A guide for parsing the news and propaganda from liberal to conservative

[martybegan]

No, i don't. you posted a chart placing it with sites known to post puff pieces and made up opinions masquerading as fact. It's up to you to defend it.

Yes, you do. You are now spamming and warned. Stop. Tell us 'why' you think Breitbart is legitimate.

No, you posted a chart claiming it is illegitimate, and refuse to back it up.

and this isn't spam, it is asking you to answer the question and back up your statement.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The following description makes some sense from Liberal Utter Garbage/Conspiracy Theories to Conservative Utter Garbage/Liberal Theories. I am interested what board members think of the Mainstream (minimal partisan bias) list: The Wall Street Journal, etc.

Sorry Jake, I just noticed that you intended for this to be a clean discussion.

I don't really have a problem with the graph on strictly partisan terms. It's not an issue that I am overly sensitive to.

Thanks for that. Partisanship I understand. The purveyance of deliberate 'fake news' should be abhorrent in our society.

 

[martybegan]

Jake I'm'ed me and said I was reported. Evidently nicely calling someone out to back up their statement is reportable for some reason.

As for Jake, beale found the source of your "chart". It's someone's opinion, nothing more.

Again, how is Briebart "fake news"

 

[JakeStarkey]

The author that produced that lib spin wish list chart didn't even list the number one US network - CBS. So much for accuracy and thoroughness.

Good point. Where do you think that should be placed on the chart?

 

[Tehon]

The following description makes some sense from Liberal Utter Garbage/Conspiracy Theories to Conservative Utter Garbage/Liberal Theories. I am interested what board members think of the Mainstream (minimal partisan bias) list: The Wall Street Journal, etc.

Sorry Jake, I just noticed that you intended for this to be a clean discussion.

I don't really have a problem with the graph on strictly partisan terms. It's not an issue that I am overly sensitive to.

Thanks for that. Partisanship I understand. The purveyance of deliberate 'fake news' should be abhorrent in our society.

We live in a free society, if you disagree with something someone has written you are free to ignore it or speak out against it. But I find witch hunts abhorrent and can not tolerate any attempts to silence people and you are not free to do so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The following description makes some sense from Liberal Utter Garbage/Conspiracy Theories to Conservative Utter Garbage/Liberal Theories. I am interested what board members think of the Mainstream (minimal partisan bias) list: The Wall Street Journal, etc.

Sorry Jake, I just noticed that you intended for this to be a clean discussion.

I don't really have a problem with the graph on strictly partisan terms. It's not an issue that I am overly sensitive to.

Thanks for that. Partisanship I understand. The purveyance of deliberate 'fake news' should be abhorrent in our society.

We live in a free society, if you disagree with something someone has written you are free to ignore it or speak out against it. But I find witch hunts abhorrent and can not tolerate any attempts to silence people and you are not free to do so.

No one is silencing anyone, but people have the right to feel confident in what they are reading or hearing or studying. An informed, objective voter is the heart of a successful election. We saw a failure and the result of that failure.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

The author that produced that lib spin wish list chart didn't even list the number one US network - CBS. So much for accuracy and thoroughness.

Good point. Where do you think that should be placed on the chart?

That chart is useless. Of the big 3, NBC is an arm of the RaTz party for all practical purposes, ABC is slightly less biased and CBS the least of the 3 but still with a leftist tilt that is significant.

 

[Tehon]

people have the right to feel confident in what they are reading or hearing or studying.

That's not really a luxury we have possessed in my lifetime. Are you familiar with the Church Commission? We lost the fight a long time ago, you are just realizing it, but you are not understanding the full depth of the problem. You only see it from the perspective of losing an election, which in itself is wrong. You can't see it because you lack the thing you are complaining that other people lack....objectivity. And so it goes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The author that produced that lib spin wish list chart didn't even list the number one US network - CBS. So much for accuracy and thoroughness.

Good point. Where do you think that should be placed on the chart?

That chart is useless. Of the big 3, NBC is an arm of the RaTz party for all practical purposes, ABC is slightly less biased and CBS the least of the 3 but still with a leftist tilt that is significant.

OK, ignoring your propaganda, you think that CBS should have a leftist tilt. You think NBC should we way left. And you think ABC is center left.

