4 ms·

Bookmark some more news sites so you get a wider spectrum. Smaller independent operations (ex: Breitbart, Drudge Report) are less vulnerable to being co-opted

Bookmark some more news sites so you get a wider spectrum. Smaller independent operations (ex: Breitbart, Drudge Report) are less vulnerable to being co-opted or politically motivated. Also, r/The_Donald is has been an excellent aggregate for all things related to the campaign. Also, see Wikileaks to get an idea of how bad the bias/corruption has been in the media (ex: CNN giving HRC questions in advance of debates [0], CNN asking HRC campaign for input regarding questions for Donald in exclusive interview [1]); this should help you understand the scope of the situation and why you haven't been getting good reporting from mainstream news. [0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786225211481792514 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786225211481792514 [1] https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846

toomanybeersies 10y ago
The absence of leaks from the RNC doesn't mean that the RNC doesn't do the same things as the DNC.
- mrschwabe 10y ago
  Sure but given there's no proof, this argument doesn't hold much water; these leaks not to mention other damning revelations that showed an offensive targeted smear/deception/disruption campaign against Trump is rather extreme and unlikely matched in it's criminality let alone the weight of the evidence itself. For example, there is video evidence [0] of DNC operatives taking claim for causing violence at Trump rallies. Was there even any violence that happened at Clinton campaigns? And do you really think the RNC would have gone that far in their so called 'support' of Trump which saw record-low investment in advertising and endorsements from fellow Republicans? Do you really think Wolf Blitzer got any questions from the RNC or Trump Campaign in advance of town hall debates or interviews with Hillary Clinton? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY
elemenopy 10y ago
You cite Breitbart as an example of a website that is "less vulnerable to being co-opted or politically motivated." How is that even remotely accurate, considering the Chairman of Breitbart, Steve Bannon, is Trump's campaign chairman?
- mrschwabe 10y ago
  Fair point, thank-you. That taken into consideration, would you say there is no harm in at least adding Breitbart to the basket of news media sources? Which could also include CNN, who's anchors also could all very well have been candidates for chairman of Clinton's campaign.
tempestn 10y ago
I agree with you that much of the mainstream media showed a bias against Trump through this election. (I feel they had very good reasons to be biased against him, but regardless, should have done a better job of keeping the reporting neutral.) That said, Breitbart and Drudge Report are probably the two most well known right-biased sources in existence (aside from the obviously much larger, but less biased, Fox News). Describing them as not politically motivated seems misleading at best.
- mrschwabe 10y ago
  Thanks for your insights. It seems where we disagree is on your point of Breitbart and Drudge being 'right-biased'. To me they come across as simply more dedicated to reporting the truth and principled in their commitment to reporting said truth regardless of implications or contradictions to the status quo who are often downright misleading and deceitful; this most recent election campaign serving as a magnification of that.
  - tempestn 10y ago
    Thank you for your reasonable reply. As I see it, there are a few ways bias can manifest. The most obvious is in reporting things that aren't true. One step down from that is reporting things that are technically true, but in a misleading way. (You definitely saw a lot of anti-Trump bias manifest in that way.) The next level from there is choosing which truths to report, in order to paint a picture. That's the level that I personally have seen most often on Breitbart/Drudge. You may well be right that they dig up uncomfortable truths that are ignored by other sources. But how often does one of those uncomfortable truths lean toward painting liberals in a better light than conservatives? It's like when negative results of scientific studies are thrown out; we can end up seeing a pattern in the resulting aggregate data that doesn't really exist. Then you also have to look at the tone in which things are presented. For example, at the top of Breitbart right now: "At Last: The Lena Dunham Meltdown You’ve Been Waiting For ‘I ached in the places that make me a woman’" There may not be anything factually inaccurate in that article, although I haven't checked all the quotations myself. But it seems pretty clear that this is a pretty shameless gloat. I mean, they acknowledge it as such in the headline. I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with looking at varied sources, if you do so critically. I would suggest looking at an article in Breitbart, then finding reporting on the same thing from a more mainstream (call it left-leaning if you want) outlet - say the Washington Post or the NY Times. Compare the statements of fact, sure, but mostly compare the tone of the articles and ask yourself what picture they're trying to paint. Obviously what comes off as neutral and what biased would depend on where you yourself sit on the spectrum, but regardless I think it's a valuable exercise. To take it further, where the two sources differ significantly, check facts. And it doesn't mean just find a source to corroborate them, as there will always be an echo chamber of sources repeating the same things on both sides. Instead you need to dig a bit deeper. The easiest example is a quote. It's amazing how often people are misquoted, or the quotation is interpreted differently than I would view it. Very often these days you can find video of the original quote, and interpret it for yourself. Now, the veracity of a statement is a bit more difficult than just whether or not someone said something. Often you can start by checking wikipedia, then look to the sources it references, for a good start.

toomanybeersies 10y ago

The absence of leaks from the RNC doesn't mean that the RNC doesn't do the same things as the DNC.

mrschwabe 10y ago
Sure but given there's no proof, this argument doesn't hold much water; these leaks not to mention other damning revelations that showed an offensive targeted smear/deception/disruption campaign against Trump is rather extreme and unlikely matched in it's criminality let alone the weight of the evidence itself. For example, there is video evidence [0] of DNC operatives taking claim for causing violence at Trump rallies. Was there even any violence that happened at Clinton campaigns? And do you really think the RNC would have gone that far in their so called 'support' of Trump which saw record-low investment in advertising and endorsements from fellow Republicans? Do you really think Wolf Blitzer got any questions from the RNC or Trump Campaign in advance of town hall debates or interviews with Hillary Clinton? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

elemenopy 10y ago

You cite Breitbart as an example of a website that is "less vulnerable to being co-opted or politically motivated." How is that even remotely accurate, considering the Chairman of Breitbart, Steve Bannon, is Trump's campaign chairman?

mrschwabe 10y ago
Fair point, thank-you. That taken into consideration, would you say there is no harm in at least adding Breitbart to the basket of news media sources? Which could also include CNN, who's anchors also could all very well have been candidates for chairman of Clinton's campaign.

tempestn 10y ago

I agree with you that much of the mainstream media showed a bias against Trump through this election. (I feel they had very good reasons to be biased against him, but regardless, should have done a better job of keeping the reporting neutral.) That said, Breitbart and Drudge Report are probably the two most well known right-biased sources in existence (aside from the obviously much larger, but less biased, Fox News). Describing them as not politically motivated seems misleading at best.

mrschwabe 10y ago
Thanks for your insights. It seems where we disagree is on your point of Breitbart and Drudge being 'right-biased'. To me they come across as simply more dedicated to reporting the truth and principled in their commitment to reporting said truth regardless of implications or contradictions to the status quo who are often downright misleading and deceitful; this most recent election campaign serving as a magnification of that.
- tempestn 10y ago
  Thank you for your reasonable reply. As I see it, there are a few ways bias can manifest. The most obvious is in reporting things that aren't true. One step down from that is reporting things that are technically true, but in a misleading way. (You definitely saw a lot of anti-Trump bias manifest in that way.) The next level from there is choosing which truths to report, in order to paint a picture. That's the level that I personally have seen most often on Breitbart/Drudge. You may well be right that they dig up uncomfortable truths that are ignored by other sources. But how often does one of those uncomfortable truths lean toward painting liberals in a better light than conservatives? It's like when negative results of scientific studies are thrown out; we can end up seeing a pattern in the resulting aggregate data that doesn't really exist. Then you also have to look at the tone in which things are presented. For example, at the top of Breitbart right now: "At Last: The Lena Dunham Meltdown You’ve Been Waiting For ‘I ached in the places that make me a woman’" There may not be anything factually inaccurate in that article, although I haven't checked all the quotations myself. But it seems pretty clear that this is a pretty shameless gloat. I mean, they acknowledge it as such in the headline. I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with looking at varied sources, if you do so critically. I would suggest looking at an article in Breitbart, then finding reporting on the same thing from a more mainstream (call it left-leaning if you want) outlet - say the Washington Post or the NY Times. Compare the statements of fact, sure, but mostly compare the tone of the articles and ask yourself what picture they're trying to paint. Obviously what comes off as neutral and what biased would depend on where you yourself sit on the spectrum, but regardless I think it's a valuable exercise. To take it further, where the two sources differ significantly, check facts. And it doesn't mean just find a source to corroborate them, as there will always be an echo chamber of sources repeating the same things on both sides. Instead you need to dig a bit deeper. The easiest example is a quote. It's amazing how often people are misquoted, or the quotation is interpreted differently than I would view it. Very often these days you can find video of the original quote, and interpret it for yourself. Now, the veracity of a statement is a bit more difficult than just whether or not someone said something. Often you can start by checking wikipedia, then look to the sources it references, for a good start.