OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Help!I'maRock! said:
We're gonna find out if this keeps up. :lol:
Click to expand...
If so, I'm fucked! :eek:
gestapotactics1.jpg
 
I don't think anything will change people's minds at this point. if you are ok voting for someone who mocks disabled people and gold star families no amount of logic will save you.

if anything its good because if people thought she was going to win by a landslide they might not even go out to vote. if they think its close now hopefully more people go out and vote.
 
Lerxst said:
Don't interpret this as an attack in any way...just a question & thought on media bias.

What news sources do you consider fair & unbiased?
Is it possible that an article on a biased site, in your opinion, could actually be correct?

It's so easy to dismiss an entire article based on perceived or actual bias of the source, without even addressing the content of the article, it's supporting information or underlying research (if any) just with a blanket, oh that source is biased!
To me this 'blanket bias killshot' stifles dialog about a topic. Yes, there are plenty of clearly unsubstantiated pieces of trash out there masquerading as news articles that should not be included in a discussion but we're moving to a place were any source referenced in a discussion can always be negated as false/biased by an opposing opinion. You see this happens on both the left and the right.

As an example, I could counter that factcheck.org examined snopes articles on the 2012 election amid numerous bias allegations at the time & determined they were not biased. Then all you have to do is claim, "of course, factcheck.org is biased" and the circle continues on forever.....where does it end if we only accept information that confirms our beliefs and opinions and don't dig a little?
Click to expand...

For me, when I do read articles and there's something that doesn't sound right, I'll go and look up those bits and pieces. The hard part (nowadays anyway) is that having to use multiple search engines to weed out click bait articles, search engine bias (google, I'm looking at you), and finding articles that provide more information on what I'm looking for with solid references.

I don't try and say "media bias" or whatever bias for the sake of stifling the conversation, but when you know that a source that's being used as a counterargument is slanted in one direction versus providing real facts, then I guess you could say that's another way of introducing a circular argument.

To answer your question in regards to news sources that I consider fair are ones that bring up more information and provide sources that you don't often see in mainstream news sites. Bias is everywhere unfortunately, but it's looking beyond that for just the information that's a challenge. I think it's just that I'm in the minority within this thread, because I'm not a Hillary supporter. I think what gets lost is that people don't recognize the attacks from all the media outlets on Trump and his campaign to knock him out of the race. Those are the same tactics that have been used against Dems and Repubs for years. Those tactics are what keep good people from gaining traction (from any party) and the main reason why we're always asking "Why do we always have crap to choose from?" every election cycle.
 
mongooz said:
see.....the news stations should put THAT on the evening news, big and bold.
maybe it would wake a few people up, that keep saying they're "not sure yet".
Click to expand...

Well to be fair, the KKK and other loser groups have limited candidates to choose from just like the rest of us. If I thought Trump was a-ok that wouldn't sway me.
 
linthat22 said:
For me, when I do read articles and there's something that doesn't sound right, I'll go and look up those bits and pieces. The hard part (nowadays anyway) is that having to use multiple search engines to weed out click bait articles, search engine bias (google, I'm looking at you), and finding articles that provide more information on what I'm looking for with solid references.

I don't try and say "media bias" or whatever bias for the sake of stifling the conversation, but when you know that a source that's being used as a counterargument is slanted in one direction versus providing real facts, then I guess you could say that's another way of introducing a circular argument.

To answer your question in regards to news sources that I consider fair are ones that bring up more information and provide sources that you don't often see in mainstream news sites. Bias is everywhere unfortunately, but it's looking beyond that for just the information that's a challenge. I think it's just that I'm in the minority within this thread, because I'm not a Hillary supporter. I think what gets lost is that people don't recognize the attacks from all the media outlets on Trump and his campaign to knock him out of the race. Those are the same tactics that have been used against Dems and Repubs for years. Those tactics are what keep good people from gaining traction (from any party) and the main reason why we're always asking "Why do we always have crap to choose from?" every election cycle.
Click to expand...

I especially find the media's sleazy and distateful tactic of quoting Trump verbatim and showing video footage of him to be unsavory and vicious.
 
smurfco said:
I especially find the media's sleazy and distateful tactic of quoting Trump verbatim and showing video footage of him to be unsavory and vicious.
Click to expand...
why? it saves them time and effort. they don't have to take anything out of context. just publish/broadcast as is. :facepalm:
 
linthat22 said:
For me, when I do read articles and there's something that doesn't sound right, I'll go and look up those bits and pieces. The hard part (nowadays anyway) is that having to use multiple search engines to weed out click bait articles, search engine bias (google, I'm looking at you), and finding articles that provide more information on what I'm looking for with solid references.

I don't try and say "media bias" or whatever bias for the sake of stifling the conversation, but when you know that a source that's being used as a counterargument is slanted in one direction versus providing real facts, then I guess you could say that's another way of introducing a circular argument.

To answer your question in regards to news sources that I consider fair are ones that bring up more information and provide sources that you don't often see in mainstream news sites. Bias is everywhere unfortunately, but it's looking beyond that for just the information that's a challenge. I think it's just that I'm in the minority within this thread, because I'm not a Hillary supporter. I think what gets lost is that people don't recognize the attacks from all the media outlets on Trump and his campaign to knock him out of the race. Those are the same tactics that have been used against Dems and Repubs for years. Those tactics are what keep good people from gaining traction (from any party) and the main reason why we're always asking "Why do we always have crap to choose from?" every election cycle.
Click to expand...

Search engine bias?
Please elaborate, as I would like to know how this works. Are you implying that google deliberately pushes stories to the top of the search results in a way that is biased towards a political party?
 
I have to say that having already voted, and already having doorbelled and volunteered at a local dem fundraiser, my tolerance for listening to the wringing of hands and gratuitous swapping of opinions over the latest news release(s) is greatly decreased. Very little I can do about any of it at this point, other than to encourage others, those who I want to encourage, to get out and vote.
 
Dogsinotpalc said:
I hate that a bunch of non-journalists have decided that journalism can't be trusted using the mass communication mediums created by the journalism industry.

A news organization, e.g.: the New Your Times, can have bias as a far as political support and editorial (read: columnist bias) while not compromising their journalistic integrity. I don't dismiss Wall Street Journal books reviews because I know their editorial offices are conservative, so I don't dismiss their coverage of actual events anymore than those of the NYT because I think they're going to load it with right-wing agenda bullshit.

Also, I can generally spot the bullshit. A certain level of illiteracy, based on reading comprehension, critical thinking, and retention has fed into the bullshit machine that the right spend far more time manipulating than the left have ever even thought about. The "liberal" journalists and news organizations spend far too much time trying to prove to too much of the population (relying on a notion of them having sense and being capable of rational thought) that a significant amount of the "information" being disseminated by the...we'll call them the fair and balanced media...is total fucking bullshit.

The consumers of this stuff have deluded themselves into enjoying shit Twinkies. A significant amount of people are convinced that education is bad on some level and are sure that every fucking thing that they don't (or don't care to) understand is out to get not only them, but ALL of us.

Fuck...pulled into the shit again.
Click to expand...
There's also a massive difference between NYT and WSJ having a bias and sites like RedStateWatch.com and ChicksOnTheRight.com just being blatant right-wing propagandists.
 
linthat22 said:
I never said that Snopes is wrong, just saying that they're biased and not trust worthy when it comes to anything political.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the facts are just liberal. Doesn't make them any less true. Just means that reality doesn't support what you think and Snopes doesn't take sides.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top