About Media and Institution political biases

[Zarc]

The 'centre' isn't objectively defined, the media should reflect society, if society moves towards x, it should as well.

What a ridiculous statement. The centre is objectively defined. It's defined in political science. Specifically it's where the ideology of classical liberalism is placed on the traditional left-right political spectrum. Which makes sense when you think about it given that our form of government is Liberal democracy, also known as Western democracy or, simply, democracy (with a qualifier being applied if some other form of democracy is being referred to). Which is representative democracy that operates under the principles of classical liberalism. And by "our" I mean every society considered part of the 'Free World', aka the United States, France, Japan, etc.

Ideologies have their fixed positions, no matter their level of support in any particular society. In Hungary the governing party (Fidesz) is a right-wing party that is polling at around 50%. The largest opposition party (Jobbik) is a far-right party polling at around 20%. National conservatism, which is the ideology of Fidesz, is a right-wing ideology, hence the party is a right-wing party. It doesn't magically become a centrist ideology because 50% of the people support it and another 20% support something even further to the right.

If it isn't, then it's biased, and that's bad.

Objectivity and factual reporting is the metrics that determines bias, not whether it's centrist or not. I mean, if you have a centrist (whether by the actual definition or the one you made up) candidate and a center-right candidate that both served honorably in the army and both were convicted of drunk driving 15 years ago, and some media outlet reports about the centrist candidate's military service and about the center-right candidate's drunk driving conviction while knowingly leaving out the other two things, that'd be biased reporting in favor of the centrist candidate.

Not to be confused with things like an editorial, or leading article, in a paper which is always biased in favor of whatever ideology or party the paper supports, but that's the point of an editorial and that is very clear. What is not clear nowadays is how many media outlets don't make it very clear whether they are reporting the news or making an opinion show. And many opinion shows are not adhering to facts and truths at that. A lot of the programming on Fox News comes to mind..

Not really, no. Left is supposed to be pro-worker, not pro-corporate.

You're wrong about the "not pro-corporate" thing. You're also wrong that, which I infer from your tone, that pro-corporate is necessarily a bad thing or the opposite of being pro-worker. In fact, a country that a guy like Bernie Sanders admires a lot, and I thank him for it, is my own country of Sweden. Here the party that built the modern Swedish welfare state and governed for the better part of the 20th century is and always has been very pro-corporate. Among the many quirks of Swedish society is that we have no minimum wage. How's that for a role model for the left-wing? What we do have, though, is very high entry salaries regardless of that, and strong unions. Why? Because of corporatism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_corporatism

[Endus]

I'm not using "whataboutism." I'm replacing your metaphor with something that's relevant to the topic at hand. Or do you forget the Clinton apologists of the 90's playing victim like you're doing now?

That's literally whataboutism.

If it isn't, then it's biased, and that's bad.

Wrong. That's an appeal to a false middle. By your argument, the political center is not objectively defined, and thus the media absolutely should never strive to be there. They need to rely on objectivity, not deliberately biasing themselves to meet an arbitrary political marker.

devoid of interpretation and context, facts are generally meaningless.

Interpretation and context is the job of the media. Literally their purpose.

i'm not sure that you can say with a straight face that CNBC isn't biased - their mission statement is basically to be the left's Fox news.

Here's the closest I can find to such a document; https://www.cnbc.com/about/

Nothing remotely like you're saying.

I did and you did, but let's stick to this one:

No, i'm fucking NOT.
The behavior of people on more testosterone is different compared to people on estrogen - this is not a debatable point.
It has nothing to do with Biological sex however, see trans people.
It is literally impossible for behavioral gender to be a social construct.

Right, you're confusing the two terms, and have now demonstrated that you lack the selfawareness to even realize it. Sociological gender isn't about what controls individual behaviour, it's about social gender roles and how individuals interact with them.

Doubling down on the error you're making doesn't convince anyone that you're right, y'know.

Here's a med school explaining how you're wrong;
http://www.med.monash.edu.au/genderm...andgender.html

Here's another article by Psychology Today;
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...im-so-confused

Here's a WikiHow link;
https://www.wikihow.com/Understand-t...Sex-and-Gender

Here's an APA breakdown on basic terminology, including entries for "sex" and "gender", pulling from 4 separate sources;
https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resource...efinitions.pdf

You are conflating the two, and that is objectively incorrect.

