Objective vetting of political topics

[Crepitus]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

You've just proved you are incapable of it.

Well done.

Lol, I'm not surprised to see you evade the opening post.

Nope. I proved it's nonsense. You are obviously incapable of objectively getting anything.

If I only had a dollar for every time a lefty claimed to have already posted what they cannot post. It's always posted "somewhere," but of course there is always a reason why we will never know where it is or what it was. Cheating like this is innate behavior for lefties.

You're still doing it.

Maybe you need to look up the word "objectively"?

 

[candycorn]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

It means I want to see the source documentation, and I want to hear a variety of opinions and analyses from people on both/all sides of the discussion.

Okay..

Did Trump win the 2020 election? Source your response.

You have read both sides right? You do know that all 50 states certified the results. That there have been (and will be) no outsized arrests for voter fraud. You do know that every court challenge failed in every jurisdiction--red states included. You do know that the re-counts only confirmed Biden's victory.
And you do know that of the 8,000 or so losers on Election Day, only your blob is complaining about election fraud.

So show us how you can, after supposedly taking in all of the different sources....you can still say your blob was cheated.

I'm sure you'll have some snarky response that will have nothing to do with the challenge before you.

If you are not able to accurately articulate why righties claim that the election was stolen, yet you can clearly articulate why lefties think it was not, then you have not "objectively" evaluated the situation. This is not about if the election was stolen or not, it is simply about doing an "objective" analysis of the topic. Evaluating the topic using only sources that satisfy your bias and ignoring sources that you don't tell you what you want to hear is not objective vetting at all.

And here we go...

What sources are telling you the election was stolen?
What sources are telling you the election was not stolen?

Seventeen intel agencies told us that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. How many intel agencies (not to mention the DOJ) were willing to carry Trump's water on his baseless claims? None.

I can't articulate why righties think the election is stolen....It makes zero sense. There is no evidence of the massive theft; there are no massive amounts of arrests. At this point..if you were to engage...you'd spin every conspiracy theory there is about how every cop is corrupt, every judge is corrupt, every election official is corrupt....even the Supreme Court (1/3 appointed by Trump) and his hand picked FBI director and AG were corrupt too. Every single person is corrupt! And then of course... Every court case across multiple jurisdictions was thrown out. The allegations were laughable in every possible way. For example...why have someone doctor the ballots or run them through the machine thousands of times when...in another conspiracy theory about the election, the Dominion machines could just change the vote tallies? Righties had ballots from North Korea being dumped off in New England.

Remember the story about the US Army seizing servers in Berlin giving air time to this ridiculous charge....
.
OANN had the same story but have since taken it down.

Several right wing kook sites have apologized for their allegations during the early days of the Big Lie.

The same ones who are propagating the lie about Trump winning the election. So when you do your survey of sources and their credibility....surely you must take the airing of nonsense stories into account...right? I mean <sarcasm> you don't believe them because you WANT TO BELIEVE THEM....right?

Yeah...

NPR and AP have published some things that didn't turn out to be true. But they issue a retraction and a correction. The right wing kook sites have to be sued before they apologize.

It looks like you may be trying to get away from discussing objective vetting, and are instead presenting a subjective analysis of the stolen election topic.

Can you demonstrate that you understand the difference between objective and subjective?

It looks like you may be dodging the question I asked you.

When a news source repeatedly gives voice to the Big Lie...does it hurt their credibility or not?

No. The have no credibility in the first place. They all have political agenda.

I agree.

Now...did they earn having "no credibility" or is this just the baseline "nobody has any credibility" position?

The media industry as a whole has earned my distrust. I have to vet EVERYTHING I read or hear before I can commit it to my perception of the political landscape. I also insist on studying what sources of opposing political bias have to say when I vet my info.

Thats cool.

NPR has been on the air for 50 years. AP has been around since 1846.

I'm comfortable with them as my two primary news sources. WSJ is good. Forbes is good. Reuters is good. ABC, NBC, CBS...I let them report and take it at face value....but I look for confirmation with others.

And I say this with no animosity toward what you just wrote.... I can't imagine any value that Russia Today could deliver. I think--this is my opinion--that the kook sites on the right and the left (Daily KOs, Mother Jones) live to satisfy a feedback loop. They know their audience and feed them stories they know they will love.

