Jump to content

Media Bias

dcar00

By dcar00
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

dcar00

dcar00 14269

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Bezos makes a kabillion dollars a day, and treats his employees like shit.  Layer on corona times, where he has reaped even further benefit, and he has let little/none of that benefit trickle down to the workers who have busted their asses to make it happen.

Bezos is a fucking oligarch.  Just because he owns a newspaper that practices good journalism doesn't absolve him of that problem.

The Post?  give me a fucking break.  they are hacks.

Edited by blacklab
split off from 3rd night in K thread, First post was not a new thread originally.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14269

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Which news source do you find credible, perchance?

when it comes to politics, none of them.  maybe the Omaha World Herald, if you held a gun to my head.  

Edit: I do trust the Austin Chronicle for Live Band listings

Edited by dcar00
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105154

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Most mainstream/established news sources are broken and traitors to capital J "Journalism" as a discipline.

I honestly like Mother Jones.

Yeah.....fucking bullshit.  You've seen the chart:

Second-Edition-News-Chart.V2.jpg

 

I think that most all of the sources in the upper gray circle are sufficiently credible -- read EVERYTHING (note that I said "read" -- watching news for anything other than breaking coverage, sports, and weather,  is for old people) with at least a partially skeptical eye, but seriously -- for factual reporting, I am pretty comfortable with The Economist, WSJ, BBC, NPR, Reuters, Al Jazeera (surprisingly good, actually) and yeah, WAPO.  I know what each of them bring to the table as far as their perspective, but all are at the very least trustworthy.  No journalism is perfect, but that conclusion has just been built up in order to support an approach of "and therefore I'll just consume journalism that confirms my views and biases."

The Economist is center-right, and is based on an approach of economic liberalism - I know that when I pick it up.  Taking that into account, it does a fantastic job of fact-based reporting with real depth and context -- as just one example.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14269

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah.....fucking bullshit.  You've seen the chart:

Second-Edition-News-Chart.V2.jpg

 

I think that most all of the sources in the upper gray circle are sufficiently credible -- read EVERYTHING (note that I said "read" -- watching news for anything other than breaking coverage, sports, and weather,  is for old people) with at least a partially skeptical eye, but seriously -- for factual reporting, I am pretty comfortable with The Economist, WSJ, BBC, NPR, Reuters, Al Jazeera (surprisingly good, actually) and yeah, WAPO.  I know what each of them bring to the table as far as their perspective, but all are at the very least trustworthy.  No journalism is perfect, but that conclusion has just been built up in order to support an approach of "and therefore I'll just consume journalism that confirms my views and biases."

The Economist is center-right, and is based on an approach of economic liberalism - I know that when I pick it up.  Taking that into account, it does a fantastic job of fact-based reporting with real depth and context -- as just one example.

that upper gray circle is laughable. none of them are minimal bias.   the CSM/WSJ/Economist are right all the others are decidedly left, even USA today.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105154

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

that upper gray circle is laughable. none of them are minimal bias.   the CSM/WSJ/Economist are right all the others are decidedly left, even USA today.

Welp, that take tells me everything I needed to know.  My entire life, the WSJ and Economist have been firmly center-right.  They haven't materially changed their methods or reporting.  Yet they are now deemed "decidedly left."  Holy shit, this is a real thing and there are people who really think this way.  It's fascinating to see the sole criterion for what "decidedly left" is -- doesn't blindly support Trump and Trumpism.  I mean, shit, the WSJ and the Economist have been strong on free trade since....forever.   But that clashes with Trumpism, so now that position -- one that has ALWAYS been center right...is "decidedly left."

torbush-wow.gif

 

EDIT -- I misread the post to which I replied -- the above is N/A, but I'll leave it up because shame on me.  C'est la vie.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17625

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Welp, that take tells me everything I needed to know.  My entire life, the WSJ and Economist have been firmly center-right.  They haven't materially changed their methods or reporting.  Yet they are now deemed "decidedly left."  Holy shit, this is a real thing and there are people who really think this way.  It's fascinating to see the sole criterion for what "decidedly left" is -- doesn't blindly support Trump and Trumpism.  I mean, shit, the WSJ and the Economist have been strong on free trade since....forever.   But that clashes with Trumpism, so now that position -- one that has ALWAYS been center right...is "decidedly left."

torbush-wow.gif

I think you read his post wrong. Or maybe I did. I can never tell what he is saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105154

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I think you read his post wrong. Or maybe I did. I can never tell what he is saying. 

Wait.....I did.  My bad.  I'll leave my post up, but hereby retract it -- y'all can read it as a warning about sloppy reading.  Mea culpa.  But having read it correctly now.....I'm not sure what the point is.

