4 ms·

Trump is a very good example of his hypothesis on the Republican side but he left an impression of bias by not balancing that with an example from the other sid

Trump is a very good example of his hypothesis on the Republican side but he left an impression of bias by not balancing that with an example from the other side of which there are also plenty.

skywhopper 11y ago
I see Trump's rhetoric as so detached from reality, that I can't think of any current, relevant people on "the other side" that would come close. Who do you have in mind, exactly?
- jeremyt 11y ago
  Seriously? You can't think of one person on the Democratic side who is "suggesting easy solutions to followers that are either unworkable or unconstitutional"?
  - bendableFigure 11y ago
    Yeah, seriously. Please tell us all who you are conflating with the outright stupidity, jingoism, and racism that is Trump.
    - jack9 11y ago
      Rightfully, Hillary and Sanders https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiZFXkmofgI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiZFXkmofgI
      - outlace 11y ago
        This is just manipulation of decent people. You can always get some percentage of people to agree with something you've propositioned with a camera and mic in their face and when they don't really understand what you mean (and then edit out all the people that didn't). Basic psychology phenom. Repealing the bill of rights is obviously not something Clinton or Sanders have ever proposed and certainly have not been screaming it on national television like Trump This is absurdity of the tribe of Alex Jones
    - jeremyt 11y ago
      Ok, how about: Hillary "It was all just a response to a video" Clinton Bernie "Terrorism is caused by global warming" Sanders Harry “light-skinned” and speaking “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Reid Al “White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” Sharpton Barack "If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance" Obama Nancy "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" Pelosi Elizabeth "I'm Indian because my ancestors had high cheekbones" Warren Harry "Mitt Romney didn't pay any taxes" Reid Hank "I'm not sure if Guam can tip over" Johnson Leland "I am a leading gun proponent, but am running a illegal gun trafficking business on the side" Lee Al "the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years" Gore Just a few
- specialist 11y ago
  Sure, the left wing has plenty of weirdos. The difference is that the fringe, radical right wing beliefs have been mainstreamed. The left has nothing like that. David Neiwert (Orcinus) has done a great job chronicling the steady encroachment of hate speech, eliminationist rhetoric, white supremacy, etc. As a journalist, Neiwert has long history with many of the players. He attends their events and interviews them. Kind of like watching Fox News, so we don't have to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Neiwert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Neiwert Every person has some goofy beliefs. If the wingers keep to themselves, I don't mind. But some things do push my buttons. #1 Hypocrisy. Like hating on "illegals" and then hiring them to work on your house. Or railing against welfare while sucking on the government's teat. #2 Victimhood, persecution complex, clutching at pearls. There's a subset of the right wing that are just a bunch of cry babies, with no real equivalent on the left. #3 False equivalence. Personal example. A political colleague wrote that our senator should be burned at the stake for some imagined betrayal. Flat out hate speech. So I called him on it. In turn, he stated that the Rodney King riots in LA were an example of left wing hate speech. Um, what? And then he wanted me to be accountable for the actions of some people 20 years past. Um, okay. Like goofy beliefs, I don't mind cognitive dissonance either. But trying to wrap an opponent up in one's delusions is just trolling.
bendableFigure 11y ago
There are "plenty"? Then name some. Methinks this endless whining about "bias" when people rightly call out a certain endlessly ignorant political party for that ignorance is the last refuge of people who really have no cogent arguments in them.
- dexterdog 11y ago
  You think Sanders doesn't fit this role? Sure there is not the wide array on the stage because there are only really two running on that side, but if you don't see Sanders as running on a pile of impossible-to-fund ideas then you are just being played by him.
rm445 11y ago
Yet conversely, your point is an example of the very 'balance routine' mentioned in the article. Let's say that Trump is an egregiously bad candidate. (Please note I'm trying to make a logical point, not give informed comment on US politics). Offering up the worst candidate from the other side as an equivalent might well appear to reduce bias, and yet be wrong in an objective sense. Not that I'm trying to claim there's much objectivity to be found in party politics, but it seems reasonable to treat egregious-badness that way. Also, I have no doubt one could delve back through the years to find truly woefully dreadful Democratic presidential hopefuls, but since hopefully they are history's also-rans it's starting to ask a lot of knowledge from the audience. Just as with the debate of whether it's a good idea to fill one's lungs with toxic smoke, balance doesn't always help.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
ashark 11y ago
The "truth lies in the middle" theory of American political analysis/reporting is perhaps the most dangerous idea in that field. I'd say, in fact, the truth rarely lies between the two big parties. Often it's outside them entirely, or way out on the fringe of one of them. Sometimes one side's perspective really is correct and the other is wrong. Sometimes either side's solution to a problem would likely be fine, though they conflict and a balance between them would not work. Sometimes one side has a mountain of evidence behind them and the other has a tiny amount of evidence, some anecdotes, and alternative plans based mostly on speculation (cough the healthcare debate). For any of the above, trying to "balance" reporting leads one farther from the truth, not closer. It's not even the case that they must both be right or wrong equally in aggregate. Similarly, just because there are prominent, awful people getting a lot of press and support on one side doesn't mean that each of them must have mirror images on the other. Failing to manufacture false balance isn't evidence of bias.

