Spot Journalistic Bias and Manipulation (was Media Bias)

[Danoff]

We All Know A Harvey Weinstein — Here’s What Men Can Do About It


No, we do not all know a Harvey Weinstein. That's friggin ridiculous, and way overstates the commonality of that kind of behavior. I've never known a "serial perpetrator of sexual harassment and sexual violence", and if I did, I would encourage that person's victims to come forward, and I might even be tempted to intervene on their behalf against their wishes. That as just plain nonsense.

 

[PeterJB]

Of course it comes from the Huffington Post. And surprise surprise halfway through it turns into a race thing. Even oppression has to be intersectional!

 

[TenEightyOne]

We All Know A Harvey Weinstein — Here’s What Men Can Do About It


No, we do not all know a Harvey Weinstein. That's friggin ridiculous, and way overstates the commonality of that kind of behavior. I've never known a "serial perpetrator of sexual harassment and sexual violence", and if I did, I would encourage that person's victims to come forward, and I might even be tempted to intervene on their behalf against their wishes. That as just plain nonsense.

That article is mostly bollocks. There's one potential half-truth... we may all know a Harvey Weinstein. We just don't know they're a Harvey Weinstein before he/she becomes a Harvey Weinstein in the second definition.

 

[Danoff]

That article is mostly bollocks. There's one potential half-truth... we may all know a Harvey Weinstein. We just don't know they're a Harvey Weinstein before he/she becomes a Harvey Weinstein in the second definition.

I'll agree with that, but it undermines the entire point of the article. The point of the article is that we're all actually guilty by omission. We all know this is going on and we hide it because we don't want to deal with it, which makes us horrible people. It's nonsense. I could not live with myself if I was hiding the secret that someone I knew was a sexual predator, coercing people into sex out of fear for their livelihood, or banishing others because they didn't acquiesce to demands, or even, as Weinstein is accused, just outright rape. I'm personally offended at the insinuation that I'm doing this, as should be the case for everyone that reads this accusation.

 

[BobK]

I'll agree with that, but it undermines the entire point of the article. The point of the article is that we're all actually guilty by omission. We all know this is going on and we hide it because we don't want to deal with it, which makes us horrible people. It's nonsense. I could not live with myself if I was hiding the secret that someone I knew was a sexual predator, coercing people into sex out of fear for their livelihood, or banishing others because they didn't acquiesce to demands, or even, as Weinstein is accused, just outright rape. I'm personally offended at the insinuation that I'm doing this, as should be the case for everyone that reads this accusation.

If you're a male, especially a white male, then you're guilty of all sorts of horrible things simply because you're a white male. That seems to be the thrust of the HuffPost and its ilk overall.

 

[Danoff]

Two headlines in my newsfeed today:


House impeachment managers wrap up their case with Trump's obstruction
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff and the impeachment managers are finishing their opening arguments Friday in what's their final chance to make an ...
CNN2 hours ago

Dem impeachment witness Vindman unloads on Blackburn as Dems wrap 3rd day of Trump's trial
As the third day of the ongoing impeachment trial of President Trump wrapped up in the Senate chamber, most of the drama was elsewhere -- with one witness ...
Fox News


Notice how for one of these it's "house impeachment managers" and for the other it's "dems". Fox is making intentionally making it partisan, and CNN is intentionally avoiding that. CNN is more factually correct in this case.

 

[TexRex]

CNN is more factually correct in this case.

What is this, Bizarro World?

Also..."Dem impeachment".

 

[UKMikey]

Do RINOs count as Republicans in Fox land?

 

[Biggles]

Do RINOs count as Republicans in Fox land?

No.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

This is hilarious.

 

[Pupik]

Finding places on a map qualifies you to be a cartographer, and doesn't "shut down" a discussion. That's a bias to steer an argument away and avoid further discussion.

And yes, I have a crap load of atlases and maps. That makes me qualified to push a grocery cart.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

This is hilarious.

I posted that because I genuinely thought it was funny. I even debated whether to post it here or in the funny video thread.

Now the guy is apologizing. No doubt the twitter mob got to him.

I don't see the need for an apology. Man up people.

 

[TexRex]

Do RINOs count as Republicans in Fox land?

I...I don't know. Though I'm compelled to note that Justin Amash isn't a RINO. He isn't even a RIN. He left the Republican party during the Trump administration to become an independent, so by Fox standards I'd imagine he's a traitor.

