ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags media criticism

Reply
Old 27th December 2016, 07:49 PM   #81
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by elemental View Post
I love c-span and bookTV. [/inturuption]
You have to be careful about CSPAN. They often put on seminars that were presented by right wing and Libertarian think tanks which don't disclose their funding source.

Not that I don't watch CSPAN all the time, especially Book TV which runs every weekend.

Heritage Institute and the CATO Institute are frequent flyers with biased research.

You can go to SourceWatch and look at the source of funds and interlocking boards for most of these so-called think tanks. Always important to know who stacked the deck of their research staff.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 07:50 PM   #82
elemental
Scholar
 
elemental's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 50
Of course they do.

ETA I was responding to your first paragraph

Last edited by elemental; 27th December 2016 at 07:51 PM.
elemental is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 08:51 PM   #83
Sherkeu
Critical Thinker
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 479
As to to the OP:

All the media have been fragmenting to niche markets since cable gave us all the news in 30min or less in the early 80's. At every level, from network news to cable news to extreme conspiracy sites the "product" they offer has moved to more and more sensationalism. Blood, scandal, and controversy are often the winners. You may get some real honest news between the polarized editorials but the subjects are niche, following constantly changing trends of what particular consumers want to hear. And so it goes...

People like Limbaugh are simply a product of this. It's as if we used to watch olympic wrestling with perhaps the odd judging scandal and now it's a full WWF Wrestlemania show complete with hero and villain storylines, bad actors all playing their parts in entertaining us. Pick your team and root them on!

This isn't anyone's master plan.
It's the evolved successful strategy for more and more eyeballs. Integrity isn't so important when getting the dramatic headline out there first is the way to survive. The networks must use weasel words(rumored, sources say, unconfirmed reports allege,...) but the websites can outright lie with impunity.

Of course politicians who want to win will exploit this, but they didn't create it.

I would say that an education in critical reasoning, perhaps college courses in "Is that really true?" or "Lying statistics and other manipulation strategies" may help but, like pro wrestling, it might not matter if it's fake.
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 09:49 PM   #84
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,269
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You have to be careful about CSPAN. They often put on seminars that were presented by right wing and Libertarian think tanks which don't disclose their funding source.

Not that I don't watch CSPAN all the time, especially Book TV which runs every weekend.

Heritage Institute and the CATO Institute are frequent flyers with biased research.

You can go to SourceWatch and look at the source of funds and interlocking boards for most of these so-called think tanks. Always important to know who stacked the deck of their research staff.
I'm pretty sure funding is not altering Cato's research conclusions.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 11:25 PM   #85
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I'm pretty sure funding is not altering Cato's research conclusions.
That's an astonishingly naive conclusion. The Cato Institute was founded by one of the kings of message marketing through think tanks, Charles Koch, and funded by the Koch brothers.