[Gestopft]

You're wrong about the "not pro-corporate" thing. You're also wrong that, which I infer from your tone, that pro-corporate is necessarily a bad thing or the opposite of being pro-worker. In fact, a country that a guy like Bernie Sanders admires a lot, and I thank him for it, is my own country of Sweden. Here the party that built the modern Swedish welfare state and governed for the better part of the 20th century is and always has been very pro-corporate. Among the many quirks of Swedish society is that we have no minimum wage. How's that for a role model for the left-wing? What we do have, though, is very high entry salaries regardless of that, and strong unions. Why? Because of corporatism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_corporatism

I think in the sense he's referring to, "Corporatism" or "pro-corporate" refers more to the practice of letting corporations do and get whatever the hell they want: mega-mergers, union busting, screwing workers, tax breaks and loopholes, deregulating, lobbyists and mega-donors determining policy, etc.

[Deleted]

Could you explain?

I thought it was self evident, but workers unions, were banned in the soviet union.

Why do you care? If I want to be a turtle, why do you care?

I don't ?
Gender just isn't a social construct.

- - - Updated - - -

The Soviet Union was essentially reverting back to feudalism. It wasn't left in anything but name.

Ah yes, the classics: Soviet union not real communism.

- - - Updated - - -

What a ridiculous statement. The centre is objectively defined. It's defined in political science.

No it's not?
Is a European center politician the same thing as a US center politician?

Specifically it's where the ideology of classical liberalism is placed on the traditional left-right political spectrum. Which makes sense when you think about it given that our form of government is Liberal democracy, also known as Western democracy or, simply, democracy (with a qualifier being applied if some other form of democracy is being referred to). Which is representative democracy that operates under the principles of classical liberalism. And by "our" I mean every society considered part of the 'Free World', aka the United States, France, Japan, etc.

Now we are talking about different things.

Objectivity and factual reporting is the metrics that determines bias, not whether it's centrist or not. I mean, if you have a centrist (whether by the actual definition or the one you made up) candidate and a center-right candidate that both served honorably in the army and both were convicted of drunk driving 15 years ago, and some media outlet reports about the centrist candidate's military service and about the center-right candidate's drunk driving conviction while knowingly leaving out the other two things, that'd be biased reporting in favor of the centrist candidate.

making my point by the way: "devoid of interpretation and context, facts are generally meaningless."

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong. That's an appeal to a false middle. By your argument, the political center is not objectively defined, and thus the media absolutely should never strive to be there. They need to rely on objectivity, not deliberately biasing themselves to meet an arbitrary political marker.

you are confusing things here - I said that Media should reflect society, thus if society moves towards X, the Media should too.
If it doesn't that's indicative of a bias, now this has nothing to do with facts, but with the rest - tone, context, perspective.

Interpretation and context is the job of the media. Literally their purpose.

Yeah, that's why i said it.
And it's that bit that i want to be you know, unbiased.

Here's the closest I can find to such a document; https://www.cnbc.com/about/

Nothing remotely like you're saying.

I wonder what the same about page would tell us about Fox news.
In any case:https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnbc/

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

Now while Rational wiki are okay with them, which is usually a red-flag with me, i think you would be okay with them.

Right, you're confusing the two terms

No, i'm fucking not.
I'm not talking about biological sex, i'm talking about gender.
Here:

The idea that gender difference is socially constructed is an academic construct present in feminist, philosophical and sociological theories about gender,[1][2] and documents written by the World Health Organization (WHO).[3] According to this view, society and culture create gender roles, and these roles are prescribed as ideal or appropriate behavior for a person of that specific sex. Some argue that the differences in behavior between men and women are entirely social conventions, whereas others believe that behavior is influenced by universal biological factors to varying degrees of extent, with social conventions having a major effect on gendered behavior instead of vice versa.

