Google Now Hates Socialism Too

[Deleted member 162929]

Continued analysis. Good news organizations will take strong measures to prevent factual errors, quickly publish corrections and retractions if needed, and otherwise demonstrate a commitment to getting things right. Questionable news organizations publish whatever their journalists write and never bother to address inaccuracies.

But what's your point? What's the level of certainty you're looking for? People will always make mistakes. It seems like you're arguing with someone who's not here, and may not exist, but I could be misreading you.

But again, how do you know their statements, or corrections, are factual? You rely on others to tell you? How do you trust them?

My point is, everyone here is only going to believe what and whom they want, out of faith and belief alone.

 

[NLW]

Thank bias, and exposed biases, for getting us there. People can't believe anything as objective anymore.

Bias is always present, and objectivity is more an ideal to keep us grounded than a reality to achieve. There are harmful biases, and those that help. Understanding bias, distinguishing between when one is hidden v open, harmful v helpful, and the like is key. It's not easy to do, and I won't claim any particular expertise, but it does need to be done.

 

[NLW]

My point is, everyone is only going to believe what and whom they want, out of faith and belief and only that.

Maybe. But here's a critical difference. I know that the NYT employs roughly 15 full time fact checkers, plus a host of freelance ones. I've seen the basic methodology they use. I have a certain, reasonably high level of trust, after seeing and experiencing all this, that their methodology is generally solid and better than most others.

You can say I put more stock in the accuracy of the NYT than in, e.g., whatever Drudge puts out, but to equate my belief based on an analysis of their methods to another persons opposite belief based strictly on the content they see in each, and how well it stacks up against their political preferences, is to demonstrate a very strange kind of analysis indeed. Not all arguments, and methods of arguing, are equal. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[Deleted member 162929]

There are harmful biases, and those that help

And what biases are helpful, and what are harmful, are subjective.

Just assume everything is trying to game you, whether it claims to be left leaning, centered, or right leaning. And don't accept their word that they are left leaning, centered, or right leaning.

 

[TwistedAegis]

But again, how do you know their statements, or corrections, are factual? You rely on others to tell you? How do you trust them?

My point is, everyone here is only going to believe what and whom they want, out of faith and belief alone.

Yes, in a modern world I am not going to be able to do the research myself to know every piece of news and science that is occurring in the world, so I must make informed judgements as to which sources are trustworthy, and even within those sources individual claims that I feel I need to check additional sources on if the claim is contrary to prior evidence or far outside of other claims.

Your point of view would reject society altogether and be nothing more than random individuals bumping into one another, not able to build anything due to the inability to trust anything anyone said unless you "wanted to".

 

[NLW]

And what biases are helpful, and what are harmful, are subjective.

Sure, but there are still better and worse ways to analyze this distinction. Plus, we'll never achieve consensus or certainty about any of this, but that's OK.

Just assume everything is trying to game you, whether it claims to be left leaning, centered, or right leaning.

That might be a bit strongly worded, but I think the sentiment is on target. Always approach everything with a skeptical eye, is what I'd say. In the news area, there are a whole host of reasons someone could be trying to do something other than inform you of events in the most transparent and accurate way possible.

 

[Deleted member 162929]

Your point of view would reject society altogether and be nothing more than random individuals bumping into one another, not able to build anything due to the inability to trust anything anyone said unless you "wanted to".

Nah, my point of view would have clear sides, red and blue (coincidental, not meant to be political); instead of green pretending to be yellow, red pretending to be blue, purple pretending to be orange. Without a Mexican standoff of uncertainty surrounding it all.

Unfortunately, Pandora's box has already been opened - and you can't stuff the lies and uncertainty back in once it was.

 

[alexyang]

But again, how do you know their statements, or corrections, are factual? You rely on others to tell you? How do you trust them?

My point is, everyone here is only going to believe what and whom they want, out of faith and belief alone.

If you want to check whether a statement or correction is factual, like really check it, you have to find the original, primary sources and then evaluate them yourself.

 

[Deleted member 162929]

If you want to check whether a statement or correction is factual, like really check it, you have to find the original, primary sources and then evaluate them yourself.

Correct. And anyone who isn't doing that is just going off blind faith/belief in what outlets they choose to believe. Myself included.

You can't be sure of anything unless you source it, comb through the findings, and verify for yourself. If you're not gonna do that, always have it present and upfront in your mind 'this could be a lie, to manipulate me' - regardless of who's telling it to you.

