[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Britain - R_P - Jul 2, 2025 - 11:04pm
 
July 2025 Photo Theme - Stone - Alchemist - Jul 2, 2025 - 10:38pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - islander - Jul 2, 2025 - 9:23pm
 
Wordle - daily game - geoff_morphini - Jul 2, 2025 - 8:48pm
 
Israel - R_P - Jul 2, 2025 - 8:22pm
 
Trump - Red_Dragon - Jul 2, 2025 - 5:35pm
 
Trump Lies™ - R_P - Jul 2, 2025 - 5:01pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - buddy - Jul 2, 2025 - 4:06pm
 
Best Song Comments. - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 2, 2025 - 3:41pm
 
NY Times Strands - maryte - Jul 2, 2025 - 3:37pm
 
NYTimes Connections - maryte - Jul 2, 2025 - 3:28pm
 
Outstanding Covers - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jul 2, 2025 - 2:38pm
 
Protest Songs - R_P - Jul 2, 2025 - 2:20pm
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Jul 2, 2025 - 2:11pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - bobrk - Jul 2, 2025 - 1:16pm
 
Democratic Party - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jul 2, 2025 - 1:04pm
 
Fox Spews - islander - Jul 2, 2025 - 10:39am
 
Immigration - R_P - Jul 2, 2025 - 10:29am
 
Republican Party - ColdMiser - Jul 2, 2025 - 8:14am
 
Music Videos - black321 - Jul 2, 2025 - 8:02am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jul 2, 2025 - 7:59am
 
Economix - rgio - Jul 2, 2025 - 7:37am
 
New Music - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 2, 2025 - 7:30am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - GeneP59 - Jul 2, 2025 - 6:59am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 1, 2025 - 8:34pm
 
Carmen to Stones - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 1, 2025 - 7:44pm
 
The Obituary Page - sunybuny - Jul 1, 2025 - 7:03pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jul 1, 2025 - 5:27pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - rgio - Jul 1, 2025 - 11:06am
 
Artificial Intelligence - drucev - Jul 1, 2025 - 8:58am
 
President(s) Musk/Trump - VV - Jul 1, 2025 - 8:10am
 
June 2025 Photo Theme - Arches - Alchemist - Jun 30, 2025 - 9:10pm
 
Please help me find this song - LazyEmergency - Jun 30, 2025 - 8:42pm
 
Forum Posting Guidelines - rickylee123 - Jun 30, 2025 - 6:17pm
 
Thanks William! - buddy - Jun 30, 2025 - 5:49pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - buddy - Jun 30, 2025 - 4:50pm
 
Living in America - R_P - Jun 30, 2025 - 3:15pm
 
M.A.G.A. - R_P - Jun 30, 2025 - 12:50pm
 
Gardeners Corner - marko86 - Jun 30, 2025 - 10:39am
 
Comics! - Red_Dragon - Jun 30, 2025 - 7:59am
 
Birthday wishes - Coaxial - Jun 30, 2025 - 6:36am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Jun 30, 2025 - 5:39am
 
Global Mix renaming - frazettaart - Jun 29, 2025 - 9:23am
 
Iran - R_P - Jun 28, 2025 - 8:56pm
 
Live Music - Steely_D - Jun 28, 2025 - 6:53pm
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 28, 2025 - 10:17am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jun 28, 2025 - 9:52am
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Jun 27, 2025 - 3:00pm
 
Know your memes - oldviolin - Jun 27, 2025 - 11:41am
 
What Makes You Sad? - oldviolin - Jun 27, 2025 - 10:41am
 
Calling all Monty Python fans! - FeydBaron - Jun 27, 2025 - 10:30am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Jun 27, 2025 - 10:23am
 
SCOTUS - Red_Dragon - Jun 27, 2025 - 8:30am
 
Framed - movie guessing game - Proclivities - Jun 27, 2025 - 6:25am
 
Yummy Snack - Proclivities - Jun 26, 2025 - 1:17pm
 
Parents and Children - kurtster - Jun 26, 2025 - 11:32am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 25, 2025 - 9:36pm
 
