Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 07:24 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Well it was sincere but that doesn't mean my balls dropped off.  I'm still not going to like my opinion being called bullshit.

So argue the point, then.

Nobody's judging you on your Internet balls, dude.
Freedom isn't free.
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 07:24 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: ... I'm still not going to like my opinion being called bullshit ...

Just an informal survey reveals that, actually, no one likes their opinion being called "b^%#h^t".  This was a surprise because so many people on forums call other peoples' opinions "b^%#h^t" so often they must expect some appreciation and gratitude for doing so, else why bother?  Facepalm

If your opinion is called "b^%#h^t" on an open public forum, there are a number of ways to respond:

1.  Don't.  Any response of any kind gives legitimacy to the insult - you've acknowledged giving attention and consideration to something utterly worthless and beside the point.

2.  Dispassionately demand specifics: "b^%#h^t" is too general, conveying no useful criticism.

3.  Act 4 years old: fling an insult back.  Maybe two.  This proves even as a 4 year old you're "manly" (didn't lose your balls) and won't tolerate criticism or any suggestion your infallability has tender spots.  It further proves you have no interest in actual discourse because actual discourse is not a hundredth as fun as trading rhetorical jabs and the whole point of hanging around a forum is to have a good time.  Also, why take a chance on learning something?
The following 4 users Like airportkid's post:
  • Dom, TheGentlemanBastard, Deesse23, julep
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 09:41 PM)airportkid Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 07:24 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: ... I'm still not going to like my opinion being called bullshit ...

Just an informal survey reveals that, actually, no one likes their opinion being called "b^%#h^t".  This was a surprise because so many people on forums call other peoples' opinions "b^%#h^t" so often they must expect some appreciation and gratitude for doing so, else why bother?  Facepalm

If your opinion is called "b^%#h^t" on an open public forum, there are a number of ways to respond:

1.  Don't.  Any response of any kind gives legitimacy to the insult - you've acknowledged giving attention and consideration to something utterly worthless and beside the point.

2.  Dispassionately demand specifics: "b^%#h^t" is too general, conveying no useful criticism.

3.  Act 4 years old: fling an insult back.  Maybe two.  This proves even as a 4 year old you're "manly" (didn't lose your balls) and won't tolerate criticism or any suggestion your infallability has tender spots.  It further proves you have no interest in actual discourse because actual discourse is not a hundredth as fun as trading rhetorical jabs and the whole point of hanging around a forum is to have a good time.  Also, why take a chance on learning something?

Oh, ouch.
Freedom isn't free.
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 09:00 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 07:42 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 06:01 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: When trying to learn about anything, it behooves me to look at it from all sides.

I'm into military history. It chaps my hide when I read crap like "the victors get to write the history", because that ignores the fact that the defeated do as well. If I want to learn about, say, D-Day, and I want to really learn what happened, I should not only read Allied source materials, but German as well.

That doesn't mean that I expect Allied sources to accurately reflect German thinking, or vice-versa. I think that expectation is silly. In the same light, when I want to read about current issues afflicting us, I shouldn't expect every single source to properly air every single perspective on any given issue. I reckon I have to look for both angles on my own. How can a journalist in Beijing report on decisions made in Washington, except insofar as Chinese reactions are concerned? I don't expect to get interviews with Americans in that case, because such is not germane to Chinese reactions. See what I'm saying?

If I'm looking into Dem responses to the Georgia laws, having a Republican counterpoint being mandatory in the article gives me no information on Democrat views.

Now, if I just want straight news, I go back to Journalism 101: Who, what, when, where, and sometimes why. But if I'm looking in-depth, I expect that an article will have to focus on a particular angle, rather than paying lip-service to every.single.caveat out there.

I agree with most of that.  If I'm looking into Dem and Repub responses to the Georgia laws, with a few exceptions you have to check two (or more) sources because most sources have a bias that doesn't air a fair look at the entire issue.  The denial of bias, liberal or conservative, in various outlets seems bewildering to me, almost like wishful thinking.  "I only read the truth, not like those Faux RepubliKKKunts!"

My point is that insisting that every source cater to one's desire for balance is unrealistic, because if you're wanting to report on, say, Kurdish opinions on Iraqi central governance, inviting the Iraqi Interior Minister is not actually balancing the article. It's introducing an opinion that doesn't represent what the aim of the article is. It's a subtle point, but understandable.