 

[EvMetro]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

It means I want to see the source documentation, and I want to hear a variety of opinions and analyses from people on both/all sides of the discussion.

Okay..

Did Trump win the 2020 election? Source your response.

You have read both sides right? You do know that all 50 states certified the results. That there have been (and will be) no outsized arrests for voter fraud. You do know that every court challenge failed in every jurisdiction--red states included. You do know that the re-counts only confirmed Biden's victory.
And you do know that of the 8,000 or so losers on Election Day, only your blob is complaining about election fraud.

So show us how you can, after supposedly taking in all of the different sources....you can still say your blob was cheated.

I'm sure you'll have some snarky response that will have nothing to do with the challenge before you.

If you are not able to accurately articulate why righties claim that the election was stolen, yet you can clearly articulate why lefties think it was not, then you have not "objectively" evaluated the situation. This is not about if the election was stolen or not, it is simply about doing an "objective" analysis of the topic. Evaluating the topic using only sources that satisfy your bias and ignoring sources that you don't tell you what you want to hear is not objective vetting at all.

And here we go...

What sources are telling you the election was stolen?
What sources are telling you the election was not stolen?

Seventeen intel agencies told us that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. How many intel agencies (not to mention the DOJ) were willing to carry Trump's water on his baseless claims? None.

I can't articulate why righties think the election is stolen....It makes zero sense. There is no evidence of the massive theft; there are no massive amounts of arrests. At this point..if you were to engage...you'd spin every conspiracy theory there is about how every cop is corrupt, every judge is corrupt, every election official is corrupt....even the Supreme Court (1/3 appointed by Trump) and his hand picked FBI director and AG were corrupt too. Every single person is corrupt! And then of course... Every court case across multiple jurisdictions was thrown out. The allegations were laughable in every possible way. For example...why have someone doctor the ballots or run them through the machine thousands of times when...in another conspiracy theory about the election, the Dominion machines could just change the vote tallies? Righties had ballots from North Korea being dumped off in New England.

Remember the story about the US Army seizing servers in Berlin giving air time to this ridiculous charge....
.
OANN had the same story but have since taken it down.

Several right wing kook sites have apologized for their allegations during the early days of the Big Lie.

The same ones who are propagating the lie about Trump winning the election. So when you do your survey of sources and their credibility....surely you must take the airing of nonsense stories into account...right? I mean <sarcasm> you don't believe them because you WANT TO BELIEVE THEM....right?

Yeah...

NPR and AP have published some things that didn't turn out to be true. But they issue a retraction and a correction. The right wing kook sites have to be sued before they apologize.

It looks like you may be trying to get away from discussing objective vetting, and are instead presenting a subjective analysis of the stolen election topic.

Can you demonstrate that you understand the difference between objective and subjective?

It looks like you may be dodging the question I asked you.

When a news source repeatedly gives voice to the Big Lie...does it hurt their credibility or not?

No. The have no credibility in the first place. They all have political agenda.

I agree.

Now...did they earn having "no credibility" or is this just the baseline "nobody has any credibility" position?

The media industry as a whole has earned my distrust. I have to vet EVERYTHING I read or hear before I can commit it to my perception of the political landscape. I also insist on studying what sources of opposing political bias have to say when I vet my info.

Thats cool.

NPR has been on the air for 50 years. AP has been around since 1846.

I'm comfortable with them as my two primary news sources. WSJ is good. Forbes is good. Reuters is good. ABC, NBC, CBS...I let them report and take it at face value....but I look for confirmation with others.

And I say this with no animosity toward what you just wrote.... I can't imagine any value that Russia Today could deliver. I think--this is my opinion--that the kook sites on the right and the left (Daily KOs, Mother Jones) live to satisfy a feedback loop. They know their audience and feed them stories they know they will love.

NPR was my thing for years. I was a lefty well into my adult life, and I remember listening to NPR for years of commuting. "Morning edition", and "all things considered", lol, I was hooked on NPR. I remember feeling enlightened and smug as I listened to Aaron Copeland music dubbed into my favorite news. I had no reason to look elsewhere for better news. This was all before I finally started waking up. I woke up slowly, I felt like Neo in "The Matrix" as I began to see the world for the first time...

