Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Razgovory]

Keep in mind that students are taught to suppress bias in journalism school.  I think most take that seriously.

[Berkut]

To me it looks like this: right wing media isn't "main stream" because it is so obviously partisan and - often - brazenly dishonest. So there's no expectation that right wing media is supposed to be anything other than propaganda, and attempts at holding it to any sort of standard is cast as an attack on free speech.

Any media that's not explicitly right wing is considered "main stream" and anytime there is a lack of support for right wing bias it's decried as evidence of unfair "liberal bias". No matter how much "main stream" media provides space for right wing voices, no matter how much they attempt to show "both sides", it is always insufficient and proof of "liberal bias".

There are obviously partisan left-wing media sources.  Jacobin, rabble.ca, Daily Kos, Mother Jones, etc.

You can have partisan news sources - nothing wrong with that.  Where the criticism comes from is these large national media companies that claim to not have any inherent political bias, but many perceive them to have such a bias.

What is interesting is that you stick to this claim (tempered now by arguing that "many perceive them, rather then yourself), despite being provided with actual objective, measured evidence that it is simply not true.

You refuse to even speak to that evidence, and just continue on the argument as if it was not presented at all.

https://adfontesmedia.com/

If you look at the top of your chart, there's a line in the middle.  It's the political middle.  There's also a green line for the most news value.  Lets just look above that line.

To the right side of that political middle line is the Wall Street Journal, Fox Business, The Dispatch (big fan), and a couple outlets I don't recognize.

On the left side... NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, AP, Reuters, Forbes, New York Times, the Guardian, CNN (web), the Economist, the Hill, Vox, Vice, Politico, the Hill, and a pile more I don't recognize.

You sure this proves there's no bias in the mainstream media?


It also loses points for saying The Bulwark skews left.  Another outlet I'm a fan of, but just because they're anti-Trump does not make them left wing.

Wow, that is some serious goalpost dancing.

1. I never claimed there was no bias in the mainstream media.
2. Your claim is very clear - that "the mainstream media has a liberal bias".

That doesn't mean that if we carefully add it all up, there is some slight lean left. It means that there is so much bias, that it is reasonable to conclude that the totality of what is the "mainstream media" is biased such that very general statements are applicable.

It's amusing really. You say "Hey, lets look at the ones in the "decent media" box, and evaluate them!" But you don't bother adding "...and lets limit it to the ones that they actually say fall in the middle of the bias spectrum....". Nope, you just pretend that data is nowhere to be found.

Consumers of media who care should be looking for high reliability, low bias media. And they can trivially find it - its right there. There are a bunch of those that cluster right around the middle, some a little left, some a little right, but overall, it is trivial to find unbiased, mainstream media, or some mix of mainstream media that balances bias.  There is no actual problem of mainstream media bias that has any bearing on some theoretical moderate conservative desperate to find some decent news, but there just isn't any to be found in that liberal evil mainstream media! Whatever shall we do???

I guess we just get our news from Tucker Carlson....its a damn shame there isn't ANY mainstream media that isn't biased against those poor conservatives!

[Berkut]

BTW, my point here is NOT to beat up on poor Beebs.

It is to call out a narrative that he is parroting -that the mainstream media is all biased, so we might as well just watch Fox News, which is biased, but at least they admit it!

This is the same playbook Russia Times uses. You don't have to be credible yourself, you just have to attack the very idea that there is ANY source of credible news, so that you can hold up that fig leaf of justifying your own insane partisanship and rejection of truth. The actual partisan right wing media has learned from this and has sustained a very conscious, careful, and intentional attack on the media in the US.

This is incredibly dangerous to liberal democracy. And it is happening right now, and it is succeeding, and the parroted little narrative from what one would expect to be sane conservatives is enabling and extending it.

[Admiral Yi]

It is to call out a narrative that he is parroting -that the mainstream media is all biased, so we might as well just watch Fox News, which is biased, but at least they admit it!

At not point in this conversation have I read any post by Beeb that could reasonably be construed as "might as well watch Fox."

[Berkut]

It is to call out a narrative that he is parroting -that the mainstream media is all biased, so we might as well just watch Fox News, which is biased, but at least they admit it!

At not point in this conversation have I read any post by Beeb that could reasonably be construed as "might as well watch Fox."

If in fact the mainstream media is all liberal biased, then the breadcrumbs are pretty clear - you might as well watch biased right wing news, since there isn't a non-liberal option.

Note that even the media he cites as being right leaning but credible....is all mainstream media. The WSJ is mainstream media, and his claim is that the mainstream media is biased towards liberals. Which is certainly why they parroted the "Biden won the election!" lie.

That is the very media the people who engaged in a insurrection on Jan. 6 rejects as "mainstream media" and lies.

When my sister says the election was stolen, and I point out that there was no evidence it was stolen, her response is "but how do you know that - the mainstream media is all fake liberal bullshit!" And pointing out that the WSJ is hardly liberal doesn't help - obviously it is, because it is mainstream, and hence part of the great conspiracy.

If you reject the mainstream media because you don't want liberal biased news, then what is left is in fact Fox and OAN and Breitbart. The "mainstream media liberal bias" is the foundational lie of the rightwing media that has enabled all of the following lies. It is the absolutely necessary pre-condition of all that has followed.

