Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
Clinton says half of all Trump supporters belong in ' basket of deplorables'
Topic Started: Sep 10 2016, 06:35 AM (1,253 Views)
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
John, in all honesty, there are none.

I mentioned this before, but:
I found an old newspaper from the 1950's at my MIL's house. It was interesting to read, as articles were presented without credit being given to anyone. The articles seemed "factual" -- and in those days, perhaps there was more emphasis placed on newspapers "reporting" as opposed to today, and then if someone wanted further depth, they could subscribe to one of the many magazines available at that time. Of course, there were Opinion pages as well.

New York Times Sux. So does Breitbart. Both are examples of what might be considered polar opposites.

So, I try to read various sources, and try to ascertain what matters, and what does not, in my view. And then, put it all together, reach a conclusion or perspective, and always realize that what I believe today may change as I read and grow more. Just like most people, I would think.

And, with the general population apparently getting dumber and dumber, hence my position that the media has the most clout, and the media will determine the election, and the media needs to be reined in or better, pushed out (of the cocktail buddy-buddy circuit).

It's coming down to the growth of information accessed now via internet.
MSM vs. Internet. Hillary's health issues came from the Internet, not MSM.

Times are changing, rapidly.

But you are correct in your implication: everything is biased.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
TomK
Sep 15 2016, 01:30 PM
Mikhailoh
Sep 15 2016, 01:24 PM
Aqua, fact checking is the role of journalist and editor, not the reader.
Maybe 20-10 years ago, not anymore.

It's much easier now, you can just look at the author, no need to look at the facts.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Rainman
Sep 15 2016, 11:08 AM
I think the NY Times is my favorite, along with the Huffington Post, for bias masquerading as sensible thought or reasonable argument.
I assume that by "Huffington Post," you're limiting that to their staff-written posts/articles, not including posts/articles contributed by third-parties not paid by the Huffington Post?

The NYT, unlike HuffPo, does not "aggregate" much third-party content under its name. And IMO, the NYT is a lot less biased than HuffPo. The NYT more cleanly separates "opinion" from "news." HuffPo makes little discerning effort to do so.

I think the NYT would be deep offended to be compared to HuffPo, and IMO, rightly so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
Ax:
I assume that by "Huffington Post," you're limiting that to their staff-written posts/articles, not including posts/articles contributed by third-parties not paid by the Huffington Post?

Ax, do you mean someone like David Seaman?
Not sure if he was fired as a staff writer, or an independent contributor.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
https://ricochet.com/372917/old-liberal-looks-pravda-hudson/
Quote:
 
Here are recent headlines from the International New York Times, where the original articles (not editorials) come from the New York paper. “Trump Losing Support of G.O.P Women” (August 11); “One Backer Stands Firmly With Trump: The N.R.A.” (August 12); “Trump’s Lapses Hamper Him in Key States” (August 13-14); “Inside the Operation to Save Trump From Himself” (August 15); “Secret Ledger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Trump Aide” (August 16); “Psychiatrists Are Torn Over Weighing in on U.S. Race” (August 17); “Big Break: Trump Casinos’ Tax Debt Cut Under Christie” (August 18).

Every one of these articles started on the front page, except for “Inside the Operation…” which appeared on p. 6. Every one of them projected a negative image of Trump, either for his odious character, his perverse remarks, his deranged supporters, or his incompetent staff. And this happens every day, some of it fed by what Clinton says about her opponent while she offers little beyond opaque platitudes about where she stands. I am still wondering, for example, exactly what she “got done” (encouraging Bill to support NAFTA? advising Obama to bomb Libya?) in order to justify saying that “I am a progressive who gets things done” (as opposed to Bernie Sanders, who was naïve and unrealistic, right?)

Posting articles which blast Trump is a form of editorial promotion on the page where news rather than opinion is supposed to appear. But beyond that, the truth is that — substance-wise — many of these same articles flow from rumors, innuendoes, gossip, libelous accusations, malicious put-downs, partisan contentions, and anonymous sources. Such articles are less like top-notch journalism than they are like character assassinations.

And, of course, don't forget the "John McCain is having an affair" story.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catseye
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
TomK
Sep 15 2016, 01:30 PM
Mikhailoh
Sep 15 2016, 01:24 PM
Aqua, fact checking is the role of journalist and editor, not the reader.
Maybe 20-10 years ago, not anymore.
You're both right. Fact checking should be the job of the editor, but it perforce has become the job of the reader, if the reader wants to know the truth.