 

[TwistedAegis]

Unfortunately, Pandora's box has already been opened - and you can't stuff the lies and uncertainty back in once it was.

I think that lets the liars win, though. It's kind of a catch-22; if you let the liars poison everything, then they are more free to operate in an environment where people distrust everything. It takes longer for their lies to catch up to them, because no one else is supposedly trustworthy.

It's kind of like the Russia stuff. Even if Putin didn't end up influencing the election, he's still winning by sowing discord and distrust in our processes and government.

 

[Deleted member 162929]

I think that lets the liars win, though. It's kind of a catch-22; if you let the liars poison everything, then they are more free to operate in an environment where people distrust everything. It takes longer for their lies to catch up to them, because no one else is supposedly trustworthy.

It's kind of like the Russia stuff. Even if Putin didn't end up influencing the election, he's still winning by sowing discord and distrust in our processes and government.

I don't think so. I think being skeptical of everything from everywhere will make it harder for liars if people chose to do any sort of fact checking at any given time for themselves - that's if they wanted to make sure something was actually factual in the first place; and not just "yes, this at face value confirms my feelings".

 

[Ultima99]

CNN is left AF. Maybe not AS much as MSNBC, but still.

Folks have no grounding these days.

 

[NLW]

Correct. And anyone who isn't doing that is just going off blind faith/belief in what outlets they choose to believe. Myself included.

You can't be sure of anything unless you source it, comb through the findings, and verify for yourself. If you're not gonna do that, always have it present and upfront in your mind 'this could be a lie, to manipulate me' - regardless of who's telling it to you.

The big exception being, of course, when this is impossible or not optimal. For example, you can't go back in time to witness an event. Barring a recording, you won't be able to do this yourself.

Also, there are many types of information you and I are not qualified to analyze. It takes an expert in the field to do so. We all can't be experts on everything. It's often far more valuable to evaluate reliability and trustworthiness of an expert rather than the "raw data."

I don't think so. I think being skeptical of everything from everywhere will make it harder for liars if people chose to do any sort of fact checking at any given time for themselves - that's if they wanted to make sure something was actually factual in the first place; and not just "yes, this at face value confirms my feelings".

There's a difference between skepticism and nihilism (or pyrrhonism, or whatever you want to call it). You seem to be leaning more towards the latter.

 

[jedijeb13]

Politics mehh.

I already switched to DuckDuckGo just because I can find the things there that I am actually looking for instead of just sales adds.

 

[Deleted member 162929]

The big exception being, of course, when this is impossible or not optimal. For example, you can't go back in time to witness an event. Barring a recording, you won't be able to do this yourself.

Sure, but it also doesn't mean you can't be skeptical of it, even if it isn't verfiable. You don't have to take it at 100% face value.

Also, there are many types of information you and I are not qualified to analyze. It takes an expert in the field to do so. We all can't be experts on everything. It's often far more valuable to evaluate reliability and trustworthiness of an expert rather than the "raw data."

1) You could learn/read up on said topic if you really wanted to. Being informed or uninformed on a given subject isn't a finite state - it's a choice.

2) Experts can be biased. For every expert you can find me that states 'x' there's another one with the same qualifications that states 'y'. How do you know if that's because of differing data sets or biases of one of the experts unless you do your own comparative study on the subject.

I'm not saying everyone in the world has to get a PhD in every field of every subject - I'm just saying without that - trust who you want - but realize you're just choosing to believe this person/source and that's it - and that it is not a pure objective thing - and that at the very least those people who are presenting whatever are just people and could be at the fault of biases they themselves aren't even aware of. Be skeptical of everything, always. That just means don't take everything at face value - even if it's something you like - from someone you trust.

 

[NLW]

Sure, but it also doesn't mean you can't be skeptical of it, even if it isn't verfiable. You don't have to take it at 100% face value.

Where did I ever suggest I, or others, should or do take anything at face value, without criticism? Again, you're arguing with someone who is not present, using false dichotomies.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

I presume you are referring to our current presidents never ending feud with them?

Quoting a public official, and confirming that what he or she is saying is not in line with observable fact is not political bias. CNN doesn't even do much in the way of opinion pieces, which is what you'd need in order to have bias. They just do headlines with sparse details to support them.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Just about everything CNN puts out is essentially an opinion piece!

Especially since Trump was elected (aka Van Jones' "whitelash")

Not political bias? You mean like passing questions for a debate on to one presidential candidate but not another?

Pursuing a "big nothingburger" story about Trump and Russia?

