Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    Pinned
    • Discussion
    The War Room III: From British Invasion to British Implosion
    • Viajero de la Galaxia wrote:

      MSNBC does have a bias, I'm not denying that. It has a bias toward the status quo, and arguably has more of a rightward tilt than a decade ago - go back and look at the assortment of anchors and you'll notice they once embraced left-leaning progressive hosts like Phil Donahue, Ed Shultz, and Cenk Uygur, but in the past 10 years they've removed most of their progressive personalities and replaced them with centrists or even conservatives.
      Fair enough. I have not personally watched MSNBC all that much 10 years ago because I was 14 so I really wouldn't know haha. I was under the assumption that if it was more centrist as labeled (or leaning to the right) you would be denying any sort of bias possibly. Furthermore after doing some loght reading regarding MSNBC, I can confirm the shift to a more centrist standpoint and my guess is that due to the audience being partly Republican, they could still tap in to a minority of their audience and expand their reach.

      Atleast this is what I presume from some data form 2008 and 2009 from the Pew Research Center pewresearch.org/2009/10/30/par…and-cable-news-audiences/ . Furthermore, as of 2018 in July, Ad Week adweek.com/tvnewser/july-2018-…ork-on-basic-cable/372059 reported that their ratings have increased especially since the election and I think part of their growing audience (if you take away the decline of cable news consumption due to the technological convergence of media) that it can also be accredited to stepping away more from their left leaning bias as apparent from your claim about the former leftist panel show hosts and worked their way to expand their audience more by taking a more centrist approach that may possibly decrease their bias.

      I think that MSNBC may not be the only ones to be doing that for the most part because I agree with your list and how a lot of them take a center stand point and I think that its partly because of the (how HeroOfTime5 stated) the modern day yellow journalism phenomenon we have been having especially these past 2 years from the election. Though I still think the other headlines I pulled in my last post were still pretty dumb if I put it plainly. Nonetheless, I stand corrected.
      I'm hosting a Mafia game on Zu! It's based on the hit 1992 film, Reservoir Dogs! You should totally sign up and play this totally radtacular game!
      Mafia XX?V?: Reservoir Cats - SIGN UP

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Aquamentus ().

    • john_marston wrote:

      Common Knowledge wrote:

      I'm always curious to see what the leftist version of Fox News is, and I'll always remain curious, cause it doesn't exist.
      Change the 'F' with a 'V'? Both are nearing the bottom of the barrel when it comes to biased news imo
      Yeah but Vox News isn't as read or consumed as much as Fox news. Granted, Vox receives a great deal of traffic but thats because they aren't dedicated to news completely though their numbers may exceed that of NY Times or other major outlets but advertisers (how they make a bulk of their money) tend to avoid Vox News Media sections so they are most likely to produce content and media not strictly related to news for advertiser's sake. digiday.com/media/vox-medias-r…limits-vertical-approach/

      Vox Media has also been declining in viewership and I'd argue isn't a household name in comparison to the Sinclair Broadcasting owned or affiliated media including FOX News.
      I'm hosting a Mafia game on Zu! It's based on the hit 1992 film, Reservoir Dogs! You should totally sign up and play this totally radtacular game!
      Mafia XX?V?: Reservoir Cats - SIGN UP

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Aquamentus ().

    • john_marston wrote:

      Still not enough credible evidence to refute my claim that the bulk of major North American media leans left.
      You have post-secondary education. You understand how burden of proof works. You made an assertion. Your options are to either back it up or back down. I'm glad to see you chose the latter.


      “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    • john_marston wrote:

      Still not enough credible evidence to refute my claim that the bulk of major North American media leans left.
      There are SD forum rules against doing this:


      Avalanchemike wrote:

      6) Ignoring Evidence/Arguing in bad faith (Added 2018-03-01)

      By posting, you are agreeing that you will participate in discussion, not to simply state your views or ignore evidence present. [You are entitled to believe what you like and you are free to post that, but you are not entitled to dismiss or ignore evidence contrary to that.]