By demanding that every article provide counterpoint, you're also demanding that every article provide for perspectives that do not themselves support the goal of the article.

"Oh, and by the way, Interior Minister Hussein insists that there was no gassing of Kurds in 1988" does nothing to either clarify facts, or clarify why the Kurds might have grievances.

Just one example.

Hmmm.  Actually I think to avoid bias it would be proper to include explanation or analysis from the Iraqi govt.  Why not?  You're supposed to be reporting facts.  It would be a fact that this is what Minister Hussein says about this.  Also it would be factual to show evidence that the gassing occurred or didn't occur.  What if Hussein said "We had proof right before we took them out that they were about to strike us with chemical weapons, so we attacked first."  That too would be a factual thing (the statement given) that would then need to be analyzed to get to the truth as objectively as it can be found.  It's what journalism is supposed to be about (in it's pure non-commercial sense, an impossibility today for reasons we have already discussed).  What else do you mean when you speak of "the aim of the article"?
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 09:11 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 07:24 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Well it was sincere but that doesn't mean my balls dropped off.  I'm still not going to like my opinion being called bullshit.

So argue the point, then.

Nobody's judging you on your Internet balls, dude.

What else do you want to know about it? (my point, not my balls)
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 09:57 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 09:41 PM)airportkid Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 07:24 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: ... I'm still not going to like my opinion being called bullshit ...

Just an informal survey reveals that, actually, no one likes their opinion being called "b^%#h^t".  This was a surprise because so many people on forums call other peoples' opinions "b^%#h^t" so often they must expect some appreciation and gratitude for doing so, else why bother?  Facepalm

If your opinion is called "b^%#h^t" on an open public forum, there are a number of ways to respond:

1.  Don't.  Any response of any kind gives legitimacy to the insult - you've acknowledged giving attention and consideration to something utterly worthless and beside the point.

2.  Dispassionately demand specifics: "b^%#h^t" is too general, conveying no useful criticism.

3.  Act 4 years old: fling an insult back.  Maybe two.  This proves even as a 4 year old you're "manly" (didn't lose your balls) and won't tolerate criticism or any suggestion your infallability has tender spots.  It further proves you have no interest in actual discourse because actual discourse is not a hundredth as fun as trading rhetorical jabs and the whole point of hanging around a forum is to have a good time.  Also, why take a chance on learning something?

Oh, ouch.

I may never recover. Weeping
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 09:57 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: What else do you mean when you speak of "the aim of the article"?

In the editorial room:

"Gossett, go investigate Kurdish opinions about the Americans pulling out of Iraq without notice."

"Sure thing, sir. Can you arrange for an interview with [fill in the blank here with Iraqi official]?"

"Gossett, we're looking for Kurdish opinion, not official Iraqi positions on this."

When you want to cover a specific aspect or angle of a story, why would you include representation of an angle that is outside the scope of the article?

(04-09-2021, 09:58 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: What else do you want to know about it? (my point, not my balls)

No one cares how much testosterone you think you, me, or Capt Fantastic need to display. If you're worried about others thinking your balls have "dropped off", then perhaps there's a disconnect happening here, because I doubt anyone is rating you on your balls.

In other words, stop looking at it as a contest, and just discuss stuff. No one is judging your manhood except, perhaps, you.
Freedom isn't free.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • mordant
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
Downunder, we really only have two major media news infuencers—Rupert Murdoch's News Corp,
and Nine Entertainment (formerly a Packer family company).

This 2018 infographic attempts (not always successfully IMHO) to illustrate Australian media
biasses:

[Image: ae64cnhtgh711.jpg]

Australia's "Liberal" party is socially conservative, though that's by Australian standards. It would
probably align with the right wing of the US Democrats on most issues—with our Labor party aligning
with the left wing of the US Democrats, and the US Republican party being seen by Australians as off
in the land of loony far-right.

The US Libertarian perspective (economically and socially liberal) doesn't really have a close match in
the Australian political context.  Australians—of both left and right—see government intervention as
normal, to the contrary of US Libertarians who promote individual liberty and oppose government
intervention.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 10:59 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: No one cares how much testosterone you think you, me, or Capt Fantastic need to display. If you're worried about others thinking your balls have "dropped off", then perhaps there's a disconnect happening here, because I doubt anyone is rating you on your balls.

In other words, stop looking at it as a contest, and just discuss stuff. No one is judging your manhood except, perhaps, you.

