Media Bias

[Cunt]

Oh look, false equivalence. That's another fallacy.

Are you saying that looking at bias is a fallacy?

No, because that wasn't what you were doing. You set up a false equivalence where you equated Antifa to Proud Boys.

I changed the name to exaggerate differences.

I regard reporting on either group to readily show bias, but one would have to be pretty objective about some ugly things before that would be possible.

[Brian Peacock]

If you take two groups from opposite political sides...
1) Aunt Teefa
2) Pride of Boys

(imaginary groups for illustration)

If 1 is left-wing and 2 is right-wing, then one could look for media bias by seeing how many channels paint one group as favourable, vs how many paint the other group as favourable...

This could show bias, if one were to look.

Of course, one would have to look at BOTH possibilities, and might find much bias on one side...

Which side do you think the media's hammer would fall on and to which side do you think it would favour?

[Cunt]

Which side do you think the media's hammer would fall on and to which side do you think it would favour?

So you see the problem?

I'm as biased as anyone.

I find it easy to see when the bias is exaggerated and obvious, less so when I'm 'singing along', as we do.

When I learned about print advertising, I saw best the crudest examples. Playboy had subtle, beautiful panels suggesting success was associated with a given product.

Hustler, alernately, said more plain, more clear things.

I am pretty sure you could get banned from most social media platforms for a list of 50 reasons, but of those 50 'test offenses', there would somehow have to be agreement on the 'polarity' of each.

Not something clear to go through here. I use 'test cases', such as when I really know about a local event, vs the reporting on it. Or when I know a larger public event, such as the national hoaxes on media, and how IT is reported.

I try what I can, but when I KNOW someone is completely in denial about the brexit (or the election, or the 'rona or any issue) then I can reliably count on them to land on their 'side' on that issue.

[pErvinalia]

Which side do you think the media's hammer would fall on and to which side do you think it would favour?

So you see the problem?

Yes. You are unable to answer questions. This is why you get accused of trolling. Your intent isn't an honest conversation.

[Brian Peacock]

Which side do you think the media's hammer would fall on and to which side do you think it would favour?

So you see the problem?

I'm as biased as anyone.

I find it easy to see when the bias is exaggerated and obvious, less so when I'm 'singing along', as we do.

When I learned about print advertising, I saw best the crudest examples. Playboy had subtle, beautiful panels suggesting success was associated with a given product.

Hustler, alernately, said more plain, more clear things.

I am pretty sure you could get banned from most social media platforms for a list of 50 reasons, but of those 50 'test offenses', there would somehow have to be agreement on the 'polarity' of each.

Not something clear to go through here. I use 'test cases', such as when I really know about a local event, vs the reporting on it. Or when I know a larger public event, such as the national hoaxes on media, and how IT is reported.

I try what I can, but when I KNOW someone is completely in denial about the brexit (or the election, or the 'rona or any issue) then I can reliably count on them to land on their 'side' on that issue.

You don't have to rely on biases. You could take a sample selection of media outlets and compare how they covered a story, how they presented the issues and/or the main players, if they honestly reflected what people really said, meant and did or if they chopped it to fit an agenda or narrative, if they pitched things as a conflict between opposing sides and if so if they leaned towards one side or the another, etc. It's the kind of stuff sociologists and market researchers do all the time. You could then inform your opinion from the facts rather than looking around for tidbits of information which confirms what you thought or believed already.

It seems a bit silly to me to constantly imply that the media is biased but when you're asked about it you suddenly don't seem to have a firm idea of who's biased against whom and/or to what extent that's significant, or isn't.

As a talking point it's pretty slim pickings to be honest.

[Cunt]

Which side do you think the media's hammer would fall on and to which side do you think it would favour?

So you see the problem?

Yes. You are unable to answer questions. This is why you get accused of trolling. Your intent isn't an honest conversation.

I'm unable to answer, because it was a very broad question.

Which media and which 'side' are you asking about?

[pErvinalia]

Well you made the initial claim about the media in relation to left and right wing. Brian is just asking you to expand beyond your usual rhetoric.

[JimC]

Given that the vast majority of media companies are owned by large corporations who practice capitalism with great zeal, painting the majority of the mainstream media as "left wing" is disingenuous at best...

[Cunt]

Well you made the initial claim about the media in relation to left and right wing. Brian is just asking you to expand beyond your usual rhetoric.

I think if you could identify a clearly 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' group, you could then list who is telling a blue story about them, vs a red story.

But those things have to be defined first.

