Media Bias

[JimC]

Those are important questions Cunt. They are not however an insurmountable obstacle to removing fake news.

But my point here was again to challenge the notion that these motions are wholly subservient to some capitalist boogeyman.

Is any large media organisation going to make decisions about its processes which will reduce its profit?

This motivation does not necessarily mean that the decisions always involve horrible outcomes. If the media companies are monitoring the social zeitgeist (and of course they are) then decisions such as banning certain types of trolls, or anti-gay diatribes, or neo-Nazi rants or whatever may in fact work well for an increasing number of their customers. Win win...

[Sean Hayden]

Google, a right leaning company clothed in a leftist agenda to improve sales!

[Cunt]

Those are important questions Cunt. They are not however an insurmountable obstacle to removing fake news.

But my point here was again to challenge the notion that these motions are wholly subservient to some capitalist boogeyman.

Some of them are.

How would you remove fake news, and how (more importantly) would you find out if the fakenewsremover was fakenews?

That's the problem. Fact-checking the fact-checkers isn't easy, when idiots chant 'science-denier' when anyone questions their ludicrous energy policy.

Everyone knows how easy it can be to find a politician who has been 'bought'. I wonder how many of them know that scientists can be bought...

win

Pool read a story on one of his podcasts, about tiktok banning differently. Apparently, rather than banning the bullies, they found it more profitable to ban the target of the bullying.

I can't find the story now, but is that going to be just as ok with you? We have China, Saudi Arabia and fucking CANADA mucking around with international stuff now...you realize that you will all have to start liking beer, bacon and canoe-sex, right? I mean, or get banned off the Canuck-tok

[Sean Hayden]

Is any large media organisation going to make decisions about its processes which will reduce its profit?

Are you claiming they were forced to make that decision? If not, then what does it mean to say they're only looking after their bottom line?

I would say it's more likely that they fail to realize the left's ideals, and at some points that will be because of capitalism. But that's no different than the individual, and in a lot of ways a less realistic expectation applied to state sized companies.

[Sean Hayden]

Some of them are.

How would you remove fake news, and how (more importantly) would you find out if the fakenewsremover was fakenews?

That's the problem. Fact-checking the fact-checkers isn't easy, when idiots chant 'science-denier' when anyone questions their ludicrous energy policy.

Everyone knows how easy it can be to find a politician who has been 'bought'. I wonder how many of them know that scientists can be bought...

Again, a difficult problem is not necessarily insurmountable. Would you deny that there are relatively easy to identify cases of fake news?

[Cunt]

Are some companies operating to support a foreign government, rather than normal shareholders?

Easy-to-identify? Yes. Easy to agree on? I don't know...

Tell me if there is an easy-to-identify case of fake news around the Sandman case.

Or the Smollett case.

It's not easy enough to simply say one is or is not. One of the sneaky tricks is to tweet a story, like...

Tweet : Sean is a fucking Hayden

Then, when that story is objected to, the correction is made, but the correction tweet goes out during a quiet time, and the original tweet, though edited, is not viewed again, so everyone is going to think Sean is a fucking Hayden. when the correction reads.

Sean is (edited later to avoid lawsuit)

But yeah, we could look at a flag case like Sandman, or better still several.

Also, since I think the bias shows MUCH more clearly in some ways, I would say construct rightie lies, and lefty lies, to see which ones one can get away with more often.

If Trump (for example) has a lie-counter on his whole political career, and no other politicians are graced with this honor, does that mean he is the best liar ever? The greatest, most prolific and vociferous liar?

Now, how the fuck am I supposed to celebrate Chinese New Year? Quick! I think it's supposed to happen now. Please and thansk.

[Sean Hayden]

I appreciate your effort to solve the problem, that strikes me as the right approach rather than denying it's possible.

[Hermit]

Are some companies operating to support a foreign government, rather than normal shareholders?

Easy-to-identify? Yes. Easy to agree on? I don't know...

Tell me if there is an easy-to-identify case of fake news around the Sandman case.

