Keep us posted on the RFK Jr campaign, please.
1 Like
That or a Joe Biden pic of him smelling, kissing or touching a child.
Chet happens.
1 Like
Just ask James Garfield.
Ok, let’s try this again…
“Eh, I went through the first article and then looked at their criteria. Basically, their measure is where various politicians/parties fall on an issue.”
- I posted no article. There was a library research guide, a white paper focused on taxonomy and methodology and a configurable data presentation tool. Based on your second sentence, I can only assume you meant you went through the white paper. Which leads to…
- You properly assessed 1/2 of their criteria (where various politicians/parties fall on an issue) and missed the very next set of criteria (this axis represents a continuum between fact and falsehood) that appear to be the basis of your subsequent complaints.
“So, Republicans/Trump say the election was stolen; Democrats say the opposite. Apparently if a news organization reports equally on those propositions, they are unbiased.”
- I never said nor suggested that and the taxonomy and methodology used in that research does not suggest that is a part of their methodology in any way, shape or form. Again, if you had read more than just the first couple of paragraphs, you would have seen the authors emphatically state “veracity is one of the metrics considered on the vertical axis. While veracity is part of what we consider when rating the reliability of content, there is a categorical difference between the “rightness” or “wrongness” of content expressing an opinion and the “truth” or “falsehood” of content stated as fact.” and they try to capture that in their scoring by weighting low-quality and highly-biased content on a downward axis and, inversely, weighting high-quality and low-biased content on a upward axis. They are doing the exact opposite of what you suggest.
“Your definition of bias is about being fair to a person or group. I view it about being fair to the truth, and would view equal reporting on both side of the “election was stolen” claim as biased, relative to the truth.”
- I did not say that and specifically quoted a definition of bias that is in alignment with your definition. I did not stop at people or group. My definition explicitly said "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group. Their methodology, my comments (and my belief) never suggested that truth is the equally weighted binary thing you suggest. So, I am not sure who you are talking to here but it’s not me. And, is not relative to any of the research I posted.
“So, this dumbass on a baseball forum remains unpersuaded by your assertion, or your presented evidence.”
- I never called you a dumbass. And, it appears that you did not actually well-consider the evidence I presented. And, to be clear, I am not trying to persuade you or anyone else. This is a discussion forum and we are discussing things. No more, no less.
2 Likes
Rudy Can’t Fail
2 Likes
Dude, he was talking about himself. Dial up the reading comprehension a notch.
Going back and reading that I realize that now. I was on the defense since I was being attacked by several. My apologies to JBM.
This is why I would be interested in a meta analysis. The basic order-scatter is reasonable to me, but I would judge the bias values assigned themselves to have a conservative bias. I note that the study was at the University of Central Oklahoma, a very conservative area. I also note that I have a cognitive bias myself and could be wrong. I also wonder if there’s a weighting to the importance of the false or misleading information. That is, stating Trump’s inauguration in 2017 was the “largest in history” is a demonstrable falsehood, but less important than “the 2020 election was stolen”, also a demonstrable falsehood.
Dana Carvey as GHWB might say: na ga ha
1 Like
Hey I admitted to a mistake. As a hardcore liberal, that’s something you have never done, nor have the ability to even realize.
I may be crude and feckless, but I haven’t had brew for breakfast in some time.
sigh
3 Likes
Let’s step back. Your basic claim is that there is media bias on both sides, I interpreted that as lazy thinking and get pissed that any reasonable person can view the effects and reach of right-wing propaganda, compare it against the reach and effect of left-wing propaganda, and conclude “both sides do it.” I apologize if I mischaracterized your position.
That being said, you posted a link to a graphic that is entitled “The Media Bias Chart” and has “Bias” as the label for the horizontal axis. I was curious and looked into the methodology. I described the methodology for measuring bias accurately. I didn’t mention the vertical axis (which is some measure of “reliability” instead of truth/lies, which the author feels they cannot ascertain), as it’s irrelevant to my criticism.
My point is that presenting the views of both sides is not unbiased; it’s lazy and any academic study that relies on that premise is lazy. A better study would have simply thought “let’s determine which sources are biased by determining how many times they lie to the viewer or let lies stand unchallenged.” That would be an academic study worthy of discussion, and a needed public service at the same time.
1 Like
We agree on this. I have been very careful, and will remain careful to guard my political opinions, even in this politically charged thread. I have to because of my position in government. I will say this though. The Right is very good at weaponizing the media and information, in all its forms, to achieve their strategic political goals. The Left, by their own admission, is playing catch up but will likely never be in the form and structure of the Right because the way both sides view and operationalize things are so very different. And, all of it is nauseating to me as I pine away for a reality where frank and honest discourse leads to increased understanding and positive political outcomes. A reality that has never actually existed.
4 Likes
You also never hired Rudy as your lawyer
I’m not sure that we will ever live in a time where we get the total truth about the news. Both sides lie. Nearly everyone has a political position and wants to hear something specific about their political party. The liberal media is going to say what their viewers want to hear to try to pad their ratings. The same with the conservative media. You have to wade through the bull shit from both sides and use your own judgement to come up with your own conclusions. Let’s face it, the liberal media is bought and paid for by the Democrat party and will tilt the news to favor them, the truth be damned. Fox and other conservative stations will do the same for Republicans.
All this chatter got me thinking. Where do you all get your most trusted info from? I’ll start:
My go to sources are BBC and NPR. I tend to be (overly, according to my wife) critical of most of what I hear, even on those sources, and scrub them through a pretty hard mental filter to see if what I am hearing passes the logical sniff test.
1 Like
Because the right is owned by oligarchs that can spend way more money than any leftist. And the general opinion is so skewed against the taxes we pay benefiting we the people. Republicans think if they have to starve and die so that Elon Musk can be rich, so be it. The disconnect is amazing.
1 Like
Rupert Murdoch is a left wing oligarch who owns no mainstream media and influences none of the rest.