The media is utter trash

[Elliott]

20 minutes ago, SwiftQuill said:

They are biased opinions.

If you hear an argument you consider "right wing" (which in itself is a bias), and you interpret it in the least charitable way possible, that's a bias.

These clowns have indeed a strong inclination to defend pretty much anything that is the typical progressive ideas (feminism, pro immigration, pro censorship, pro lgbtq rights) and strong inclination against anything that is considered nowadays "right wing" ideas (addressing immigration issues, addressing free speech and the excesses of hate speech laws, addressing toxic implementations of lgbtq stuff).

The mere fact that these people insist that the world is divided between Left, and Right, and defend anything in the first category, and demonize anything in the second category, that in itself is a huge bias.

There are things that can be addressed without framing them as a left vs right dychotomy. I believe my government exaggerates on taxes, for instance. Not because I'm right wing. But because in practical purposes the government takes about 30% of my sallary. And I do think there are legitimate issues regarding immigration. And if morons like Destiny and David even refuse to engage with these topics without being loyal to their woke cult, that is bias. These people are extremely biased.

Breadtube = brainrot

Defending something is not bias. Opinion alone is not bias, you have to show how they are misleading due to prejudice, did Pakman say Rogan wants trans folk harmed, no, his comment isn't misleading about the situation he stated what Rogan stated, he didn't misconstrue what Rogan said did he?

An example of bias is msnbc saying trump says he will be a dictator.

Did Destiny say the guy would've killed a liberal, no.

They both stated unbiased reporting of the situations, THEN gave their opinion, as opinion. They didn't misconstrue the situations, the facts of the situation.

Edited February 25 by Elliott

[SwiftQuill]

30 minutes ago, CuriousJames said:

What would be good qualities and examples of authentic journalism? 

2 cents:

Healthy communication
What does Healthy communication mean in this context? I believe it is important to communicate ideas with objectivity and charitability. The criticism that this journalist is making about that politician, is it a strawman, is it charitable, is it accurate? Does this political analysis have a scientific backing? Does this communication, in terms of linguistics, contain judgements (words like "racist", "selfish", "greed", "xenophobic"). I'm not saying you should never use these words, but use them very selectively. And healthy communication isn't just about communicating the facts. It's not just about communicating without lying. It's about communicating with the full picture of the events. Does "white cop killed black man" seem like a good headline to you? Or could it be that that event has more variables in it? It might factually be true that a white cop killed a black man, but are you presenting the entire situation or are you presenting one that lacks the full picture?)

Impartiality
This one is obvious. I think it should be in a Journalist's code of honor to seek and present truth. To actively be against bias, to actively not be loyal to any one perspective or ideology. If you are loyal to something, it must be something extremely inclusive, like humanism.

Diversity - not just of skin color and sexuality, as wokies want it
Diversity of thought, opinion, perspective. I don't think you need a 50/50 ratio of left wing journalists and right wing journalists. But let's be honest, a news channel lead by a leftist with leftist HR managers and leftist graphic designers and leftist reporters and leftist editors and leftist cameraman, that's bad. The last thing you want in a news station is a reporter who happens to disagree with the majority on the ideology, and is too afraid to report on this or that event that is inconvenient to the majority's belief.

[SwiftQuill]

3 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Defending something is not bias. Opinion alone is not bias, you have to show how they are misleading due to prejudice, did Pakman say Rogan wants trans folk harmed, no, his comment isn't misleading about the situation he stated what Rogan stated, he didn't misconstrue what Rogan said did he?

An example of bias is msnbc saying trump says he will be a dictator.

Did Destiny say the guy would've killed a liberal, no.

Negative Bias doesn't necessarily mean you strawman others. Bias can be lack of acknowledgement of validity in an argument. Lack of acknowledgement, lack of charitability.

Conversely, Positive bias doesn't mean you agree with 100% of things within an ideology. You can be a leftist, and agree with 90% of leftist concepts, but refuse to even address the existence of the other 10% of issues. If you are a leftist, and you agree with say all of leftist ideas except for the defund the police stupidity. And you refuse to ever bring that up, or refuse to acknowledge "Hey, I don't like Joe Rogan but I agree with him on the defund the police topic". That's also a bias. Because your religion is too sacred to point out flaws within it. And if you are a cuck named Destiny, or a clown named David, that's how you behave. 0 videos on the toxicity of defund the police. 0 charitability on any argument for controlling immigration. 0 acknowledgement of problems that exist on the left pointed out by anyone.