Or the Smollett case.

It's not easy enough to simply say one is or is not. One of the sneaky tricks is to tweet a story, like...

Tweet : Sean is a fucking Hayden

Then, when that story is objected to, the correction is made, but the correction tweet goes out during a quiet time, and the original tweet, though edited, is not viewed again, so everyone is going to think Sean is a fucking Hayden. when the correction reads.

Sean is (edited later to avoid lawsuit)

But yeah, we could look at a flag case like Sandman, or better still several.

Also, since I think the bias shows MUCH more clearly in some ways, I would say construct rightie lies, and lefty lies, to see which ones one can get away with more often.

If Trump (for example) has a lie-counter on his whole political career, and no other politicians are graced with this honor, does that mean he is the best liar ever? The greatest, most prolific and vociferous liar?

Now, how the fuck am I supposed to celebrate Chinese New Year? Quick! I think it's supposed to happen now. Please and thansk.

The Sandman and the Smollett stories were very quickly and very publicly corrected when evidence turned up that the original stories were factually wrong. The contrast between how they were handled and how media like Fox treats the "stolen election" issue cannot be starker.

[Cunt]

Are some companies operating to support a foreign government, rather than normal shareholders?

Easy-to-identify? Yes. Easy to agree on? I don't know...

Tell me if there is an easy-to-identify case of fake news around the Sandman case.

Or the Smollett case.

It's not easy enough to simply say one is or is not. One of the sneaky tricks is to tweet a story, like...

Tweet : Sean is a fucking Hayden

Then, when that story is objected to, the correction is made, but the correction tweet goes out during a quiet time, and the original tweet, though edited, is not viewed again, so everyone is going to think Sean is a fucking Hayden. when the correction reads.

Sean is (edited later to avoid lawsuit)

But yeah, we could look at a flag case like Sandman, or better still several.

Also, since I think the bias shows MUCH more clearly in some ways, I would say construct rightie lies, and lefty lies, to see which ones one can get away with more often.

If Trump (for example) has a lie-counter on his whole political career, and no other politicians are graced with this honor, does that mean he is the best liar ever? The greatest, most prolific and vociferous liar?

Now, how the fuck am I supposed to celebrate Chinese New Year? Quick! I think it's supposed to happen now. Please and thansk.

The Sandman and the Smollett stories were very quickly and very publicly corrected when evidence turned up that the original stories were factually wrong. The contrast between how they were handled and how media like Fox treats the "stolen election" issue cannot be starker.

Maybe the thing to do is seek how long after the event a lie persists.

The payout sure makes it seem like they weren't quick or public enough in their correction. The stolen issue election would be no good as a test case, because it would be auto-censored off all major social media platforms...

[JimC]

Is any large media organisation going to make decisions about its processes which will reduce its profit?

Are you claiming they were forced to make that decision? If not, then what does it mean to say they're only looking after their bottom line?

I would say it's more likely that they fail to realize the left's ideals, and at some points that will be because of capitalism. But that's no different than the individual, and in a lot of ways a less realistic expectation applied to state sized companies.

Not really sure of your point, here - by "that decision" are you referring to a particular one?

I meant decisions in general, and all I was getting at is that it is very unlikely they would make ideologically based decisions that reduce their bottom line. Of course, they can make mistakes, and perhaps owners and senior executives bring some other motivations to the mix at times. Neither are they totally immune to both public opinion and/or pressure from nation states. But when push comes to shove, satisfying their shareholders will loom very, very large...

[Sean Hayden]

Take Amazon, they make most of their money from their cloud services and massive contracts like the one they have with the DOD. It's fair to wonder if a consideration of the bottom line factored into deciding to drop certain rightwing sites at all.

[Cunt]

Take Amazon, they make most of their money from their cloud services and massive contracts like the one they have with the DOD. It's fair to wonder if a consideration of the bottom line factored into deciding to drop certain rightwing sites at all.

if you want a contract with DeBeers here, you have to submit to certain standards. Ditto for government.