Cato Institute
Quote:
The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank founded by Charles G. Koch and funded by the Koch brothers. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institute states that it favors policies "that are consistent with the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, and peace."[1] Cato scholars conduct policy research on a broad range of public policy issues and produce books, studies, op-eds, and blog posts. They are also frequent guests in the media. The Cato Institute is an "associate" member of the State Policy Network, a web of right-wing “think tanks” in every state across the country.[2]
Where ideology and science part company, Cato favors ideology, as shown by an advertisement[3] published in newspapers in 2009 disputing the state of the science on climate change.[4]
The Koch Wiki:
Quote:
The Koch brothers -- David and Charles -- are the right-wing billionaire co-owners of Koch Industries. As two of the richest people in the world, they are key funders of the right-wing infrastructure, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the State Policy Network (SPN). In SourceWatch, key articles on the Kochs include: Koch Brothers, Koch Industries, Americans for Prosperity, American Encore, and Freedom Partners.
The Koch's became unhappy with the Heritage Foundation's move away from far right wing, so they founded the Cato Institute.
Quote:
The story of the conservative movement that has come to dominate the Republican Party over the last four decades is inextricably intertwined with the story of the Heritage Foundation. In that time, it became more than just another think tank. It came to occupy a place of special privilege—a quasi-official arm of GOP administrations and Congresses; a sponsor of scholarship and supplier of legislation; a policy base for the party when out of power. Heritage has shaped American public policy in major ways, from Reagan’s missile-defense initiative to Clinton’s welfare reform: Both originated as Heritage proposals. So, too, did the idea of a universal health-care system based on a mandate that individuals buy insurance. Though Heritage subsequently abandoned it, the individual mandate famously became the basis of health-care reforms proposed by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama.
The Heritage Foundation dared to be honest/evidence based. The far right wing didn't like the positions so they started a new think tank more to their liking:
Quote:
Authored by Heritage scholar Robert Rector, the report argued that passing immigration reform would cost American taxpayers more than $6 trillion. An updated version of a similar Rector study released in 2006, the paper was widely blasted for its shoddy scholarship. The libertarian Cato Institute called it “fatally flawed”; Doug Holtz-Eakin, who directed the Congressional Budget Office during the George W. Bush Administration, said it was “biased against finding any kind of success.” The CBO’s own assessment was that the immigration bill would be a boon to taxpayers, cutting deficits by $200 billion in the first 10 years.
If you don't like a conclusion, try try again.

Follow the money: Political activities of the Koch brothers
Quote:
They actively fund and support organizations that contribute significantly to Republican candidates, and in particular that lobby against efforts to expand government's role in health care and combat global warming.[6] By 2010, they had donated more than $100 million to dozens of free-market and advocacy organizations.[6]
This is the remnant of the John Birch Society. If you need a reminder, Nixon was so far left of the JBS right wing, they called Nixon a communist.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 28th December 2016 at 12:25 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 11:41 PM   #86
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,360
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I'm pretty sure funding is not altering Cato's research conclusions.
That's funny!
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 05:44 AM   #87
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,487
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
And nothing contributed, again.
It happens.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 05:58 AM   #88
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,676
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
No, the problem discussed in the article is far more serious. It's how we got to a world where the Vast Right-Wing BS Machine can create its own reality, which is ultimately how we got to the doorstep of fascism.
Yeah, well that's true, but the left-wing have their own alternate reality.

Originally Posted by logger View Post
Too bad we've never had that.
You must be joking.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 06:03 AM   #89
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,676
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Liberals I know are deceitful, immoral and only care about winning, because liberalism is a religion.
That's one of the most ironic things I've ever read from you.

Not only do we have plenty of examples of right-wing lies, but you yourself have admitted to only caring about winning. I'll also remind you that religion is mostly a right-wing thing.

Quote:
I've never said I wasn't a partisan, I'm damn proud of it.
You shouldn't, as being partisan means one is more detached from reality.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 06:13 AM   #90
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,676
Originally Posted by logger
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
That's a lot of enemies.
Enemy's?
No, enemies.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 07:57 AM   #91
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,698
Originally Posted by elemental View Post
I love c-span and bookTV. [/inturuption]
Not interruption, information - and welcome in!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 07:59 AM   #92
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,698
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You have to be careful about CSPAN. They often put on seminars that were presented by right wing and Libertarian think tanks which don't disclose their funding source.

Not that I don't watch CSPAN all the time, especially Book TV which runs every weekend.

Heritage Institute and the CATO Institute are frequent flyers with biased research.

You can go to SourceWatch and look at the source of funds and interlocking boards for most of these so-called think tanks. Always important to know who stacked the deck of their research staff.
The ones of that lying type I did watch had to do with math in school and getting rid of the Education Dept. Very silly people they be!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 08:00 AM   #93
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,698
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yeah, well that's true, but the left-wing have their own alternate reality.



You must be joking.
Sadly almost certainly is not. May actually believe what he/she writes here!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 09:49 AM   #94
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,305
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Enemy's?

