In my opinion there is a Liberal bias in the Main Stream media that is owned by the 6 parent companies, that feed propaganda to the general American public.
I'm perfectly fine with this point in terms of GE, Disney, Time Warner, and CBS. But I have yet to see this for Viacom (which could just be a factor of lack of exposure), and it seems actively incorrect for Newscorp.
The MSM has a left wing bias just look at the "fake news" hysteria they have whipped up to try to censor right wing news like Breitbert, Heatstreet, InfoWars, and so on just for doing the exact same things the MSM outlets like LA times and New York Post engage in such as click bait titles.
It honestly blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people can even question this, over the years I have seen everything from Noam Chomsky (Some call the father of progressivism), the Chinese intelligence community, academics from all over the world, and even ISIS talking about the West's MSM leftist bias.
Even Fox News and Rupert Murdoch are a story of left wing media bias as a businessman saw an opportunity in a media filled with left wing bias to make easy bank by creating something to appeal to the viewers who were tired of the media's leftist bias.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
The MSM has a left wing bias just look at the "fake news" hysteria they have whipped up to try to censor right wing news like Breitbert, Heatstreet, InfoWars, and so on just for doing the exact same things the MSM outlets like LA times and New York Post engage in such as click bait titles.
It honestly blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people can even question this, over the years I have seen everything from Noam Chomsky (Some call the father of progressivism), the Chinese intelligence community, academics from all over the world, and even ISIS talking about the West's MSM leftist bias.
Of course the red pill mra thinks he has secret knowledge the rest of us don't.
I'm sorry that your opinions are so terrible you need to pretend that everyone is against you to sleep at night. I bet you're alt-right too. Sorry, I shouldn't have used the politically correct term alt-right, I know how much pc culture offends you guys.
I bet you're a neonazi, too.
The MSM has a left wing bias just look at the "fake news" hysteria they have whipped up to try to censor right wing news like Breitbert, Heatstreet, InfoWars, and so on just for doing the exact same things the MSM outlets like LA times and New York Post engage in such as click bait titles.
It honestly blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people can even question this, over the years I have seen everything from Noam Chomsky (Some call the father of progressivism), the Chinese intelligence community, academics from all over the world, and even ISIS talking about the West's MSM leftist bias.
Of course the red pill mra thinks he has secret knowledge the rest of us don't.
I'm sorry that your opinions are so terrible you need to pretend that everyone is against you to sleep at night. I bet you're alt-right too. Sorry, I shouldn't have used the politically correct term alt-right, I know how much pc culture offends you guys.
I bet you're a neonazi, too.
You list 4 different ideologies here buddy but that's not surprising really, it is natural to view "the other" as a monolith.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
You list 4 different ideologies here buddy but that's not surprising really, it is natural to view "the other" as a monolith.
There is a bias here in this forum as well, what FourDogsInAHorseSuit has said is clearly flaming, but won't get done cause he is on the liberal side, which has happened many times in my experience. Two rules which is bias, help the lefties and attack the others.
@Lilith
That's not an ad hominem attack.
Yeah it is, its using the words dark, to try and discredit my argument. It is an attack on me saying I look at dark stuff.
Lilith is the first woman in Abrahamic traditions. My screen name is Lithl. These are not the same things, and my screen name is not a typo. I'll kindly ask that you either make use of this forum's quoting functionality which automatically fills in correct attribution to the poster you're quoting, or at least spell my name correctly when quoting me manually.
There is a bias here in this forum as well, what FourDogsInAHorseSuit has said is clearly flaming, but won't get done cause he is on the liberal side, which has happened many times in my experience. Two rules which is bias, help the lefties and attack the others.
As you know, the place for discussion of moderation is the Debate helpdesk, not the threads.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The MSM has a left wing bias just look at the "fake news" hysteria they have whipped up to try to censor right wing news like Breitbert, Heatstreet, InfoWars, and so on just for doing the exact same things the MSM outlets like LA times and New York Post engage in such as click bait titles.
It honestly blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people can even question this, over the years I have seen everything from Noam Chomsky (Some call the father of progressivism), the Chinese intelligence community, academics from all over the world, and even ISIS talking about the West's MSM leftist bias.
Of course the red pill mra thinks he has secret knowledge the rest of us don't.