I mean, that's what the chart shows -- WSJ and Economist are center right.  BBC, NPR, Al Jazeera, WAPO, are center left.  None of those are "partisan rags" (there are plenty of those shown as a contrast on other parts of the chart).  I know what lean I'm getting when I read each of them.

Oh, and Reuters and AP really are pretty good at being "just the facts" sources.  About as objective as you'll get in any organization staffed by human beings.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rougarou

Rougarou 594

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah.....fucking bullshit.  You've seen the chart:

Second-Edition-News-Chart.V2.jpg

 

I think that most all of the sources in the upper gray circle are sufficiently credible -- read EVERYTHING (note that I said "read" -- watching news for anything other than breaking coverage, sports, and weather,  is for old people) with at least a partially skeptical eye, but seriously -- for factual reporting, I am pretty comfortable with The Economist, WSJ, BBC, NPR, Reuters, Al Jazeera (surprisingly good, actually) and yeah, WAPO.  I know what each of them bring to the table as far as their perspective, but all are at the very least trustworthy.  No journalism is perfect, but that conclusion has just been built up in order to support an approach of "and therefore I'll just consume journalism that confirms my views and biases."

The Economist is center-right, and is based on an approach of economic liberalism - I know that when I pick it up.  Taking that into account, it does a fantastic job of fact-based reporting with real depth and context -- as just one example.

Okay, but also this came out in 2017, some things have changed I'm sure, but I'm a big fan of Mother Jones and The New Yorker which I consider more intellectually considered (therefore, reputable) than WaPo or NYT.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105154

Posted
Posted
Just now, Rougarou said:

Okay, but also this came out in 2017, some things have changed I'm sure, but I'm a big fan of Mother Jones and The New Yorker which I consider more intellectually considered (therefore, reputable) than WaPo or NYT.

Well, you do get deeper "think pieces" from outfits like Mother Jones and the New Yorker.  I really like The Atlantic for that, but I also know I'm getting a generally left take when I read it.  Shit, if you read with a proper eye, it's just like compensating for a crosswind when golfing/shooting/etc.  I will say that most decent "think piece" type journalism has at the very least an anti-Trump bent to it these days, but I can't tell how much of that is the chicken vs. the egg.  I mean, there's also the problem with the fact that it's really pretty hard to write intellectually rigorous and honest pieces that defend Trump.  Sorry, he's just so uniquely bad that he's broken most any meaningful paradigm.  Which I think was kind of the point -- break all the paradigms, which liberates people to just consume what validates their feelings.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29684

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Okay, but also this came out in 2017, some things have changed I'm sure, but I'm a big fan of Mother Jones and The New Yorker which I consider more intellectually considered (therefore, reputable) than WaPo or NYT.

Here's the current one:

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17625

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Okay, but also this came out in 2017, some things have changed I'm sure, but I'm a big fan of Mother Jones and The New Yorker which I consider more intellectually considered (therefore, reputable) than WaPo or NYT.

What? I'm starting to question whether you know the difference between fact reporting and opinion/analysis. The only way I can conclude that you're anything short of insane is if you're judging the Washington Post and the New York Times solely on their editorial pages. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rougarou

Rougarou 594

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, you do get deeper "think pieces" from outfits like Mother Jones and the New Yorker.  I really like The Atlantic for that, but I also know I'm getting a generally left take when I read it.  Shit, if you read with a proper eye, it's just like compensating for a crosswind when golfing/shooting/etc.  I will say that most decent "think piece" type journalism has at the very least an anti-Trump bent to it these days, but I can't tell how much of that is the chicken vs. the egg.  I mean, there's also the problem with the fact that it's really pretty hard to write intellectually rigorous and honest pieces that defend Trump.  Sorry, he's just so uniquely bad that he's broken most any meaningful paradigm.  Which I think was kind of the point -- break all the paradigms, which liberates people to just consume what validates their feelings.

I like The Atlantic too. Even Vanity Fair (seriously!) is better than the AP/mainstream newsies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rougarou

Rougarou 594

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

What? I'm starting to question whether you know the difference between fact reporting and opinion/analysis. The only way I can conclude that you're anything short of insane is if you're judging the Washington Post or the New York Times solely on their editorial pages. 

Because most of the newsrooms only employ a handful of actual newspeople anymore, right? It's mostly AP and then editorials, and when I say editorials I mean the opinion/analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105154

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Rougarou said:

I like The Atlantic too. Even Vanity Fair (seriously!) is better than the AP/mainstream newsies.

