Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[grumbler]

Alright, so for the sake of argument let's say we agree to the proposition that "the mainstream media has a liberal bias". What do we do with that?

We celebrate that fact.  The "liberal bias" is a bias in favor of speaking truth to power.  People go into journalism because they think that exposing problems results in solving problems.  Conservatives tend to be wary of the idea that all problems have solutions.  Th "mainstream journalist" doesn't follow the conservative bias because they wouldn't have gone into journalism if that is what they believed.

We need journalists who want to expose the truth, even if it results in the President resigning.  That's a "liberal bias."  Celebrate it.

[garbon]

Why do there need to be any conclusions?  I'm personally not a believer in "don't bring me problems, bring me solutions" mindset.  It makes no sense to pretend there is no problem if you have no solution.  Sometimes it's okay to notice that the sky is blue and yet to not also have any solution for that problem readily available.

Is the sky being blue a problem?

[Barrister]

This is stating the blindingly obvious, but if the concern in dishonesty in journalism, then that would point to placing greater reliance on mainstream media outlets that have meaningful editorial review and accountability as opposed to their insurgent competitors.

BB's claim is that is where the true evil resides.  All those edumacated people who know stuff being all anti right and stuff.

You can fuck right off too.  I said nothing of the sort.

Fuckhead.

[Eddie Teach]

Why do there need to be any conclusions?  I'm personally not a believer in "don't bring me problems, bring me solutions" mindset.  It makes no sense to pretend there is no problem if you have no solution.  Sometimes it's okay to notice that the sky is blue and yet to not also have any solution for that problem readily available.

Is the sky being blue a problem?

Solution: Pollution.

[Berkut]

Alright, so for the sake of argument let's say we agree to the proposition that "the mainstream media has a liberal bias". What do we do with that?

We celebrate that fact.  The "liberal bias" is a bias in favor of speaking truth to power.  People go into journalism because they think that exposing problems results in solving problems.  Conservatives tend to be wary of the idea that all problems have solutions.  Th "mainstream journalist" doesn't follow the conservative bias because they wouldn't have gone into journalism if that is what they believed.

We need journalists who want to expose the truth, even if it results in the President resigning.  That's a "liberal bias."  Celebrate it.

To the extent that the claim is "true", it is true in a way that is uninteresting and not actionable by rational people who care about liberal democracy. It is true to the extent that being "not liberal" now means being anti-science, anti-truth, and anti-honesty. At least in the context of the claim that the "mainstream media" (which includes actual right leaning media, after all) is broadly biased in a liberal manner.

beebs and Yi want us to just pretend that their championing of this does not extend beyond the meaningless, and therefore they ought to get a pass for pushing a narrative that they claim means nothing, but of course, in the actual world has profound and serious implications. Implications that have been realized *BECAUSE* there are people who routinely parrot that narrative and people who consume that narrative who very much feel that it means a lot, and in fact take action based on the desired outcome of the very people who invented the entire narrative to begin with.

Watch more "fair and balanced" "new" like Fox. And if Fox, why not OAN? And if not OAN, why not Breitbart?

You cannot disconnect this lie from the broader narrative it is very carefully constructed inside and enables. And it is a lie in every meaningful sense of the word. And has direct and terrible implications to our world.

"The mainstream media is biased towards liberals!" is not some empty "the sky is blue" platitude. It is a very conscious construct in a broader narrative that resulted in Jan 6th, and will result in far worse.

And I stand by what I said - it is a lie. Even Been knows it is a dishonest way of presenting the reality of what is the modern media.

That is why he gets so upset when this is pointed out.

[Jacob]

Why do there need to be any conclusions?  I'm personally not a believer in "don't bring me problems, bring me solutions" mindset.  It makes no sense to pretend there is no problem if you have no solution.  Sometimes it's okay to notice that the sky is blue and yet to not also have any solution for that problem readily available.

I wasn't asking for solutions, I was asking whether people think it's a problem (seems the answer is yes in your case), and if it is a problem - how big and serious is it?

For example, you could think there's a variety of bias in the media, that that bias roughly reflects the broad consensus and significant variations in society, and that the bias is not really an issue as long as on pays a bit of attention and consume a spectrum of media sources.

Alternately, you could think that there's a strong bias, that the bias is deliberately there to drive a morally repugnant political agenda, and that that bias has a seriously corrosive effect on society.

... or maybe something else?