I'm sorry that your opinions are so terrible you need to pretend that everyone is against you to sleep at night. I bet you're alt-right too. Sorry, I shouldn't have used the politically correct term alt-right, I know how much pc culture offends you guys.
I bet you're a neonazi, too.
You list 4 different ideologies here buddy but that's not surprising really, it is natural to view "the other" as a monolith.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
If conservatives prefer conservative media, and there is plenty of that available, their media needs would be met without reading or watching a neutral source, even if those sources are available.
My understanding of their position was that right wing people avoid non-partisan media sources because they are at odds with their world view, even if the media source was ultimately neutral. They listed reasons why they thought that up above too, citing various things they thought a non-partisan paper might report that conservatives would still object to.
Conservative politicians have spent the last decade lambasting the "main-stream media", which may explain a uniquely conservative aversion to non-conservative media.
It sounds like liberals have a bias towards the mainstream media while conservatives have a bias away from the mainstream media. And an audience effect could certain explain a partisan slant in reporting. But it could also be:
However all that said, @Typhoon don't always view this as "liberal bias". Think about it - if you were in charge of a news outlet your goal would be to attain as many clicks, reads and shares as possible. Whats currently trending and what do people tend to click on? DRAMA. ANGER. SHOCKING NEWS. CONTROVERSY.
Edit: And remember, they did the same thing to Obama around the clock (especially regarding national deficit and obamacare), and would always find a photo of him mid-syllable, so that he looked as sad and pathetic as possible.
And that's what they feed people. TBH, taking breaks from it creates a much less stressful work day.
This topic has become indicative of the root problem: Factual Observable Testable truths are not what consumers of the media want. The media is full of people who slant left or right, but ultimately the system as a whole is sliding into the cesspit of yellow journalism. And the right has pretty much abandoned reality for a friendly perception of reality, one where experts and people who study things are really only interested in protecting their jobs and stealing a right wing guy's guns.
Which is pretty dumb because I know plenty of lefties who like to hunt and eat chili and go to church. But it doesn't matter because living in a bubble is easy and institutions are as flawed as the people who run them.
A controversy and clickbait focus could certainly explain the distrust of the media. But the only reason why the media as a whole would be liberal-leaning in that vein would be based on the quantity of news sources read by one side or the other. And at what point is the readership due to bias versus just more focus from one side on fewer news sources?
The MSM has a left wing bias just look at the "fake news" hysteria they have whipped up to try to censor right wing news like Breitbert, Heatstreet, InfoWars, and so on just for doing the exact same things the MSM outlets like LA times and New York Post engage in such as click bait titles.
That was published originally by a university professor. So is it really correct to imply that it was created — "whipped up" — by the media?
It honestly blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people can even question this, over the years I have seen everything from Noam Chomsky (Some call the father of progressivism), the Chinese intelligence community, academics from all over the world, and even ISIS talking about the West's MSM leftist bias.
I find this strange because there is a lot of discussion saying that the US is further to the right than the majority of the rest of the world. Maybe when you include Europe into the picture as well, but European media is somewhat of a different ballpark from US media.
In my opinion there is a Liberal bias in the Main Stream media that is owned by the 6 parent companies, that feed propaganda to the general American public.
I'm perfectly fine with this point in terms of GE, Disney, Time Warner, and CBS. But I have yet to see this for Viacom (which could just be a factor of lack of exposure), and it seems actively incorrect for Newscorp.
@Typhoon: You didn't answer the inherent question. Can you provide details as to how this applies to Viacom and Newscorp?
Yeah it is, its using the words dark, to try and discredit my argument. It is an attack on me saying I look at dark stuff.
An ad hominem attack is an attack on the person. Blinking Spirit's post made an attack on the quality of your sources, not an attack on you.
And for the record, attacking the quality of someone's source can be a legitimate means to discredit their argument.
He said "no matter what dark corner of the internet in which you find it" which dark corner 'I' find it. He was not attacking the source, but rather where I was looking. Calling a source "dark" does not discredit it. You need to prove how it is an inaccurate source, rather than just name call. But lets stop this silly circle. Still waiting to hear how Wikileaks is is a bad source rather than call it "dark". Maybe it is "dark" because he obtained the illegal emails illegally. But it still does not discredit them. Hillary herself has not denied that they are real, rather that they were stolen illegally.