PUNS- Political Punditry and so-called journalism - oldviolin - Jun 25, 2025 - 12:06pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - black321 - Jun 25, 2025 - 11:30am
 
What The Hell Buddy? - oldviolin - Jun 25, 2025 - 10:32am
 
Astronomy! - black321 - Jun 25, 2025 - 8:58am
 
The Grateful Dead - black321 - Jun 25, 2025 - 7:13am
 
Billionaires - R_P - Jun 24, 2025 - 4:57pm
 
Great guitar faces - Steely_D - Jun 24, 2025 - 4:15pm
 
Buying a Cell Phone - Steely_D - Jun 24, 2025 - 3:05pm
 
Anti-War - R_P - Jun 24, 2025 - 12:57pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Alchemist - Jun 24, 2025 - 10:40am
 
RIP Mick Ralphs - geoff_morphini - Jun 23, 2025 - 10:40pm
 
Congress - maryte - Jun 23, 2025 - 1:39pm
 
Europe - R_P - Jun 23, 2025 - 11:30am
 
the Todd Rundgren topic - ColdMiser - Jun 23, 2025 - 7:58am
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - GeneP59 - Jun 21, 2025 - 6:14pm
 
Rock & Roll Facts - Coaxial - Jun 21, 2025 - 6:10pm
 
Poetry Forum - SeriousLee - Jun 21, 2025 - 5:20pm
 
And the good news is.... - Red_Dragon - Jun 21, 2025 - 3:39pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Trump Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1234, 1235, 1236 ... 1346, 1347, 1348  Next
Post to this Topic
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 29, 2016 - 9:51am

 Lazy8 wrote:

Go ahead and find an article on school choice on NPR that doesn't give the last word to the teachers union. 

 
Which means they probably give the first word to Checker Finn or some other proponent of privatized schooling.

Are you saying they must flip a coin to decide who goes first? 
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jul 29, 2016 - 9:35am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 steeler wrote:
And you know these things how? 

I can read.

 
 So you fall into a familiar pattern that minimizes the cognitive dissonance in the audience.

And the reporter in question will have to justify that story to skeptical editors every time, and better not make a habit of it.

 

Are you saying that you deduced these kinds of conclusions based on news coverage you have read, or that you have read that reporters and editors routinely do these kinds of things?

 

  




Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 29, 2016 - 9:24am

 steeler wrote:
And you know these things how? 

I can read.
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 29, 2016 - 9:06am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Every person has biases. It is meaningless to say "that reporter is biased" or "that news program is unbiased" because every human thing has bias. Toss a dime in the air and count how many times it comes to rest standing on its edge. That's how many people are without bias—and if it happens that you find this person, it's still just a fluke. And they're just as likely to be a plumber as a politician or reporter.
 
The best we can hope for is a reporter or politician who is aware of their biases and takes steps to ameliorate them. For a politician, surrounding themselves with something other than yes-men is a good approach: develop policy in a room full of people of differing backgrounds. For a reporter, it can be harder, because things go online in such haste these days, but in the old days of a slow news cycle, editorial meetings would be held and the reporter told to get a statement from so-and-so, or include some background information on this person or that...
 
So anyway, I think we're using "bias" here when what we really mean is the politician or news outlet has an agenda. 

 




Very good point.
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jul 29, 2016 - 8:57am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 steeler wrote:
Most people do their jobs — despite of any prejudice or bias a person may harbor.  I might dislike a work colleague, but that does not mean I am not going to work with that person to the best of my ability to get the job done in a professional manner.  A physician may actually be a bit of a racist; does not mean the physician is not going to do his job and save the life of a member of the minority that the physician considers to be inferior.    

Edit:  Pardon the double negatives — too lazy to edit.


We also ask people to set aside biases when they serve on juries. And (having served on a few juries) they by and large try—but if you took the case of a black defendant whose fate was decided by an all-white jury of Trump supporters, would you not prepare an appeal?