You can't understand the concept of biased media?
Not in the way you present it.
__________________
This space for rent.
In conservative heads!
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 10:20 AM   #95
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,586
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
No, the problem discussed in the article is far more serious. It's how we got to a world where the Vast Right-Wing BS Machine can create its own reality, which is ultimately how we got to the doorstep of fascism.
That's bad, but there is also a vast left wing BS machine that's been operating for decades too. Both are problems.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 10:34 AM   #96
The_Animus
Master Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,655
Almost 50% of Trump supporters believe the blatantly fake Clinton pedophile pizzagate bs.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2926098
__________________
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 10:58 AM   #97
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,474
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
That's bad, but there is also a vast left wing BS machine that's been operating for decades too. Both are problems.
Really? Such as?
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 11:42 AM   #98
rdwight
Thinker
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 223
It really comes down to us as the consumers being the problem. There is a reason the MSM reports and engages viewers in the way it does. Because it is profitable. Left/Right, doesn't matter the source. People can complain they want it different, but deeds speak louder than words.

It's funny, the other day I was reading a Breitbart article and was surprised at how fair it was overall. A little right leaning but gave both sides to the story, laid out the facts and let the reader make conclusions based on them. Was overall a good piece.

Scrolling down to the comments however.. you would think someone pasted a huffpo liberal fluff story. Complaints of liberal bias in the article, threats of not reading breitbart in the future if stories were like this one. It was eye opening to just the extreme rejection of news that doesn't directly reflect the tone and message they want to hear. They didn't want both sides represented in the story. They wanted only the facts that they already accept. Period.

It is like people no longer watch/read the news to learn about/new things, only to reaffirm their preexisting thoughts without challenge.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 12:21 PM   #99
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
That's bad, but there is also a vast left wing BS machine that's been operating for decades too. Both are problems.
Yes but, the left wing fake news is not embraced and propagated by Democratic Party leaders whereas the GOP leaders do embrace and propagate right wing fake news.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 12:35 PM   #100
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
It really comes down to us as the consumers being the problem.
Be that as it may, the media has more power to address the problem or exacerbate it. We should be addressing both sides of the coin.

Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
There is a reason the MSM reports and engages viewers in the way it does. Because it is profitable. Left/Right, doesn't matter the source. People can complain they want it different, but deeds speak louder than words.
There is another contribution here the Democratic Party is responsible for, the GOP knows how to get their messages played constantly on the MSN. The Democrats have yet to understand this fact and/or effectively deal with it.

Besides sensationalism, the MSN is also looking to minimize production costs. I'd guess it was close to cost-free for the TV news to play Trump's speeches in full, day after day. News conferences are another source of inexpensive news production. Clinton was so afraid of having some clip taken out of context that she stayed away from news conferences. But the drawback was, Trump was getting hours and hours of face time. Clinton should have developed a stronger position that the private server was not the evil thing it was being played to be and held frequent news conferences.

Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
It's funny, the other day I was reading a Breitbart article and was surprised at how fair it was overall. A little right leaning but gave both sides to the story, laid out the facts and let the reader make conclusions based on them. Was overall a good piece.

Scrolling down to the comments however.. you would think someone pasted a huffpo liberal fluff story. Complaints of liberal bias in the article, threats of not reading breitbart in the future if stories were like this one. It was eye opening to just the extreme rejection of news that doesn't directly reflect the tone and message they want to hear. They didn't want both sides represented in the story. They wanted only the facts that they already accept. Period.
Hard to judge this contradiction to what we've seen of Breitbart without a link. I'm inclined to think whatever the story was, confirmed your bias so you saw it as fair. Post the link if you want me to reconsider your extraordinary claim.

Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
It is like people no longer watch/read the news to learn about/new things, only to reaffirm their preexisting thoughts without challenge.
That's nothing new.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 28th December 2016 at 01:22 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 01:00 PM   #101
rdwight
Thinker
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 223
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Be that as it may, the media has more power to address the problem or exacerbate it. We should be addressing both sides of the coin.
How exactly do they have more power? If ratings drop to the point they are losing money daily, you feel that they would continue with what is causing this lost revenue? Voicing opposition doesn't change things when ratings remain constant.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I'm inclined to think whatever the story was, confirmed your bias so you saw it as fair. Post the link if you want me to reconsider your extraordinary claim.
Not sure how what I said was a contradiction.. As well I don't think my claim was by any means extroadinary but here is the Breitbart article I referred to.
breitbart[dot]com/news/economy-healed-under-obama-but-unhappy-voters-chose-trump/

Last edited by rdwight; 28th December 2016 at 01:16 PM.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 01:04 PM   #102
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,586
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Yes but, the left wing fake news is not embraced and propagated by Democratic Party leaders whereas the GOP leaders do embrace and propagate right wing fake news.
I agree the problem is worse on the right than it is on the left, but the problem on the left is real too. More importantly, addressing all of it makes it a non-partisan issue and is more likely to see success.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 01:08 PM   #103
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,934
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
I doubt that'd make a difference. All we'd hear is about how "biased" the AI is programmed to be by 'them'. It's time for an intervention for about 62 million US people.
Well, it is inevitable that any such AI (which must be quite some time away) would rely on sources for its facts, and what counts as a reliable source is fair game for criticism. I don't see that making an apolitical AI would solve anything, since someone has to make a choice regarding sources.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 01:21 PM   #104
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
How exactly do they have more power? If ratings drop to the point they are losing money daily, you feel that they would continue with what is causing this lost revenue? Voicing opposition doesn't change things when ratings remain constant.
I specifically said, "media" and not "news media", for one. As for the ratings BS, that makes the assumption that the current news business model is the only viable business model. I don't believe it is.

For example: if the public demands fact checking and investigative reporting it could influence a change in their current business model. That is going on right now, we need to keep the pressure up.

Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
Not sure how what I said was a contradiction.. As well I don't think my claim was by any means extroadinary but here is the Breitbart article I referred to.
breitbart[dot]com/news/economy-healed-under-obama-but-unhappy-voters-chose-trump/
Here's the link: Economy healed under Obama, but unhappy voters chose Trump
It's mild as far as Breitbart goes.
Quote:
Throughout it all, while Americans became disillusioned by the bickering in Washington, Obama’s economy slowly crept back.
Not one word about GOP obstructionism or McConnell's declaration his sole goal was to deprive Obama of a second term.

Quote:
The Republican businessman barnstormed through rural white America, talking at a gut level to supporters whose communities felt left behind by the recovery. He promises to return manufacturing and mining jobs that most economists believe are long lost.
Yadda yadda... Again, nothing about lying to people, making contradictory statements and promises, stirring up racism and bigotry.

Overall it paints Obama in a fair light while slipping in all his perceived weaknesses, while painting Trump as the problem solver it is unlikely he will be.

You got the rest right though, the comments suggest anything the least bit positive about Obama is unacceptable.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 01:23 PM   #105
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Spock Jenkins View Post
For me, it's the simple stuff like Brian Williams lying about being some place he wasn't in order to sensationalize a story. Sure, he loses his anchor spot on the network, but he's still working MSNBC covering the election. How is this guy still working in broadcast media? Hair and voice. That's it.

Or Mitch Albom. It was a sports article - but he was outed for describing an event as though he was there. The reason he got caught? Because he talked about seeing someone at the event (who he just assumed would be there), who could not make it. Same deal - still churning out articles because he knows how to fabricate, err - tell a story.

None of these networks are looking to report the facts or the truth. They are all seeking ratings. Right wing radio, left wing TV, or main stream TV - all of them have the exact same mission. Ratings and ad revenue. None of them have a mission to report the news of the day on a factual basis.
I think a lot of them have that 'mission' but it's compromised more than they'd like for strictly business purposes.

The amount of compromise is a continuum, with some outlets fully committed to partisan propaganda, all the way to outlets that have high integrity. It's not a binary situation.

My path into skepticism started in amateur journalism. I was an early staffer at AdBusters Magazine, and their mission back in the early 1980s was to help readers deal with a new phenomenon: advertorials. Commercials that were written to look like journalism pieces. I was - and remain - a strong consumer advocate, so was completely on board with this, but left after they experienced too much mission creep. (they turned into an antisemitic left wing rag, to be honest).

