4 ms·

I think the key question isn't which political agenda they have, but whether they report facts or opinions. In that regard, WaPo is pretty good but you can sti

I think the key question isn't which political agenda they have, but whether they report facts or opinions. In that regard, WaPo is pretty good but you can still do better: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/

axaxs 6y ago
It's not nearly that simple. You can essentially print an opinion based only in fact, both by picking carefully which stories you cover, and also which details of which story you choose to report. It's completely possible to frame the exact same story as either left wing or right wing using only facts. If you want recent proof, look at that debacle with that Toledo kid. Some reported police shoot an armed thug, some report police shoot an unarmed kid. The video proof shows neither side is telling the whole truth.
ufmace 6y ago
That isn't really how it works anymore. It's possible (and standard) to push any political agenda without ever stating an opinion directly. It's all about which specific facts you choose to report and which you choose to ignore. It's very easy to select and report only facts that make group A look good, or only facts that make them look bad. In that way, 2 news sources can give people the opposite opinion without anyone ever stating an opinion or saying something that isn't true.
- frogpelt 6y ago
  And furthermore, public sentiment (and therefore elections) are decided by what the main sources of media determine is the most important news. Example: Cops have shot a thousand people a year for several years in a row (maybe a decade). About 300 of those each year have been black, which is a disproportionate amount by some measures. However, it is nowhere near the biggest problem in our country even for black people. But because the media has chosen to report on that problem near constantly since Colin Kaepernick took a knee, it has dominated the public consciousness and therefore influences thousands of people to loot, burn, protest, riot and thousands more to develop opinions and attitudes that create more and more division in our country. Most of what they report is factual but is it as important as the lofty position they are giving it in the news? Is it helping?
  - shigawire 6y ago
    Yes - cops should kill fewer people.
    - MathCodeLove 6y ago
      What does that statement have to do with the comment you're responding to? Yes cops should kill fewer people, but as the person to whom you replied mentioned, police violence is far from the most serious issue facing the US currently. Let's get outraged at the obesity epidemic, let's revolt against black on black violence in the inner cities, let's "defund" platforms which encourage division and turmoil. Even my comment is derivative, the point is that news and media outlets are able to control public opinion even by being honest and factual. By simply ignoring some facts it's trivial for these outlets to skew their audiences perspectives on current events. The whole "left vs right" ideology is toxic and cancerous to a healthy society and it sickens me. It's increasingly difficult to hold a moderate opinion about a subject without being demonized by one group of extremists or another.
      - A_non_e-moose 6y ago
        See John Cleese on Extremism https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4 The "you're either with us or against us" mentality leads to the eradication of moderates and further extremism. A healthy society needs balance. How can we counteract this?
        prox 6y ago
        - Cutting down on high noise / low effort social media - Reflection on whether the article you just read made you feel good or you learned something, find on the ground experts in fields. - Debating with your “enemy” in a Socratic Way - A true intolerant likes wrestling in the mud and stay there.
      - deanCommie 6y ago
        > Let's get outraged at the obesity epidemic Michelle Obama tried to make this her primary focus through the entire Obama administration. Like everything else the Obamas did, the Right wing that is currently engaging in the same whataboutism and dogwhistles as this sentence, chastised it at the time as elitist and un-american. > let's revolt against black on black violence in the inner cities * https://www.afterschoolalliance.org/afterschoolsnack/VOX-5-Reasons-why-Black-on-Black-crime-is-not-a-valid_09-08-2020.cfm https://www.afterschoolalliance.org/afterschoolsnack/VOX-5-R... * https://abcnews.go.com/US/black-black-crime-loaded-controversial-phrase-heard-amid/story?id=72051613 https://abcnews.go.com/US/black-black-crime-loaded-controver... > let's "defund" platforms which encourage division and turmoil. While I broadly agree with you that social media platforms are a problem that needs fixing, "defunding" them is a nonsensical statement that only makes sense in reference and in direct contrast to "defunding the police". These platforms are not "funded" because "funding" in this context refers to allocation decisions of PUBLIC TAXPAYER FUNDS. Private companies are not collecting tax dollars then spending them on fun riot gear to go cosplaying in as they gas people exercising their first amendment rights. The whole premise of "defunding the police" is to reallocate public funds to different programs that we currently task our police with (mental health, drug addiction, sex work, etc))
readflaggedcomm 6y ago
The reasoning of which was widely derided when Kellyanne Conway offered alternative facts to explain a situation. People don't want to hear reasoning, they want to be angry.

