The Problem of Misinformation

[Revoltingest]

That would be you arguing with a mirror. Of course, that could also be referred to as ratio ad cogitatio.

Argumentum per deluvium, or Argument by deluge, is a tactic by which you flood your opponent with useless and most often irrelevant crap in hopes that they can't wade through the crud. You're pretty good at it as are others. It's intellectually dishonest and a good way to end the discussion if you don't have a clue how turn things your way. It's the online equivalent of a.....

So this is your excuse to avoid reading anything which would mitigate HIllaryphilia.
It explains much.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So this is your excuse to avoid reading anything which would mitigate HIllaryphilia.
It explains much.

 

[Revoltingest]

 

[Scuba Pete]

 

[Kartari]

Hi R,

Tis not as simple as looking solely at him, & saying he's a risk for war.
One must compare the two.
While Trump is volatile in public, Hillary is volatile in private (vicious abuse of staff).
Her public persona is an artfully crafted one.

Meh. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and say she's a nasty person on a personal level. I'll grant this, in spite of the fact that this is pretty much hearsay, and contradicted as well depending on who you ask. And in spite of the fact that Trump is WELL KNOWN to be a nasty person himself, so... between nasty and nasty what's the difference? (you did see him speaking about grabbing women, about Mexicans, about Muslims, etc., etc., etc., yes?)

And I'll grant you she's a corrupt politician as well.

Granted both of these, though, it should impress upon you the magnitude of fear I have with Trump as president when I tell you that I'd still VERY MUCH rather have a nasty and corrupt president in Clinton, who at least has a brain in her head and understands the job at hand, someone who would think about what she's doing before speaking and before acting, than the very ignorant, very volatile, and very dangerous con artist we now face in Trump... I'm far more interested in the stability and safety of the world and its people than I am in how personally nasty Clinton might have allegedly been.

And of course, she is the one with a political & rhetorical record of favoring wars.
Which one is riskier?
I say she is.

I entirely disagree, considering Trump's own statements as I believe I previously mentioned. The man is clearly clueless about the job he has been elected to. Couple this ignorance of and incompetence at the job with the volatility of a five year old child as he seems to possess (i.e. to paraphrase him on one occasion, "They hurt my feelings! Bomb them out of the water!"), and... the world now has a huge problem.

In fairness, Trump might be more interested in feeding his egomaniacal degree of narcissism by being content simply with sitting in the figurative throne of unending attention that I believe is what he's truly after. He may let his staff do the dirty work of knowing what the president's job entails and doing his job for him where they can. In fact, I expect he'll rely very heavily on the VP and his staff... but not only will he have to do a fair amount himself, but at least several of his picks are extremely frightening and dangerous people in their own right.

This was a joke which I made to mock those who compare Trump to Hitler.
It turned out that Hillary had more in common with Kim Jong Un than I'd initially thought.

I generally dislike using analogies myself, as no analogy is ever 100% accurate. Plus, analogies tend to distort our perceptions when taken beyond the scope of their more specifically compared properties.

Notwithstanding, the analogy does have some noteworthy merit. Trump does in fact have the support of white nationalists (and Nazi stands for National[ist] Socialism in German) and racists (the KKK, the American Nazi Party), and even hired a few for his staff (i.e. Steve Bannon is bigoted on perhaps all levels, Michael Flynn is an outrageous Islamophobe in particular).

I don't see a lot in common between Clinton and Kim though... ?!

I'm not at all reasonable.....that's just a phony persona I trot out on occasion.
But thank you for appreciating it!

Lol. Well, I think the primary problem, as already indicated in this OP, is misinformation. We basically live in two parallel worlds in this country, thanks largely to the (mis)information we are presented with. In one world, Clinton was perceived as the superior candidate while in the other world Trump was superior.

Smart and reasonable people can still make the worst choices if their information is flawed. That one can make logically valid arguments is no guarantee of the soundness of their premises.

 

[Kartari]

Hi habiru,

Indeed he was a Republican... a political party which had very little if anything of substance in common with the modern Republican party. Republicans and Democrats had widely different concerns and issues 150 years ago than they do today. Republicans favored more federal power than the Democrats, the latter of which at that time were the ones crying out for states rights and against federal impositions (such as those limiting the spread of slavery most particularly). Republicans favored federal grants of lands (homesteads) in the west as well, once they merged with the Free Soil party - imagine that, Republicans favoring government handouts for common people!

