Spot Journalistic Bias and Manipulation (was Media Bias)

[Omnis]

No, there is general consensus in the media on this issue. The scientific community, while trending that way, is far from unanimous.

Unlike the media, who have already decided for us and only report that way.

Did you know there was a period about 100,000 years ago where the global temperature spiked about 7 degrees C over a period of a single decade? Pretty hard for manmade carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels to have caused that.

Epic sunspots.

 

[Pupik]

Did you know there was a period about 100,000 years ago where the global temperature spiked about 7 degrees C over a period of a single decade? Pretty hard for manmade carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels to have caused that.

Mankind invented the woolly mammoth barbeque block party, that's what happened.

 

[FoolKiller]

Mankind invented the woolly mammoth barbeque block party, that's what happened.

That sounds tasty and fun enough to be well worth the climate change.

 

[Danoff]

From Gregg Easterbrook's ESPN Tuesday Morning Quarterback Column

Media point: Here are headlines from last week's budget proposal release. USA Today's main headline (underneath "What Happens to Avatar 3-D Glasses?") was "Obama Budget Proposal Draws Rapid Fire," the political-quarrel angle. The New York Times' main headline was "Huge Deficits May Alter U.S. Politics and Global Power," the public-policy angle. The Chicago Tribune's main headline was "Obama Budget Proposes $100 Billion for Jobs Subsidies," the blue-collar angle. The Washington Post's main headline was "Budget Calls for Increased Spending," the angle that pleases Post readers, many of whom work for or with the federal government. The Wall Street Journal cut to the chase for its demographic: "Wealthy Face Tax Increase."

 

[DK]

I thought it might be fun to have a thread didcated to posting and debunking media bias. When you see an article that's supposed to be reporting fact and you see bias, post it here and explain why it's biased. Maybe you want to pick on Fox News, Al Jazeera, or the BBC. I'll start with CNN.

I never knew the BBC was biased. Al-Jazeera, on the other hand...well, apparently Israel views it as anti-Israeli. And don't get me started on Fox News. I have a bad feeling that if it was started around the time of the Civil Rights Movement in the 50's/60's, they would probably make fun of the civil rights campaigners, and probably use racist terms.

 

[Danoff]

Now you know.

 

[FoolKiller]

I never knew the BBC was biased.

All news media has bias, even if the news media themselves don't realize it.

 

[Danoff]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/20...rates-global-warming-spiraling-out-of-control

Title "Global warming spiraling out of control". What the gif shows is a warming trend. Not that it's spiraling, not that it's out of control, not that it's even controllable. The title assumes that global warming is controllable (and implies strongly that it was historically under control). Bigtime bias. Also clickbiat of course. You don't click on it if it says "gif illustrates global temperatures increasing".

 

[TenEightyOne]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/20...rates-global-warming-spiraling-out-of-control

by The Washington Post's weather editor, Jason Samenow

In context I find just his name to be incredibly biased.

 

[Johnnypenso]

In context I find just his name to be incredibly biased.

Isn't that the same guy that designs the Gran Turismo Career Mode?

 

[Blitz24]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/20...rates-global-warming-spiraling-out-of-control

Title "Global warming spiraling out of control". What the gif shows is a warming trend. Not that it's spiraling, not that it's out of control, not that it's even controllable. The title assumes that global warming is controllable (and implies strongly that it was historically under control). Bigtime bias. Also clickbiat of course. You don't click on it if it says "gif illustrates global temperatures increasing".

Definite clickbait. Also I really hate the term "global warming" because it's climate change (some places are getting colder too!). Another thing is that the climate is constantly changing, not just because of our current actions but also because of past actions as well. It's kind of the meaning of a continuum but the media tries not to educate people on this.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Definite clickbait. Also I really hate the term "global warming" because it's climate change (some places are getting colder too!). Another thing is that the climate is constantly changing, not just because of our current actions but also because of past actions as well. It's kind of the meaning of a continuum but the media tries not to educate people on this.

Odd, I do not recall the climate ever being static.

 

[Blitz24]

Odd, I do not recall the climate ever being static.

The way the media spins it makes it seem like it wasn't at one point.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The way the media spins it makes it seem like it wasn't at one point.

Like it wasn't static?

 

[Blitz24]

Like it wasn't static?

The way the media spins it makes you think it was static at one point. I definitely had some logical fail there.

 

[BobK]

So where is this .gif? I clicked on the link, didn't see one, didn't see an empty spot where it might be.

Note, however, that I have Flash set to "ask me" and I didn't allow Flash to run.

So I'm guessing it wasn't really a .gif but rather a flash animation?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So where is this .gif? I clicked on the link, didn't see one, didn't see an empty spot where it might be.

