Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:01 am

KysenMurrin wrote:There's a difference between clear partisan bias, and bias combined with misrepresentation of facts.


Would you argue Fox is the only outlet guilty of the second, and all other outlets are pure and pristine? Or is it a question of degree?
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:15 am

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/e ... er?ref=fpa

(Insert speechless Nathan Fillion here)
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9360
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:51 am

fuzzygeek wrote:
KysenMurrin wrote:There's a difference between clear partisan bias, and bias combined with misrepresentation of facts.


Would you argue Fox is the only outlet guilty of the second, and all other outlets are pure and pristine? Or is it a question of degree?


For me, it's a matter of degree. Most media has a bias. It's evident if you watch it.

But for Fox, not only do they have a bias, they actually work towards alienating those who don't fit their viewing demographic.

All while touting Fair and Balanced, and We Report, you decide.

I'm reminded of a time when Fox News went on a warpath, because the NEA classified Video Games as Art. They brought on a Video Game Expert (I believe it was a developer) to discuss the topic, and then went with the Call Of Duty angle. There was no talk about other games that aren't Call of Duty, that was their angle. The bloody mindless violence of Call of Duty being considered art.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/vi ... mes-as-Art

There is an article about it. Ambrozy wrote a post about his feelings about it. I thought that someone had linked it here, but my search Fu is failing me.

This is the general type of "news" you get on Fox.

Wildly biased, and inaccurate assertions, that ignore facts, in favor of shock and awe tactics meant to belittle anything that isn't Conservative in nature.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:59 am

fuzzygeek wrote:Fox is outright owned by the party in question?


I never said that. I said Fox acts like it's owned by the republican party. Other media don't (again, except MSNBC, which is a reaction to Fox).

Journalists may be left-leaning, although it's more like "left-leaning" as in they actually pay attention to the facts in a lot of cases. Media owners are smart people who know where their bread are buttered and are anything but left-leaning.

Saying that media has a socialist bias here in Europe would mark you as a raving loon. The left-leaning serious media over here is a minority (but still significant), most serious media has a conservative bent, while sensationalist press is sensationalist press.
Last edited by Paxen on Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
Paxen
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:05 am

No, not owned, but when you have Karl Rove on set?

You might as well be.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Flex » Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:41 am

On one hand Fox's editorial/opinion people are strictly on the Republican side of everything. On the other hand I think Shep Smith is the best news anchor on the three cable news networks. Then on someone else's hand Fox & Friends is a thing that exists.

Journalists may be left-leaning, although it's more like "left-leaning" as in they actually pay attention to the facts in a lot of cases.


The sad truth is most journalists don't know enough about the stuff they cover to truly know the facts or call out the bullshit presented as facts.
We live in a society where people born on third base constantly try to steal second, yet we expect people born with two strikes against them to hit a homerun on the first pitch.
User avatar
Flex
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:29 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:56 am

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013 ... er.php?m=1

And a follow up on the article I posted earlier
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9360
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:53 pm

Some "mistakes" on Fox News:

Image
It's "Osama", not "Obama", but Fox likes to equate the two.

Image
Hrm, the Democrat is winning - I know, we'll swap the tags.

Image
Foley is a Republican until he's disgraced, then he gets a D behind his name.

Image
Another Republican turns Democrat after he gets in trouble.

They don't even know their own people:
Image
That's Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey, not Sarah Palin.

Image
Apparently McCain swapped parties, too.

Image
Oh the hell with it.

Why do people think the health care plan is unconstitutional?
Image
Maybe they saw it on the news.

Image
Compares apples to oranges to imply unemployment rate doubled under Obama.

Image
Not political, but clearly has no clue of foreign geography - not that many watching would notice.

Image
Yeah, geography is not their strong point.

Image
Figures don't lie, but apparently liars can graph. Note the distances between data points and the distance between dates, to force the graph to look like a steady rise. Here's the graph as it should be:
Image

Image
Apparently graphs are not their strong suit.

Image
Cool, UFOs do exist.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1666
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:01 pm

Image
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9360
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Holyblaze » Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:09 pm

Shoju wrote:No, not owned, but when you have Karl Rove on set?

You might as well be.



Awe come yo! There is a great many Conservative thinking people, like myself, and groups that do not like his position, fically speaking. haha I would say that most things in most of our societies is, now more than ever, based on the fical side of things.

WE BE ALL BROKED YALL! :o
"Take what you know of the Light...when you walk in darkness." - Mom
Holyblaze
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:55 am
Location: Alaska

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:31 pm

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9360
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:36 pm

The only real difference between fox news and the rest is the side that they are on. I could enumerate all sorts of terribly biased articles (heck just check half the links on this thread) and mistakes that all organizations make. It's all junk and not worth your time to watch.

