2019 State of the Union (1 Viewer)

Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
761
Ratings
737
Offline
Here's a chart to see where Fox News and Blaze line up. There are a lot of things to the left of it - including right sources.

There are a lot of places here where we could start searching.

I've seen those charts before. And they always seem to put conservative news into the hyperpartisan category. Sorry if that doesn't seem like an unbiased chart to me. And to have NBC news in that minimal partisan category is hogwash.
 

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
20,523
Ratings
32,254
Location
Lebronto
Offline
I've seen those charts before. And they always seem to put conservative news into the hyperpartisan category. Sorry if that doesn't seem like an unbiased chart to me. And to have NBC news in that minimal partisan category is hogwash.
we can quibble over the placement of some, but FOX news is pretty far right bias and lacks a lot of integrity, especially in their opinion work.

And there is plenty of conservative-minded news that's not in the "hyperpartisan" column. Federalist. Drudge. Fox News. If you want to argue they are not 'hyperpartisan" go ahead. But then explain how Mother Jones and HuffPo, Daily KOS, and MSNBC are not hyperpartisan (or borderline hyper-) on the left side.

Also, NBC and MSNBC are not the same thing.

But *all* of that still ignores the central question:

There are plenty of centrist sources in that list that you can consult (it seems you want to argue on the margins - is that purposeful deflection), so why would all of them - including the center right - be "purposefully not writing about it"?

You suspect that they are avoiding it on purpose. Why?
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
761
Ratings
737
Offline
we can quibble over the placement of some, but FOX news is pretty far right bias and lacks a lot of integrity, especially in their opinion work.

And there is plenty of conservative-minded news that's not in the "hyperpartisan" column. Federalist. Drudge. Fox News. If you want to argue they are not 'hyperpartisan" go ahead. But then explain how Mother Jones and HuffPo, Daily KOS, and MSNBC are not hyperpartisan (or borderline hyper-) on the left side.

Also, NBC and MSNBC are not the same thing.

But *all* of that still ignores the central question:

There are plenty of centrist sources in that list that you can consult (it seems you want to argue on the margins - is that purposeful deflection), so why would all of them - including the center right - be "purposefully not writing about it"?

You suspect that they are avoiding it on purpose. Why?
No, it's not purposeful deflection. I can understand how people would label the Blaze in hyperpartisan. Fox News however, I would put them in the "Skews Conservative, but still reliable" category. Not because of their opinion shows, but because of their actual news coverage team which is excellent. I'm talking about pundits like Bret Bayer, Brit Hume, and such.

As to the those on the center right and center left, they may be looking for more sources. I don't know.
 

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
20,523
Ratings
32,254
Location
Lebronto
Offline

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
20,523
Ratings
32,254
Location
Lebronto
Offline
No, it's not purposeful deflection. I can understand how people would label the Blaze in hyperpartisan. Fox News however, I would put them in the "Skews Conservative, but still reliable" category. Not because of their opinion shows, but because of their actual news coverage team which is excellent. I'm talking about pundits like Bret Bayer, Brit Hume, and such.

As to the those on the center right and center left, they may be looking for more sources. I don't know.
I made the distinction about Fox News coverage vs. the opinion component. The problem for Fox is that the opinions overtake the news and end up influencing the news. So, perhaps if you have a Fox News as a discreet network, it wouldn't be so tilted to the right. As it stands, there is a ton of hyperpartisan garbage on that network - esp in primetime and that's also what draws viewers.

There is a lot of stuff that comes on Fox News that I would *not* say is reliable news, at all.

So, you're essentially talking about one source's placement: Fox. That's hardly enough, imo, to invalidate the chart or say that it's somehow invalid or whatever.

Even if you slid Fox over a single line, there's still a lot of other sources - and I wouldn't even have a huge issue with that (although it feels like they've gone even more hyperpartisan since Trump, and I'd have found that hard to believe post-Obama) - that you could look to.

I wouldn't watch Fox if I didn't have to. And when I do, it's not for information in the strictest news-gathering sense.

There are too many other places to get your news - if that's what you are really looking for.

Most people who tune in to places on either side of that center, though, are looking for validation and confirmation of their biases. They aren't looking for "news"
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
761
Ratings
737
Offline
I made the distinction about Fox News coverage vs. the opinion component. The problem for Fox is that the opinions overtake the news and end up influencing the news. So, perhaps if you have a Fox News as a discreet network, it wouldn't be so tilted to the right. As it stands, there is a ton of hyperpartisan garbage on that network - esp in primetime and that's also what draws viewers.

There is a lot of stuff that comes on Fox News that I would *not* say is reliable news, at all.

So, you're essentially talking about one source's placement: Fox. That's hardly enough, imo, to invalidate the chart or say that it's somehow invalid or whatever.

Even if you slid Fox over a single line, there's still a lot of other sources - and I wouldn't even have a huge issue with that (although it feels like they've gone even more hyperpartisan since Trump, and I'd have found that hard to believe post-Obama) - that you could look to.

I wouldn't watch Fox if I didn't have to. And when I do, it's not for information in the strictest news-gathering sense.

There are too many other places to get your news - if that's what you are really looking for.

Most people who tune in to places on either side of that center, though, are looking for validation and confirmation of their biases. They aren't looking for "news"
That may be, but really which of those sources in the center have broadcast news networks. The only one I see that does is ABC which I won’t watch because of the Dan Rather and John Williams debacles.

Edit: sorry. I forgot Dan Rather was with CBS.
 

