5 ms·

This extreme partisanship is one of the reasons I'm wary of John Oliver. For example, Politifact, despite its biases or subjectivity, has documented examples of

by lake99 10y ago

This extreme partisanship is one of the reasons I'm wary of John Oliver. For example, Politifact, despite its biases or subjectivity, has documented examples of practically every major politian making untrue statements. Including the current POTUS. We need a systemic approach to dealing with lies and untruths of the people who weild power. If you make it partisan, the liar/politican will just block you out, and so will their followers.

leonroy 10y ago
John Oliver clearly has a political leaning but I don't believe he states anything untrue as fact.
- lake99 10y ago
  That was not my point. Where exactly did I say he does that? He commits glaring omissions in favour of the people on his side.
  - tempestn 10y ago
    I agree with you that reporting selective truths can still be a very strong form of bias. However, Oliver is completely open about the fact that he's entirely biased. It's clearly editorial. (And also clearly a comedy, not a serious news program.) I could still see an argument that the bias is unfair, but in my opinion far more insidious are organizations like Breitbart (and I'm sure some left-leaning ones as well) that use this selective truth-telling to serve their biases while making an effort to appear unbiased.
nosequel 10y ago
To be fair to John Oliver, in the episode he points out stuff from both sides, calling out how many fact news articles are left-leaning. He also points out his own show's bias and mentions Politifact in his episode. To be fair also to John Oliver, Bill Oreilly calling out Trump for not checking facts is amazing, and Trump saying he has no time to check facts is even more amazingly scary.
croon 10y ago
I don't think anyone is unaware of his partisanship. But partisanship is only relevant if it affects reporting, which by your statement would seem like we are of opposite convictions. I believe both the old Daily Show (and likely the new one as well, but I never watch it) and Last Week Tonight work really hard to put everything they report/joke about in a relevant context without leaving anything out, and I have yet to see anything hinting otherwise. I've seen a lot of critique for Clinton on Last Week Tonight, but even if I hadn't, why would that in any way affect their Trump coverage (if still factual)? But speaking of politifact [1] [2]: Is it somehow disingenuous to report on Trumps blatant lies? I find it wholly unsurprising that all politicians lie more than "regular people", but I find it supremely horrifying the amount of Trumps lies that are swallowed whole to the extent that Hillary is the one portrayed as "crooked" when comparing these statistics. [1] http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ [2] http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
- lake99 10y ago
  > But partisanship is only relevant if it affects reporting, It does, here. > which by your statement would seem like we are of opposite convictions. I have no idea what you mean. > without leaving anything out, and I have yet to see anything hinting otherwise. I don't share your belief. Haven't you seen his hit-piece on third-party candidates? You had two big candidates with little or no integrity, and yet, he paints the third party candidates as not even worthy of consideration because they said one or to silly things, or were unaware of some details. > why would that in any way affect their Trump coverage (if still factual)? Would you react the same way about an anti-Hillary piece magnifying her every flaw, when her opponents are just as (or more) flawed? I'd not bat an eyelid if such things were coming out of party propaganda mouthpieces. I feel very differently about it coming out of HBO. > Is it somehow disingenuous to report on Trumps blatant lies? Not even remotely close to what I wrote. > when comparing these statistics The statistics are garbage. There is no science there. Politifact has some value in that they do some legwork to find primary sources. Readers can read those sources and come to their own conclusions. Think of Politifact like Wikipedia: you can find a good number of primary sources linked from there. But like Wikipedia, they are not the final authority on these matters. Politifact's choice of topics to investigate are not representative of a person, and their verdicts are often whimsical.
lambertsimnel 10y ago
While I agree that exposing untruths (and reporting facts) is important, I welcome obvious partisanship. I believe that all journalists and news organisations have biases, but feel they ought to conceal them. Having an opinion doesn't prevent anyone from telling the truth. All news reporting is selective, even if it is somehow unbiased. I like multiple-award-winning journalist Clare Sambrook's idea of investigative comment: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/anthony-barnett/clare-wins-again-investigative-comment-and-future-of-journalism-on-web https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/anthony-barnett/cla...
mhurron 10y ago
The show was about Trump, and only about Trump. Why would they bring up anyone else? And stating that Trump made those statements is true, saying that others also make idiotic statements does not change that.
- lake99 10y ago
  These are pretty much the defining characteristics of a hit piece. I do not enjoy such things, and I do not recommend such things, for reasons I have already given. Many people think that they are being educated (while being entertained) by such programs. In reality, they develop a very distorted view of politics and of reality. If the media keeps at it, the next two candidates will be no different from Clinton and Trump. Who am I kidding? This is what will happen.
  - mhurron 10y ago
    So if you don't go into off topic material, it is a hit piece? Focus on the topic is also the defining characteristic of a good article.
    - lake99 10y ago
      > So if you don't go into off topic material, it is a hit piece? That question can't be answered. What do you think the topic of this piece was? The title was "President-Elect Trump". The piece was not about "let's talk about Trump as the future president". Rather, it was about, "things are going to get frighteningly bad under Trump". Staying on topic and selective blindness are very different things. The latter was on bold display here, and is a defining characteristic of a hit piece.
deno 10y ago
Politifact is infamous for their bias. Here’s an example of them rating the same exact statement very differently, depending on who made it: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/... http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/ http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/do... There are numerous studies that also show significant selection bias, that is they cherry-pick statements they fact-check. Politifact itself makes no attempt to evaluate and correct for their own bias. The newspaper that runs it is liberal leaning, and has endorsed Hillary Clinton. Because of the fact that Politifact tries to appear unbiased, their apparent bias is even more disappointing. Truly neutral fact-checking is something that would be very desirable. Perhaps the only way this will ever happen is by some sort of aggregation of left- and right-leaning “fact-checking.” Sort of like metacritic.
- lake99 10y ago
  Yes, I have written about this in my later comments.
- lightbyte 10y ago
  Those are not the exact same statements at all, they are talking about two (similar sounding) different things.
  - deno 10y ago
    What different things?
- zaphods-towel 10y ago
  Those are different claims. Bernie specifies that he's talking about youths who only had a high school degree or dropped out. Further, Bernie's campaign replied to Politifact's questions and pointed them to a specific source. Trump made a completely different claim (about all African-American youths), and then ignored Politifact's questions. Trump's claim is wrong, and Bernie's is coming from a slightly weird source but has reasonable support. Further, Trump's campaign refuses to provide support...so of course they're not going to have as favorable a response... they don't even claim to have support for their statement.

