Jonathan Isaac

[AbeVigodaLive]

Abe, I'm talking about both the OpEd and hard news sides of these outlets. OpEd is meant to have a bias...fine, albeit it is overwhelmingly in one direction. But the hard news side is what I am mostly referring to. It's not necessarily the details of whatever it is they report or investigate that are biased. It's the topics they choose to cover and how vigorously.

So the NYT or NPR will have no shortage of articles/stories and hard-hitting investigative pieces on things that tend to resonate most with liberals, yet very little of the same when it comes to things that may resonate more with conservatives. It's almost in what they define as news and what is worthy of their attention versus not where their bias comes out. The Russian collusion story is probably one of the biggest examples in our history of a collective dereliction of journalistic duty by the mainstream press. Why? Because they all wanted to believe every bit of it and were only willing to pursue things that confirmed their own bias versus showing genuine curiosity and pursuing all lines of inquiry.

Ok. I'll grant that they sure do love certain angles and stories. These things are for-profit entities, and Trump sells. Like him or not, he really really sells.

But does that make the news stories "mostly fake" or "fake news" or whatever? No. Of course not... And that's unfortunately what far too many Americans think (or more accurately, about 42% - 50% of Americans) because that's what their side tells them.

There's a big gap between biased or skewed coverage and "fake news."


[Note: My favorite thing is when the NYT or WaPo is decried as fake news by the same person who then uses an article from one of those to support their next take. Well, is it only the coverage they don't like that's fake news? Obviously, those folks are taking their cues from someone... it's all so disingenuous to me.]

Yes, I agree that the peddlers of the "fake news" narrative are just as casual with the truth and diligent fact-finding as those they accuse. But journalists are the ones that are supposed to be independent of the government and seek out the truth - no matter how inconvenient or horrifying it might be - and too often fail us in their most fundamental mission, often rushing to put out a story that confirms their bias without throroughly investigating the facts or context, only to have to quietly retract portions of it later, or worse, stay completely silent on the matter ("ahem, nothing to see here...moving on!").

I do blame the American consumer to a large degree since it's human nature to gravitate toward things that confirm your own pre-existing biases. And this is only worsened by online platforms that curate your content based on your search history, thus only amplifying the homogeneity of the content being fed to you. This in turn leads eventually to tribalism, whereby one finds him or herself soon more loyal to their tribe and beating the other tribe than actual truth, compromise, and mutual problem solving. That's where we find ourselves today.

I disagree a bit with your take on journalists.

I think most organizations do accurately and dutifully source their material on the vast majority of their stories. And most organizations do offer corrections when wrong. Sadly, I think we've been educated from the powers-that-be that any admission of guilt or inaccuracy is a death sentence.

What's the threshold? 100% accuracy would be awesome. But not realistic when humans are involved. 90% seems low. I firmly believe that the actual accuracy of the stories is somewhere in-between. But as noted, there is a bias in what is being covered or even how it's spun. But I don't think the vast majority are making up stuff or sources. I think that's a convenient narrative contrived by people with skin in the game... who are greatly benefited by people not believing the media.

As for us as American consumers... yes. Social media and pre-existing biases... and the capability to find like-minded sources to justify our takes... or our tribe's takes... has never been available like this before.

We're living in an entirely new world. I've railed on it before... pragmatism, compromise and centrism is fleeting.



Edit: A couple of links...

- a scathing letter from a producer leaving MSNBC because of the network's quest for sensationalist stories that sell... https://thehill.com/homenews/media/510411-msnbc-producer-pens-scathing-exit-letter-ratings-model-blocks-diversity-of

- And a popular media bias chart: https://library.fvtc.edu/News/BiasCheck

[Coolbreeze44]

If someone were to get all their news from only mainstream sources, he/she would have very little understanding of what is really going on in the country today. And sadly there is a large percentage of our population who only listen to the MSM or get their ideas from hollywood. FOX isn't the answer either but at least it's a contrast and serves to educate on the other extreme. Again, good luck finding a job in the national media or hollywood if you're not willing to be controlled. And that is a terrible reality for the American people.