      For example:

      Display Spoiler
      Poster1: "I believe the earth is flat."
      Poster2: "Well, that's just scientifically wrong, here is a link to satellite images of the earth. It's relatively round, and somewhat egg-shaped."
      Poster1: "Okay, but I still believe it is flat."


      If you don't want to participate any longer, that's fine. But don't continue a discussion with someone who is trying to engage you while being duplicitous or ignoring their points or sources. That's rude, that's insulting, and that is not permitted.

      Anyone violating this rule repeatedly may be subject to infraction ranging from 2-4 points.
      If you don't think it's evidence enough then you need to provide counter-evidence. Otherwise if you continue a discussion without counter-evidence then I'll have to infract in accordance with the rules, just so you (and anyone else participating) are aware of the rules for future reference.
    • Avalanchemike wrote:

      john_marston wrote:

      Still not enough credible evidence to refute my claim that the bulk of major North American media leans left.
      You have post-secondary education. You understand how burden of proof works. You made an assertion. Your options are to either back it up or back down. I'm glad to see you chose the latter.
      I don't. You didn't even reply to some of my main points (hey is that not in that rule too, @Viajero de la Galaxia?? hmm posted by mike himself...). If you're not putting up many counter-arguments (except that you don't accept common knowledge and that Trump lies–fine) and are ignoring some of my main points, I don't see why I would elaborate and take your bait. But okay

      You didn't reply to this:
      Display Spoiler
      Also...it makes sense? If you've ever been in a media degree class, journalism course, film school, or other arts degree class; you'll find that the *vast* majority of people are left-wing.

      Nor this (probably my most compelling point):
      Display Spoiler
      And if you want a list: if you take the 25 'major news sources' in America from Wikipedia, and apply the AllSides 'media bias rating' to them, you get this*
      Display Spoiler

      ABC - left
      CBS - left
      CNN - left

      Fox - right
      MSNBC - left
      NBC - left
      NY Times - left
      LA Times - left

      USA today - centre
      WSJ - centre
      Washington Post - left
      LA Daily News - ?
      Bloomberg - centre
      Vice News - left
      HBO - ?
      Huffpost - left
      TMZ - ?
      CNET - ?
      Techmeme - ?
      NPR - center
      The Hollywood reporter - ?
      Newsweek - left
      Time magazine - left
      US News & World Report - left
      The Guardian - left


      *didn't distinguish between far & moderate. '?' used if it's not on AllSides.


      Even if there are errors (which there will be) and you apply a high confidence interval, it's so overwhelmingly right-skewed (i.e. almost all are left wing), I don't think you can reject the hypothesis that the bulk of major news outlets in America lean left.


      And what about this data I posted: ''Some numbers: in 2008, The Big Three television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC), contributed overwhelmingly (88%) to the democrats.'' ?
      If it's truly fabricated, point it out (in stead of a 'it's fake news I'm not going to read it fuck you'). It's just one of the many pieces of data I found on Google that support my left-leaning media claim.

      And the one source you did use:


      Stolen from Rob Faris et al “Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election,” published by the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University.

      It's on how often certain issue topics were supposedly written about. They are using key words to assume how biased the media was for the election, using ''automated tools''. So no manual selection, not taking into account how 'big' certain media outlets are vs others, and many writing ''Clinton'' and ''email'' could very well be positive about Hilary, etc.

      If a few smaller far-right news sources wrote a whole lot of shit about Clinton and her emails (which was probably the case), how good is this data?



      How many supposed negative sentences were used by media online (found using automated tools) really doesn't say much at all whether the media leans left or not, not even taking into account that the results of that graph aren't even damning evidence to begin with. It's crap.

      And hey, from the same article no less, I'd say this is probably more useful. As they looked at some top stories, ''hand-coded for topic and tone'':
      Suddenly a lot more negativity about Trump!?