Trying to castigate an administration and suggest their immigration policy be based on a poem romanticizing immigration? And suggesting that the only english-speaking countries outside the US are the UK and Australia...

CNN wears their bias proudly. So please stop trying to tell us (and yourself) sweet little lies about how unbiased they are. NOBODY is buying it.

 

[Deleted member 162929]

Where did I ever suggest I, or others, should or do take anything at face value, without criticism? Again, you're arguing with someone who is not present, using false dichotomies.

Nope, just highlighting my point with your given example of 'something that might not be able to be sourced' - nothing in the news should be viewed without any degree of skepticism - regardless of material/outlet/presenter/whatever.

 

[Deleted member 162929]

View attachment 37804

Can I get an "AMEN BROTHER!"?

AMEN BROTHER!

 

[ccwilder3]

I read the NYT.com and Fox News.com as my main sources for news. Generally the truth lies somewhere between the two of them. Since Trump won the NYT has skewed much farther to the left.

NPR started going left 25 years ago. I'm not talking about individual stations but the main organization.

 

[Krenum]

Ha, yeah. Everyone likes it at first. Then they figure out theirs no money in it. Well Googly, back to Capitalism.

 

[tungt88]

I read the NYT.com and Fox News.com as my main sources for news. Generally the truth lies somewhere between the two of them. Since Trump won the NYT has skewed much farther to the left.

NPR started going left 25 years ago. I'm not talking about individual stations but the main organization.

I grew up on plenty of NPR, but when they started to insert polemics and demagoguery (disguised with the veneer of a "kind of snooty/snobbish intellectualism"), I called it a day. Nowdays in the car, I listen to 1010 WINS (pretty straightforward ,if basic, news station with as few "agendas" as can be found in this day and age).

IMO, the fact that socialism and communism have such an outsized appeal to "intellectual types" tells me that Western intellectuals, too, seek overly simplistic/wildly optimistic ways to tame human nature (despite their work and life strongly suggesting to them the opposite).
Everyone wants to immediately step up to the plate and knock out home runs -- not just the "uneducated, boorish, semi-barbarian blue-collar guys".
When Hurricane Sandy hit New York, my uncle (while waiting in line to fill up his car at a gas station) saw a doctor and a lawyer, both well-dressed, wearing glasses, and in luxury vehicles, having a fistfight over who was cutting whom in line. Right out of first grade.

 

[Sonicks]

Perhaps. I'd argue there are few, if any, "alternative" news sources that have the resources to do on-site reporting, thorough fact checking, and achieve editorial balance. What's one to do?

There is little, if any, thorough fact checking these days.

The way news is spread and consumed these days has lead to the spread of the 'we broke it first' mentality that has brought many organization's credibility into question. So many articles are retracted or out-right false at the outset but by then the damage is done as it has spread in their respective liberal and conservative circles. This occurs on both sides of the spectrum.

I've really begun to question everything these days and it really isn't hard to see just how much crap is peddled on the left that tries to pass itself off as intelligent conversation just as much as the conservative crap that is being spewed everywhere.

We're all suckers for consuming other people's thoughts so we have to stop doing it.

 

[FrgMstr]

I read the NYT.com and Fox News.com as my main sources for news. Generally the truth lies somewhere between the two of them. Since Trump won the NYT has skewed much farther to the left.

NPR started going left 25 years ago. I'm not talking about individual stations but the main organization.

I still listen to a lot of NPR because I like the wide swath of subjects it covers, but jeez, NPR and its political "reporting" is anything but reporting. It has turned into editorial about politics.

 

[EchoWars]

There are low quality news sources on both extremes of the political spectrum.

This just shows that they are doing their job.

Personally, I think that chart is pretty accurate.

Case in point: CNN was caught on tape admitting the whole Russia Trump link was a hoax used to generate hits. (Available on tons of news sites) http://yournewswire.com/cnn-producer-trump-russia/

I saw no such thing. One producer <> CNN. He speaks for himself. No hoax was mentioned by anyone but you. And the vid producers calling CNN "American Pravada"? Tells you where they are coming from with little margin for error.

I just can't accept mindless self righteous bullshit that shows a lack of critical thinking.

Fair enough. So if you mean what you say, then let's let the investigations play out to their conclusion. If there's something there, we'll hear about it.

Personally not a big fan of CNN simply because of their dumbed-down approach to news. Prefer the BBC, NY Times, Washington Post, and NPR.

 

[wrangler]

I can make you a news channel.
I can have the reporters only report the facts. No opinions.

