Spot Journalistic Bias and Manipulation (was Media Bias)

[BobK]

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?

You don't see a personal attack in that passage? How about one's bronzer daddy with the clear implication he's my bronzer daddy?

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.

And here you're flat out lying. I certainly did not claim that Yahoo News or HuffPost did not report on something. Go back and read what I wrote again, only this time pay attention.

 

[TexRex]

You don't see a personal attack in that passage? How about one's bronzer daddy with the clear implication he's my bronzer daddy?

Ah, that. I apologize. The way people are bending over backwards to defend him as of late--some of whom occupy seats in government and who are actually aiding his power grab, which is also their power grab, by seeking to overturn the election and usurp the will of the majority of the voting public--and you having previously been so desperate to defend him that you offer hypothetical criticism of his inability to swim in the hypothetical event that he walks on water, it's difficult to not look on with the degree of cynicism that leads to me using that sort of language. I don't even notice it sometimes. That's not an excuse. It was inappropriate regardless.

And here you're flat out lying. I certainly did not claim that Yahoo News or HuffPost did not report on something. Go back and read what I wrote again, only this time pay attention.

Wait...what?

You said...

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

...with the clear implication that it wasn't there to be seen.

You've since quoted me as referring to "one" deliberately neglecting to confirm that a story was reported on because doing so wouldn't support the narrative that outlets' lack of reporting is indicative of bias against "one's bronzer daddy." If the bronzer daddy comments were directed at you, you're acknowledging that you deliberately neglected to confirm reporting as I suggested in the gravedig quotes.

If the implication wasn't that reporting wasn't there to be to be seen, what exactly was it?

It's crazy that you'd call me a liar now after having previously direct quoted a post of mine, responded to remarks in said post as something they were not (you can call it paraphrasing, strawmanning or misrepresentation but it's a deceitful tactic all the same) and then saying Trump would be called racist for making those remarks...clear implication that said misrepresented remarks were racist. This, of course, after I highlighted your misrepresenting another's remarks and calling them racist directly.

But hey, "both sides," right?

 

[HenrySwanson]

So I thought this was interesting regarding how the media report statistics regarding white people:

Trump is "twisting statistics" by saying that more white people are killed by police in America

Home Office report is notable because it says that "research has found that group-based offenders are most commonly white"

On the other side of the aisle:

The Home Office report is a "whitewash"

Trump says that "White people are being killed too, MORE white people" when describing people killed by police in America.

 

[Danoff]

Alright, quick poll of the audience. What is your favorite news source for news? Not your favorite news source for funny, or your favorite news source for opinions, or your favorite news source for gossip. When you want news, and you want it to be accurate, and you want to get informed about something, what's your go-to? Who do you trust most?

 

[TexRex]

For things not tainted by politics, I think the majority of major outlets are generally trustworthy and I tend to lean to CBS, either the local affiliate or on the national stage.

For political subject matter, I may get some information from CBS but my first click for more is The Hill. I stay away from 24-hour channels.

 

[CTznOfTime]

Alright, quick poll of the audience. What is your favorite news source for news? Not your favorite news source for funny, or your favorite news source for opinions, or your favorite news source for gossip. When you want news, and you want it to be accurate, and you want to get informed about something, what's your go-to? Who do you trust most?

Personally, I dont just listen to one, but rather get tid bits of everything and put things together to form a well rounded picture of the situation from different perspectives...

I highly recommend everyone, especially those of you who depend only on one source such as fox, q, or newsmax, or worst yet fakebook (which is really NOT news, but trash left in shambles).


Personally, I have the benefit (go ahead and get your jokes out) to be french so I tend to compare notes with news from outside the USA such as France 24 etc...

In doing so I get a more balance view points and can better form my own educated opinion...


Americans, try it.... try to look beyond your nose



Edit:
For the past 4 years, I find the tv shows and online comedians to be a great source of news and entertainment in one package.
I like THE Hill too

I like Beau the fifth
I like Stephen Colbert
I like Keith Olbermann

 

[Joey D]

Alright, quick poll of the audience. What is your favorite news source for news? Not your favorite news source for funny, or your favorite news source for opinions, or your favorite news source for gossip. When you want news, and you want it to be accurate, and you want to get informed about something, what's your go-to? Who do you trust most?

