Media Bias

Chico, they've got you surrounded...

http://cdn-9chat-fun.9cache.com/media/photo/aoXYWk661_480w_v1.jpg

Honestly G-1 there is no such thing as fact checking anymore. Trumpers just spin “fact checking “ into “media bias”, “fake news”, “alternative facts”. Call it whatever you want. Lol.

Yes, now kellyanne is calling them "unfortunate misstatements".

Fact checking trump and I am honestly trying to get a cross section here..........


https://qz.com/1517758/border-wall-facts-to-read-before-trumps-speech-tonight/

http://time.com/5497260/donald-trump-border-wall-fact-check/


https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/683205814/fact-check-trumps-oval-office-pitch-for-a-border-wall


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/trump-speech.html



What's interesting FOX's Shepard Smith (who I like ) jumped on trump but I could not find FOX posting info on it,only thye Daily Beast talked about it............

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-gets-instant-fact-check-from-fox-news-shepard-smith-after-oval-office-speech

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/the-times-gives-maddow-the-cold-shoulder

The NY Times recently yanked one of its journalists from Rachel Maddow amid concerns about cable-news “bias.” Dean Baquet “thinks it’s a real issue.”

It’s not just Maddow. The Times has come to “prefer,” as sources put it, that its reporters steer clear of any cable-news shows that the masthead perceives as too partisan, and managers have lately been advising people not to go on what they see as highly opinionated programs. It's not clear how many shows fall under that umbrella in the eyes of Times brass, but two others that definitely do are Lawrence O’Donnell’s and Don Lemon’s, according to people familiar with management’s thinking. Hannity’s or Tucker Carlson’s shows would likewise make the cut, but it's not like Times reporters ever do those anyway. I’m told that over the past couple of months, executive editor Dean Baquet has felt that opinionated cable-news show are getting, well, even more opinionated. Baquet and other managers have become increasingly concerned that if a Times reporter were to go on one of these shows, his or her appearance could be perceived as being aligned with that show’s political leanings. “He thinks it’s a real issue,” one of my Times sources said. “Their view,” said another, “is that, intentionally or not, it affiliates the Times reporter with a bias.”

This time its the executive editor saying it, not Chico. Good to hear he agrees.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/the-times-gives-maddow-the-cold-shoulder

The NY Times recently yanked one of its journalists from Rachel Maddow amid concerns about cable-news “bias.” Dean Baquet “thinks it’s a real issue.”

It’s not just Maddow. The Times has come to “prefer,” as sources put it, that its reporters steer clear of any cable-news shows that the masthead perceives as too partisan, and managers have lately been advising people not to go on what they see as highly opinionated programs. It's not clear how many shows fall under that umbrella in the eyes of Times brass, but two others that definitely do are Lawrence O’Donnell’s and Don Lemon’s, according to people familiar with management’s thinking. Hannity’s or Tucker Carlson’s shows would likewise make the cut, but it's not like Times reporters ever do those anyway. I’m told that over the past couple of months, executive editor Dean Baquet has felt that opinionated cable-news show are getting, well, even more opinionated. Baquet and other managers have become increasingly concerned that if a Times reporter were to go on one of these shows, his or her appearance could be perceived as being aligned with that show’s political leanings. “He thinks it’s a real issue,” one of my Times sources said. “Their view,” said another, “is that, intentionally or not, it affiliates the Times reporter with a bias.”

This time its the executive editor saying it, not Chico. Good to hear he agrees.

I agree too, you are bias all so!

I just thought it interesting to compare the takeaways from both CNN and Fox on Mueller's testimony.

I put the links if you want to read more depth on them, I just put the sentence they chose to bold.


Fox's top 5 (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/robert-mueller-hearings-here-are-5-big-takeaways) takeaways from Mueller's Testimony
1. Mueller said the findings of his investigation do not exonerate Trump and added the president can still be prosecuted when he leaves the White House
2. Muller was forced to clear up confusion as to why he didn't indict Trump
3. Mueller testified that he did not meet with Trump for the job of FBI director, contradicting previous statements by the president
4. Mueller said Trump and Donald Jr. praising WikiLeaks was "problematic"
5. Mueller said Russian election interference is an ongoing issue that will continue in 2020

CNN's top 5 (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/24/politics/robert-mueller-testimony-highlights/index.html) (they actually had 10, but I cut it at 5)
1. Trump's tweets showed how anxious he actually was
2. Mueller disappointed Republicans
3. ... and Democrats
4. Mueller was shaky -- especially at the start
5. Mueller directly contradicted Trump on FBI job

I just thought it interesting to compare the takeaways from both CNN and Fox on Mueller's testimony.