And the other guy's religion is evil. So even if that religion has 1% of good ideas in it, you refuse to bring that up whatsoever.

Here are two examples:

Example A: "I don't like Joe Rogan. But he is too demonized for his stance on the trans stuff. For the most part, most people do agree with the notion that trans women have an advantage over cis women. Still, I think Joe Rogan has not investigated this issue enough. People can't rely on common sense for this topic. There are indeed some scientific papers that demonstrate trans women don't have an advantage here. And I don't think Joe Rogan has done his homework." - nuanced, charitable, still left wing, not biased.

Example B: Title of the video: "JOE ROGAN PROMOTES BIGOTRY AGAINST TRANS PEOPLE YET AGAIN" - an actual title of one of David's videos - proceeds to show a 1 minute clip of Joe Rogan talking about the topic, allowing for a lot of cherry picking and distortion of his actual argument.
 

[Elliott]

@SwiftQuill i can't find the Pakman video

 

this is an opinion, clearly stated as such, it's not reporting some distorted story.

https://youtube.com/shorts/U3rdQxjl4is?si=bavwTgV4QSPfGAJS

 

Edited February 25 by Elliott

[SwiftQuill]

This isn't the limit of bias in journalism, by the way. I think the worst bias of them all is the manner they pick topics to cover.

Here's a list of potentially relevant topics:

• A: Climate activists block a road, one of them is beaten by a cop
• B: Left wing politician commits fraud
• C: Reporter uncovers crimes committed by Antifa
• D: Right wing politican commits fraud
• E: Unknown guy on Twitter says liberal women are cu*** and gets fired
• F: Feminist scholar publishes a new book called "I hate men, and so should you!"
• G: Phd Psychology professor publishes new book criticising trans surgeries on children
• H: Reporter uncovers crimes committed by The Proud Boys
• I: Pro-Hamas I MEAN Pro-Palestine activists beat up jewish college professor
• J: Illegal immigrant rapes a woman
• K: Right wing celebrity is charged with sexual harassment allegations

A leftist news media will absolutely only cover A, D, E, F, H, K. And also I, but frame it as a peaceful protest, and "forget" to report on the violence.

A right wing news media will only cover B, C, G, I, J. Maybe also A but "forget" to cover the police abuse bit.

So what's the solution to this? Should there be a 50/50 ratio of convenience to the left and to the right? It's tough. I don't have a solution for this. But I do think it's a real concern.

[Elliott]

4 minutes ago, SwiftQuill said:

This isn't the limit of bias in journalism, by the way. I think the worst bias of them all is the manner they pick topics to cover.

Here's a list of potentially relevant topics:

• A: Climate activists block a road, one of them is beaten by a cop
• B: Left wing politician commits fraud
• C: Reporter uncovers crimes committed by Antifa
• D: Right wing politican commits fraud
• E: Unknown guy on Twitter says liberal women are cu*** and gets fired
• F: Feminist scholar publishes a new book called "I hate men, and so should you!"
• G: Phd Psychology professor publishes new book criticising trans surgeries on children
• H: Reporter uncovers crimes committed by The Proud Boys
• I: Pro-Hamas I MEAN Pro-Palestine activists beat up jewish college professor
• J: Illegal immigrant rapes a woman
• K: Right wing celebrity is charged with sexual harassment allegations

A leftist news media will absolutely only cover A, D, E, F, H, K. And also I, but frame it as a peaceful protest, and "forget" to report on the violence.

A right wing news media will only cover B, C, G, I, J. Maybe also A but "forget" to cover the police abuse bit.

So what's the solution to this? Should there be a 50/50 ratio of convenience to the left and to the right? It's tough. I don't have a solution for this. But I do think it's a real concern.

You're treating news outlets like a church you go to, like it's their duty to feed you what you need to know.

Edited February 25 by Elliott

[SwiftQuill]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

You're treating news outlets like a church you go to.

How?

The topic of this thread is corruption and bias in the media. I gave another example of a type of bias that can happen in journalism. I gave a very obvious, black and white example for the sake of demonstration.

You keep insisting that someone is only biased if they lie or misrepresent something. And I disagree. Bias, in journalism, can manifest in various ways.

[Elliott]

5 minutes ago, SwiftQuill said:

 

You keep insisting that someone is only biased if they lie or misrepresent something. And I disagree. Bias, in journalism, can manifest in various ways.

It's only biased if it's misrepresented, yes.

What you're insinuating now is propaganda.

