Google Now Hates Socialism Too

Zarathustra[H] said:
Bush Jr bought into the whole "Project for the New American Century" bs. hook line and sinker, or he just surrounded himself with true believers and wasn't competent enough to realize it. The result of which was a hyperconservative and hawkish foreign policy. He also pursued many traditional good old boy measures like unfunded tax cuts for high income earners, that ballooned the deficit, and deregulation efforts that may (or may not) have resulted in the financial collapse, depending on who you ask.

There were also other issues (like the topic of immigration) where he had much more moderate, or by modern Trumpian standards, possibly even liberal views.

Like any presidency his was complex and multifaceted. This showcases the problem with placing organizations and people on a straight left-right line.
Click to expand...

And you don't have the whole picture of what happened. Your view is overly simplistic which doesn't paint the entire picture. It would require a history and lesson of all the presidencies dating back to Clinton to understand everything that has happened and why it happened. And there's not enough time or patience by most here for that. We aren't a political forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madoc
like this
thebufenator said:
Ignoring one party's scandals and only reporting conservative hit pieces is also bias
Click to expand...

Just yesterday they had a big story on Anthony Weiner, and I recall constant stories on things Dems wouldd rather have not had reported, like the FBI's actions regarding Clinton's email server and Benghazi accusations.

There's obviously going to be more of a trump focus today because if everything that is going on.

I think what we have here is a form of confirmation bias. People recall very strongly the stories they object to, but don't get nearly as worked up about, or even notice the ones they agree with or don't care about,creating the illusion that all news outlets except a select few hyperpartisan ones are biased against them.
 
People screaming about political bias in search results is all well and good I suppose, since facts are suddenly subjective in the e-world.

You know what pisses me off about Google? Ads masquerading as search results.

People here might know how to filter through them, but lots and lots of people don't.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

When someone's personal views fall so strongly on one side or another of the political spectrum, fact based non-partisan reporting will seem biased by comparison. It all has to do with the norms of the group
Click to expand...

One reply in and we're already at "I can't be wrong, it must be your unconscious bias."

I'm pretty certain this stuff has been studied at UCLA and liberal bias in news media was confirmed. Regardless, I live in Ohio, a swing state, and based on your made up criteria I claim the absolute centrist perspective and hereby confirm that Kyle is correct: one look at the center graph reveals the BS of that picture.
 
nutzo said:
That chart leans so far to the left it should be horizontal. Just goes to show how bad the leftist bias is today. What would have been far left 20 years ago, is now considered in the middle by too many people.



The biggest myth about the "liberal media", is all the people who say it doesn't exist.
Any one with open eyes, who has been watching/reading the news for the past 20-30 years, can see the how much has changed.
Click to expand...

Yep. And this is why the left-leaning bias should be blatantly evident to everyone (check out their top recipients):

Time Warner/CNN
NewsCorp/Fox
Comcast/NBC
National Amusements/Viacom
Disney/ABC


Media-Ownership.png
 
Last edited:
DigitalGriffin said:
And you don't have the whole picture of what happened. Your view is overly simplistic which doesn't paint the entire picture. It would require a history and lesson of all the presidencies dating back to Clinton to understand everything that has happened and why it happened. And there's not enough time or patience by most here for that. We aren't a political forum.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I feel like this is the point I was getting at. Any presidency is complex and multifaceted, and is not done justice by looking at a straight left-right line.

Tangentially, it is amusing how similar many things said by Reagan (Supposed Conservative Christian Hero) and Obama (Supposed Kenyan Muslim Communist) sound when read right next to eachother.

It's actually surprisingly difficult to play the game "identify the quote" between the two, which goes to show just how far the political conversation in the U.S. has shifted hard right since the 80's. Reagan's policies on many (most?) topics were closer to Obama's than any of the conservative figures today.
 
tungt88 said:
InfoWars (right) are where it's at (if anything, InfoWars is straight-up conspiracy theory, with a heavy helping of Alex Jones' own political opinions).
Click to expand...