So yeah there they are helping the anti-Trump movement. How come Hillary didn't get asked about her Husbands sexual assault activities? Why aren't they trying to get Hillary to go to Trial? They spent hardly and time on Wikileaks and the emails.
But there is also another bias that they won't talk about, which is the central banking, (Which is a mainly communist idea). You have to go onto YouTube to learn about that. So there is a bias by omission as well.
Side thought: I'm getting sick of all the pro Trump propaganda that Stefan Molyneux is spewing now days. Sounds like he is bought off. I don't think Trump is going to change much, things will probably keep getting worse.
So yeah there they are helping the anti-Trump movement. How come Hillary didn't get asked about her Husbands sexual assault activities? Why aren't they trying to get Hillary to go to Trial? They spent hardly and time on Wikileaks and the emails.
Wait are you saying Fox news is liberally biased? That's absurd.
So yeah there they are helping the anti-Trump movement. How come Hillary didn't get asked about her Husbands sexual assault activities? Why aren't they trying to get Hillary to go to Trial? They spent hardly and time on Wikileaks and the emails.
Wait are you saying Fox news is liberally biased? That's absurd.
Not totally but there are still some elements there. As absurd as that may sound...
So yeah there they are helping the anti-Trump movement. How come Hillary didn't get asked about her Husbands sexual assault activities? Why aren't they trying to get Hillary to go to Trial? They spent hardly and time on Wikileaks and the emails.
Wait are you saying Fox news is liberally biased? That's absurd.
Not totally but there are still some elements there. As absurd as that may sound...
Not really. Conservatism isn't a monolith. I doubt there is anything from Fox that isn't contained with conservatism.
So yeah there they are helping the anti-Trump movement. How come Hillary didn't get asked about her Husbands sexual assault activities? Why aren't they trying to get Hillary to go to Trial? They spent hardly and time on Wikileaks and the emails.
Wait are you saying Fox news is liberally biased? That's absurd.
Not totally but there are still some elements there. As absurd as that may sound...
Not really. Conservatism isn't a monolith. I doubt there is anything from Fox that isn't contained with conservatism.
I've given a few examples there of how it had a liberal bias by; anti-Trump, won't go against the banks, won't go against Hillary, omission. All you have said that is Absurd, Not really, I doubt... I think your going to have to come up with a better argument than that. But it is probably mostly conservative bias, but will still protect their own, and have hints of a liberal bias in that way. Fox compared to some of the 'dark' online sources could also be seen as more liberal.
So yeah there they are helping the anti-Trump movement. How come Hillary didn't get asked about her Husbands sexual assault activities? Why aren't they trying to get Hillary to go to Trial? They spent hardly and time on Wikileaks and the emails.
Wait are you saying Fox news is liberally biased? That's absurd.
Not totally but there are still some elements there. As absurd as that may sound...
Not really. Conservatism isn't a monolith. I doubt there is anything from Fox that isn't contained with conservatism.
I've given a few examples there of how it had a liberal bias by; anti-Trump, won't go against the banks, won't go against Hillary, omission. All you have said that is Absurd, Not really, I doubt... I think your going to have to come up with a better argument than that. But it is probably mostly conservative bias, but will still protect their own, and have hints of a liberal bias in that way. Fox compared to some of the 'dark' online sources could also be seen as more liberal.
Let me help you: Trump isn't a conservative, he's a populist. That means they can sometimes hate him while being anti Hillary the whole time.
Wait are you saying Fox news is liberally biased? That's absurd.
Not totally but there are still some elements there. As absurd as that may sound...
Not really. Conservatism isn't a monolith. I doubt there is anything from Fox that isn't contained with conservatism.
I've given a few examples there of how it had a liberal bias by; anti-Trump, won't go against the banks, won't go against Hillary, omission. All you have said that is Absurd, Not really, I doubt... I think your going to have to come up with a better argument than that. But it is probably mostly conservative bias, but will still protect their own, and have hints of a liberal bias in that way. Fox compared to some of the 'dark' online sources could also be seen as more liberal.
A bias that is less conservative and more liberal is not the same as liberal.
Anti Trump bias is also not a liberal thing- even if associated with liberals.
Wait are you saying Fox news is liberally biased? That's absurd.
Not totally but there are still some elements there. As absurd as that may sound...