Things would radically change first during the 1890's with the rise of Populism, and again in the Progressive Era of the early 20th century. Major party realignments took place at these times, leading to the modern redefinitions of the two party ideologies.

Anachronism, or placing modern views onto past events, thereby distorting them into something they were not and drawing false conclusions, is something historians explicitly caution us to avoid doing at great peril.

 

[Revoltingest]

Granted both of these, though, it should impress upon you the magnitude of fear I have with Trump as president when I tell you that I'd still VERY MUCH rather have a nasty and corrupt president in Clinton, who at least has a brain in her head and understands the job at hand, someone who would think about what she's doing before speaking and before acting, than the very ignorant, very volatile, and very dangerous con artist we now face in Trump... I'm far more interested in the stability and safety of the world and its people than I am in how personally nasty Clinton might have allegedly been.

Her stability & experience are the very reasons I find her worse.
Even when making a calm & considered decision, her tendency is for war....both
starting & continuing them even after their usefulness has been debunked.
Her corruption, while disgusting, doesn't really matter to me relative to her war
lust & incompetence.

I entirely disagree, considering Trump's own statements as I believe I previously mentioned. The man is clearly clueless about the job he has been elected to. Couple this ignorance of and incompetence at the job with the volatility of a five year old child as he seems to possess (i.e. to paraphrase him on one occasion, "They hurt my feelings! Bomb them out of the water!"), and... the world now has a huge problem.

I agree that things he's said bespeak great risk.
But as I've pointed out before, even Jill Stein finds Hillary a greater risk for war.
This is particularly telling because she is on Hilda's side, & worked to put her in office by recounts.

In fairness, Trump might be more interested in feeding his egomaniacal degree of narcissism by being content simply with sitting in the figurative throne of unending attention that I believe is what he's truly after. He may let his staff do the dirty work of knowing what the president's job entails and doing his job for him where they can. In fact, I expect he'll rely very heavily on the VP and his staff... but not only will he have to do a fair amount himself, but at least several of his picks are extremely frightening and dangerous people in their own right.

"Egomaniacal" & "narcissistic" are certainly fun words to use.
But since they'd apply at least as well to Hillary, where does that leave us?

I generally dislike using analogies myself, as no analogy is ever 100% accurate. Plus, analogies tend to distort our perceptions when taken beyond the scope of their more specifically compared properties.

I can't give up the Hillary v Kim Jong Un comparison yet.
It's just too entertaining.

Notwithstanding, the analogy does have some noteworthy merit. Trump does in fact have the support of white nationalists (and Nazi stands for National[ist] Socialism in German) and racists (the KKK, the American Nazi Party), and even hired a few for his staff (i.e. Steve Bannon is bigoted on perhaps all levels, Michael Flynn is an outrageous Islamophobe in particular).

Trump also has the support of a great many progressives I know.
And I'm a certified "ultra-progressive".
Considering Trump's record with civil rights, & the legal reality he'll face, we judged him to be less of a risk than the more authoritarian alternative. I remember her Hillarycare proposal.

I don't see a lot in common between Clinton and Kim though... ?!

Well, it was a joke.
But it's as valid as those who claim Trump is the next Hitler.

Lol. Well, I think the primary problem, as already indicated in this OP, is misinformation. We basically live in two parallel worlds in this country, thanks largely to the (mis)information we are presented with. In one world, Clinton was perceived as the superior candidate while in the other world Trump was superior.

I saw Clinton defeated not by Wikileaks, but by the DNC, Podesta, & Hillary herself.
There problem was how they conducted themselves, & this having become known.
Many have falsely called this "fake news" & "misinformation", but it's the exact opposite.
Contrast this with NPR, which aired fake Trump quotes designed to be even more outrageous than the real ones.

Smart and reasonable people can still make the worst choices if their information is flawed. That one can make logically valid arguments is no guarantee of the soundness of their premises.

This is one election where reasonable people with similar values can be on opposite sides.
Hope for the best.
Plan for the worst.

 

[Augustus]

This is one election where reasonable people with similar values can be on opposite sides.