by lake99 10y ago

leonroy 10y ago

John Oliver clearly has a political leaning but I don't believe he states anything untrue as fact.

lake99 10y ago
That was not my point. Where exactly did I say he does that? He commits glaring omissions in favour of the people on his side.
- tempestn 10y ago
  I agree with you that reporting selective truths can still be a very strong form of bias. However, Oliver is completely open about the fact that he's entirely biased. It's clearly editorial. (And also clearly a comedy, not a serious news program.) I could still see an argument that the bias is unfair, but in my opinion far more insidious are organizations like Breitbart (and I'm sure some left-leaning ones as well) that use this selective truth-telling to serve their biases while making an effort to appear unbiased.

nosequel 10y ago

To be fair to John Oliver, in the episode he points out stuff from both sides, calling out how many fact news articles are left-leaning. He also points out his own show's bias and mentions Politifact in his episode. To be fair also to John Oliver, Bill Oreilly calling out Trump for not checking facts is amazing, and Trump saying he has no time to check facts is even more amazingly scary.

croon 10y ago

I don't think anyone is unaware of his partisanship. But partisanship is only relevant if it affects reporting, which by your statement would seem like we are of opposite convictions. I believe both the old Daily Show (and likely the new one as well, but I never watch it) and Last Week Tonight work really hard to put everything they report/joke about in a relevant context without leaving anything out, and I have yet to see anything hinting otherwise. I've seen a lot of critique for Clinton on Last Week Tonight, but even if I hadn't, why would that in any way affect their Trump coverage (if still factual)? But speaking of politifact [1] [2]: Is it somehow disingenuous to report on Trumps blatant lies? I find it wholly unsurprising that all politicians lie more than "regular people", but I find it supremely horrifying the amount of Trumps lies that are swallowed whole to the extent that Hillary is the one portrayed as "crooked" when comparing these statistics. [1] http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ [2] http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

