Media Bias

[Scot Dutchy]

But Scot, if you go to the opposite end of the spectrum, there will be no information at all that you can trust...

Well Jim who can you trust that is exactly the problem?

[Brian Peacock]

I'm more inclined to sceptical reliablism than radical falliblism when it comes to epistemological matters, but I can understand why you might not be.

[JimC]

But Scot, if you go to the opposite end of the spectrum, there will be no information at all that you can trust...

Well Jim who can you trust that is exactly the problem?

Multiple sources are best, with at least some being neutral, academic institutions...

Otherwise, just make shit up...

[Scot Dutchy]

But Scot, if you go to the opposite end of the spectrum, there will be no information at all that you can trust...

Well Jim who can you trust that is exactly the problem?

Multiple sources are best, with at least some being neutral, academic institutions...

Otherwise, just make shit up...

The trouble is at source; definitions and exclusions. I found that out as a database administrator working for the government. Raw data is just that raw. It needs to be polished.

[Cunt]

But Scot, if you go to the opposite end of the spectrum, there will be no information at all that you can trust...

Well Jim who can you trust that is exactly the problem?

Multiple sources are best, with at least some being neutral, academic institutions...

Otherwise, just make shit up...

The trouble is at source; definitions and exclusions. I found that out as a database administrator working for the government. Raw data is just that raw. It needs to be polished.

The concept of p-hacking has to be more well known.

Dinking with the data until it gives you the 'p-value' you want is a neat trick, but usually it IS a trick.

[pErvinalia]

What does Trump have to do with vaccines?

Operation Warp Speed.

Aren't most of the vaccines European?

[rainbow]

I don't have such a link, but I think I have drawn your attention to the part I wanted to.

...so pulled from your rectum.

OK

[rainbow]

I'm more inclined to sceptical reliablism than radical falliblism when it comes to epistemological matters, but I can understand why you might not be.

If you step on a railway line there is a 99.999% chance that you'll not be run over by a train. It stands to reason that you're more likely to be assassinated by a Deep State Operative.

Therefore the Deep State is more Real than the Railways.

[Joe]

But Scot, if you go to the opposite end of the spectrum, there will be no information at all that you can trust...

Well Jim who can you trust that is exactly the problem?

Multiple sources are best, with at least some being neutral, academic institutions...

Otherwise, just make shit up...

Peer reviewed sources that show their data and work and present their interpretations in a logically sound way are a start, but the question isn't trust. Brian's term "sceptical reliabilism" seems a better fit to me.

[Cunt]

I don't have such a link, but I think I have drawn your attention to the part I wanted to.

...so pulled from your rectum.

OK

No, pulled from a faulty memory. But it WAS a fact, if you follow along further...

[Seabass]

As Americans joined nationwide protests against racial injustice following the police killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd in 2020, right-wing media’s response was vicious and divisive. Conservative media figures painted Black activists as violent terrorists endangering the lives of its viewers and civilization itself, while outlets like Fox News celebrated white, right-wing vigilantes as heroes, the true victims of law enforcement.

Fox fed its audience wildly inaccurate caricatures of protests in cities across the country, suggested that urban areas were being consumed by violence, and encouraged Trump to re-establish “law and order.”

While right-wing and white supremacist groups took advantage of the escalating situation to incite violence, far-right personalities focused on the police narrative that the protesters are violent to justify police's use of excessive force and violence against peaceful protesters, and they relentlessly hyped up the supposed threats posed by anti-fascists.

Trump used this fearmongering to justify military action and attack his political enemies. The narrative that anti-fascists were behind the violence at protests caused panic in small towns across the U.S., where residents gathered to defend their homes from attacks that never happened.

[Cunt]

If you take two groups from opposite political sides...
1) Aunt Teefa
2) Pride of Boys

(imaginary groups for illustration)

If 1 is left-wing and 2 is right-wing, then one could look for media bias by seeing how many channels paint one group as favourable, vs how many paint the other group as favourable...

This could show bias, if one were to look.

Of course, one would have to look at BOTH possibilities, and might find much bias on one side...

[pErvinalia]

Oh look, false equivalence. That's another fallacy.

[Cunt]

Oh look, false equivalence. That's another fallacy.

Are you saying that looking at bias is a fallacy?

If there were a right wing, and left wing group, one could see the bias reflected in their coverage by media.

But anyway, maybe my fallacy is too complicated for you to explain.

In other news...

Something weird happened to me, while listening to an asshole lately.

This podcaster (who has been banned for reasons everywhere) had, like many, compared Trump holding out in the whitehouse, to that mob movie where the guy is snorting coke and machinegunning from behind a desk (Pacino?)

Anyway, he 'crossed a line' when he said 'president Trump, if you are listening, PLEASE do this'

I've noticed that ALL the shows/comics/etc. seem to include a bit of bowing and scraping to make clear that they aren't openly calling for violence. This guy does so, and I didn't even notice how different it was.

Were comics/pundits etc. more 'raw' about calls to violence 10 and 20 years ago?

Anyway, I found it quite jarring, and it wasn't his comedy - which wasn't all that good. It was just the fact that he didn't offer any disclaimer.

[pErvinalia]

Oh look, false equivalence. That's another fallacy.

Are you saying that looking at bias is a fallacy?

No, because that wasn't what you were doing. You set up a false equivalence where you equated Antifa to Proud Boys.