It led me to skepticism, where I met Barry Beyerstein and pitched in with his Vancouver chapter of CSICOP. His daughter Lindsay became a freelance journalist, and I think she has maintained excellent integrity and dedication to objectivity and fact checking. While not under the banner of skepticism, I think she has given the world more 'skeptical' accomplishments than almost any other skeptic. She's currently a host of CFI's Point of Inquiry podcast. It's worth reiterating that CFI is scored as an unbiased news source in most objective systems.

I'm reaching retirement age, and have considered pursuing journalism. It may be the most productive way I can contribute to skepticism.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 01:24 PM   #106
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I agree the problem is worse on the right than it is on the left, but the problem on the left is real too. More importantly, addressing all of it makes it a non-partisan issue and is more likely to see success.
All well and good if you don't make a false equivalency out of it. Without noting the biggest difference, what the party leadership supports, false equivalency is what you do.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 01:27 PM   #107
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
For example: if the public demands fact checking and investigative reporting it could influence a change in their current business model. That is going on right now, we need to keep the pressure up.
Incidentally, "keeping the pressure up" has had an impact on the muckrackers' bottom lines.

How do we know? Because it provoked a war against 'fact checking'.

I've posted another thread on this topic: [Hit Piece on Snopes.com]
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 01:56 PM   #108
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Incidentally, "keeping the pressure up" has had an impact on the muckrackers' bottom lines.

How do we know? Because it provoked a war against 'fact checking'.

I've posted another thread on this topic: [Hit Piece on Snopes.com]
Yes, that is a counteroffensive that also needs to be countered. It's akin to the faith meme, if you question the lack of evidence (or the evidence contradicts your beliefs) then you lack faith in god.

But ignoring the problem isn't getting us anywhere either.

Did you have an alternative or additional options?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 02:04 PM   #109
rdwight
Thinker
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 223
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I specifically said, "media" and not "news media", for one. As for the ratings BS, that makes the assumption that the current news business model is the only viable business model. I don't believe it is.

For example: if the public demands fact checking and investigative reporting it could influence a change in their current business model. That is going on right now, we need to keep the pressure up.
I have no idea how this conflicts with what I wrote. What is this pressure we are putting on them? Public demands? From where? Facebook posts and twitter hashtags dont change things. Actual action, such as not providing views/advertising revenue change things.

And that is for any medium. There is no "BS about ratings". A business is sustained by being profitable and/or increasing marketshare. Whether you believe their is a better news business model or not, there is nothing BS about needing eyes on the product.

The only pressure companies feel is on their bottom line. The public demands for fact checking and investigative reporting have been going on forever. Explain what exactly is different now? More exposure to the topic on social media? No matter where your viewpoint is going, it ends up with consumers being responsible for what we get.

Want more investigative reporting? Buy the news sources that dedicate resources to creating those stories. People don't do that. They share opinion pieces from secondary sources on the original story. They will go to their favorite news source to read an explanation of the story. That is not contributing. And that is what people do now.


As for your review of the article i mentioned, right leaning but fair is pretty accurate description of the material or no? The things you are looking to be added are not necessary to convey the point of the article. That's just being a stickler in relation to your own bias.

Eitherway, the point of my comment on that article was specifically to the rejection by readers of anything closer to fair than they are use to as Breitbart readers. This is a trend with many news sources and their audience.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 03:12 PM   #110
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Yes, that is a counteroffensive that also needs to be countered. It's akin to the faith meme, if you question the lack of evidence (or the evidence contradicts your beliefs) then you lack faith in god.

But ignoring the problem isn't getting us anywhere either.

Did you have an alternative or additional options?
We need to professionalize, I think.

And I say this as somebody who goes back to the '90s with the Mikkelsons. (We were all on a CSICOP email listserv when Dave and Barb founded their site).

