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

[Papageorgio]

Slate is refutable? Sorry but they are slanted very liberal, I don't read Infowars or Slate, all nuts stuff.

 

[sakinago]

Let what go? Your OP is not a doctoral thesis, it's an often repeated subject. Stop acting like it is, and don't act like child in response to what you don't like to hear. This fake projection of superiority, the name calling straight out of middle school, the power tripping over content you'll allow, it's all a childish tantrum. So enlighten me, or grow up.

Quit acting as if you are savant on the matter, for you are not any sort of authority on the matter.

I'm using actual statistics, and known facts to back up what I say, not charts based on opinion. It doesn't take a savant to know that the news pushes flashy stories with conflict since they're ratings based. You don't have to be psychic to know "minimal bias" outlets happen to be full of democratic donors, and often attend their fundraisers. And if you take a breath and think for a second, you'll realize that this isn't a new trend, fake news has been around forever, biased outlets have been around forever. It's just a different agenda being pushed at this specific time, ask yourself why.

You said people have the right to know the info their getting isn't fake, what's your suggestion to insure that?

Your interp of such, sure. I have already answered you question. You simply don't like being told to reconsider your theory. Many grad students don't.

I don't know what you're answer is, I have an idea of where your going, I just want to be sure.

So how do you insure the right to accurate information?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Papageorgio]

What is the source of the link to Jake's chart? Did Jake make the chart or did someone else? If someone else provided the chart then the source needs to be credited.

 

[Tehon]

What is the source of the link to Jake's chart? Did Jake make the chart or did someone else? If someone else provided the chart then the source needs to be credited.

Props to MisterBeale , check out post #11.

 

[Papageorgio]

What is the source of the link to Jake's chart? Did Jake make the chart or did someone else? If someone else provided the chart then the source needs to be credited.

Props to MisterBeale , check out post #11.

Jake clearly and deliberately broke the TOS. Why would a person do that, other than to be dishonest.

Pretty interesting that a guy that is chastising others for fake news would deliberately hide his source.

From first glance of the chart I gathered it was a leftwing nutters opinion.

Kudos to Mister Beale!

Thanks!

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

The giggle factor here is just too big for me to control myself long enough to comment..

These idiots left out the LARGEST reputable partisan sources. Like The Nation, Mother Jones or National Review. MOST of what is in there is garbage. And I don't parse garbage.

 

[flacaltenn]

Quick Web search seems to show NO ONE knows the origin of that chart. Appeared without credit?
If the OP KNOWS it is copyrighted protected, then its best to credit the source. If it's just viral stuff from someone's term paper -- who cares??

 

[JakeStarkey]

flacaltenn has trouble with the basic chart, but I knew that denial was coming.

 

[flacaltenn]

flacaltenn has trouble with the basic chart, but I knew that denial was coming.

Of COURSE I have a problem with THAT chart. I'm one of few around here that has subscribed to Mother Jones and National Review at the same time. One of few that see the massive hypocrisy and partisan poo-flinging that's killing my country..

People should be a LOT less concerned about biased subjective ratings of media and learn to sample ALL OF IT to inform themselves. I don't freaking care what the SOURCE of the story is -- because some stories are EMBARGOED for political reasons. And if you aren't a "news scavenger" -- you'd NEVER hear about them. You hacks are missing half the news.

I also don't care about the source unless they perpetuately lie or distort. And cost me time to figure that out. You want a "news dealer" to hook you up with a needle to a news IV bag and just FEED YOU?

That's what my Russian buds in Silicon Valley had before they FLED the Soviet Union. THINK.. For YOURSELF. And put a bit of work into it.

Anyone that's calling CNN and NYTimes "mainstream reputable" after the crap they pulled in the past election needs to be put out to pasture on the Funny Farm..

 

[JakeStarkey]

So, flacaltenn, you are having problems accepting the chart. Your denial simply invalidates your comments.

So you are on silent ignore for this OP.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

No matter what happens you will always see a liberal behind it.

There is no fair anymore because people think fair means whatever they want it to mean whenever they want it to

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty, sak, flacaltenn, all are simply unable to objectively parse all the info.

Professionals objectively do that.

Why can't they?

 

[martybegan]

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.

No matter what happens you will always see a liberal behind it.

There is no fair anymore because people think fair means whatever they want it to mean whenever they want it to

This isn't about fair, it's about someone claiming a lack of bias where bias is clearly present.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

No matter what happens you will always see a liberal behind it.

There is no fair anymore because people think fair means whatever they want it to mean whenever they want it to

This isn't about fair, it's about someone claiming a lack of bias where bias is clearly present.

No this is about you claiming there is clearly bias pretending as if a bias free environment exists somewhere. Then asserting that only some are clearly bias using that same paranoia and all it really means is you dont like their reporting because your bias and their bias isnt 100% in sync. Until their bias matches your bias then you wont complain which means you will cry forever

 

[martybegan]

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.

No matter what happens you will always see a liberal behind it.

There is no fair anymore because people think fair means whatever they want it to mean whenever they want it to

This isn't about fair, it's about someone claiming a lack of bias where bias is clearly present.

No this is about you claiming there is clearly bias pretending as if a bias free environment exists somewhere. Then asserting that only some are clearly bias using that same paranoia and all it really means is you dont like their reporting because your bias and their bias isnt 100% in sync. Until their bias matches your bias then you wont complain which means you will cry forever

No, its about sites with bias claiming they are neutral. Briebart has never claimed it is in impartial reporter. CNN an the Times try to maintain that veneer even after the past election.

 

[saveliberty]

No this is about you claiming there is clearly bias pretending as if a bias free environment exists somewhere. Then asserting that only some are clearly bias using that same paranoia and all it really means is you dont like their reporting because your bias and their bias isnt 100% in sync. Until their bias matches your bias then you wont complain which means you will cry forever

Is this the part where you stamp your feet and disappear while yelling Fox News?

 

[JakeStarkey]

What is the source of the link to Jake's chart? Did Jake make the chart or did someone else? If someone else provided the chart then the source needs to be credited.

Props to MisterBeale , check out post #11.

Jake clearly and deliberately broke the TOS. Why would a person do that, other than to be dishonest.

Pretty interesting that a guy that is chastising others for fake news would deliberately hide his source.

From first glance of the chart I gathered it was a leftwing nutters opinion.

Kudos to Mister Beale!

Thanks!

My OP, I broke nothing, and Papa needs some butt hurt creame.

Get out of your confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance modes, guys, and do due diligence.

Marty made a start with CNN but needs to add Fox and others to his analysis.

 

[Papageorgio]

What is the source of the link to Jake's chart? Did Jake make the chart or did someone else? If someone else provided the chart then the source needs to be credited.

Props to MisterBeale , check out post #11.

Jake clearly and deliberately broke the TOS. Why would a person do that, other than to be dishonest.

Pretty interesting that a guy that is chastising others for fake news would deliberately hide his source.

From first glance of the chart I gathered it was a leftwing nutters opinion.

Kudos to Mister Beale!

Thanks!

My OP, I broke nothing, and Papa needs some butt hurt creame.

Get out of your confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance modes, guys, and do due diligence.

Marty made a start with CNN but needs to add Fox and others to his analysis.

So you created the chart? On what basis is the chart made, by your opinion?

I think many of those are left leaning. Also sites like Mother Earth isn't even listed. The list is pretty skewed, also since when is Slate nothing but hard left BS?

The whole chart is pretty bad, I tend to stay from far left and far right sites. So I do my due diligence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I did not create the chart.

I offered it as an example that I generally agreed with.

You don't. Fine. I do agree that you are wrong. One needs to read the crazies of the far right and far left to understand the balance of left center to right center, which is what those with cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias pathologies abhor.

 

[sakinago]

Marty, sak, flacaltenn, all are simply unable to objectively parse all the info.

Professionals objectively do that.

Why can't they?

We did objectively parse the info on that chart, and we decided not only was it wrong on many of its judgements of bias and legitimacy, the chart itself wasn't objective. A major news outlet that gives debate questions ahed of time to a presidential candidate is NOT minimal bias. Networks that donate to a single party, whose journalist and personalities all go to democratic fundraisers and donate, and whose journalists often state their leftist view point on tv and paper are not minimal bias. Outlets that were very clearly upset with the election results are not minimal bias outlets. Not to mention god only knows where you pulled this chart from.

Someone who calls these outlets minimal bias, is someone who only listens to news from the left. The viewpoint from these outlets are the only ones they recognize, and that's where they set their standard in minimal bias. Then they don't have the self awareness to stop and think, "hey maybe this isn't the only point of view out there", and maybe even "maybe I'm not 100% right on everything."


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com