Media Meltdown and also Media Bias 101

[romad1]

3 minutes ago, The Ronz said:

 

From the article in the Detroit Free Press.

The robber announced: “This is a robbery, I am serious, give me all your money.”

Obviously, a Free Speech issue and thus not a crime. 😉

I think he's troubled by the rise of the machines and this was just his way of acting up in a consequence free manner.  

[The Ronz]

[oblong]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

This is what happens when big media conglomerates decide to cut corners by getting rid of editors instead of board members for salary purposes.

 

[romad1]

Just now, oblong said:

 

that's amazing

[MIguy]

So what I've learned from this is that most people here are fine with MSNBC being a biased news source because they're not as bad as Fox.  Fantastic standards we've set for our news outlets, just don't be as bad as the worst and you're cool.   

[ewsieg]

9 minutes ago, MIguy said:

So what I've learned from this is that most people here are fine with MSNBC being a biased news source because they're not as bad as Fox.  Fantastic standards we've set for our news outlets, just don't be as bad as the worst and you're cool.   

You obviously haven't learned anything.  Most people are fine with MSNBC because they agree with their bias, hence there is no bias.  Plus you're both sidesin' if you complain about anything on the left.  

[oblong]

Everyone has some form of bias, it's how you use that bias that's important.  You can show harmless bias simply by deciding what stories or topics to cover.  For example, the local Fox 2 channel does this at noon every day when they have two African American anchors, Maurielle Lue and Lee Thomas, sit and talk.  I've noticed their topics are of particular interest to that community.  It's fine. They aren't pushing an agenda, just diverting coverage to a more targeted demographic.  Probably because the show that comes on after is Sherri which is African American focused.  

The bias gets harmful when you have people on, like Fox does, who blatantly lie or mislead.  Fox News does this when they bring on Jonathan Turley, under the guise of straight legal analysis, who completely distorts the facts.  

Bias isn't a bad word in and of itself.  It's how you use it.  A network could be biased simply because they talk about the Royal family too much and some viewers may not watch it.  A local sports network like Bally's Detroit is biased, without being agenda driven or hurtful, because they will obviously frame things around Detroit teams and players for a Detroit audience.  Nobody's lying or distorting the facts.  That same broadcaster could then work the weekend for a national outlet covering a Detroit team and they flip a switch and cover it straight.

 

 

[CMRivdogs]

It’s call the free market and it had been that way since the 8os. Cable never fell under the late Fairness Doctrine. News has become less of a profit center for media companies in the past.

Heck, even the days when your local blowtorch radio station that was counted on to give you a balanced view of the world has been taken over by corporate overlords pushing the viewpoint that will give them the best ROI. Screw any semblance of locality in many markets

Comparing viewing preferences is like deciding to root for the Yankees or the Tigers and we all have our reasons to do so.

It’s a fact of life and has been for 30 plus years

 

[oblong]

42 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

You obviously haven't learned anything.  Most people are fine with MSNBC because they agree with their bias, hence there is no bias.  Plus you're both sidesin' if you complain about anything on the left.  

well when someone's evidence of bad bias is "they talk about the blacks too much".... what is one to do?

 

[MIguy]

4 minutes ago, oblong said:

well when someone's evidence of bad bias is "they talk about the blacks too much".... what is one to do?

 

You bring up sports and the royal family as if that somehow proves your precious MSNBC isn't every bit as guilty of pushing their agenda surrounding race and you're going to mock me for my opinion?  

[oblong]

29 minutes ago, MIguy said:

You bring up sports and the royal family as if that somehow proves your precious MSNBC isn't every bit as guilty of pushing their agenda surrounding race and you're going to mock me for my opinion?  

You haven't told me the agenda other than talking about black people too much.  What is it about them and black people that riles you up?  What news stories or segments were wrong in your opinion?

I provided you with an opinion that bias by itself isn't bad.  It's not a legal or moral distinction. It's marketing.   

 

 

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, MIguy said:

So what I've learned from this is that most people here are fine with MSNBC being a biased news source because they're not as bad as Fox.  Fantastic standards we've set for our news outlets, just don't be as bad as the worst and you're cool.   

I'm not fine with MSNBC... MSNBC sucks imo.

But Fox just sucks more.

[ewsieg]

17 minutes ago, oblong said:

well when someone's evidence of bad bias is "they talk about the blacks too much".... what is one to do?

I don't disagree that the evidence was lacking and hence, nothing wrong with your initial response, but then the subsequent nitpicking of the evidence, versus an argument regarding the statement itself is where I have my issue. I think if everyone is willing to be truthful and pays attention to politics, they can agree that MSNBC caters to the left.  (Note: This does not mean I am drawing an equivalent to what Fox does with the right. )

[chasfh]

20 hours ago, ben9753 said:

I think the problem is that in normal discussion, degrees of awfulness is not apparent. So if I think Fox is at a level 100, doesn't mean other media outlets can't be biased and be promoting an agenda, even if their level of awfulness is only a 50. Doesn't make them equivalent, but it also doesn't absolve the less awful outlet from any criticism, and we shouldn't attack a poster for having such an opinion. IMO

I agree with this in principle, although I might also counter that the whole idea behind the whataboutism that we see on this topic—and I don't mean just here—is to make them both look like they are at an awfulness level of 100, both equally bad, and both equally deserving of categorical dismissiveness. Regardless of the opinions being offered on MSNBC or how they are delivered, the network still has the journalistic rigor of NBC News behind them, which automatically makes them light years ahead of FOX, and regardless of the prevailing narrative about the mainstream media, that counts for a lot.

[MIguy]

5 minutes ago, oblong said:

You haven't told me the agenda other than talking about black people too much.  What is it about them and black people that riles you up?  What news stories or segments were wrong in your opinion?

I provided you with an opinion that bias by itself isn't bad.  It's not a legal or moral distinction. It's marketing.   

 

 

That's not what I said at all and you would know that had you read my initial posts on the topic.  What I said was that Fox will run stories into the ground that show blacks in a negative light while MSNBC will ignore those same stories completely and only show stories that show blacks being the victim, almost always at the hands of police.

Anyone who can't admit that the truth lies somewhere in the middle is simply showing their bias on the topic. 

[mtutiger]

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I agree with this in principle, although I might also counter that the whole idea behind the whataboutism that we see on this topic—and I don't mean just here—is to make them both look like they are at an awfulness level of 100, both equally bad, and both equally deserving of categorical dismissiveness. Regardless of the opinions being offered on MSNBC or how they are delivered, the network still has the journalistic rigor of NBC News behind them, which automatically makes them light years ahead of FOX, and regardless of the prevailing narrative about the mainstream media, that counts for a lot.

One of the reasons they don't suck as bad...

FOX's news side has a few good people mixed in, but that number has thinned out over the years. And, not surprisingly (see the 2020 election, Arizona call specifically), that thinning out was in part due to political pressure from people associated with the GOP. (ie. FOX's de facto bosses)

You add that to the defamation suits, and it paints a really clear picture of how one outlet is orders of magnitude more ****ty. And it doesn't make one "love" MSNBC to be up front about the differences.

Edited August 31, 2023 by mtutiger

[ben9753]

As an aside, can someone explain the Arizona call thing to me? They got it right. They could not have affected the outcome because the polls were already closed. So whats the beef exactly? I'll never understand it. 

[MIguy]

Mao Zedong killed 45 million people so you know, that Hitler guy wasn't really that bad after all.  🙄

 

 

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

Plus you're both sidesin' if you complain about anything on the left.  

 

1 minute ago, MIguy said:

Mao Zedong killed 45 million people so you know, that Hitler guy wasn't really that bad after all.  🙄

 

 

I mean, come on...

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, ben9753 said:

As an aside, can someone explain the Arizona call thing to me? They got it right. They could not have affected the outcome because the polls were already closed. So whats the beef exactly? I'll never understand it. 

The argument (and perhaps accurate, hard to say tbh) is that they called it too early based on the information that the Fox Elections desk had at the time.

You are correct that it wouldn't have affected the outcome and that, ultimately, I doubt that Chris Stirewalt or Arnold Mishkin lose their jobs if not for the absolute fury that the de facto head of the GOP and his cohort unleashed on FOX.

[MIguy]

4 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

 

I mean, come on...

Whataboutism is whataboutism. 

[mtutiger]

4 minutes ago, MIguy said:

Whataboutism is whataboutism. 

Bothsidsin' is bothsidsin'

[MIguy]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

Bothsidsin' is bothsidsin'

Both sides are biased, even most people here are admitting that.  There's nothing else to be gained from arguing with a bunch of MSNBC fanboys, I'm done talking about them.

As I said in my first comment, I recommend people tune into News Nation if you happen to have it on your cable package.  By far the most neutral, non-biased network there is at the moment.   

[mtutiger]

3 minutes ago, MIguy said:

Both sides are biased, even most people here are admitting that.  There's nothing else to be gained from arguing with a bunch of MSNBC fanboys, I'm done talking about them.

As I said in my first comment, I recommend people tune into News Nation if you happen to have it on your cable package.  By far the most neutral, non-biased network there is at the moment.   

I pretty much watch local news at this point... 

My only point is that acknowledging one of the two cable news channels is significantly worse on a number of levels doesn't make you a "fanboy"... 

Unfortunately, that requires nuance to parse that... hard to have nuance when the argument starts having names like "Mao" and "Hitler" thrown around.

Edited August 31, 2023 by mtutiger

[pfife]

22 minutes ago, MIguy said:

Mao Zedong killed 45 million people so you know, that Hitler guy wasn't really that bad after all.  🙄

 

 

Counter:  45m murders is actually a lot more murders than 6m murders.