America is weird. In an election with 2 flawed but relatively centrist politicians choosing the 'wrong' person makes you evil/stupid/dangerous/traitorous/inhuman etc.

For many people, the 'wrong' person winning automatically leads to the sky falling on our heads and large sections of both sides haven't stopped whining and engaging is silly double standards since the election.

The level of hostility is ridiculous.

 

[habiru]

America is weird. In an election with 2 flawed but relatively centrist politicians choosing the 'wrong' person makes you evil/stupid/dangerous/traitorous/inhuman etc.

For many people, the 'wrong' person winning automatically leads to the sky falling on our heads and large sections of both sides haven't stopped whining and engaging is silly double standards since the election.

The level of hostility is ridiculous.

 

[Revoltingest]

America is weird. In an election with 2 flawed but relatively centrist politicians choosing the 'wrong' person makes you evil/stupid/dangerous/traitorous/inhuman etc.

For many people, the 'wrong' person winning automatically leads to the sky falling on our heads and large sections of both sides haven't stopped whining and engaging is silly double standards since the election.

The level of hostility is ridiculous.

True dat.

 

[Acim]

What I find laughable is that someone who has admitted to me previously to having a lot of difficulty discerning objective reality from subjective fantasy has begun their response to me by complaining how subjective my response is.

That's not accurate assessment of my philosophical position. I believe you failed in the debate to establish an objective reality. If you feel otherwise, we can go outside of the political section to further that debate.

Since I have not set out to demonstrate conservative bias, and am rather interested in this thread in exploring options for improving the quality of information, I am not obligated to provide the evidence you suggest.

The very first sentence of OP attempts to establish such bias, where you said: "far exceed their mainstream media counterparts in their degrees of political bias and their telling of falsehoods."

So, I would consider it falsehood that you are now 'exploring options for improving the quality of information.' The whole OP and the article that inspired you to start this thread is a hit piece on Fox News. Trying to weasel out of that now doesn't bode well for the tone you took in OP. But I'd understand it as liberal backtracking to try and spin it another way now.

Perhaps I could have written my OP title a bit more clearly to indicate this, though my OP does specify the intent.

Where in OP is that intent specified? As if it is balanced with all news agencies? As I see it, it's all about how can we persuade the RW lunatics from not believing the so called 'fake news' and 'disinformation' constantly put forth by RW media. And nothing more. Or perhaps a tiny morsel more that hints that maybe, just possibly MSM and LW media, might, just maybe, once in a blue moon, express bias and put forth disinformation.

Again, as I see it, is an an everyday occurrence. In my previous posts, I have said there are very close to no exceptions to the 'expressing bias' rule for all news agencies. If you feel there are exceptions, I'm sure you can note those.

I did not claim that LW media is 100% right and RW media is 100% wrong. I stated my observation (which, again, I am not inclined to support with evidence atm for no other reason than a lack of time, and it's not the point of this thread anyway) that RW media is far more biased than mainstream media,

That's not an observation though. That's inherent bias. I would say they are around equally biased, and far closer to equal than lopsided, as you are suggesting.

the latter of which is problematically perceived by RW-inclined people as being LW. All media, as I did indicate, has its biases; I'd never claim that any one news source is 100% accurate all the time. Nonetheless, some are worse than others, and my observation is that Fox News is considerably more biased in its support for RW agendas than mainstream media is.

Emphasis on "problematically perceived" is the debate. It's not a problem from RW to observe how over the top the LW bias is in MSM media in say the last 20 years. Were it not so far LW, Fox News would not be so popular, but because it is, then RW types realize that when it comes to TV news, Fox is the only source that will come from RW perspective more than 5% of the time. Around 95% of the time, LW bias is abundantly clear in MSM media, from I would say devout RW types, just as LW media sources is abundantly clear to independents as having LW bias. I honestly think that LW types think LW media does have bias, which they agree with, and that MSM doesn't have that same bias, therefore they must be perceived (by everyone) as neutral. I see that as the problematic perception going on.

Even MSNBC, which is certain LW in its orientation, is not as bad imho.

Perhaps the first time in our little debate here that you've added "in your opinion." That's nice to hear. My opinion is MSNBC is a wee bit more biased than Fox News and that Fox News is a wee bit more biased than say CNN, but all of them are fairly close to equal in their level of bias. I also wish to be clear that bias isn't just expressed opinions, but as I've noted many times, is the prioritization of news stories and prioritization of counter points. All of which has me saying they are fairly equal.

