Media Bias

[Sean Hayden]

I'm sure this adds up to a compelling argument about something. But what?

[Cunt]

With him being President now, I'm sure a hard-hitting investigative journalist will press him on those statements.

Maybe Colbert...or a lady pop star...

[Sean Hayden]

So, you're upset because the child sniffing, demented, crime boss Biden is being treated too kindly. --makes sense.

[Cunt]

So, you're upset

I'm not upset. You read too much emotion into this.

I am looking forward to seeing Biden either face tough interviews (will be entertaining, based on his previous 'performances') or watching pro-dem media vigorously avoid placing him before tough interviews.

The media hasn't changed. They will still be of the same political stripe they were before the election. (green stripe)

[Sean Hayden]

I think we're better off focusing on what is actually done within any administration.

Have you read Biden's "Vision" or any part of it? How about his cabinet picks, have you spent any time looking into them?

How will the DOE realize Biden's ambitious promises?

It's fucking complicated.

[Cunt]

I think he wants what the global communists want - CCP/UN/World Economic Fund. He does use their 'corporate branding' (i.e. Build Back Better) rather than his own platform of some kind.

I prefer more local control. My experience seeing how Ottawa controls their remote northern communities reminds me that we should trend the hashtag #remediateottawa before taking control of a small communities resources.

But lots of people WANT the global rule, rather than government by consent of the governed.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Ah, but Crowder and Pool and so forth are on a different level? They've broken through the veil and can reliably inform a benighted individual like myself about reality? Or is it simply that by contradicting the myopic lefties they regularly hit upon the truth, because lefties are so often completely wrong?

No, because they try to be open about their bias.

We'll just take it as read that they are. How does that make anything they say more reliable than another source?

I think you know that CNN for instance regularly books conservatives and gives them ample time to promote their ideas. It has got flak from actual leftists for hiring highly outspoken conservatives. We'll take it as read that CNN tends to the left (at least in the ridiculously skewed sensibilities of Middle America). How would you like them to describe themselves, that would satisfy you in the same way that Crowder and Pool have done? How should they go establishing themselves as unapologetically biased, and therefore on a higher level of credibility?

Also, with both, they are willing to share the mic with people who disagree strongly.

See above. If you think a place like CNN doesn't present a political spectrum of voices, then you haven't been paying attention. I watch more Fox News than I do CNN, and even I know that.

Crowders 'change my mind' segments are much better examples of fair treatment of discussion, than anything I've seen in mainstream comedy or news.

But you could change my mind. Just show me the lefties who allow long-form interviews between both sides.

No, I don't believe I could change your mind. History informs me otherwise.

So how does one test the political bias of media, especially social media companies?

Not being a political scientist, I wouldn't presume to claim I have a scientific answer to that. However, you seem to have hit upon a reliable means of discovering political bias, and no doubt it's thoroughly scientific.

Nope. I can see bias when it is plain, and acknowledged.

Fair enough. It seems you also infer it when it isn't plain and acknowledged. So do I.

If Tim Pool is so wrong, why not say where? I mean, you could always just call him names, and expect everyone to accept your verdict, but I have listened to him, going from leftie to 'politically homeless', and then to rightie. Saw some of the same trend with other lefties, like Rubin.

I'm not concerned with Pool, but I believe I've endorsed at least one commentary on the topic on this site. Being aware of the fact that he pushes right wing conspiracy theories, he will always be an unreliable source in my eyes. Changing one's political views (I'm not sure Pool has done so) isn't any badge of credibility.

When I say I'm not sure Pool has actually changed his views, I mean that I don't know that he has ever had any particular political views. He makes his living as a video blogger. He's desperate for clicks and views, just like any 14-year-old wannabe 'influencer'. I admit I'm prejudiced against such people as a group. I consider such them to be inherently unprincipled and meretricious, unless they prove otherwise. Pool has done anything but that.

But I was trying to get at how difficult it is to settle on a test that righties and lefties would agree, that could show political bias in media.

Tough one, with everyone having a tough time settling what the honest differences are.

It seems reasonable to assume that there is at least some bias in pretty much all political media. The best a media outlet can do is present more than one point of view, to mitigate bias. Most of them do. Even Fox News has Democratic Party guests on once in a while.

[Cunt]

See above. If you think a place like CNN doesn't present a political spectrum of voices, then you haven't been paying attention. I watch more Fox News than I do CNN, and even I know that.

Have they presented a fair coverage of the journalist in the UK, 'Tommy Robinson'? I know lots of media outlets lie about him (he IS a bit of an asshole) but they don't seem to lie the same way about others.

Did they lie about Nick Sandman? Why do you suppose they pay him so much?