[AbeVigodaLive]

If someone were to get all their news from only mainstream sources, he/she would have very little understanding of what is really going on in the country today. And sadly there is a large percentage of our population who only listen to the MSM or get their ideas from hollywood. FOX isn't the answer either but at least it's a contrast and serves to educate on the other extreme. Again, good luck finding a job in the national media or hollywood if you're not willing to be controlled. And that is a terrible reality for the American people.

I disagree that you have to go to the extremes...

Here we are railing against the MSM for its inaccuracies... while simultaneously telling people to search for "truth" from the extremes -- where things are even more disingenuous and inaccurate?

This is back to my point about the middle being swallowed up by the polarized tribes in the extremes. NO.

Look again: https://library.fvtc.edu/News/BiasCheck

I'm not saying that chart is entirely accurate. But you can pick-and-choose almost any of these sorts of charts and see similar results.

There are plenty of notable, reputable sources for news that are available... sources we can go to and avoid the kneejerk reactionary tribalized crap found in the extremes where agendas are the top two priorities.

Are any of these sources perfect? Hell no. Do they have biases? Sure. Should we demand them to do better? Yep. Should we seek out new sources when we can? Definitely.

Should we assume those new sources of information are above-board and serving our best interests more than the MSM? That's up to you to decide. I think there's a very wide expanse of credible vs. flim-flam artists out there. Good luck sorting it out. It'll take time.

But to throw out all reputable news sources deliberately to seek extreme agenda-driven news sources seems like throwing the baby, the mom and the cute lil duckie out with the bathwater.



[Note: FoxNews's goal is not to "educate"... that's laughable. Likewise, the same could be said for MSNBC or Slate or whoever else is using sensationalism and browbeating smug hosts to push their own individual brands. Those people are NOT journalists. Real journalists make about .003% of those celebrities' salaries and are generally trying to follow some semblance of journalistic integrity.]

[Lipoli390]

Patriotism is a crock. I was coerced during my indoctrination process to pledge allegiance to a silly flag a few thousand times. Got to get them when they are young and malleable.

I'm sure I'll regret asking you this, but why is patriotism a "crock" to you?

That "silly" flag might look like a piece cloth to you, but to many others it represents a country that their brothers and sisters, wives and husbands, sons and daughters, etc. all fought for with many lives being upended or killed. To others it represents their escape from a country that was less fortunate and likely more threatening than the United States with many less freedoms. And lastly that "silly" flag stands as a constant symbol of hope for a better tomorrow to those throughout this country and many others. Hope that many other individuals don't have and never will.

You obviously feel differently and that's totally fine. I would caution against disrespecting the idea of patriotism and any symbols of this nation, though. What it means to you and what it means to others is likely very different and what you feel is not what they feel for very real reasons. Reasons that you should not spit on with words like "silly."

-The U.S. imprisons the highest percentage of people in the world most when no victim is found. For instance the War on Drugs, which has put people in prison for life for selling a product people want.
-Taxes at one of the highest in the world in order to keeping us Serfs perpetually working and poor
-The U.S. has killed MORE people in other Countries then ANY other since WW2, mostly done to overtake those Countries and steal resources. Spends at least 10 times more on Military then any other Country every year. Almost a TRILLION a year. War is a Racket, read the book. U.S. has been at War for 222 out of 236 years. A true killing war machine.

So sorry if I don't support killing the most people in the World, imprisoning the most people in the World and keeping the population enslaved through tyrannical taxes and the ponzi scheme for a monetary system.

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson

"Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal - that there is no human relation between master and slave." Leo Tolstoy, Russian writer.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company.

Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson

This is just a smidgen of information by the way. I could list years and years worth of books, research and declassified information.

Okay, that didn't quite answer my question, but the effort is appreciated nonetheless. So, if you believe America is as awful as you say it is, then what makes you feel like residing here? Why not depart to some other country that must be much more suitable to your liking? I mean, this country through your eyes just isn't worth living in. There must be a better place for WolvesFan21 to live and raise a family than the United States.

Or perhaps you enjoy all of your freedoms and equal opportunity here. Hmm... That might be it. Yep.

My wife grew up in China. She could provide WolvesFan21 with a vivid description of true political oppression. Even today, in a more liberal China than the one my wife grew up in, few would dare publicly criticize the Chinese government in an Internet post. A good friend from India is fond of saying that Americans have no idea what true inequality is if they haven't been to India. My grandparents immigrated from Lithuania as 19 year olds, fleeing poverty and oppression. They had no money and no education when they arrived and life was difficult. But they were thankful for the opportunities this Country gave them until they passed away. American has its share of problems. There's a widening gap between rich and poor and racial bigotry remains far too prevalent in this Country. But we would all benefit from a little more perspective and a lot less hyperbole.