That's why I said that they are part of the group that gets a convincing exception to stay put in their respective columns instead of being moved at least one column left...
 
Last edited:
When the huffpost and Wash post are in the middle we know its wrong.....both have lots of sensationalist and a lot of liberal articles as front page material. I find new articles to be more opinion column worthy that actual factual articles just reporting facts.
Edit :Really the only 2 that should be dead center is AP and Reuters.....and they can be out there sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Let's all argue amongst ourselves while our vassal Congress loots the coffers for themselves and the Lords of capitalism. We are divided, they are conquering.
 
Jumpy-B-L said:
Let's all argue amongst ourselves while our vassal Congress loots the coffers for themselves and the Lords of capitalism. We are divided, they are conquering.
Click to expand...


HEY WAIT I JUST SPOTTED SOME FAKE NEWS OVAR YONDER!

Distractions are the name of the show. We elected a WCW ultra-slick villain after-all. You know, the show where stupid plot twists happen at least every five minutes? :D
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Quoting a public official, and confirming that what he or she is saying is not in line with observable fact is not political bias. CNN doesn't even do much in the way of opinion pieces, which is what you'd need in order to have bias. They just do headlines with sparse details to support them.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the very definition of an opinion piece? Headline with little to no details to support it? Lacking facts is very much an opinion piece in my eyes since its not posible to prove anything from it other than it was written.
 
Jumpy-B-L said:
While corporatism also accurate, capitalism as practiced and reveired in the US allows and encourages individuals to get rich at any cost to their fellow man.
Click to expand...

:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

Statism is what allows certain people/groups/businesses to get rich at any cost to their fellow humans. Corporatism, Feudalism, Socialism, and Communism (plus more) are forms of statism. See my infographic above depicting how few statist mega-corporations control just about everything (and their donor recipients) showing the dangers of any form of heterodox statism injected into a capitalistic socio-economic system/society.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Madoc
like this
NLW said:
Many people are on Facebook. This chart wasn't created for publication on that platform. It was created by Vanessa Otero for her personal blog, and she has made her methodology public here and here.

If you all wish to criticize the chart (which I encourage, by the way), criticize the method, not the person.
Click to expand...

how dare you, you cis white male you
 
NLW said:
Many people are on Facebook. This chart wasn't created for publication on that platform. It was created by Vanessa Otero for her personal blog, and she has made her methodology public here and here.

If you all wish to criticize the chart (which I encourage, by the way), criticize the method, not the person.
Click to expand...
Don't tell me what to do. And she posted it on Facebook as well. My statement is true. Maybe your should learn the definition of criticism.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
I see, so you've observed millions of conservatives and are certain there's no liberal bias in the media, it's simply that people like me don't actually read, is that right? Your arrogance has led you to this certain conclusion, because you, like so many liberals, feel that it must be true. Those poor uneducated conservatives, worthy off your contempt. NPR's own ombudsman has noted the left wing bias in her organization, and yet you deny it. They won't utter the words "illegal alien", a perfectly accurate legal term, and replaced it with the emotionally manipulative "undocumented worker", but no, no bias there or the AP right? Hillary Clinton didn't mishandle classified information, she just had an 'email issue'.

I read volumes every day, I think, analyze, reason, and have a long memory, and yes, the bias is clear.

I've listened to thousands of hours of NPR both domestically and via American Public Media while living overseas. I've observed what started as a mild left wing bias turn into full fledged overt bias. Their media guests are overwhelmingly from the Huffington Post, Salon, Slate, DailyKos, and other like minded liberal sources, so again, your "if they would just listen" assumption is wrong. You're the one who needs to open your eyes and observe critically, not conservatives.
Click to expand...

Join us in the soapbox
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
There are low quality news sources on both extremes of the political spectrum.

This just shows that they are doing their job.

