For political purposes? You mean to appeal to basic racist and bigoted impulses? Do you know how incredibly wrong that is?
Jonathan Haidt dedicated years of research to this phenomenon, what he and his fellow researchers found was that because conservatives have a much broader range of morality, they tend to understand and disagree with the left, whilst the left tends to simply not understand the right. The book he wrote, the righteous mind illustrates it, but what they did was ask people a series of questions about topics that asked them what they would do, and then what they think a person on the other side of the spectrum would do, and at an alarming rate, left wing people have a very low predictive accuracy of right wing people, whereas centrists and right wing people had a fairly high predictive accuracy of the others. Where it's become worse, is that the left have formed echo chambers around themselves in a similar fashion to insulated religious groups, where they no longer have their views challenged, and have formed a moralistic world view akin to a secular religion.
You mean like wrong in the very same way the entire Democratic agenda is put forward? Wrong in that way? If so, please do show us where you have complained about Democrats doing The Very Same Thing. If not, then your response is duly noted as hypocritical drudge, not worthy of further discussion.
You say it in jest, but your statement is in fact correct. To a large degree even the clear intended relation to Fox News. The Fox reporters HAVE been far more fair and balanced. So, do you find a lot of fair and balanced coverage from the MSM? No, you don't. But, your irony aside, Trump calls out very specific reporters, those who have had an agenda. There are those not from Fox that don't get treated that way. You can ignore this all you want, or make fun of it. It is a serious problem, and the MSM is losing credibility because of it. Which is all long past due.
Very interesting, Aleron. I wasn't aware of this research, just observations from years of forums like this, and talking with others. Especially interesting. It shows that the biases from the left are not just biases, but completely incorrect biases. The left probably isn't interested at all in hearing that.
Show me where the Democrats have used racism and fear of foreigners to push their agenda? There are a number of things that the Democrats have pushed that I do not agree with in the past and present. However pushing fear of minorities and foreigners is not one that I have seen. If you have seen it, then please explain.
What he found was that people who self labeled themselves as “very liberal” had a poor ability to predict. He is a centrist and also made it clear that the two are connected and neither one is better than the other.
Trump is literally projecting his own image and deeds in everything he says. He literally IS the enemy of this country. DD
The footage was clearly doctored and sped up in an effort to make it seemed like he struck her. Running something in fast motion to enhance the effect is underhanded and dishonest. So it is completely fitting with the President. SHS is a dishonest hack. Acosta didn't ask questions in the greatest way but it was foolish for Trump to lash out the way he did. It is even worse that SHS showed doctored footage to try and excuse what they did. Worst of all is taking away credentials from a reporter because they don't like the content of his questions. In fact, silencing the press because of the content of their questions is clearly against the first amendment.
You didn't address that to me, but much, much more objective than anything Fox puts out: WSJ news reporting, CSM news reporting, AP news reporting, and even CBS news reporting. There's just no 'fake' news to be had in there. Just a bunch of facts the majority of the time. I think some of y'all think MSM = CNN or some other bunch of clickbait crap, but I disagree. There's still lots of good, solid news out there if we get away from cable TV, and technically in the "mainstream media" includes press, etc.
Panem et circenses == journalism If it wasn't for NHK, France 24, DW, i24News, Al Jazeera, etc, there would be so many major news stories I would miss that never make it high in the US news cycle, if at all, like the recent summit between Turkey, Germany, France, and Russia last month to discuss repatriating Syrian refugees, for example. It was a major news story -- headlines about it around the world -- but nothing here except Trump/Celebrity News/Trump/Jack in the Box has a new burger/some speculation about Trump/NFL rumors/US Midterms with a healthy dose of vote shaming.
I disagree, in general. Yes, America's media is profit-driven, for the most part, so they have to sell ad time. There's more Trump and Kardashian bullcrap than many of us would like. But to paint with your broad and dismissive brush is not really accurate either. I suspect you know that. Just from the last couple of days, with only the most cursory browsing. https://www.apnews.com/49cda64a27fd45ef920066bc9670b752 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-reports-sound-alarm-on-warming-oceans/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-ends-saudi-jet-refueling-missions-in-yemen-conflict-1541841024 (and dozens of other examples from those 3 and others) This is completely separate from the point I was trying to make to another poster. But at any rate, there is some global reporting, despite the preferences of the US population, if you are willing to navigate a bit. Is it better elsewhere? On certain topics, most definitely.