The biggest problem with MSNBC (which I do not often watch, actually, but I do catch some programs sometimes)

I will pause here just to note that I watch MSNBC almost every single day. But continue...

during this past campaign was its lack of addressing Clinton's flaws. It generally remained focused on Trump's flaws, which it tended to strongly get right.

I don't see that as the major flaw of MSNBC. It's a flaw, sure, but not the major one. The major one is that it is a) not providing content that would have RW media types tune in as if MSNBC has something legitimate to say on political news and/or b) that it can actually be neutral in its news reporting. The focussing on flaws will always be matter of debate. Even if Fox News and all RW media didn't exist, that debate would be raging on, and there would still be disinformation and fake news (about candidates for POTUS) because political operatives are clearly planting such information for news agencies to run with.

In contrast, Fox News has focused on conspiracy theories about how evil Clinton is, and while ironically claiming the moral authority its commentators like Bill O'Riley, Sean Hannity, and other RW nuts like Limbaugh have gone way off the deep end making up BS to render a more appealing image of Trump.

After admitting you don't often watch MSNBC, I'm now under impression you don't often watch Fox News. I would say Hannity was the only commentator on Fox News that made it a point to have RW types find Trump appealing. The rest were not so prone to running with LW hit piece information, but also not praising his appeal or downplaying his flaws. I find this is still the case with how they report on Trump.

In fact,

Actually not fact, but continue...

Trump has said and done far more to put his own campaign into the grave all by himself from the beginning with his endless rantings and ravings demonstrating his ignorance of the office he's run for, his general racism, bigotry and misogyny, and his volatile temperament which leaves those of us who've paid attention to his words alone and not even counting anything covered by MSNBC or even the mainstream media if he'll start World War 3. or at least, this should have put it into the grave, if everyone was paying attention...

All a matter of your bias and opinion that far exceeds anything Fox News has ever said about any POTUS candidate, ever. It's about on par with some of what appears on MSNBC, so you have them for company.

Clinton had her faults, I was not pleased with her as a candidate. But at least she had the brains and the qualifications for the job (two things Trump demonstrably lacks), and at least she had the temperament to keep us at least somewhat stable (also something Trump demonstrably lacks).

All laughable.

There are many factors contributing to financial woes in America. I wasn't 100% happy with everything Obama did, and he could have handled things better in a few respects. But he was clearly an intelligent and capable president overall. The banks however led us to five trillion dollars in losses via the crash of 2007/2008, causing the housing market to crash and a severe economic recession (meanwhile, conservatives have been up in arms lately about undocumented workers and their comparatively very measly financial burden on the American taxpayers). This crash occurred at the end of Bush's presidency, not Obama's - Obama inherited this severe problem.

This is a longer topic than I have the time to cover, alas. My point is that there's unfortunately often a wide gap between what people perceive to be the cause of their woes and the real reasons for them.

And as I see it, you are from onset of OP putting all the negative perception of how we got here on RW types, with maybe a smidgeon of responsibility on LW types just to appear like you are being balanced and reasonable.

This paragraph shows a deep lack of understanding of what Bernie Sanders proposed, which is what I assume you are attacking here. He did NOT advocate for universally free college tuition. He advocated for free tuition for PUBLIC colleges ONLY. Private colleges would have been unaffected.

Who's showing a deep lack of understanding, when they claim "private colleges would've been unaffected?" How, in the free market of college tuition is the private supposed to compete with the free alternative? I don't think I even touched upon what you are bringing up as if I missed that, but clearly you are missing something in your assertions. It would affect all student debt if the country went in this direction. It would, at the very least, be another example of "haves" and "have nots" if it were public is free and private costs private money to attend. But who knows how long that plays out. If the public option is successful, then public would support it and perhaps be willing to fork over another umpteen trillion dollars so the private professors could be snagged from their private lairs and made to work in the public sector, guaranteeing them greater pay than the private ones, which LW media would have a field day with, pointing out flaw after flaw after flaw, and while downplaying all possible flaws with the public approach. Heck, if you are daring to criticize the public one, as Fox News probably would, it can only be because you are racists and bigoted. No other possible explanation from LW media perspective, or so the story would go.