 

[JakeStarkey]

people have the right to feel confident in what they are reading or hearing or studying.

That's not really a luxury we have possessed in my lifetime. Are you familiar with the Church Commission? We lost the fight a long time ago, you are just realizing it, but you are not understanding the full depth of the problem. You only see it from the perspective of losing an election, which in itself is wrong. You can't see it because you lack the thing you are complaining that other people lack....objectivity. And so it goes.

You have no idea what I think, and that reflects poorly on you for assigning such nonsense. That is fake propaganda.

Yes, by digging through all of it, we can come to a pretty good view of what is going on. My great error is that the white working class of the upper mid west would fall for the complete running back and forth of the Orange Otter screeching this than that then reversing himself. They ate it up, though, because it allowed them to vicariously vent their anger at the system. If he fails them, he will have a short presidency. GOP Congress will happily toss him for Pence if they can get enough Dem votes in the Senate.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

The author that produced that lib spin wish list chart didn't even list the number one US network - CBS. So much for accuracy and thoroughness.

Good point. Where do you think that should be placed on the chart?

That chart is useless. Of the big 3, NBC is an arm of the RaTz party for all practical purposes, ABC is slightly less biased and CBS the least of the 3 but still with a leftist tilt that is significant.

OK, ignoring your propaganda, you think that CBS should have a leftist tilt. You think NBC should we way left. And you think ABC is center left.

Nothing is propaganda. YOU asked for Pupps opinion and it was given.

If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The author that produced that lib spin wish list chart didn't even list the number one US network - CBS. So much for accuracy and thoroughness.

Good point. Where do you think that should be placed on the chart?

That chart is useless. Of the big 3, NBC is an arm of the RaTz party for all practical purposes, ABC is slightly less biased and CBS the least of the 3 but still with a leftist tilt that is significant.

OK, ignoring your propaganda, you think that CBS should have a leftist tilt. You think NBC should we way left. And you think ABC is center left.

Nothing is propaganda. YOU asked for Pupps opinion and it was given. If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.

Because your comment is unfactual and inaccurate, I have assigned the value of your comment: fake. I did ask you if you agree where I placed the networks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun

• 1.information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view:"he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda"synonyms:information, promotion, advertising, publicity, spin, ... more

propaganda definition - Yahoo Search Results

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

The author that produced that lib spin wish list chart didn't even list the number one US network - CBS. So much for accuracy and thoroughness.

Good point. Where do you think that should be placed on the chart?

That chart is useless. Of the big 3, NBC is an arm of the RaTz party for all practical purposes, ABC is slightly less biased and CBS the least of the 3 but still with a leftist tilt that is significant.

OK, ignoring your propaganda, you think that CBS should have a leftist tilt. You think NBC should we way left. And you think ABC is center left.

Nothing is propaganda. YOU asked for Pupps opinion and it was given. If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.

Because your comment is unfactual and inaccurate, I have assigned the value of your comment: fake. I did ask you if you agree where I placed the networks.

Pupps post is quite factual and accurate since it is Pupps opinion, which you chose to solicit.

Assign values all you wish. They mean nothing. So much for a debate, eh Jake? With that, Pupps will leave the thread of this non-debate. Reply though Jake, gotta keep those volume numbers up.

 

[Coyote]

Perhaps it would be better to ask the following questions:
How do you define "fake news"?
How would you classify the different types of media presented in the diagram?
Do you agree with any of the classifications?
What sources do you consider particularly accurate?
What do you, personally, do to examine content for accuracy?



I originally posted the diagram in another thread. Yes, it's subjective. But for the most part source BIAS is a SUBJECTIVE assessment. But I found the diagram very interesting. For example I found it interesting that not only did it rate sources on partisan bias but also on journalistic standards. I know the first thing someone is going to cry about is - but but but look at all the mistakes they make. All sources make mistakes. One KEY difference though, between "MSM" sources, and many of these so-called citizen media sources is lack of a coherent set of journalistic ethics and standards. They aren't professional, there is no requirement to adhere to any standards. Nor is there any requirement or pressure to print retractions or corrections. Their targeted audience doesn't care about that and they are typically targeted to specific partisan perspectives.