Not really. Conservatism isn't a monolith. I doubt there is anything from Fox that isn't contained with conservatism.
I've given a few examples there of how it had a liberal bias by; anti-Trump, won't go against the banks, won't go against Hillary, omission. All you have said that is Absurd, Not really, I doubt... I think your going to have to come up with a better argument than that. But it is probably mostly conservative bias, but will still protect their own, and have hints of a liberal bias in that way. Fox compared to some of the 'dark' online sources could also be seen as more liberal.
A bias that is less conservative and more liberal is not the same as liberal.
Anti Trump bias is also not a liberal thing- even if associated with liberals.
I only said it had elements of liberal I didn't say it was liberal. They will still serve to protect the elites (Hillary). But this is only one group that does not have a totally liberal bias, doesn't change that the rest of them are bias. Maybe we should argue that the media has an elite bias or establishment bias.
But moving the argument forth now... What if there was a bias, does this mean it lies to you or distorts the truth or tries to manipulate you?! How deep does the rabbit hole go!
Not totally but there are still some elements there. As absurd as that may sound...
Not really. Conservatism isn't a monolith. I doubt there is anything from Fox that isn't contained with conservatism.
I've given a few examples there of how it had a liberal bias by; anti-Trump, won't go against the banks, won't go against Hillary, omission. All you have said that is Absurd, Not really, I doubt... I think your going to have to come up with a better argument than that. But it is probably mostly conservative bias, but will still protect their own, and have hints of a liberal bias in that way. Fox compared to some of the 'dark' online sources could also be seen as more liberal.
A bias that is less conservative and more liberal is not the same as liberal.
Anti Trump bias is also not a liberal thing- even if associated with liberals.
I only said it had elements of liberal I didn't say it was liberal. They will still serve to protect the elites (Hillary). But this is only one group that does not have a totally liberal bias, doesn't change that the rest of them are bias. Maybe we should argue that the media has an elite bias or establishment bias.
Elite bias not really. Establishment bias definitely- that's the media's greatest bias.
But moving the argument forth now... What if there was a bias, does this mean it lies to you or distorts the truth or tries to manipulate you?! How deep does the rabbit hole go!
Not very deep. The media's bias only got so far as to choose stories in certain ways and talk about them in certain ways. They aren't using subliminal messaging or anything to condition people.
And for as much bias as there is in the media, there is in the everyday viewer. Republicans won't generally watch liberal media and liberals won't generally watch conservative media. The bias of the media is really just a reflection of society's bias.
I'm perfectly fine with this point in terms of GE, Disney, Time Warner, and CBS. But I have yet to see this for Viacom (which could just be a factor of lack of exposure), and it seems actively incorrect for Newscorp.
http://college.usatoday.com/2016/11/17/fake-news-sites-list-melissa-zinders/
It honestly blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people can even question this, over the years I have seen everything from Noam Chomsky (Some call the father of progressivism), the Chinese intelligence community, academics from all over the world, and even ISIS talking about the West's MSM leftist bias.
Even Fox News and Rupert Murdoch are a story of left wing media bias as a businessman saw an opportunity in a media filled with left wing bias to make easy bank by creating something to appeal to the viewers who were tired of the media's leftist bias.
Of course the red pill mra thinks he has secret knowledge the rest of us don't.
I'm sorry that your opinions are so terrible you need to pretend that everyone is against you to sleep at night.
I bet you're alt-right too.Sorry, I shouldn't have used the politically correct term alt-right, I know how much pc culture offends you guys.I bet you're a neonazi, too.
You list 4 different ideologies here buddy but that's not surprising really, it is natural to view "the other" as a monolith.
There is a bias here in this forum as well, what FourDogsInAHorseSuit has said is clearly flaming, but won't get done cause he is on the liberal side, which has happened many times in my experience. Two rules which is bias, help the lefties and attack the others.
@Lilith
Yeah it is, its using the words dark, to try and discredit my argument. It is an attack on me saying I look at dark stuff.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
An ad hominem attack is an attack on the person. Blinking Spirit's post made an attack on the quality of your sources, not an attack on you.
And for the record, attacking the quality of someone's source can be a legitimate means to discredit their argument.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And which one did I get wrong?
Red Pill, Alt Right, and Neo-Nazi.