For me, I look to examples like major media hoaxes, and see how they are reported on. That only works for me because I understand that I am considering a media hoax. For your own example, you would have to find something YOU recognize as a media hoax, to try it.

So if you want to ask my opinion about some event, go ahead, but if you want to try this method, you'll have to interview yourself, to find out what you think of as 'hoax'.

[Brian Peacock]

You pitched Antifa against the Proud Boys in your little thought experiment. I just asked which side you think the media actually supports more/less. So?

[Cunt]

You pitched Antifa against the Proud Boys in your little thought experiment. I just asked which side you think the media actually supports more/less. So?

I deliberately changed the names, to make it fictional.

With the PB, I listen to reports of them, and from them. Sometimes, there are obvious lies by media. One of the easiest ones to spot, is if they call the members names, but never seek out a comment from that member.

I heard the leader accused of racism in media, then heard him interviewed. Didn't hear any racism from him, or the group. It all seemed constructed by motivated media.

[Cunt]

Sorry I missed half your question...
Antifa could be a good outfit, but I haven't heard them promoting their good work. (I mean the kind that could be done publicly)

Basically, I don't hear them talking about their positive community efforts, or answering interviews. I do hear them objecting to reporting sometimes.

[Brian Peacock]

You pitched Antifa against the Proud Boys in your little thought experiment. I just asked which side you think the media actually supports more/less. So?

I deliberately changed the names, to make it fictional.

With the PB, I listen to reports of them, and from them. Sometimes, there are obvious lies by media. One of the easiest ones to spot, is if they call the members names, but never seek out a comment from that member.

I heard the leader accused of racism in media, then heard him interviewed. Didn't hear any racism from him, or the group. It all seemed constructed by motivated media.

From you experience of having actually listened to the Proud Boys and their leader, what would you say are their top three ideas - the one's that broadly define what they are about?

[Brian Peacock]

Sorry I missed half your question...
Antifa could be a good outfit, but I haven't heard them promoting their good work. (I mean the kind that could be done publicly)

Basically, I don't hear them talking about their positive community efforts, or answering interviews. I do hear them objecting to reporting sometimes.

The clue is in the name. Antifa == anti-fascist. if you don't think that publicly standing up to fascists is a 'good work' what kind of good works are you thinking about?

[Cunt]

You pitched Antifa against the Proud Boys in your little thought experiment. I just asked which side you think the media actually supports more/less. So?

I deliberately changed the names, to make it fictional.

With the PB, I listen to reports of them, and from them. Sometimes, there are obvious lies by media. One of the easiest ones to spot, is if they call the members names, but never seek out a comment from that member.

I heard the leader accused of racism in media, then heard him interviewed. Didn't hear any racism from him, or the group. It all seemed constructed by motivated media.

From you experience of having actually listened to the Proud Boys and their leader, what would you say are their top three ideas - the one's that broadly define what they are about?

Seems defending the vulnerable, confronting violent protesters directly, and beer. Emphasis on that last.

I could look up their charter/constating documents, but haven't. That's just the impression I get from them.

I would be comfortable dressing in Biden garb, and attending an event with 10000 members of the proud boys.

I would not be as comfortable dressing in MAGA garb, and attending an event with 10000 members of antifa.

That's mostly my impression, based on the fact that antifa hides their faces, and hides from reporting clearly on their activities, and what has happened to reporters who report unfavourably on each group.

Sorry I missed half your question...
Antifa could be a good outfit, but I haven't heard them promoting their good work. (I mean the kind that could be done publicly)

Basically, I don't hear them talking about their positive community efforts, or answering interviews. I do hear them objecting to reporting sometimes.

The clue is in the name. Antifa == anti-fascist. if you don't think that publicly standing up to fascists is a 'good work' what kind of good works are you thinking about?

Ah, well, if they stand against the free speech of comedians, they are the facists, aren't they? If they protect the freedom to perform, of those who would mock and satirize the fascists, I'm glad to call them anti-fascist.

The problem is, they don't agree who is fascist, what actions are fascist, or whether they occasionally sneak in a target for other reasons than fascism.

I might change my mind about either group, of course, as new info comes in.

Generally, if someone wears a mask, or otherwise obscures their identity, and uses violence, they are not a positive conribution. Whether it is a cop with no visible badge number, or a masked attacker throwing non-lethal milkshakes at people to intimidate them, it seems cowardly and undesireable. There is a reason that we generally insist that those using force, identify themselves sufficiently. It's maybe a good one.