Well, you seem to be pointing to a divide between deeper, analytical thinkpieces, vs. shorter factual reporting.  I think  Reuters, AP, and Al Jazeera do a pretty good job with shorter, factual reporting.  No, that doesn't give you every shred of context, but it can't, and never could.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Judge Roybeanbag

Judge Roybeanbag 11819

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

that upper gray circle is laughable. none of them are minimal bias.   the CSM/WSJ/Economist are right all the others are decidedly left, even USA today.

Well yeah, if you consider truth, facts and science to be biased, you have a point.  On the other hand, “things I don’t like” is not them being biased, it’s you.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rougarou

Rougarou 594

Posted
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

Well, you seem to be pointing to a divide between deeper, analytical thinkpieces, vs. shorter factual reporting.  I think  Reuters, AP, and Al Jazeera do a pretty good job with shorter, factual reporting.  No, that doesn't give you every shred of context, but it can't, and never could.

Yes, roger that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2112

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Here's the current one:

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

spacer.png

Here the picture for if people don't want to click the link. Eh, maybe just click the link, it's small and to fuzzy to clearly see. That's what she said.

Edited by workswithseed
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2112

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

I don't, and will never, understand wanting to be fed biased news.  Give me the facts as best you can, let me determine what to do with that information.  This happened, that happened, the end.

I'm alright with biased news as long as they tell me upfront. I can read both sides and come up with my own conclusion. Now if you're gonna tell me "Fair and balanced", or "Most trusted name in news" but have noticeable leans, then why bother?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105154

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

I don't, and will never, understand wanting to be fed biased news.  Give me the facts as best you can, let me determine what to do with that information.  This happened, that happened, the end.

I agree, but I also understand that it's impossible to report on anything that's not purely factual (that is, effectively only actions that didn't involve human beings -- "a 2-ton rock fell on this road at 2:00 pm") without having some "bias" inherent in the writing.  Humans are humans.  So, especially when it's a complex political issue -- a policy proposal, legislation, etc., what effects they are likely to have -- it's impossible to write purely objectively.

See, e.g., reporting on the "tax cut" legislation.  One set of analyses said that it would stimulate hiring and investment.  Another set of analyses said that it would just result in money being sent off and used for stock buybacks.  But the "effect" WAS the story.  To just say "here's the bill, it would cut these taxes X percent" is factual reporting -- and we DO need that.  But without context and analysis, those facts really don't have much meaning for anyone who isn't already an expert in the field.  Any issue like this gets muddy, and fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4639

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

Reuters is best at that, imo, which is why it is my top preference. 

However, sometimes there are factors outside pure data, and all the outlets have a bias, even when reporting data. 

I take the perspective approach as much as I can. However, I do understand your sentiment.

I mean I guess I understand it.  If you are right leaning, CNN might lean a little bit too left, and you don't want to hear it.  Lean left, and listening for FOX has be be like driving pins into your ears.  I'm sure that's how it starts.    I like print, more than TV or radio, personally.  Maybe someone will come up with a program where a monotone robot reads off Reuters articles, I'll listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4639

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I agree, but I also understand that it's impossible to report on anything that's not purely factual (that is, effectively only actions that didn't involve human beings -- "a 2-ton rock fell on this road at 2:00 pm") without having some "bias" inherent in the writing.  Humans are humans.  So, especially when it's a complex political issue -- a policy proposal, legislation, etc., what effects they are likely to have -- it's impossible to write purely objectively.

See, e.g., reporting on the "tax cut" legislation.  One set of analyses said that it would stimulate hiring and investment.  Another set of analyses said that it would just result in money being sent off and used for stock buybacks.  But the "effect" WAS the story.  To just say "here's the bill, it would cut these taxes X percent" is factual reporting -- and we DO need that.  But without context and analysis, those facts really don't have much meaning for anyone who isn't already an expert in the field.  Any issue like this gets muddy, and fast.

I agree.  But lets take your tax example.  There's no reason to not mention both expected outcomes.  I'm certain, at the end of the day, both of the effects happened.  Hell that's even better, tell me why each side likes/hates it.   And of course, you will never be able to eliminate bias, and I dont eliminate things I read if its slightly tinted by it. But to try and eliminate as much as possible is the goal, or the goal I would favor (definitely not the goal of many)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Judge Roybeanbag

Judge Roybeanbag 11819

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I mean I guess I understand it.  If you are right leaning, CNN might lean a little bit too left, and you don't want to hear it.  Lean left, and listening for FOX has be be like driving pins into your ears.  I'm sure that's how it starts.    I like print, more than TV or radio, personally.  Maybe someone will come up with a program where a monotone robot reads off Reuters articles, I'll listen.

