• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Media bias.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
nickqt said:
Ah yes, one of the most long-term lies that conservatives have been trained to believe in.

As if the fucking mainstream media aren't huge corporations designed to sell advertisements to as many people as possible.

It's why they're always refrain with BothSidesDoIt™.

Yes, this elected Republican is a total piece of shit, but look, some liberal blogger with an audience of 12 says something equally shitty.

Now, go to McDonalds, set up a reverse mortgage, and buy these dick pills. because BothSidesDoIt™.
Click to expand...

Weekly BS story Fox gets caught peddling = Dan Rather 2004
 
hal2kilo said:
Apparently, you haven't looked at the headlines on the Enquirer's front page for the last 15 or so months (or don't go through the grocery store check out lanes). It absolutely fed the Clinton health rumors throughout the campaign. Totally negative for her and 100% positive for Trump. But hey yea, they were only slightly biased for conservatives.
Click to expand...
Aren't they the ones who buried the Stormy Daniels story?
 
Moonbeam said:
And if they can't all be right, might objective be where opinions cluster
Click to expand...

I can’t say I fully understood your post but I think I got the gist of it. I don’t think clustering of opinion makes them objective or right. That would mean the world being flat would have been an objective fact not just an opinion not so long ago
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
That's not quite true even in principle. What you refer to is superdeterminism and isn't seen as likely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism
There are other links which are related, chiefly Bell's Theorem.
Click to expand...

I tried to read through all of it and I admit it is bit beyond my capability

What I meant in more simple terms is that we are shaped by our childhood and related environment, the people involved there. Those people in turn got shaped by their childhood and related environment. So basically it goes back to the very beginning
 
This thread reminds me of this conversation I had many years ago with someone who I am unfortunately related to. Someone very accomplished, very well off, very pompous, very liberal (not implying any link between these). For him the New York Times occupies the same status as the Bible does to a simple minded Christian from a small town in Mississippi.

As a long time avid reader of NY Times myself, I said a few things about it. Suggested it operates according to a certain agenda / philosophy. For example, it frequently if not always uses the adjective risk with pregnancy - as in pregnancy risk, or risk of pregnancy. I said to him that pregnancy is not a disease. In short order, he got very angry and said to me point blank - "of all people you should know better than that. I don't expect that from you.....you are an idiot!". I didn't know what to say to that. Walked away, rather hurt.

The non religious people are just as religious...but unaware of it.
 
Noah Abrams said:
This thread reminds me of this conversation I had many years ago with someone who I am unfortunately related to. Someone very accomplished, very well off, very pompous, very liberal (not implying any link between these). For him the New York Times occupies the same status as the Bible does to a simple minded Christian from a small town in Mississippi.

As a long time avid reader of NY Times myself, I said a few things about it. Suggested it operates according to a certain agenda / philosophy. For example, it frequently if not always uses the adjective risk with pregnancy - as in pregnancy risk, or risk of pregnancy. I said to him that pregnancy is not a disease. In short order, he got very angry and said to me point blank - "of all people you should know better than that. I don't expect that from you.....you are an idiot!". I didn't know what to say to that. Walked away, rather hurt.

The non religious people are just as religious...but unaware of it.
Click to expand...
The New York Times isn't "liberal".

It's neoliberal, centrist, capitalism and Imperialism, hurrah, BothSidesDoIt™ villager propaganda. Just because it doesn't veer straight into insanity like right-wing media doesn't mean it's libruuul.

Supporting Empire and "free market capitalism" over individual rights, while also not wanting to hang the gays, doesn't make it libruuul.
 
nickqt said:
The New York Times isn't "liberal".

It's neoliberal, centrist, capitalism and Imperialism, hurrah, BothSidesDoIt villager propaganda. Just because it doesn't veer straight into insanity like right-wing media doesn't mean it's libruuul.

Supporting Empire and "free market capitalism" over individual rights, while also not wanting to hang the gays, doesn't make it libruuul.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your depictions of New York Times. But the point is it like many such outlets, has a certain outlook. And it operates based on that and tries quite intelligently to steer people in that direction. It’s not your run of the mill propaganda which sounds like propaganda outlet. They are good at putting layers of sophistication on top.

But the other point is how violently people react (emotional violence is the same as physical if not worse) when their cherished beliefs are challenged. You would think that more educated people won’t quite behave the same way but that isn’t so. This forum is as good a proof as any
 
dank69 said:
Aren't they the ones who buried the Stormy Daniels story?
Click to expand...

Nope, it was the Karen McDougal story. Which got less media attention than the Stormy Daniels story because McDougal and her attorney weren't so interested in publicity. It's a more compelling scandal though. She alleges, among other things, that Michael Cohen got involved on behalf of Trump, and had a lawyer buddy of his solicit her as a client, then proceed to advise her to sign an agreement with the Inquirer which allowed them to bury the story. Instant disbarment for Cohen (and his buddy) if true.
 
I'm curious if that chart is taking into consideration the difference between an editorial section and and outlet's fact reporting. NYT has a pretty liberal editorial board, but its fact reporting is quite neutral. Similar to the WSJ, pretty neutral on fact reporting but with a conservative editorial board.
 
shortylickens said:
I honestly dont know how reporting on aliens and bat boys is even slightly biased for conservatives but whatever, the National Enquirer is still better than about 90 percent of agencies.
Click to expand...
The head of the NE is good buddies with Trump. They've practiced catch and kill on negative Trump stories. They are also hip deep in the Stormy Daniels/Karen McDougal fiasco

What is disturbing about this chart on the conservative extremest part of the graph righties consider those main-stream sources. Not so much on the liberal side.
 
Noah Abrams said:
This thread reminds me of this conversation I had many years ago with someone who I am unfortunately related to. Someone very accomplished, very well off, very pompous, very liberal (not implying any link between these). For him the New York Times occupies the same status as the Bible does to a simple minded Christian from a small town in Mississippi.

As a long time avid reader of NY Times myself, I said a few things about it. Suggested it operates according to a certain agenda / philosophy. For example, it frequently if not always uses the adjective risk with pregnancy - as in pregnancy risk, or risk of pregnancy. I said to him that pregnancy is not a disease. In short order, he got very angry and said to me point blank - "of all people you should know better than that. I don't expect that from you.....you are an idiot!". I didn't know what to say to that. Walked away, rather hurt.

The non religious people are just as religious...but unaware of it.
Click to expand...
If it makes you feel any better, he wasn't wrong.
 
woolfe9998 said:
I'm curious if that chart is taking into consideration the difference between an editorial section and and outlet's fact reporting. NYT has a pretty liberal editorial board, but its fact reporting is quite neutral. Similar to the WSJ, pretty neutral on fact reporting but with a conservative editorial board.
Click to expand...

Please. Facts have a liberal bias. Everybody knows this. Trump voters merely indulge themselves in fantasy.
 
lopri said:
In what world The Nation is more conservative (or less liberal) than Slate?
Click to expand...

They are right next together and it's not as if there is anyway to accurately measure this. It's extremely subjective. From what I've seen they are about the same.
 
Jhhnn said:
Please. Facts have a liberal bias. Everybody knows this. Trump voters merely indulge themselves in fantasy.
Click to expand...
Saying they merely indulge themselves in fantasy can be easily interpreted in a way that misses the mark by a mile I think. I think a more accurate way of describing what is happening is that conservatives and liberals have various ego attachments, prejudices, concealed or hidden biases prior to being exposed to information called facts and that those facts cause liberals and conservatives to react to with different parts of their brains. Conservatives judge facts based on fear if those facts challenge something they hold as sacred, one or another of the biases they operate under at an unconscious level. This fear reaction predominates because self identified conservatives have been shown to have larger right amygdalae area of the brain associated with fear response. Liberals, on the other hand it was found that increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex was significantly associated with liberalism. This is a part of the brain that helps to suppress habitual brain activity including threat reaction.

I think that here we can say that conservatives react to facts that threaten their sacred cows more readily than liberals who are more able to allow a rational analysis of what the facts are because they are more able to ignore the threat to their egos. This is why liberal thinking flowers when there isn't a great deal of threat and why people move to the right when they feel threatened. You will share love when you are happy but become aggressive and hateful when intimidated. Unfortunately for people who think, they create their own terrors in their heads. Anxiety attacks can happen when people suddenly relax.

This is what we are stealing from those children we separate at the border. We build the wall that is within us so they will never relax or know peace again.
 
Moonbeam said:
including threat reaction.

I think that here we can say that conservatives react to facts that threaten their sacred cows more readily than liberals who are more able to allow a rational analysis of what the facts are because they are more able to ignore the threat to their egos. This is why liberal thinking flowers when there isn't a great deal of threat and why people move to the right when they feel threatened. You will share love when you are happy but become aggressive and hateful when intimidated. .
Click to expand...

Yes but why is that so many if not most liberals are so full of hate and anger?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top