Typically the Associated Press or Reuters. If I want to pick up an actual newspaper for some reason, it's the USA Today. When I'm in the car, I listen to BBC News since they realize that there's this place called the world.

For local news, I read/watch our CBS affiliate KUTV or the Salt Lake Tribune since both of those seem the most unbiased.

 

[Danoff]

Personally, I dont just listen to one, but rather get tid bits of everything and put things together

Good advice. But do you have a favorite?

 

[CTznOfTime]

Good advice. But do you have a favorite?

France 24 (they also have the english version, and other languages simultaneously)

I edited my above post to add:

For the past 4 years, I find the tv shows and online comedians to be a great source of news and entertainment in one package, rather than the traditional local tv or cable news outlets who are simple regurgitating their own info in a boring loop.


I like rising on THE Hill because I find that they don't take side (they do), but they are a fair alternate 3rd party without being extreme.

I like Beau the Fifth Column
I like Stephen Colbert
I like Keith Olbermann

From time to time, I force myself to even listen to the opposition just to understand their perspectives, at least I try, but it usually cannot last more than a couple of minutes...

EDIT:
OH AND I forget the most important source:


:@:GTP

 

[Danoff]

I'll answer my own question. I'm finding myself turning more and more to Politico, Vox, and Bloomberg. I know all of those are left leaning, and I try to calibrate. I used to consider the Wall Street Journal a decent right-leaning news source, but I've found them too biased. Similarly for the New York Times on the other side which is also very biased. I'll dip my toe in either of those sources but only carefully.

The reason I don't list the AP is because I find it too... devoid of details. It's not really sufficient when you want to really understand what's happening and not just get a summary. Politico, Vox, and Bloomberg all do real actual analysis (many times at the expense of not being first to report). In fairness, Politico has also been the one to break a fair amount of important news recently. So I gather that they're really trying to uncover what's up, not just passively covering obvious events. Again, I know all of those are left leaning.

Edit: I should say, I have seen bias charts that list politico left of NYT, and vox left of politico. That has not been my experience with those three sources. I'd rank NYT most left, then vox, then politico.

Edit 2:

Here's an example:

Bloomberg put together a nice takedown on why the supremes won't hear the Texas lawsuit, why even if they did it wouldn't win, and why even if Texas won Biden would still win.

Everyone and their mom covered the Texas AG Paxton lawsuit that went straight to the supremes. It was all over the AP, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN... everyone had it front and center (most of that was a repeat of the AP). Bloomberg was quiet. The facts alone sounded pretty bad. But the lawsuit needed to be put in context. Bloomberg took, I think like 24 hours to get that article out (I should probably look up how long it took, it felt like a long time, but I know in reality it was short). But once they did, if you were able to keep your stress level down in the interim, you had some real context behind what the lawsuit represented.

Bloomberg's bias in this case, slightly left, didn't really seem to affect the analysis. And the article was spot on in terms of what actually happened.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Breitbart.

Spoiler

The Times is my go to source but use the Daily Mail and Guardian/Independent when I want opposing views

For non-UK news I use a variety that I usually stumble across from the news search section on google or from forum posts.

 

[huskeR32]

Alright, quick poll of the audience. What is your favorite news source for news? Not your favorite news source for funny, or your favorite news source for opinions, or your favorite news source for gossip. When you want news, and you want it to be accurate, and you want to get informed about something, what's your go-to? Who do you trust most?

To just generally keep up with what's going on, Twitter. A carefully curated set of accounts to follow can be a good way to stay in the loop on what's happening.

Whenever something there warrants a deeper dive into the details, I go to AP or Reuters first.

If I'm looking more for analysis than just straight fact checking, Politico and Vox are usually my first stops.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Alright, quick poll of the audience. What is your favorite news source for news? Not your favorite news source for funny, or your favorite news source for opinions, or your favorite news source for gossip. When you want news, and you want it to be accurate, and you want to get informed about something, what's your go-to? Who do you trust most?

Reddit. Specifically the subreddit r/LateStageCapitalism and r/Socialism.