I've always been concerned about the limitations exposed by Skeptics' relative amateurism.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 03:26 PM   #111
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,474
Some good news: The Washington Post is hiring 60 people in their news room, so we should get actual news out of DC.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 03:40 PM   #112
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
I have no idea how this conflicts with what I wrote. What is this pressure we are putting on them? Public demands? From where? Facebook posts and twitter hashtags dont change things. Actual action, such as not providing views/advertising revenue change things.

And that is for any medium. There is no "BS about ratings". A business is sustained by being profitable and/or increasing marketshare. Whether you believe their is a better news business model or not, there is nothing BS about needing eyes on the product.

The only pressure companies feel is on their bottom line. The public demands for fact checking and investigative reporting have been going on forever. Explain what exactly is different now? More exposure to the topic on social media? No matter where your viewpoint is going, it ends up with consumers being responsible for what we get.

Want more investigative reporting? Buy the news sources that dedicate resources to creating those stories. People don't do that. They share opinion pieces from secondary sources on the original story. They will go to their favorite news source to read an explanation of the story. That is not contributing. And that is what people do now.
Not all media is news media. Not all media operates under the business model that scandal and controversy sells.

There have been efforts to get FaceBook to be more responsible when it comes to fake news, for example.

Bringing fake stories to light, exposing the nonsensical stories, and reporting on how teens in Macedonia snookered FaceBook are some ways to address fake news.

Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
As for your review of the article i mentioned, right leaning but fair is pretty accurate description of the material or no? The things you are looking to be added are not necessary to convey the point of the article. That's just being a stickler in relation to your own bias.

Eitherway, the point of my comment on that article was specifically to the rejection by readers of anything closer to fair than they are use to as Breitbart readers. This is a trend with many news sources and their audience.
It's not a 'fair' article when it distorts the facts about the story. It may not have been on the same level of the usual Breitbart trash, but it was an opinion piece masquerading as an informational piece.

I suspect Breitbart is testing the waters of making a move to become more mainstream, following the Fox News model rather than the Limbaugh model. Their readers aren't buying it.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 03:47 PM   #113
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I suspect Breitbart is testing the waters of making a move to become more mainstream, following the Fox News model rather than the Limbaugh model.
I think you're right. Their brand up to now has been 'smash the system,' but now their man is in charge of the system, so they'll have to pivot to Defender of the Establishment.


Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Their readers aren't buying it.
All these traditional viewers will do is bitch about the government, which will be bitching about Bannon as of Jan 20th. Just because they were useful idiots for getting into power doesn't mean they'll be useful for hanging onto it. Breitbart will not hesitate to scrape the fringe folk off their shoes.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 03:49 PM   #114
paulhutch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,014
Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
Not sure how what I said was a contradiction.. As well I don't think my claim was by any means extroadinary but here is the Breitbart article I referred to.
breitbart[dot]com/news/economy-healed-under-obama-but-unhappy-voters-chose-trump/
That's NOT a Brietbart article, as in created by someone working for Brietbart, its an AP wire article that they posted. If you search on the article title you'll see it posted in many places including ABC News.

Usually Brietbart only posts the sports related AP wire articles but I suspect they wanted something for their readers to get enraged about as a late Christmas present.
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 03:51 PM   #115
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
We need to professionalize, I think.

And I say this as somebody who goes back to the '90s with the Mikkelsons. (We were all on a CSICOP email listserv when Dave and Barb founded their site).

I've always been concerned about the limitations exposed by Skeptics' relative amateurism.
Choir preaching, it's what I hoped the JREF would have accomplished.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 04:41 PM   #116
rdwight
Thinker
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 223
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Not all media is news media. Not all media operates under the business model that scandal and controversy sells.
Is there a reason you don't actually address anything I say? Instead you try to change the narrative to something else. All media operates under a for-profit model. Period. End of story. We, the consumers, control the the narrative we receive through our viewing/buying/scrolling habits. Stop deflecting to this "not all media is news media" nonsense. Either concede the point or give an alternative that is based in reality.