The funding for public colleges are already largely provided by taxation, so we're talking about a far less radical idea than RW media (which I assume is where you get your info from since it is consistent with their falsehoods and with the same misinformation I've personally encountered when speaking with conservatives) has falsely presented.

You presume incorrectly. And you are presenting a falsehood if you are saying that students of public colleges have their entire tuition already provided by taxation.

So, people can disagree with you because your information is entirely wrong.

Let the debate continue.

If for no other reason to have your BS continue to be exposed.

 

[Acim]

I did say that, I was 99% sure. It was statistically impossible for Trump to win. I think I even would have bet someone $1k. Propaganda ruled the day. Fake news ruled the day. I can't predict people believing falsehoods.

Then you are where I was as an American voter, when I was in my early 20's. Or IOW, when I was naive.

People believing in falsehoods, is why we even have a thing as "leader of the country."

 

[Acim]

There is a significant difference between a journalist that puts themselves into their work (bias on the personal) and a whole news organization who is owned and intentionally run as a machine to propagate a specific political party with the intent and purpose of molding a portion of the population to vote a certain way.

Do you see the distinction now?

This doesn't follow from earlier conversation. It's as if you (again) think you have the 'right' information and I'm playing catch up to your point(s).

You earlier said: "Not necessarily. I think their [Fox News] journalistic news programs, while not innacruate, are biased in both the stance they take and the choice of stories put out in the news. Now to what degree of bias is implemented at any given point in time is varied from slight ot extreme on case by case basis."

And I have consistently been asking in this thread how this is different from any other news agency. All news agencies (that I'm familiar with, and I'm familiar with many) have bias that, at any given point, is implemented with slight to extreme bias.

Again, we could use Standing Rocks as recent example of this, and see how any/all news agencies dealt with that story, to explore the bias that each had either in commentary or in the choice of prioritizing the latest information on that and how they prioritized and possible counter-points to that narrative. Or...... we could choose any current story, but the political ones are the ones where the bias shines through. I would say without any exception.

Here is an example of facts being used in a way to help convey a message.
Fox news has stated the true fact that Obama has gone on 28 vacations. What they fail to say is that Bush went on 88. Its a matter of context. An overused news troupe that isn't specific to any one news outlet is the use of big numbers without context. "We are giving millions of dollars every year to failling schools!" That sounds bad. Its purely fact but its facts that are misleading.

If I google "Fox News - amount of vacations Obama has taken while president" I get (2014) information that Fox News (really O'Reilly) states Bush took more vacation days than Obama. So, you are implying that Fox News is only reporting one side of the story, when information is available for all to see that they are sharing whatever it is you think they are hiding, and thus misinforming.

I think you think Fox News will not present the other side, and yet I believe they often do. I don't think they always do, but I think they do about as often as any other MSM news agency. I think MSNBC does it less than all others of say the top TV / Cable News agencies. When MSNBC does it, I find they intentionally, and immediately downplay it, as if that is of trivial concern compared to the point(s) they are earnestly interested in conveying.

Another exaple of how someone can do just the facts but omit specific things would be the Trevon Martin case. It took Fox news far longer than any station to even mention it

I'll need you to back up that assertion, if you can.

and when it did the number of times it was covered was significantly less.

Again, back this up please. Sorry, but not going to take your biased word for such a thing.

There was scrutiny placed on fox and the advocate claimed that they had aired far more than they had because he has inflated his "news report" numbers with times it was mentioned in the psudo-news programs that fox covers. Beyond that even is how it was phrased. Very shortly after the initial report of the Trevon Martin case we didn't hear anything about Zimmerman or his shady actions just prior to the shooting but rather "anti-gun advocates use teen's death to go after NRA." Which this is true. However with the context of this "true" fact it slides the blame and the issue forward from a man who shouldn't have had a gun tracking down a black teen boy to how some super unfortunate no way able to predict or stop magical incident is being used by the radical left to take you're guns away!

All debatable as far as I can tell.

I know for a fact that CNN has far far far less bias than MSNBC or Fox.

Then you don't know your 'facts' very well. I would say they are all relatively equal, with MSNBC having slightly more than the other 2, and CNN having slightly less than the other 2.