"Balls.  The true story of how one man's offhand forum comment became another man's obsession."

(hopefully not coming to a theater near you)
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 10:59 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 09:57 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: What else do you mean when you speak of "the aim of the article"?

In the editorial room:

"Gossett, go investigate Kurdish opinions about the Americans pulling out of Iraq without notice."

"Sure thing, sir. Can you arrange for an interview with [fill in the blank here with Iraqi official]?"

"Gossett, we're looking for Kurdish opinion, not official Iraqi positions on this."

When you want to cover a specific aspect or angle of a story, why would you include representation of an angle that is outside the scope of the article?

Nothing wrong with that.  That would make it a biased article.  The next day they might cover the official Iraqi position, balancing out the story and providing more perspective and anaylsis.  If that was the general ethic of the news source, we would grant that it is a generally unbiased source that seeks objectivity.  However if that news source then went on to develop a habit and reputation of only presenting one side of the issue, it would rightly be seen to have a [whatever] bias.  You've already explained the nuance and effort you take in recognizing bias and seeking less "McDonalds" and a more fair and balanced (if you will) view of events by getting multiple opinions from multiple sources with different biases.  This is wise and I try to do the same.  I don't know what we're arguing about, if anything.  I think you see less of a liberal bias in the mainstream but recognize some, while I see more, but I think we are both in a realistic ballpark.  Denying it outright as others are here (not you Danu) seems wrong to me.
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-10-2021, 02:46 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 10:59 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: No one cares how much testosterone you think you, me, or Capt Fantastic need to display. If you're worried about others thinking your balls have "dropped off", then perhaps there's a disconnect happening here, because I doubt anyone is rating you on your balls.

In other words, stop looking at it as a contest, and just discuss stuff. No one is judging your manhood except, perhaps, you.

"Balls.  The true story of how one man's offhand forum comment became another man's obsession."

(hopefully not coming to a theater near you)

Do tell.
Freedom isn't free.
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-10-2021, 02:48 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 10:59 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 09:57 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: What else do you mean when you speak of "the aim of the article"?

In the editorial room:

"Gossett, go investigate Kurdish opinions about the Americans pulling out of Iraq without notice."

"Sure thing, sir. Can you arrange for an interview with [fill in the blank here with Iraqi official]?"

"Gossett, we're looking for Kurdish opinion, not official Iraqi positions on this."

When you want to cover a specific aspect or angle of a story, why would you include representation of an angle that is outside the scope of the article?

Nothing wrong with that.  That would make it a biased article.  The next day they might cover the official Iraqi position, balancing out the story and providing more perspective and anaylsis.  If that was the general ethic of the news source, we would grant that it is a generally unbiased source that seeks objectivity.  However if that news source then went on to develop a habit and reputation of only presenting one side of the issue, it would rightly be seen to have a [whatever] bias.  You've already explained the nuance and effort you take in recognizing bias and seeking less "McDonalds" and a more fair and balanced (if you will) view of events by getting multiple opinions from multiple sources with different biases.  This is wise and I try to do the same.  I don't know what we're arguing about, if anything.  I think you see less of a liberal bias in the mainstream but recognize some, while I see more, but I think we are both in a realistic ballpark.  Denying it outright as others are here (not you Danu) seems wrong to me.

I don't see us as arguing here on principle. Perhaps in detail. I think there's a difference between hard news and opinionatin', and like Holmes and obscenity, I know it when I see it. I don't mind opinionatin'. Most of the time it's enunciated, and even when it isn't it's fairly obvious.

I think the more dangerous bias is assignment bias -- as in, what they choose to cover. That's a bit more subtle even if they present the facts exactly, because simply what story you cover and which story you ignore can bespeak partiality.
Freedom isn't free.
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-10-2021, 02:57 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-10-2021, 02:48 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 10:59 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: In the editorial room:

"Gossett, go investigate Kurdish opinions about the Americans pulling out of Iraq without notice."

"Sure thing, sir. Can you arrange for an interview with [fill in the blank here with Iraqi official]?"

"Gossett, we're looking for Kurdish opinion, not official Iraqi positions on this."

When you want to cover a specific aspect or angle of a story, why would you include representation of an angle that is outside the scope of the article?