Edited February 25 by Elliott

[SwiftQuill]

6 minutes ago, Elliott said:

It's only biased if it's misrepresented, yes.

What you're insinuating now is propaganda.

Well I don't know what to say then. I guess my definition of bias is more encompassing than yours.

Quote

Bias is a systematic tendency to favor or disfavor certain perspectives, ideas, or groups in a way that distorts objectivity. It can manifest consciously or unconsciously and appears in various forms, such as cognitive bias (mental shortcuts that affect judgment), social bias (prejudices shaped by culture and identity), political bias (favoring one ideology over another), and media bias (selective reporting, framing, or omission of information). While bias is a natural part of human thinking, recognizing and mitigating it through critical thinking, diverse perspectives, and transparency is essential for objective analysis and fair decision-making.

- ChatGPT seems to agree with my usage of the word.

[Elliott]

7 minutes ago, SwiftQuill said:

Well I don't know what to say then. I guess my definition of bias is more encompassing than yours.

- ChatGPT seems to agree with my usage of the word.

"that distorts objectivity."

 

That's a biased take you have.

Edited February 25 by Elliott

[SwiftQuill]

Quote

Political bias (favoring one ideology over another), and media bias (selective reporting, framing, or omission of information.

In the definition of bias, ChatGPT gave the exact examples I've been giving throughout this thread. 

It's fine if you disagree with this definition. Or if you prefer to use another term instead. But my definition isn't controversial, and the examples I gave do qualify as bias according to this definition.

And everything I've said in this thread and all the examples I gave are also included here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

I fail to see how my take on anything here has been biased.

[PurpleTree]

Don’t know her or the guy who made the video.

But his opinion is that she got booted from MSNBC for being critical of Israel and Trumpism.

 

[SwiftQuill]

5 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

Don’t know her or the guy who made the video.

But his opinion is that she got booted from MSNBC for being critical of Israel and Trumpism.

 

"oUr nOn wHiTe hOsTs aRe lOsInG ThEiR ShOwS!"

God. The racism and victimhood of the left are so prevalent and obnoxious. Everything is about race, gender, sexuality. It's difficult to strawman them at this point. You hear them speak ONE sentence and it's filled with woke garbage. How on earth do people watch this shit? Then go whine you are losing the middle ground audience to alternative media and that men are turning to the right and all of that shit.

[PurpleTree]

4 minutes ago, SwiftQuill said:

"oUr nOn wHiTe hOsTs aRe lOsInG ThEiR ShOwS!"

God. The racism and victimhood of the left are so prevalent and obnoxious. Everything is about race, gender, sexuality. It's difficult to strawman them at this point. You hear them speak ONE sentence and it's filled with woke garbage. How on earth do people watch this shit? Then go whine you are losing the middle ground audience to alternative media and that men are turning to the right and all of that shit.

Do you think it’s fine when journalists lose their jobs for being Israel/Trump critical though?

Edited February 25 by PurpleTree

[The Crocodile]

@SwiftQuill REALITY has a bias towards the left.

[PurpleTree]

24 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

Do you think it’s fine when journalists lose their jobs for being Israel/Trump critical though?

 

[Elliott]

2 minutes ago, SwiftQuill said:

In the definition of bias, ChatGPT gave the exact examples I've been giving throughout this thread. 

It's fine if you disagree with this definition. Or if you prefer to use another term instead. But my definition isn't controversial, and the examples I gave do qualify as bias according to this definition.

And everything I've said in this thread and all the examples I gave are also included here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

I fail to see how my take on anything here has been biased.

You're referring to this I assume?

"and media bias (selective reporting, framing, or omission of information). "

What don't Klein, Pakman, and Destiny report on that causes 'distorted objectivity'?

[PurpleTree]

2 minutes ago, Elliott said:

You're referring to this I assume?

"and media bias (selective reporting, framing, or omission of information). "

What don't Klein, Pakman, and Destiny report on that causes 'distorted objectivity'?

Maybe issues caused by immigration/ streams of refugees for example.

[Basman]

Social media is geared towards clicks. Bipartisanship, outrage and tribalism are good for clicks, hence a large amount of slop.

I find these Youtube channels great for news in my opinion:

https://www.youtube.com/@warographics643

https://www.youtube.com/@SirSwag01

You shouldn't really consume too much news content in my opinion so its good to only intermittently get new content from a news-source you like, like with Sir Swag's channel.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, The Crocodile said:

@SwiftQuill REALITY has a bias towards the left.

It's more like the right has a bias against reality