We are talking about that.
You will know that because that is what pops up if one types "gender social construct" into google.
but lets look here, this is Your link:

Gender: It was created as a way to identify how society wants someone of a certain sex to behave. For example, the concept that "pink is for girls/blue is for boys" is nothing more than a social construct we have been told to believe very strongly in.

So please reconcile testosterone's proven impact on
behave
- because those two cannot co-exist.
Either men are socialized to do X, or testosterone makes them do X.
Hint - We know its the latter.

[Dacien]

Some of this can be explained by the nature of the allegations against Moore; sexual assault on children stirs emotion much more than corruption charges. But this is quite a disparity regardless, and quite a lack of coverage of Menendez. NBC didn't even cover it at all. This goes back to the point about media bias through omission, by choosing which stories they talk about.

[Thekri]

Somewhat relevant to the topic (I really don't get why we are talking about gender), even Fox news has been demonstrating this week that they have some journalistic integrity left, and promptly getting flak for it. Even Hannity has backed off defending Moore, and wants to see the allegations actually addressed before he can support him.

What is particularly interesting here is the response. Fox seems to be trying to do the right thing, Shepherd Smith is using the facts to debunk an obviously false conspiracy theory that has been circulating conservative circles, and Hannity is trying to distance himself from what is rapidly turning into a very unpleasant scandal. In both cases Fox has been getting attacked from the right for doing so, potentially pulling more of their audience into the more extreme right wing news sources like Brietbart. This can leave Fox in a very unpleasant situation, where attempting to cover their position with fact may hurt them, because their viewers have grown to expect that every single thing that supports their worldview must be true.

[Daelak]

I'm wholly uninterested in playing this little left vs right narrative shit that you're trying to drag me into. You're proving my point entirely. You're ignoring my point altogether by trying to convince me of this grand conspiracy on the part of the right. I'm not going to deny some of things you're saying, because some of it is correct. However, it's mostly dripping with a progressive interpretation of the actions of an entire political party. I'm not playing that game with you. I won't play it with Trumpkins when they try to peddle their wares on me either.

You have no regard for nuance in your version of economic and political history. It's extremely simplistic and clearly uncharitable towards the policies and people you disagree with. It's also exactly the point I was initially trying to make about the left pretending that they have no reason for introspection. It really doesn't matter how slimy your political opponent is; that doesn't mean you're doing everything right and don't need to change. You don't even have to think about that in terms of politics either. Think about it in your own life. If your professor is a douchebag, does that mean that every criticism he lays on you is wrong? Does that mean there isn't anything you can do to improve as a student? Should you just ignore him because said person is a resentful little weasel?

Occasionally, you will be told by people you don't like that you're doing something wrong. Only an absolute fool would completely write off every criticism laid on them because of the messenger.

It's not a narrative, and it's not a grand conspiracy. You reaching for hyperbolic statements regarding modern US history makes your argument look weak. This is all well documented and the actions and words from the people I have mentioned above, as well as past presidential candidates campaign rallies, political planks, reference this genesis of modern conservatism.

There is no "progressive interpretation", it's literally written US history who these people were, and why they founded and funded ideologues to help put an air of legitimacy to their arguments against desegregation and equal protection for blacks and other minorities.

Uncharitable and simplistic? That's laughable, because you can see the results of said policies once they were enacted. From drug incarceration rates, to the consequences of "school choice" initiatives in post desegregation USA, to the consequences of tax cuts and bank/zoning redlining. Stop defending policies and actions made by people who were malicious enough to spend millions of dollars to push segregation and economic exclusion of black people. Why should I give "tax cuts now, tax cuts forever!" crowd a fair shake when making a determination what is the most efficient and most robust plan to ensure US global hegemony?

Criticism and peer-review are hallmarks and indelible aspects of objectivity and understanding reality. Making up entire economic arguments that mask segregationist and exclusionist ideologues is malevolent and it only seeks to delude people. If it wasn't for the ruthless mastery of propaganda by right wing intellectuals like Buchanan, Goldwater, Buckley, Friedman, Sowell, and Hayek, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but the discourse in the US is so tainted, so distorted by the fake arguments that were literally funded by wealthy men who had no desires to see a country engaged in democratic debate, you become a pro-bono defender of their arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

Some of this can be explained by the nature of the allegations against Moore; sexual assault on children stirs emotion much more than corruption charges. But this is quite a disparity regardless, and quite a lack of coverage of Menendez. NBC didn't even cover it at all. This goes back to the point about media bias through omission, by choosing which stories they talk about.