Nothing wrong with that.  That would make it a biased article.  The next day they might cover the official Iraqi position, balancing out the story and providing more perspective and anaylsis.  If that was the general ethic of the news source, we would grant that it is a generally unbiased source that seeks objectivity.  However if that news source then went on to develop a habit and reputation of only presenting one side of the issue, it would rightly be seen to have a [whatever] bias.  You've already explained the nuance and effort you take in recognizing bias and seeking less "McDonalds" and a more fair and balanced (if you will) view of events by getting multiple opinions from multiple sources with different biases.  This is wise and I try to do the same.  I don't know what we're arguing about, if anything.  I think you see less of a liberal bias in the mainstream but recognize some, while I see more, but I think we are both in a realistic ballpark.  Denying it outright as others are here (not you Danu) seems wrong to me.

I don't see us as arguing here on principle. Perhaps in detail. I think there's a difference between hard news and opinionatin', and like Holmes and obscenity, I know it when I see it. I don't mind opinionatin'. Most of the time it's enunciated, and even when it isn't it's fairly obvious.

I think the more dangerous bias is assignment bias -- as in, what they choose to cover. That's a bit more subtle even if they present the facts exactly, because simply what story you cover and which story you ignore can bespeak partiality.

Excellent point I totally agree with that.  That's a form of bias that hasn't even come up yet, and is one that is seen more clearly on the news websites (instant reading and scrolling of the "headline" stories) than on their broadcasts (slow talking, takes a long time to fully see what's covered and ignored).  It's instructive to compare CNN and Fox website frontpages on a daily basis.  To my observation (other opinions vary I know) they are stereotypes of pro Dem and pro Republican mouthpieces, both in what they say and what they don't say.
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-09-2021, 10:59 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-09-2021, 09:57 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: What else do you mean when you speak of "the aim of the article"?

In the editorial room:

"Gossett, go investigate Kurdish opinions about the Americans pulling out of Iraq without notice."

"Sure thing, sir. Can you arrange for an interview with [fill in the blank here with Iraqi official]?"

"Gossett, we're looking for Kurdish opinion, not official Iraqi positions on this."

When you want to cover a specific aspect or angle of a story, why would you include representation of an angle that is outside the scope of the article?

(04-09-2021, 09:58 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: What else do you want to know about it? (my point, not my balls)

No one cares how much testosterone you think you, me, or Capt Fantastic need to display. If you're worried about others thinking your balls have "dropped off", then perhaps there's a disconnect happening here, because I doubt anyone is rating you on your balls.

In other words, stop looking at it as a contest, and just discuss stuff. No one is judging your manhood except, perhaps, you.
This is the most I've thought about Jerry's balls, ever, I can assure you.
The following 1 user Likes mordant's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-10-2021, 03:08 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Excellent point I totally agree with that.  That's a form of bias that hasn't even come up yet, and is one that is seen more clearly on the news websites (instant reading and scrolling of the "headline" stories) than on their broadcasts (slow talking, takes a long time to fully see what's covered and ignored).  It's instructive to compare CNN and Fox website frontpages on a daily basis.  To my observation (other opinions vary I know) they are stereotypes of pro Dem and pro Republican mouthpieces, both in what they say and what they don't say.
I simply regard the majority of content on mainstream media as newstainment rather than actual journalism.

I'm married to someone who started her career in investigative journalism and one of the reasons she quit doing it was that an editor could, with a couple minor strokes of the pen, completely destroy the objectivity of a story in the service of making it more "hard hitting" or selling more newspapers. All it takes is to put a headline on the story that the piece doesn't actually support, or move some particularly salacious sub-point out of context to make it part of the lede. Yet your byline is still on the story as if this was how YOU wrote it. And now your sources don't trust you because you promised them objectivity and lack of bias as a condition of getting them to talk to you.

Of course since journalism is done by humans, there's no such things as absolute objectivity. It's all a matter of degree. But I think it's evident that most media is pandering to its demographic because it's a for-profit enterprise. It worked better when it was a semi-independent prestige loss leader, like how TV news used to work.

This extends even to opinion pieces. It's okay for a progressive to point out that something Sanders did was bad for progressivism or that something Biden did was good for it. Or should be. But judging from the caterwauling when these things happen, some people can't chew gum and walk at the same time, and need to have completely unambiguous heroes and villains. Same thing in the center: they can't stand to admit when Sanders has a point or Biden is being a douchebag.
The following 3 users Like mordant's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, jerry mcmasters, Vera
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
(04-10-2021, 11:19 AM)mordant Wrote: some people can't chew gum and walk at the same time, and need to have completely unambiguous heroes and villains.

