Aftermath - the 2021 elections
Well that is pretty much the definition of partisanship. The world as I see it is fact, and if you don't share my worldview, well then you have your facts wrong.
Smedley said:
Well that is pretty much the definition of partisanship. The world as I see it is fact, and if you don't share my worldview, well then you have your facts wrong.
Depends on what the subject is. For example, the earth isn't flat.
Also, It is a fact that there's a whole other thread about the topic of criticizing the media.
Smedley said:
Well that is pretty much the definition of partisanship. The world as I see it is fact, and if you don't share my worldview, well then you have your facts wrong.
recognizing fact from fiction is not partisanship.
and, fwiw, I strongly criticized much of the Times' coverage of Trump.
nohero said:
Smedley said:
Well that is pretty much the definition of partisanship. The world as I see it is fact, and if you don't share my worldview, well then you have your facts wrong.
Depends on what the subject is. For example, the earth isn't flat.
Also, It is a fact that there's a whole other thread about the topic of criticizing the media.
Speaking of flat earth, the notion that CNN and NYT are systematically biased against the left is about a half notch in from that on the "out there" scale.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
What "nuance" am I missing?
all of it.
it’s albatross
Smedley said:
nohero said:
Smedley said:
Well that is pretty much the definition of partisanship. The world as I see it is fact, and if you don't share my worldview, well then you have your facts wrong.
Depends on what the subject is. For example, the earth isn't flat.
Also, It is a fact that there's a whole other thread about the topic of criticizing the media.
Speaking of flat earth, the notion that CNN and NYT are systematically biased against the left is about a half notch in from that on the "out there" scale.
you know, I have posted numerous examples of the perfidy of NYT and CNN. You are more than welcome to pick one and tell us why that example is wrong. Which is the honest way to argue your position.
Instead, you toss platitudes from up on high and never engage in the details.
All you've been doing is cherry picking articles that fit your narrative. (There's that word again.) You've probably cited about 0.0000000000000001% of CNN and NYT aggregate coverage recently. Each one of the individual articles is debatable in terms of fairness, but even if they were anti-dem, what does that say about the overall coverage slant? Virtually nada.
how about the cnn home page right now. Bunch of articles about the trump coup. Then first headline mentioning current WH occupant is "Joe Biden and the American economy just got a double dose of good news".
perhaps CNN's usual anti-dem editor is off today?
Smedley said:
All you've been doing is cherry picking articles that fit your narrative. (There's that word again.) You've probably cited about 0.0000000000000001% of CNN and NYT aggregate coverage recently. Each one of the individual articles is debatable in terms of fairness, but even if they were anti-dem, what does that say about the overall coverage slant? Virtually nada.
how about the cnn home page right now. Bunch of articles about the trump coup. Then first headline mentioning current WH occupant is "Joe Biden and the American economy just got a double dose of good news".
perhaps CNN's usual anti-dem editor is off today?
can't argue details can you.
ok.
And any criticism of the media is off-base because it doesn't include 100% of the coverage?
Accurate coverage doesn't require commentary because it's what to be expected. You don't get credit for doing your job. But since media coverage is central to public perception, (which somehow I don't think you fully appreciate) bad coverage has to be pointed out for what it is.
Ok. CNN and NYT slant anti-Dem.
Now excuse me while I go watch The Bizarro Jerry.
Smedley said:
Ok. CNN and NYT slant anti-Dem.
Now excuse me while I go watch The Bizarro Jerry.
You know, for someone who clearly reads nothing about media criticism, you're awfully sure of yourself.
There are a number of media bias charts out there, all of which show CNN as either solidly left, or at least left-leaning. Just Google “media outlet bias” and click images. These are based on a body of work, rather than just cherry-picked, one-off articles.
I would post one or more of these charts, but why bother? You’d say every source is horrible, they’re wrong, and you’re right. Yawn.
Smedley said:
There are a number of media bias charts out there, all of which show CNN as either solidly left, or at least left-leaning. Just Google “media outlet bias” and click images. These are based on a body of work, rather than just cherry-picked, one-off articles.
I would post one or more of these charts, but why bother? You’d say every source is horrible, they’re wrong, and you’re right. Yawn.
A chart?
lol
let me ask you this - how would you rate the recent grossly inaccurate CNN piece on inflation? left or right?
how about the piece whose headline shouted about empty shelves but whose body never even mentioned them? left or right?
Frankly, DB, it could just be incompetence— a rush to report something — that 24 hour news hole needs filling — breaking news, even incorrectly, is their mantra.
CNN could have used this…
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
There are a number of media bias charts out there, all of which show CNN as either solidly left, or at least left-leaning. Just Google “media outlet bias” and click images. These are based on a body of work, rather than just cherry-picked, one-off articles.
I would post one or more of these charts, but why bother? You’d say every source is horrible, they’re wrong, and you’re right. Yawn.
A chart?
lol
Man you can really get imbecilic when digging in. What about a chart elicits "lol"? Do you not believe in charts (or, at least the ones that don't fit your narrative)?
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
There are a number of media bias charts out there, all of which show CNN as either solidly left, or at least left-leaning. Just Google “media outlet bias” and click images. These are based on a body of work, rather than just cherry-picked, one-off articles.
I would post one or more of these charts, but why bother? You’d say every source is horrible, they’re wrong, and you’re right. Yawn.
A chart?
lol
Man you can really get imbecilic when digging in. What about a chart elicits "lol"? Do you not believe in charts (or, at least the ones that don't fit your narrative)?
it's kind of moronic to think you can reduce the output of a news organization into a single data point.
