Beiber getting a face tattoo or Russel Simmons talking stupidly about the Beastie Boys manipulating people for political purposes? As far as I can tell it just tends to be idiotic headlines to get attention and about as political as The Enquirer. MAD magazine was more political.

 Ahtman wrote:
How is a story about Justin Beiber getting a face tattoo or Russel Simmons talking stupidly about the Beastie Boys manipulating people for political purposes? As far as I can tell it just tends to be idiotic headlines to get attention and about as political as The Enquirer. MAD magazine was more political.

That sums it up nicely.

If it wasn't for FB News, I wouldn't know that the guy from KISS thinks Prince had it coming. So... thanks FB , I guess?

 Ahtman wrote:
How is a story about Justin Beiber getting a face tattoo or Russel Simmons talking stupidly about the Beastie Boys manipulating people for political purposes? As far as I can tell it just tends to be idiotic headlines to get attention and about as political as The Enquirer. MAD magazine was more political.

Pretty accurate... It isn't often that actual news is put onto the "What's Trending" tab, because realistically, actual news doesn't generate the level of clicks as those things mentioned.

Irony alert;

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Oldmike wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I agree that all the well-known cognitive biases that humans are prone to make it practically impossible for a single person to be truly objective, and group think creates dangers for small teams too.

Big reputable organisations like the BBC are about as reliable as you can ever get, and it's always useful to look at a variety of sources.

Facebook of course isn't remotely a reputable news organisation and doesn't pretend to be. Anyone who relies on their "trending" stream inevitably will be led astray even if it's only due to the inherent bias caused by trend selection which is due to people picking on popular stories first.

BBC is far from unbiased it's like clamming fox is unbiased. Humans will be biased for whoever is giving them cash and fits thier ideology

In contradiction of your unsupported and untrue assertion, various university studies have shown a remarkably low degree of bias by the BBC.

Essentially they always lean slightly towards the government of the day, but always get blamed for bias against the government of the day.

The BBC and the university's are biased left. Most university's are very left leaning it's hard to see bias if it's swing your way.

I've seen plenty of conservative stuff on Farcebook when I had an account. 99% of it is from users, though.


I agree with others who point out that Zuckerberg's little money machine is not a news outlet, but social media. And in my view, social media isn't to be taken seriously since it's garbage, a haven for drama llamas, a venue for the gutless to lash out, and targets for script kiddies to troll.


My fellow rightists need to quit sweating the small crap. There are bigger issues to worry about.

Strange world we live in when not being biased is considered having a liberal bias...

 skyth wrote:
Strange world we live in when not being biased is considered having a liberal bias...

True Believers are always fun.

 Ouze wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Just like in Hollywood where you aren't allowed to be a republican because you will be blacklisted.

Yes, this is why Arnold Schwarzenegger can't get a movie made, and Clint Eastwood hasn't won 4 Academy Awards, 3 golden globes, and a nomination for Best Picture for American Sniper, a movie about conservative hero Chris Kyle, and so on, and so forth.

Funny, the Daily Show even had an exec admit that the show doesn't allow conservatives except in extreme situations.

You also have the Book written by Ben Shapiro (Prime time Propaganda) which documents a number of interviews he held with Television and network executives. Some of the more poignant points from the book include

“At least, you know, we put Obama in office, and so people, I think, are getting – have gotten – a little bit smarter.”

because by voting in a black man we are being smart...funny that sounds like racism to me

There is also,

Leonard Goldberg — who executive produces Blue Bloods for CBS and a few decades ago exec produced such hits as Fantasy Island, Charlie’s Angels and Starsky and Hutch — saying that liberalism in the TV industry is “100 percent dominant, and anyone who denies it is kidding, or not telling the truth.”

Shapiro asks if politics are a barrier to entry. “Absolutely,” Goldberg says.

So, that is where I am getting my opinion from

If only there was some kind of difference between one ideology being dominant, and the other being blacklisted.

 d-usa wrote:
If only there was some kind of difference between one ideology being dominant, and the other being blacklisted.

Yeah, this is pretty much the point I came here to make. I didn't say that liberal ideology wasn't more common, but you (Semper) did say that conservatives are blacklisted. This is obviously not true.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If only there was some kind of difference between one ideology being dominant, and the other being blacklisted.

Yeah, this is pretty much the point I came here to make. I didn't say that liberal ideology wasn't more common, but you (Semper) did say that conservatives are blacklisted. This is obviously not true.

except that I gave you documented proof from the mouth of the heads of several note worthy networks that openly say that Conservative views are frowned upon and are discriminated agianst.

Then maybe you blacklisted the definition of blacklisted from your knowledge?

You gave me 3 anecdotes, none of which indicate there is any sort of industry-wide blacklist. One unamed guy said they don't usually allow conservatives on the daily show - if he really did, I sure can't source that. Another indicated that electing a black guy seems to him to be a sign of social progress, which has exactly what to do with a conservative blacklist, I don't know, and finally a producer of a TV show whose median age is 65 saying that conservatives have barriers to entry, which again is not how a blacklist works at all.

