Printable View
I prefer to read the news. I visit multiple news sites, I even visit Fox news once in a while when I've read something that I feel has the smell of bias for the dems.Quote:
For one thing, I read. Even in news organizations, opinion pieces are...distinct.
It seems fairly common that people believe opinion pieces are news or reflect the vast majority of society.
There's some bias about how people expect the majority to think the way they do. I don't remember what the name is, and don't feel like looking it up. Of course, you folks don't feel like looking it up, either.
Maybe you are tired from tracking trout...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Confirmation biases are effects in information processing. They differ from what is sometimes called the behavioral confirmation effect, commonly known as self-fulfilling prophecy, in which a person's expectations influence their own behavior, bringing about the expected result.
I never imagined I'd consider using X, but you've sent me looking and the consensus is that X is now the primary global trusted news source.
The consensus on X maybe...Quote:
the consensus is that X is now the primary global trusted news source.
I'm curious, do you think your printed media is more or less partisan than your TV media? And how does it compare to other streams (e.g. on line podcasts, radio etc)? Over here we generally accept that our printed media is highly partisan but our TV media is generally expected to be neutral. Particularly the BBC which has political neutrality enshrined in its charter but our other channels (e.g. ITV, Channel 4 and Sky) are also very neutral. Sky is part of the Murdoch empire so you'd expect it to have a right wing slant if anything but it really doesn't which I put down the Neutrality expectation we have over here (I've caught some articles from Sky in other countries, particularly Australia, and the right wing bias is easily detectable over there).Quote:
I prefer to read the news.
I don't know whether your printed media (I read the Economist, which is British) is more or less biased than TV, but it IS differently biased. TV is a visual medium that has to tell visual stories. That distorts both what news they report on and how they report on it. That isn't a left/right bias, that's a format bias. One aspect of this is that they have to be terribly shallow, or else they have to have a person sitting and speaking. Some concepts simply aren't visual, or could be except that nobody can get the necessary video, while others are terribly complicated to explain even moderately well through visual means. A simple example would be that demonstrating addition in a video takes a pretty long time to get across a very simple concept. Meanwhile, video really shines at showing division, and showing multiplication is usually censored.
Okay, that veered into humor, but you get the idea: TV has to show things that can be conveyed on TV, and it usually has to be shallow. Writing can explore subjects in much greater depth, can convey complex subjects, can cover subjects more cheaply, and can make terrific puns, all of which I appreciate.
The main reason is I find it more relaxing and more in depth. I can absorb it at my own pace. I can't speak to the second part because I don't listen to podcasts or radio news.Quote:
I'm curious, do you think your printed media is more or less partisan than your TV media? And how does it compare to other streams (e.g. on line podcasts, radio etc)?
That said, I do think it's easier to see a larger cross section of news sources online.
I'm curious what information lead you to that conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
I've never been on X so out of curiosity I Googled "What is the primary global trusted news source". This article seems to cover the subject,
https://today.yougov.com/politics/ar...mericans-trust
I looked at several reviews and none of them had X anywhere near being the most trusted news source.Quote:
Despite many Americans saying they consume news from social media, more believe it is untrustworthy than trustworthy, though YouTube and Linkedin are regarded slightly better than others. The least trusted social media platforms are TikTok, Facebook, and Snapchat. Truth Social — Donald Trump's platform — is the most polarizing, with Republicans being far more likely to trust it than Democrats. Among Republicans, Truth Social is the most trusted platform, but among Democrats, it is the least trusted. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to trust most other social media platforms, with the exception of X (previously Twitter). This marks a shift from last year's survey, which found greater trust in Twitter among Democrats than Republicans. In the past year, Democrats' trust in news from Truth Social and TikTok also has fallen.
How can YouTube be more trusted? It seems to me that it is a host for a bunch of videos. The videos can be trusted or not trusted, but is YouTube itself even a trustable object?
I have no idea. About the only thing I use YouTube for is to find videos on how to fix something. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
My GUESS is that it's trusted because people can usually find a video that tells them what they want to hear.
I agree and I highly recommend it. I spend time there when I want to know what is happening in the wider world without leftist corporate filtering. Unlike rubbish like CNN, which tries to tell you the "correct" opinions on worldly events, X gives it to you raw and unfiltered while encouraging you to think for yourself and form your own opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Quote:
the consensus is that X is now the primary global trusted news source.