However they do have bias. Their bias is slightly more trustworthy since its sensationalism and headlines that aren't geared specifically for a political party but rather simply for the aim of obtaining the most views possible.

Hmmm, what was that news agency that was recently mentioned as having a news contributor who gave debate questions to the Democratic candidate (presumed nominee) before the Democrat debate, that was airing on their network? Could it be the one you are claiming isn't geared specifically for a political party? Could it be the same one that said when Trump won there was a 'whitelash' in America?

 

[tytlyf]

Then you are where I was as an American voter, when I was in my early 20's. Or IOW, when I was naive.

People believing in falsehoods, is why we even have a thing as "leader of the country."

But I fact check and research. Come here and debunk all the RW propaganda. Our friend Habiru here is a good example of someone believing in falsehoods, disinformation and propaganda. And I'm sure that had an effect on how they voted.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This doesn't follow from earlier conversation. It's as if you (again) think you have the 'right' information and I'm playing catch up to your point(s).

You earlier said: "Not necessarily. I think their [Fox News] journalistic news programs, while not innacruate, are biased in both the stance they take and the choice of stories put out in the news. Now to what degree of bias is implemented at any given point in time is varied from slight ot extreme on case by case basis."

And I have consistently been asking in this thread how this is different from any other news agency. All news agencies (that I'm familiar with, and I'm familiar with many) have bias that, at any given point, is implemented with slight to extreme bias.

Again, we could use Standing Rocks as recent example of this, and see how any/all news agencies dealt with that story, to explore the bias that each had either in commentary or in the choice of prioritizing the latest information on that and how they prioritized and possible counter-points to that narrative. Or...... we could choose any current story, but the political ones are the ones where the bias shines through. I would say without any exception.

It does follow. The context of your last post said "any in history". The modern news is relatively new. Entertainment news started in teh 80's and really kicked off the last 15 years or so. The way that fox conducts itself is vastly different to how news outlets have worked in the past. Currently the POINT and FUNCTION of Fox news is to support the Republican party. Not conservatism as a whole. Not even news as a whole but specifically partisan focus. MSNBC has followed and learned from FOX to do the same for Democrats in a partisan way. No other media outlet is specifically partisan. However they are still geared towards entertainment. This puts a bias on their news but only so much so as they can make it more interesting to get more views. It is not ABC, NBC or any other non MSNBC/FOX news station that attempts specifcally partisan messages.

I am sure I will talk about this more but standing rock was a terrible travesty on all news stations. Because all news stations are ****. But Fox especially so on Standing Rock. And to take something that doesn't affect all news stations equally how about the Trevon Martin case or any of the other hot topic gun related cases? Tell me honestly that they treat them the same as other news stations.

If I google "Fox News - amount of vacations Obama has taken while president" I get (2014) information that Fox News (really O'Reilly) states Bush took more vacation days than Obama. So, you are implying that Fox News is only reporting one side of the story, when information is available for all to see that they are sharing whatever it is you think they are hiding, and thus misinforming.

I think you think Fox News will not present the other side, and yet I believe they often do. I don't think they always do, but I think they do about as often as any other MSM news agency. I think MSNBC does it less than all others of say the top TV / Cable News agencies. When MSNBC does it, I find they intentionally, and immediately downplay it, as if that is of trivial concern compared to the point(s) they are earnestly interested in conveying.

I don't think we will agree on this point. I am sure we agree on how terrible MSNBC and other news stations are but you seem to have a soft spot for Fox news. Does it, in any way, actually align with your personal beliefs? Just curious.

I'll need you to back up that assertion, if you can.

They were the last to cover it. They covered it the least number of times in actual news segments. They mentioned to quote
"and now anti-gun advocates say the 911 calls from some witnesses prove otherwise—and they’re using them as ammunition in a new attack on the National Rifle Association".
Fox News Coverage of the Trayvon Martin Case Criticized
So not only did they wait until the last minute to report on it they spun it in a way to downplay the death and immediatly take a stance against gun control. What does that matter to a fair and balanced news station?

Again, back this up please. Sorry, but not going to take your biased word for such a thing.

The above also mentions the number of times. 15 in non news and zero in offical news by march 19. However CNN by compairison had mentioned it 41 times in offical news by that point. All other news stations had also mentioned it by that point.

All debatable as far as I can tell.

And we are in a debate forum. Lets debate.

Then you don't know your 'facts' very well. I would say they are all relatively equal, with MSNBC having slightly more than the other 2, and CNN having slightly less than the other 2.

By what arguments. You haven't bruoght up a single link or piece of information. Just your opinion in the face of what I have said. What is the evidence that fox news is less bias than MSNBC and that the speicifically and intentionally partisan bias is somehow comprable to sensationalism bias?

Hmmm, what was that news agency that was recently mentioned as having a news contributor who gave debate questions to the Democratic candidate (presumed nominee) before the Democrat debate, that was airing on their network? Could it be the one you are claiming isn't geared specifically for a political party? Could it be the same one that said when Trump won there was a 'whitelash' in America?

First of all you cannot have partisian bias if you are playing favorites in a primary. That is just plain old corruption. Secondly there was a whitelash in America after Trump won. Hell we sat near civil unrest for a few weeks. Thirdly, being anti-trump isn't specifically partisan. Even fox was against Trump heavily in the past. That doesn't make their entire organization and purpose a specifically partisan one. It means they have done isolated incidents or in this case, incident, of partisan behavior.

 

[Acim]

It does follow. The context of your last post said "any in history". The modern news is relatively new. Entertainment news started in teh 80's and really kicked off the last 15 years or so. The way that fox conducts itself is vastly different to how news outlets have worked in the past. Currently the POINT and FUNCTION of Fox news is to support the Republican party. Not conservatism as a whole.

But that is your view of what their point/mission is. Anyone can surely play that rhetorical game with any news outlet in history. Define what their point and function is from own perspective. If the news outlet has "mission statement" type documents that contradict that expressed point and function, then what?

MSNBC has followed and learned from FOX to do the same for Democrats in a partisan way. No other media outlet is specifically partisan. However they are still geared towards entertainment. This puts a bias on their news but only so much so as they can make it more interesting to get more views. It is not ABC, NBC or any other non MSNBC/FOX news station that attempts specifcally partisan messages.

So, now I have to stoop to the point you believe to be supremely accurate to have this debate move forward? I think they are all partisan, and as stated before, have always been. I wouldn't say that is their expressed mission. If anything, I think they all (or most for sure) wish to convey idea of "not biased" as best they can. This includes Fox News and MSNBC.

The idea of news being entertaining isn't new. How entertaining and to what degree may have changed, but I think that's more a result of broadcast television vs. print media. IOW, what the medium allows for. If we were able to receive news (or information) via holodecks (like on Star Trek), I imagine that would be even more entertaining than whatever the most creative broadcast journalist can think of. It also could be way more informative if such an immersive experience were allowed.

I am sure I will talk about this more but standing rock was a terrible travesty on all news stations. Because all news stations are ****. But Fox especially so on Standing Rock. And to take something that doesn't affect all news stations equally how about the Trevon Martin case or any of the other hot topic gun related cases? Tell me honestly that they treat them the same as other news stations.

Not treated the same, but still treated with bias. The amount of bias may vary, but in this point you are addressing bias as if it only comes up in individual stories. That's a narrow scope for what I was getting at earlier. At the producer/editor level (people that may not be visible in what is expressed in any news story, in their medium), the amount of their bias is not readily discernible. But if you follow a particular outlet, their bias can get rather familiar in not too long of a time.

Does it, in any way, actually align with your personal beliefs?

Yes.

They were the last to cover it. They covered it the least number of times in actual news segments. They mentioned to quote
"and now anti-gun advocates say the 911 calls from some witnesses prove otherwise—and they’re using them as ammunition in a new attack on the National Rifle Association".
Fox News Coverage of the Trayvon Martin Case Criticized
So not only did they wait until the last minute to report on it they spun it in a way to downplay the death and immediatly take a stance against gun control. What does that matter to a fair and balanced news station?

Your using a liberally biased article to back up your claim?

If I do google search on the dates noted in the liberal article, as in searching for what Fox News had up (or on video) before that date, it comes up with lots of information. So, apparently you'd like to have a little debate here. Let it be known, I disagree with your assertions, put forth thus far.

The above also mentions the number of times. 15 in non news and zero in offical news by march 19. However CNN by compairison had mentioned it 41 times in offical news by that point. All other news stations had also mentioned it by that point.