lake99 10y ago
> But partisanship is only relevant if it affects reporting, It does, here. > which by your statement would seem like we are of opposite convictions. I have no idea what you mean. > without leaving anything out, and I have yet to see anything hinting otherwise. I don't share your belief. Haven't you seen his hit-piece on third-party candidates? You had two big candidates with little or no integrity, and yet, he paints the third party candidates as not even worthy of consideration because they said one or to silly things, or were unaware of some details. > why would that in any way affect their Trump coverage (if still factual)? Would you react the same way about an anti-Hillary piece magnifying her every flaw, when her opponents are just as (or more) flawed? I'd not bat an eyelid if such things were coming out of party propaganda mouthpieces. I feel very differently about it coming out of HBO. > Is it somehow disingenuous to report on Trumps blatant lies? Not even remotely close to what I wrote. > when comparing these statistics The statistics are garbage. There is no science there. Politifact has some value in that they do some legwork to find primary sources. Readers can read those sources and come to their own conclusions. Think of Politifact like Wikipedia: you can find a good number of primary sources linked from there. But like Wikipedia, they are not the final authority on these matters. Politifact's choice of topics to investigate are not representative of a person, and their verdicts are often whimsical.

lambertsimnel 10y ago

While I agree that exposing untruths (and reporting facts) is important, I welcome obvious partisanship. I believe that all journalists and news organisations have biases, but feel they ought to conceal them. Having an opinion doesn't prevent anyone from telling the truth. All news reporting is selective, even if it is somehow unbiased. I like multiple-award-winning journalist Clare Sambrook's idea of investigative comment: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/anthony-barnett/clare-wins-again-investigative-comment-and-future-of-journalism-on-web https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/anthony-barnett/cla...

mhurron 10y ago

The show was about Trump, and only about Trump. Why would they bring up anyone else? And stating that Trump made those statements is true, saying that others also make idiotic statements does not change that.

lake99 10y ago
These are pretty much the defining characteristics of a hit piece. I do not enjoy such things, and I do not recommend such things, for reasons I have already given. Many people think that they are being educated (while being entertained) by such programs. In reality, they develop a very distorted view of politics and of reality. If the media keeps at it, the next two candidates will be no different from Clinton and Trump. Who am I kidding? This is what will happen.
- mhurron 10y ago
  So if you don't go into off topic material, it is a hit piece? Focus on the topic is also the defining characteristic of a good article.
  - lake99 10y ago
    > So if you don't go into off topic material, it is a hit piece? That question can't be answered. What do you think the topic of this piece was? The title was "President-Elect Trump". The piece was not about "let's talk about Trump as the future president". Rather, it was about, "things are going to get frighteningly bad under Trump". Staying on topic and selective blindness are very different things. The latter was on bold display here, and is a defining characteristic of a hit piece.

deno 10y ago

Politifact is infamous for their bias. Here’s an example of them rating the same exact statement very differently, depending on who made it: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/... http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/ http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/do... There are numerous studies that also show significant selection bias, that is they cherry-pick statements they fact-check. Politifact itself makes no attempt to evaluate and correct for their own bias. The newspaper that runs it is liberal leaning, and has endorsed Hillary Clinton. Because of the fact that Politifact tries to appear unbiased, their apparent bias is even more disappointing. Truly neutral fact-checking is something that would be very desirable. Perhaps the only way this will ever happen is by some sort of aggregation of left- and right-leaning “fact-checking.” Sort of like metacritic.

lake99 10y ago
Yes, I have written about this in my later comments.
lightbyte 10y ago
Those are not the exact same statements at all, they are talking about two (similar sounding) different things.
- deno 10y ago
  What different things?
zaphods-towel 10y ago
Those are different claims. Bernie specifies that he's talking about youths who only had a high school degree or dropped out. Further, Bernie's campaign replied to Politifact's questions and pointed them to a specific source. Trump made a completely different claim (about all African-American youths), and then ignored Politifact's questions. Trump's claim is wrong, and Bernie's is coming from a slightly weird source but has reasonable support. Further, Trump's campaign refuses to provide support...so of course they're not going to have as favorable a response... they don't even claim to have support for their statement.