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
20,523
Ratings
32,254
Location
Lebronto
Offline
That may be, but really which of those sources in the center have broadcast news networks.
what does this have to do with anything? You cited Blaze. They don't have a broadcast news network. Nor does Drudge, whom you also cited.

It's apparent you don't restrict your news sources to broadcast news, so I'm at more of a loss as to what this is supposed to mean.

It really feels like you're trying to pull further and further away from the discussion. It might not be intended as evasion, but the effect - nonetheless - operates as such.
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
37
Ratings
3
Age
54
Location
ragley
Offline
Things i agree with:
1. better wages
2.better trade deals
3.better border protection
4. better health care
5.better bipartisan congress
6.less taxes
7.less regulations
8.less unemployment
9.less crime
10. less investigations
11.better military
12.better infrastructure
13.stop late term abortion
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
761
Ratings
737
Offline
what does this have to do with anything? You cited Blaze. They don't have a broadcast news network. Nor does Drudge, whom you also cited.

It's apparent you don't restrict your news sources to broadcast news, so I'm at more of a loss as to what this is supposed to mean.

It really feels like you're trying to pull further and further away from the discussion. It might not be intended as evasion, but the effect - nonetheless - operates as such.
Last i’ll say on this, as you are right, it’s diverting from the discussion. The blaze does have a streaming network that you can watch analysis. I don’t even visit drudge. I meant that question more as what broadcast news would you deem as reliable?
 

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,042
Ratings
16,393
Age
47
Location
Coalinga CA
Online
I
Last i’ll say on this, as you are right, it’s diverting from the discussion. The blaze does have a streaming network that you can watch analysis. I don’t even visit drudge. I meant that question more as what broadcast news would you deem as reliable?
It’s easy. First, a reliable source will present the whole issue at hand, not one small piece of it, second, the emotional trigger words will be gone. If you start to feel mad or confirmed in your feelings, it’s an influence piece, not a news piece. Also, if it isn’t built around a fact based outline it isn’t a decent article.

If you are really interested in real news reporting here is a link to the DDay landings audio archives. Listen to how they obsess on facts and correct reporting. Even with the monumental event happening, fact checking and such everywhere in that broadcast. Certainly the first couple hours as it was developing.
Now, go back and compare Fox News, or most any news now. Look at the emotional triggers, the confirmation bias on and on.
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
761
Ratings
737
Offline
I

It’s easy. First, a reliable source will present the whole issue at hand, not one small piece of it, second, the emotional trigger words will be gone. If you start to feel mad or confirmed in your feelings, it’s an influence piece, not a news piece. Also, if it isn’t built around a fact based outline it isn’t a decent article.

If you are really interested in real news reporting here is a link to the DDay landings audio archives. Listen to how they obsess on facts and correct reporting. Even with the monumental event happening, fact checking and such everywhere in that broadcast. Certainly the first couple hours as it was developing.
Now, go back and compare Fox News, or most any news now. Look at the emotional triggers, the confirmation bias on and on.
This is my point in that question. It's all of the cable news networks now.
 

DadsDream

We Wuz Robbed!
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
40,005
Ratings
5,628
Location
Hancock County
Online
If you are really interested in real news reporting here is a link to the DDay landings audio archives.
Andy Rooney was a young reporter for Stars and Stripes long before he became the grumpy old curmudgeon on 60 Minutes.

His D-Day account of US casualties being laid out on roads between the hedgerows, only to be run over by our own tanks as they rushed to prevent the German tanks from getting behind our lines is a brutally honest account of the horrors of war. Recommended reading:

 

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
20,523
Ratings
32,254
Location
Lebronto
Offline
I meant that question more as what broadcast news would you deem as reliable?
I don't watch broadcast news for news. I read it. Even then, it can be problematic, but the televisual of broadcast cable news introduces even more variables - from even the aesthetic layout - that compound the issues around getting "news" in the strictest sense.

Years ago, I had a pretty major research project that involved breaking down and looking at all of the steps between an event and it's 'coverage' on cable news and it was sobering and eye-opening. Since then, I don't watch except for work purposes and never to get 'news' without understanding the process and the lenses through which it's filtered (graphics, pundits, crawler info, editing, etc)

Though, I'm still not sure of the relevancy of any of this.

I'm still wondering why you think they all are purposely not covering this story.
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
761
Ratings
737
Offline
I don't watch broadcast news for news. I read it. Even then, it can be problematic, but the televisual of broadcast cable news introduces even more variables - from even the aesthetic layout - that compound the issues around getting "news" in the strictest sense.

Years ago, I had a pretty major research project that involved breaking down and looking at all of the steps between an event and it's 'coverage' on cable news and it was sobering and eye-opening. Since then, I don't watch except for work purposes and never to get 'news' without understanding the process and the lenses through which it's filtered (graphics, pundits, crawler info, editing, etc)

Though, I'm still not sure of the relevancy of any of this.

I'm still wondering why you think they all are purposely not covering this story.
From the left I would assume to further their agenda. Though you pointing out center right oulets not publishing the story is not lost on me.
 

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
20,523
Ratings
32,254
Location
Lebronto
Offline
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
761
Ratings
737
Offline
which would be?
For the far left outlets, I would assume that they don't want the bill in NY to have anything that would give it a black eye, like this story.

and do you think that reason would be the same for Bloomberg, NPR, Reuters, New York Times, Truthout, and Daily KOS?
I don't visit those sites, so I won't speak to them.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Similar threads



Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom