Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[NeedsAdjustments]

So, for example, on that website, I found this: A 2014 Pew Research Survey found that 41% of the Wall Street Journal’s audience is consistently or mostly liberal, 24% Mixed and 35% consistently or mostly conservative. This indicates that they are slightly preferred by a more liberal audience.

Liberals love it!

Or Liberals read more newspapers than conservatives.  Either way, not the point.

So, the WSJ gets rated as Right center bias and the NYT gets Left Center Bias, Which is like I said---the WSJ is no more nor less biased than its competitors----which is not the same as saying they are equally biased.

A) Yes, it is exactly the same. 

B) Here is the material from the website you yourself posted:

NYT:

...highly factual and considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors.

WSJ:

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

Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low biased news reporting in combination with a strongly right biased editorial stance. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High, due to anti-climate, anti-science stances and occasional misleading editorials.

One is rated highly factual, the other mostly factual because its editorials can be misleading (huh, the very subject we were discussing before you inserted yourself into it) and the WSJ Ed Board (again, the subject of the discussion) is called out for having strongly right biased editorial stance. 

So, no.  Not "equally biased" and not "no more or less biased than their competitors."

No, not immaterial at all. It's related to it, and it allows for further exploration of biased media to people whose minds are open.

Tangentially related is not the same as material to the discussion.  You did some research (Bravo) realized you were wrong (Bravo) but instead of acknowledging it, changed your argument (No Bueno)

Game. Set. Match.

Thanks for playing, loser.

There is never a bigger indicator that a poster is garbage than when they reveal that it is all just a game to them.

Good job being a model of civility here, UNO.  We have all benefited so much from the light you have shown down on us.

[Hamilton Samuels]

WaPo settles its own media bias incident.

https://news.yahoo.com/washington-post-nick-sandmann-settle-184453677.html

[NeedsAdjustments]

Game. Set. Match.

Thanks for playing, loser.

BTW, I think this is UNO trying to be "fatal to my ego."

How do you think he is doing?

LOL.

[Hamilton Samuels]

More analysis that the flaming asshole Needs will not be able to interpret properly:

In the Middle
Common Ground: Centrist News Sources
Wall Street Journal
Daily business-focused newspaper based out of New York City.
The Wall Street Journal has a bias rating of "Center" according to AllSides. The Pew Research Center found that the Wall Street Journal is read by people of all political leanings and is the only news source that is more trusted than distrusted by people all across the political spectrum. There is, however, some debate but it has been accused of being biased to both the left and the right.

BBC News
The British Broadcasting Corporation News division produces television, radio, and internet news. The BBC is a public service broadcaster established by a Royal Charter of the United Kingdom.
The BBC News has a bias rating of "Center" from AllSides. According to Pew, BBC is more trusted than distrusted among the different ideological groups except for consistently conservative individuals who view BBC as about equally trusted as distrusted.

USA Today
American daily newspaper that provides both news and entertainment coverage.
USA Today has a bias rating of "Center" from AllSides. According to the Pew survey, USA Today is more trusted than distrusted among the different ideological groups except for consistently conservatives who view USA Today as more distrusted than trusted.

Almost Center News Sources
The following news sources are rated as "Center" by AllSides and are noted for stating an independent and unbiased agenda, as well as consistently providing balanced coverage (giving time to both sides of an issue). However, they are listed here as almost center because of audience distrust from conservatives.

Respondents to the Pew survey who are consistently liberal, mostly liberal, and mixed views, rated these sources as more trusted than distrusted. Mostly conservatives rated them as about equally trusted as distrusted; Consistently conservatives rated them as more distrusted than trusted.

NPR
National Public Radio is a U.S. private and publicly funded non-profit organization that syndicates to a network of local stations.
PBS NewsHour
The Public Broadcasting Service is a non-commercial U.S. television broadcaster and distributor.
Sources on the Left and Right
A key finding from the Pew survey is that conservatives have a higher level of distrust overall of news sources and consume a much narrower range of news sources. Liberal audiences trust and consume a broader range of news sources.