And Karl Rove is no more republican than say, George Stephanopoulos is a democrat. If that's the criteria we are using, considering the role each play on their respective network, then who owns ABC?
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Sat Feb 23, 2013 2:59 am

Most news outlets (be they tv or print media) have a position. That has to do with the history behind news to begin with - more prevalent in europe than the US I think though.
While journalist, may support one party (or wing) more in general, the message of the news outlet is set by the editorial staff / chief editor / owner (dependant on setup), and it will invarably be more positive to some political positions and more negative towards others. In Europe the political leanings come out more in commentaries thann catual reporting (but that is probably more due to the fact that all the news gets their info from the same 2 or 3 agencies)

For that reason, and to avoid the echo chamber, my primary source of news (political and otherwise) is the most conservative (european usage) newspaper in Denmark, despite definately not being in agreement with their political stance - I know I won't be sugercoated but told what "the opposition" means, though on some issues I am conservative (dictionary usage), and I don't like change just to change (it is usually very inefficient, in my opinion).
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby econ21 » Sat Feb 23, 2013 7:22 am

Fridmarr wrote:The only real difference between fox news and the rest is the side that they are on.


Living in the UK, I only get to see satellite versions of other country's news channels. But Fox stands out as completely different from the others. In the UK, BBC and Sky News are broadly impartial and objective, as is CNN International. So is Al-Jazera (sp?) and most other channels. Fox really is outrageously biased to the right. I think you have lost perspective if you can't see that.

The only comparator to Fox I can find on my satellite box is a bizarre Iranian TV channel.

If you were talking UK newspapers, then there would be an element of truth in what you say. Other Murdoch owned titles like the Sun are similar animals to Fox. His Times and Sunday Times are better though.
econ21
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:53 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Feb 23, 2013 7:34 am

Wow... this is complete and utter crap
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/0 ... rporations
A bill introduced by Montana state Rep. Steve Lavin would give corporations the right to vote in municipal elections...
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9360
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Feb 23, 2013 7:54 am

Have I mentioned I hate wasteful military spending?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21554331

You would think they would have learned from the United 232 crash... unless Pratt & Whitney left the fan blade construction to a foreign subsidiary...
Wouldn't be surprised seeing how P&W mentioned that the engine is supposed to cost less than the F-119 engine it was based on, despite being newer and more powerful.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9360
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:21 am

econ21 wrote:Fox really is outrageously biased to the right. I think you have lost perspective if you can't see that.
First of all, I have absolutely no clue how you could have read my post and came to the conclusion that I don't think Fox is biased. However, if you really don't see the other side of that coin, then maybe you're the one with the issue. For goodness sakes, MSNBC gave up even bothering to try to hide it years ago.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:18 am

Fridmarr wrote:For goodness sakes, MSNBC gave up even bothering to try to hide it years ago.


Nobody argues MSNBC is any better. It's when you claim that CNN and so on are all Democrat in-house media in the same vein that we think you might be a bit misguided.
Paxen
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby econ21 » Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:19 am

We don't get MSNBC in the UK - except maybe an anodyne business channel. You said Fox was no different from the "rest". Is MSNBC the rest? Or is it just one extreme on the opposite side of the spectrum? I can just tell you, from an international perspective, Fox is VERY different from most news broadcasters in terms of the degree of its bias - it's not a matter of the direction.
econ21
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:53 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:28 am

It's just direction. MSNBC was just the obvious example because they are open about it. There really are only 3 cable news outlets, unless you are also getting our broadcast news outlets, not that they are any better. Though I don't think Fox has one of those.

Paxen, all of the mainstream media is roughly the same. The only media I listen too very much is NPR, at least they give it an honest effort. For the most part though, I read, which is mostly AP/Reuters stuff, so I just verify if I care, but most of that stuff is more field/fact based than spin.

Honestly, most true news stories are just a rehash of those feeds and are the same exact thing even including Fox, it's only when they invite commentary on those stories does it get much different. You get to skip that nonsense for the most part by just reading the news feeds.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Sat Feb 23, 2013 11:47 am

Wow, those screen shots are hilarious. The only thing funnier is that somewhere out there someone's got a folder full of this stuff that they can hate wank to.

Are there similar collections for, say, MSNBC (since people have brought them up)? If not, is it because other outlets don't make the same kinds of mistakes, or because no one catches them or bothers collecting them?