It can all be explained, since this would be the first time, in my memory, that a senatorial candidate has been accused in engaging in sexual acts with minors and has refused to step down due to 'fake news', while the other news story happens so frequently that only New Jersey residents would have an interest.

[downnola]

It's not a narrative, and it's not a grand conspiracy. You reaching for hyperbolic statements regarding modern US history makes your argument look weak.

You're so drunk on ideology that you don't even notice the irony of this statement. Honestly man, your posts read like they're taken verbatim from Democracy in Chains. I don't have any desire to hash out political history with someone with such a skewed world view. I don't like ideologues and you're doing a bad job of convincing me that you're not one.

[Daelak]

You're so drunk on ideology that you don't even notice the irony of this statement. Honestly man, your posts read like they're taken verbatim from Democracy in Chains. I don't have any desire to hash out political history with someone with such a skewed world view. I don't like ideologues and you're doing a bad job of convincing me that you're not one.

It isn't an ideology, it's US history. Unless you are disputing the works of those men they've done in the 50's onwards and who funded them. You keep trying to argue that the historical basis of modern conservatism has come from a position of good faith and as an organic social movement like the left has, when all evidence points to the opposite. This is exactly why we are having this conversation in the first place. They knew back then just as they do now, that they have to obfuscate their true intentions in order for their message to be disseminated in the public sphere. It's not based on popular mandate, but rather minority control.

[Levelfive]

Quote me where I've said anything close to that. That line of thought isn't anywhere near the argument that I've been trying to drive home in this thread.

The point I have been making since I joined the thread is that while every person and movement is in need of introspection, not all criticisms are valid and worthy of consideration; in this case, in particular, where the entire discussion was predicated on the idea that the left is ultimately to blame for the right's "epistemic closure" (a state of affairs the right has been carefully and deliberately cultivating for years, so how about the party of personal responsibility just owns it for once), I compared it--after we seemed mutually to agree that it doesn't matter where criticism comes from if it has merit--with the "teach the controversy" nonsense wherein people demanded that pseudoscience and outright falsehoods be treated with the same degree of seriousness as actual science, as if what they were presenting was merely a set of "alternative" though equally valid "facts," and not a steaming pile of horseshit, as a way of highlighting the corollary as it exists in this thread: it doesn't matter where criticism comes from if it doesn't have merit. And then (after complaining about whataboutism and the left trying to evade responsibility in a thread literally about trying to blame the left for the right's behavior) you said a bunch of stuff about Bill Clinton, inadvertently exemplifying my entire argument and undermining yours.

- - - Updated - - -

It can all be explained, since this would be the first time, in my memory, that a senatorial candidate has been accused in engaging in sexual acts with minors and has refused to step down due to 'fake news', while the other news story happens so frequently that only New Jersey residents would have an interest.

I'd be curious to see the comparison with Anthony Weiner stories, which would be more directly analogous.

[Endus]

you are confusing things here - I said that Media should reflect society, thus if society moves towards X, the Media should too.
If it doesn't that's indicative of a bias, now this has nothing to do with facts, but with the rest - tone, context, perspective.

You're wrong. What you're describing is bias. It's the hypothetical media abandoning objectivity to pursue a course of trying to support a false middle.

Yeah, that's why i said it.
And it's that bit that i want to be you know, unbiased.

The problem is that you aren't arguing for that. You want it to be biased. You're arguing against objective analysis, because objective analysis paints your ideological views in a bad light, and you want that light to be less critical of your views.

That is bias.

I wonder what the same about page would tell us about Fox news.
In any case:https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnbc/

Now while Rational wiki are okay with them, which is usually a red-flag with me, i think you would be okay with them.

1> That source doesn't support your prior claim, at all.
2> The site you're linking claims to have a methodology, but it's not open, and it's basically one guy running it. So it amounts to one guy's opinion, and is not in any way verifiable nor can it be confirmed to be an objective rating.

No, i'm fucking not.
I'm not talking about biological sex, i'm talking about gender.
Here:

We are talking about that.
You will know that because that is what pops up if one types "gender social construct" into google.
but lets look here, this is Your link:

So please reconcile testosterone's proven impact on
behave
- because those two cannot co-exist.
Either men are socialized to do X, or testosterone makes them do X.
Hint - We know its the latter.

You're not even reading the material you're quoting, because it consistently proves you to be wrong, and you're consistently trying to conflate biological sex with gender. That you keep returning to the effect of testosterone is a clear example of this.

[downnola]

The point I have been making since I joined the thread is that while every person and movement is in need of introspection, not all criticisms are valid and worthy of consideration; in this case, in particular, where the entire discussion was predicated on the idea that the left is ultimately to blame for the right's "epistemic closure" (a state of affairs the right has been carefully and deliberately cultivating for years, so how about the party of personal responsibility just owns it for once), I compared it--after we seemed mutually to agree that it doesn't matter where criticism comes from if it has merit--with the "teach the controversy" nonsense wherein people demanded that pseudoscience and outright falsehoods be treated with the same degree of seriousness as actual science, as if what they were presenting was merely a set of "alternative" though equally valid "facts," and not a steaming pile of horseshit, as a way of highlighting the corollary as it exists in this thread: it doesn't matter where criticism comes from if it doesn't have merit. And then (after complaining about whataboutism and the left trying to evade responsibility in a thread literally about trying to blame the left for the right's behavior) you said a bunch of stuff about Bill Clinton, inadvertently exemplifying my entire argument and undermining yours.

You have yet to break down that article sufficiently to support the point you're trying to make against it. The author isn't even a conservative, so bringing up how "uni-directional" the call for soul searching is either a misreading of the article, or an evasion away from the point the author is trying to make. I think it's a deflection on your part, plain and simple. That's why I bought up Orwell and Chomsky. The call for soul searching doesn't just come from the right, it also comes from within.

This article, and conversation we're having, has nothing to do with peddling creationism in school. The argument for equal consideration of different viewpoints isn't relevant. Anyone who gives a shit about truth knows that all opinions aren't equal. Also, the article doesn't pretend that the right and Fox News are innocent when it comes to political bias and polarization, nor does it outright blame the left for the rights actions. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that this criticism isn't being made honestly and that the right has been fueling pseudoscience for years. They have been fueling pseudoscience for years, the article even touches on that, but that fact alone doesn't mean the left shouldn't look inwards. We're talking about the merit of the criticism. We're not talking about who's making the criticism, or who's contributed more to polarization and fake news, etc, etc. All of that is fluff to distract from the fucking point.

[Levelfive]

My argument hinges on the fact that this particular criticism doesn't have merit, and shouldn't be treated as such, regardless of where it comes from (a point I even reiterated in the post you quoted), the substance of which you have yet to address. You've merely repeated that the left needs soul searching and to eat humble pie and whatabout Bill Clinton. I think the OP is disingenuous, but as I have already said, I think person she (selectively) quoted is arguing in good faith, I just disagree with his argument. My comment about the uni-directional nature of calls for soul searching was with regard to whom it's asked of (and who actually engages in it), not where the calls come from, since as we have already agreed, the left asks it of itself regularly, including in the very piece cited.

Once again, nobody ever argued that the left AND right shouldn't look inward, just that we aren't obligated to entertain every ridiculous criticism tossed our way, any more than we're obligated to treat lies about evolution as facts equal to it, which is the precise form of water muddying the right has been calculatedly engaging in that has led us to our current state, that Theodarnza would like to pawn off on the left with help of an undoubtedly well meaning liberal who also happens genuinely to think Gamergate was originally a movement to combat perceived liberal bias in regular gaming/sci fi, the lamb.

[Wyrt]

Ah yes, the classics: Soviet union not real communism.

It wasn't. Communism is an idealistic and unrealistic stateless society where everyone owns the means of production.

The Soviet Union was a dictatorship with the means of production owned by the few elites in the state owned everything. It was basically feudalism.

