Post Reply Who is more biased?
6734 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
∞ / AI / Cyberspace
Offline
Posted 1/1/17 , edited 1/1/17
Modern journalists or those that read their articles and yap very enthusiastically about them online?
27011 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Wales, UK
Offline
Posted 1/1/17 , edited 1/1/17
They're both so extremely biased that the difference doesn't matter. The real question is; why do you waste your time listening to either group? Ever?
6734 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
∞ / AI / Cyberspace
Offline
Posted 1/1/17

Rowan93 wrote:

They're both so extremely biased that the difference doesn't matter. The real question is; why do you waste your time listening to either group? Ever?


It's a matter of being self aware. Everyone is always swept up in talk over which news source is more biased, but people rarely ever stop to ask themselves if their own processing of information ruins their own perspective of the truth as well.

Listening to both sides, no matter how biased, can give someone insight on how percentages society are thinking at the very least. Also, since every source is naturally biased, you have to listen to both sides to make sure you have a better understanding of what actually happened.

This thread was also somehow very amusing to my tired self when I made it, which played a big part in why I posted it.
Posted 1/1/17

Ocale wrote:
It's a matter of being self-aware. Everyone is always swept up in talk over which news source is more biased, but people rarely ever stop to ask themselves if their own processing of information ruins their own perspective of the truth as well.

Listening to both sides, no matter how biased, can give someone insight on how percentages society are thinking of the very least. Also, since every source is naturally biased, you have to listen to both sides to make sure you have a better understanding of what actually happened.


Pretty much all of this.
I read "journalists" of all caliber and find both "extreme" sides ridiculous for putting so much credence and credibility to a specific site just because it aligns with their political agenda or views. When you read only what you want to read, then you end up realizing that you're just pigeoning yourself into a bubble where anything that's fundamentally opposite of your stance is considered "fake" or "invalid" simply because you refuse to accept that <insert news source here> is as bias as <insert mainstream news source here with an opposite bias than your own> ... and thus, where the endless amount of threads about Trump, Obama, and the US Government ends up coming into play here at Crunchyroll.

I'm hoping that both Republicans and Democrats (conservative/liberal) people on Crunchyroll appear to come off as at times, especially the more radical of the group.

10938 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 1/1/17 , edited 1/1/17
Of course it's the readers who are more biased. They demand these biased stories be published, the journalists are just creating a supply.
6084 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/1/17

Ocale wrote:


Rowan93 wrote:

They're both so extremely biased that the difference doesn't matter. The real question is; why do you waste your time listening to either group? Ever?


It's a matter of being self aware. ....


Exactly. No matter where the news comes from, there's an inherent bias within because there's more "analysis" than reporting the 5-W's - who, what, when, where, why and letting the consumer make his/her own informed judgement. Both sides tell us what to think about it and both sides are intellectually dishonest when it comes to holding their own accountable. There's double standards everywhere.

However, we expect journalists to do their job since it's their job to help citizens remain informed. 2016 is proof that neither sides journalists have been doing their job, otherwise Trump's primary win would've never happened when it comes to the right, and Trump's election wouldn't be such a great surprise to the left.
39155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 1/1/17

Ocale wrote:


Rowan93 wrote:

They're both so extremely biased that the difference doesn't matter. The real question is; why do you waste your time listening to either group? Ever?


It's a matter of being self aware. Everyone is always swept up in talk over which news source is more biased, but people rarely ever stop to ask themselves if their own processing of information ruins their own perspective of the truth as well.

Listening to both sides, no matter how biased, can give someone insight on how percentages society are thinking at the very least. Also, since every source is naturally biased, you have to listen to both sides to make sure you have a better understanding of what actually happened.

This thread was also somehow very amusing to my tired self when I made it, which played a big part in why I posted it.


This is why, back in the day (look at old black and white movies), it was common to have two or three news papers when reading the news. People knew that the news was reported differently. Different news paper owner, chief editors from each paper reporting to different owners, different news results.

Today, the news outlets are all owned by a very small group. Same news outlet owner, chief editors reporting to same news outlet owner, same news result.

In the old days, it was not possible to control information. Today, not only is information controlled, it is used ham-handedly to try to affect the election. Did you see how CNN, LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, etc etc etc, slammed Trump and did everything they could to make him look bad (twisting his words out of context, for example)?

The alternative news outlets wouldn't fall in line, because they are not owned by these same small group of owners that own the big news outlets. Instead, they are called Russian news hackers, who sabotaged the election.

It's all very twisted and hypocritical. No one can take the major news outlets seriously anymore. American journalism is destroyed. Americans are now regularly turning to non-American news outlets, or to alternative Internet news outlets for their news.