The question is, how does the reader go about doing that? What is the magic source?
"How awful a knowledge of the truth can be." -- Sophocles, Oedipus Rex
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
We live in a post-structuralist age.

The facts do not originate from the author, meaningful content is interpreted as determined by the reader.
The interpretation then becomes fact.
Predetermined bias based on selective facts -- saves time in achieving the desired result.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
Catseye:
. . . if the reader wants to know the truth.
The question is, how does the reader go about doing that? What is the magic source?

Grasshopper, is it wise to question that which cannot be known?

You're not playing the game if you ask questions!

You will be told "the truth" by the media, do not concern yourself.
:silly:

(And if you never watched Kung Fu, the above will make even less sense)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catseye
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Rainman
Sep 15 2016, 03:43 PM
Quote:
 
Catseye:
. . . if the reader wants to know the truth.
The question is, how does the reader go about doing that? What is the magic source?

Grasshopper, is it wise to question that which cannot be known?

You're not playing the game if you ask questions!

You will be told "the truth" by the media, do not concern yourself.
:silly:

(And if you never watched Kung Fu, the above will make even less sense)

I understand, Master Po. Those who surrender themselves find inner strength.


Posted Image

"How awful a knowledge of the truth can be." -- Sophocles, Oedipus Rex
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Complaining about media bias aside, ever contemplate the possibility that may be you yourself (or the readers/audience in general) are biased? ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Mikhailoh
Sep 15 2016, 01:24 PM
Aqua, fact checking is the role of journalist and editor, not the reader.
That's right. But that doesn't have to do with it.

NYT's obvious bias doesn't make their facts not facts. That's what I'm saying. You can't just throw up your hands and say, "oh, but they just hate Donald Trump so everything about him they print is wrong." That isn't true.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Catseye
Sep 15 2016, 03:00 PM
TomK
Sep 15 2016, 01:30 PM
Mikhailoh
Sep 15 2016, 01:24 PM
Aqua, fact checking is the role of journalist and editor, not the reader.
Maybe 20-10 years ago, not anymore.
You're both right. Fact checking should be the job of the editor, but it perforce has become the job of the reader, if the reader wants to know the truth.

The question is, how does the reader go about doing that? What is the magic source?
There's no magic source. If they said Donald Trump did this thing in 1993, and you wanna call bullshit then it's on you to investigate the record and compare it to what they reported. That's the only way it works, and that has always been the onus of the skeptical reader. There's nothing new about that.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
Aqua:
There's no magic source. If they said Donald Trump did this thing in 1993, and you wanna call bull**** then it's on you to investigate the record and compare it to what they reported. That's the only way it works, and that has always been the onus of the skeptical reader. There's nothing new about that.

Very true. How many "things" could I find in Aqua's posts on this forum over the years, where I could take each irrefutable factual source, and put them all together into an article about Aqua.

What kind of bias could I come up with, and present it all as "based on facts?"
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Rainman
Sep 15 2016, 06:16 PM
Quote:
 
Aqua:
There's no magic source. If they said Donald Trump did this thing in 1993, and you wanna call bull**** then it's on you to investigate the record and compare it to what they reported. That's the only way it works, and that has always been the onus of the skeptical reader. There's nothing new about that.

Very true. How many "things" could I find in Aqua's posts on this forum over the years, where I could take each irrefutable factual source, and put them all together into an article about Aqua.

What kind of bias could I come up with, and present it all as "based on facts?"
Get enough data on anyone, and you can paint a very real picture portraying anything you want about them. Anything.

Which is why the PRISM program is so damn scary, and why when it comes up we need to focus on its complete destruction of our personal privacy and the government's awesome power to discredit anyone it wishes, and not Edward Freaking Snowden.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Axtremus
Sep 15 2016, 05:27 PM
Complaining about media bias aside, ever contemplate the possibility that may be you yourself (or the readers/audience in general) are biased? ;)
Everyone is biased. That's why it is so important that journalists NOT be, or at least keep their bias to themselves and just report the facts instead of spinning them.