Note, however, that I have Flash set to "ask me" and I didn't allow Flash to run.

So I'm guessing it wasn't really a .gif but rather a flash animation?

Embedded in a Twitpost, I'll link it here and see if it works for you...

 

[BobK]

Embedded in a Twitpost, I'll link it here and see if it works for you...

Thanks, but [MEDIA]...[/MEDIA] tags don't work for me for some reason.

 

[LeMansAid]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/20...rates-global-warming-spiraling-out-of-control

Title "Global warming spiraling out of control". What the gif shows is a warming trend. Not that it's spiraling, not that it's out of control, not that it's even controllable.

It's a trend plus a trick. The way it's put together means that any years that show a decrease are far less noticeable than a year with an increase. The decrease years are all but hidden in the already present mass of previous years' depictions.

 

[tarnheld]

At least you are only two clicks away from the raw data: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/download.html
Good job from a christian news outlet. 👍

One singled out news piece is most certainly biased, else they would need book-sized newspapers. It's for the reader to build a broader view, and here is how it can work: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4105

 

[Blitz24]

It's a trend plus a trick. The way it's put together means that any years that show a decrease are far less noticeable than a year with an increase. The decrease years are all but hidden in the already present mass of previous years' depictions.

Also the dates chosen are quite arbitrary. Why are they starting from 1850? Why not 1750? It would take into account the sudden dip in temperatures in the 1810s. Or are they omitting data to emphasize their point?

 

[Pupik]

Also the dates chosen are quite arbitrary. Why are they starting from 1850? Why not 1750? It would take into account the sudden dip in temperatures in the 1810s. Or are they omitting data to emphasize their point?

I think there wasn't as much precision in recording temperatures over 150 years ago. There were also far fewer data points to consider; a small town or remote location was unlikely to record anything other than "sunny", "cloudy", "dry", "wet", "snow", "windy", or "locusts". As some of these locations grew larger in population and gained similar advances in technology, then the data could be more level. Still, we only have a comparatively small amount of long-term data to work with.

Omitted data is usually the biggest of form misinformation...it's hard to spot because it isn't there. People want news to be somewhat concise, not a research paper – news outlets also have time and physical constraints – so I'll concede that if you care enough about something, one does a bit more research and files the news of the day in its appropriate place.

 

[Blitz24]

I think there wasn't as much precision in recording temperatures over 150 years ago. There were also far fewer data points to consider; a small town or remote location was unlikely to record anything other than "sunny", "cloudy", "dry", "wet", "snow", "windy", or "locusts". As some of these locations grew larger in population and gained similar advances in technology, then the data could be more level. Still, we only have a comparatively small amount of long-term data to work with.

Omitted data is usually the biggest of form misinformation...it's hard to spot because it isn't there. People want news to be somewhat concise, not a research paper. I'll concede that if you care enough about something, you'll do a bit more research and file the news of the day in its appropriate place.

True. It also screams of bias.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think there wasn't as much precision in recording temperatures over 150 years ago. There were also far fewer data points to consider; a small town or remote location was unlikely to record anything other than "sunny", "cloudy", "dry", "wet", "snow", "windy", or "locusts".

By precision you'd be'd unlikely to have a temperature reading accurate to more than 0.1C. Small towns/remote locations... no reason their mercury stations would record anything different?

Omitted data is usually the biggest of form misinformation...

Depends on the data map, the Met Office's HAD data is specifically built to allow any points to be omitted any number of times without altering the data. It's the go-to set for most studying climate changes.

 

[mustafur]

It's a trend plus a trick. The way it's put together means that any years that show a decrease are far less noticeable than a year with an increase. The decrease years are all but hidden in the already present mass of previous years' depictions.

Not quite, the colour changes as time progresses so whilst it would be hard to see the difference within a similar timeframe if it happens you will notice it easily if there is a big gap between the years.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Here is something that is making the news outlets recently. Katie Couric recently did a documentary that, among other basic crimes in journalism, edit in 8 seconds of dead air during an interview with the NRA in an attempt to make legal gun owners, as a whole, look like idiots. While Couric herself has not apologized for the trash film, one person did, her producer Stephanie Soechtig, and according to 2nd amendment advocate, and Blaze TV host, Dana Loesch, it could be Soechtig, at the very least, that could head for prison.

Here is what was said in the documentary:

“We sent a producer out and he is from Colorado and he went to Arizona and he was able to buy a Bushmaster and then three other pistols without a background check in a matter of four hours. And that’s perfectly legal.”