I put the links if you want to read more depth on them, I just put the sentence they chose to bold.


Fox's top 5 (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/robert-mueller-hearings-here-are-5-big-takeaways) takeaways from Mueller's Testimony
1. Mueller said the findings of his investigation do not exonerate Trump and added the president can still be prosecuted when he leaves the White House
2. Muller was forced to clear up confusion as to why he didn't indict Trump
3. Mueller testified that he did not meet with Trump for the job of FBI director, contradicting previous statements by the president
4. Mueller said Trump and Donald Jr. praising WikiLeaks was "problematic"
5. Mueller said Russian election interference is an ongoing issue that will continue in 2020

CNN's top 5 (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/24/politics/robert-mueller-testimony-highlights/index.html) (they actually had 10, but I cut it at 5)
1. Trump's tweets showed how anxious he actually was
2. Mueller disappointed Republicans
3. ... and Democrats
4. Mueller was shaky -- especially at the start
5. Mueller directly contradicted Trump on FBI job

I think if folks remove the editorial/opinion shows of Tucker Carlson, Hannity which are clearly right, the actual "news" portion of the fox new broadcast station is way more legitimate than CNN or MSNBC. It simply is...they actually report entire stories and don't cherry pick. And when the regular news portion do give analysis or an editorial they will criticize the administration. And this criticism is daily.

That's one of the things that drives me most crazy - in high school English class we spent a fair amount of time on the various roles within journalism, namely how to tell the difference between news reporting and opinion pieces. In the mid 90s that was viewed mostly through the lens of print journalism.

But I now feel like it's very easy to look at cable news networks through the same lens and identify which programs are reporting news and which are opinion based.

It seems far, far too many Americans can't tell the difference, and they actually rely on opinion programs for their actual news. Consequently they don't realize that consuming news this way inherently leads to the development of bias in their own minds. They consume news with a confirmation bias and they don't even realize it.

Every American should know that to get your news, you should be consuming it through fact based news reporting programs and written pieces. Never through opinion pieces.

You can supplement with opinion programs once you're up on the facts, but it should not be the source for keeping up with current events and facts. You're never going to be presented with a fair and complete evaluation of the situation this way.

We should all know this but for some reason we don't. Or we don't care.

That's one of the things that drives me most crazy - in high school English class we spent a fair amount of time on the various roles within journalism, namely how to tell the difference between news reporting and opinion pieces. In the mid 90s that was viewed mostly through the lens of print journalism.

But I now feel like it's very easy to look at cable news networks through the same lens and identify which programs are reporting news and which are opinion based.

It seems far, far too many Americans can't tell the difference, and they actually rely on opinion programs for their actual news. Consequently they don't realize that consuming news this way inherently leads to the development of bias in their own minds. They consume news with a confirmation bias and they don't even realize it.

Every American should know that to get your news, you should be consuming it through fact based news reporting programs and written pieces. Never through opinion pieces.

You can supplement with opinion programs once you're up on the facts, but it should not be the source for keeping up with current events and facts. You're never going to be presented with a fair and complete evaluation of the situation this way.

We should all know this but for some reason we don't. Or we don't care.

I actually remember in both High School AND College in English and Literature , that there was a clear progression from reading-writing-to critical thinking and analysis. Do they teach this anymore?

I took a higher level literature/critical thinking college which was required to satisfy a course....it was taught by a wife of a guy who was on a Washington dc weekly tv politics show. We looked a social issues and read editorial/opinion/analysis pieces by authors such as Chomsky (left) and Krauthammer (right) about each. Our job in the course was to analyze the arguments and then at the techniques each author used to make their arguments. It was eye opening and a gateway to objectivity. We weren't having arguments about the issues but the instruments...and putting aside subjective "FEELINGS", everyone seemed to agree with points made by every author or view point. I think it was one of the few course with extremely high attendance and everyone enjoyed it.

If you just read through social media, critical thinking seems not to be a part of today society.

If you're getting your news through social media, you're doing it wrong. Facebook has no incentive to distinguish real from fake news.

Also +1 great post Schneed.