There certainly are positive things about this country. I don't want to settle for just being better than...whatever country. How many people are satisfied with mediocrity for this basketball team? People want excellence I want that for our country too. Are there countries better than us? Why?

Here is maybe a bit of a different perspective...last week I was at an event and heard a patriotic song and honestly my reaction after recently reading quite a bit of history of our country and knowing personal stories about what people still go through today...singing about freedom did ring a little hollow. Is there a chance to fight in some way for freedom now? Is fighting oppression patriotic?

Monster - I agree we have plenty of problems in this Country and that we should always strive to be better as a nation. Racism towards African Americans is a particularly disturbing manifestation of this Country's imperfections and it ties back to this Country's shameful legacy of slavery. But I was just reacting to what I see as a pervasive lack of perspective and a surplus of hyperbole in today's public political discourse. And it's prevalent on both ends of the political spectrum - from those on the right equating mask mandates during dangerous pandemic to naziism to those on the left who want to take down statues of George Washington and find shame in taking pride in a Country that people risk their lives to enter.

[TAFKASP]

Abe, I'm talking about both the OpEd and hard news sides of these outlets. OpEd is meant to have a bias...fine, albeit it is overwhelmingly in one direction. But the hard news side is what I am mostly referring to. It's not necessarily the details of whatever it is they report or investigate that are biased. It's the topics they choose to cover and how vigorously.

So the NYT or NPR will have no shortage of articles/stories and hard-hitting investigative pieces on things that tend to resonate most with liberals, yet very little of the same when it comes to things that may resonate more with conservatives. It's almost in what they define as news and what is worthy of their attention versus not where their bias comes out. The Russian collusion story is probably one of the biggest examples in our history of a collective dereliction of journalistic duty by the mainstream press. Why? Because they all wanted to believe every bit of it and were only willing to pursue things that confirmed their own bias versus showing genuine curiosity and pursuing all lines of inquiry.

Ok. I'll grant that they sure do love certain angles and stories. These things are for-profit entities, and Trump sells. Like him or not, he really really sells.

But does that make the news stories "mostly fake" or "fake news" or whatever? No. Of course not... And that's unfortunately what far too many Americans think (or more accurately, about 42% - 50% of Americans) because that's what their side tells them.

There's a big gap between biased or skewed coverage and "fake news."


[Note: My favorite thing is when the NYT or WaPo is decried as fake news by the same person who then uses an article from one of those to support their next take. Well, is it only the coverage they don't like that's fake news? Obviously, those folks are taking their cues from someone... it's all so disingenuous to me.]

The problem IMO Is these organizations worth directly correlates to their trustworthiness. The fact that they may well have some high quality journalism is rendered moot by their biased tantrums and the obvious double standards they apply to the political coverage. It's the boy who cried wolf syndrome, if you prove yourself unreliable on some topics people are going to question the value of your coverage of all topics. This is why the journalistic ethics that have been ignored for the past couple decades existed, once an organization loses the people's trust there is no coming back from it, so they may as well dive into the mud head first.

My favorite reporting is when they hype Trumps terrible poll numbers while ignoring that Congress is typically rated lower... and the media themselves are rated lower still.

[TAFKASP]

Look again: https://library.fvtc.edu/News/BiasCheck

I have a hard time with that chart, the idea that DailyKos is roughly equal to Fox News is absurd. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are on equal footing IMO, all garbage, but equally so! LOL

Here is what I would consider a much more accurate media bias chart:

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings

[AbeVigodaLive]

Abe, I'm talking about both the OpEd and hard news sides of these outlets. OpEd is meant to have a bias...fine, albeit it is overwhelmingly in one direction. But the hard news side is what I am mostly referring to. It's not necessarily the details of whatever it is they report or investigate that are biased. It's the topics they choose to cover and how vigorously.