If you were trying to justify media bias with that statement, you failed miserably.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Sep 15 2016, 06:24 PM
Axtremus
Sep 15 2016, 05:27 PM
Complaining about media bias aside, ever contemplate the possibility that may be you yourself (or the readers/audience in general) are biased? ;)
Everyone is biased. That's why it is so important that journalists NOT be, or at least keep their bias to themselves and just report the facts instead of spinning them.

If you were trying to justify media bias with that statement, you failed miserably.
That was meant to get you (the general you) to reflect on your own bias (if any). If you yourself are biased, than you would look at an unbiased article and think that it is biased. So it's important to be aware of one's own impartiality (or lack thereof) when judging whether the things one read are biased.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
People *wouldn't* think it was biased if the press would stop being biased. That's the problem - you can't trust the media, so you give what they say no respect.

That's NOT how it's supposed to work, and the solution is not to change the public, it's to fix the media by demanding they educate themselves on how to be a professional instead of being partisan hacks.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Take a look at the BBC News' approach ...

Take this article, for example: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37370110

The first part just recount the facts of what happened.

Then the second part, with big letter sub-heading saying "Analysis - [name, organization, location]", gives context and sometimes also opinion of the named analyst/journalist.

I've seen many BBC News articles using that format to report on events and also give context (that they deem relevant) to the events.

What do you folks think of that approach?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
Ax:
Take a look at the BBC News' approach ...

If the BBC represents the best use of public tax money via fees,
why don't they let the public comment on the web site?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Rainman
Sep 15 2016, 07:04 PM
Quote:
 
Ax:
Take a look at the BBC News' approach ...

If the BBC represents the best use of public tax money via fees,
why don't they let the public comment on the web site?
I see that you haven't respond to the question I asked about BBC News' approach to split up an article into a "reporting" part and an "analysis" part.

As for your question oh why the BBC does not let the public comment on its website, I cannot speak for the BBC. But I can share my perspective and speculate on the practical challenges of accommodating tax payer posting comments on such a website.

As a matter of perspective, it's like the US tax payers pay for the operations of all the .mil (military) websites, yet we generally do not get to post comments on most .mil websites. So unless you're also advocating that US tax payers get to post comment under everything published on .mil websites, it seems odd that you'd fixate on the BBC not allowing the UK tax payers to post comments under everything published on the BBC's website.

There are also the matters of practicality, jurisdiction, and credibility. Suppose you say a website funded by tax payers of certain tax jurisdiction should allow these tax payers to post comments, how do you make it such that only tax payers from that jurisdiction get to post comments? How do you propose a website operator screens out foreign agents and imposters? If the website does not impose credible controls to ensure that only tax payers of certain jurisdiction gets to post comment, how can the readers be reassured that they are reading their fellow tax payers' comments and not a Russian propagandist or a Chinese propagandist or an ISIS propagandist's comments?

In short, therefore, I am not sold on the premise that says a tax payer funded website should allow tax payer to post comments, and I see practical challenges to implementing a system that can ensure that only the tax payers (and not foreign agents) get to post comments.

Now that we have made the big detour to talk about tax payer funded websites allowing (or not allowing) the tax paying public to post comments, perhaps you will consider sharing your thoughts on the BBC News' two-part approach to presenting "report" and "analysis" to events that they cover?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Sorry Ax,
I don't buy it.

I never said anything about public posting on a government website like a .mil site.

My question was why public comment is not offered at the bottom of BBC articles. What makes them so special? And, your list of reasons e.g., some sort of "Russian propagandist or a Chinese propagandist or an ISIS propagandist's comments" seems rather odd.

Note it is not BBC.gov.uk, it is simply BBC.com. See? it's a dot-com.

Someone can correct me, but I believe there is some sort of licensing fee involved, not a tax. Like a fee, it can be stretched to mean "tax" I suppose. But when you parse via the denominator "taxpayer" as you did, it doesn't make sense to me. There is no tax, or at least it is cloaked as a "usage fee."

I noticed recently that PBS also removed comments from their biased web site. They had a whole bunch of reasons as I recall. (yes, I realize they get a tiny bit of fed funding, the rest is grants/donations). From my perspective, PBS comments frequently went contrary to the perspective of the article. Of course, they would never state that, even if it were true. Their biggest excuse reason, was that moderators were too expensive. Right...