I'm just kidding. I know at least a few of you think I get all my political arguments from reddit (because reddit can be known for overly simplistic and/or misguided leftist takes). Seriously though, I do make an effort to read the Times as much as I can (I am able to get a free NYT subscription through my school), and I also read The Hill, the Intercept, and Mother Jones, generally speaking. They have their flaws of course but I am generally satisfied with them, and the latter three have some of the most accurate journalism when it comes to free media. If I'm really bored I'll listen to PBS Newshour, which is as unbiased as it gets, but also like watching paint dry. I also listen to a bunch of different podcasts and political youtube channels (it has taken me a while to find some genuinely good YT channels, and it says something that most of them don't have subscriber counts in the millions or hundred-thousands). I used to listen to a lot of Kyle Kulinski but I just couldn't do it anymore. He's too repetitive and is misguided on too many issues; simple fact checks will prove that he often conflates or misrepresents data. And despite me being a progressive, I've always hated The Young Turks, Jimmy Dore, David Pakman, Sam Seder, among others.

I will say this though. I have made a pact to never receive my news sources from both "mainstream media" (I hate the term but whatever) such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox... you know the rest, as well as from social media accounts from Instagram or Facebook and yes... Reddit. When I was 14/15 I would only get my news from social media and read front-page CNN articles and never delved in to actual journalism, as I simply didn't want to put in the effort, but I've learned from that mistake. I'll still look at the front page of CNN to see what is happening in the world, yes, but if I want an analysis, I would never turn to them or any other MSM source. And thats precisely the problem for too many people, as well as the reason why too many are simply wrong or misguided about many issues. You have to put in the effort to learn if you wanted to be informed about politics/current events, rather than have the information spoon-fed to you.

 

[NotThePrez]

Alright, quick poll of the audience. What is your favorite news source for news? Not your favorite news source for funny, or your favorite news source for opinions, or your favorite news source for gossip. When you want news, and you want it to be accurate, and you want to get informed about something, what's your go-to? Who do you trust most?

I'd say the one I trust the most is the BBC. I like that their articles not only go over the story itself, but also go over and explain the major players/aspects in a story or topic (usually in the form of questions that readers may have), and details why the event(s) in question matter the most, and who they affect the most. This article on the current Trump impeachment I feel best highlights what I'm getting at. I've found that most articles, even from trustworthy sites, tend to just stick to the main story in question, and don't take the time to fully address other concerns, or if they do, it's a small part of the article towards the end.

Beyond the BBC, I'd say I generally am trustworthy of Associated Press, though I admittedly don't spend a lot of time on their site. I kind of view them as a "cliff notes" version of the news; I can get the very basic details of a story from them, and am confident in their accuracy, but it's up to me to get more information. NPR also gets a lot of my attention, and is set to the default radio station in my car. My only gripes with NPR is that while I generally trust what they say in regards to actual news, I sometimes feel like the radio format means that small details get glossed over for the more "bullet-pointy" aspects of a story, and sometimes their sources for breaking news are a little dubious, imo (I distinctly remember NPR citing Buzzfeed at some point during the trump Administration, but I forget the subject matter of it).

 

[Biggles]

My regular on-line sites: Reuters, BBC, CBC, CNN, Fox News, Aljazeera. Fascinatingly, the most in-depth, professional world reporting seems to be Aljazeera. Online BBC is pretty trashy really, not that different from CNN in style. Fox News is constantly fascinating. Reuters is straightforward but pretty bland. I do jump on many different sites from time to time, like WSJ, New Yorker, Politico etc. When I am traveling (which used to be a lot) I listen to NPR. At home I watch PBS, CBC & CNN.

 

[CTznOfTime]

My regular on-line sites: Reuters, BBC, CBC, CNN, Fox News, Aljazeera. Fascinatingly, the most in-depth, professional world reporting seems to be Aljazeera. Online BBC is pretty trashy really, not that different from CNN in style. Fox News is constantly fascinating. Reuters is straightforward but pretty bland. I do jump on many different sites from time to time, like WSJ, New Yorker, Politico etc. When I am traveling (which used to be a lot) I listen to NPR. At home I watch PBS, CBC & CNN.

Agreed with AlJazeera

 

[ryzno]

My regular on-line sites: Reuters, BBC, CBC, CNN, Fox News, Aljazeera. Fascinatingly, the most in-depth, professional world reporting seems to be Aljazeera. Online BBC is pretty trashy really, not that different from CNN in style. Fox News is constantly fascinating. Reuters is straightforward but pretty bland. I do jump on many different sites from time to time, like WSJ, New Yorker, Politico etc. When I am traveling (which used to be a lot) I listen to NPR. At home I watch PBS, CBC & CNN.