Yet we're expected to believe that a newspaper story shows no effect of the reporter's prejudices with much less at stake and a friendly audience who shares those prejudices.

Sure, they try. But they are selling words to an audience, an audience with little patience for thoughts that contradict their prejudices. You tell them the wrong kind of story and they stop reading. You give them a perspective on that story they don't want to hear and they claim bias...and stop reading. So you fall into a familiar pattern that minimizes the cognitive dissonance in the audience.

Go ahead and find an article on school choice on NPR that doesn't give the last word to the teachers union. Find a Fox News story with any sympathy for the people of Gaza. There may be a couple, but they will be buried under a mountain of others with the opposite slant. And the reporter in question will have to justify that story to skeptical editors every time, and better not make a habit of it.

 
And you know these things how?  

It was a long time ago, but when I was working as a journalist, those kind of thoughts never crossed my mind — and no one asked me to change or slant stories to better fit the viewpoints of a particular set of readers. Nor did I ever hear any of my colleagues talk about having to alter stories to appease a particular set of readers.  

 Edit:  Journalists are trained to be objective; there are tools one uses, and procedures one follows.  The process involves others — editors — part of whose job it is to point out and challenge unsupported parts of a reporter's story. Jurors are instructed to be impartial, but they have not undergone training for being a juror.          




ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 29, 2016 - 8:53am

Every person has biases. It is meaningless to say "that reporter is biased" or "that news program is unbiased" because every human thing has bias. Toss a dime in the air and count how many times it comes to rest standing on its edge. That's how many people are without bias—and if it happens that you find this person, it's still just a fluke. And they're just as likely to be a plumber as a politician or reporter.
 
The best we can hope for is a reporter or politician who is aware of their biases and takes steps to ameliorate them. For a politician, surrounding themselves with something other than yes-men is a good approach: develop policy in a room full of people of differing backgrounds. For a reporter, it can be harder, because things go online in such haste these days, but in the old days of a slow news cycle, editorial meetings would be held and the reporter told to get a statement from so-and-so, or include some background information on this person or that...
 
So anyway, I think we're using "bias" here when what we really mean is the politician or news outlet has an agenda. 
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 29, 2016 - 8:44am

 steeler wrote:
Most people do their jobs — despite of any prejudice or bias a person may harbor.  I might dislike a work colleague, but that does not mean I am not going to work with that person to the best of my ability to get the job done in a professional manner.  A physician may actually be a bit of a racist; does not mean the physician is not going to do his job and save the life of a member of the minority that the physician considers to be inferior.    

Edit:  Pardon the double negatives — too lazy to edit.


We also ask people to set aside biases when they serve on juries. And (having served on a few juries) they by and large try—but if you took the case of a black defendant whose fate was decided by an all-white jury of Trump supporters, would you not prepare an appeal?

Yet we're expected to believe that a newspaper story shows no effect of the reporter's prejudices with much less at stake and a friendly audience who shares those prejudices.

Sure, they try. But they are selling words to an audience, an audience with little patience for thoughts that contradict their prejudices. You tell them the wrong kind of story and they stop reading. You give them a perspective on that story they don't want to hear and they claim bias...and stop reading. So you fall into a familiar pattern that minimizes the cognitive dissonance in the audience.

Go ahead and find an article on school choice on NPR that doesn't give the last word to the teachers union. Find a Fox News story with any sympathy for the people of Gaza. There may be a couple, but they will be buried under a mountain of others with the opposite slant. And the reporter in question will have to justify that story to skeptical editors every time, and better not make a habit of it.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 29, 2016 - 7:05am

it's literally the definition of politics...

