The Great California Exodus Accelerates (party, abandoned, compared)

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by skyway31

The ways in which the media deceives make commentary about bias difficult. What should be apparent to anyone is that the media spends dramatically more time sharing the perspectives of people supportive of leftist policies and/or opposed to non-leftist policies. Quality, nuanced criticism of leftist orthodoxy is nearly impossible to come by in non-Fox News mainstream media. Glenn Loury and John Mcwhorter are black, Ivy League professors who just about never show up on CNN, LAT etc. Neither are even true conservatives (Loury has perhaps leaned that way at various times). They would be examples of serious voices who could offer an alternative perspective to leftist orthodoxy. But, other than a rarely promoted column in the NYT or a rare PBS appearance, neither are quoted in stories about things like the fall of affirmative action.

That's a lot of word salad that in no way addresses the comment you quoted.

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by blameyourself

That's a lot of word salad that in no way addresses the comment you quoted.

This has the looks of a debate team trick.

There's an analogy I thought of to get to the heart of the matter here. It's a bit silly, but one should be able to get the idea: Let's say you have Person A who has robbed 31 convenience stores, and Person B that has robbed 39 stores. It does little to no good to argue over which person is the bigger thief: both are compulsive robbers. Person A has zero credibility to store owners, even if Person B might have technically robbed more stores. It's a useless debate, as no store owner would want either in his/her store.

NPR, LAT, CNN etc are overwhelmingly leftist, matching their audiences. That Newsmax may somehow be more biased is a useless point to make. We can't trust any of them.

[skyway31]

Here's a simple litmus test for those genuinely trying to gauge media bias. In a story which features multiple quotes from multiple sources arguing one way about some issue, ask two questions:
1) Are there a meaningful (enough to impact elections) number of people who feel differently from those that we just used a lot of space quoting?
2) Did we offer a decent, quality representation of the better arguments in the other direction?

Right now, IF we hear from non-leftist voices, we hear from lunatics like MTG or Trump who offer baloney. What is so bad about listening to black Ivy League professors? Why are they automatically stupid and to be discredited?

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by skyway31

This has the looks of a debate team trick.

There's an analogy I thought of to get to the heart of the matter here. It's a bit silly, but one should be able to get the idea: Let's say you have Person A who has robbed 31 convenience stores, and Person B that has robbed 39 stores. It does little to no good to argue over which person is the bigger thief: both are compulsive robbers. Person A has zero credibility to store owners, even if Person B might have technically robbed more stores. It's a useless debate, as no store owner would want either in his/her store.

NPR, LAT, CNN etc are overwhelmingly leftist, matching their audiences. That Newsmax may somehow be more biased is a useless point to make. We can't trust any of them.

More word salad that has nothing to do with what I wrote, and the deflection is nonsensical.

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by blameyourself

More word salad that has nothing to do with what I wrote, and the deflection is nonsensical.

Can you please restate specifically whatever it is you want me to address?

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by skyway31

Can you please restate specifically whatever it is you want me to address?

You quoted it. No need for me to restate anything...post 1452. In the meantime, continue to have fun with your ridiculous deflections. I'd say it's amusing but it's actually quite boring. Or better idea.. next time don't quote something if you're not going to address what you quoted. Have a nice night.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by skyway31

Can you please restate specifically whatever it is you want me to address?

Why bother asking. Nothing you say will matter. Some can't see the forest for the trees.

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

Why bother asking. Nothing you say will matter. Some can't see the forest for the trees.

Yes of course Mars

Or perhaps some of us aren't in the mood for games.

I'm not sure who the anonymous opinion spouted on social media refers to.

Yeah sure


Newsmax is a partisan, conservative-slanted publication. The LA Times is the *precise* same thing

I never read Newsmax

Poster never reads Newsmax but knows this. Yeah that makes sense.

Then he goes on to make a claim about the Times but then says media bias can't be rated (all the while giving his own opinion which is essentially his rating as though that should mean something).

Then it's one rabbit hole after another, that none of us are choosing to go down because none of them address the above and are just deflection tactics. That's right Mars, I don't waste time with BS and illogical comments.

But you do you Mars.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by skyway31

It's foolish to proceed as if the couple of media bias charts that publish their view of others' biases are some sort of final truth. Setting aside that they themselves have their own biases, is the fact that there are near infinite ways for publications to push an agenda outside of detection of those orgs….

Originally Posted by skyway31

Using the number of awards given to outlets over (a very wide disparity of) time as a means of credibility is fallacious. The awards process itself can be highly political. And, the matter of debate here is the state of media today. …

What makes for a "credible rating" in media bias evaluation?

…

You seem to be suggesting that an outlet can run daily columns promoting leftist views and/or opposing non-leftist views, while never offering the other perspective, AND omitting stories unhelpful to the left, but then the rest of their work is totally free of bias. That, say, MSNBC can have absolute blow-hard, hysterical, leftist entertainers for its (never actually specified as such) "opinion shows", but also have credible reporting. Yet, I highly doubt you'd grant such to a Fox News.

Newsmax was not the source in the matter of tax revenue loss. It was one of the sites that ran the story (because it looks good for conservatives and bad for the left). We probably can't find such a story on NPR. But, not because it's not a true story and/or not significant. But, because it will not go over well with NPR's readership, which is over 90% left-leaning.

Have a nice day

You are, over and over and over, trying to re define the standards of journalism as if *the left* has some sort of magical mind control over everyone from professional to political, and the public .. Let’s cut to the chase’s bottom line:

if *the [evil] left* can define and control all ratings standards - um - why can they do so, and *the right* can’t?.

How does the *evil left* dominate prestigious journalism awards, where the *victimized right* can’t? (and frankly, has no comparably prestigious award vehicles of its own?)

How does journalistic excellence overwhelm conservative messaging? What’s wrong with today’s *right* that it fails to compete?

You repeatedly falsely define me, what I wrote that caused this tangential conversation about how the media is biased, and the very nature of contemporary journalism.

How would you lable someone politically who: is a high-school dropout, retired military, retired blue-collar small business owner, is anti-welfare, opposes open immigration, hates big government, advocates for small government, defends states’ rights over federal, and supports large military? These are not liberal. These are part of the conservative core identity. They are also my positions … yet you have defined me as a *lefty*. (Nor am I ANY kind of conservative… I am a-political to an extreme. But that’s another story.)

You, and others here, have been attacking me for criticizing the Newsmax story that a poster linked. I didn’t. I laughed at (and still do) the notion that extremely partisan and well-known lying Newsmax should be cited as a source to support an attack against the strengths of California. If an argument is to have credibility, use credible sourcing. If what the Newsmax article presents is true, certainly support for such argument can be cited in other media and academic and independent research. Simply saying: *Newsmax says so!* is laughable.

To wrap this nonsensical tangent up: the LA Times was never discussed as a related source. It was dragged disingenuously into this conversation by a contributor in an attempt to identify me politically based on a completely different and unrelated thread … one in which I also never supported (nor denied) a story it ran on a topic unrelated to this thread.

If you desire to argue your media views further, start a thread in an appropriate forum elsewhere.

[Dave_n_Tenn]

Typical for Californians. Pseudo outrage creates rabbit holes that y'all are willing and able to run down to make your point and the main thing is no longer the main thing.

In a nut shell... this is what's happening to your whole state. Focus.