News-Quality.jpg
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *inhales* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
On the original topic, Google's big mistake in this was letting folks know just how easy it is for Google to skew search results. Don't re-write your website to favor mobile, go to the bottom of the list. Porn site, fade from most searches. Don't have the correct hot words on your site, go down in ranking. Put too many hot words on your site, go down in ranking. Then governments figured it out. Terrorist site, vanish. Then Alt-right-Nazi, vanish. Now Alt-left-socialist, vanish. Won't be long before Google search has the same credibility as NBC News during the Brian Williams debacle.
 
tetris42 said:
I think part of the problem here is there's two different ways issues are being skewed. On social issues, many mainstream sources could be considered to lean left, but on economic issues, the entire bulk of the news tends to lean right. That chart has the Washington Post and MSNBC as being center. This is the same Washington Post that ran 16 articles against Bernie Sanders in 16 hours before voting during the primaries. .
Click to expand...

What's even worse, with the consolidation following the incepid amount of M&A (mergers and acquisitions) specifically with the journalism industry, it's scary to imagine that not only is The Washington Post owned by Jeff Bezos, but he secured a $600 million CIA contract which is not only a gigantic red flag for a conflict of interest, but it opens up a pandora's box full of Orwellian questions. Since the end of 2016, most of my news feed is dominated by Wahsington Post articles now, even though I don't follow or read them for various reasons, not just what I said above. But it's even more jarring that most of the latest breaking news (I say that with trepidation of course) that the corporate media peddles stems from sources directed linked to the Washington Post. Which leads me to believe the newspaper has become a mouthpiece for the state.
 
Dead Parrot said:
On the original topic, Google's big mistake in this was letting folks know just how easy it is for Google to skew search results. Don't re-write your website to favor mobile, go to the bottom of the list. Porn site, fade from most searches. Don't have the correct hot words on your site, go down in ranking. Put too many hot words on your site, go down in ranking. Then governments figured it out. Terrorist site, vanish. Then Alt-right-Nazi, vanish. Now Alt-left-socialist, vanish. Won't be long before Google search has the same credibility as NBC News during the Brian Williams debacle.
Click to expand...

This is what we ought to be focusing on. By controlling access to information, you can control - to a large extent - what many people believe. Google is far from an extreme or radical case of this kind of control, but various decisions they have made in the past have had clear consequences, and often bad ones. I'm not suggesting there are perfect answers to some of the conundrums they nee to address, but they can likely do better. By using various ways to make their products easier to use (the "don't make me think" model of information searching), they've begun replacing human decision making about what we see and how reliable it is to a partially machine assisted process, through "relevancy rankings" and other means.
 
Fox News supporters genuinely believe it is not a biased news source, or at the very least its not AS biased as others.

Same for MSNBC viewers.

Just read lots of news, question anything sourced poorly, and make your own decision. You shouldn't scream "FAKE!" at any newsource globally regardless of where it was published (even highly biased outlets can get things right). Just, you know, actually use your own brain when reading things.
 
staknhalo said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *inhales* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...



\acf.png
 
NLW said:
Or, continue to talk about the author as a person or where it was published, but then be clear it's not the accuracy of the information published that's in question, it's something else.
Click to expand...
I would suggest the source is as important as the method....of which is none considering her self-proclaimed experience.

"tl;dr: There are lots of reasons. Many are subjective. More data would make it better. I am not a media expert."

The fact is that she made this up very much based in her own political world. As stated, simply seeing what MSM she placed in center is a dead give-away. Point in case, I have listened to NPR for decades for news. It is no longer news.
 
Everything is biased. Full stop. Only the degree(s) of bias vary. Question everything. From everywhere. Take nothing at face value; regardless of political leaning.
 
Dead Parrot said:
On the original topic, Google's big mistake in this was letting folks know just how easy it is for Google to skew search results. Don't re-write your website to favor mobile, go to the bottom of the list. Porn site, fade from most searches. Don't have the correct hot words on your site, go down in ranking. Put too many hot words on your site, go down in ranking. Then governments figured it out. Terrorist site, vanish. Then Alt-right-Nazi, vanish. Now Alt-left-socialist, vanish. Won't be long before Google search has the same credibility as NBC News during the Brian Williams debacle.
Click to expand...