I can make this news site far left or far right simply by choosing which stories to report.

 

[EchoWars]

I can make you a news channel.
I can have the reporters only report the facts. No opinions.

I can make this news site far left or far right simply by choosing which stories to report.

Well put.

 

[ManofGod]

Like some have said about videos online, this thread has taken 90 seconds of my life I will never get back. Enjoy your bickering and name calling, I am out of here.

 

[nutzo]

Tangentially, it is amusing how similar many things said by Reagan (Supposed Conservative Christian Hero) and Obama (Supposed Kenyan Muslim Communist) sound when read right next to eachother.

It's actually surprisingly difficult to play the game "identify the quote" between the two, which goes to show just how far the political conversation in the U.S. has shifted hard right since the 80's. Reagan's policies on many (most?) topics were closer to Obama's than any of the conservative figures today.

Not even close. Look at their actions (what laws they pushed/signed).
Too often Obama gave a speech that sounded good, and then went and did the opposite.


Reagan: government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem

Obama: I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

 

[nutzo]

Hell, a significant percentage of self-identified Republicans believed, when polled, that the Dow Jones went down during the Obama presidency. If you can't convince people of such an easily verified piece of quantitative data that's shared nearly everywhere, every single day....

Of course it went up. That's what happens when you dump billions of tax payers dollars into the banks and the market.

 

[Delicieuxz]

There are low quality news sources on both extremes of the political spectrum.

This just shows that they are doing their job.

So... neo-Liberal and neo-Conservative propaganda rags that knowingly and deliberately push lie after lie are "great sources of news"? Not to me.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I can make you a news channel.
I can have the reporters only report the facts. No opinions.

I can make this news site far left or far right simply by choosing which stories to report.

I'm sure this is a story the Democratic establishment wanted everyone to see, and that's why it's one of the top stories on CNN.com right now...

 

[SighTurtle]

I'm sure this is a story the Democratic establishment wanted everyone to see, and that's why it's one of the top stories on CNN.com right now...

View attachment 37816

tbh, that story kinda falls into the Democratic establishment's goal of looking less loony than it may or may not be. Not to mention pushing the Russia narrative that Russia is either supporting Trump or sowing chaos in the U.S.

 

[Ski]

How do you factually know those fact checks are accurate?

Others have already offered some pretty good advice, but I'll add my own simply because I was in your shoes 12-15 years ago and asked myself the very same question. To start I'll begin by quoting one of the few journalists left with integrity and wisdom left in the industry, Chris Hedges:

The qualities of a journalist:

• The power of journalism is that it is rooted in verifiable fact

• You seek to find out what is actually fact

• You cross check with other sources

• It’s sent to an editor, and fact checked before you put it out

The problem however, and anyone who saw the final season of The Wire will attest to, is that all of those methods have slowly disappeared with that advent of the internet coupled by likes and clicks replacing classic journalism. The reason why grammatical errors and sentence structure has deteriorated is because there are no more desk editors to keep the journalist jockeys in check. Quality in-depth news reporting can take weeks or months, sometimes a year, to gather evidence, interview witnesses, compare sources with other individuals, all of that has disappeared because the name of the game are ratings and ad investments. Seeking out the truth isn't profitable in a ratings driven era.

You might be wondering why I bring all of that up; the thing is you need to understand what journalism pre-internet was like, and the roots to it's slow demise first, but also to teach yourself how to do your own research and differentiate fact from fiction. So looking back at those bullet points, this is what I'm forced to do as a reader:

1) Is the article linking to sources or evidence to support their argument? If so, read the source material and compare that with the author to make sure the journalist is consistent in the narrative.

2) Read other articles based on the same source (if that's the case) and compare that with the other article that you read. If they don't match up, someone is obviously biased, lying, or stretching the truth. So it is your job to find another source and see what is consistent.

3) Does the website or newspaper have a history of lying or being inconsistent with fact finding? Is the author of said article also a trustworthy individual? Does the author or news organization have have any ties with lobbyists or corporations that would give any indication of conflict of interest? If so, that's a big red flag and it's your job to know how to spot it.

4) Do you as the reader have the intellect or wisdom to understand the nuances of the source. Can you trust yourself to analyze and read the copious amounts of information to know what the facts really are? A good example of this is this are people who don't believe in climate change because they generally get their news from only one source instead of multiple ones to give them a more fleshed out story. But also, they don't have a background in atmospheric physics, let alone one semester of any physical science, they're not in a position to have a well informed opinion because their source is tainted with lies, and they're too uneducated and ignorant to tell the difference. So with any difficult subject matter that you may be a layman in, always question yourself when looking for the truth, but it's also OK to say, "I don't know."