Is there anything inherently wrong with an outlet having a bias? Is it better to have "journalists" with a clear bias, or hidden bias? What is more effective, an obvious propagandist or a subtle one?
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:00 pm

Yes, there is something inherently wrong with someone representing editorial content as fact. It is against journalistic ethics.

Using the G3 method to calculate unemployment for your guy and the G6 method to calculate it for the other guy isn't ethical when it is presented as fact. Presenting a graph that is deliberately manipulated to show a different picture to the truth isn't ethical when it is presented a fact.

Typos happen, but when a consistent pattern of them develops, you stop believing in coincidence and start to see a deliberate breach of ethics.
Last edited by Koatanga on Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1666
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:16 pm

Well the difficulty with spin is that it is often factual, it's just cherry picked. So, I'm not sure that your categorization is correct. I don't think either side makes a living by directly lying.

By the way, that graph where they spaced out the dates isn't really a problem. The graph just underneath it looks just as bad if you look at the whole thing as opposed to the white area, and you have too look at the whole thing because that's how the time frames line up. If you drew a straight line from start to finish, I bet it's looks just as bad, in fact it looks like it would show a much steeper problem. That whole "real unemployment" rate is a tool that both sides use, it's a byproduct of bad baseline metrics on our unemployment statistics.

I don't know that there's an inherent problem from any individual outlet, but it has to be balanced. If all media is pro-gov't philosophically, then who is keeping the gov't in check? And vice versa?
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Aubade » Sat Feb 23, 2013 7:03 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Well the difficulty with spin is that it is often factual, it's just cherry picked. So, I'm not sure that your categorization is correct. I don't think either side makes a living by directly lying.

By the way, that graph where they spaced out the dates isn't really a problem. The graph just underneath it looks just as bad if you look at the whole thing as opposed to the white area, and you have too look at the whole thing because that's how the time frames line up. If you drew a straight line from start to finish, I bet it's looks just as bad, in fact it looks like it would show a much steeper problem. That whole "real unemployment" rate is a tool that both sides use, it's a byproduct of bad baseline metrics on our unemployment statistics.

I don't know that there's an inherent problem from any individual outlet, but it has to be balanced. If all media is pro-gov't philosophically, then who is keeping the gov't in check? And vice versa?


I think to get down to the issue some people have with Fox News is the fact that there are a large number of the voting public who take exactly what fox says (everything.) As fact, and think it has 0 spin.

There are close relatives of mine who have said to me "Obama is most definitely a muslim, there is proof, and he is a registered muslim"
To which I responded "Uhh, where did you see this? Is there proof? I find it extremely unlikely."
My relative: "It was on the news."
"Which news? Did they have a reliable source?"
"Fox News, so it's definitely reliable."


And they aren't kidding. This is my problem; they SAY they are an honest un-biased news source but anyone with an open mind and a drive for the truth can see this isn't true. The large majority of the Voting population (In more cases Republican than democrat) don't care to do any research, and don't believe that a news source would lie to them (GASP THAT'D BE BLASPHEMY) And that the people they put on their shows only speak 100% the truth.

They don't.
They know they have the credibility with a lot of people and take advantage of it.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4030
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:17 pm

Aubade wrote:The large majority of the Voting population (In more cases Republican than democrat) don't care to do any research, and don't believe that a news source would lie to them


Do you have a cite for this? I'd be interested in seeing some hard research or even statistics. On the face of it this doesn't pass the smell test for me -- inner cities vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and I'm uncertain the inner city is any more a bastion of independent research than, say, Redneck America.

Edit: although doing a rereading of what you wrote you're more referring to a large majority of the voting pop not researching (which would apply to both camps), and that they believe the news doesn't lie.

Credibility ratings have been going downhill across the board; some googling pulls up this: http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/16/ ... nizations/ which I'm not seeing as being particularly politically biased. The partisan breakdowns are particularly interesting -- Dems view all news outlets more credible than all Repubs, except for Fox, with higher believability ratings for other news outlets than Repubs rate Fox.

That is, Rebpus are more skeptical of Fox (rated at 67% believability) than Dems are of MSNBC (69), CNN (76), ABC (77), NBC (74), CBS (77), and 60 minutes (81).

The obvious inference is, "well of course people rate other outlets with more believability -- they're telling the truth!" I would argue that it's more likely that these channels post opinions that certain people agree with -- it's no secret that people view people who agree with them as being more intelligent than people who disagree with them.

But that's kind of beside the point I find more interesting -- that of skepticism. A few people have posted "herp derp dumb repubs take Fox as gospel," when this pew research report suggests that may not actually be the case.
Last edited by fuzzygeek on Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest