Media Bias

[Tenshot13]

The only people fuming mad at the Republican party are Democrats Dave.  Whatever that means, that's what's happening.

[Tenshot13]

Government is reopening later today.

[Dave Gray]

The only people fuming mad at the Republican party are Democrats Dave.  Whatever that means, that's what's happening.

Correct.  The others have left.  Current Republicans are just fine with whatever this has become.

[Dolphster]

There is no liberal media bias.  That's bullshit.

LOL, Good one, Dave.  

"There is no liberal media bias.  That's bullshit."   -Every single left wing nut in the country
"There is no conservative media bias.  That's bullshit."   -Every single right wing nut in the country

And that is exactly what I was complaining about in my previous post.  

[Tenshot13]

^^^

[Tenshot13]

I just heard Chuck Schumer talking...I really can't stand him.  He could be the best politician in the world, and the fact that he always has so much mucus in his mouth every time he talks...drink some damn water already!  I found him to be pretty petty following the end of the shutdown, Pelosi was more dignified.

InB4 Trump is more pettierer

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

LOL, Good one, Dave.  

"There is no liberal media bias.  That's bullshit."   -Every single left wing nut in the country
"There is no conservative media bias.  That's bullshit."   -Every single right wing nut in the country

And that is exactly what I was complaining about in my previous post.  

Actually bias is inevitable.  The New York Times has a left leaning bias. The Wall Streets Journal has a right leaning bias.  Both are fine papers, both strive to be fair even though their editors have actual opinions and see the news from particular perspectives.  

However, Fox News has an agenda.  It doesn’t stive to be fair.  It sets out to push a specific narrative.  Same thing with the daily kos.  

Here is the difference most liberals know the daily kos has an agenda (one they agree with) and take what they report with a grain of salt. most conservative deny that fox has an agenda.

[CF DolFan]

Actually bias is inevitable.  The New York Times has a left leaning bias. The Wall Streets Journal has a right leaning bias.  Both are fine papers, both strive to be fair even though their editors have actual opinions and see the news from particular perspectives.  

However, Fox News has an agenda.  It doesn’t stive to be fair.  It sets out to push a specific narrative.  Same thing with the daily kos.  

Here is the difference most liberals know the daily kos has an agenda (one they agree with) and take what they report with a grain of salt. most conservative deny that fox has an agenda.

Two things. MSNBC and CNN are every bit as bad if not worse than the slants at FOX. You can even throw in NBC & ABC at certain times.  FOX News isn't actually bad. It's the talk shows and the talking heads over there that are definitely slanted ... which is what you get at MSNBC.  If you're just looking at the news that FOX puts out separate form the talk shows it isn't bad.

[Spider-Dan]

Two things. MSNBC and CNN are every bit as bad if not worse than the slants at FOX.

In case you missed it in my last post:



Since Fox News and MSNBC are "equally bad," surely you can provide an example of Fox News hiring prominent liberal radio hosts, former Democratic campaign chiefs, former heads of the DNC, etc.?  If you can't, I'll settle for an example of a former Democratic congressman that was given the coveted morning slot for a decade or so on Fox.

[Spider-Dan]

Solid post right there and I totally agree with you about "both sides" being the problem.

You don't agree with me.  In fact, I would say that you are in favor of exactly what I was objecting to.

I was not criticizing both sides.  I was criticizing the mainstream media (so: not Fox), who can only frame disputes in a "both sides are responsible" or "both sides disagree" fashion, even when one side is clearly in the wrong.  To wit:

It also makes me crazy with how the right wingers will reject everything that the left wing proposes and the left wing will reject everything the right wing proposes.

This is exactly the false equivalency I was talking about.  If the right is proposing that we ban all Muslims from entering the country "until we figure out what the hell is going on", and the left is proposing that we take action to try to stop the climate change that virtually all climate scientists agree is being caused by humans, these are not morally equivalent actions, and it's ridiculous to frame it as "well one side is just going to object to whatever the other side says no matter what."

[pondwater]

it's ridiculous to frame it as "well one side is just going to object to whatever the other side says no matter what."

No it's not. And to prove that point. One year politicians will campaign or argue for something. Then a few years later when the other side wants that exact same thing, they will flip flop and fight against it. There is plenty of video evidence of both sides doing it. They all flip flop according to what their opponent is doing.

[Dolphster]

You don't agree with me.  In fact, I would say that you are in favor of exactly what I was objecting to.

I was not criticizing both sides.  I was criticizing the mainstream media (so: not Fox), who can only frame disputes in a "both sides are responsible" or "both sides disagree" fashion, even when one side is clearly in the wrong.  To wit:
This is exactly the false equivalency I was talking about.  If the right is proposing that we ban all Muslims from entering the country "until we figure out what the hell is going on", and the left is proposing that we take action to try to stop the climate change that virtually all climate scientists agree is being caused by humans, these are not morally equivalent actions, and it's ridiculous to frame it as "well one side is just going to object to whatever the other side says no matter what."

I was agreeing with part of what you had said, but that is my bad because I should have specified what it was that I was agreeing with.  Also, exactly what am I in favor of that you are objecting to? 

You must have heard them say "false equivalency" on MSNBC.  You sure like to say it a lot.  I'm just not sure you fully understand what it means.  Also, if you could point out which Republican sponsored bill has ever "proposed that we ban all Muslims from entering the country", I would certainly be interested in reading that bill as it sounds terrible. 

[Spider-Dan]

No it's not. And to prove that point. One year politicians will campaign or argue for something. Then a few years later when the other side wants that exact same thing, they will flip flop and fight against it.

"A few years later" is doing some pretty heavy lifting in that sentence.

If Democrats were in favor of granting civil unions (in lieu of marriage) to same-sex couples in 1999, they are not "flip-flopping" to say that civil unions are not an acceptable substitute for marriage in 2019.  Society has changed over the last 20 years.

A better example might be if they were extremely concerned about the deficit and insisted on drastic budget cuts (to programs they disagree with ideologically anyway) until the moment when they took power, at which point they blew gaping holes in the deficit with bills that are aligned with their ideological goals, and then, when they lost control, started complaining about the deficit again.  But we know that "both sides" don't do this.

[Spider-Dan]

Also, exactly what am I in favor of that you are objecting to?

This:

It also makes me crazy with how the right wingers will reject everything that the left wing proposes and the left wing will reject everything the right wing proposes.  Don't even look at the validity of the topic.

The left rejects much of what the right proposes because it's crazy and stupid.

Now, the rather obvious (and lazy) retort is to say that the right also says that what the left proposes is crazy and stupid!  And this is the problem: a viewpoint like the one you describe above implies that there's no objective way to tell which side is wrong, and that is not true.  You reduce the dispute to, "Well one side side says this and the other side says that, so I guess we can't know who is right!"

Conservatives are aware that the facts say that they are wrong.  This is why you see them attacking scientists, educators, and even journalists who simply report the facts.  They have created an entirely insulated ecosystem for producing their own set of alternative facts, because the normal system - the system that has been in place for hundreds of years of scientific and economic advancement - says their ideas are crazy and stupid.

So when you complain about "the right wingers will reject everything that the left wing proposes and the left wing will reject everything the right wing proposes," you are making absolutely no allowance for the possibility that what the right proposes is bad and dumb.  You're treating the proposals of both sides as if they are equivalent when they are not.  I believe there's a term for that...

You must have heard them say "false equivalency" on MSNBC.  You sure like to say it a lot.

Well, in the context of treating two things that are unequal as if they are equal, "false equivalency" is a pretty accurate term.  I'm certainly open to suggestions for a different one.

Also, if you could point out which Republican sponsored bill has ever "proposed that we ban all Muslims from entering the country", I would certainly be interested in reading that bill as it sounds terrible.

I never claimed that it was a "Republican sponsored bill," and the fact that you inserted that extra condition indicates that you're quite aware of the source: the current President of the United States made a complete ban of all Muslims entering the country a centerpiece of his Presidential campaign.  Are you trying to claim that a major campaign plank of a Republican President does not count as a "proposal of the right"?

[Dolphster]

Spider, thanks for further explaining your previous post.  I have a better understanding of what you were getting at now.  If I came across as having the viewpoint that neither "side" is wrong and that they are just different approaches, then I was unclear in what I was trying to say.  The right comes up with some truly moronic stances and the left comes up with some truly moronic stances.  What I was trying to point out was that both sides can take a simple story and spin them in such polar opposite ways that you would never guess it was the same story.  I was also trying to make the point that because both sides (and I am generalizing here) are so closed minded in defending "their team" that they are unable/unwilling to take those filters off and base their opinions on the facts.  Hence my comment of lefties saying there is no liberal bias in the media and the righties saying there is no conservative bias in the media. 

Honestly, I don't have a dog in the hunt for either party because my own political bent is probably about 75% towards the philosophies of the Libertarian.  I say 75% because I try to be mindful of determining the merits of each individual party tenet on its own rather than just blindly going along with whatever my party stands for on any particular cause.  Which is of course what I have been voicing my frustration about when it comes to Democrats and Republicans. 

I agree with some of the things you say here and I disagree with some of them.  And that is fine.  Respectful public discourse is a good thing.  But either way, I appreciate the fact that you seem to put a lot of thought into your positions and you seem to make an effort to educate yourself about the topics you post on.