What is less subjective is what is out right FAKE new. Example - "Pizzagate" would be fake news at it's absolute worst because someone believed it, and decided to take action, with a gun, based on an entirely false story. Another example would be "FBI Agent Suspected In Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead In Apparent Murder-Suicide." - a story found to be completely false, propigated by a site that sounds suspiciously like a real news site. Fake news sites are like scammers because their scamming a public that is too lazy to fact check. National Enquirer used to be held up as a model of fake news: alien abductions, alien pregnancies, moth man, bat boy.... now we have so much more to choose from.

Fake news sites cross the partisan divide. For example - here is an article on sites created by a liberal to embarrass conservatives: We Tracked Down A Fake-News Creator In The Suburbs. Here's What We Learned

 

[Dale Smith]

Regardless of where you get your news and the source, always use discernment and do the proper vetting of the information and personally rank those sites you peruse based on their reliability. Personally, I haven't watched lamestream media for five years now and don't miss it a bit and I would certainly never rely on it to give me the truth. When 90 percent of ALL media is in the hands of an exclusive club that is full of CIA operatives? Why and the fuck would you depend on them for the straight scoop?

 

[sakinago]

The following description makes some sense from Liberal Utter Garbage/Conspiracy Theories to Conservative Utter Garbage/Liberal Theories. I am interested what board members think of the Mainstream (minimal partisan bias) list: The Wall Street Journal, etc.

I think it's perfectly fair for news organizations to be partisan. Just be open about it, of which many are. All these so called "minimal partisan" outlets are way left and should be placed closer to MSNBC, save for maybe USA Today. But even they still lean left a good bit. But all of the so called "minimal partisan" are openly run by leftist, and higher leftist journalists, writers, editors etc. And they do write their stories from that point of view, for which there's nothing wrong with that, unless your selling yourself as something you are not. They weren't even trying to pass as neutral the last few election cycles. This chart has obviously been made by a leftist...they have NPR leaning right, WTF. CNN was feeding Hillary debate questions, that's an agregious partisan act.

There is responsibilty on Americans to know what they're reading, and to know what the other side is actually saying, not the straw man that is being regurgitated to them from only the sites they like.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree with much of what you say. Thank you for a great insight for me to see after traveling all day. I suggest the "left" is so "left" to you because you think your style of partisanship is closer to the center than it may be. But good insight.

 

[sakinago]

The following description makes some sense from Liberal Utter Garbage/Conspiracy Theories to Conservative Utter Garbage/Liberal Theories. I am interested what board members think of the Mainstream (minimal partisan bias) list: The Wall Street Journal, etc.

That Briebart is with infowars, and Occupy democrats isnt off the left side of the chart shows this for what it is, more left partisan attempts at equivocation.

And CNN in the center? Really? The Times in the center, Really?

Worthless Chart is Worthless.

Breitbart and Infowars are in the pink on the Right and so is Occupy Democrats on the left.

Either you can't read a chart of you are being deliberately a deliverer of 'fake news.'

The defenders of the Fake News of the conservatives are loud this morning.

How is Briebart "fake" news. briebart doesn't shy away from the fact that it is biased, but to put it at the level of infowars and Occupy democrats is proof of bias in the chart, even if puitting CNN and the Times in the "middle" isn't enough of a giveaway.

The chart is more fake than Briebart ever is.

I mean...brietbart was so pro trump, they actually teamed up with the Hillary camp to go after trumps main competitors during the nomination. And now their CEO is a chief of staff... that's pretty unheard of. Their chief editor left because of how biased it was. Trump could punch a lady in the face, and brietbart would be asking "Why didn't the secret service stop this women from charging into trumps fist?"


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[sakinago]

Most poster's definition of fake news - Any news source that disagrees with me.

To the uninformed reader, yes.

And what makes up the informed reader? If they are getting their news from the "minimal bias" outlets from this chart, then they are not very informed on what reality is. Those outlets are only making money on stories that show the extremes in conflict (thanks to our reality tv society). That's what their base wants to see and click on, even though it isn't representative of what reality actually is. But because the news is pushing these stories of conflict for ratings, the perception in America for consumers of these outlets is that there is conflict everywhere.

And like I said before the employees of these "minimal bias" outlets are all leftist, reporting news from their point of view, the news that matters to them. They haven't even tried to report on news that the fly over part of the country actually cares about.

So it sounds like your definition of the informed reader is someone who sounds like me.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com