Mashed my finger with a hammer, and my 'e' finger hurts. I think I'm going to skip that 1 awhil

[Sean Hayden]

...shit, you don't think the government threatened to find someone else, do you? It's leftist all the way up! Soros! Gates! 5g! 5g!

[Hermit]

Maybe the thing to do is seek how long after the event a lie persists.

Pointless. Lies always persist long after they are recognised as such. It is a well known fact, and it has been known for a long time. In 1710 Jonathan Swift wrote

• Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect

Worse still, more people believe a lie to be a truth after it has been exposed to be a lie than before.

The payout sure makes it seem like they weren't quick or public enough in their correction.

The corrections appeared as soon as new evidence came to light, and they were not hidden in the form of a two sentence note somewhere on page eight. Nobody who read the original stories at WaPo, CNN, NBC or AP would have missed their subsequent corrections.

The stolen issue election would be no good as a test case, because it would be auto-censored off all major social media platforms...

The ease with which you jump from news media to social media as if the difference between them did not matter is remarkable, though not surprising.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I accuse you of being 'establishment' because I think it is so. Maybe you have many opinions that conflict with the establishment, but I don't know them.

Oh dude. It's tearing me up inside that you don't give me any maverick cred. Maybe if I tape a dog turd to my hat I'll finally get some respect.

So far, people have offered up one disappointment of his, several years ago, and discredit everything he has done since, based on that.

Or does your 'all too often' list have more items on it?

Practically every time I hear about one of his operations there's something unethical or dishonest in how it was carried out and/or in the treatment given to the item. No, I don't have a list for you, but off the top of my head I recall a couple.

There was the sting attempt in which he paid a woman to pretend that she was one of the creep Roy Moore's victims. The hope was that they'd get a major newspaper to print the story, and then expose the paper for being so biased and eager to rubbish Moore's sterling character that it would publish falsehoods.

I consider that unethical, but acknowledge that it's just my opinion. O'Keefe and his operation don't consider themselves bound by normal ethical considerations. Their stunts, if used by any respectable journalist or news outlet would get that journalist or new operation soundly condemned for ethical failure. Soo edgy! Here's the kicker though--

The paper vetted the Project Veritas fake victim, and exposed her as just that. O'Keefe then claimed that the paper had invented the whole thing in an attempt to divert attention from its bias. So, yeah, you admit that he lied that once. Lying appears to be an integral part of his business model. Not just lying to concoct some stunt, but lying about facts that he finds displeasing or uncomfortable, and lying to those who listen to his shit (source).

Then there was the YouTube thing.

I could go searching for futher examples of O'Keefe's apparently compulsive dishonesty, but past experience tells me that you aren't going to deal with the topic in good faith, and I'm not going to waste any more time on it. If you were the discerning fellow you claim to be you'd have done that 'steel man' thing you find compelling, and checked out what people have to say about O'Keefe's unethical methods and lack of honesty.

The ACORN fiasco wasn't a one-off, it was an example of the O'Keefe modus operandi. I don't need to keep a list because practically every time O'Keefe gets his operation noticed, it's for this type of ethically bankrupt mendacity.

As I say he's good at what he does. By which I mean that he's good at gulling those who willingly accept his antics because they like the narrative of right-wing gadfly sticking it to the horrible leftist media Enemies of the People.

CNN leans heavily left. He (and fox) lean right. I refuse to engage in a reflexive hate against the right, so it doesn't bother me that they have a bias.

You would know about 'leaning heavily left' being such a leftist yourself, eh? I suppose if CNN is 'heavily leftist' that makes MSNBC outright commies. Anarchists, even. Here again, your commentary says more about you than it does about the target of your disdain.

[CNN] are MUCH worse than PV.

By any reasonable measure, anyway.

Oh indeed. Another example of clear-eyed and objective analysis. Or something.

So by exposing facebook, somehow PV is a disappointment to you? I don't understand...

Maybe someday, but I'm not holding my breath.