Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
US news media (maybe other than the WSJ) use slanted, emotional inflammatory language to try to get people to buy in to their point of view and suspend critical thinking. They like to state as facts things that are assumptions or opinions. If its something you agree with, its harder to recognize. I even find it hard to read AP stories anymore because of those sorts of techniques. Reuters isn't quite as bad. International sources like BBC and Al Jazeera are more fact based. The New York Times and Bretibart both use those sorts of techniques and tell half-truths or even things they doubt are true (occassionally things they are pretty sure are untrue) and try to use emotion to manipulate people. So people will often believe fake information.
Also when things get repeated often enough, many people will believe it. A moderately liberal friend of my son was rather surprised going into a corporate office and find that it wasn't still like the 60s. It wasn't all white men having all the professional jobs.
A corollary to that is "media bias is not what they say, it's what they don't say." You can write a story where every fact is true, yet by leaving out a key detail, give the audience an impression of X when it's really J.
For example, if I wrote a story that said: Jack is a very big man. Jack ate a dozen donuts.
That story leaves the impression that Jack is obese and eats lots of junk food.
or Jack is 6'-6". Jack only eats one donut per month.
That's a very different story.
A corollary to that is "media bias is not what they say, it's what they don't say." You can write a story where every fact is true, yet by leaving out a key detail, give the audience an impression of X when it's really J.
For example, if I wrote a story that said: Jack is a very big man. Jack ate a dozen donuts.
That story leaves the impression that Jack is obese and eats lots of junk food.
or Jack is 6'-6". Jack only eats one donut per month.
That's a very different story.
Yeah, but this is missing the point of the OP. To my knowledge, nobody here on the other side of this argument (my side) has suggested that titles or narratives cannot be misleading at times. When I initiated the OP, I was thinking about those wild, concocted conspiracies that are based on little to no evidence. I posted that chart illustrating the different levels of delusion based on the theory, though I doubt many saw or bothered looking at it. So, I'll post it again below. And I'll also post an image. The linked chart is dynamic and has links to articles you can read on the respective subject.
As you move up the chart, these ideas or theories are not only objectively false, but become more dangerous in terms of the distrust, bigotry, and downright hatred that they perpetuate. The same people who have criticized me on this thread about my own media bias (a la NPR, AP, Reuters, BBC, etc.) have posted articles from far leaning blogs/"news" sites referencing some similarly wild, baseless, and unfounded theories or claims. Nobody in any serious, trusted position in business, academia, politics, etc., would accept these sources as credible or trusted in order to make serious decisions. NOBODY! But I realize that where these articles are often referenced (mainly the politics sub) is also not a serious or trusted place for discussion either. As per everyone I have essentially asked on this forum about it.
Last edited by digitalUID; 05-17-2023 at 08:40 AM..
I like Instapundit (the owner is a University professor - law) and PJMedia (Roger Simon - used to be on the faculty of the American Film Institute and the Sundance Institute). I've been a fan of these two sites for decades, I used to read them daily (online) in Europe even before I emigrated.
I like Instapundit (the owner is a University professor - law) and PJMedia (Roger Simon - used to be on the faculty of the American Film Institute and the Sundance Institute). I've been a fan of these two sites for decades, I used to read them daily (online) in Europe even before I emigrated.
I'm not familiar with either, but I had a gander. The first pop-up the site gave me noted that it's "a voice in conservative media". So, right off the bat, I know that whatever I read there is going to be taken with a giant grain of salt. It looks like it'd probably be the equivalent of far left-leaning DailyKos or The Daily Beast. FWIW, I largely avoid both of those outlets, too. Not that there aren't shreds of truth in some of the reporting. But I know that their objective is to make me strongly feel a particular way about the narrative. As long as you're aware of these things, then I think it's generally safe for moderate consumption. But I would personally keep my intake limited if I'm even remotely attempting to be fair and balanced.
Last edited by digitalUID; 05-17-2023 at 09:42 AM..
The "mainstream" media wants you to believe in the narrative of liberal ideology, such as:
White people are oppressors. Black people and other minorities are oppressed.
Men don't want women to have equal rights.
LGBT people face widespread discrimination and persecution in society.
Basically, the media will slant the news to further this narrative. They will occasionally mention opposing information for token purposes.
Some of that is true and evidenced by credible data and research though, even if it makes you feel icky about your own feelings or beliefs. It was Colbert who commented at a WH Correspondents dinner that, "Reality has a well known liberal bias". And I don't mean that in a political sense either. Generally speaking, society progresses and advances over time; Other than in works of fiction (i.e. Handsmaid Tale), I don't know of many real case scenarios where society regressed back to an earlier state. Progressive ideals tend to win out overwhelmingly in the long run. And mostly for the better. End of slavery, civil rights, women's suffrage, and workers' rights all evolved out of progressive movements. And America is objectively better for it. Do you disagree?
Last edited by digitalUID; 05-17-2023 at 12:00 PM..
At least they were honest about announcing their point of view, conservative. Without pretending.
I'm an independent in some views but mostly a conservative. Born and raised in a former Communist regime.
"To Thine Own Self Be True."
Yeah, I've heard quite a few stories from Communist survivors and epxats who wind up swinging to the polar opposite end of the political philosophy spectrum to correct course. I personally think it often resorts to an over correction. Like someone who was in an abusive relationship who doesn't do relationships anymore out of fear of more abuse. I don't particularly think that's a healthy perspective either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