5) Read forum posts with individuals nuanced in the topic and see what their opinions are. But also make that they're backing up whatever they're saying with sources and evidence to support their argument. For the sake of argument, if I tell Huffington Post or Breitbart sucks and you shouldn't read it, by no means should you trust anything I say after that because unless I provide precedents or evidence to back up my shit talk, I'm literally just talking out my ass. Unfortunately, this is the norm nowadays on Reddit, more specifically on this sub.

Sadly, the fact of the matter is, finding the truth in all of this noise has become infinitely harder in the last 15 years. It's only worse now with the latest hysteria of fake news that everyone has become skeptical of any news source, regardless whose side you're on and it's only made the country more divisive. But what I can tell you, those principles of a journalist are critical to laying a basic foundation how to investigate for yourself. I've followed this method for 10 years and it's been absolutely invaluable in helping me navigate these tenuous waters of bullshit. Hope this helps.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

Unfortunately I am not aware of a single source of news that does not craft narratives deceptively.

The fact that they refer to it as "a narrative" should tip you off.

"Deceptively"?

Department of Redundancy Department. Need some redundancy?

 

[Deleted member 126051]

*SNIP*

Actually, the type of journalism you talk about only REALLY existed in fiction.

Journalistic coverage, even back before the founding of the country, has ALWAYS been skewed by the opinions of the publisher and writer.

 

[Rysen]

Actually, the type of journalism you talk about only REALLY existed in fiction.

Journalistic coverage, even back before the founding of the country, has ALWAYS been skewed by the opinions of the publisher and writer.

Journalism has been objective in some instances and can be objective if the news is covered as is without any opinions and proper sources like with scientific papers. Having partial information doesn't make an article non-objective or biased. It just makes it lacking information, but if the information in the article has proper sources, does not assume anything about the reader, does not contain any opinions or analysis and is properly sourced then it can in fact be objective. The problem is that this type of news doesn't bring up the rating. Opinions and views of a media corporation are what makes them profit so they opt for that over objective media. The goal of a proper news source with proper journalism should not be to be bipartisan or towards the middle of the political spectrum. It is to take no political position/opinions or point of view when reporting news. Say the news as is properly sourced and with the information that is available. If there are no proper and reliable sources for the information then it should not be reported. If you only report news that relate to the right, that doesn't make the journalism biased if the network is transparent about this issue and portrays all information available to them. Same for the left. Unfortunately most networks have access to lots of information and choose a piece of information over another for the same article which makes the article biased rather than reporting the whole story. The problem in this case is not a lack of existing information but rather intentionally keeping information that does not appeal to their viewer base outside their articles. Even if the information is 100% truth it is still biased because it intentionally leaves key factors hidden intentionally. However, it is possible that a network may only have access to partial information that is independent from the rest of a story. In this case it is simply impossible to report everything when you don't have access to everything.

 

[Ski]

Actually, the type of journalism you talk about only REALLY existed in fiction.

Journalistic coverage, even back before the founding of the country, has ALWAYS been skewed by the opinions of the publisher and writer.

You're missing my point. Staknhalo asked how to fact check news and sources, so I'm telling him to apply the basic principles of an old-school journalist and how he/she would approach finding the truth. The problem however, even with the internet there's so much more noise and misinformation being distributed that it takes time and critical thinking to navigate which unfortunately very few people have anymore. This is journalism 101.

 

[mlcarson]

The original graphic used to be the conventional wisdom but this is far closer to reality now The mainstream media has really went off the rails in this past election cycle and every day after so far. I think it's a combination of Trunk Derangement Syndrome and being envious of the Fox News Channel's rating success. It's forced most of the media to try to emulate MSNBC. There's really not even a pretense of being fair/unbiased any more. Obama did a fair job of moving the media to the left for the previous 8 years

I took your shit and modded it:
https://image.************/fK95PQ/News_Quality_mod.jpg

 

[Deleted member 204526]

I can make you a news channel.
I can have the reporters only report the facts. No opinions.

I can make this news site far left or far right simply by choosing which stories to report.

The closest we've had to that was CNN's sister station, Headline News, back before the Nancy Grace (vile bitch) days. There were no opinion shows, and the reporting on any major story was just about as straight as it could possibly be. It was boring, which is a prerequisite for honest and straight news reporting.