bi·as
ˈbīəs/
noun
noun: bias; plural noun: biases
  1. 1.
    prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
    "there was evidence of bias against foreign applicants"
    synonyms:prejudice, partiality, partisanship, favoritism, unfairness, one-sidedness;More
    antonyms:impartiality
    • a concentration on or interest in one particular area or subject.
      "he worked on a variety of Greek topics, with a discernible bias toward philosophy"
    • Statistics
      a systematic distortion of a statistical result due to a factor not allowed for in its derivation.
  2. 2.
    in some sports, such as lawn bowling, the irregular shape given to a ball.
    • the oblique course taken by a ball as a result of its irregular shape.
  3. 3.
    Electronics
    a steady voltage, magnetic field, or other factor applied to an electronic system or device to cause it to operate over a predetermined range.
verb
verb: bias; 3rd person present: biases; past tense: biased; past participle: biased; gerund or present participle: biasing
  1. 1.
    cause to feel or show inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something.
    "readers said the paper was biased toward the conservatives"
    synonyms:prejudice, influence, color, sway, weight, predispose;More
    "this may have biased the result"
    distorted, warped, twisted, skewed
    "a biased view of the situation"
    antonyms:impartial
  2. 2.
    give a bias to.
    "bias the ball"



steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jul 29, 2016 - 6:51am

 sirdroseph wrote:
 steeler wrote:

The question is not whether a person has a particular bias.  It is whether the person acts in accordance with that bias.   

 
Yep, you're a lawyer. ;-) I submit that it is virtually impossible to deny one's very essence and this is manifest anywhere from a subtle nuance to full blown prejudice in everything that we do. We are all individuals even if that individuality is to be a lock step follower of a group or one who fiercely rejects the majority opinion whenever they can by virtue of a rebellious personality. In short, we do who we are.

 
Most people do their jobs — despite of any prejudice or bias a person may harbor.  I might dislike a work colleague, but that does not mean I am not going to work with that person to the best of my ability to get the job done in a professional manner.  A physician may actually be a bit of a racist; does not mean the physician is not going to do his job and save the life of a member of the minority that the physician considers to be inferior.    

Edit:  Pardon the double negatives — too lazy to edit.


sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 29, 2016 - 6:41am

 steeler wrote:

The question is not whether a person has a particular bias.  It is whether the person acts in accordance with that bias.   

 




Yep, you're a lawyer. ;-) I submit that it is virtually impossible to deny one's very essence and this is manifest anywhere from a subtle nuance to full blown prejudice in everything that we do. We are all individuals even if that individuality is to be a lock step follower of a group or one who fiercely rejects the majority opinion whenever they can by virtue of a rebellious personality. In short, we do who we are.
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jul 29, 2016 - 6:31am

 sirdroseph wrote:
To deny bias is to deny being human, I am not prepared to do that yet until the Cylons take over.

 
The question is not whether a person has a particular bias.  It is whether the person acts in accordance with that bias.   
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 29, 2016 - 5:20am

To deny bias is to deny being human, I am not prepared to do that yet until the Cylons take over.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 29, 2016 - 2:29am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
 kurtster wrote:

Opinions were not allowed and editorials were rare and very carefully presented when they were...
 
This clip does double duty! Speaks to this statement, and also seems apropos for this thread. 
 
 

 
Not sure how it speaks to my statement regarding opinions and editorials in straight news.  This clip is not from a straight news program.  It is from the show, See It Now, a forerunner of 60 Minutes if you will.

Here's an expanded look at the show the clip above came from. 




Yibbyl

Yibbyl Avatar

Location: Gaäd only knows
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2016 - 11:36pm

 kurtster wrote:

Indeed.

One thing no one has brought up is when TV network news crossed the line from hard news only and allowed entertainment into the mix.  There was a time when the people in hard news where forever banned if they stepped into any entertainment format.  The Today Show here in the states is where the line first began to blur.  Someone (D ?) mentioned earlier when the network news went from 15 minutes to a whole half an hour.  I do remember that.  There were only Cronkite (CBS), Huntley and Brinkley (NBC) and in 1965 ABC finally launched its own evening news with Peter Jennings of which I remember watching the first telecast.  Opinions were not allowed and editorials were rare and very carefully presented when they were, but mainly at local station level on local issues.  Surprised no one else brought this up because I'm not the only one here my age who should remember this turning point and think of it as significant.  I was going to say that I remember when The Today Show was brand new, but it turns out that they didn't start showing it in California until 1958.  It was new to us out West then anyway. (Mountain and Pacific time zones did not get it at all until 1958)  

No one knew Cronkite was a bleeding heart lib.  He played it straight, all the way through.  We didn't find anything out about Brinkley until he showed up on his Sunday show which did get political and dealt with opinion. 