 

[ClaireH]

To me, objectively vetting of political topics or stories involves isolating myself from my own political bias, during the time that I am researching what the most likely truth is. If it is a polarizing political topic and the agenda that I am vetting is opposite of my own position, I will privately attempt to prove that it is true. From my experience, attempting to prove that my political opponent is actually correct is an easier way to isolate myself from my own beliefs and feelings.

In regard to vetting media politics, one cannot limit himself to media that is aligned with his own ideology. Diving into the media that is aligned with the political opposition and comparing it is essential for objective vetting.

What an excellent strategy to learn how to isolate yourself from your own political biases. I understand that is harder than it sounds for most of us, mostly because of the loyalty factor. Holding on to my political loyalties (past ties I've had still affecting my judgement) I've been aware how this knocks out a chunk of clarity at the get-go. Breaking away from one's political loyalties is going to be required, whether that be to a party or to specific people, with the sole purpose of achieving clear eyes and an open mind. I've resisted, knowing full well I have specific pre-determined ideas that are partly based upon loyalty to a party that I was formerly a member.

If participants of a discussion put in the effort to use this type of approach, what a difference we'd see. As a rule I keep the dialogue respectful, but to attempt to prove my "opponent" right? I can't say I've ever done that and what a concept! Your post couldn't be more perfectly timed. I've needed a spark plug to keep me honest, and wanting to make these political conversations as worthwhile as possible and suddenly voila! Thanks. I will look for opportunities on USMB, as they are presented typically by the minute I won't have the excuse to delay

I can't wait to say, to some unsuspecting poster I've previously butted heads with, "Oh, by the way, after giving that issue we discussed a few weeks back a closer look, it seems that you are 89% correct in your assessment. I admit now I was using a filter!" lol

You do understand it is impossible to "isolate oneself" from their own thoughts and beliefs?

Whatever you do, don't think of a purple horse. (From a movie but apropos)

It is impossible to not think of something by thinking about not thinking about it.

Here in Buddha-Land they said "clear your mind of all thoughts"
and I said "well that's stupid and impossible."
I didn't understand the meaning.
It means "don't hold on to any thoughts. Let them flow, peek at them, then let them go."
And I'm like...
"well there's 2 years wasted. Why didn't you say that in the first place?" Stupid teacher!
But I was little more intelligent after 2 years that I was at the beginning.

Rather than try to "isolate," accept the thoughts but don't hold on to them.
This will allow the thinking to evolve and next time those thoughts appear, you may not view them the same.

Is it the word 'isolate' that makes it sound like an impossible task? How about the word 'separate' even though basically they share the same meaning? In premise, I agree 100% that words matter...some words even have too much power, but that's another discussion.

I don't think leaving our subjective experiences on the back burner means to forget everything we know. The influencing nature of one's past experiences is huge. Related, most of us form extremely dense, internal sounding boards in which we bounce off our new ideas. They way we process bits of info, choosing to either select or discard, is prodigious. Striving to become more objective involves casting off bad habits, for instance, placing one's personal situation at the top of the list isn't going to lead to objective enlightenment. Another bad mental habit is worrying. What a waste that one! I will now take a short break here to thoroughly call out that useless bag of worry-wart-itis! Grrr...if only my brain could erase that whole crevice or two! Alas, those worrywart grooves are well used, and even at my own choosing. Yikes! Now that's going to stop today! lol

 

[Dadoalex]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

When the author uses emotional rhetoric rather than objectively citing the facts, I quit reading.

We all like to read "news" that reinforces our own beliefs but I don't want that "reinforcement."
I have my own views and those views are based on 50 years of being a news junkie. Observing and studying. I don't care and won't read stuff that's spoon-feeding me opinion rather than fact.

For example,
if a story refers to "Trump" instead of "President Trump"
when a story speaks of "voter fraud"
When a story refers to either "progressives" or "conservatives" in favorable or unfavorable terms.
I am immediately suspicious.

I know these are terms I use often with derision but, I'M ALLOWED.
I'm here expressing opinions.
My rhetoric is often important to that expression.
When I see a news story that contains these terms used as labels, I move on.

If only one could objectively evaluate or vet political topics or news stories by subjectively finding information sources that would satisfy one's bias...

