This started in another thread, muddied by other arguments as usual.

So, I started a new thread to discuss it specifically.

First - some quotes:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I started this video at about the place where the narrator talks about Trump re-making America in his image.

https://youtu.be/qUwGnTtkQB0?si=WA4rFVLg8J95XOGh&t=71
Trump's first 100 days were 'a horror show,' but Americans are standing up

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
While there is undoubtedly a solid basis for everything they are saying, MSNBC is so biased that it takes away from the story. Kind of like watching a Fox News critique of Gavin Newsome.
In both cases, the subjects are certified weasels, but the sources, due to their blatant bias, actually cushion any impactful reporting. Regards, Bill.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

While there is undoubtedly a solid basis for everything they are saying, MSNBC is so biased that it takes away from the story. Kind of like watching a Fox News critique

I'm disappointed to read your opinion on that, which is basically a dismissal, because I try to post links to credible sources. If those sources that I'm sure are credible are not good enough then I don't know where to look. I have posted links to Fox when the info presented is not spin. And I have posted stuff from Fox to point out their spin. Sometimes I do post spoof links but when I do that it should be obvious.

First - you say, "undoubtedly a solid basis for everything they are saying" then you say, "MSNBC is so biased that it takes away from the story".

Seems to me there are three contradictions in your first sentence. "Solid basis" and "biased" seems contradictory, and so is MSNBC and Fox compared parallel. "Solid basis" includes facts and actual undistorted quotes, and of course perspective.

I think you are biased, but isn't everyone?

So, you tell me how to present information and perspective so solid, or I wish profound, that it isn't so easy to just dismiss as bias?

I thought I was already doing that, but you proved me wrong by dismissing it.

I went back and clicked on the link in my above post and listened again to the reporter's narrative for a minute or two. He's presenting supporting FACTS.

So, where is the friggin' problem?

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Kabob,
Read the article by Jen Psakai.
It's called " jen psaki admits MSNBC biased coverage is intentional"

======================================================

I did a search and found several articles from Rightist sources spinning Paski's interview. One is from The Western Journal. https://www.msn.com/en-us/poli...U8d?ocid=socialshare

Note the feed of the article is from MSN. To understand and form an opinion about what she said you should read the quotes.

And BTW, Maddow is doing just fine.

======================================================

https://youtube.com/shorts/K1S...?si=mOMyS4sc8Mla3e84

Hannity and Koppel over 'bad for America?' interview

quote:

The root of all disappointment is expectation.

Oh man, i came to this thread hoping you had finally made a breakthrough with your therapist

Well, keep trying, slugger

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

The root of all disappointment is expectation.

Oh man, i came to this thread hoping you had finally made a breakthrough with your therapist

Well, keep trying, slugger

Silly me, I had figured that you were here to serve up more Kool-Aid

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

The root of all disappointment is expectation.

Oh man, i came to this thread hoping you had finally made a breakthrough with your therapist

Well, keep trying, slugger

That post doesn't disappoint me. There are two possible reasons. Go figure.

I typed in just what I wrote Kabob. I got the same original article I read. It was Pasaki's words herself, no-ones spin. It was a msnbc header of where it was reported from.
In a nut shell. she said the brass at msnbc knows it's biased. People tune in to them to get bias news, so they dont try to hide it.
If I can find it, you can by doing the same search words.

I found it. I think the original article was in the New York Post. The article in The Western Times which I linked, tagged off the NYP article. I was affirming your claim.

Did you notice that a liberal leaning newsfeed, MSN, provided the article that I linked to. How's that for fair and balanced?

Are you bias?

I am. I'm biased towards truth and reality.

Where does your bias lean?

I'm of the opinion that there are at least two kinds of liars - intentional and unintentional (perhaps mistaken or worse - ideologically stupefied).

When an unintentional liar refuses to consider additional facts, that sorts out the intention.

My point in part is that media bias doesn't mean untruth. It can be peddling untruth or lies as in the case of Hannity, which is a proven fact, and he admitted it. Hannity defended his lies/spin/bias by claiming he's a conservative. Imagine that.

Paski told the truth about her "News" bias, and she doesn't lie, and her presentations have basis in facts. And her broadcast is one of many.

Name ONE source for news or perspective that is totally devoid of bias.

One can start with a solid basis for an argument, then influence the data so as to run it off the rails. MSNBC does this often; Fox News does it habitually. There is no contradiction here. Both sources take the truth and invalidate it by virtue of their historical biases.
I don't mean to be dismissive, but these sources brought skepticism on themselves by virtue of their track records. They take the truth and distort it by spin, editing, or omission.
So, what I'm saying is, while the presentation may be completely true, the blatant bias of the reporter invites skepticism.
Sorry to disappoint. Regards, Bill.

Kabob, someone can tell the truth, but leave out the whole story. It's not a lie that way, but it is a distortion. It leaves the reader/viewer with the perspective of the teller side only. There is never one side.
My bias lays with the whole story. This is not aimed at right or left, both sides are guilty, and can not be trusted.
It's why I repeatedly say I wish I could get known facts from a robot, without a persons inflection put into it.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
One can start with a solid basis for an argument, then influence the data so as to run it off the rails. MSNBC does this often; Fox News does it habitually. There is no contradiction here. Both sources take the truth and invalidate it by virtue of their historical biases.
I don't mean to be dismissive, but these sources brought skepticism on themselves by virtue of their track records. They take the truth and distort it by spin, editing, or omission.
So, what I'm saying is, while the presentation may be completely true, the blatant bias of the reporter invites skepticism.
Sorry to disappoint. Regards, Bill.

That is about as well put Bill as anyone on here, great observation

quote:

Sorry to disappoint. Regards, Bill.

Well, you and TB40 are not disappointing now. That's because you are not dismissive but instead discussing and giving your POV.

quote:

So, what I'm saying is, while the presentation may be completely true, the blatant bias of the reporter invites skepticism.

So, what I'm saying is that bias can't be totally avoided. The best we can hope for is that as you say, "the presentation may be completely true". IMO, it's only "completely true" if nothing important is omitted and what's included is not distorted. Skepticism is healthy. Cynicism is not.

There is a quote about this:

https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mund...uotations-2024-08-04

Hannah Arendt: (Note this is from an article about a paraphrase or misattributed quote from her. But the quotes below are supposedly actual. Note, by using the word supposedly I indicate that I trust the source to tell the truth until I have evidence differently. Thus, there's trust and skepticism side by side.)

The result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth and truth be defamed as a lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world—and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end—is being destroyed.

The Arendtian point is that constant lying by a propaganda machine does not lead to the lie being believed but leads, instead, to cynicism. This is an argument that Arendt made, already, in her first published book The Origins of Totalitarianism. In that book, Arendt writes:

"Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness."

============================================================

We have reached an era of cynicism intentionally made worse by Trump.

We/I see your argument POV all the time. "Both sides lie". "All politicians lie". "All MSM is biased and can't be trusted". and so forth.

Both of you have expressed cynicism.

What I'm saying is that cynicism is just as bad, just as damaging, as lies. When people in mass can't sort out the truth, or reality, and cynicism sets in there will be an open door for Someone like Trump to enter and run amuck.

I think it's utterly important to know how to sort out truth.

I don’t think that Trump has made cynicism worse.

If you want to make that argument, Biden was responsible for it. The MSM/liberal press agents were thought to be “more honest” and truthful… and they got caught big time covering for Biden.

Trump is FOS, but at least he’s not hiding from the press. He’s having regular press conferences and is continually talking to the media… just that he’s not playing favorites with the old legacy types.

I hear people in the news business getting bent about him refusing to allow a reporter from some one outfit… compare that to Biden only rarely doing interviews and those were actually essentially scripted speeches.

The cause of cynicism is that the journalists are too interested in “making a difference” and are continually trying to influence public opinion.

I agree with AI, and photo editing along with a worsening signal to noise ratio it is getting harder to vet one’s information.

If you are an expert in an area, it becomes obvious to you when something is being influenced, but unfortunately most folks are not very widely knowledgeable.

I look at it like lawyers.
they are telling the truth, but in the light that makes only their side come out on top.
Truthful bias, if you will.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
I look at it like lawyers.
they are telling the truth, but in the light that makes only their side come out on top.
Truthful bias, if you will.

Our justice system is adversarial. A lawyer does not make the other side's argument for them.

My point Rolland. Bias reporting is the same.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I don’t think that Trump has made cynicism worse.

The cause of cynicism is that the journalists are too interested in “making a difference” and are continually trying to influence public opinion.

So, you think the blame is on journalists. And Trump's barrage of lies are not designed to have the effect of cynicism.

BTW, people like Hannity are not journalists. They are influencers in the worst way.

"Making a difference"? If that's through being informed as opposed to ideological affirmation what's wrong with that?

This topic is not simple. It has been studied and written about for centuries. But I like to keep it simple. Bias to some degree is given. Lies to the degree Trump has shown are not simply bias. It's the effect of those lies that I'm talking about. The lies made a difference.

Anyway, I did a search on: Truth is subjective

Results: https://www.google.com/search?...fVDA&sclient=gws-wiz

concisely:

https://www.askphilosophers.org/question/4316

So, bias is a natural human condition. Since it's so prevalent, the assumption is it's healthy, if recognized for what it is.

So, what's the point? Are we as a nation operating on subjectivity or objectivity? I think the constitution and rule of law presumes objectivity, perpetually, despite the human condition of bias subjectivity.

The Trump era is about subjectivity in a contest with objectivity.

The most blatant liars are at FOX, The most honest are at CNN. If they had been in the study, I'm sure PBS would win the honesty contest easily

https://www.politifact.com/art...-punditfacts-networ/

We went from a thread on media bias to trump lies. it figures.
And media should report what a figure head says. They should then give All the facts related to what was said. Without eye rolling, laughter or outrage involved. People should be allowed to form their own opinion of facts without influence.
It is likely the reason Catherine Herridge leaves or is released from networks. She gives facts as she has found out, nothing more. She will correct an anchor if they try to distort what she reports. They dont like that.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
We went from a thread on media bias to trump lies. it figures.
And media should report what a figure head says. They should then give All the facts related to what was said. Without eye rolling, laughter or outrage involved. People should be allowed to form their own opinion of facts without influence.
It is likely the reason Catherine Herridge leaves or is released from networks. She gives facts as she has found out, nothing more. She will correct an anchor if they try to distort what she reports. They dont like that.

I don't have a problem with Trump being called out by the media for his repeated lies, I fully approve. Same should happen for a POTUS from any political party.

It's what I just said. I used figure head, because Biden gave so few replies. it was always through a spokesperson. I think the same thing needs to be held for them if they are talking for potus.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:

People should be allowed to form their own opinion of facts without influence.

Okay. What's stopping you?

Just the facts news is something I've heard many times from far-right people, especially my 1st cousin. I've told him many times that even if he knew all the facts, he would filter them in forming an opinion, and such opinion would probably pre-exist. Filtering for affirmation.

I did a search on: what's wrong with the premise of just the facts news

Results: https://www.google.com/search?...B5om&sclient=gws-wiz

Here's one person's comment:

" There is no objective journalism giving “just the facts” and there never was. It starts with story selection, and the facts never given because the story is never told. It continues with the questions never answered because the questions were never asked.

But then there's the choice of words, and the tone and emphasis. What facts highlight the first paragraph, and what facts are buried, continued on page 2?

When I was writing a college research paper on the Spanish Armada, I decided to read the contemporary news coverage in the London newspapers and compare it to later historical timelines and studies. What I learned was headlines have been click bait since before there were clicks.

And news reports giving “just the facts” have always been circumscribed by what witnesses to events saw and/or are willing to say, what reporters hear, and how their words flow from brain to pen or pixel.

Good reporters try to be aware of their biases and compensate, but there is nothing so hard to see as one's own blind spot. I'm glad I'm a columnist. My opinion is expected to permeate my writing."

Interesting.

From we need facts to bias is inescapable, from the guy who continually labels his bias as factual…

Trump lies, give the facts… don’t sit and say “Trump is the biggest liar!”

You are correct that story choice and tone are common ways of biasing reporting… which is one thing that the internet helps with- now the user can look for stories that they feel are significant, the editorial power of the media is reduced.

By the way, the tone and presentation part is a big reason to avoid videos… that and I can read a lot faster than these folks speak (not to mention the continual advertising interruptions).

Then again, maybe I put too high a value on my time… but I’m not getting it back no matter how much I may demand it…

Not every article is worth my time. When one is, I will try and find as much as I can about it.
I find many times, the real story is where the article wants to lead you.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Interesting.

From we need facts to bias is inescapable…

You are correct that story choice and tone are common ways of biasing reporting…

Trump lies, give the facts… don’t sit and say “Trump is the biggest liar!”...

Have you escaped bias?

If so, please share.

Story choice and tone are also common ways of biasing reporting consumption .

Take Hannity, etc., for example. He has a huge audience due to tone, choice and spin.

He has no tether to ethical journalism. His spew pays better.

I think it's time to flip the script on Trump's lies. How about you informing us of something significant he said that wasn't a lie?

" The border needs to be secure"

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
We went from a thread on media bias to trump lies. it figures.
And media should report what a figure head says. They should then give All the facts related to what was said. Without eye rolling, laughter or outrage involved. People should be allowed to form their own opinion of facts without influence.
It is likely the reason Catherine Herridge leaves or is released from networks. She gives facts as she has found out, nothing more. She will correct an anchor if they try to distort what she reports. They dont like that.

Well said, 100% agree.

But do you think the US voters (at least some of them) are able to join the dots? There seem to be more than a few who buy into what comes out of Trumps mouth without his comments ever being run by whats between their ears.

And Steve's comments regarding politicians being called out for lying are also on the money.

Have I escaped bias? No. Of course not… never claimed to have, either.

BTW, which story you choose to watch is consumption. What is put out is bias by the media.

But I’m not the one trying to claim certain news sources are fact, while others are “alt reality”. In truth, they all are to some degree alt reality, especially when the journalist is claiming factuality while trying to influence people consuming his reportage.

Sean Hannity is not a reporter. He’s a glorified social influencer. If you feel he’s a news source, you are confused. My opinion of Hannity is pretty much unprintable, and I doubt any better than yours. To give your preferred example, he’s the Maddow of the right… maybe popular to some, but a very biased source of opinion.

As to a statement made by Trump that was accurate- how about “we are going to keep fighting” after he got shot. He kept fighting and won the election after that. Even then he was pushing things with that goofy ear bandage for effect.

I certainly don’t think of Trump as a person of virtue. In fact, I think he beat the two worst candidates the democrats have put out in my lifetime, and Dukakis or Gore would have beaten him. Heck, Biden did and he’s the third worst democrat candidate in my lifetime… Carter was better than HRC, Harris, and Biden even on his worst day.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Interesting.

From we need facts to bias is inescapable…

You are correct that story choice and tone are common ways of biasing reporting…

Trump lies, give the facts… don’t sit and say “Trump is the biggest liar!”...

Have you escaped bias?

If so, please share.

Story choice and tone are also common ways of biasing reporting consumption .

Take Hannity, etc., for example. He has a huge audience due to tone, choice and spin.

He has no tether to ethical journalism. His spew pays better.

I think it's time to flip the script on Trump's lies. How about you informing us of something significant he said that wasn't a lie?

Well, Doc, I read your post twice but right now I'm in a hurry. My dogs are insisting on their before dark ride in the country.

The quick take away is we mostly agree. Amazing eh?

Later, I'll read and ponder on it. I'm sure I can find something to argue about.

Well, Doc, I thought about it and can find stuff to disagree with you.

But what the heck.

Here's something to think about, in a hypocritical way as usual.

https://youtube.com/shorts/xvr...?si=l6cOhk5ikYGXqfsD

Obama: Imagine if I had done *ANY* of this

Tell me, Doc, is this fake news?

I really don't know for sure, but I'll take it at face value until I know better.

https://youtube.com/shorts/cNV...?si=a0xdCeL8vkoMJRtv