But that statement isn't about whether X is a good/bad place to go for news. It's a claim that "the consensus is that X is now the primary global trusted news source".Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Since I haven't been able to find anything that comes close to supporting that claim, and you say you agree, then I'll ask you the same question I asked Dil, "what information lead you to that conclusion".
Oh there is one more huge thing I forgot to mention about X and it is perhaps the most important thing: X shows you everything and I mean everything. You will find out about things happening in the world that corporate media will NEVER EVER show you because it will undermine their own propaganda.
If I were to guess, I would say that corporate media houses like CNN, BBC, MSNBC etc only show you about 10% of what is happening in the world while also adding their own spin on it to influence your thinking.
It's real simple, X is where all the normal people are. The corporate media ecosystem is filled with far left lunatics and this is a minor demographic.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
That just a long winded way of saying you don't have any information to support the claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
If you say so.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Just pointing out the obvious. You've provided nothing but personal views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
That's ok, no rule against making unsupported claims.
You asked a question and I gave you an answer. You either didn't understand it or didn't like it so you decided on your own what the answer was. What was even the point of asking me that if you already knew the answer?
What in this statement,Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Answers this question,Quote:
It's real simple, X is where all the normal people are. The corporate media ecosystem is filled with far left lunatics and this is a minor demographic.
"what information lead you to that conclusion"
You haven't stated or provided any information, you just spout your unsupported personal views. Unless your answer to the question is, no information lead me to that conclusion, it's just my personal view.
The main justifications are the lack of censorship and "cancellation," direct information from primary sources and commentators, and easy identification of scripted content produced by corporations, shadowy "foundations," crooked NGOs, dicey para-regimes like the EU, and other propagandists.
I have no doubt that those are your beliefs and I have no desire to debate them. But your statement was,Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
I thought perhaps you have read/seen/heard some information that lead you to make that claim. I was curious about what "consensus" you were talking about.Quote:
the consensus is that X is now the primary global trusted news source.
I gave you the information I used.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/e...-b2645906.html Grok AI even identifies X as a source of misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
So the only information you used to support the claim,Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Is you personal opinion. Well, if that's all you got, Ok.Quote:
the consensus is that X is now the primary global trusted news source
Quote:
I don't know whether your printed media (I read the Economist, which is British) is more or less biased than TV, but it IS differently biased. TV is a visual medium that has to tell visual stories. That distorts both what news they report on and how they report on it. That isn't a left/right bias, that's a format bias. One aspect of this is that they have to be terribly shallow, or else they have to have a person sitting and speaking. Some concepts simply aren't visual, or could be except that nobody can get the necessary video, while others are terribly complicated to explain even moderately well through visual means. A simple example would be that demonstrating addition in a video takes a pretty long time to get across a very simple concept. Meanwhile, video really shines at showing division, and showing multiplication is usually censored.
Okay, that veered into humor, but you get the idea: TV has to show things that can be conveyed on TV, and it usually has to be shallow. Writing can explore subjects in much greater depth, can convey complex subjects, can cover subjects more cheaply, and can make terrific puns, all of which I appreciate.
Both useful responses, thank you. Reading between the lines I think you're both pretty much saying that you have bias/partisanship in both the TV media and the printed media (or at least, you're not saying there isn't partisanship in both). I hope that's a fair appraisal, correct me if not. I think that's pretty much what I expected because I certainly see partisanship in your TV media and I don't see anyone praising a lack of partisanship in your printed media whereas, over here, we do see partisanship in our printed media but you'll also see lots of Brits boasting (I believe validly) of the lack of partisanship in our TV media, particularly the BBC. To be honest, the biggest criticism of the Beeb is that it tends to "both sides" everything.Quote:
The main reason is I find it more relaxing and more in depth. I can absorb it at my own pace. I can't speak to the second part because I don't listen to podcasts or radio news.
That said, I do think it's easier to see a larger cross section of news sources online.
The online space is also interesting and I think Wes summed it up pretty nicely: " it's easier to see a larger cross section of news sources online." Most of my US media comes from on line and I try to make an effort to take in a cross section but I do think the on line space has a strong tendency to pander to peoples confirmation bias (as currently being demonstrated in this thread:rolleyes:), including my own. Indeed, it often does so algorithmically as a deliberate engagement tactic. I'm not sure I have a good answer for that.
I have recently started using Ground News because I like the way they amalgamate from different sides and also show metrics on whose reading/approving what articles. That helps me to identify if a particular news strain is being pushed by one side or the other. It also helps me identify if I'm in a bubble because I start seeing the same tags all the time. It doesn't necessarily tell me which bubble but it does identify the bubbles existence.
This is my daily reading list/links. Some are on the liberal side:
Glad to see Al Jazeera in there. I think there's a lot of prejudice against them as they were held up as a boogy man during the Iraq war but they're actually an extremely good source and can be relied on for a non-Western view.
If some sources posted here where on a paper material they would be very useful (_|_)
What is that symbol at the end? I only see it as a moon, but that's probably not what it is supposed to be.
Unfortunately the " _ " cannot be rounded or you would understand. But let's say it's the international symbol of Dems :P
I watched a documentary(I think on Prime Video) a few weeks ago, I believe it was called The Three Princes. It mentioned Al Jazeera was ran by Qatar. That surprised me, I don't know why. But Qatar has been known to push their on agenda on it. But it's still a good source for a non western view.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
The documentary was about the princes of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. Their personalities and the competitiveness between them. Qatar getting the World Cup was a big one up. Saudi Arabia and UAE are more aligned. I was surprised about the complexity of involvement in other countries that you just don't usually hear about. They got their fingers in many pies.
Edit: I do want to give a shout out to the AP. No one had mentioned them. Plus they have no paywall. lol
I checked it out and I liked it. It is on my news link list now. I hope its not on the "wipe" list :oQuote:
Edit: I do want to give a shout out to the AP. No one had mentioned them. Plus they have no paywall. lol
https://apnews.com/
The Independent? I'm sorry but I've reached the point where I dismiss anything written by left-leaning sources as lies and rubbish so whatever is in that article I'm not going to believe a word of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PlausiblyDamp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
https://m.economictimes.com/magazine.../115259902.cms
https://www.ndtv.com/feature/elon-mu...idence-7008712
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-...163201403.html
https://www.hindustantimes.com/trend...477257088.html
https://www.indy100.com/science-tech...misinformation
https://x.com/FortuneMagazine/status...05531494420724
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AUfuu2OtsZQ
https://fortune.com/2024/11/14/grok-...tion-spreader/
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a news outlet that doesn't cite "X" as a source repeatedly.
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Yeah, it is, but it has editorial independence and was set up with the same model as the BBC (it was basically an off shoot of the BBC World Service, not officially but the people responsible were all BBCWS). It's not my primary source but I watch it a lot and haven't detected a significant pro-state bias.Quote:
It mentioned Al Jazeera was ran by Qatar.
I do wish they hadn't been awarded the World Cup but that's an FA thing. Corrupt as all hell.
Translate: My affirmation bias is strong enough to put me in a bubble... and I'm proud of that.Quote:
I'm sorry but I've reached the point where I dismiss anything written by left-leaning sources as lies and rubbish so whatever is in that article I'm not going to believe a word of it.
The US used to have the, "fairness doctrine". Given the decline of broadcast news in general, in favor of other mediums, I'm not sure it would make a whole lot of difference one way or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I haven't notice a decline in the amount of news on TV. Though I have heard the viewership is on the decline. It feels like that's the case for broadcast TV in general because of all the streaming services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Not me I'm loyal. I'm an old school channel surfer. Can't do that on streaming services.
Yeah, I was talking a decline in viewership. There once was a time when it was just newspapers, then newspapers and radio, then newspapers, radio and TV, and now....it's all over the place. On the rare occasions that I do see TV news, though, I've noticed that it tends to be thinly veiled advertisements for other media content. There will be a national news piece, or two, depending on what is happening in the world, then there will be news...that relates to some other media interest. That may not be the case for "news only" stations like CNN, but for broadcasters with affiliates, like the old big 3 (NBC, ABC, CBS), there isn't much news on the news programs.
Very proud. I will NEVER accept far-left ideology and I will NEVER consider anyone who supports it a trustworthy source of information.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I'm fine with this. In fact, I prefer it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Of course you do.
The thing about bubbles, they eventually burst ;)
The reminds me of an old joke.
Did you blow bubbles when you were a kid?
Yes.
I heard he is back in town and looking for you :eek:
<accusation of bubbledom/>Quote:
I dismiss anything written by left-leaning sources as lies and rubbish so whatever is in that article I'm not going to believe a word of it
Wow. You moved those goalposts fast enough to beat Pele. It's almost as if you'd had a creeping realisation that the first post was embarrassingly cultish.Quote:
I will NEVER accept far-left ideology and I will NEVER consider anyone who supports it a trustworthy source of information.
To be honest I have no idea what you're talking about. Embarrassed about what exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
And before newspapers,Quote:
There once was a time when it was just newspapers, then newspapers and radio, then newspapers, radio and TV, and now....it's all over the place.