I doubt that you could ever demonstrate that you know the difference between objective and subjective. This seems to be a weak link for lefties.

Objectively, you're a tiny minded "conservative"
Subjectively, you're rather unpleasant and undoubtedly make for bad company in any social situation.

there you go my tiny minded miserable little twit.

 

[Moonglow]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

Why would you assume that which you do not know?

 

[candycorn]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

It means I want to see the source documentation, and I want to hear a variety of opinions and analyses from people on both/all sides of the discussion.

Okay..

Did Trump win the 2020 election? Source your response.

You have read both sides right? You do know that all 50 states certified the results. That there have been (and will be) no outsized arrests for voter fraud. You do know that every court challenge failed in every jurisdiction--red states included. You do know that the re-counts only confirmed Biden's victory.
And you do know that of the 8,000 or so losers on Election Day, only your blob is complaining about election fraud.

So show us how you can, after supposedly taking in all of the different sources....you can still say your blob was cheated.

I'm sure you'll have some snarky response that will have nothing to do with the challenge before you.

If you are not able to accurately articulate why righties claim that the election was stolen, yet you can clearly articulate why lefties think it was not, then you have not "objectively" evaluated the situation. This is not about if the election was stolen or not, it is simply about doing an "objective" analysis of the topic. Evaluating the topic using only sources that satisfy your bias and ignoring sources that you don't tell you what you want to hear is not objective vetting at all.

And here we go...

What sources are telling you the election was stolen?
What sources are telling you the election was not stolen?

Seventeen intel agencies told us that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. How many intel agencies (not to mention the DOJ) were willing to carry Trump's water on his baseless claims? None.

I can't articulate why righties think the election is stolen....It makes zero sense. There is no evidence of the massive theft; there are no massive amounts of arrests. At this point..if you were to engage...you'd spin every conspiracy theory there is about how every cop is corrupt, every judge is corrupt, every election official is corrupt....even the Supreme Court (1/3 appointed by Trump) and his hand picked FBI director and AG were corrupt too. Every single person is corrupt! And then of course... Every court case across multiple jurisdictions was thrown out. The allegations were laughable in every possible way. For example...why have someone doctor the ballots or run them through the machine thousands of times when...in another conspiracy theory about the election, the Dominion machines could just change the vote tallies? Righties had ballots from North Korea being dumped off in New England.

Remember the story about the US Army seizing servers in Berlin giving air time to this ridiculous charge....
.
OANN had the same story but have since taken it down.

Several right wing kook sites have apologized for their allegations during the early days of the Big Lie.

The same ones who are propagating the lie about Trump winning the election. So when you do your survey of sources and their credibility....surely you must take the airing of nonsense stories into account...right? I mean <sarcasm> you don't believe them because you WANT TO BELIEVE THEM....right?

Yeah...

NPR and AP have published some things that didn't turn out to be true. But they issue a retraction and a correction. The right wing kook sites have to be sued before they apologize.

It looks like you may be trying to get away from discussing objective vetting, and are instead presenting a subjective analysis of the stolen election topic.

Can you demonstrate that you understand the difference between objective and subjective?

It looks like you may be dodging the question I asked you.

When a news source repeatedly gives voice to the Big Lie...does it hurt their credibility or not?

No. The have no credibility in the first place. They all have political agenda.

I agree.

Now...did they earn having "no credibility" or is this just the baseline "nobody has any credibility" position?

The media industry as a whole has earned my distrust. I have to vet EVERYTHING I read or hear before I can commit it to my perception of the political landscape. I also insist on studying what sources of opposing political bias have to say when I vet my info.

Thats cool.

NPR has been on the air for 50 years. AP has been around since 1846.

I'm comfortable with them as my two primary news sources. WSJ is good. Forbes is good. Reuters is good. ABC, NBC, CBS...I let them report and take it at face value....but I look for confirmation with others.

And I say this with no animosity toward what you just wrote.... I can't imagine any value that Russia Today could deliver. I think--this is my opinion--that the kook sites on the right and the left (Daily KOs, Mother Jones) live to satisfy a feedback loop. They know their audience and feed them stories they know they will love.