axaxs 6y ago

It's not nearly that simple. You can essentially print an opinion based only in fact, both by picking carefully which stories you cover, and also which details of which story you choose to report. It's completely possible to frame the exact same story as either left wing or right wing using only facts. If you want recent proof, look at that debacle with that Toledo kid. Some reported police shoot an armed thug, some report police shoot an unarmed kid. The video proof shows neither side is telling the whole truth.

ufmace 6y ago

That isn't really how it works anymore. It's possible (and standard) to push any political agenda without ever stating an opinion directly. It's all about which specific facts you choose to report and which you choose to ignore. It's very easy to select and report only facts that make group A look good, or only facts that make them look bad. In that way, 2 news sources can give people the opposite opinion without anyone ever stating an opinion or saying something that isn't true.

frogpelt 6y ago
And furthermore, public sentiment (and therefore elections) are decided by what the main sources of media determine is the most important news. Example: Cops have shot a thousand people a year for several years in a row (maybe a decade). About 300 of those each year have been black, which is a disproportionate amount by some measures. However, it is nowhere near the biggest problem in our country even for black people. But because the media has chosen to report on that problem near constantly since Colin Kaepernick took a knee, it has dominated the public consciousness and therefore influences thousands of people to loot, burn, protest, riot and thousands more to develop opinions and attitudes that create more and more division in our country. Most of what they report is factual but is it as important as the lofty position they are giving it in the news? Is it helping?
- shigawire 6y ago
  Yes - cops should kill fewer people.
  - MathCodeLove 6y ago
    What does that statement have to do with the comment you're responding to? Yes cops should kill fewer people, but as the person to whom you replied mentioned, police violence is far from the most serious issue facing the US currently. Let's get outraged at the obesity epidemic, let's revolt against black on black violence in the inner cities, let's "defund" platforms which encourage division and turmoil. Even my comment is derivative, the point is that news and media outlets are able to control public opinion even by being honest and factual. By simply ignoring some facts it's trivial for these outlets to skew their audiences perspectives on current events. The whole "left vs right" ideology is toxic and cancerous to a healthy society and it sickens me. It's increasingly difficult to hold a moderate opinion about a subject without being demonized by one group of extremists or another.
    - A_non_e-moose 6y ago
      See John Cleese on Extremism https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4 The "you're either with us or against us" mentality leads to the eradication of moderates and further extremism. A healthy society needs balance. How can we counteract this?
      - prox 6y ago
        - Cutting down on high noise / low effort social media - Reflection on whether the article you just read made you feel good or you learned something, find on the ground experts in fields. - Debating with your “enemy” in a Socratic Way - A true intolerant likes wrestling in the mud and stay there.
    - deanCommie 6y ago
      > Let's get outraged at the obesity epidemic Michelle Obama tried to make this her primary focus through the entire Obama administration. Like everything else the Obamas did, the Right wing that is currently engaging in the same whataboutism and dogwhistles as this sentence, chastised it at the time as elitist and un-american. > let's revolt against black on black violence in the inner cities * https://www.afterschoolalliance.org/afterschoolsnack/VOX-5-Reasons-why-Black-on-Black-crime-is-not-a-valid_09-08-2020.cfm https://www.afterschoolalliance.org/afterschoolsnack/VOX-5-R... * https://abcnews.go.com/US/black-black-crime-loaded-controversial-phrase-heard-amid/story?id=72051613 https://abcnews.go.com/US/black-black-crime-loaded-controver... > let's "defund" platforms which encourage division and turmoil. While I broadly agree with you that social media platforms are a problem that needs fixing, "defunding" them is a nonsensical statement that only makes sense in reference and in direct contrast to "defunding the police". These platforms are not "funded" because "funding" in this context refers to allocation decisions of PUBLIC TAXPAYER FUNDS. Private companies are not collecting tax dollars then spending them on fun riot gear to go cosplaying in as they gas people exercising their first amendment rights. The whole premise of "defunding the police" is to reallocate public funds to different programs that we currently task our police with (mental health, drug addiction, sex work, etc))

readflaggedcomm 6y ago

The reasoning of which was widely derided when Kellyanne Conway offered alternative facts to explain a situation. People don't want to hear reasoning, they want to be angry.