Facebook prioritizing different types of hate speech

Page 11 of 12 [ 179 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

10 Dec 2020, 8:17 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
From a far-right perspective of course the media appears to have a left-leaning bias. From a far-left perspective the media appears to have a centre-right bias.


I think the media's leaning relative to the country is the best way to describe its bias.

I can't speak for Australia, but in the U.S. the ratio of self described Democrats to self described Republicans in the media is 4:1. In the country as a whole the same ratio is 1.1:1. Fairly obvious the media has a Democrat (leftward) tilt relative to the country.


How about for editorial boards? Liberal presenters are irrelevant if the editorial staff are mostly conservative.

It actually is not obvious that US media has a leftward tilt. They have a sensationalist tilt and a pro-establishment tilt, this is compounded by conservatives in America going batshit insane since the 90s, but it isn't tilt to increasingly find yourself disagreeing with the mentally ill. Facts don't actually have a left-wing bias although it might appear so at times when so many conservatives are constantly arguing against them.


Facts have no bias whatsoever, but reporting of facts can be biased. This example might not jell with everyone here but Matthew Berry (fantasy football analyst for ESPN) does a segment every year where he uses true statistics to argue both that a player is amazing and terrible. If you report on things that support your world view while not reporting things that are against your world view you're going to get a skewed reporting of facts.

You can sit in denial all you want. Basically every reputable psychological study says confirmation bias is real and that people fit facts to their narratives and not the other way around. If there are a lot more democratic journalists than republican journalists you're going to get more reporting that fits the democratic narrative.

I don't have statistics for editorial boards specifically, but I doubt they skew all that different from journalists as a whole.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,284

10 Dec 2020, 9:41 pm

Antrax wrote:
If there are a lot more democratic journalists than republican journalists you're going to get more reporting that fits the democratic narrative.

I don't have statistics for editorial boards specifically, but I doubt they skew all that different from journalists as a whole.


That's just the point isn't it? the conservative narrative that journalists are all socialists is based on active confirmation bias where they scan the media and find an article that objectively reports some crackpot idea or policy from a right wing politician after which all the media (including the journalist they targeted) are painted to be some hotbed of socialism.



uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

10 Dec 2020, 9:43 pm

Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
From a far-right perspective of course the media appears to have a left-leaning bias. From a far-left perspective the media appears to have a centre-right bias.


I think the media's leaning relative to the country is the best way to describe its bias.

I can't speak for Australia, but in the U.S. the ratio of self described Democrats to self described Republicans in the media is 4:1. In the country as a whole the same ratio is 1.1:1. Fairly obvious the media has a Democrat (leftward) tilt relative to the country.


How about for editorial boards? Liberal presenters are irrelevant if the editorial staff are mostly conservative.

It actually is not obvious that US media has a leftward tilt. They have a sensationalist tilt and a pro-establishment tilt, this is compounded by conservatives in America going batshit insane since the 90s, but it isn't tilt to increasingly find yourself disagreeing with the mentally ill. Facts don't actually have a left-wing bias although it might appear so at times when so many conservatives are constantly arguing against them.


Facts have no bias whatsoever, but reporting of facts can be biased. This example might not jell with everyone here but Matthew Berry (fantasy football analyst for ESPN) does a segment every year where he uses true statistics to argue both that a player is amazing and terrible. If you report on things that support your world view while not reporting things that are against your world view you're going to get a skewed reporting of facts.

You can sit in denial all you want. Basically every reputable psychological study says confirmation bias is real and that people fit facts to their narratives and not the other way around. If there are a lot more democratic journalists than republican journalists you're going to get more reporting that fits the democratic narrative.

I don't have statistics for editorial boards specifically, but I doubt they skew all that different from journalists as a whole.



The fact that confirmation bias is a real phenomenon does not mean by proxy that all people are always guilty of it, or that most people are usually guilty of it, or that it's the normal standard of operation for all people. It's a cognitive error that people can fall into, not unlike the common tendency to assume that everyone thinks the same way as the individual making the assumption (for example "I think a certain food tastes good, therefor it must taste good to everyone").

