ProDarwin said:There are quite a few with pretty much no bias: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/?v=402f03a963ba
Might as well ban me for life as I could go the mother berkeley off.
edit: sorry I even looked at that link
I'll be good now
I watch this cooking guy on YouTube to stay steady these days: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sam+the+cooking+guy
mtn said:drainoil said:ProDarwin said:There are quite a few with pretty much no bias: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/?v=402f03a963ba
If you really believe all that I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.
Seems pretty accurate to me, based on my perception...
No political bias is very different than having a bias towards the status quo, ie: those with monied interests.
Most if the organizations in the center of that graph are controlled by people or other organizations who were quite willing go to bat for the Bush admin when invading Iraq, supported ACA, a law which has laid bare the issues with the US's social safety net in this current situation (rather than pushing for a deeper systemic change and often pushed back against it), supported the implementation of the Patriot act initially, and, more often than not, will refuse to support any type of social change until critical mass is reached by the public thanks to publications further to the left ie: same sex marriage and the end of segregation. All things that shifted the position of the Overton Window.
Crap, the Economist argued for chattel slavery pretty much until the end of the Civil war and defended the Battle of Blair Mountain. Both are considered extreme right positions now due to the Overton Window shift.
Journalists like Jake Tapper are the shining stars of that type of bias. Be nominally liberal or conservative, just don't upset the true centers of power.
MSNBC being left of the Intercept though... I guess they don't take into account Jeremy Scahill's podcast or basically anything having to do with Glen Greenwald.
In reply to TheGloriousW :
That's my area 100%. It's been just insane. I always walk or jog daily and really the foot traffic has been thick. I had to stop at the home depot keeping my distance to everyone and this lady walks up behind me, stops, puts on a mask, and then proceeds to be right up my butt for about 300 feet. I'm like well at least she put the mask on.
Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:I can tell the stay at home orders etc is getting to people.
How? Because we are arguing here, pretty much the most adult and even temoered of forums that's ever existed
Very good point! I'm personally blessed by being a bit of a loner already, and still working, So my life hasn't had to change much at all, but the entire situation has everyone a bit on edge, no mater what personal opinins are. And when folks a cool as this forum get heated, it must be a sign things ain't normal!
With the way most media acts, I would venture that if someone thinks they have found a non biased media source, it may just be that the bias just is the bias they already believe? But that's prolly true for us all -human nature being what it is.
For those of you that are data obsessed, here's a couple websites I've found interesting.
Projections for each country and state.
How do you know when you're off the steepest part of the curve. (Youtube link)
Obviously there is a lot of variation in testing from location to location, a lot of unknowns and assumptions, so caveat emptor.
SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:66 million Americans work in occupations with high risk of layoff. 47 million people could lose their jobs. That would mean an unemployment rate of 32%. The Great Depression only hit 24.9%. (and we have 3X as many people now) Coronavirus job losses
10 million unemployment claims combined in the last 2 weeks, and they're not able to process every request. On top of that, more people are still being laid off or will be in the coming weeks.
PA just announced that trout season will go ahead as planned. I'm all for getting outside, but the majority of the mouth breathers that trout fish in PA like to stand shoulder to shoulder in any hole that was stocked. I'm sure it will end just fine.
Re hazard pay... I run the wholesale parts department at a large car dealer. My pay is like 75% commission based. While we're still open serving our fleets of ambulances and police cars, most smaller shops are either closed or ghost towns. We're currently tracking about 35% of our normal sales. This means I'm probably looking at a 50% pay cut for next month. We've already laid off more than half of the department. I don't know that those guys that got laid off won't make more money than I will next month bringing in unemployment. So, while I'm thankful to still have a job to go to... it's definitely bitter sweet. Maybe I'd be better off safe at home with my cancer survivor wife, and two daughters. I'm at home enjoying a furlough day today while I type this!
The0retical (Forum Supporter) said:mtn said:drainoil said:ProDarwin said:There are quite a few with pretty much no bias: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/?v=402f03a963ba
If you really believe all that I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.
Seems pretty accurate to me, based on my perception...
No political bias is very different than having a bias towards the status quo, ie: those with monied interests.
Most if the organizations in the center of that graph are controlled by people or other organizations who were quite willing go to bat for the Bush admin when invading Iraq, supported ACA, a law which has laid bare the issues with the US's social safety net in this current situation (rather than pushing for a deeper systemic change and often pushed back against it), supported the implementation of the Patriot act initially, and, more often than not, will refuse to support any type of social change until critical mass is reached by the public thanks to publications further to the left ie: same sex marriage and the end of segregation. All things that shifted the position of the Overton Window.
Crap, the Economist argued for chattel slavery pretty much until the end of the Civil war and defended the Battle of Blair Mountain. Both are considered extreme right positions now due to the Overton Window shift.