      Anyway, I'm guessing you cherry picked that image from Google imagines, because if I google about 2016 media bias, I get a whole lot of this:
      Display Spoiler



      And loads more, it honestly doesn't stop

      And somewhere in there that image you posted. Hmmm


      Now, I think I know what's up. I think you are looking for some rock-solid evidence from me that the media leans left which you know I cannot provide, as it doesn't exist. Ultimately, whether something is left or right is still an opinion, as you'll have opinions like Viajero's that American media bias ratings are wrong and none of those listed were left, and CNN is centre-right and whatnot.
      But I think you can at the very least see that general American opinion thinks media leans left, to the point where I think it's...common knowledge?
    • You're equating being negative towards Trump with being left-leaning. This ignores the not insignificant number of critics that Trump has that would consider themselves on the right.

      And this is the crux of the issue. If you determine that someone is on the left solely by whether or not they oppose right-wing talking points and politicians, you're gonna get nowhere. Let me demonstrate;

      Several right-wing people are homophobic - if you're against homophobia, does that mean you're left-wing? Not necessarily. Many on the right reject the science of climate change - if you do accept the science of climate change, does that mean you're left-wing? Not necessarily. Donald Trump lies brazenly about a whole mountain's worth of issues - if you do not believe his lies, or if you fact-check them and demonstrate how they're false, does that mean you're left-wing? Not necessarily.

      But there are people who think that those things DO mean you're left-wing, which is why public assessment of media bias is useless. If you're pro-Trump, for example, you're more likely to see any negative story about him as biased against him, and biased towards the other party. It's a ridiculously common thing to see people equate opposition to one thing with acceptance of the polar opposite, and it's also ridiculously common to see people equate negative coverage of a politician with opposition to that politician's politics. Thus I am highly skeptical of the public's ability to assess media bias.

      The best way to demonstrate left-wing bias in the media is also the simplest; show them actually advocating for left-wing policies. Not merely displaying opposition to right-wing policies. As I've clearly demonstrated, one does not necessarily equate to the other.
    • john_marston wrote:

      Avalanchemike wrote:

      john_marston wrote:

      After all, the bulk of popular media leans left.
      Cool, prove it.
      Well, first of all, I thought it was common knowledge that the media leans left? Why would right-wing people like Trump try so hard to discredit the media, if it wasn't left-wing?

      Also...it makes sense? If you've ever been in a media degree class, journalism course, film school, or other arts degree class; you'll find that the *vast* majority of people are left-wing.

      Some numbers: in 2008, The Big Three television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC), contributed overwhelmingly (88%) to the democrats.

      And if you want a list: if you take the 25 'major news sources' in America from Wikipedia, and apply the AllSides 'media bias rating' to them, you get this*
      Display Spoiler

      ABC - left
      CBS - left
      CNN - left

      Fox - right
      MSNBC - left
      NBC - left
      NY Times - left
      LA Times - left

      USA today - centre
      WSJ - centre
      Washington Post - left
      LA Daily News - ?
      Bloomberg - centre
      Vice News - left
      HBO - ?
      Huffpost - left
      TMZ - ?
      CNET - ?
      Techmeme - ?
      NPR - center
      The Hollywood reporter - ?
      Newsweek - left
      Time magazine - left
      US News & World Report - left
      The Guardian - left


      *didn't distinguish between far & moderate. '?' used if it's not on AllSides.


      Even if there are errors (which there will be) and you apply a high confidence interval, it's so overwhelmingly right-skewed (i.e. almost all are left wing), I don't think you can reject the hypothesis that the bulk of major news outlets in America lean left.

      The "left wing media" was a lie created by Nixon to discredit media organizations that were exposing his wrongdoing. It was probably the most valuable thing that Nixon gave the right wing. Why does Trump attack the media? Because if you discredit those who report the truth then he becomes the sole arbiter of truth for those who support him.

      Also you seem to be conflating left wing bias with support for the democrats. But lets look at who the media clearly supported during the 2016 primary, was it Clinton or Sanders? When proposals like medicare for all, raising the top marginal tax rate and expanding social security are brought up, are those who bring them forward treated with respect (and the factual information that the US people by a majority support these measure) or are they mocked with calls of "how will we pay for that?" often outright lying about how much these measures cost (a question that is never asked about right wing wars and tax cuts.)

      Just because a position is held by establishment democrats doesn't mean its left wing.
    • vox.com/policy-and-politics/20…ilitary-ban-supreme-court

      That this subject still exists absolutely infuriates me.

      I'm published! Check out -
      THE LEGEND OF LIGHT
      Book One, The Echoes of Light, available in Paperback and on Kindle - Book 2 out late 2018
      Read the first five chapters for free

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Mirren ().

    • It's interesting that the right wing media (Fox News, Daily Wire, etc.) has now apparently decided that kids need protection from harassment because some kids in MAGA hats got cursed at, but it wasn't necessary when they directly fueled and contributed to an arguably much worse campaign of harassment and abuse towards a group of kids who literally survived a school shooting.
    • @Abyss Master (& @Pietro) I only went into more detail about the 2016 election because Mike was calling me out for not doing so, and presented a graph that the media *supposedly* said more bad things about Clinton as counter-evidence that the media doesn't lean left. ...and now I get called out that using the 2016 election & negative stories on Trump/Clinton isn't good data..

      I'm not focussing on Trump in the media. The last graph in my previous post indicates that the public perception was that the media leans left during all elections, dating back to the early 90s and probably further.
      And OK, it's not just about elections and democrats vs republicans in the media, but that was never my only point.

      AllSide's 'media bias rating' on the 25 major news sources indicated a clearly left-leaning media.
      I found another one (in case people inevitably think AllSides is run by Alex Jones or something): mediabiasfactcheck.com, and applied that one too, and you get this:

      Display Spoiler

      -no caps/brackets = same rating as AllSides
      -caps used when it has a different rating, in brackets what AllSides rated it

      ABC - left
      CBS - left
      CNN - left

      Fox - right
      MSNBC - left
      NBC - left
      NY Times - left
      LA Times - left
      USA today - LEFT (centre)

      WSJ - RIGHT (centre)
      Washington Post - left
      LA Daily News - RIGHT (?)
      Bloomberg - LEFT (centre)
      Vice News - left

      HBO - ?
      Huffpost - left
      TMZ - LEFT (?)

      CNET - pro-science, no bias (?)
      Techmeme - ?
      NPR - LEFT (center)
      The Hollywood reporter - LEFT (?)
      Newsweek - left
      Time magazine - left
      US News & World Report - left
      The Guardian - left


      A couple added right-leaning ones, but still overwhelmingly left.

      I also still stand by this: ''it makes sense? If you've ever been in a media degree class, journalism course, film school, or other arts degree class; you'll find that the *vast* majority of people are left-wing.''
    • john_marston wrote:

      I also still stand by this: ''it makes sense? If you've ever been in a media degree class, journalism course, film school, or other arts degree class; you'll find that the *vast* majority of people are left-wing.''
      people who have a university education don't believe the earth is flat, that the world is 6000 years old, that climate change is a hoax, understand that gay marriage doesn't call hurricanes and that women should have bodily autonomy, clearly this is a conspiracy against the right-wing.


      “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    • john_marston wrote:

      Nor this (probably my most compelling point):
      you created a list from some site which i have never heard of nor should i give a shit about until you tell me why i should. What are their standards for judging this? What are the measurements used? What kind of testing is done to reach their conclusions? Do they measure based on intersectionality of issues?

      My source for my work has been a publication from Harvard yours is forum equivalent of a listicle.


      “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    • Mirren wrote:

      vox.com/policy-and-politics/20…ilitary-ban-supreme-court

      That this subject still exists absolutely infuriates me.
      Before, I respond to SCOTUS' decision let me preface my response by saying that I wholly support the Trans community.

      In regards to SCOTUS' decision, the judicial branch has long provided the executive branch with a fair amount of oversight over military management.

      While I do believe the original intention of this ban was discriminatory, I believe Mattis' modification may seem to follow standard laws. If I'm understanding it correctly, Matt's changes make the ban in parallel with the rules regarding things like depression and similar disorders. If it's not causing any actual issues, transgender people can serve. If they're going through transition or seeing a therapist, they can't.

      Thoughts?

      Also, this is an actually ruling so perhaps there is a chance this ban will be struck down?
    • pretty much all the trans people I know are anti-American, anti-military anarchists, communists, and heathens, so I guess it does follow that being trans makes one unfit for military duty. You know, like any other mental disorder, because that's definitely what being trans is. A mental disorder.
      PM me about the LGBTA+ discord server | #WontBeErased

      gender of the moment: | pronouns: it/its
    • HeroOfTime5 wrote:

      Mirren wrote:

      vox.com/policy-and-politics/20…ilitary-ban-supreme-court

      That this subject still exists absolutely infuriates me.
      Before, I respond to SCOTUS' decision let me preface my response by saying that I wholly support the Trans community.
      In regards to SCOTUS' decision, the judicial branch has long provided the executive branch with a fair amount of oversight over military management.

      While I do believe the original intention of this ban was discriminatory, I believe Mattis' modification may seem to follow standard laws. If I'm understanding it correctly, Matt's changes make the ban in parallel with the rules regarding things like depression and similar disorders. If it's not causing any actual issues, transgender people can serve. If they're going through transition or seeing a therapist, they can't.

      Thoughts?

      Also, this is an actually ruling so perhaps there is a chance this ban will be struck down?
      I don't see why going through transition would make you any less capable of performing your duties as a serviceman or servicewoman. Especially when the military's original policy didn't actually expunge trans people from service, just forced them to hide their lifestyle and make them miserable.

      As for the financial effects, they're hardly negative -

      "The best evidence comes from a 2016 review of the research by the RAND Corporation. Here are the big takeaways from the report:
      • Trans people would make up a small part of the military — and few would seek out gender-affirming care. Based on RAND’s estimates, trans troops make up around 2,450 of the 1.3 million active-component service members — a fraction of a percent of the US military. While some trans service members would seek treatment, RAND pointed out that only a small subset would: “Estimates derived from survey data and private health insurance claims data indicate that, each year, between 29 and 129 service members in the active component will seek transition-related care that could disrupt their ability to deploy.”
      • As a result, trans service members would have little to no effect on military readiness. RAND concluded that “the readiness impact of transition-related treatment would lead to a loss of less than 0.0015 percent of total available labor-years in the active component.” In comparison, “in the Army alone, approximately 50,000 active-component personnel were ineligible to deploy in 2015 for various legal, medical, or administrative reasons — a number amounting to around 14 percent of the active component.”
      • Trans-related treatment would also cost the military very little. RAND found, “Using private health insurance claims data to estimate the cost of extending gender transition–related health care coverage to transgender personnel indicated that active-component health care costs would increase by between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually, representing a 0.04- to 0.13-percent increase in active-component health care expenditures.”
      This small cost may not mean much in budget terms, but it could mean a lot to trans soldiers: As the American Medical Association (AMA) and American Psychiatric Association (APA) point out, transitioning helps reduce gender dysphoria — which could mean fewer mental health issues for some trans people serving in the military.
      This is the kind of evidence that led the Obama administration to conclude that it could allow trans people to serve openly: It would slightly expand the recruitment pool, while posing minimal to no costs and hurdles. Yet Trump, citing no evidence of his own, apparently decided to undo all of that progress."

      vox.com/identities/2017/7/26/1…-transgender-military-ban

      I'm published! Check out -
      THE LEGEND OF LIGHT
      Book One, The Echoes of Light, available in Paperback and on Kindle - Book 2 out late 2018
      Read the first five chapters for free
    • @Mirren I fully agree! After all going through treatment may help an individual that is going through anxiety regarding gender identity.

      @Common Knowledge If the allegations is true, add it to the pile for Mueller to charge Trump with.

      I don't feel sorry for Cohen however. He sold his soul by engaging with Trump. I hope he isn't saying this to avoid speaking to Congress. He should attend the hearing regardless even if a subpoena is required.