• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

Media Bias Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
aemetha said:
apnews.com

The Hamburglar? How a story about meat limits fell apart

NEW YORK (AP) — President Joe Biden spent only a weekend as the “Hamburglar” in the conservative media world...
apnews.com apnews.com

Is it just me or is the primary tactic of the right to make stuff up and then just shout louder that it's the other side doing it?
Click to expand...
it is just you!

The Dem face of the uniparty make up just as much shit and shout very loudly.
WaPo and NYT and CNN are chock full of evidence free bullshit.

for example:
<insert villian du jour Iran/China/Russia delete as applicable> paid the Taliban bounties to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan.
when the truth is the Taliban are quite happy to kill the US invaders for free.

Russia interfered with US election in 2016... and in 2020...(weirdly first to get Trump elected then to get creepy Joe elected)
when the truth is there are 2 countries that are proven to have interfered with the last few US elections, UK and Israel. The UK created the notorious evidence free Steele report to smear Trump, and Israel has a lot of dirt on a lot of US politicians.

General Michael Flynn broke the Logan act illegally representing the US overseas.
When the truth is what he did was exactly the same as what Hunter Biden was paid for in Ukraine, the Ukies didn't pay hunter for his crack smoking hooker banging expertise or his abundant business acumen.

Fake news is a bad tactic. The conservatives should just be quiet and let the left run round with scissors and wait for them to hurt themselves. Or wait for them to run out of other peoples money.
 
lol @ "the Hamburglar". Didn't conservative media also float some bogus story about Kamala's book being distributed by the thousands to refugee children?

Media consumers on both sides of the aisle should exercise a bit more critical judgement when it comes to this story...on the right, you should be a bit skeptical of stories about Joe Biden stealing your hamburgers, and on the left you should be a bit more critical of mainstream outlets telling you about how naughty Russia has been, often credited to a single (or multiple) unnamed sources. It's a fact, and has been for a long time, that intelligence services use the media to disseminate propaganda:

archive.org

Church Committee : Church Committee : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Church Committee books, volumes and reports
archive.org

(Analysis of intelligence agencies relationship with US media begins on page 191)

The fact that you could be a journalist and get a call from some rando at an intelligence agency who asserts something, and then you buy into it without either getting them on the record or having them back their shit up with something real and substantive, it amounts to serious journalistic malpractice and it's shameful. Almost everything related to Trump/Russia fell into that category...and within the context of other incidents where the media released straight-up propaganda to the public (like, for example, the run-up to the Iraq War) I understand why people are skeptical of media.

On the other hand, the people who are most skeptical of media in principle (the right) often don't overcome the fundamental problem, they just embrace THEIR media, which does the same thing, i.e. spoon-feed their audience pablum and mindless propaganda to re-enforce their pre-existing beliefs. Amateur journalists and media folks are never going to have the reach that some of these newswire services have, and the "raw material", that cannot or ever will be replaced by "conservative media", which is usually just reduced to commenting on stories that other news organizations broke.

I often think that the stories the media DOESN'T cover are often more glaring examples of bias than what they do cover. The recent one-day solidarity strike in India (supporting Indian farmers) involving hundreds of millions of people was a good example of this. For context, a strike of that size is easily the largest strike in human history, and yet outside of a few newswire services like AP and some left-leaning outlets like Democracy Now, it basically got 0 coverage in the United States
 
Or this tweet and subsequent coverage:


Probably read the word 'coup' in some outlets.

I read something yesterday of the anti China bill guaranteeing 300 million for battling 'Chinese disinformation', from what it seemed that money is going to mainstream news outlets.
 
An ironic twist of media bias - not necessarily for-against a political party, but done in the interest of media itself...
emphasis mine

New York AG: CNN, MSNBC Parent Companies Funded Millions of Phony Comments to Sway Trump Administration​


The parent companies of NBC, MSNBC and CNN funded a fraudulent campaign to show support that wasn’t there for the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of net neutrally, according to New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The topic of whether online service providers would be compelled to treat all internet users equally was a hot-button issue in 2017, when the Trump administration’s FCC eventually repealed rules from the Obama administration that heavily regulated the internet.