Look, I'm a little left of center, and I can't stand watching CNN except for Sunday mornings when my wife has it on.  I just hate the modern cable "opinion news" format.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
achooloco

achooloco 1072

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

splits off a media bias bitchfest and puts it in...daily texan.

lol gtfo

seriously, when there is already a political thread on the same topic with the same discussions.  so mods just want to put all political stuff in DT now? then why the suspensions? this is fucking retarded to have this thread here

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105154

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I agree.  But lets take your tax example.  There's no reason to not mention both expected outcomes.  I'm certain, at the end of the day, both of the effects happened.  Hell that's even better, tell me why each side likes/hates it.   And of course, you will never be able to eliminate bias, and I dont eliminate things I read if its slightly tinted by it. But to try and eliminate as much as possible is the goal, or the goal I would favor (definitely not the goal of many)

I think that a lot of outfits do what you said -- The Economist (I have always liked it) does that.  But here's the challenge.....what to do when one of those takes is all but unsupportable. I mean, if there was a proposal to have a schoolbus try to jump the Grand Canyon.  If one analysis is that with the most amazing ramp we plan to build, and the great drive we've hired, bus will clear that 10 mile gap easily.  The other analysis is....are you fucking kidding me?  It's a 10 mile gap.  And a school bus with a top speed of 75 mph.  It doesn't matter what ramp you build, that bus will NEVER make it across.  Shouldn't a good fact-checking journalistic outfit say "and indeed, we've consulted with physicists who estimate that the farthest a standard school bus could jump, withe most favorable speed and angle of launch, is about 100 yards?"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105154

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Look, I'm a little left of center, and I can't stand watching CNN except for Sunday mornings when my wife has it on.  I just hate the modern cable "opinion news" format.  

I really don't watch any of them.  Seriously, they are all pretty worthless except in actual real breaking news stories (not what's below), where I want to see footage of the explosion or whatever the coverage is.  But then, it's maddening to watch them spend 3 hours trying to find different ways to communicate the same 60 seconds of known information over and over.

I will, however, what HLN's morning news while I get ready in my hotel room while traveling.  They have a helpful weather segment on likely airport delays, and....Robin Meade.

Robin-Meade.jpg

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

You don't like BREAKING NEWS 24/7 with blinking graphics?

That is truly one of the most annoying features of modern TV "news."  No fucking shit, ALL news is "breaking" at some point or another.  "Breaking news.....the football game just kicked off!"  "Breaking news....the president's plane is about to take off!"

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105154

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

Heheh, yeah I don't turn on nor ever watch Tucker Carlson nor CNN. 

I was talking more WSJ type leans.

I do turn on Fox local affiliate in the AM cause the Weather guy is a pilot and speaks my language. The traffic chick has great tits, and then the general dumb fuckery of Nashville stuff lets me know about anything I need to investigate further delivered by a super milfy woman and sports minded brother. It's a funish group, if very biased, thing to watch while having coffee.

Local news is actually generally okay.  Give me what's happening in the community that's of interest, the local weather is key, and the sports news is of interest to me.  Even their coverage of national news, because it has to be so brief, is usually pretty decent and unbiased.  I've actually found it amazing that some local news outfits, instead of just saying "The president spoke in the Rose Garden today, and said X Y and Z," are actually following with "however, X has not actually happened, Y is not a thing, and his statement of Z was without any basis."  That's actually jarred me, because local news doesn't do that....but they also got to a point that they couldn't simply report what the president or his mouthpieces say as if it were objective fact.  What a mess.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29684

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

The names on NPR... Lackshemeeb Singaladingdong, Melivusa Shcmarmenburgson, Corleta Nombosobosobepolis, etc etc.. I can't fucking take it 

You've made that statement before and my reaction to it is the same as the last time. "Hahaha!" It's a genuinely funny beef...because it's true.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
52-80

52-80 19162

Posted
Posted

Money talks so I only read the Bloomberg.

But really, the only good news reads are long-form, like from Taibbi.  The Guardian has a Long Reads section and it's fun.  Most of it non-political.

To keep up to date I'll scroll WSJ/WP/BBC/NYT/AJ and skimp for facts, much like glancing at ESPN for scores.  I care as much for their opinions and editorializing as I do for Shannon Sharpe's take on Lebron James' tweets.

Theres plenty of information elsewhere if you need to fill in the gaps, should you find something interesting

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchookem

mchookem 16336

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

splits off a media bias bitchfest and puts it in...daily texan.

lol gtfo

i think they are trying to be inclusive and provide a 'safe space' for those who feel bullied elsewhere 🙂

Edited by mchookem
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...