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts/
especially when you don't have clue one about how the chart is constructed.
drummerboy said:
let me ask you this - how would you rate the recent grossly inaccurate CNN piece on inflation? left or right?
how about the piece whose headline shouted about empty shelves but whose body never even mentioned them? left or right?
Even if they were both egregiously right-wing hit pieces on Biden, which they're not, that would hardly indicate a systematic anti-Dem bias at CNN.
I will say this. I never expect anyone to agree w/ me on here. But I do expect people to agree with you. I don't think even your inner circle would sign their names to the notion that there is systematic anti-Dem bias at CNN and/or NYT.
Smedley said:
Man you can really get imbecilic when digging in. What about a chart elicits "lol"? Do you not believe in charts (or, at least the ones that don't fit your narrative)?
“I don’t believe your source that CNN is that liberal.”
“Well, he made a chart.”
“That’s different, now I have to agree.”
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
let me ask you this - how would you rate the recent grossly inaccurate CNN piece on inflation? left or right?
how about the piece whose headline shouted about empty shelves but whose body never even mentioned them? left or right?
Even if they were both egregiously right-wing hit pieces on Biden, which they're not, that would hardly indicate a systematic anti-Dem bias at CNN.
I will say this. I never expect anyone to agree w/ me on here. But I do expect people to agree with you. I don't think even your inner circle would sign their names to the notion that there is systematic anti-Dem bias at CNN and/or NYT.
you missed the point on that one.
anyway, the point is not whether there is "systematic" anti-Dem bias. I have neither the time or resources to prove that.
The point is whether or not there are conspicuous examples of anti-Dem reporting, and what effect that has on the mind of the body politic.
And as for that, the evidence seems pretty clear that there are a lot of examples, and they certainly don't help in the public perception of Dems.
Let's say I hold a couple of premises:
- The best government is boring. It does its job competently, and does it so well it's generally just taken for granted.
- The most engaging media is not boring.
Doesn't really set things up for success, does it?
Smedley said:
I will say this. I never expect anyone to agree w/ me on here. But I do expect people to agree with you. I don't think even your inner circle would sign their names to the notion that there is systematic anti-Dem bias at CNN and/or NYT.
“Inner circle”? That sure is some chip you keep shouldering.
nohero said:
Smedley said:
Man you can really get imbecilic when digging in. What about a chart elicits "lol"? Do you not believe in charts (or, at least the ones that don't fit your narrative)?
“I don’t believe your source that CNN is that liberal.”
“Well, he made a chart.”
“That’s different, now I have to agree.”
Rather than jump in about an aside in the debate just to disagree with me, as you often do, why not respond to the main discussion point?
Do you think CNN and/or NYT are biased against Democrats?
I look forward to your direct response.
drummerboy said:
anyway, the point is not whether there is "systematic" anti-Dem bias. I have neither the time or resources to prove that.
The point is whether or not there are conspicuous examples of anti-Dem reporting, and what effect that has on the mind of the body politic.
And as for that, the evidence seems pretty clear that there are a lot of examples, and they certainly don't help in the public perception of Dems.
Well to me I thought you've pretty much been saying there is systematic anti-Dem bias. But if that's not what you're saying than that's not what you're saying.
And SMH on the "conspicuous examples of anti-Dem reporting". Life's not all sunshine and roses. Democrats can stumble, lose elections, and generally suck just like Republicans can, and decent media outlets report that. If you want all sunshine and roses, hip hip hooray three cheers for Dems you should stick to Wonkette for your news.
STANV said:
Not sure what people expect.
Not sure people know what they expect.
So if a person who supports Democratic Policies 90 % doesn't vote (or votes republican)because Dems are having difficulty enacting those policies, in large measure to Republicans' total opposition what does that say about such person.
US electorate does not vote in their own self interest. They never have. Because if they would, a party that favors the rich and corporate america would never win more than 10% of votes. 20% tops.
Smedley said:
nohero said:
Smedley said:
Man you can really get imbecilic when digging in. What about a chart elicits "lol"? Do you not believe in charts (or, at least the ones that don't fit your narrative)?
“I don’t believe your source that CNN is that liberal.”
“Well, he made a chart.”
“That’s different, now I have to agree.”
Rather than jump in about an aside in the debate just to disagree with me, as you often do, why not respond to the main discussion point?
Do you think CNN and/or NYT are biased against Democrats?
I look forward to your direct response.
Guys, don't be silly, they are not. Both are trying to be objective (which NYT does do a better job of as CNN), but probably with a liberal bias.
basil said:
Guys, don't be silly, they are not. Both are trying to be objective (which NYT does do a better job of as CNN), but probably with a liberal bias.
Facts have a well-known liberal bias.
Typical Republican swinery.
If Democrats lose then its a "fair election" but when Republicans lose its "they cheated."
On Tuesday night, gubernatorial votes took place in Virginia and New Jersey. In Virginia, Republican Glenn Youngkin defeated Democrat Terry McAuliffe by a margin of 50.9 percent to 48.4 percent as of midday Friday. In New Jersey, Democrat Phil Murphy defeated Republican Jack Ciattarelli by a nearly identical margin, 50.8 percent to 48.5 percent.
In Virginia, McAuliffe conceded defeat the morning after the election. “Congratulations to Governor-Elect Glenn Youngkin on his victory,” he said in a statement. “I hope Virginians will join me in wishing the best to him and his family.”
In New Jersey, Ciattarelli refused to concede, and staff called media outlets “irresponsible” for projecting that his opponent won. He issued a video appeal Thursday evening for people to come forward with allegations of fraud. “You can report any perceived or real irregularity to the voter integrity hotline set up by the NJGOP,” he said.
if you can't tell the difference between Trump criticizing media for reporting facts, and me criticizing them for mangling facts, there's not much to talk about.