WSJ and CSM I would agree with probably AP as well. CBS varies. Note the many you left out, though: NYT (which has had several documented completely fake news stories), Washington Post, etc. I would mostly agree with this, but still note that most of the press is still very liberal. Journalists vote Democratic something like 98%...you can't have that degree of political bias and not have it show up in the reporting. But it isn't the reporters, it is the agencies running them. Many of them are liberal, and all of them (with the possible exception of the few you mention) have decided not to report the news, but to make money. How do make money in the news business? Ideally, by being very good at it. But that's hard, and its much easier to simply create controversy, and then milk it for all its worth. You combine that with a penchant for liberal minded reporting,and, to the post about Haidt's research, more like minded..a lot easier to work things in that direction. Which is what they've done. That their ownership is liberal just adds to that. Everyone thinks Fox is very conservative (to more of a degree than their news actually is)...but do you think everyone thinks CNN, for example, is heavily liberal biased? Or do they think of it as the MSM, and have that opinion reinforced because, hey, they say things I agree with? Which, btw, should be the first red flag as to bias. If a news source pretty much only says what you want to hear...then its not really doing hard reporting. Do some papers do a much better job of this? Yes. But is that where most people get their 'news'? No. I would also point out there is a reason all these other outlets are considered the MSM. First, because they always have been considered that way, and second, becuause they will tell you that themselves. Was it even a term prior to Fox? I don't recall hearing it before. So, it's Fox and everyone else, and everyone else got lumped into MainStream (which is why so many people felt left out, and flocked to Trump). To your point, we should all just ignore that...but getting everyone to understand the bias out there is something conservatives have been striving for for decades. Being biased is one thing...being biased cloaked in the guise of reputable objective reporting is another. FWIW, while Fox's opinion pieces are indeed very conservatively oriented, they have more people there that don't like Trump than you would find in the other networks that do, and this shows in the coverage. Then when you combine that with the other networks ownership being liberal minded, you have the current situation. Also, the 'hard news' reporting from Fox is pretty solid. Chris Wallace puts Republicans to task all the time, for example, and asks them the hard questions that are out there, many of them the very questions liberals would raise. The Fox News debate seemed the most objective to me (and received reviews and ratings indicating that), and certainly wasn't set up for Trump to succeed, unlike the one CNN (yes, again) ran.
I remember this study. It did show that liberal were the least accurate and moderate conservative were the most accurate in predicting (or thinking) they know how the other side AND their side think. It was based on self reporting of 2000 visitors to a website. I don't recall it being scientifically conclusive, but suggestive and I remember they saying they would want a follow-up. To summarize, the author said the study wasn't good enough and wanted a follow-up, but here is some suggestions for now.
I think US news has been bad for a long time, but the big change started in 1996. It got worse post 911, then worse again during the 2016 election, and completely jumped the shark when Trump became president. The point I made is that there is a lot of self-censorship. There is at least one major international news story a day that doesn't even make the wire services. And the same is true in the UK -- their media culture is if anything, worse. There's this idea that somehow corporate news readers like Jim Acosta and late night television hosts are speaking truth to power when all they are doing is boosting their own ratings with grandstanding safe corporate-approved narrative. People like Phil Donahue (who questioned the Iraq War) and Ed Schultz (who said he was told not to cover Bernie Sanders and that Andy Lack was "connected at the hip" to the Clintons) were fired from MSNBC despite good ratings because they didn't do as they were told. While we are wringing our hands about Acosta's "1st amendment rights", our media doesn't seem at all concerned about Julian Assange likely being turned over to US authorities whom I fully expect to give him the Chelsea Manning treatment. No news service is perfect, but for TV news, I like NHK -- it's all international news with some regional and domestic stories and the occasional long feature about something like hot spring resorts. The news readers may not have the best English skills, and the presentation a bit dry, but the content is heavy on news over filler and commentary.