 

[Danoff]

Georgia Secretary of State confident recount of all ballots will produce accurate results - Fox news

What he said was that the recount would confirm Biden's win. Meaning it would confirm accurate results, not newly produce them.

 

[TexRex]

So...in that Fox News (it's important to capitalize both words as it is a proper name and so as to not further confuse it with a legitimate news source) link was a video clip of a Fox News segment wherein Lindsey Graham announced he would be donating $1 million from his campaign "to combat a tsunami of liberal money" for the Senate run-off between Perdue and Ossoff.

Sort of ignoring that cloying rhetoric and my own sense that one million dollars is itself a considerable sum that will contribute to what is sure to be an "avalanche" of authoritarian money going to Perdue in Georgia, is that single donation sum actually permissible? Per the FEC, "a candidate’s authorized committees may accept a contribution of up to $2,000 per election from the authorized committee of another federal candidate."

Am I missing something? Serious question. It's very possible I've got some wires crossed.

 

[Imari]

So...in that Fox News (it's important to capitalize both words as it is a proper name and so as to not further confuse it with a legitimate news source) link was a video clip of a Fox News segment wherein Lindsey Graham announced he would be donating $1 million from his campaign "to combat a tsunami of liberal money" for the Senate run-off between Perdue and Ossoff.

My thought was why on earth are they having an entire separate election for the runoff? That seems like it would be horrendously expensive for the state. This feels like a parallel universe where ranked choice voting hasn't been invented yet.

 

[TexRex]

My thought was why on earth are they having an entire separate election for the runoff? That seems like it would be horrendously expensive for the state. This feels like a parallel universe where ranked choice voting hasn't been invented yet.

Georgia doing Georgia things because it's Georgia.

 

[Joey D]

My thought was why on earth are they having an entire separate election for the runoff? That seems like it would be horrendously expensive for the state. This feels like a parallel universe where ranked choice voting hasn't been invented yet.

If there's one thing any government is excellent at, it's spending taxpayer money.

 

[BobK]

If there's one thing any government is excellent at, it's spending wasting taxpayer money.

FTFY

 

[TexRex]

I'm not saying; I'm just saying.

The WaPo tape news is front page on all national news website, but FoxNews...

 

[Keef]

I'm not saying; I'm just saying.

Can't be biased if you don't acknowledge reality, duh.

 

[TexRex]

Can't be biased if you don't acknowledge reality, duh.

Truer words.

Of particular note is the post by BobK sandwiched below. It took me some time to actually locate it, but this has always struck me as a peculiar confluence of observer bias (observing what one wants or expects to observe), a form of media bias that has more to do with perception of media outlets and how individuals will contort themselves to validate that perception...and good old allegations of media bias, specifically a supposed lack of reporting (much like what is purported to be exhibited by Fox News above) instead of bias that's apparent in the information provided and editorial choice.

On Monday, a federal district court judge in California ruled to dismiss Stormy Daniels‘ defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump, and ordered the adult film star to pay his legal fees.

Interesting. Wonder why I didn't see a mention of this on Yahoo News or Huffington Post?

Probably because you didn't look...

...

...like...at all.

Tired narrative is tired.

Really, how hard is one grasping at straws when one deliberately neglects to confirm outlets haven't reported on something, in this case outlets that have a tendency to be critical of one's bronzer daddy and may perceive such subject matter as being inconvenient to the cause, in order to support the narrative that said outlets are so* biased?

[*Which is to say that they exhibit their bias in a particular manner rather than that they're biased to a considerable degree.]

Now I didn't read either article but to confirm it addressed the appropriate subject matter, but the information on these respective sites may well be biased, particularly in the case of HuffPost which isn't exactly a beacon of journalistic integrity, while Yahoo serves more as a hub and bias is more likely to be apparent in the sourcing of articles.

 

[BobK]

Wow, a two year grave dig just to launch yet another ad hominem.

 

[TexRex]

Wow, a two year grave dig just to launch yet another ad hominem.

Ad hominem? I was addressing what you said. Stark contrast to you having previously addressed a misrepresentation of what I actually said.

I quoted you directly and in full context of the discussion at the time. You can click the blue arrow to go back to each of the posts and see that I made no changes.

 

[UKMikey]

Wow, a two year grave dig

As far as grave digging goes I believe he has some way to go before he beats the record if this four-year deep dive is anything to go by.

Perhaps this will refresh your memory, your response when I said "Hillary lost. Deal with it."

