The next President

Return to Off Topic

Re: The next President

Postby cujaysfan » Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:02 pm

i think the truth is good

that you think the tilt is to the right is telling.
User avatar
cujaysfan
 
Posts: 4793
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:34 am

 

Re: The next President

Postby jays911 » Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:49 pm

cujaysfan wrote:i think the truth is good

that you think the tilt is to the right is telling.


Don't bother. These folks think the WSJ is right wing. Here's the thing, folks, nobody with a brain trusts any source from inside the beltway any more. Not the WSJ, not Fox, not even the Washington Times. Read the Canadian and European press and still be very critical. That is why you can't see or understand the paradigm shift. And as a client said to me last week, I don't like Trump's style, but I don't think he is selling me down the river.
So long Valley, hello big time.
jays911
 
Posts: 2461
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:47 am

Re: The next President

Postby Jaybird » Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:40 pm

jays911 wrote:[And as a client said to me last week, I don't like Trump's style, but I don't think he is selling me down the river.


Just wondering, does the Volga River count?
Last edited by Jaybird on Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jaybird
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:38 am

Re: The next President

Postby jays911 » Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:47 pm

Jaybird wrote:
jays911 wrote:[And as a client said to me last week, I don't like Trump's style, but I don't think he is selling me down the river.


Unless you count the Volga River, maybe he has a point.


Keep believing your bullshit. But go Jays!
So long Valley, hello big time.
jays911
 
Posts: 2461
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:47 am

Re: The next President

Postby OmahaBen » Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:39 pm

cujaysfan wrote:i think the truth is good

that you think the tilt is to the right is telling.


The tilt of major right wing media is farther right than the tilt of major left wing media. The article posted a couple pages back showed this: the NYT, Washington Post, and major network news organizations are center left to mainstream left. With the exception of the WSJ, the major right wing news sources are farther right and out in the boonies. The left's equivalent of Breitbart is Mother Jones, and they'll never have a chief strategist in a Democratic white house. And let's not get started on infowars.
OmahaBen
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:29 am

Re: The next President

Postby OmahaBen » Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:46 pm

jays911 wrote:not even the Washington Times.


Image

When did anyone with a brain ever take the Moonbat...err...Washington Times seriously?
OmahaBen
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:29 am

Re: The next President

Postby bird_call » Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:24 am

cujaysfan wrote:i think the truth is good

that you think the tilt is to the right is telling.


I presented a graphic and linked to an article that showed the tilt on the scale was far to the right for influential news sources
My bias is to believe this graphic and article because the news sources I consume conformed to the relative scale of left-right bias, and the source seemed legit.

So, do you not believe the relative scale the authors of the article used? Or do you disagree with their methodology? What is a "centrist" left or right news organization that you trust that you would re-center the scale on? I'm curious why you think that the influence of Breitbart and Fox have any equivalent with the same influence on the left?
bird_call
 
Posts: 503
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:34 pm

Re: The next President

Postby jayball » Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:53 am

Cujaysfan….who do you use for news?

My reading of the article is that the authors were not intending to assess the content of the different media sites for bias, it was about attention patterns of those supporting Clinton vs those supporting Trump. (at least based on what was shared on Twitter and Facebook)

From what I can tell it shows that an entirely new universe of media consumption emerged this election. Trump supporters were more likely to share Brietbart stories with little or no attention being paid to MSM. Even Fox news was sidelined during several months during the primary season based on Breitbart stories critical of the network.

“While Facebook and Twitter certainly enabled right-wing media to circumvent the gatekeeping power of traditional media, the pattern was not symmetric. The size of the nodes marking traditional professional media like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN, surrounded by the Hill, ABC, and NBC, tell us that these media drew particularly large audiences. Their color tells us that Clinton followers attended to them more than Trump followers ( by a 3:2 ratio), and their proximity on the map to more quintessentially partisan sites—like Huffington Post, MSNBC, or the Daily Beast—suggests that attention to these more partisan outlets on the left was more tightly interwoven with attention to traditional media. The Breitbart-centered wing, by contrast, is farther from the mainstream set and lacks bridging nodes that draw attention and connect it to that mainstream.”

So my takeaway is that during this election Trump supporters ( at least the ones active on social media) lived in a new media bubble that was distinct and less likely to interact with information from mainstream media. If that is the new paradigm and will persist into the future, it will be exceedingly difficult to rebuild a middle ground that can support compromises needed to govern.

You may feel there is bias in some MSM sources and I am sure there is as times. But I hope you would agree that the journalistic value of most MSM sources is higher than Brietbart. Whatever failings are present in a particular MSM source there are usually dissenting voices presented and alternate views discussed. There are journalistic standards and people are fired for fabrications. The opinion pages of newspapers have columnists from different political stripes. Network news showcases and interviews people from a variety of viewpoints. On any day there could be bias and distortions in an article or news segment but there is not one monolithic voice controlling the conversation of MSM. There are several competing outlets that are striving to analyze events and publish/air stories based on some sort of evidence. The best anyone can do it to try to read multiple sources and expose themselves to different viewpoints. Even in the stories you mention about marriages between media and policitos…there were attempts to remove conflicts of interest by changing reporting assignments or in some case reporters stepping down. You may not feel that was enough but conflicts of interest are at least acknowledged as an issue.

I had never heard of Breitbart prior to this election. Clearly it was a huge driver of information and dominated the attention of Trump supporters. There was little attention paid to WSJ and even Fox news was overshadowed. I think that is the asymmetry the authors discussed. Traditional or moderate conservative sources don’t exist or don’t get attention.

With Breitbart as the center of Trump’s support base we are on a different planet from discussions of media bias.

“disinformation: the purposeful construction of true or partly true bits of information into a message that is, at its core, misleading……such material has created an environment in which the President can tell supporters about events in Sweden that never happened, or a presidential advisor can reference a non-existent “Bowling Green massacre.”

What would you suggest to rebuild trust and enlarge the center?
User avatar
jayball
 
Posts: 1504
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:18 am

Re: The next President

Postby cujaysfan » Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:04 pm

i belong to an invite only board that does current events/news/politics - other than specific local issues - it's the best aggregator for information out there

brilliant group of people where it's next to impossible to pose a question and not find an expert. pol leanings run the spectrum as does geography/race/sex/etc

there's an understanding of what are and are not acceptable sources. pushing the boundaries on that will get you hammered, deleted, or banned

flaming isn't tolerated.

as to getting the journalism world back to basics - it would start on campuses - so we're already in trouble there.

people need to be critical in their thoughts and vetting of what they read and hear - and not use it to reinforce what they currently believe or feel about themselves (hey! i'm smart - this person agrees with me!) - and then hold the sources, writers, editors, presenters accountable for what they put out there (again - good luck).

the truth and facts should matter - and this includes omission. not a version of the truth, not 'one person's perspective'. it's hard to find any article on (insert remotely controversial or contested subject here) - and not find a whole lot of editorializing presented as facts.

in other words - we're proper fooked. i doubt any of this will happen.

i'm finding myself disengaging as fewer and fewer people are actually interested in the above.

i'll put my head down - and keep myself distracted by Jays hoops, cubs baseball, and other pursuits that are continual kicks in the nuts.
User avatar
cujaysfan
 
Posts: 4793
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:34 am

Re: The next President

Postby OmahaBen » Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:32 pm

Super secret message boards with brilliant people (yourself excluded, I'm sure), huh?

Sounds pretty elitist to me. Doesn't that automatically make you an east coast lib who is gay married to a turtle?[/sarcasm]
OmahaBen
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:29 am

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests