Media Bias

[pErvinalia]

You don't have to be a communist/socialist to be a lefty. Northern European social democracies could be considered left on a world scale.

[JimC]

It all depends on your definition of "left". If we take it as relative, that's one thing, but to me, true, full-on left-wing politics involves not an accomodation with capitalism, but its destruction, by violence or otherwise. In that sense, I'm not a true leftist...

[pErvinalia]

Brian would undoubtedly agree with you, but I don't. Left is obviously a scale. Commies are more left, social democrats are less left, but still considerably left.

[Hermit]

No need. It's times like these when folksy sayings shine: even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Not quite. The story so far:

1) On September 27, 2020 Project Veritas published a video purporting to prove the occurrence of widespread illegal voting practices.

2) In September and October 2020 the New York Times published several articles reviewing the video. Among them one was titled "Researchers Say a Project Veritas Video Accusing Ilhan Omar of Voter Fraud Was a Coordinated Disinformation Campaign", another "Project Veritas Releases Misleading Video, Part of What Experts Call a Coordinated Effort" and yet another "False Voter Fraud Stories Are Churning on Conservative News Sites".

3) Project Veritas sued the writers of the above articles and the publisher, the New York Times, on the grounds of defamation, alleging that Defendants published false and defamatory statements impugning Veritas’ journalism with reckless disregard for the falsity of those statements.

4) The New York Times moved to have defamation case thrown out of court on the grounds of being frivolous and various other reasons.

5) The Supreme court of the state of New York County of Westchester has decided against the New York Times. The defamation case brought on by Project Veritas can go ahead.

In summary:

a) The broken clock was correct once. The defamation case can go ahead.

b) Nothing has been decided concerning the heart of the case, that is to say whether the New York Times and the authors whose articles it published were defamatory.

[Hermit]

Name your main lefty outlet...

My daily newspaper; De Volkskrant.

Formerly a leading centre-left Catholic broadsheet, de Volkskrant today is a medium-sized centrist compact.

De Volkskrant was founded in 1919 and has been a daily morning newspaper since 1921. Originally de Volkskrant was a Roman Catholic newspaper closely linked to the Catholic People's Party and the Catholic pillar. The paper temporarily ceased publication in 1941.

On its re-founding in 1945, its office moved from Den Bosch to Amsterdam. It became a left-wing newspaper in the 1960s, but began softening its stance in 1980.

From an article published by the Volkskrant in 2006:

The highlight and also the last belch of the leftist sense of life was the infamous Koninginnedag newspaper of 1 May 1980. 'No home, no coronation' was the squatter's cry with which large-scale riots were announced during the inauguration of Queen Beatrix. The riots started and de Volkskrant solidified itself with the riot. The commentary mentioned "what presents itself as fierce as the movement of eighty".

Out of the fights between squatters and police, a social struggle was constructed that was not there. The harvest amounted to fourteen hundred denunciations. The editors were ashamed, and at the same time the verdict was that 'apparently many readers were more conservative than we thought', as one editor put it. The journalist as a member of the vanguard, but vanguard of what? In the early 1980s, the idea of ​​emancipation had become an empty shell, but another message was missing and, as with the brothers and sisters of the PvdA, a period of sourness and horror vacui began.

De Volkskrant thus remained faithful to progressiveness, albeit gradually more and more in a homeopathic dilution.

[Brian Peacock]

I don't remember anything they did, which makes me think them unreliable. ...

Then you're probably smoking too much of that wacky baccy.

[Scot Dutchy]

I hated it when "De Volks" went from a broadsheet to tabloid. I used to read the analogue paper on my way to work. When it became a tabloid there was no long articles anymore. Luckily that was just before my retirement.
Today there is no hint of its catholic roots. "Het Parool" was a protestant newspaper from Amsterdam. There were few national papers. "Trouw" was another paper from the protestant side and now is very left wing but is not really a national paper and concentrates on Amsterdam. In Den Haag we always had the Haagsche Courant as local paper. Politically it was dead. We had earlier "Het Vaderland" which was extreme right wing but disappeared in the 80's.
Almost all the newspapers here were evening papers.

[Seabass]

[Hermit]

[Brian Peacock]

That's got to be a poe.

[Hermit]

That's got to be a poe.

The footage looks real enough to me.

For those who suffer the Daily Show's geoblockage and have no VPN to circumvent it, go here to view the clip. It's been around for a couple of years now.

[rainbow]

How do we define bias?

https://aibrt.org/index.php/internet-studies

This guy Epstein talks about it but never shows how it's measured.
...and if it can be measured then how can one determine that the methodology for detecting bias is not biased.

Forgive a forgetful African if this topic has already been covered in this thread.

[Cunt]

How do we define bias?

https://aibrt.org/index.php/internet-studies

This guy Epstein talks about it but never shows how it's measured.
...and if it can be measured then how can one determine that the methodology for detecting bias is not biased.

Forgive a forgetful African if this topic has already been covered in this thread.

I think a reasonable method is to identify a Dem/Rep dividing issue, and see how rules are applied around it. Free speech vs hate speech, for an example.

Trouble is, some Dems are unwilling to admit that some of their issues are political at all.

[Seabass]

Robert Reich breaks down how the mainstream media draws a false equivalence between the right and the left and misleads the public about what's really at stake.

[Brian Peacock]

There was a graphic in there which summed things up nicely...

.