Perhaps because Fox News was investigating the actual incident, while having it mentioned as newsworthy on their commentary type programs? Not sure what debate you want to have here, but so far it seems to be working to the advantage of the news aspect of Fox News. IOW, Fox News didn't care to partake in the misinformation aspect of the Trayvon Martin situation when it first broke as news. While their commentators were possibly operating under a different idea, one where bias is more front and center. Whereas producers on other news stations, key on presenting a bias regardless of facts, wanted to be seen as falling in line with national narrative of people with guns are harming innocent young black males.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Does it, in any way, actually align with your personal beliefs?

Yes.

Enlightening.

 

[Acim]

Enlightening.

I'd be very surprised if the same weren't true for you.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'd be very surprised if the same weren't true for you.

Prepare to be shocked. I don't defend any news source reguardless of of how much it may be in line with my political bias. Though I must admit there is no major network that is appealing to my bias. While I tend to be more liberal I am not a democrat. I am not a republican. I strive not to have any kind of group loyalty because it is intrinsic of the natuer of group loyalty to have emotional bias.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

While the mainstream media more broadly is not 100% unbiased in its reporting of news events, it's been readily obvious for a very long time now that conservative "commentators" on Fox News and on the radio far exceed their mainstream media counterparts in their degrees of political bias and their telling of falsehoods. So much so that I consider Fox News to be more aptly named the Republican Propaganda Department, and commentators like Rush Limbaugh to be of utterly laughable credibility. Bill O'Riley and Sean Hannity of Fox News are as well rather egregious in their obvious political bias and telling of falsehoods.

It is one thing to say you lean right or left, that you favor a weaker or stronger government on this or that issue, and to have meaningful opinions based on legitimate facts. But the problem with figures like these is that many listeners seem to have been fooled into living in a fabricated alternate reality. In this alternate reality, the facts become lies, and all mainstream news sources and respected unbiased research authorities alike are all wrongly perceived to be extremely "liberal" in their bias. Even primary sources (i.e. statements coming straight from the horse's mouth) are discounted as always being edited by the "liberal" media to warp them, even when this is often and clearly not true. In all cases, these instances are regarded with extreme outrage, as if (quite ironically) they are the morally reprehensible and blatant liars here.

In short, right-wing con artists have succeeded in being perceived as the truth-sayers in the minds of many Americans.

I strongly believe the success of these right-wing liars has had a profound effect on the recent election. Hillary Clinton had her issues. But her issues had little to do with what these conspiracy theorists fabricated from whole cloth. In contrast, Donald Trump, who is demonstrably an inept, morally reprehensible, and extremely dangerous presidential candidate judging by his own statements from his own mouth alone, has been heralded as the perceived superior candidate by their distorted presentations. Somehow, this very obvious con artist has been believed by many middle class Americans to not only be a capable president, but one who'd actually be interested in helping them.

I came across this article yesterday: Fake News Is Not the Real Media Threat We’re Facing It sums up my point pretty well, though I consider Fox and these commentators to be a part of fake news rather than a distinctly different entity. I think the article's point is a fair one, however: Fox et al succeed in presenting themselves as legitimate news sources, whereas fake news sites, while believed by some, have not attained that degree of perceived credibility.

In any case, the question now is how do we, as a nation, recover from this extraordinary degree of misinformation circulating amongst the masses as if it were true? Who are these people who actually believe these liars, and how do we begin to teach them how to comprehend the clear difference between fake news and real news sources? While I agree with the article that mainstream media should take the mantle of assaulting rather than ignoring these fake news sources (including Fox News; and by assaulting, I specifically mean diligently exposing all their lies and their biases), I think we need to address the deeper problem of why so many people don't understand how to distinguish legitimate sources of information from biased sources.

Compared to the liberal media, yes Fox news is extremist hard right

compared to average folks, it's pretty middle of the road really. We have lived with the entire measure of left and right being skewed by a media and pop culture that has been unambiguously, overwhelmingly liberal for decades. I couldn't even get Fox news until fairly recently, many like Rush Limbaugh were on fuzzy AM radio at best- while often NPR is the clearest channel wherever I go - thanks to my tax dollars.

At Least Fox can pay their own bills!