The move was opposed by internet service providers such as Comcast, which owns NBC and MSNBC, and AT&T, whose WarnerMedia is the parent company of CNN.

In a 39-page report released on Thursday, James exposed a broadband industry campaign to influence the FCC’s decision on net neutrality.

James said the FCC was hit with 22 million comments about the issue — and almost 18 million of them were not from real people. She also said that four out of 10 of them came from a campaign that has been linked back to internet providers.
...
According to the attorney general, 8.5 million online accounts were fake, while millions of comments left to the FCC came from a single California student.

James said that fake comments “corrupt the democratic process,” adding that the internet service providers named “cause real harm, enabling monied interests and fraudsters to sway agency rules — undermining public confidence in democratic institutions and robbing citizens of their voice.”

“[F]ake comments twist the regulatory process by obscuring the popularity of a policy,” the report said. “Although rulemaking is not a vote decided based on whichever policy receives the most comments in support, public support can influence the regulations that agencies issue.

“Indeed, as described below, members of the broadband industry (including a former chairman of the FCC) believed public comments to be so important that their companies spent millions of dollars generating more than 8.5 million comments to, as they put it, provide ‘cover’ to FCC Chairman [Ajit] Pai.”
...
“After a multi-year investigation, we found the nation’s largest broadband companies funded a secret campaign to influence the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality rules — resulting in millions of fake public comments impersonating Americans,” she wrote. “The broadband industry hired marketing companies that co-opted and created identities and filed nearly 18 million fake comments with the FCC and sent over half a million fake letters to Congress in support of the repeal.”

“This practice was also used to influence other policies,” James added. “These illegal schemes are unacceptable. Today, we stopped three of these marketing companies from continuing their illegal behavior and recommended reforms to stop this type of fraud in the future. We will continue to shine a light on abuses and disinformation that drown out the voices of the American people.”
Click to expand...

Who needs interference from China and Russia when our own media are breaking laws and influencing gov't policy?
 

RASMUSSEN/HEARTLAND POLL: VIEWERS OF CONSERVATIVE MEDIA MORE LIKELY TO GET THE FACTS RIGHT ON TOPICS IN THE NEWS​

emphasis by TLB

Some of The Heartland Institute’s key findings from an analysis of the survey results include:

  • There is a strong correlation between a likely voter’s favorite television news outlet and his or her understanding of basic facts about important topics in the news.
    • Generally speaking, respondents who identified CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or NBC as their “favorite” TV news outlet were more likely to incorrectly answer questions about the national debt, the income tax rate paid by the wealthy, and the percentage of the population that’s uninsured than the viewers of Fox News or “another” cable or network news station (such as The Blaze TV or Newsmax).
    • Our survey also seems to indicate that those who do not watch cable news or network news are more likely to answer our questions about the news accurately than the viewers of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or NBC.
  • Compared to viewers of Fox News, “another” cable news outlet, and those who don’t watch network news, viewers of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC are substantially more likely to underestimate the size of the national debt, with many dramatically underestimating the debt.
    • For example, 69% of CBS viewers and 65% of NBC viewers underestimated the national debt, compared to 44% for those who said they don’t watch network news.
    • About 30% of CNN viewers and 32% of CBS viewers said the national debt was only $5 trillion or less. For context, the U.S. national debt has not been that low since 1995, more than 25 years ago.
    • Fox News viewers and those who watch “another” cable network not listed among survey results (such as The Blaze TV or Newsmax) were most likely to accurately identify the national debt, with 35% and 37%, respectfully, making the correct selection.
  • Viewers of Fox News or “another” cable network not listed in the survey, as well as those who “don’t watch” cable or network news, were also most likely to accurately identify the top federal income tax rate.
    • About two-thirds of the viewers of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC underestimated the top tax rate. About 30% of the viewers of those networks said the top tax rate is just 20% or less.
  • Compared to viewers of Fox News, “another” cable news outlet, and those who don’t watch network news, viewers of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC are substantially more likely to underestimate the percentage of the U.S. population that has health coverage.
    • More than 90% of the viewers of CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and NBC underestimated the percentage of the population that has health coverage, and a substantial number of those polled dramatically underestimated the number.
      • For example, 63% of CNN viewers said at least 20% of the U.S. population did not have health coverage prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The actual answer is about 8.8%.
    • Although viewers of Fox News and other cable networks were most likely to correctly select the percentage of the U.S. population without health care coverage, a sizeable percentage of these audiences also underestimated the size of the insured population (82%).
Click to expand...

Not quoted, but in the article are links to the raw data for anyone wanting to check it out. Also, in the article after the quoted section were the questions as asked, what answers were available to choose from, and overall how many people responded with each answer.

= = = == =

I heard this on conservative talk radio on my drive home today, and was a bit perturbed the discussion focused on liberal sources. I'm grateful the study actually did account for conservative sources, and for those who don't watch news much at all. The article from the on-air interview is here, and I link it primarily as the closing question was asking for a 'big takeaway from the data'. The response surprised me, found at 11:45 into the video

One of the most stunning things about this whole poll is that a significant portion of people who say that they watch these liberal outlets don't believe that the liberal outlets are liberal. They actually think that the new that they are getting is somewhat conservative or mostly conservative. More than half CNN viewers, and more than half MSNBC viewers, check that over 60% said that they think most of the news they get is somewhat conservative or mostly conservative. So they have no idea that the news they are watching is incredibly liberal news.
Click to expand...




= = = = = ==

I don't take this as media bias so much as public incompetence. I don't like to believe people are stupid. (They often prove me wrong). I prefer to believe they are ill informed, perhaps they haven't experienced what is needed for a better understanding of a situation. But for people to consciously listen to CNN and that ilk, and have it show how ill informed they are (wrong knowledge on societal facts, even wrong belief in the bias of their preferred news source)....at some point being 'ill informed' is a choice, and at that point you are proving your stupidity.

Don't get me wrong, despite the article indicating conservative news consumers are consistently more aware of the reality of today's society...I would in no way condone someone ONLY listening to conservative news. It is filled with so much fear mongering you will lose yourself quickly.

As discussed, everyone needs to find their own sources, hopefully across the spectrum so as to allow themselves to filter out garbage and find their own understanding of reality. But the followers of MSM are so lost, and they keep consuming the same wrong info, intentionally.
 
I get most of my news from CEPS to be honest, as here we have honest discussion from all sides of the issue, so I tend to get exposed to each side of the argument, which leads to a lot more learning, especially about why people believe what they do (which is immensely important in helping us to stop seeing each other as nothing but stupid sheeple can barely even be considered fellow humans - which is incredibly toxic to society and just plain wrong). I do listen to NPR and BBC on the radio in my car, and I find them better than any others I have exposure to, but there is still an overwhelming amount of identity politics that I sometimes just think is ridiculous. I am fully of the belief that we should be talking about the racial problems in the US/the world, but ffs, not every single thing is related to race. But you would think it is, listening to NPR/BBC.
 
I feed on msn mostly, the guardian, aljazeera, skynews, franceinfo, rt, nhk, i24, africa24...
In france for now it's the entire islam which is muzzled and all the racial and ideological conflict that it brings. You got the candidate of the french communist party (who divide the leftwing parties) for the presidentials hand to hand with an interior minister accused of rape and a fascist syndicat of cops who will manifest this saturday i think. And that's ok because they have forbidden the last manif against irasel's aerian raids... Manif that has been done in any case: 2k protesters against near 5k cops in paris, and that's why the pigs gonna manifest, because it's tooo hard to handle the protesters and to have one cop killed from time to time shit...
 
Xorkoth said:
I get most of my news from CEPS to be honest, as here we have honest discussion from all sides of the issue, so I tend to get exposed to each side of the argument, which leads to a lot more learning, especially about why people believe what they do (which is immensely important in helping us to stop seeing each other as nothing but stupid sheeple can barely even be considered fellow humans - which is incredibly toxic to society and just plain wrong). I do listen to NPR and BBC on the radio in my car, and I find them better than any others I have exposure to, but there is still an overwhelming amount of identity politics that I sometimes just think is ridiculous. I am fully of the belief that we should be talking about the racial problems in the US/the world, but ffs, not every single thing is related to race. But you would think it is, listening to NPR/BBC.
Click to expand...