Trump is a very good example of his hypothesis on the Republican side but he left an impression of bias by not balancing that with an example from the other side of which there are also plenty.

skywhopper 11y ago

I see Trump's rhetoric as so detached from reality, that I can't think of any current, relevant people on "the other side" that would come close. Who do you have in mind, exactly?

jeremyt 11y ago
Seriously? You can't think of one person on the Democratic side who is "suggesting easy solutions to followers that are either unworkable or unconstitutional"?
- bendableFigure 11y ago
  Yeah, seriously. Please tell us all who you are conflating with the outright stupidity, jingoism, and racism that is Trump.
  - jack9 11y ago
    Rightfully, Hillary and Sanders https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiZFXkmofgI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiZFXkmofgI
    - outlace 11y ago
      This is just manipulation of decent people. You can always get some percentage of people to agree with something you've propositioned with a camera and mic in their face and when they don't really understand what you mean (and then edit out all the people that didn't). Basic psychology phenom. Repealing the bill of rights is obviously not something Clinton or Sanders have ever proposed and certainly have not been screaming it on national television like Trump This is absurdity of the tribe of Alex Jones
  - jeremyt 11y ago
    Ok, how about: Hillary "It was all just a response to a video" Clinton Bernie "Terrorism is caused by global warming" Sanders Harry “light-skinned” and speaking “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Reid Al “White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” Sharpton Barack "If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance" Obama Nancy "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" Pelosi Elizabeth "I'm Indian because my ancestors had high cheekbones" Warren Harry "Mitt Romney didn't pay any taxes" Reid Hank "I'm not sure if Guam can tip over" Johnson Leland "I am a leading gun proponent, but am running a illegal gun trafficking business on the side" Lee Al "the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years" Gore Just a few
specialist 11y ago
Sure, the left wing has plenty of weirdos. The difference is that the fringe, radical right wing beliefs have been mainstreamed. The left has nothing like that. David Neiwert (Orcinus) has done a great job chronicling the steady encroachment of hate speech, eliminationist rhetoric, white supremacy, etc. As a journalist, Neiwert has long history with many of the players. He attends their events and interviews them. Kind of like watching Fox News, so we don't have to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Neiwert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Neiwert Every person has some goofy beliefs. If the wingers keep to themselves, I don't mind. But some things do push my buttons. #1 Hypocrisy. Like hating on "illegals" and then hiring them to work on your house. Or railing against welfare while sucking on the government's teat. #2 Victimhood, persecution complex, clutching at pearls. There's a subset of the right wing that are just a bunch of cry babies, with no real equivalent on the left. #3 False equivalence. Personal example. A political colleague wrote that our senator should be burned at the stake for some imagined betrayal. Flat out hate speech. So I called him on it. In turn, he stated that the Rodney King riots in LA were an example of left wing hate speech. Um, what? And then he wanted me to be accountable for the actions of some people 20 years past. Um, okay. Like goofy beliefs, I don't mind cognitive dissonance either. But trying to wrap an opponent up in one's delusions is just trolling.

bendableFigure 11y ago

There are "plenty"? Then name some. Methinks this endless whining about "bias" when people rightly call out a certain endlessly ignorant political party for that ignorance is the last refuge of people who really have no cogent arguments in them.

dexterdog 11y ago
You think Sanders doesn't fit this role? Sure there is not the wide array on the stage because there are only really two running on that side, but if you don't see Sanders as running on a pile of impossible-to-fund ideas then you are just being played by him.

rm445 11y ago

Yet conversely, your point is an example of the very 'balance routine' mentioned in the article. Let's say that Trump is an egregiously bad candidate. (Please note I'm trying to make a logical point, not give informed comment on US politics). Offering up the worst candidate from the other side as an equivalent might well appear to reduce bias, and yet be wrong in an objective sense. Not that I'm trying to claim there's much objectivity to be found in party politics, but it seems reasonable to treat egregious-badness that way. Also, I have no doubt one could delve back through the years to find truly woefully dreadful Democratic presidential hopefuls, but since hopefully they are history's also-rans it's starting to ask a lot of knowledge from the audience. Just as with the debate of whether it's a good idea to fill one's lungs with toxic smoke, balance doesn't always help.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

ashark 11y ago

The "truth lies in the middle" theory of American political analysis/reporting is perhaps the most dangerous idea in that field. I'd say, in fact, the truth rarely lies between the two big parties. Often it's outside them entirely, or way out on the fringe of one of them. Sometimes one side's perspective really is correct and the other is wrong. Sometimes either side's solution to a problem would likely be fine, though they conflict and a balance between them would not work. Sometimes one side has a mountain of evidence behind them and the other has a tiny amount of evidence, some anecdotes, and alternative plans based mostly on speculation (cough the healthcare debate). For any of the above, trying to "balance" reporting leads one farther from the truth, not closer. It's not even the case that they must both be right or wrong equally in aggregate. Similarly, just because there are prominent, awful people getting a lot of press and support on one side doesn't mean that each of them must have mirror images on the other. Failing to manufacture false balance isn't evidence of bias.