I gave you many awards given to prominent conservatives, and I can give you even more, but I"m starting to see that might not be the best use of my time. Either you do not understand what a blacklist is, or you're a horse who isn't very thirsty.

The media as a whole does put Liberal and Left leaning stories in a more favorable spotlight.

Case in point, Tea part vs Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street.

When the Tea Party was going strong they, admittedly, had a few outlying people that made them look bad. However, on a whole their meetings would be rather civil. This didn't stop a majority of the new networks from labeling them as "a mob", "racists", "unruly", and any other number of other negative ways to refer to them. This wasn't once or twice. This was the norm for describing them.

Meanwhile, BLM and Occupy Wall Street were actually recorded as spouting racist remarks, vandalizing property, looting, physical assaults on civilians and police, and in some instances rape. Yet the most common descriptors of these groups would include "a gathering", "Protestors", "demonstrators", and "activists".

 Ouze wrote:
You gave me 3 anecdotes, none of which indicate there is any sort of industry-wide blacklist. One unamed guy said they don't usually allow conservatives on the daily show - if he really did, I sure can't source that. Another indicated that electing a black guy seems to him to be a sign of social progress, which has exactly what to do with a conservative blacklist, I don't know, and finally a producer of a TV show whose median age is 65 saying that conservatives have barriers to entry, which again is not how a blacklist works at all.

I gave you many awards given to prominent conservatives, and I can give you even more, but I"m starting to see that might not be the best use of my time. Either you do not understand what a blacklist is, or you're a horse who isn't very thirsty.

Please by all means read the book, as far as the Daily show comment? Steven Crowder has a great video on it, please go take a look. As far as not understanding what a blacklist is or being blacklisted means?

noun
noun: blacklist; plural noun: blacklists

1.
a list of people or products viewed with suspicion or disapproval.

Pretty sure that is exactly what I meant. I think you don't understand the term "Blacklist". You seem to think it means they are forbidden from working in the industry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
The media as a whole does put Liberal and Left leaning stories in a more favorable spotlight.

Case in point, Tea part vs Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street.

When the Tea Party was going strong they, admittedly, had a few outlying people that made them look bad. However, on a whole their meetings would be rather civil. This didn't stop a majority of the new networks from labeling them as "a mob", "racists", "unruly", and any other number of other negative ways to refer to them. This wasn't once or twice. This was the norm for describing them.

Meanwhile, BLM and Occupy Wall Street were actually recorded as spouting racist remarks, vandalizing property, looting, physical assaults on civilians and police, and in some instances rape. Yet the most common descriptors of these groups would include "a gathering", "Protestors", "demonstrators", and "activists".

This entirely. How many Tea Party protests ended in looting/rioting? How many BLM Protests started with Looting and Rioting?

And your correct, for the most part Tea Party members were considered Racists, even though nothing in their group is racist and a number of prominent black politicians identified as Tea Party members.

On the other hand you have countless video's of BLM groups running rampant, attacking white people simply because they are white. A great example of this is the Marine Veteran who helped then 1st Sergeant Kasal out of an ambush, he was beaten so badly he had to hospitalized, why? because a bunch of BLM men asked him if Black Lives mattered, when he refused to answer they beat the living hell out of him.

BTW heres the photo of 1st Sergeant Kasal

He will be happy to see that his blood will be used to win an online argument on a toy forum.

 d-usa wrote:
He will be happy to see that his blood will be used to win an online argument on a toy forum.

You never know, us Marines are a sick twisted group

SemperMortis wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
He will be happy to see that his blood will be used to win an online argument on a toy forum.

You never know, us Marines are a sick twisted group

My dad always said that if you wanted a scalpel you sent in the Air Force, if you wanted a Hammer you sent in the Army, if you wanted a nice vacation you sent in the Navy, and if you wanted someone beaten into a bloody pulp in a raw display of brutal efficiency and lethality you called the Marines and asked nicely

SemperMortis wrote:
Please by all means read the book, as far as the Daily show comment? Steven Crowder has a great video on it, please go take a look. As far as not understanding what a blacklist is or being blacklisted means?

noun
noun: blacklist; plural noun: blacklists

1.
a list of people or products viewed with suspicion or disapproval.
[/url
Pretty sure that is exactly what I meant. I think you don't understand the term "Blacklist". You seem to think it means they are forbidden from working in the industry.

There is a much more specific definition to that word when used in regards to Hollywood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist

 Ouze wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Please by all means read the book, as far as the Daily show comment? Steven Crowder has a great video on it, please go take a look. As far as not understanding what a blacklist is or being blacklisted means?

noun
noun: blacklist; plural noun: blacklists

1.
a list of people or products viewed with suspicion or disapproval.
[/url
Pretty sure that is exactly what I meant. I think you don't understand the term "Blacklist". You seem to think it means they are forbidden from working in the industry.

There is a much more specific definition to that word when used in regards to Hollywood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist

Pretty sure I said Black list and not "Hollywood Blacklist"

Also, you might have missed this when you read that website but it starts with this

"This article is about political blacklists in the 1940s and 1950s"

not exactly useful as a definition in this context is it?