I agree. I kinda miss that dispassionate, stereotypical journalistic description of events, like Cronkite and that old-school shit. I think that a lot of people still want that but it seems weirdly hard to find in today's era, despite the fact that people still associate the phrase "journalism" with that stereotype of the broadcaster who recounts everything from a political corruption scandal to a massacre in the same measured, almost disinterested tone. Whereas nowadays it seems like even the major networks like ABC, NBC etc. want to "take a side" in so many of these conflicts rather than uphold that old ideal (which can never be fully realized, of course, but is more aspirational) of having objectivity/a detached narration of facts.

And I get it, people who do the news have opinions and sometimes events take place where as a journalist you have to take a side, like Rodolfo Walsh for example...but all of the lame virtue-signalling gets really tiresome IMO

As far as cable news goes, forget it, that kinda garbage is nothing less than our modern Pravda
 
I never realized that Steve Jobs widow owned a bunch of these major propaganda outlets, from mother jones to the Atlantic. They don’t turn much of a profit, but their value is in using a ‘trusted’ name to push false narratives, for a litany of reasons. I remember when they pushed faked news saying that Trump had called a dead soldier names during a rally.
 
What you are witnessing is the unraveling of bigotry, the inner workings of a hater's mind. You can apply this observation to other types of hatred such as homophobia and sexism. It happens to people on all sides of the political spectrum but the right tends to have the most of these types.

When confronted with a complex social issue, some people choose to act out of fear instead of reason.

This is 100% their game plan:

1: Deny that racism/homophobia/sexism exists.
OR
2. Validate the reasons for racism/homophobia/sexism by placing the blame on the victim(s)

They will ping back and forth between these two arguments intentionally ignoring anything relevant because they know that understanding the issue means taking responsibility and that scares the shit out of them. It's easier to just keep doing what's working. If ain't broke, don't fix it!
 
w01fg4ng said:
What you are witnessing is the unraveling of bigotry, the inner workings of a hater's mind. You can apply this observation to other types of hatred such as homophobia and sexism. It happens to people on all sides of the political spectrum but the right tends to have the most of these types.

When confronted with a complex social issue, some people choose to act out of fear instead of reason.

This is 100% their game plan:

1: Deny that racism/homophobia/sexism exists.
OR
2. Validate the reasons for racism/homophobia/sexism by placing the blame on the victim(s)

They will ping back and forth between these two arguments intentionally ignoring anything relevant because they know that understanding the issue means taking responsibility and that scares the shit out of them. It's easier to just keep doing what's working. If ain't broke, don't fix it!
Click to expand...
Idk most people I know just see the whole social justice as a way of life deal as being the banks manipulating to divide the masses. I realize things are different regionally, but the increasing authoritarianism from the neo liberal corporate oligopoly establishment has me pretty concerned.
 
Dropperneck said:
Idk most people I know just see the whole social justice as a way of life deal as being the banks manipulating to divide the masses. I realize things are different regionally, but the increasing authoritarianism from the neo liberal corporate oligopoly establishment has me pretty concerned.
Click to expand...
What's it like being able to think for yourself?
 
Not so much media as it is a political group with an agenda, obviously, but c'mon man...reality check?

jTs240h.jpg
 
schizopath said:
Who the fuck follows media? Especially American, which in terms of propaganda, is on the levels on russia

Save yourself from stress and dont follow any media. Unfortunately negativity sells in media so thats what we get.
Click to expand...
I partly agree, I don’t think you should disregard all media, but if your gonna watch it, watch it for what it is, mostly bullshit circling around some truth…this goes equally for FOX newsmax OAN CNN MSNBC and newspapers like Washington post and honestly even AP is becoming more and more bullshit bias everyday…like I always say, if you agree with everything your media outlet of choice says it’s probably by design
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top