NPR was my thing for years. I was a lefty well into my adult life, and I remember listening to NPR for years of commuting. "Morning edition", and "all things considered", lol, I was hooked on NPR. I remember feeling enlightened and smug as I listened to Aaron Copeland music dubbed into my favorite news. I had no reason to look elsewhere for better news. This was all before I finally started waking up. I woke up slowly, I felt like Neo in "The Matrix" as I began to see the world for the first time...

Yeah...you started a thread comparing riots a few weeks back if memory serves. You completely ignored the right wing riots in Charlottesville and only cited the 1/6 riots. You may want to go back to sleep if this is your version of having "woken up".

 

[blackhawk]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

In news stories I look for a fair even handed coverage of both sides of an issue. In many cases you can tell just by the article title if it is a liberal or conservative hit piece if not by that you can read a few sentences or a paragrapgh and figure out if the writer has a bias one way or the other. It is getting harder and harder to find objective news anymore as so many reporters/journalist have picked a side and the agenda they want to push and don't even make a pretense of being objective anymore.

 

[Dadoalex]

To me, objectively vetting of political topics or stories involves isolating myself from my own political bias, during the time that I am researching what the most likely truth is. If it is a polarizing political topic and the agenda that I am vetting is opposite of my own position, I will privately attempt to prove that it is true. From my experience, attempting to prove that my political opponent is actually correct is an easier way to isolate myself from my own beliefs and feelings.

In regard to vetting media politics, one cannot limit himself to media that is aligned with his own ideology. Diving into the media that is aligned with the political opposition and comparing it is essential for objective vetting.

What an excellent strategy to learn how to isolate yourself from your own political biases. I understand that is harder than it sounds for most of us, mostly because of the loyalty factor. Holding on to my political loyalties (past ties I've had still affecting my judgement) I've been aware how this knocks out a chunk of clarity at the get-go. Breaking away from one's political loyalties is going to be required, whether that be to a party or to specific people, with the sole purpose of achieving clear eyes and an open mind. I've resisted, knowing full well I have specific pre-determined ideas that are partly based upon loyalty to a party that I was formerly a member.

If participants of a discussion put in the effort to use this type of approach, what a difference we'd see. As a rule I keep the dialogue respectful, but to attempt to prove my "opponent" right? I can't say I've ever done that and what a concept! Your post couldn't be more perfectly timed. I've needed a spark plug to keep me honest, and wanting to make these political conversations as worthwhile as possible and suddenly voila! Thanks. I will look for opportunities on USMB, as they are presented typically by the minute I won't have the excuse to delay

I can't wait to say, to some unsuspecting poster I've previously butted heads with, "Oh, by the way, after giving that issue we discussed a few weeks back a closer look, it seems that you are 89% correct in your assessment. I admit now I was using a filter!" lol

You do understand it is impossible to "isolate oneself" from their own thoughts and beliefs?

Whatever you do, don't think of a purple horse. (From a movie but apropos)

It is impossible to not think of something by thinking about not thinking about it.

Here in Buddha-Land they said "clear your mind of all thoughts"
and I said "well that's stupid and impossible."
I didn't understand the meaning.
It means "don't hold on to any thoughts. Let them flow, peek at them, then let them go."
And I'm like...
"well there's 2 years wasted. Why didn't you say that in the first place?" Stupid teacher!
But I was little more intelligent after 2 years that I was at the beginning.

Rather than try to "isolate," accept the thoughts but don't hold on to them.
This will allow the thinking to evolve and next time those thoughts appear, you may not view them the same.

Is it the word 'isolate' that makes it sound like an impossible task? How about the word 'separate' even though basically they share the same meaning? In premise, I agree 100% that words matter...some words even have too much power, but that's another discussion.

I don't think leaving our subjective experiences on the back burner means to forget everything we know. The influencing nature of one's past experiences is huge. Related, most of us form extremely dense, internal sounding boards in which we bounce off our new ideas. They way we process bits of info, choosing to either select or discard, is prodigious. Striving to become more objective involves casting off bad habits, for instance, placing one's personal situation at the top of the list isn't going to lead to objective enlightenment. Another bad mental habit is worrying. What a waste that one! I will now take a short break here to thoroughly call out that useless bag of worry-wart-itis! Grrr...if only my brain could erase that whole crevice or two! Alas, those worrywart grooves are well used, and even at my own choosing. Yikes! Now that's going to stop today! lol

Same problem.
Isolate, separate, a distinction without a difference.