Now its almost impossible to tell where news ends and entertainment begins.  Once the News Departments were immune from ratings issues and revenue problems.  That allowed them to play straight.  Now they are treated the same as any other show.  I think the end came in the mid to late 70's, but its been so long ago, I really don't remember.  Those born after 1970 have never seen straight news programs or knew they existed and have nothing to compare with in their real time memories and its hard now to believe it ever existed in the first place, but it did.

Just a thought I figured I'd throw on the pile ... 
 
It's even worse than you think. Turn on a newscast. Any one. It won't matter. Mute the station to reduce "information" overload. (Yeah, I just did that! Even in a boring politics-related forum, I'm still a smart@ss!) OK, now watch the camera angle changes. Watch for swapping out the graphics. You're looking for significant movement, for changes. Ignore the banner on the bottom. I don't even need it to make my case. If you start counting or time from the start of a graphic to a change or movement, you will not hit 20 seconds. Ever. Producers are taught to do that, because, in this era, most people don't have the attention span to focus. TV viewers are multitasking...tv/phone/laptop/eating/etc. News organizations know that they can't compete with all our other toys and preoccupations if they give the public straight newscasts. That day has come and gone. So we get treated to the Max X equivalent of "news", which now supplements "reports" on all the latest gossip from the Jay Z and Taylor Swift feud. Oh, and Jay Z supports Hillary. You should, too, if you want to be hip and/or feel that link between you and someone famous. All that editing 
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2016 - 10:13pm

 kurtster wrote:

Opinions were not allowed and editorials were rare and very carefully presented when they were...
 
This clip does double duty! Speaks to this statement, and also seems apropos for this thread. 
 
 
Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: The foot of Mount Belzoni
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2016 - 9:50pm

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote:
Trump will speak candidly... no namby pamby going on there.
 
I don't see it as a candid manner. It seems more like an ineptness at adult dialogue.


 
KurtfromLaQuinta

KurtfromLaQuinta Avatar

Location: Really deep in the heart of South California
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2016 - 9:26pm

 marko86 wrote:

So that is your argument for Trump? Wow. You know there are some jobs that require some degree of professionalism, you know, knowledge of how stuff works.

No.
I was saying the professionals aren't very proficient. 
The only knowledge they seem to have... is making sure they get re-elected.
So I guess they do know how stuff works. {#Cheesygrin}

When I hear some of the stuff that comes out of some politicians mouths, I don't think they're very smart at all.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, George Bush, Ted Cruz etc. etc. etc. and even Trump (though not a politician).
Trump will speak candidly... no namby pamby going on there.
 


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2016 - 7:10pm

 haresfur wrote:

There is a difference between objective and even-handed. It's hard to be even-handed and objective when one hand has its thumb up a bum. The key imo is to judge a news organisation by how they report when a party messes up. You can lean or be considered to lean in one direction without sweeping issues under the rug. Actually, that's the way I judge politicians, too, and why I'm a Justin Trudeau fan.

 
Indeed.