I feel this is impossible now days. I honestly think that putting actual facts out just hurts the situation. I mean, ffs we have people that still think the Earth is flat. You can't argue with that. You can't change that thinking without taking each person to space and showing them, and then hopefully just leaving them. When facts are just outright denied, slant isn't the issue anymore. There is no truth, everything is shit. Three quarters of the people responding in this thread think that Fox news is accurate and reliable. Other forums it is MSNBC. There is no longer room for facts. It is all about what people want to believe.
 
ob1 said:
I feel this is impossible now days. I honestly think that putting actual facts out just hurts the situation. I mean, ffs we have people that still think the Earth is flat. You can't argue with that. You can't change that thinking without taking each person to space and showing them, and then hopefully just leaving them. When facts are just outright denied, slant isn't the issue anymore. There is no truth, everything is shit. Three quarters of the people responding in this thread think that Fox news is accurate and reliable. Other forums it is MSNBC. There is no longer room for facts. It is all about what people want to believe.
Click to expand...

Hell, a significant percentage of self-identified Republicans believed, when polled, that the Dow Jones went down during the Obama presidency. If you can't convince people of such an easily verified piece of quantitative data that's shared nearly everywhere, every single day....

Funny how all think everything is so skewed leftwise; feels the exact opposite. I can't tell you how many comments are on every single Economist article, the market-capitalist benchmark of the world, about how awfully liberal, socialist, communist, etc, every article of theirs is.

If your starting point is that the Economist is liberal, then there really isn't anything out there that is conservative that doesn't firmly land into opinion-driven radio talk show host territory.
 
NLW said:
Fair enough. I certainly don't think all the decisions are accurate, either, and you're absolutely right about the drawbacks of the method and the background of the author. It's still useful as a conversation starter - I like the graph approach, I like the analysis of bias as separate from level of analysis, but decisions could definitely be changed. NPR has a lot of centralized content, but some stations do much of their own news work, so even larger approaches like treating this as "one source" isn't fully accurate.

And we might agree about the importance of the source, as long as we agree that it's the background, training, expertise, knowledge, etc., of the source, and not the source as person, that's relevant.

It's tough finding a single, mostly unbiased source. It's better to get news from a variety of sources that do rigorous fact checking, seek to inform rather than inflame, and are dedicated to editorial balance and maintaining a solid reputation for accuracy. Will these types make mistakes and have biased slants? Sure, but they're better than the alternatives.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that there is no MSM worthy of the center spot any more.
 
NLW said:
Perhaps. I'd argue there are few, if any, "alternative" news sources that have the resources to do on-site reporting, thorough fact checking, and achieve editorial balance. What's one to do?
Click to expand...

How do you factually know those fact checks are accurate?
 
staknhalo said:
How do you factually know those fact checks are accurate?
Click to expand...

Performance over time. But we're getting to a point where it isn't even bias that matters, it's just let's shit all over everything equally and sow and profit from chaos by making people think they can't believe anything anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NLW
like this
staknhalo said:
How do you factually know those fact checks are accurate?
Click to expand...

Continued analysis. Good news organizations will take strong measures to prevent factual errors, quickly publish corrections and retractions if needed, and otherwise demonstrate a commitment to getting things right. Questionable news organizations publish whatever their journalists write and never bother to address inaccuracies.

But what's your point? What's the level of certainty you're looking for? People will always make mistakes. It seems like you're arguing with someone who's not here, and may not exist, but I could be misreading you.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Performance over time.
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain how. Someone never caught in a lie is still a liar. Someone who lies one time out of 100 is still a liar.

TwistedAegis said:
But we're getting to a point where it isn't even bias that matters, it's just let's shit all over everything equally and sow and profit from chaos by making people think they can't believe anything anymore.
Click to expand...

Thank bias, and exposed biases, for getting us there. People can't believe anything as objective anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top