[Barrister]

To the extent that the claim is "true", it is true in a way that is uninteresting and not actionable by rational people who care about liberal democracy. It is true to the extent that being "not liberal" now means being anti-science, anti-truth, and anti-honesty. At least in the context of the claim that the "mainstream media" (which includes actual right leaning media, after all) is broadly biased in a liberal manner.

beebs and Yi want us to just pretend that their championing of this does not extend beyond the meaningless, and therefore they ought to get a pass for pushing a narrative that they claim means nothing, but of course, in the actual world has profound and serious implications. Implications that have been realized *BECAUSE* there are people who routinely parrot that narrative and people who consume that narrative who very much feel that it means a lot, and in fact take action based on the desired outcome of the very people who invented the entire narrative to begin with.

Watch more "fair and balanced" "new" like Fox. And if Fox, why not OAN? And if not OAN, why not Breitbart?

You cannot disconnect this lie from the broader narrative it is very carefully constructed inside and enables. And it is a lie in every meaningful sense of the word. And has direct and terrible implications to our world.

"The mainstream media is biased towards liberals!" is not some empty "the sky is blue" platitude. It is a very conscious construct in a broader narrative that resulted in Jan 6th, and will result in far worse.

And I stand by what I said - it is a lie. Even Been knows it is a dishonest way of presenting the reality of what is the modern media.

That is why he gets so upset when this is pointed out.

Fuck off.

[viper37]

What he did say was "Large national media outlets hire well educated people, 1) often from a fairly limited number of schools, 2) and work in large urban cities.

Can't have those well educated people running around making editorial decisions.  They are never going to be friendly to the far right.  And for good reason. 

The focus should be on the second and third part of the sentence.  From a select number of universities, and people who live and work in large cities as opposed to rural counties.  That makes people who don't understand why people need a pick up truck to work or need a gun for defense or hunting in charge of writing opinion pieces that will be read by politicians and given more credence over the words of those affected.

City people tend to believe their way of life is the superior one and the only one valid.  Like Europeans seeing naked people in Americas & Africe and calling them "savages" in the 17th-18th century and considering them inferior to the white folks because they were different.

There is a whole world outside of Toronto and Vancouver, in case you guys did not notice.  A whole different reality.  Places where you need to travel 10km to the nearest grocery store.  Places when you need to drive 100km to get decent clothing to shop.  Places where the police will require 20-30 minutes to arrive at your place in case of emergency at night.  Places where you will be sent 45 minutes away by ambulance in case of an head trauma, like falling from your bike.  But we pay the same taxes as a person getting all those proximity services.

There are even places where available land for construction is limited and may refuse a project for a cemetary that takes 25% of all available land and reserve it for a single community.  And these people have no racist intent or some kind of fear.  But they'll still get called "rednecks" (at best) by city folks.

So, yeah, BB is justified.  There is a liberal bias, that often translates in a Liberal bias in Canada, and these medias tend to hire people from the same circles: friend of a friend, attended the same university known for its leftist positions on everything, same mindframe, similar opinions on everything.  People with dissenting discourse are sidelined.  Or cancelled, or intimidated until they understand they don't have their place.

[viper37]

Alright, so for the sake of argument let's say we agree to the proposition that "the mainstream media has a liberal bias". What do we do with that?

Media want to please their readers/viewers/listeners.  Public owned medias are no exception.  Without good ratings, the host is changed, the show is cancelled, replaced by something similar with a new image.

If CBC starts giving the rural point of view on subjects such as a rise in criminality and the annoyance of the gun registry (still an issue here), they'll lose urban viewers but are unlikely to gain new rural viewers.

The only solution would be to teach city dwellers about the world around them.  And by that, I don't mean digging wells in the middle of Africa or exploring the beaches of the Dominican Republican.  And that is a lost cause.  It has zero appeal.

[DGuller]

Why do there need to be any conclusions?  I'm personally not a believer in "don't bring me problems, bring me solutions" mindset.  It makes no sense to pretend there is no problem if you have no solution.  Sometimes it's okay to notice that the sky is blue and yet to not also have any solution for that problem readily available.

I wasn't asking for solutions, I was asking whether people think it's a problem (seems the answer is yes in your case), and if it is a problem - how big and serious is it?

For example, you could think there's a variety of bias in the media, that that bias roughly reflects the broad consensus and significant variations in society, and that the bias is not really an issue as long as on pays a bit of attention and consume a spectrum of media sources.

Alternately, you could think that there's a strong bias, that the bias is deliberately there to drive a morally repugnant political agenda, and that that bias has a seriously corrosive effect on society.

... or maybe something else?

It's a moderately big problem.  Nothing on the scale of massive (and effective) propaganda campaign on the right, but it is a problem for several reasons. 