One thing no one has brought up is when TV network news crossed the line from hard news only and allowed entertainment into the mix.  There was a time when the people in hard news where forever banned if they stepped into any entertainment format.  The Today Show here in the states is where the line first began to blur.  Someone (D ?) mentioned earlier when the network news went from 15 minutes to a whole half an hour.  I do remember that.  There were only Cronkite (CBS), Huntley and Brinkley (NBC) and in 1965 ABC finally launched its own evening news with Peter Jennings of which I remember watching the first telecast.  Opinions were not allowed and editorials were rare and very carefully presented when they were, but mainly at local station level on local issues.  Surprised no one else brought this up because I'm not the only one here my age who should remember this turning point and think of it as significant.  I was going to say that I remember when The Today Show was brand new, but it turns out that they didn't start showing it in California until 1958.  It was new to us out West then anyway. (Mountain and Pacific time zones did not get it at all until 1958)  

No one knew Cronkite was a bleeding heart lib.  He played it straight, all the way through.  We didn't find anything out about Brinkley until he showed up on his Sunday show which did get political and dealt with opinion. 

Now its almost impossible to tell where news ends and entertainment begins.  Once the News Departments were immune from ratings issues and revenue problems.  That allowed them to play straight.  Now they are treated the same as any other show.  I think the end came in the mid to late 70's, but its been so long ago, I really don't remember.  Those born after 1970 have never seen straight news programs or knew they existed and have nothing to compare with in their real time memories and its hard now to believe it ever existed in the first place, but it did.

Just a thought I figured I'd throw on the pile ... 
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jul 28, 2016 - 5:51pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 steeler wrote:
Well, there you have it.  An unequivocal opinion.  There are no journalists anywhere who even try to be objective.  It's a given.

I do agree that there are more sources of information available today than at any other time in  history.  One can, and should, check as many sources as one can on an issue that is of importance to that person.  As I said before, a healthy skepticism is good.  Believing that everyone practicing journalism is biased, not so good.


I bet every newscaster, editor, and copy boy at Fox News thinks they do a splendid job of being objective. They're wrong.

I bet everyone at The Daily Show thinks they are completely evenhanded in their mockery of our politicians. They're wrong.

Every bit of information about politics comes thru political a lens. Sometimes it's explicit but mostly it's not. If it aligns with your own bias it's much harder to see—you seem utterly oblivious, so I think whatever news outlets you favor have found their perfect match. But don't kid yourself that what you see is spin-free.

 
Again, those are just your opinions. You state them as if they were facts. They are not. You have not even stated the basis for your conclusions. I studied journalism in college and worked as a journalist for about a decade. I still know a lot of journalists. My experiences in the profession partly inform my opinion. 

That those in politics engage in spin does not mean that the journalists are spinning as well. That's not their job; it is not how they are trained. That is not to say that bias does not exist anywhere in the media. There have been well-documented instances where individual journalists have fabricated stories, including one who made up a 8-year-old heroin addict. There also are instances of sloppy reporting. The recent instance of the Rolling Stone article about a gang rape at the University of Virginia comes to mind. It happens. But to conclude from these kind of instances that the entire media — as a monolith— is biased is a leap into the logical abyss. 

You say that I seem utterly oblivious to the bias playing out in front of my unseeing eyes. Then , for good measure, you suggest that my inability to see the bias is due to my having found a news outlet that confirms my biases. To me , you seem utterly dogmatic on this subject. I previously stated that readers and viewers sometimes bring their own biases to an issue and if the story is not reported the way they think it should have been, they sometimes conclude tthat the media is biased. This is not just confined to the media. The veracity of papers on climate change issued by scientists have been dismissed as being the product of bias. There is a danger here. If the media is biased, as you say, it would follow that we could not trust what it states on any issue, which would make it largely worthless other than as an entertainment source. if true, that would deal a severe blow to our democracy.

 
islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2016 - 5:30pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:
How anyone could seriously consider voting for this utter waste of a human life is beyond me.

 
I'm with you. I understand the anger, but to turn to this as an 'answer' is just wrong. It saddens me to see how many people are willing to go this route.  It comforts me to know that we don't elect presidents by popular vote. Demographics are even more important in the electoral process. I've been ignoring a lot of the ugliness even though I know it's there. I'll check in with Nate Silver next week and get the read on the Dem convention bounce. Then I'll try to tune out for another month or so while the chaos churns and the media try to make it look like a horse race. 
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1234, 1235, 1236 ... 1346, 1347, 1348  Next