Again, nothing I said is controversal. Consumers of media dictate what we receive by our buying/viewing habits. It is that simple.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
There have been efforts to get FaceBook to be more responsible when it comes to fake news, for example.

Bringing fake stories to light, exposing the nonsensical stories, and reporting on how teens in Macedonia snookered FaceBook are some ways to address fake news.
As to your Facebook point, they cannot control the spread of fake news. Even your response of them "trying to be more responsible" in regards to fake news is a cop out. How are they more responsible now? On what metric are they getting better?

They know they can't stop it as do I. As long as it is profitable to create and promote fake news, there will be fake news. They can change their algorithm as much as they like but I don't see a way for them to decrease reach and ctr/cpc on viral stories alone without having a negative outcome for general advertisers.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 04:54 PM   #117
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
Is there a reason you don't actually address anything I say? Instead you try to change the narrative to something else.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you could reword what narrative you think I changed.

Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
All media operates under a for-profit model. Period. End of story. We, the consumers, control the the narrative we receive through our viewing/buying/scrolling habits. Stop deflecting to this "not all media is news media" nonsense. Either concede the point or give an alternative that is based in reality.
Point #1) There are many non-profit media sources.

Point #2) Not all media business models are the same.

Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
Again, nothing I said is controversal. Consumers of media dictate what we receive by our buying/viewing habits. It is that simple.
No, it's not. Buying and viewing habits are one area of influence. Political pressure, naming and shaming, boycotts, are but a few of the many other influences on the media.

Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
As to your Facebook point, they cannot control the spread of fake news. Even your response of them "trying to be more responsible" in regards to fake news is a cop out. How are they more responsible now? On what metric are they getting better?

They know they can't stop it as do I. As long as it is profitable to create and promote fake news, there will be fake news. They can change their algorithm as much as they like but I don't see a way for them to decrease reach and ctr/cpc on viral stories alone without having a negative outcome for general advertisers.
"Control" is not the verb I would apply. Expose and educate are better options.

I'm certainly not arguing with the sentence I highlighted.

And again, advertisers are not the only funding source of the media.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 05:19 PM   #118
rdwight
Thinker
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 223
Perhaps we are talking past each other by mistake. Let me recap -

I feel we as consumers have more power to change things through our viewing and buying habits than by any other method. It should be the main, most important part that we play in changing the situation we are discussing.

My impression is that you feel that is a small piece that should be a part of the overall push to implement change. Is that accurate?

Quote:
Point #1) There are many non-profit media sources.

Point #2) Not all media business models are the same.
Oh I do not deny there are non-profit and different business models within the media industry. When I say for profit, I mean it in every way. PBS might be non-profit but more viewers mean more donations which mean more ability to research and share news/information. No matter the media business, each requires exposure to consumers for their message and information to be effective.

Sure a billionaire could endow a company with millions to operate at a loss just because he wants a specific message or viewpoint spread through them, but they still have goals to reach in regards to getting that message out.

Quote:
No, it's not. Buying and viewing habits are one area of influence. Political pressure, naming and shaming, boycotts, are but a few of the many other influences on the media.
What is the endgame for political pressure, naming and shaming and boycotts? Decreasing buying and viewing of said product. You are basically stating ways to reach the endpoint I said we need.

Quote:
"Control" is not the verb I would apply. Expose and educate are better options.
Not sure how effective expose and educate works. Same as retractions in newspapers of the past, how effective this method is depends on the viewing publics willingness to actually search for the truth after the fact.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 08:48 AM   #119
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,698
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Almost 50% of Trump supporters believe the blatantly fake Clinton pedophile pizzagate bs.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2926098
And have been trying hard to get in on it!!!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 08:52 AM   #120
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post

<snip>

Here's the link: Economy healed under Obama, but unhappy voters chose Trump
It's mild as far as Breitbart goes.

Not one word about GOP obstructionism or McConnell's declaration his sole goal was to deprive Obama of a second term.
This is fake news. Quite typical of the left. They believe "fake but accurate" is good enough (regardless of the fact that half the country would dispute the "accurate" part).
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.