What was described is impossible in the human mind. Trying NOT to think of something forces those thoughts to the fore. It's not good or bad, it just is.

Releasing those thoughts rather than trying to suppress them allows them to flow into the mind and be dismissed as new thoughts arrive. Eliminating the focus opens the mind to new information that can be process absent the bias because the bias, for a few seconds, is "over there" somewhere else. BUT, it will be back. We cannot hide from our bias, at best we can hope to observe and understand it.

Look, this is my method. It takes years to learn the meditative techniques and not many have the patience. Through the practice i have found:
I am an ignorant bigot. it's true. When I look back on who I was I am ashamed. But the thoughts are still there. Part of my upbringing Knowing who I am I know I am no longer driven by those thoughts.
I am a misogynistic pig. SUPRISE I'm a guy. But I've learned that forcing my misogamy on others is wrong so, even though I say to myself "Man, if she was 40 years older I'd take her right down to McDonald's for breakfast!" I don't act on those thoughts.

There's other things but the best part of meditation is it brings self awareness.

 

[Dadoalex]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

In news stories I look for a fair even handed coverage of both sides of an issue. In many cases you can tell just by the article title if it is a liberal or conservative hit piece if not by that you can read a few sentences or a paragrapgh and figure out if the writer has a bias one way or the other. It is getting harder and harder to find objective news anymore as so many reporters/journalist have picked a side and the agenda they want to push and don't even make a pretense of being objective anymore.

God that is the truth.
NPR really is about the only place anymore where you actually get unbiased reporting.
it is a shame that you have to collect the same information from 3-4-5 different sites to be sure you have the actual factual story.

 

[blackhawk]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

In news stories I look for a fair even handed coverage of both sides of an issue. In many cases you can tell just by the article title if it is a liberal or conservative hit piece if not by that you can read a few sentences or a paragrapgh and figure out if the writer has a bias one way or the other. It is getting harder and harder to find objective news anymore as so many reporters/journalist have picked a side and the agenda they want to push and don't even make a pretense of being objective anymore.

God that is the truth.
NPR really is about the only place anymore where you actually get unbiased reporting.
it is a shame that you have to collect the same information from 3-4-5 different sites to be sure you have the actual factual story.

One of the other big problems is the bluring of the line between opinion and actual reporting. We have talk show host and opinion people being passed as reporters and people who are suppossed to be actual reporters passing of their opinions as actaul facts and reporting.

 

[Rigby5]

{...

Understanding Vetting​

The verb "to vet" has its origins in 19th-century British slang. A horse was thoroughly vetted by a veterinarian before being allowed to race, so a patient undergoing an examination could be said to be vetted by a medical doctor.

In modern business usage, vetting has come to mean the process of examining a person or company for soundness and integrity.
While vetting may be time and cost-intensive, the price paid for not vetting could be even higher in the long run.

Real-World Examples of Vetting​

Examples of vetting appear frequently in the context of business and investing. For instance, a company's board of directors will thoroughly vet a candidate for company CEO or other top management positions before making a decision. Or, a business will properly vet a potential major supplier in order to determine whether it has conducted its business efficiently and honestly in the past.

As part of doing their due diligence, an investment adviser will vet a potential investment for its track record, management quality, and growth potential before recommending it to clients.

The word vetting is also used informally in many other situations outside of finance. A refugee seeking asylum is vetted as part of their application process. Candidates for government security clearance are vetted to make sure they don't have checkered pasts. A lawyer vets a contract to find any potential pitfalls in the fine print, and so on.
...}

 

[Dadoalex]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

In news stories I look for a fair even handed coverage of both sides of an issue. In many cases you can tell just by the article title if it is a liberal or conservative hit piece if not by that you can read a few sentences or a paragrapgh and figure out if the writer has a bias one way or the other. It is getting harder and harder to find objective news anymore as so many reporters/journalist have picked a side and the agenda they want to push and don't even make a pretense of being objective anymore.

God that is the truth.
NPR really is about the only place anymore where you actually get unbiased reporting.
it is a shame that you have to collect the same information from 3-4-5 different sites to be sure you have the actual factual story.