Interesting you are the only person I saw say NPR.

 

[huskeR32]

Interesting you are the only person I saw say NPR.

I listen to quite a bit of NPR, but I was thinking about the question more in terms of where I go to actively find information, while radio (and TV, for that matter) is a passive method of getting news. I do occasionally visit the NPR website, but not as often as others I mentioned.

 

[Danoff]

...and the wall street journal is officially garbage:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002

 

[GranTurNismo]

...and the wall street journal is officially garbage:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002

I thought you were against alternative energy? But yes, article does seem pretty pro fossil-fuel.

 

[Danoff]

I thought you were against alternative energy? But yes, article does seem pretty pro fossil-fuel.

Why did you think I was against alternative energy?

(and it's not just pro fossil fuel, it's ignoring reality)

Texas’s energy emergency could last all week as the weather is forecast to remain frigid. “My understanding is, the wind turbines are all frozen,” Public Utility Commission Chairman DeAnn Walker said Friday. “We are working already to try and ensure we have enough power but it’s taken a lot of coordination.”

Blame a perfect storm of bad government policies, timing and weather. Coal and nuclear are the most reliable sources of power. But competition from heavily subsidized wind power and inexpensive natural gas, combined with stricter emissions regulation, has caused coal’s share of Texas’s electricity to plunge by more than half in a decade to 18%.

Coal froze up too! And natural gas. And nuclear. And those contributed way more to the problem. And wind turbines work in plenty of cold places when winterized (like coal, and natural gas, and nuclear). So... this article is just off its rocker!

 

[TexRex]

...and the wall street journal is officially garbage:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002

 

[GranTurNismo]

Well, you are in favor of fracking, correct? I thought I remember you making pro-fracking sentiments around here before. That would especially make sense for a Coloradan, as there have been many cases of everyday people discovering oil underneath their property and making a decent profit from it. Regardless, it kind of seems like an oxymoron for one to be pro-fracking but also against fossil fuels and pro "alternative energy" (wind, solar, nuclear, biofuel, you know).

 

[Danoff]

Well, you are in favor of fracking, correct? I thought I remember you making pro-fracking sentiments around here before. That would especially make sense for a Coloradan, as there have been many cases of everyday people discovering oil underneath their property and making a decent profit from it. Regardless, it kind of seems like an oxymoron for one to be pro-fracking but also against fossil fuels and pro "alternative energy" (wind, solar, nuclear, biofuel, you know).

Fracking is great technology. Does that mean I have to hate wind power? For the record, here's how the Colorado government raked me over the coals in fracking over an issue known as "forced pooling".

 

[Scaff]

...and the wall street journal is officially garbage:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002

Well, that's an article packed with deluded nonsense.

 

[Danoff]

Well, that's an article packed with deluded nonsense.

I did not know the WSJ had gotten that bad.

 

[Scaff]

And wind turbines work in plenty of cold places when winterized (like coal, and natural gas, and nuclear). So... this article is just off its rocker!

Yep, like Ross Island in Antarctica (cheap ass Texas)!

I did not know the WSJ had gotten that bad.

I initially looked at the author expecting to see it was an op piece from a Fossil Fuel lobbyist, when I saw it was from the actual editorial board I must confess to being quite shocked.

 

[TexRex]

I initially looked at the author expecting to see it was an op piece from a Fossil Fuel lobbyist, when I saw it was from the actual editorial board I must confess to being quite shocked.

That's sort of where I was. Though I have no particular allegiance to the WSJ, I was prepared to defend it given that it was an op-ed.

I found this gem in the comments:

 

[TenEightyOne]

I thought this might be a bit of fun... the Daily Mail certainly had a dog in this fight at the time. Now they play the new game as well as anyone.

Article TLDR: The internet is ****, don't bother.

 

[UKMikey]

I thought this might be a bit of fun... the Daily Mail certainly had a dog in this fight at the time. Now they play the new game as well as anyone.

Article TLDR: The internet is ****, don't bother.

View attachment 992979

This headline has the standard Mail lack of commitment to a controversial statement. I'm surprised they didn't word it as a question Betteridge-style.