<a href="https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...-elections-2016.326052/page-290#post-11610241">[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016</a>

 

[TexRex]

 

[BobK]

Ad hominem? I was addressing what you said. Stark contrast to you having previously addressed a misrepresentation of what I actually said.

View attachment 982525

Ah, so you do in fact know the meaning of "ad hominem", or are at least able to regurgitate its definition. I was thinking possibly you didn't know. You have earned a gold star on your forehead!

I quoted you directly and in full context of the discussion at the time. You can click the blue arrow to go back to each of the posts and see that I made no changes.

You also added some editorial content, for lack of a better term, and that is what I was referencing. I'll grant that your quoting was accurate, What bizarre thinking process led you to think I was referring to inaccurate quoting?

As far as grave digging goes I believe he has some way to go before he beats the record if this four-year deep dive is anything to go by.

There is a difference, which apparently was lost on you. My post was in direct response to provide an example of something I'd posted and was challenged on, else I wouldn't have done so otherwise.

 

[UKMikey]

There is a difference, which apparently was lost on you. My post was in direct response to provide an example of something I'd posted and was challenged on, else I wouldn't have done so otherwise.

It's difficult to break one's own rules and say "well... that's different!" without looking a little silly when other people notice. I'm just pointing out that you can't really gripe about the age of posts to which other people refer (as per my quoted comment) when you've doubled that time yourself, apparently to berate an ex-mod for not moderating hard enough.

If there was a point to that post, it was lost on him, me and everyone else in the thread judging by the incredulous responses, but by all means please feel free to go off.

 

[BobK]

It's difficult to break one's own rules and say "well... that's different!" without looking a little silly when other people notice. I'm just pointing out that you can't really gripe about the age of posts to which other people refer (as per my quoted comment) when you've doubled that time yourself, apparently to berate an ex-mod for not moderating hard enough.

If there was a point to that post, it was lost on him, me and everyone else in the thread judging by the incredulous responses, but by all means please feel free to go off.

I'll agree I could/should have been more clear what I was talking about in that message, but generally I'm very reluctant to discuss moderation with anyone other than the mod in question and the admin staff. What I was getting at was the inconsistency of moderation, not that he wasn't moderating hard enough. I'll say no more in a public forum.

And again, the recent issue was with the ad hominem, not the gravedig per se.

 

[TexRex]

Ah, so you do in fact know the meaning of "ad hominem", or are at least able to regurgitate its definition. I was thinking possibly you didn't know. You have earned a gold star on your forehead!

I'd prefer you substantiate your accusation that I was engaging in ad hominem to a figurative gold star. Accusation without substantiation can be construed as ad hominem and you'd do well to not misrepresent my remarks in any attempt at substantiation that you may venture.

You also added some editorial content, for lack of a better term, and that is what I was referencing.

This is the opinions and current events subforum. It would have been weird to quote your remarks without remarking on them myself.

What's more, I don't hide behind the notion that my opinions are my own and are unimpeachable because they are my opinion, as some do, instead I make a point to provide a foundation for that opinion and to provide evidence to support that foundation. I did all of those things in the post that drew your ire.

I maintain that my remarks were not a personal attack lodged against you and instead constituted criticism of your remarks.

I'll grant that your quoting was accurate, What bizarre thinking process led you to think I was referring to inaccurate quoting?

I highlighted my [accurate] quoting of your remarks and my response to your remarks as part of the implication that I didn't and still don't know to what supposed ad hominem you were referring.

There is a difference...

Sure. In the most recent instance, you got pissy because I directly quoted something you said a period of time ago. That period of time seems to have been arbitrarily deemed excessive. One wonders how much time is acceptable when responses to remarks originally went unanswered.

...which apparently was lost on you.

Is this ad hominem? This looks like ad hominem. You appear to be suggesting that another is incapable of thinking critically rather than addressing their remarks in a meaningful way.

If it was mere observation, it certainly lacked tact. Curious given that you bemoan the demise of civility in discussion.

See that? I've suggested that you've engaged in ad hominem and I've explained how I arrived to that determination. I also left it open to an alternative.

Edit:

And again, the recent issue was with the ad hominem, not the gravedig per se.

Curious that you chose to highlight the gravedig and declined to specify the ad hominem.

It also seems you're now just walking back the protestation of a gravedig because a deeper gravedig of your own was highlighted.

Second edit: You also haven't yet addressed my criticism of your remarks. You alleged Yahoo and HuffPost didn't report on something, though they did and evidence of them having done so was provided, in an attempt to support a particular narrative regarding media bias.