Yeah, but that was the easy part. It was when they started adding a cartoon section that it got tricky.
The thread went off the rails a long time ago. The people won, the vote was too big to rig this time. Get over the butt-hurt and embrace the path forward.
Hopefully we'll see the same in Canada, UK, Germany, France, et al. so we can start picking up the pieces of the mess that's been made. This is a win for everybody.
So the previous election was small enough to be rigged? Interesting how if there was such widespread cheating etc. that absolutely no evidence was produced in 4 years, even to the point that people claiming there was cheating ended up being sued for their false claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
I wish I could be this optimistic. I believe this is only a temporary reprieve and in the end "they" will come back stronger than ever. "They" are actual sociopaths who have zero inhibitions whatsoever which gives them a significant advantage over the good side who are hamstrung by their integrity and sense of fair play. Unless the side of good learns how to play dirty they will always lose the long game.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
I feel like a picture paints a thousand words:-Quote:
Get over the butt-hurt and embrace the path forward.
Attachment 193793
No, you misunderstand. Not the election, but the true vote count difference... without thumbs on scales, dead votes, "counting" that went on for days and days trying to slide faulty ballots through, "losing" certain other ballots, shenanigans keeping dropped-out candidates on ballots, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by PlausiblyDamp
You know, the banana republicanism of the Dems.
You have a simple choice. You can be bitter and let your hostility fester, hating yourself your neighbor and country - or you can walk into the light and enjoy the gradual return to normalcy. Reagan-Clintonism is over, just like Thatcher-Blairism. The Uniparty has been knocked back on its globalist heels.
So I presume there is evidence of this, by which I mean actual, provable evidence - not random youtube videos. Evidence that would stand up in court for example?Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
None of what you claim has proven to be true, nearly all of the accusations have been proven to be false, and yet people still cling to the lie. If there was the slightest actual proof then it would have been used in a court of law, not to make youtube videos.
You must be talking to the person in the mirror. Your still are spreading lies about the 2020 election.Quote:
You have a simple choice. You can be bitter and let your hostility fester, hating yourself your neighbor and country
Without getting into the absurdity, I wish you'd do this yourself. When you make a statement like this, you sound like you have a vision. I've always wanted to hear what it was that you saw. You've only said what you don't want, and it appears to be everything. There is a way that Reagan and Clinton were kind of similar, but mostly they were not. When you take away somewhat right and somewhat left....what remains? DDay (where IS that guy?) is Libertarian, I'm Liberal with old fashioned type of fiscal conservative, Niya is conservative, Sapator is a wonderful lunatic, but what ARE you?Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Bashing is easier than building.
I'm willing to accept that label since it most closely aligns with my values but I am actually not a conservative. For example, I have no hard stance one way or the other on abortion while true conservatives are staunchly pro-life. Also, while I prefer the value systems of classical Abrahamic religions over the grotesque religion of the left, I am no Bible-thumper. I'm somewhere between an atheist and an agnostic. These things disqualify me from being considered a true conservative and when it comes to technological advancement I am aggressively progressive. AI, fusion, colonizing Mars, mining asteroids, I say bring it on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I think that's incorrect outside of the USA. Over here almost nobody is against abortion, at least in the first 2 trimesters (there's discussion around late stage abortions but the prevailing opinion on both the right and left is that it may be a necessary procedure for the health of the mother. You wouldn't find much support for it being a purely discretionary procedure on either side. Beyond that the difference is largely in the nuance). There's also no real pushback against issues like Gay Marriage and it was actually a Tory government that legalised it (David Cameron). There's nothing "conservative" about resistance to those things.Quote:
true conservatives are staunchly pro-life
I think it's got tied up with conservatism in the USA mainly due to the entanglement of religion with the right.
That's a very valid observation. There are plenty of conservatives that are not pro life. But because of the power religion has gained in the Republican party, it's political suicide not to act pro life.Quote:
I think it's got tied up with conservatism in the USA mainly due to the entanglement of religion with the right.
Nobody can be all that well defined by a single word...well, now that I think about it, I DO know a few people who can be pretty thoroughly defined by a single word, but not THAT single word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
A 1D axis of political views is really easy to get our heads around, but is also really wrong. I've seen a 2D space for political views, and that's a bit better, though still incomplete. I think that a series of 2D spaces, perhaps one for social issues, one for economics, and so forth, would be more representative...but rather hopeless for conveying information.