As for your question, I don't know the answer. When I read an article on BBC.com I see no separate analysis.
I just read an article on the Bratislava EU meeting:
Bratislava EU Meeting

Where is this separate "analysis" section?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
What are your criteria to determine which websites should allow public commenting, then, if not public funding? How do you know the comments you read really are from the public?

BTW, I did not say the BBC News always use the two-part "reporting" and "analysis" presentation format for everything they cover, just that they are using it and an example was cited as illustration.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Oh, OK. I used your link.

The short article about Trump was nothing more than a set-up for the "analysis."

Perfect! A GREAT set-up!! Let's see some phrases from the "analysis" which IMO, means, "this is what you should think" -- or perhaps more accurately, "this is how you should feel, which will then reinforce how you should think."
Quote:
 
Mr Trump has made a bit of a habit of playing nice when directly confronted, then sharpening his claws afterwards.


Note the analysis states, "Critics" i.e., not of course the perspective of the"analyst"
Quote:
 
Critics will likely characterise this as the behaviour of a bully with thin skin.


I like the concept, though. And, conservative bias is just as bad. Examples are unfortunately, pretty much everywhere.

As for my criteria to determine which websites should allow public commenting?

Why should I have any criteria, and what difference, at this point, would it make?

I learn from comments. That's in part why I come here!
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Quote:
 
Let's see some phrases from the "analysis" which IMO, means, "this is what you should think" -- or perhaps more accurately, "this is how you should feel, which will then reinforce how you should think."


I don't think you're wearing any tinfoil here, man, but I think you might be trying it on for size.

Journalistic analysis entails taking some information, and trying to make sense of it. It does require a lot of judgment to be made, and the analyst's own beliefs and thought processes will definitely influence what they write. But they often have that "this is how it is" kind of tone not because they're shoving it down your throat, but because they feel that it's their responsibility to try to learn how it is so they can tell you. It's their job to look at the material and then report on it to the public, and they're trying to make good on their promise to readers that they come up with something.

A lot of it's style, not ego. The "well, hell, I don't know," introspective kind of analysis you'd get from a Montagne essay has little basis in American journalism. Our tradition is to try to tell you how it is. If you don't like liberal analysis, you don't have to read it, but expecting a more uncertain tone isn't going to get you anywhere. Gonzo's gone these days.

Quote:
 
Note the analysis states, "Critics" i.e., not of course the perspective of the"analyst"


Well, yes. As it should be. Are they wrong? Would critics not say that? Of course they would.

As for why they're not using a personal pronoun, it's a style choice and has to do with the style and history of American journalism, not propaganda. Most news outlets still attempt to abstain from personal pronouns because the perspective of the writer shouldn't matter; it's in the spirit and tradition of objectivity. Whether or not they're actually upholding that can be debated, but they're not trying to "get" you with that kind of language. It's a style choice based on their attempt at objectivity. Laugh at that if you want, but it's why conservative analysts do the very same.

Honestly man, it seems like you think liberal journalists all sit in a dark room somewhere and conspire together to figure out how to dupe America with their propaganda. What profession in the free world actually runs like this? Most of them yes, have their biases and beliefs, and that informs their analysis. But most of them try to make that analysis as accurate as possible based on how they see things. If you don't agree, fine, go elsewhere. But they're not a bunch of brainwashers, they're trying to research, draw conclusions and then report on those conclusions. It's not all George Orwell over there.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catseye
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Aqua Letifer
Sep 15 2016, 05:54 PM
Catseye
Sep 15 2016, 03:00 PM
TomK
Sep 15 2016, 01:30 PM
Mikhailoh
Sep 15 2016, 01:24 PM
Aqua, fact checking is the role of journalist and editor, not the reader.
Maybe 20-10 years ago, not anymore.
You're both right. Fact checking should be the job of the editor, but it perforce has become the job of the reader, if the reader wants to know the truth.

The question is, how does the reader go about doing that? What is the magic source?
There's no magic source. If they said Donald Trump did this thing in 1993, and you wanna call bull**** then it's on you to investigate the record and compare it to what they reported. That's the only way it works, and that has always been the onus of the skeptical reader. There's nothing new about that.

I was kidding about the 'magic source'. Of course there isn't any magic source.
"How awful a knowledge of the truth can be." -- Sophocles, Oedipus Rex
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5