Therefore, there are more news sources that are rated or perceived as center-left/slight left leaning (especially mainstream sources); there are fewer news sources that are center-right. This represents the popular conservative discourse that the mainstream media has a liberal bias (and potential hostile media effect).

Towards the Left
These news sources are rated as "Lean Left" by Allsides. According to the Pew survey, they are more distrusted than trusted by people who are mostly conservative and consistently conservative; and are more trusted than distrusted by people who are mixed, mostly liberal, and consistently liberal.

New York Times
American daily newspaper published since 1851.
Washington Post
American daily newspaper published out of Washington D.C. since 1877.

https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444

[NeedsAdjustments]

More analysis that the flaming asshole Needs will not be able to intrepet properly

And keep posting analysis of their news section when the discussion was about their editorial board.

You're wrong so need to change the subject.  We get it.

[Hamilton Samuels]

INteresting pie charts on this one: https://www.journalism.org/2020/03/04/about-one-fifth-of-democrats-and-republicans-get-political-news-in-a-kind-of-media-bubble/

[Hamilton Samuels]

More analysis that the flaming asshole Needs will not be able to intrepet properly

And keep posting analysis of their news section when the discussion was about their editorial board.

You're wrong so need to change the subject.  We get it.

Gosh, you're really getting desperate now. Spinning is so lame.

Sad, but you've been left behind.

It's not surprising you can't keep up, though. Too busy trying to save face after getting your butt kicked once again.

 

[Hamilton Samuels]

Game. Set. Match.

Thanks for playing, loser.

BTW, I think this is UNO trying to be "fatal to my ego."

How do you think he is doing?

LOL.

This is what the weak do.

What the flaming asshole is really saying is, "Please, somebody help me!"

[barton]

The reason competitive sports have referees or umpires is that you don't get to declare yourself as scoring or winning.   It's useful to have an impartial observer.

In Uno's debate with Needs,  which he treats as a zero sum game (ironic,  given earlier noble speeches about how we're here to learn and understand other POVs), he falls back on crude insults and then declares victory.   "You're a flaming asshole" is not usually a telltale of victory in a debate.

I think a reasonable observer might point out that it's difficult to quantify precisely how many terms of bias are used in a given edition of a paper,  or how much bias each term has.   Or whether the journalist puts the term in context -- say that an insurgent group calls its members "freedom fighters. "  Are you just quoting that,  or do other facts support that description?   Do ordinary citizens see the group's efforts as supporting greater freedom?   

Another example is calling a government a "regime."  As opposed to,  say,  "administration. "   

Good journalism tests the factual basis for using a term,  rather than just dropping it in there in a way that is potentially deceptive.   Good opinion pieces also do this.   Compare,  say,  David Brooks and Michelle Malkin.

[NeedsAdjustments]

I think a reasonable observer might point out that it's difficult to quantify precisely how many terms of bias are used in a given edition of a paper,  or how much bias each term has.   Or whether the journalist puts the term in context -- say that an insurgent group calls its members "freedom fighters. "  Are you just quoting that,  or do other facts support that description?   Do ordinary citizens see the group's efforts as supporting greater freedom?   

Another example is calling a government a "regime."  As opposed to,  say,  "administration. "

Good points, and appreciated.

I think it is a lot easier to detect bias, or partisanship, in a newspapers editorials.  Which while UNO has attempted to obscure, was the original subject, when I pointed to a letter written by WSJ Staff, mostly News, calling out the lack of fact checking by the WSJ Ed Board, to which the WSJ Ed Board responded.

The WSJ Editorial Board has a right-wing record that is backed up by decades of material.  From "Lucky Ducky" to climate change denial.  the NYTs Ed Board is left leaning (though frustrating sometimes in its clumsy attempts to be middle of the road) but I don't think one can argue that it has the same level of bias, or partisanship, and think anyone who tries to make that argument is suspect.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Awesome chart:
https://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/10-20-2014-2-57-57-pm/

Well, it sure looks like the media, as analyzed by the experts in media consumption has some places that are a little more "trustworthy" than others tend to be.

Maybe it is because these organizations are comprised of HUMAN BEINGS, who are inheritantly biased individuals.

Funny thing. john Dewey once said, "Beware the either-ors", you know, that something should be either this way or that way.

So it makes sense that folks like little Needs don't get how nuanced the media world is, or how the biggest newspapers are more or less comparable in their bias, as they report the news. Folks like him, who deny reality for their own political purpose are simply not smart readers; they are not discerning individuals; they do not understand how to balance various points of view in order to come to a more complete picture of what is actually going on in our complex modern world.

Maybe because it's just too hard. Maybe they are intellectually lazy. Maybe they have some economic insentive to choose either one side or another. Certainly, though, they have chosen to limit their real understanding of the world, and that, that is a personal shortcoming; that is a fault than can be and should be corrected.

But don't hold your breath.

 

[NeedsAdjustments]

Well, it sure looks like the media, as analyzed by the experts in media consumption has some places that are a little more "trustworthy" than others tend to be.

Glad your research is continuing to point you in the right direction UNO.

I know you won't admit you were wrong before.  I don't care if you do.  As long as you end up in the right place.

[Hamilton Samuels]

I think a reasonable observer might point out that it's difficult to quantify precisely how many terms of bias are used in a given edition of a paper,  or how much bias each term has.   Or whether the journalist puts the term in context -- say that an insurgent group calls its members "freedom fighters. "  Are you just quoting that,  or do other facts support that description?   Do ordinary citizens see the group's efforts as supporting greater freedom?   

Another example is calling a government a "regime."  As opposed to,  say,  "administration. "

Good points, and appreciated.

I think it is a lot easier to detect bias, or partisanship, in a newspapers editorials.  Which while UNO has attempted to obscure, was the original subject, when I pointed to a letter written by WSJ Staff, mostly News, calling out the lack of fact checking by the WSJ Ed Board, to which the WSJ Ed Board responded.

The WSJ Editorial Board has a right-wing record that is backed up by decades of material.  From "Lucky Ducky" to climate change denial.  the NYTs Ed Board is left leaning (though frustrating sometimes in its clumsy attempts to be middle of the road) but I don't think one can argue that it has the same level of bias, or partisanship, and think anyone who tries to make that argument is suspect.

 As has already been shown by independent resources, the TIMES editorial board misrepresents in order to advance a particular liberal agenda and has been found on numerous occasions to actually be FACTUALLY INCORRECT ON ITS EDITORIAL pages.

So, that ground was covered. That conversation ended.

Moving on.

Needs  can't seem to catch up to the larger discussion of media bias itself, on all of its pages, or airwaves.

Doubtful he will catch up, as he'd rather rewrite history, lie, distort, and do all the things he claims the WSJ does---

LOL!!!

 

 

 

[NeedsAdjustments]

As has already been shown by independent resources, the TIMES editorial board misrepresents in order to advance a particular liberal agenda and has been found on numerous occasions to actually be FACTUALLY INCORRECT ON ITS EDITORIAL pages.

Nope.  This was said about the WSJ:

WSJ: These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in 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 conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

Not sure why I keep needing to repost material you first posted. Maybe try reading it.

If you did actually find a (credible) source that says the NYTs Ed Board purposefully misrepresents to advance a liberal agenda, you didn't post it.  Would be happy to read it if you do.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Needs  can't seem to catch up to the larger discussion of media bias itself, on all of its pages, or airwaves.

True, I don't have the time to do as many google searches as you do while also batting down your misrepresentations of what you found.

Nor would I find the time to have a larger discussion of media bias itself with someone who has already demonstrated that their only intent is to "win" and not to be informed.