Journalists like Jake Tapper are the shining stars of that type of bias. Be nominally liberal or conservative, just don't upset the true centers of power.
MSNBC being left of the Intercept though... I guess they don't take into account Jeremy Scahill's podcast or basically anything having to do with Glen Greenwald.
Yeah they have to put the center somewhere on a graph that only has 1 axis for politics, and the center is the most truly anti-change part of the spectrum even if that doesn't match with how the parties market themselves. Also I think they're taking an account of what these different outlets are doing recently rather than including what they were doing in the 1800s, or possibly even in the '00s. Considering these things, I find the graph to actually be pretty accurate (including MSNBC being left of The Intercept, I don't listen to Jeremy Scahill's podcasts but I've read a lot of Glen Greenwald's articles).
There's one thing on the graph that seems wrong to me but it might be that I'm out of the loop: I haven't seen Fox News in a long while but I have seen OAN, and holy E36 M3...is Fox really in the same ballpark now!? When I first saw OAN I thought of it as "Fox on bath salts."
GameboyRMH said:The0retical (Forum Supporter) said:mtn said:drainoil said:ProDarwin said:There are quite a few with pretty much no bias: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/?v=402f03a963ba
If you really believe all that I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.
Seems pretty accurate to me, based on my perception...
No political bias is very different than having a bias towards the status quo, ie: those with monied interests.
Most if the organizations in the center of that graph are controlled by people or other organizations who were quite willing go to bat for the Bush admin when invading Iraq, supported ACA, a law which has laid bare the issues with the US's social safety net in this current situation (rather than pushing for a deeper systemic change and often pushed back against it), supported the implementation of the Patriot act initially, and, more often than not, will refuse to support any type of social change until critical mass is reached by the public thanks to publications further to the left ie: same sex marriage and the end of segregation. All things that shifted the position of the Overton Window.
Crap, the Economist argued for chattel slavery pretty much until the end of the Civil war and defended the Battle of Blair Mountain. Both are considered extreme right positions now due to the Overton Window shift.
Journalists like Jake Tapper are the shining stars of that type of bias. Be nominally liberal or conservative, just don't upset the true centers of power.
MSNBC being left of the Intercept though... I guess they don't take into account Jeremy Scahill's podcast or basically anything having to do with Glen Greenwald.
Yeah they have to put the center somewhere on a graph that only has 1 axis for politics, and the center is the most truly anti-change part of the spectrum even if that doesn't match with how the parties market themselves. Also I think they're taking an account of what these different outlets are doing recently rather than including what they were doing in the 1800s, or possibly even in the '00s. Considering these things, I find the graph to actually be pretty accurate (including MSNBC being left of The Intercept, I don't listen to Jeremy Scahill's podcasts but I've read a lot of Glen Greenwald's articles).
There's one thing on the graph that seems wrong to me but it might be that I'm out of the loop: I haven't seen Fox News in a long while but I have seen OAN, and holy E36 M3...is Fox really in the same ballpark now!? When I first saw OAN I thought of it as "Fox on bath salts."
That was my same thought as well. But I've never even seen a minute of OAN other than what John Oliver has done on them - and while I really enjoy everything John Oliver does, to say he isn't biased would be silly.
As a study in human nature:
We are all aware of pandemic events. The fact that the word Pandemic exist tells me so.
As a species we have had 100 years to prepare for this event since the last time it happened. We even had a few warning shots like SARS and H1N1 to remind us that we need to be prepared.
Somehow, Covid has been declared both a surprise and something that few societies are prepared to manage on a socio or economic level.
With all the technical and economic miracles of the last century how can we excuse being where we are?
I am living through one of the more surreal eras in my life. And while my anxiety meter is pegged, my surprise meter is low. This is how nature will always work. No?
Pete
In reply to NOHOME :
Sadly was less then 100 years since last pandemic. Ever heard of Hong Kong Flu? Killed 1 million worldwide and 100,000 in US in 1968.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.html
Did someone say media? I have a fair bit of information on that subject. First, if you want to understand bias in the media and why we are trying to guesstimate it today, understand this (from Wikipedia):
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.
The fairness doctrine is not the same as the equal-time rule. The fairness doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.
Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the personal attack rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "personal attack" rule applied whenever a person (or small group) was subject to a personal attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons (or groups) within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on-the-air. The "political editorial" rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the unendorsed candidates be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.
TL;DR: Objective reporting is now an ethical choice, not law. However, this reality has not changed the mission, education or professional standards for actual journalists. If you'd like to see what those professionals are talking about regarding media bias, here's an article from the Columbia Journalism Review.
Note: This is not meant to usher in a flounder party. It's about journalism, and how we gather our news in a time when having access to facts can actually save lives. Should it turn into a flounder party, we'll have to lock another thread. And the last couple of you who caused the most recent locked threads will be shown extreme prejudice, because I'm tired of your sneaking in E36 M3 and basically being argumentative vajajays.