Came across this by a British scientist I rather like, Helen Czerski:

"There seems to be a dual trend – a dismissal of “experts” and nuance, in parallel with a headlong rush towards “messiahs” who make everything simple. Lots of the problems are simple – climate change is real and caused by burning fossil fuels, the seas are overfished and large-scale industrial fishing bears a lot of the blame. These are real horrendous massive problems, with a reasonably simple underlying cause.

But none of the solutions are simple. Yes, getting rid of fossil fuels is a simple and vital aim, but it takes a lot of time and work to replace all those energy flows around our civilisation. It needs infrastructure, which needs money and will and yes there are LOTS of solutions and we need all of them now, but questions like who pays, who wins, who loses, which path we take to get there, how we feed people along the way and how to make it a just transition are really complex to navigate. We can’t wait to act, and we also can’t allow the demon of simplicity to slow us down.

Messiahs and experts may both understand the problem. But their attitude to the solution is different. An expert will explain the nuance of a solution to you. Anyone who creates simple heroes and villains and who you consider can do no bad/good is someone I’m counting as a messiah. They find a simple villain, which often isn’t the actual problem. Conflating the villain with the problem has a consequence: anyone who says that there’s nuance and that perhaps the villain isn’t 100% terrible must be on the side of the villain. Then there’s a new villain: nuance. But nuance isn’t the problem. The PROBLEM is the problem. And nuance is needed to solve the problem.


Another distinction is that experts listen before they speak. Messiahs don’t listen – they pronounce. So messiahs can’t learn and develop their view because they never absorb nuance and challenges to their simplistic view. To change their view would be to admit they’re wrong, and messiahs can’t do that. They themselves think they’re the messiah, so they’ve already put themselves in the “can do no wrong” category. Messiahs also can’t build bridges to others because they’re not interested in others. They build pyramids supporting themselves, not networks supporting everyone.

The only way to move forward in a difficult complicated world is to navigate the nuance, because that’s the reality. Making things too simple just creates enemies and then we waste time fighting the invented enemy when we could all join forces and fight the actual problem together.
Navigating nuance means sharing honest understanding, being transparent and listening. Building bridges is important, and listening is important and listening respectfully is even more important. Shouting should only be used when all the other methods to engage have failed – shouting is an admission that the conversation has broken down. If things are unfair and you have tried to engage and nothing has worked, then shout. It’s been necessary so often, as in the many cases where people protest noisily because no-one listened when they protested quietly. But it shouldn’t be the first tactic.

Nuance is hard and tiring and confusing. In a really complicated world, who needs more confusing stuff? Can’t we just have a rest and a simple life? After all, it’s been a very hard year and everyone really does need a rest. But shouting is even harder and even more tiring and the only thing going for it is that you can build yourself a wall, hide behind it and congratulate yourself on being right because everyone inside your wall agrees with you.

So in a complicated world, how do we stay sane? Here’s what to hold on to: principles. The “how” may not be simple, but the “what” should be. What should we do? Be respectful, be honest, be considerate, be a good citizen of this shared planet, protect human life and human rights, have humility. Be fair. Do your best. Be flexible. Help others where you can. Listen (really listen) before you speak. Understand your own privileges and strive for genuine equality. Accept that we’re part of this planet, not separate to it.

Be strong, of course, but come at it from an informed and humane foundation. Be an advocate for good changes that bring people with you, rather than bullying them into silence. This is the realm of real leadership – bringing people with you, even when they disagree on the details, because there is mutual respect. Bullying and shouting just creates tribes and then we all lose because the only option is tribal warfare. We need to celebrate nuance and diversity, find fun in the shared challenge of navigating this complicated puzzle together, and face the world as it is: complicated, but full of potential. We don’t need messiahs, and we can’t afford to let them slow us down and make us all permanently angry. The principles of being a good human are the searchlights in the dark. Sure, it’s complicated. But we’re humans, and we’re at our best when we work together."
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
The following 1 user Likes Vera's post:
  • mordant
Reply

What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?
I once wrote in a lyric, "Simple minds fabricate 'complex' resolutions / as madmen contemplate another Final Solution'.

The appeal to binary thinking is a sure sign that some fuckery is coming down the pike.
Freedom isn't free.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • mordant
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)