Anyone who is even remotely capable of differentiating a fact from an opinion, and the ability to act on that differentiation accordingly, should be able to make a reasonable attempt at overcoming confirmation bias. Just because people have opinions doesn't mean they can't separate their opinions from the facts.

People have opinions. And yes, people act on them. But most people are not utterly beholden to them, as an unquestioning slave. Most problems arise when a person mistakenly believes that an opinion of theirs is actually a fact, and try to treat it and view it as such. From there it becomes a disagreement of what is or isn't a fact.

"You should be open to new ideas" gets said a lot, but usually the actual meaning is "you should be more open to MY ideas", with the person extolling the benefits of open mindedness making no attempt to follow their own advice.

Now, thanks to the monetization of everything, even things like News has to be popular, and get ratings. So rather than simply reciting facts, presenters are expected to interpret and opine about the material to engage with people, either in studio or the viewers at large. The goal is to be clear about it, and talk about it in such a way so that people can tell which is the facts, and which is the opinions - The most common format is "Here's what we've been told" (reporting facts w/o bias), followed by "and here's what I think about it" (expressing opinions). That way people can tell which parts are facts and which parts are opinions. Again, the problem starts to come up when opinions get reported as, or taken to be, facts.

It's also interesting to note that the media bias argument points the finger at "left wing bias", but doesn't seem to point at any right wing outlets that have all right wing presenters. Or are things being framed as thought two sides of news involved are biased left wing news, and impartial real news.

Also, your metaphor with the sports stuff kinda falls apart because "best" and "worst" are subjective, based on the criteria you use, which is the point of the gimmick - It also mixes facts and opinions. Using statistics to show that someone has made more free throws per game is a fact. Inferring that they are therefore the better free thrower is an opinion, although based by a fact. The opinion conformed to the facts, as you said it should. If that same player also has a statistic that shows they've never made any assists in any number of games, then that is a fact. Concluding that he must therefore be bad at assists, is an opinion, again, based on fact, as you've said it should be. He's just using different facts to quantify by what subjective criteria you would have to judge them by in order to be able to call them "best" or "worst".

Ironically, it does seem like you're trying to make the facts fit your opinions.

---

As far as Hate Speech goes, the funny thing about it is, people that have bigoted beliefs don't think they're being hateful, because to them, they're just stating the truth as they know it. A person that genuinely believes that most black people are violent thieves, for reasons that seem logical to them, wouldn't think it was racist to say "black people are thieves", cos to them, they'd just be "stating a fact".

To them, thinking they've merely stated a fact, being told they can't say things like that, would sound like thought policing or political correctness - to them it would seem like they were being told they couldn't call thieves "thieves" anymore "because it offended people" - as opposed to the possibility that maybe it is in fact a racist trope, and maybe black people are neither as violent nor as larcenous as they've been led to believe.



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

10 Dec 2020, 10:38 pm

uncommondenominator there's a lot in your post I want to address I'm going to break it up into a few parts so I can treat each part with the care it deserves.

uncommondenominator wrote:
also, your metaphor with the sports stuff kinda falls apart because "best" and "worst" are subjective, based on the criteria you use, which is the point of the gimmick - It also mixes facts and opinions. Using statistics to show that someone has made more free throws per game is a fact. Inferring that they are therefore the better free thrower is an opinion, although based by a fact. The opinion conformed to the facts, as you said it should. If that same player also has a statistic that shows they've never made any assists in any number of games, then that is a fact. Concluding that he must therefore be bad at assists, is an opinion, again, based on fact, as you've said it should be. He's just using different facts to quantify by what subjective criteria you would have to judge them by in order to be able to call them "best" or "worst".


yeah it was hazardous to cite an article most would not have seen without giving the example:

Matthew Berry wrote:
"Running Back A" is an absolute fantasy football scoring machine, the second-best RB in the NFL in rushes per touchdown. His 12 rushing touchdowns in his final nine games last season led the NFL during that span and he was second in rushing yards, scoring more fantasy points than even Christian McCaffrey. A big play waiting to happen, he led all RBs (minimum 100 carries) in percentage of rushes that went for five-plus yards and 10-plus yards last season. He ran behind a great offensive line (he was second among RBs in yards per rush before first contact) and he was tough to bring down when you finally got to him (he was top 10 among RBs in yards per rush after first contact). He's the starting running back on one of the best running teams in the NFL, a squad that is top five in the league in both rush percentage and red zone rush percentage, so it's exciting to think about how much he'll get fed since he was fourth best among RBs (minimum 100 carries) in fantasy points per touch. Running Back A is sure to be a centerpiece on many fantasy championship teams this season.


All the facts stated in this blurb are correct.

Matthew Berry wrote:
Running Back B" was third on his own team last season in red zone carries and is more of a career special-teams player than fantasy asset at running back. At best a situational player, he had only three games last season with more than 12 touches, and in 16 games last season he had just six goal-to-go carries (compared to 21 for the other running backs on his team), showing that his team had a lack of faith in him near the goal line. Speaking of those other running backs, our guy is on the wrong side of a committee situation, as there were two other RBs on his team last season who averaged more carries per game and three other running backs on his team who had more receptions. And that's despite the fact that Running Back B was the only RB on his team to play all 16 games last season. He was nonexistent in the passing game (just 1.4 targets per game, and he had zero or one catch in 12 of 16 games) and is now 28 years old. His own team wouldn't even commit to him on the field last season, so why should you?


All the facts stated in this blurb are correct.

Matthew Berry wrote:
Before you answer, you should know one more fact about each guy.

Running Back A's name is Raheem Mostert.

Oh, and I should also mention this.

Running Back B's name is ... also Raheem Mostert.


The point of the exercise is to show how selectively choosing your facts can build your narrative. The issue with confirmation bias is people look for and accept facts that support their narrative. They don't look for facts that challenge their narrative and question them when they do arise.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Last edited by Antrax on 10 Dec 2020, 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

10 Dec 2020, 11:07 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:


The fact that confirmation bias is a real phenomenon does not mean by proxy that all people are always guilty of it, or that most people are usually guilty of it, or that it's the normal standard of operation for all people. It's a cognitive error that people can fall into, not unlike the common tendency to assume that everyone thinks the same way as the individual making the assumption (for example "I think a certain food tastes good, therefor it must taste good to everyone").

Anyone who is even remotely capable of differentiating a fact from an opinion, and the ability to act on that differentiation accordingly, should be able to make a reasonable attempt at overcoming confirmation bias. Just because people have opinions doesn't mean they can't separate their opinions from the facts.

People have opinions. And yes, people act on them. But most people are not utterly beholden to them, as an unquestioning slave. Most problems arise when a person mistakenly believes that an opinion of theirs is actually a fact, and try to treat it and view it as such. From there it becomes a disagreement of what is or isn't a fact.


Yeah confirmation bias isn't thinking your opinion is fact. It's when you're presented with information that confirms your prior beliefs you accept it readily. When you're presented with information that conflicts with your prior beliefs you question its context and/or validity.

Another form is when people look for information they look for information that supports their views, they don't look for information that proves them wrong. As an example:

Belief: "Civil Rights Programs of the 1960s helped African-Americans escape poverty"

Supporting Fact (and spin): From 1960-1980 African American poverty fell 18 points. Clearly the civil rights programs of the 1960s were instrumental in lowering the poverty rate.

Conflicting Fact (and spin): From 1940-1960 African American poverty fell by 40 points, further gains after 1960 were just a continuation of this trend.

I want you to focus on your initial reaction to both statements. If there was no confirmation bias the reaction would be the same. It's noteworthy that neither fact disproves the other's spin. Its easy enough to justify the prior belief with both facts. I'm not trying to convince you of anything regarding the civil rights movement. I am trying to convince you that people have an emotional reaction to facts and that factors into the interpretation.

Confirmation bias is ever present. That doesn't mean people never change their minds. Just that they have a preference for not changing their minds.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

10 Dec 2020, 11:29 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
"You should be open to new ideas" gets said a lot, but usually the actual meaning is "you should be more open to MY ideas", with the person extolling the benefits of open mindedness making no attempt to follow their own advice.


100% agreed here. Most people in an argument are trying to change other minds, not their own. This trap extends to me as well. Being smart, well educated, and usually well informed has made me generally believe I'm right. Over the years I've gotten better at recognizing when I don't know enough to form a valid opinion, but my arrogance still hinders me at times.

uncommondenominator wrote:
Now, thanks to the monetization of everything, even things like News has to be popular, and get ratings. So rather than simply reciting facts, presenters are expected to interpret and opine about the material to engage with people, either in studio or the viewers at large. The goal is to be clear about it, and talk about it in such a way so that people can tell which is the facts, and which is the opinions - The most common format is "Here's what we've been told" (reporting facts w/o bias), followed by "and here's what I think about it" (expressing opinions). That way people can tell which parts are facts and which parts are opinions. Again, the problem starts to come up when opinions get reported as, or taken to be, facts.

It's also interesting to note that the media bias argument points the finger at "left wing bias", but doesn't seem to point at any right wing outlets that have all right wing presenters. Or are things being framed as thought two sides of news involved are biased left wing news, and impartial real news.


I know some journalists and its my belief that they do their best to honestly report the news. And to be fair journalists are better than most to seeking out counterarguments because its in their training. That said journalists have limited time to investigate and report information. Like most people they will seek out information that confirms their prior beliefs, and not think to find information that conflicts with their prior beliefs. The result is that the information presented to the public is filtered through the journalists own bias. When more journalists are Democrats the overall news is going to be tilted towards Democratic beliefs.

As to right-wing outlets, they suffer from the same bias problems. They're just less numerous.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Last edited by Antrax on 11 Dec 2020, 12:01 am, edited 4 times in total.

Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

10 Dec 2020, 11:40 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
Ironically, it does seem like you're trying to make the facts fit your opinions.


Entirely possible. I like to joke "I know confirmation bias is real because I believe in it."

Problem is I don't see any convincing counterarguments that the media as a whole doesn't have an overall Democrat tilt. The usual counterarguments I get are:

Argument 1: Journalists might have their own political beliefs but they report facts so it doesn't matter.

Argument 2: Journalists may be Democrats, but ownership and editorial boards force them to report otherwise.

Argument 3: What about fox news, newsmax, breitbart etc.

Argument 4: self-described independent journalists are actually republicans

Argument 1 is unconvincing to me, because of the psychological literature on confirmation bias. Journalists will report facts, but facts that support Democratic beliefs will get disproportionate coverage.

Argument 2 is the strongest in that its at least plausible to me. Problem is it doesn't have any supporting data on political orientation of editorial boards or ownership. Thus far whether you believe it or not tends to be whether you believe the media has liberal or conservative bias.

Argument 3 is just straight what-a-boutism and is meaningless. The existence of right-wing outlets doesn't mean anything regarding the media's overall bias.

Argument 4 is grasping at straws. There's no evidence that self-reported independents are more likely to lean republican than democrat.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

10 Dec 2020, 11:54 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:

---

As far as Hate Speech goes, the funny thing about it is, people that have bigoted beliefs don't think they're being hateful, because to them, they're just stating the truth as they know it. A person that genuinely believes that most black people are violent thieves, for reasons that seem logical to them, wouldn't think it was racist to say "black people are thieves", cos to them, they'd just be "stating a fact".

To them, thinking they've merely stated a fact, being told they can't say things like that, would sound like thought policing or political correctness - to them it would seem like they were being told they couldn't call thieves "thieves" anymore "because it offended people" - as opposed to the possibility that maybe it is in fact a racist trope, and maybe black people are neither as violent nor as larcenous as they've been led to believe.


Yep, this is dead on. And with that note I hope you enjoyed the small book I wrote in response to this post.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 17,924
Location: I'm right here

11 Dec 2020, 1:42 am

Antrax wrote:
I don't have statistics for editorial boards specifically, but I doubt they skew all that different from journalists as a whole.


Speculating that your bias is correct isn't the same as being correct. TYT has discussed this at length for years and provided stats at times to substantiate their point. Editorial boards counterbalance whatever bias the journalists might have.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

11 Dec 2020, 3:17 am

funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
I don't have statistics for editorial boards specifically, but I doubt they skew all that different from journalists as a whole.


Speculating that your bias is correct isn't the same as being correct. TYT has discussed this at length for years and provided stats at times to substantiate their point. Editorial boards counterbalance whatever bias the journalists might have.


This would be a lot more convincing if you cited actual evidence instead of "a progressive left wing news show said so"


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


ElabR8Aspie
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 9 Apr 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 448
Location: Universe

11 Dec 2020, 3:20 am

Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
I don't have statistics for editorial boards specifically, but I doubt they skew all that different from journalists as a whole.


Speculating that your bias is correct isn't the same as being correct. TYT has discussed this at length for years and provided stats at times to substantiate their point. Editorial boards counterbalance whatever bias the journalists might have.


This would be a lot more convincing if you cited actual evidence instead of "a progressive left wing news show said so"


How is a subjective game congruitive when living by the lower mind,and not being the master of your mind.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,754
Location: Australia

11 Dec 2020, 6:14 am

uncommondenominator wrote:
So basically we've side-graded from "Pepe says so, and he says he's impartial, so just accept it"


Where do you get this nonsense?
I don't expect anything from you. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Read my lips:-I am not a fan of the orange man.-I would never vote for the Republican party given the chance.-I am interested in being objective and rational.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,284

11 Dec 2020, 8:35 pm

Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
I don't have statistics for editorial boards specifically, but I doubt they skew all that different from journalists as a whole.


Speculating that your bias is correct isn't the same as being correct. TYT has discussed this at length for years and provided stats at times to substantiate their point. Editorial boards counterbalance whatever bias the journalists might have.


This would be a lot more convincing if you cited actual evidence instead of "a progressive left wing news show said so"


I would flip the script and ask you to provide solid evidence of left wing infiltration of said organisations? The media is an easy target for the rightwing thinktanks because that's what the public read so in order to hide the multitude of shady actions by Trump and his minions its easy to blame all the media as being leftwing. Trump went further and said all the news is fake. All the media is doing is reporting the news but when they say this the MAGAs will say "of course the press will say that because they are covering up lies".

impartial unbiased scientific investigation has shown this righwing narrative to be totally bogus
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/14/eaay9344

The critical point here is that journalists’ individual ideological leanings have virtually no effect on the vitally important, political news generation. Journalistic integrity and freedom of the press has always overridden individual political bias. This has been the cornerstone of modern western democracies for 100 years and what rightwingers claim they are trying to protect. It's not just the MAGAs this attack on press freedom has become popular in UK and even here in Australia where government broadcasters are being defunded or threatened by conservative governments sensitive to newsmedia reporting their corrupt dealings.



uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

12 Dec 2020, 3:45 pm

@ Anthrax

Drawing a reasonable conclusion from a fact and making an assumption based on a fact are two different things. Pointing out that a Ferrari is faster but a Honda is more reliable is not a "misrepresentation", nor is it bias, even if I only mention one, but not the other. Both are still true facts. One does not invalidate the other. If someone said "A Ferrari is faster, and that's why it's better", now bias has been asserted, in the form of faster = better.

In that same token, pointing out that Player A is a faster runner whereas Player B is a higher jumper, are both true facts. Stating one rather than the other is not an example of bias. Stating that one is a better player as a result of that IS bias. Your examples rely on conflating and combining those two ideas in order for it to hold true.

While it is true that selectively choosing facts can help reinforce a narrative by proxy of cherry-picking, that does not mean that all "omissions of fact" inherently create a narrative, particularly when often enough, the "facts" that are claimed to be omitted are not actually facts, but rather opinions held as facts.

For example: If someone made the claim, "Hey, your reporting is BIASED because YOU didn't even MENTION the PROVEN and WELL-KNOWN FACT that there's a LINK between AUTISM and VACCINES!", is the reporting biased for not reporting that "fact", or is their claim not really the "well-known and proven fact" the person thinks it is...?

Your "civil rights" example has problems because it's statements are NOT purely factual. They contain assumptions. As such, it is not the omission or cherry picking of information that has made them misleading, as it is the suppositions that were added to the facts. And while yes, to someone with no or minimal knowledge, both statements might illicit the same reaction (I would assert that the supposition that "all people would react to them the same way" in not a fair conclusion to draw), it ignores the possibility that the reader might actually possess additional factual knowledge that may allow them to speak confidently regarding the validity of the statements in question.

Furthermore, I didn't say that confirmation bias was thinking your opinion is fact - I said that it's something that causes problems, in a paragraph where I was talking about opinions, not confirmation bias. Cherry picking a la strawman. You are falsely representing my statement. It's fun watching you keep doing all the things you seem to think other people are guilty of.

Speaking of, so now your assertion is, both sides can be biased, but "THAT" side is just biased more often. Cos clearly there's no bias present in that belief...

Since when has debate NOT been about changing the minds of others?

Talking about your accidental arrogance as a result of being so very smart and educated and well-informed makes for a good humble-brag, but doesn't really demonstrate anything except pretentiousness.

An argument being "unconvincing" is not proof of it's invalidity. Ironically, using your own confirmation bias to cherry pick only the exact parts of psychology that support your opinion, and using them as a broad brush, but mostly on one side. Same goes for what you deem to be or not be "plausible".

It;s not actually "whataboutism, since it's not asking about one thing in favor of another. It's a fair question to ask, if you say left wing news outlets are biased, then it's fair to ask if you think the same of the right wing news outlets, too. The idea isn't to distract with talk of right wing news INSTEAD of left wing news, it's to see if your opinion is biased to one side or another. Which is it seems to be, in that you believe the left to be MORE biased than the right, even though you treat these problems as though they're universal, somehow they magically affect the left way more than the right.

Your counterargument 4 is a strawman. The claim isn't that "independent journalists are biased", the claim is that the people who claim to be "independent" aren't always actually independent, they're just wearing the label and hoping people believe it. Just because someone wears a t-shirt that says "Totally Impartial" doesn't mean they are.

@ Pepe

The stuff I get about how impartial you are I generally get directly from you, when you endlessly point out how impartial and unbiased you know yourself to be. Or failing that you point at a source that agrees with you, and vouch for their unbiased impartiality, or otherwise assume or present them to be unbiased and impartial.

Seems like all you do is accuse me of "liberal bias" anyways, so... 8) I'm not terribly worried about meeting your expectations to begin with.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 17,924
Location: I'm right here

12 Dec 2020, 4:06 pm

Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
I don't have statistics for editorial boards specifically, but I doubt they skew all that different from journalists as a whole.


Speculating that your bias is correct isn't the same as being correct. TYT has discussed this at length for years and provided stats at times to substantiate their point. Editorial boards counterbalance whatever bias the journalists might have.


This would be a lot more convincing if you cited actual evidence instead of "a progressive left wing news show said so"


I'm not concerned with whether or not you're convinced. You haven't made a compelling argument for your position, you've so far just repeated the same unsubstantiated claims that always get used to make a case that there's liberal bias or left-wing bias in the media.

I'm not invested enough in what you or anyone else believes and I don't care enough to waste my life researching and substantiating points when posters on here are rarely convinced by solid arguments and prefer to just retreat back to whatever position they started from.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

12 Dec 2020, 6:19 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
I don't have statistics for editorial boards specifically, but I doubt they skew all that different from journalists as a whole.


Speculating that your bias is correct isn't the same as being correct. TYT has discussed this at length for years and provided stats at times to substantiate their point. Editorial boards counterbalance whatever bias the journalists might have.


This would be a lot more convincing if you cited actual evidence instead of "a progressive left wing news show said so"


I'm not concerned with whether or not you're convinced. You haven't made a compelling argument for your position, you've so far just repeated the same unsubstantiated claims that always get used to make a case that there's liberal bias or left-wing bias in the media.

I'm not invested enough in what you or anyone else believes and I don't care enough to waste my life researching and substantiating points when posters on here are rarely convinced by solid arguments and prefer to just retreat back to whatever position they started from.


My argument is substantial and solid. I'll recap it.

1) Rigorously backed claim that journalists are more democratic than the american public
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... ecade-ago/

2) Reasonable conclusion that being more democratic than the american public would affect the bias of reporter's coverage, tilting it to the left.

You made one reasonable counterpoint about editorial bias, but failed to provide any evidence to back it up. You then claimed that my argument was unsubstantiated (it's not).

Assuming you claimed this in good faith, I can only assume that you think since I disagree with you I don't make well-reasoned arguments. Either that or you're too biased to recognize a well-reasoned argument that goes against your pre-conceptions.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."