This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
DogMan · 61-69, M
The MSM and other media, is there to tell us what to think. Thankfully the smart
people know that there are truths, and lies, both right and left.
The left controls over 90% of media, and many people believe every word they
say, without ever looking at things from a different perspective. The other 10%
of right wing media also lies, and tries to tell us what to think.
This 90/10 split is on purpose. As it is now, the country is split down the middle.
If we were to have a 50/50 split in the media, we can see which way things
would go, and the powerful, do not want a majority of right wingers OR left
wingers. It's much safer for them to keep the country evenly split.
people know that there are truths, and lies, both right and left.
The left controls over 90% of media, and many people believe every word they
say, without ever looking at things from a different perspective. The other 10%
of right wing media also lies, and tries to tell us what to think.
This 90/10 split is on purpose. As it is now, the country is split down the middle.
If we were to have a 50/50 split in the media, we can see which way things
would go, and the powerful, do not want a majority of right wingers OR left
wingers. It's much safer for them to keep the country evenly split.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@DogMan There is another, more insidious way to bias reporting. That is to tell only the truth but selectively so, avoiding anything that might qualify the events or quoted statements.
There is another "accidental" source of bias by selection, and it is the bane of honest journalism That is the refusal of one or another party to give its side of a dispute. The refusers are generally government agencies and large commercial companies who have hurt the complainants, far more often by ineptitude and obtuse bureaucracy than malevolence. At best they "issue a statement" like one of those silly business-fad "mission statements", to avoid answering the question. Or "No-one was available for comment" - or a downright refusal of the invitation.
You repeat one simple and common error, often found in advertising and campaigning based on dubious "surveys", or selective quoting of real surveys, that of quoting only percentages without giving the base numbers. Nor the source.
One test of any news service is to examine how much effort it makes to give both, or all sides, of very difficult matters.
Another is to examine the allegations of bias made against it. If those from one side of any argument it reports, roughly equal those from the other, then it must be reasonably fair. In that case any accusation is most likely a complaint that the service is giving the critic's opponent's side, or showing the critic to be wrong about the matter.
Another is to examine its analysis of any contentious and difficult matter. If it only gives noisy "headline grabbers" without much detail, let alone exploring the backgrounds, history, biographies, geography or other relevant information in any real depth, how can any of its audience understand the subjects? If so, does it want such comprehension, and if not, why not?
There is another "accidental" source of bias by selection, and it is the bane of honest journalism That is the refusal of one or another party to give its side of a dispute. The refusers are generally government agencies and large commercial companies who have hurt the complainants, far more often by ineptitude and obtuse bureaucracy than malevolence. At best they "issue a statement" like one of those silly business-fad "mission statements", to avoid answering the question. Or "No-one was available for comment" - or a downright refusal of the invitation.
You repeat one simple and common error, often found in advertising and campaigning based on dubious "surveys", or selective quoting of real surveys, that of quoting only percentages without giving the base numbers. Nor the source.
One test of any news service is to examine how much effort it makes to give both, or all sides, of very difficult matters.
Another is to examine the allegations of bias made against it. If those from one side of any argument it reports, roughly equal those from the other, then it must be reasonably fair. In that case any accusation is most likely a complaint that the service is giving the critic's opponent's side, or showing the critic to be wrong about the matter.
Another is to examine its analysis of any contentious and difficult matter. If it only gives noisy "headline grabbers" without much detail, let alone exploring the backgrounds, history, biographies, geography or other relevant information in any real depth, how can any of its audience understand the subjects? If so, does it want such comprehension, and if not, why not?