For your info the PC term for the Alt Right is "White Nationalist" (see snarl word...http://grammar.about.com/od/words/f/snarlpurrfaq.htm).
for more information see https://titanicbrass.com/2016/11/17/sue-the-bastards-breitbart-to-fight-back-over-white-nationalist-smears/
It sounds like liberals have a bias towards the mainstream media while conservatives have a bias away from the mainstream media. And an audience effect could certain explain a partisan slant in reporting. But it could also be:
A controversy and clickbait focus could certainly explain the distrust of the media. But the only reason why the media as a whole would be liberal-leaning in that vein would be based on the quantity of news sources read by one side or the other. And at what point is the readership due to bias versus just more focus from one side on fewer news sources?
That was published originally by a university professor. So is it really correct to imply that it was created — "whipped up" — by the media?
I find this strange because there is a lot of discussion saying that the US is further to the right than the majority of the rest of the world. Maybe when you include Europe into the picture as well, but European media is somewhat of a different ballpark from US media.
@Typhoon: You didn't answer the inherent question. Can you provide details as to how this applies to Viacom and Newscorp?
He said "no matter what dark corner of the internet in which you find it" which dark corner 'I' find it. He was not attacking the source, but rather where I was looking. Calling a source "dark" does not discredit it. You need to prove how it is an inaccurate source, rather than just name call. But lets stop this silly circle. Still waiting to hear how Wikileaks is is a bad source rather than call it "dark". Maybe it is "dark" because he obtained the illegal emails illegally. But it still does not discredit them. Hillary herself has not denied that they are real, rather that they were stolen illegally.
But yeah I have posted this before, not sure if any of them are owned by the 2 you are speaking of now... but check it out again just in case: http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/revealed-the-real-fake-news-list
Viacom:
http://www.nysun.com/national/political-affiliations-of-viacom-board-could/1993/
As for Newscorp, the Fox presenter Megyn Kelly attacked Trump in the debate for saying things about women.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y9_LJj7A68
http://fox43.com/2016/11/15/megyn-kelly-claims-trump-threatened-me-before-debate/
So yeah there they are helping the anti-Trump movement. How come Hillary didn't get asked about her Husbands sexual assault activities? Why aren't they trying to get Hillary to go to Trial? They spent hardly and time on Wikileaks and the emails.
But there is also another bias that they won't talk about, which is the central banking, (Which is a mainly communist idea). You have to go onto YouTube to learn about that. So there is a bias by omission as well.
Side thought: I'm getting sick of all the pro Trump propaganda that Stefan Molyneux is spewing now days. Sounds like he is bought off. I don't think Trump is going to change much, things will probably keep getting worse.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Wait are you saying Fox news is liberally biased? That's absurd.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Not totally but there are still some elements there. As absurd as that may sound...
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Not really. Conservatism isn't a monolith. I doubt there is anything from Fox that isn't contained with conservatism.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I've given a few examples there of how it had a liberal bias by; anti-Trump, won't go against the banks, won't go against Hillary, omission. All you have said that is Absurd, Not really, I doubt... I think your going to have to come up with a better argument than that. But it is probably mostly conservative bias, but will still protect their own, and have hints of a liberal bias in that way. Fox compared to some of the 'dark' online sources could also be seen as more liberal.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Let me help you: Trump isn't a conservative, he's a populist. That means they can sometimes hate him while being anti Hillary the whole time.
A bias that is less conservative and more liberal is not the same as liberal.
Anti Trump bias is also not a liberal thing- even if associated with liberals.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I only said it had elements of liberal I didn't say it was liberal. They will still serve to protect the elites (Hillary). But this is only one group that does not have a totally liberal bias, doesn't change that the rest of them are bias. Maybe we should argue that the media has an elite bias or establishment bias.
But moving the argument forth now... What if there was a bias, does this mean it lies to you or distorts the truth or tries to manipulate you?! How deep does the rabbit hole go!
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Elite bias not really. Establishment bias definitely- that's the media's greatest bias.
Not very deep. The media's bias only got so far as to choose stories in certain ways and talk about them in certain ways. They aren't using subliminal messaging or anything to condition people.
And for as much bias as there is in the media, there is in the everyday viewer. Republicans won't generally watch liberal media and liberals won't generally watch conservative media. The bias of the media is really just a reflection of society's bias.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice