Posted by sinatra on 6/25/2020 10:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rsp777 on 6/25/2020 9:58:00 PM (view original):
If being a conservative means being “the new punk” consider me Miles Davis.

Wait...so are you punk, conservative, cool, or uncool? I know you're not conservative so it must be at least one of the remaining three

Do I really have to tell you which one of those 4 terms fits Miles Davis best?

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2020 1:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 6/26/2020 12:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 6/26/2020 12:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Guitarguy567 on 6/25/2020 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 6/25/2020 9:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Guitarguy567 on 6/25/2020 9:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 6/25/2020 9:41:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, a group of Proud Boys came in and started a ton of ****.

Source? I think you're full of ****

Hey dumbfuck, I don't give a **** what you think. Look it up.

https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1272677167986401280

If what you said was remotely true it would be headline news everywhere. Idiot

Or, and bear with me......maybe there's no such thing as a liberal media?

Joe Biden gave a 3 hour speech today. Anyone hear about it?

Trumps Tulsa rally was covered 24/7 for at least a day.

I posted a study today about how MSNBC doesn't affect voting outcomes, but Fox News drastically does.

I bet you could do the research with other "liberal media" outlets and find the same results. There is no "liberal media".

They do whatever is the easiest route to clicks and views. Right now, that means lazy "orange man bad" reporting.

It would be almost impossible to normalize this study correctly if most of the media is liberal. All the study really proves is that MSNBC isn't more liberal than the baseline of most visible media, and that Fox News is more conservative (duh).

There is a liberal media (within the US window). It's most of the media. Every independent analysis I've ever seen supports that conclusion. It's probably fair to say that Fox News is further from center than any other mainstream source, but CNN/MSNBC/etc are not centrist.

Sorry Dahs. You know better than this.
These "labels" are completely bogus.
Who's getting to define "centrist" or "liberal" or "conservative"??
It's just not possible to determine WHAT makes a News network so "unprofessional" that viewers are able to determine some underlying political basis.

It's certainly possible to (easily) identify certain "casters" who have identifiable political leanings (Don Lemon, R. Maddow, etc) but entire networks??
Other than Fox I think not. There may be a corporate bias to CNN (for ONE example) but it's NOT based on some "right" or "left" overarching philosophy. It's based on a corporate group think (perhaps) filtered through a WHOLE bunch of individual producers and broadcasters, etc.
It's nutty to believe that 100's of individuals would ALL subscribe to ANY political philosophy just because it was the "stance" of the corporate entity.

Plus, I watch some MSNBC and I've become a bit of a fan of their reporter Stephanie Ruhle.
She's direct, doesn't spin, has an advanced degree in economics (thus understands economic issues) and seems to have her job because she's GOOD, not sexy or titillating.

I also disagree STRONGLY with this claim that our college campuses are ALL liberal/commie hotbeds. Some may be, I wouldn't know, BUT the campuses I've spent time on over the last 20 years are decidedly NOT liberal/commie dominated.

Tang - I saw the study when you posted it. I have to admit I didn't read the whole thing - it's rather long, I don't always read the whole papers in my own field of study - but it looks like they exploited the natural experiments associated with the choice architecture of local television lineups. People tend to watch the first of a group of similar channels unless they have strong preferences, so changing the lineup creates a natural experiment with subtly changing viewership. Based on a variety of lineups they demonstrate that Fox News pushes voters right. But as I said before, this doesn't prove that MSNBC isn't liberal. It just proves it isn't substantively more liberal than the replacement channel. They're not in any way pushing people to watch more news, just different channels. If the Soviet Union had three channels, you wouldn't expect any viewer's choice of channel to influence how much they support Gorbachev. All the channels LOVE Gorbachev. It doesn't mean they aren't total Soviet propaganda.

Bob - it doesn't really matter at what organizational level bias arises, or that it's universal. That's entirely beside the point. And TBH, I don't watch much news. I prefer to read the news. I find it easier to tell when facts are being used in deceptive ways in a print format. What I do know is that whenever I go to cnn.com, there is at least a 90% chance that whatever most catches my eye immediately will be aggressively anti-Trump. I used to use CNN as my primary news app but their push notifications all started to be about what horrible thing the administration had done today, so I axed it and got the BBC news app instead. Big upgrade from my perspective. And keep in mind that I'm not a Trump supporter. At all. I'd just prefer my news sources to be more interested in, you know, reporting the news, rather than just trashing the president 24/7.

As far as campuses go, I have to say that I generally haven't found them to be nearly as indoctrinating as the conservative media would like to suggest, but Berkeley was disappointing. What I did find to be true was that college students have a serious lack of resiliency. They seem to be terrified of a lot of things. Failing a test is the end of the world. Free speech for conservatives is a personal attack. It's not what I at least hope it was in the past.

" As far as campuses go, I have to say that I generally haven't found them to be nearly as indoctrinating as the conservative media would like to suggest, but Berkeley was disappointing. What I did find to be true was that college students have a serious lack of resiliency. They seem to be terrified of a lot of things. Failing a test is the end of the world. Free speech for conservatives is a personal attack. It's not what I at least hope it was in the past."

Jonathan Haidt has done some interesting research in this area.

Gorbachev>>>>>>>>Putin

"They seem to be terrified of a lot of things. Failing a test is the end of the world. Free speech for conservatives is a personal attack"

THIS!

I understand the passion of youth. I was one, once. But THIS new "woke" group of (almost) teen-agers are so woefully unprepared and uneducated about the REAL world it's downright scary.

It isn't JUST Free speech that terrifies them it's ANYBODY'S speech that they don't fully comprehend.
When some young person tells me that in order to "pursue" a more perfect governance we must TEAR down every vestige of our History and that the Constitution must be tossed out..........then I KNOW for a fact how completely uneducated (read ignorant or stupid!) they are about global History and what THIS Country has achieved in our 250 years DESPITE the flaws of those who founded this Country, BOTH the leaders like Jerrerson and Madison AND the unknown American settlers who supported, fought for, and paid taxes to give us a CHANCE to preserve this REPUBLIC.

As we were asked initially.......... the question, the test for us IS, can we keep it?

AMEN, bob.

That description of youth remind anyone of a certain crazed newby around here?

Posted by longtallbrad on 6/26/2020 10:38:00 AM (view original):
" As far as campuses go, I have to say that I generally haven't found them to be nearly as indoctrinating as the conservative media would like to suggest, but Berkeley was disappointing. What I did find to be true was that college students have a serious lack of resiliency. They seem to be terrified of a lot of things. Failing a test is the end of the world. Free speech for conservatives is a personal attack. It's not what I at least hope it was in the past."

Jonathan Haidt has done some interesting research in this area.

I mean, I guess. The Coddling of the American Mind was an interesting read, I'll give it that.

Compared to Haidt's other stuff, though, it feels fairly like a late-career afterthought. Compare the underlying research and intellectual depth of Coddling to The Righteous Mind. It doesn't seem like the work of the same guy.

Dahs - You dodged my question, though. Which source is "more liberal" than MSNBC? And the effect would still be the same either way. My point has always been that Fox News alone causes more extremism and push to the right than every "liberal" outlet combined. Furthermore, Fox News has been moving further to the right. In 2000, they had little effect. In 2004, they had a 3 point push, and in 2008, it was six points. I would assume that this trend has been continuing. I don't see how your criticism nullifies my argument.

Criticizing Trump doesn't make you a liberal. Trump is far-right. There is a moral obligation to call him out on lies and bad policies.

No "news" source has a moral right to pass judgement in non-opinion pieces.

And again - while I agree with you, the study doesn't actually prove what you say it does. All it proves is that Fox is moving further away from the rest of the field. Which could, in fact, be 100% everyone else moving left, or 100% Fox moving right. I suspect it's some of each, but more Fox. But as I've pointed out twice now, the experimental design is flawed.

I can't really answer that question because, as I said, I don't really watch televised news unless there's an interview I really want to see. My perception was that MSNBC is only marginally left of CNN and the national broadcasts on NBC and CBS, but I really have no firsthand knowledge here.

MSNBC has been giving me the impression of a poor man's Fox News. I think they are trying to do what Fox does, but have slightly too much integrity to do it correctly. They are certainly more biased than any other cable channel on the left, from what I have seen. I think you would expect them to be better at drawing people to the left than the average source if your theory was true.

A news source that flatly lays out the news of the day without any commentary would be considered a "liberal" source because Trump lies so obviously and about so much. I don't think NPR, or CBS (I haven't watched much CBS, so maybe I'm wrong) has much bias for example. They just get labeled that way by Trump supporters because their opinion pieces don't worship him.

It's impossible to be completely unbiased. Every journalist has biases, and the majority happen to be left wing (huh. I wonder why that is?). However, many have enough integrity to do their jobs to the best of their ability. "Right Wing Media" has no shame. That's why they are dangerous.

NPR is clearly left-leaning. Or at least was between 10 and 25 years ago, when I listened to it regularly.

My mom used to listen to it every morning, and I still tune in once in a while. Can you give some examples of this left-leaning bias?

From 10 years ago? I can't. Just a general impression.

They could also have moved. I know last year's AllSides survey called the Economist left of center, so either those results are totally meaningless or the Economist has moved significantly since I used to subscribe.

I think that's kind of my point, though. I can point you to concrete examples of Fox being biased (most blatantly, Sean Hannity campaigning for Republicans). I don't know if you can do the same for the "liberal" media.