One of the other big problems is the bluring of the line between opinion and actual reporting. We have talk show host and opinion people being passed as reporters and people who are suppossed to be actual reporters passing of their opinions as actaul facts and reporting.

Too true.
A story with a byline will generally have some level of bias.
In the world of the internet literally anyone is a journalist and a news reporter. Surely you've seen the off the wall sites linked here?
I guess the bubble method is all we can use for sorting.
read enough sources that the truth bubbles up through the crap and
No kneejerk reactions. Give the news a chance to breath, facts to come in.
There's no bonus for being first on USMB

 

[BlackSand]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

To me ... Objective Vetting my political and news intake, is just remembering it is all poor commentary and terrible theatrics.

If you want to actually vet something, do the extra research you can,
and listen to what the say, instead of what they want you to hear ...

You can be smarter than they are if you take their motives out of the equation.
You just have to be careful and keep you own motives and desires in check to find the truth.

.​

 

[BlackSand]

One of the other big problems is the bluring of the line between opinion and actual reporting. We have talk show host and opinion people being passed as reporters and people who are suppossed to be actual reporters passing of their opinions as actaul facts and reporting.

.

And ... So called 'experts' sitting around glass tables with network logo coffee mugs like used car salesmen selling political minutia as a Cadillac.
I mean really ... When the ex-director of the CIA is a paid employee of a major network ... You're living in a Banana Republic.

.​

 

[EvMetro]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

When the author uses emotional rhetoric rather than objectively citing the facts, I quit reading.

We all like to read "news" that reinforces our own beliefs but I don't want that "reinforcement."
I have my own views and those views are based on 50 years of being a news junkie. Observing and studying. I don't care and won't read stuff that's spoon-feeding me opinion rather than fact.

For example,
if a story refers to "Trump" instead of "President Trump"
when a story speaks of "voter fraud"
When a story refers to either "progressives" or "conservatives" in favorable or unfavorable terms.
I am immediately suspicious.

I know these are terms I use often with derision but, I'M ALLOWED.
I'm here expressing opinions.
My rhetoric is often important to that expression.
When I see a news story that contains these terms used as labels, I move on.

If only one could objectively evaluate or vet political topics or news stories by subjectively finding information sources that would satisfy one's bias...

I doubt that you could ever demonstrate that you know the difference between objective and subjective. This seems to be a weak link for lefties.

Objectively, you're a tiny minded "conservative"
Subjectively, you're rather unpleasant and undoubtedly make for bad company in any social situation.

there you go my tiny minded miserable little twit.

You still have not demonstrated that you even know the difference between subjective and objective. You should get a handle on these two things, before posting on a thread like this.

 

[EvMetro]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

In news stories I look for a fair even handed coverage of both sides of an issue. In many cases you can tell just by the article title if it is a liberal or conservative hit piece if not by that you can read a few sentences or a paragrapgh and figure out if the writer has a bias one way or the other. It is getting harder and harder to find objective news anymore as so many reporters/journalist have picked a side and the agenda they want to push and don't even make a pretense of being objective anymore.

God that is the truth.
NPR really is about the only place anymore where you actually get unbiased reporting.
it is a shame that you have to collect the same information from 3-4-5 different sites to be sure you have the actual factual story.

It sounds like your version of objectively vetting news stories and topics is to favor a single source that you trust and aligns with your bias over having to go to 3-4-5 different sites. Is this correct?

 

[EvMetro]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

Why would you assume that which you do not know?

What part of what you quoted of me are you calling an assumption?

 

[Moonglow]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

Why would you assume that which you do not know?

What part of what you quoted of me are you calling an assumption?

The entire statement-duh..You are not being very objective with a preconceived notion of your dismay. Did you think about the subject long and hard or was it an inspiration while defecating?

 

[BlackSand]

Objectively, you're a tiny minded "conservative"
Subjectively, you're rather unpleasant and undoubtedly make for bad company in any social situation.

there you go my tiny minded miserable little twit.

You still have not demonstrated that you even know the difference between subjective and objective. You should get a handle on these two things, before posting on a thread like this.

.

You might want to cut that poster a bit of slack, as they continue grappling with self-awareness issues.
One of those folks that should just be thankful breathing is on auto-pilot.

.​