One reason is that people do notice when their take on an issue that they think is entirely reasonable is completely not represent in the mainstream media, or misrepresented.  When that happens, you don't come to a conclusion that maybe your opinion isn't as reasonable as you think, it's hard to have one's mind changed when your opinion isn't even acknowledged.  What usually happens is that you run across some non-mainstream media that does acknowledge the obvious, buying itself credibility in that way, but unfortunately goes way further than that.

Another reason it's a problem is that balanced discussion is necessary in order to solve problems intelligently.  If you don't allow issues to be honestly discussed, then you're putting the thumb of the scales of the debate.  I'll go back to the example of coverage of police brutality; if media covers police brutality as if that is the one and only issue in law enforcement, then policy decisions could be made that could cause public safety to plummet.  Having innocent people feeling unsafe and murdered is a bad thing in itself, but it also tends to discredit the political movements that created such a situation.

[Admiral Yi]

You're hopeless Berkut.

[crazy canuck]

Alright, so for the sake of argument let's say we agree to the proposition that "the mainstream media has a liberal bias". What do we do with that?

We celebrate that fact.  The "liberal bias" is a bias in favor of speaking truth to power.  People go into journalism because they think that exposing problems results in solving problems.  Conservatives tend to be wary of the idea that all problems have solutions.  Th "mainstream journalist" doesn't follow the conservative bias because they wouldn't have gone into journalism if that is what they believed.

We need journalists who want to expose the truth, even if it results in the President resigning.  That's a "liberal bias."  Celebrate it.

I agree with your statement strongly.  But as Berkut points out agreement requires an understanding and agreement of what the word "liberal" means, including the important role of the news media within a health liberal democracy.  Something the right has had a great deal of success in eroding and replacing with their own warped view of what news should be.

 

[Berkut]

You're hopeless Berkut.

I will take the ad homs and personal attacks to show exactly what they always show.

[crazy canuck]

What he did say was "Large national media outlets hire well educated people, 1) often from a fairly limited number of schools, 2) and work in large urban cities.

Can't have those well educated people running around making editorial decisions.  They are never going to be friendly to the far right.  And for good reason. 

The focus should be on the second and third part of the sentence.  From a select number of universities, and people who live and work in large cities as opposed to rural counties.  That makes people who don't understand why people need a pick up truck to work or need a gun for defense or hunting in charge of writing opinion pieces that will be read by politicians and given more credence over the words of those affected.

That is bullshit Viper.  Kids from small communities (some of which even grew up poor  ) made it to very good universities and have the capacity to understand rural issues. 

It is a right wing conceit (no lets call it what it is - more right wing bullshit) to say that only someone who is uneducated (like most right wing candidates) and who applies right wing common sense can really understand these things.  Complete bullshit.

[Berkut]

Why do there need to be any conclusions?  I'm personally not a believer in "don't bring me problems, bring me solutions" mindset.  It makes no sense to pretend there is no problem if you have no solution.  Sometimes it's okay to notice that the sky is blue and yet to not also have any solution for that problem readily available.

I wasn't asking for solutions, I was asking whether people think it's a problem (seems the answer is yes in your case), and if it is a problem - how big and serious is it?

For example, you could think there's a variety of bias in the media, that that bias roughly reflects the broad consensus and significant variations in society, and that the bias is not really an issue as long as on pays a bit of attention and consume a spectrum of media sources.

Alternately, you could think that there's a strong bias, that the bias is deliberately there to drive a morally repugnant political agenda, and that that bias has a seriously corrosive effect on society.

... or maybe something else?

It's a moderately big problem.  Nothing on the scale of massive (and effective) propaganda campaign on the right, but it is a problem for several reasons. 

One reason is that people do notice when their take on an issue that they think is entirely reasonable is completely not represent in the mainstream media, or misrepresented.  When that happens, you don't come to a conclusion that maybe your opinion isn't as reasonable as you think, it's hard to have one's mind changed when your opinion isn't even acknowledged.  What usually happens is that you run across some non-mainstream media that does acknowledge the obvious, buying itself credibility in that way, but unfortunately goes way further than that.

Another reason it's a problem is that balanced discussion is necessary in order to solve problems intelligently.  If you don't allow issues to be honestly discussed, then you're putting the thumb of the scales of the debate.  I'll go back to the example of coverage of police brutality; if media covers police brutality as if that is the one and only issue in law enforcement, then policy decisions could be made that could cause public safety to plummet.  Having innocent people feeling unsafe and murdered is a bad thing in itself, but it also tends to discredit the political movements that created such a situation.

I think there is actually a HUGE problem with the media today.

It just has very little, if anything, to do with left wing media bias.

It is almost entirely about really, really fucked up incentives in the media market.