That statement broke two federal laws:

• Interstate transfer: for a purchaser to acquire a firearm outside their state of residence – in this case, Colorado – the transfer must go through a licensed firearms dealer in the purchaser’s state of residence [18 U.S.C 922(a)(3); 27 CFR 478.29].
• Straw purchase: one individual may not make the purchase of a firearm in someone else’s name [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5)].

But apparently rules don't matter if you drive an agenda.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/03...oducers-repeatedly-violated-federal-gun-laws/

 

[TenEightyOne]

That statement broke two federal laws:

• Interstate transfer: for a purchaser to acquire a firearm outside their state of residence – in this case, Colorado – the transfer must go through a licensed firearms dealer in the purchaser’s state of residence [18 U.S.C 922(a)(3); 27 CFR 478.29].
• Straw purchase: one individual may not make the purchase of a firearm in someone else’s name [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5)].

The statement broke no laws at all, providing that it was true.

The sale broke laws. You don't seem concerned that there were two (or more) parties involved in illegal gun sales.

If somebody is biased against guns and then makes a documentary to show that gun sellers still aren't clamping down and using the law... that isn't media bias, that's still factual reporting.

 

[Sanji Himura]

The statement broke no laws at all, providing that it was true.

It's called a confession.

The sale broke laws. You don't seem concerned that there were two (or more) parties involved in illegal gun sales.

If somebody is biased against guns and then makes a documentary to show that gun sellers still aren't clamping down and using the law... that isn't media bias, that's still factual reporting.

Here is more information from ammoland: (Emphasis added)

In February, The Lip TV interviewed the film’s director, Stephanie Soechtig, prior to the film’s release. During this interview, Ms. Soechtig openly discussed how she sent a producer of the film, who resides in Colorado, to Arizona to purchase firearms (including three pistols) privately. [original video marker 1.27]

According to Ms. Soechtig, the producer met a private seller in a parking lot of a local Wendy’s, and in less than four hours and without a background check, obtained a Bushmaster rifle and three handguns.

It is unknown what happened to these firearms and whether or not they returned with the producer to Colorado. Presumably, this crime was committed in order to highlight what the film’s proponents believe to be current inadequacies federal firearm laws, and to educate viewers on the process for obtaining a firearm. As Ms. Soechtig stated, all of the film’s content was “news to me.” Apparently, existing federal law prohibiting private interstate firearms transfers is also something that will also come as “news” to Ms. Soechtig and her staff.

[...]

In other words, in nakedly advocating for more gun control laws in a one-sided and deceptive piece of propaganda, Ms. Soechtig and her staff likely violated existing federal laws by apparently conspiring to unlawfully import firearms from Arizona into Colorado, and by failing to properly conduct an interstate firearms transfer through a dealer.

Several items of note:

1. It is still legal for private sellers to sell a gun to another citizen that resides in the state without background checks. (this whole case is the so called "Gun Show Loophole" that liberals like to rant and rave on about in action.) The Colorado producer had to lie about what state he resided in to get those guns from a private citizen.

2. Soechtig says the Colorado-based producer was sent to Arizona to make a private purchase. She says she's responsible for the transaction, which also makes this a straw purchase, which is punishable with a $250,000 fine and up to ten years in prison.

3. The only way that this purchase is legal is if the producer who bought the guns is a FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee), which given the context of the statement video, is not most likely.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's called a confession.

Which is legal - that piece of speech breaks no laws.

1. It is still legal for private sellers to sell a gun to another citizen that resides in the state without background checks. (this whole case is the so called "Gun Show Loophole" that liberals like to rant and rave on about in action.) The Colorado producer had to lie about what state he resided in to get those guns from a private citizen.

And was able to do so without a background check. That's one of the points of the film, no?

I2. Soechtig says the Colorado-based producer was sent to Arizona to make a private purchase. She says she's responsible for the transaction, which also makes this a straw purchase, which is punishable with a $250,000 fine and up to ten years in prison.

Yep, it was illegal. Her point stands though, surely?

3. The only way that this purchase is legal is if the producer who bought the guns is a FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee), which given the context of the statement video, is not most likely.

Time will tell, you may be right.

 

[Sanji Himura]

And was able to do so without a background check. That's one of the points of the film, no?

You missed my point. That so called loophole was closed (allegedly) when Obama made the wide sweeping executive orders for gun control earlier this year that required every gun purchase (regardless if you bought your gun from a private seller) to have a background check.

The fact that this producer managed to do such an act is indeed illegal on multiple fronts, not just the two that I just pointed out. Also the fact that it was presented in such a way that there is more of a widespread problem of this lawbreaking happening than it actually occurring is an issue by itself because of the reason that there are no numbers that compares legal private sales to legal sales from an FFL. If anything this is actually the exception that proves the rule (Outside of black market sales).