CNN, LA Times, NY Times, etc are losing readers and viewers, so they're calling the Internet news bloggers "fake news." They're hoping to bring back their readers and viewers.

There used to be a law that prevented a single owner of a news outlet from owning it all in the same region, but that law was done away with. I say bring back that old law, and brake up the ownership of big news outlets. That will fix our ruined American Journalism problem, and win back the trust of Americans for American news - somewhat. We'll still be flipping channels to see what the other station says about the same matter.
5 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117 / M
Offline
Posted 1/1/17
I've worked in science for a decade. We've got good systems for rooting out personal and systemic biases so you can get at the actual truth of a matter. Systems that work, not that most of the public has any damn idea how we actually operate. My hope is that this time period brings about a swing in journalism into our direction and further away from the direction of advertising. Truth is not subjective, and bias is a malfunction.
35285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/1/17

DeadlyOats wrote:
This is why, back in the day (look at old black and white movies), it was common to have two or three news papers when reading the news. People knew that the news was reported differently. Different news paper owner, chief editors from each paper reporting to different owners, different news results.


Back in the Day(tm) American journalism was done for journalism's sake. Now its done for market share's sake. Couple that with technology allowing increasing control over how we filter and prefer information and you have the current disaster that is US media. The people demanded only information that agrees with them and the market is supplying it.

However, back in the day so to speak you typically had one news source and that source was only there once or twice a day ( The morning paper and the evening news ). Your news anchor was a respected and trusted source ala Cronkite. It wouldn't cross your mind that Cronkite might be lying his ass off too you to sell ad revenue.

Thus I think is a big part of the problem. When you look at the demographics for cable news its universally 60+. The generation that grew up when journalism was a respected profession and who have kept to single source news. They haven't weathered the transition from trusted evening news to targeted flavour tailored 24/7 news. It doesn't occur to them that they're being sold a product instead of being given the news.

When you look at it through that lens it becomes rather alarming. So the next time you see a bunch of yammering pundits screaming at each other or fawning sycophant repeating his lines no matter what people ask him; Remember that they're largely targeting this at your grandparents. Then enjoy a new wave of disgust you haven't yet discovered within yourself. >.>


mxdan 
10836 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 1/1/17

DeadlyOats wrote:

This is why, back in the day (look at old black and white movies), it was common to have two or three news papers when reading the news. People knew that the news was reported differently. Different news paper owner, chief editors from each paper reporting to different owners, different news results.


Pre vietnam war news sources stayed fairly nonpartisan because they had advertisers who wanted them to. If you go back to the Civil War though news was extremely biased.


Today, the news outlets are all owned by a very small group. Same news outlet owner, chief editors reporting to same news outlet owner, same news result.


Not sure what your talking about here. T.V. Journalism? There are a few companies there. But by and large there has never been a time with more companies in the buisness. Especially with the creation of the internet.


In the old days, it was not possible to control information. Today, not only is information controlled, it is used ham-handedly to try to affect the election. Did you see how CNN, LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, etc etc etc, slammed Trump and did everything they could to make him look bad (twisting his words out of context, for example)?


News couldn't of been more biased during the Civil War.

I think news becomes Nonpartisan when two factors work in unison:

*Advertisers who have a grip on News outlets need to reach a wide audience.
*Public Opinion is relatively uniform (Usually due to something big like the GD or WW2).



It's all very twisted and hypocritical. No one can take the major news outlets seriously anymore. American journalism is destroyed. Americans are now regularly turning to non-American news outlets, or to alternative Internet news outlets for their news.

Slant journalism convinces a good portion of the population that they are the center. A real issue. Populist Journalism is being exposed all over the world though. Luckily much of Northern Europe had the foresight in these regards.


There used to be a law that prevented a single owner of a news outlet from owning it all in the same region, but that law was done away with. I say bring back that old law, and brake up the ownership of big news outlets. That will fix our ruined American Journalism problem, and win back the trust of Americans for American news - somewhat. We'll still be flipping channels to see what the other station says about the same matter.


In general America used to break up monopolies but for whatever reason we haven't done so at all in decades. The real issue is oligopolies though. Something we need to figure out soon.
68 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 1/1/17 , edited 1/1/17
Lala thinks that modern journalists from the mainstream media are fake journalists. There are only a handful of entities that qualify as mainstream media outlets, and all of them have a history of promoting fake news. Their history reflects on the entities as a whole, so it is logical to denounce them collectively as fake news outlets.

Mainstream media = Legacy media
You must be logged in to post.