This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Economist is not American right. It is European and pro-capitalism, to a degree, but much more left-of-center than people would know precisely because it has a reputation for a right-of-center bias for Europe. When you have serious socialist parties winning elections in Europe, and the magazine is pro-economic liberalisation, you're going to appear rightist to that constituency.
You're right to contrast on-the-record sources and anonymous ones. And I agree that on-the-record is almost always preferable. But the choice often isn't between on-the-record and anonymous sources, it's between anonymous sources or no sources at all because nobody is willing to go on the record. So there are two different ways to do things:
You're right to question that. They've got contributors from all over the political spectrum. I will say that The Economist does not share, say, The New York Times' biases -- instead, the former's collection of writers each have their own.
17% is a little higher than I expected. The media is so hyper-partisan today that everyone looks at the other side as dishonest and untrustworthy. And they are dishonest in that they continue to insist that they aren’t biased. “Fair and balanced?” Joke. “Facts first?” Another laugher. Nobody just reports the facts today. Everything is slanted towards a predefined narrative, in what is reported and what isn’t reported.
If anonymous sources were only used on rare occasions your explanation might make sense.
Speaking of the thread's theme ... where is this from? Kelly tweeted "Only 18% of Republicans trust the media" on 1/24 -- is that what you were referencing?
That article is kind of all-over-the-place Gekko-esque, just throwing a barrage of statements and charts, mixing in social media with traditional media ... very hard for this reader to grok via skimming.
This is not correct.
My impression is that the use of anonymous sources swelled during the Trump administration. But I attribute that much more to the trainwreck of an administration than to anything new that the media was doing.
Looting and violence in broad daylight:
Not sure I agree. A few words taken out of context can turn those words into something very different then what they were to begin with. Editing pieces out of a video can turn something harmless and perfectly legal into something very nefarious.
I honestly used to like CNN. As early back as 2016 during the election. Once Trump won, they went completely off the deep end. They are as bad as the national enquirer in my opinion at this point. And if people can't see that they are incredibly biased, but can say with a straight face that Fox News is? Then i cant take that person seriously when it comes to media scrutiny
This is true. While I do believe CNN does less "lying", it's bias is over the top often. Similarly, I don't know that FOX news does a ton of straight up lying.
And I respect that. At least owning that CNN's bias resonates with you. Most people, especially on this board, will not admit that and instead try to tell me CNN isn't biased but FOX News is. Its absurd.
If I read them myself...you will accuse me of bias. Similarly...if I rely on what you rank yourself as biased...your own bias comes into play. What I have suggested is not that.
Oh absolutely. But when the content of the article repeatedly does not match the headline, that alone speaks to the trustworthiness.
There was rarely a Sunday in the NYT where most every section's front page and the magazine had a anti-trump headline. Couldn't agree more about omitting stories and framing. I understand that newspapers lean one way or another, but the NYT is on a totally different level.
This is, of course, consistent with a complete lack of bias.
Oh, I read it on the countertop at home the other day. I don't have a source. 17% sticks in my head, but maybe it was 18%. Anyway, she was in hot water because she blamed the media itself for the level of trust and said that if they didn't really take a look at themselves, they'd continue to bleed trust with their audience. She said they essentially pot committed when faced with Trump and the type of coverage they were going to give him.
What about when they were running news stories through the Iraqi Prime Minister for about five-ten years? That gives you faith in them?
Except, if you actually read the articles themselves - you won't need to rely on rankings to come to your own conclusions.
Is she getting her 18% figure from a poll?
Agreed. The public's general distrust of the media was around long before Trump, which he knew and exploited. And all the media has done since is prove how distrustful and awful they still are (and this goes for all of the major cable news channels).
I don’t know. I read what you wrote about it before but I’ve never heard that until now and it doesn’t jibe with my recollection of their reporting at the time.
From Harvard: https://nieman.harvard.edu/articles/what-should-news-organizations-do-for-access/
Yes they did shoddy journalism under Trump. But it was Trumps fault. But now I don't think we'll see that under Biden.
Thank you.
I chased this down the rabbit hole earlier -- the Edelman PR firm's "trust barometer" report is the ultimate source cited in the Daily Mail article.
What's the media's objective? Well, of course that depends on the subject. But what drives their decision making? Dollars. And what maximizes those? Eye balls. So if only 17% of our citizenry trust them then of course they won't give them their eye balls...right?
I've considered it and reconsidered it. It is clearly non-traditional However, as a substitute for willfully, it works well, as within the context it seems to imply intent. Final ruling: B+
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. You're almost spot-on. He wants it to be so, and wants it so badly that he's willing to sacrifice honor, integrity, reason to make it be that way. An ache in his bones for it to be so.
Fair enough if I misread the quote. I went back and saw the USA Today article. It said 18% of Republicans. That's still a really, really big issue. Who will fill the trust void? If nobody, we'll have more Capitols stormed, more disagreement over the most basic of things. It's time for a bit of self-reflection. In a way, it reminds me of my position about black voters and the GOP. They've been telling you, in not so subtle ways, for many, many years that your "program" isn't flying. Time to listen to why.
This is a tough one. I'd want to see exactly how the question was framed.
I would concede that point as causing part of the problem, but not all of it. L. Brent Bozell and National Review and company have been on this issue since around 1964 when they found out how the mainstream media was treating Goldwater, so this crying foul goes way back before Hannity and company. As a matter of fact, Brent Bozell Jr. was the conservative personality who ran the main conservative media watchdog outfit in the '90s that persistently pointed out liberal bias in the news. But despite the obvious insularity of this arrangement, people had left the mainstream news long ago for this very reason. Study after study confirms at least a leftward tilt in the news, especially in the arbiters of what is newsworthy -- the journalists' leanings themselves, and in addition to that, the journalists' stated goals of their journalism. Right-of-center people don't need people to tell them to distrust the media. They just experience their worldview as radically different than the narrative that drives the news.
There's a distinct difference between Brent Bozell/National Review and Hannity/Limbaugh. One played to a largely educated and informed audience that is capable of listening to information and forming an opinion. One plays to an audience that is, largely, uninformed and willing to be led around by the nose. In the latter case, the actual goal is outrage 24x7, as it develops a self-perpetuating cycle of outrage ("look what those evil liberals did!") and dependency ("I need to know what they did!"), generating more views and clicks.
Oh, I definitely agree with this. Sorry if I intimated a false equivalency there. The NR reader of '64 was radically different than the consumer of Hannity's conspiracy schtick. I was getting at the tactic of it being a longstanding practice of the established right to do this, not at the audience to which it is aimed.
What America society would need is an information source that possesses these two traits simultaneously:
Debate via urination contest is out of bounds. The ideas stand or fall on their own regardless of the OP's actions or inactions. There's no such thing as 'grinding'** legitimate truth out of nothing (or out of objective falsehood) -- objective truth exists outside of anyone's actions.knowledge dropper said:
Checking in on the challenge.
What's this now?