Margie
NOHOME said:....We are all aware of pandemic events. The fact that the word Pandemic exist tells me so...
...Somehow, Covid has been declared both a surprise and something that few societies are prepared to manage on a socio or economic level.
With all the technical and economic miracles of the last century how can we excuse being where we are?....
To say this was not a well known concern (the next big issue for the world) is silly. To say little was done about the concern is not, but unfortunately that is pretty much the way things are done. No one wants to commit huge amounts or resources, or sacrifice some aspect of their economy for something that "might" happen. It's not good for getting re-elected doing something that will make you (or worse, your successor) look very good in 5, 10 or 20 years. It can also put you at a disadvantage to someone else who is not accepting that sacrifice.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
The thing is that the stance the bulk of media outlets take is framed by the current position of the Overton window. MSNBC is only "left" because Comcast saw that Fox was bringing in huge numbers with the political right. It was purely a business decision to try to capture the other side instead of trying, and failing I might add, to compete with CNN.
The centerist publications try to stay within that window to maintain the appearance of being unbiased, but when you examine the choices and publication histories which have lead to where they currently are as a media outlet you can get a different perspective on their lens and what they'll likely at least nominally support or report on. That in turn leads you to some conclusions about what the motivating force may be behind the reporting.
It's that old adage about the wealthy planning playing the long game to move and shape culture over the course of decades. See Pete Peterson's group of "think tanks" and the number of think tanks funded by defense companies that most of those centerist publications use as primary sources despite the very obvious underlying biases once you get past the official sounding think tank naming scheme.
The problem is how far down the rabbit hole you end up needing to go to find A) the primary source since many outlets don't like to cite things well anymore and B) vet the primary source and their information. By the time the story makes its way to the bite sized segment for public consumption, much of that detail is lost.
Greenwald reminds me of a real life Holden from The Expanse. Information and berkeley the consequences. Scahill's Intercepted podcast is worth a listen if you're interested, but he doesn't leave any ambiguity about where he falls on the political spectrum or where he thinks the Overton Window should be located as a journalist.
In reply to Marjorie Suddard :
thats really interesting.. Thanks!
Marjorie Suddard said:.....The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.....
To be realistic, I have seen this being used a lot, even currently, and the way it is presented is FAR from constructive (it's pretty standard on the opinion based shows). The common result is finding the most absurd representative of the viewpoint they don't like, or simply bullying (talking over, cutting off etc) them.
You can require outlets to provide contrasting viewpoints, but it's very easy to manipulate that process. Much like presenting entirely factual news, but favoring some news items over others (e.g. not presenting them).
Like most laws, motivated people find ways around them.
In reply to aircooled :
You're right, laws are stupid. Not sure why we even have any.
Margie
In reply to Marjorie Suddard :
if we outlaw laws.. only criminals will have laws..
The0retical (Forum Supporter) said:MSNBC being left of the Intercept though... I guess they don't take into account Jeremy Scahill's podcast or basically anything having to do with Glen Greenwald.
Drill deeper.
That graph is MUCH more than pictures. There are over 1900 different media sources rated there.
If you search for MSNBC, there are 73 different entries. Each show is rated independently. Some are more conservative, some are more liberal. I am assuming the icon on the graph is the average of all of their offerings.
There are also 15 different entries for The Intercept.
In reply to Marjorie Suddard :
Well the last three paragraphs of that article were more succinct than what I was attempting, poorly, to drive at. I'll drop it. Thanks for the read.
The0retical (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to Marjorie Suddard :
Well the last three paragraphs of that article were more succinct than what I was attempting, poorly, to drive at. I'll drop it. Thanks for the read.
Don't feel bad--it's the Columbia Journalism Review. They're good at teh writang. And I followed you.
Margie
The0retical (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to Marjorie Suddard :
Well the last three paragraphs of that article were more succinct than what I was attempting, poorly, to drive at. I'll drop it. Thanks for the read.
Part of the problem with it, is there is no such thing as "objective" journalism.
You decide what stories are important, who to interview for the topic, what to include from their answers, etc. The journalist is making subjective decisions based on what they feel is most important based on what will bring in the most revenue.
I have a Journalism degree and in college wanted to be an investigative journalist. At the time I graduated in Dec '05, starting salary for a writer at the Tulsa World was just under $24k. I couldn't justify the price of my education to starting that far down the ladder.
In reply to NOHOME :
There is always a cry for better preparedness when a disaster like this happens. The problem comes when it's time for folks to sign on the dotted line to make the financial commitment to being prepared. It's much easier to spend money on something that has happened than on something that might happen - and then continuing to spend more on that "might happen" scenario.
In reply to z31maniac :
Yep. I also went to school for journalism and saw the writing on the wall before I even finished. But even when you try not to add bias to a news story, it happens simply by how the writer arranges the information.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