[Felya]

I thought it was self evident, but workers unions, were banned in the soviet union.

It’s not self evident. Because I think you are trying to obfuscate means of production in USSR. I think, you are trying to obscure the fact that workers owned the workspace, not due to union pressure to influence ownership, but through government. I could be wrong, but it really seems like you are trying to confuse people, by ignoring the redundancy of a Union, under communism.

I got to 9 y/o in USSR... was in Kiev during Chernobyl... It’s why I tell people I am a giant...

I don't ?
Gender just isn't a social construct.

If you don’t care, why continue to argue? It’s obvious others actually do care... why need to piss people off, over something you claim not to care about?

You had no reason to define gender for me. I don’t give a shit... so I’m not going to comment... unlike you, I don’t argue things I don’t care about.

[FlatBootyJudy]

He doesn't give the origin of all this enough examination, because it critically informs what's occurring right now.

In short;

The media in general took a neutral, fact-based, analytical position, if we go back 30+ years. That was their role; to inform the populace, and provide informed and educated opinions on analysis. Politically, they were relatively centrist. Some might personally lean one way or the other, but they weren't partisan.

As time progressed, the Republicans shifted further right, and moved away from factual analysis. This is why they hold views such as opposing global warming science, why they've developed economic views that economists have flatly discarded as hokum, and so forth. Not all Republicans, but enough that it increasingly became the core of the party's ideology. As they shifted further right, the Democrats also shifted further right, becoming centrist by any international comparison.

The media stayed basically where it always was, but now they were confronted with one side of the political divide that stuck (mostly) to the facts, and another that (again, mostly) didn't. And they reported that accordingly. This made them seem biased to one side, but it reflects a shift in the Parties, not the media.

Then, Fox News et al sprung up, to give "the other side" of the discussion, which is a silly concept when the media was already centrist. As can easily be seen when you compare American media's positions to the media of basically any other developed nation. The new "right-wing media" was biased by design, and part of their refrain was that they were biased to offset everyone else's bias, but this is an appeal to a false middle, that because they are SO off-base and partisan, the "truth" must somehow lie between them and the rest of the media. When in truth, they're just being partisan and biased, and the rest of the media largely wasn't.

And now we're in the state we're in today. Academia and the media are largely getting staffed by centrists and left-wingers because they still recognize facts for what they are, and don't try and mold those facts to fit a particular bias. Right-wingers in the USA are only being excluded if they demonstrate that kind of agnosticism towards facts that's creating the issue.

And no; it isn't inherent to being right-wing or conservative, at all. It's a specific factor of American partisan politics, and it's only really gotten bad in the last 20 years or so, so it's not even a long-term trend.

When a fact-based stance is deemed to be "biased against conservatives", you can pretty easily see what the hell is going on. See the "debates" on global warming. On whether gun violence is a problem. On health care. Etc.

You're so full of shit! Fact base my ass, well looking at your posting history shows you don't care about "Facts"!

[Endus]

You're so full of shit! Fact base my ass, well looking at your posting history shows you don't care about "Facts"!

Do you have anything of value or interest to contribute, or do you just want to keep stamping your foot and whining about what a poopyface I am?

[Player Twelve]

Bias is determined by how much one misrepresents the facts, not in who the reporting is most friendly to or supportive of.

That's pretty explicitly bias.

[FlatBootyJudy]

Do you have anything of value or interest to contribute, or do you just want to keep stamping your foot and whining about what a poopyface I am?

I will respond of something to value when you post something of value. You have to be naive is fuck to think the media isn't based and that they do not cherry pick facts. Or do you believe cops are only out to shoot black people and that the DNC never does nothing wrong?

[Endus]

I will respond of something to value when you post something of value. You have to be naive is fuck to think the media isn't based and that they do not cherry pick facts. Or do you believe cops are only out to shoot black people and that the DNC never does nothing wrong?

Neither of those are things "the media" has ever remotely claimed to be true. So you're not actually complaining about the media; you're manufacturing straw men.

And frankly, that's boring.

Are there outlets that are biased? Sure. Obviously. Is it a problem of the media as a whole? Of course not, that's lunacy.