Yes, if you buy into the base lie that the "mainstream media has a liberal bias" then in fact it most definitely follows that one should watch Fox and all the rest. What other alternative is there? It can't be the WSJ - that is mainstream media.

[Admiral Yi]

The other alternative is to continue to consume mainstream media skeptically and critically.

[Berkut]

The other alternative is to continue to consume mainstream media skeptically and critically.

One should do that anyway.

But that is not the narrative that "the mainstream media is all liberal" is trying to create. When you listen to Rush preaching that for the last 30 years, he didn't follow up with an admonition to treat Fox with some healthy skepticism as well.

Rather it is that the media is all a bunch of liars and there is no truth and you should just trust us that Obama is a secret Muslim and Clinton ran a pizza pedo ring and lets go have a chat with Mike Pence down at the Capitol about that stolen election.

You don't get to parrot the basic lie and then act SHOCKED, SHOCKED I SAY! when people actually believe it and act on it.

The reality is that there is no objective evidence that the mainstream media actually has a liberal bias in any way that means anything at all. If the best you can get from this claim is that one should consume media with skepticism, the claim means nothing since that is true whether the claim about political bias is true or not.

[Jacob]

As for Fox News, if Murdoch believed he could increase revenues by tacking left and going full NeverTrump. does anyone doubt he'd do that in a heatbeat?

I think Murdoch is cagey enough and opportunistic enough to change horses as it suits him, but I don't think it's driven as much by profit (though I'm sure it figures), but by pursuit of influence and how he'd like to wield that influence.

[Admiral Yi]

One should do that anyway.

But that is not the narrative that "the mainstream media is all liberal" is trying to create. When you listen to Rush preaching that for the last 30 years, he didn't follow up with an admonition to treat Fox with some healthy skepticism as well.

Rather it is that the media is all a bunch of liars and there is no truth and you should just trust us that Obama is a secret Muslim and Clinton ran a pizza pedo ring and lets go have a chat with Mike Pence down at the Capitol about that stolen election.

You don't get to parrot the basic lie and then act SHOCKED, SHOCKED I SAY! when people actually believe it and act on it.

The reality is that there is no objective evidence that the mainstream media actually has a liberal bias in any way that means anything at all. If the best you can get from this claim is that one should consume media with skepticism, the claim means nothing since that is true whether the claim about political bias is true or not.

The fact that a statement is used by bad people for bad purposes does not mean the statement is false.

Who's acting shocked about anything?

[mongers]

One should do that anyway.

But that is not the narrative that "the mainstream media is all liberal" is trying to create. When you listen to Rush preaching that for the last 30 years, he didn't follow up with an admonition to treat Fox with some healthy skepticism as well.

Rather it is that the media is all a bunch of liars and there is no truth and you should just trust us that Obama is a secret Muslim and Clinton ran a pizza pedo ring and lets go have a chat with Mike Pence down at the Capitol about that stolen election.

You don't get to parrot the basic lie and then act SHOCKED, SHOCKED I SAY! when people actually believe it and act on it.

The reality is that there is no objective evidence that the mainstream media actually has a liberal bias in any way that means anything at all. If the best you can get from this claim is that one should consume media with skepticism, the claim means nothing since that is true whether the claim about political bias is true or not.

The fact that a statement is used by bad people for bad purposes does not mean the statement is false.

Who's acting shocked about anything?

He needed it for the CAPS opportunity.

[Barrister]

BTW, my point here is NOT to beat up on poor Beebs.

It is to call out a narrative that he is parroting -that the mainstream media is all biased, so we might as well just watch Fox News, which is biased, but at least they admit it!

Fuck off Berkut.  That's an incredible job of strawmanning, even for you.

Barrister out.

[viper37]

Keep in mind that students are taught to suppress bias in journalism school.  I think most take that seriously.

and finance students are taught ethics in their classes too.  Yet, I keep hearing of these financial scandals everywhere, and this whole issue of tax heaven.

Can't really be happening, since they value their ethics seriously.  I'm just hallucinating.

[grumbler]

Keep in mind that students are taught to suppress bias in journalism school.  I think most take that seriously.

and finance students are taught ethics in their classes too.  Yet, I keep hearing of these financial scandals everywhere, and this whole issue of tax heaven.

Can't really be happening, since they value their ethics seriously.  I'm just hallucinating.

Not sure what your point is.  Ethics instruction seems to work for about 99.999% of the finance students, so if you are saying that that instruction is equal to bias suppression training, then that must work for 99.999% of journalists, too.

[The Brain]

If it was spelled Ethix maybe kids would pay attention.

[viper37]

Ethics instruction seems to work for about 99.999% of the finance students, so if you are saying that that instruction is equal to bias suppression training, then that must work for 99.999% of journalists, too.

It's a tad lower than that, but I'll grant you that many people working in finance don't actually have a financial background.

My point is that there's no shortage of unethical financial advisors&general workers, just as there is no shortage of dishonest journalists.  Since we're dealing with human sciences when it comes to journalism, I guess most of them just don't realize how dishonest they can be. 

Trumped statistics are often used to justify their point, or simply looking at the wrong statistics.  Whenever they report on a scientific subject, they, generally, seem at their worst.  Like they don't understand at all what they're all talking about, but they don't really care to understand it.