Crowders 'change my mind' segments are much better examples of fair treatment of discussion, than anything I've seen in mainstream comedy or news.

But you could change my mind. Just show me the lefties who allow long-form interviews between both sides.

No, I don't believe I could change your mind. History informs me otherwise.

Have you ANY lefties who allow long-form interviews of the 'unpersoned'?

I'll wait while you find it.

Fair enough. It seems you also infer it when it isn't plain and acknowledged. So do I.

I assume it is always there. When someone is extra-skilled at hiding it, it raises my caution. Look how many folks think Obama was peaceful, because he talks so slick. (or maybe there was a cooperating media team)

I'm not concerned with Pool, but I believe I've endorsed at least one commentary on the topic on this site. Being aware of the fact that he pushes right wing conspiracy theories, he will always be an unreliable source in my eyes. Changing one's political views (I'm not sure Pool has done so) isn't any badge of credibility.

The phrase 'conspiracy theory'...do you know it's origin?

It strikes me as an empty insult, and an excuse to refuse to look into a topic, often times.

When I say I'm not sure Pool has actually changed his views, I mean that I don't know that he has ever had any particular political views. He makes his living as a video blogger. He's desperate for clicks and views, just like any 14-year-old wannabe 'influencer'. I admit I'm prejudiced against such people as a group. I consider such them to be inherently unprincipled and meretricious, unless they prove otherwise. Pool has done anything but that.

He got invited to the white house social media summit. He got the interview with Dorsey et al. He invites people onto his show who are unpopular, and lets them say their piece.

Seems pretty respectful. More so than most of the attention whores in news.

But I was trying to get at how difficult it is to settle on a test that righties and lefties would agree, that could show political bias in media.

Tough one, with everyone having a tough time settling what the honest differences are.

It seems reasonable to assume that there is at least some bias in pretty much all political media. The best a media outlet can do is present more than one point of view, to mitigate bias. Most of them do. Even Fox News has Democratic Party guests on once in a while.

Why not take one of those modern, hot issues, write an equal and awful defense of each, then test both of those around media and social media to see if one gets treated more gently than the other.

I'm guessing you know which 'side' gets more policing.

[JimC]

While it’s true that #1984 can’t be used as a hashtag, this has nothing to do with censorship, politics, Trump, or the Capitol riot. Twitter does not let users create hashtags solely from numbers. You can’t make a hashtag for #1234, #2021, or any other string of numbers.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/twitt ... 84-orwell/

Could you use "#nineteen-eighty-four"?

[Sean Hayden]

I don't know the formatting rules for hashtags. The link only list one rule: you can't use all numbers. #1984Orwell is given as an alternative and legal example.

[Hermit]

In other news...

Parler misquoting someone? Say it ain't so!

What Biden did say was: "Folks, we got a lot of work to do. I not only need you to get me elected, but I need you once I’m elected." He slurs the words "not only", but they are definitely there.

Don't believe me? Of course not. I'm biased, so whatever I say cannot be trusted.

Then again, you could listen to a recording of what he really did say yourself. Should remove my bias that makes it untrustworthy. Also, the clip was uploaded by Donald Trump. Maybe not by himself, but it is on his channel.

[Hermit]

While it’s true that #1984 can’t be used as a hashtag, this has nothing to do with censorship, politics, Trump, or the Capitol riot. Twitter does not let users create hashtags solely from numbers. You can’t make a hashtag for #1234, #2021, or any other string of numbers.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/twitt ... 84-orwell/

Could you use "#nineteen-eighty-four"?

That would be closer to the title George Orwell (whose real name is Eric Arthur Blair) actually gave his novel. It is Nineteen Eighty-Four.

[Hermit]

I saw the video where Biden said that.

Bullshit. What Biden did say was: "Folks, we got a lot of work to do. I not only need you to get me elected, but I need you once I’m elected." He slurs the words "not only", but they are definitely there.

Don't believe me? Of course not. I'm biased, so whatever I say cannot be trusted.

Then again, you could listen to a recording of what he really did say yourself. Should remove my bias that makes it untrustworthy. Also, the clip was uploaded by Donald Trump. Maybe not by himself, but it is on his channel.

...and he also said that ...

“We’re in a situation where we have put together, and you guys did it for our administration…President Obama’s administration before this. We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,”

Now you're just being silly. Biden was talking about the voter protection program the Democratic Party was developing at the time.

[pErvinalia]

He's not being silly. He heard it from one of his biased right wing sources that he trusts (because they are openly biased).

[Cunt]

They are the only ones willing to criticize Biden the way Trump has been criticized.

But now that 'the Establishment' is undeniable, maybe some of you will start feeling 'anti-establishment' and start in on him.

I don't even remember what this place was like before Trump became everyone's focus...except birds.