So the NYT or NPR will have no shortage of articles/stories and hard-hitting investigative pieces on things that tend to resonate most with liberals, yet very little of the same when it comes to things that may resonate more with conservatives. It's almost in what they define as news and what is worthy of their attention versus not where their bias comes out. The Russian collusion story is probably one of the biggest examples in our history of a collective dereliction of journalistic duty by the mainstream press. Why? Because they all wanted to believe every bit of it and were only willing to pursue things that confirmed their own bias versus showing genuine curiosity and pursuing all lines of inquiry.

Ok. I'll grant that they sure do love certain angles and stories. These things are for-profit entities, and Trump sells. Like him or not, he really really sells.

But does that make the news stories "mostly fake" or "fake news" or whatever? No. Of course not... And that's unfortunately what far too many Americans think (or more accurately, about 42% - 50% of Americans) because that's what their side tells them.

There's a big gap between biased or skewed coverage and "fake news."


[Note: My favorite thing is when the NYT or WaPo is decried as fake news by the same person who then uses an article from one of those to support their next take. Well, is it only the coverage they don't like that's fake news? Obviously, those folks are taking their cues from someone... it's all so disingenuous to me.]

The problem IMO Is these organizations worth directly correlates to their trustworthiness. The fact that they may well have some high quality journalism is rendered moot by their biased tantrums and the obvious double standards they apply to the political coverage. It's the boy who cried wolf syndrome, if you prove yourself unreliable on some topics people are going to question the value of your coverage of all topics. This is why the journalistic ethics that have been ignored for the past couple decades existed, once an organization loses the people's trust there is no coming back from it, so they may as well dive into the mud head first.

My favorite reporting is when they hype Trumps terrible poll numbers while ignoring that Congress is typically rated lower... and the media themselves are rated lower still.

Seems like a strawman.

Isn't the comparison between Trump and other presidents... not Trump and the media. And again... are the results "fake"... or just a topic that's skewed to sell papers, get clicks or fit an agenda? I don't put much stock in presidential polling at any given time, but it's not exactly a new concept, is it?

Trump says they're fake. But let's face it... he has a bit of skin in the game, and it's best for his brand if he can convince all the negative coverage of him is indeed "fake."


[Note: The powers-that-be are usually the primary targets for reporters, papers and tv news. When Obama was president, there were a ton of stories about Obama. When it was Bush... the same. Now, it's Trump. And he's imminently unique from other presidents because of his brash style, character and history. He's also in a very contentious relationship with the people covering him. It's good for his brand to bash them. And they can't resist doing so... because he gives them fodder (often seemingly trolling them). But he's the president. A very very controversial one. So he's gonna get covered more than most. Because it sells.]

[AbeVigodaLive]

Look again: https://library.fvtc.edu/News/BiasCheck

I have a hard time with that chart, the idea that DailyKos is roughly equal to Fox News is absurd. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are on equal footing IMO, all garbage, but equally so! LOL

Here is what I would consider a much more accurate media bias chart:

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings

Ok. Fair enough. Pick the chart of your choosing.

The reason I ran with the other chart is that it also shows accuracy and credibility. Because as I've been saying... I think that's critically important.

Just saying one tribe's outlet is biased so it's equal with another outlet that's biased toward the other tribe is a be too simplistic. They may all be biased to some degree... but they're not all equally accurate.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Look again: https://library.fvtc.edu/News/BiasCheck

I have a hard time with that chart, the idea that DailyKos is roughly equal to Fox News is absurd. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are on equal footing IMO, all garbage, but equally so! LOL

Here is what I would consider a much more accurate media bias chart:

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings

Ok. Fair enough. Pick the chart of your choosing.

The reason I ran with the other chart is that it also shows accuracy and credibility. Because as I've been saying... I think that's critically important.

Just saying one tribe's outlet is biased so it's equal with another outlet that's biased toward the other tribe is a be too simplistic. They may all be biased to some degree... but they're not all equally accurate.

Interesting charts, never seen either of them.Thanks for sharing.

[Porckchop]

People are coming here by the millions in search of a better life and the same people that say " let them in (legal or not)they deserve the same opportunities we get to enjoy" are the people that have such disdain for this country.
So which one is it? Do you want these people coming here only to go thru the same struggles you seem to be fighting ? Maybe they are better off staying back in their own country I guess?
Or maybe in an imperfect world with imperfect people this country still offers so much more than the rest of the free world. It seems some perspective is in order.