The Republican Utopia

[Enhance]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

And perhaps a question equally as pertinent - where does one hear such a claim?

I have my assumptions, no doubt. It's gross hyperbole. Or, to be more blunt and honest about my feelings - it sounds like pure propaganda.

[methodical]

I mean that's kinda the thing with the right media, they use facts or doubts towards their claims as a sort of confirmation bias for their persecution complex thus proving 90% of the media are commie liberal scum.  The ones doing it are smart enough to know better (I'd assume anyways) but they know that their viewers aren't going to figure out that their self reinforcing logical fallacies aren't actual fact of anything besides them being wrong in the first place and ultimately it reinforces their whole spiel which is "we're the only ones you can trust, only we know what's really going on so don't believe/watch/read anything else!" 

 

It's actually quite amazing.

Edited April 9, 2018 by methodical

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, methodical said:

they know that their viewers aren't going to figure out that their self reinforcing logical fallacies aren't actual fact of anything besides them being wrong in the first place and ultimately it reinforces their whole spiel which is "we're the only ones you can trust, only we know what's really going on so don't believe/watch/read anything else!" 

 

We tend not to question things that sound or "feel" right to us. They play on our innate biases, and they use psychiatry and math to back up their delivery.  It's crazy, and it's only going to get worse.

[Danny Bateman]

4 minutes ago, methodical said:

I mean that's kinda the thing with the right media, they use facts or doubts towards their claims as a sort of confirmation bias for their persecution complex thus proving 90% of the media are commie liberal scum.  The ones doing it are smart enough to know better (I'd assume anyways) but they know that their viewers aren't going to figure out that their self reinforcing logical fallacies aren't actual fact of anything besides them being wrong in the first place and ultimately it reinforces their whole spiel which is "we're the only ones you can trust, only we know what's really going on so don't believe/watch/read anything else!" 

 

It's actually quite amazing.

 

I heard it described REALLY well the other day, though I forget who to attribute this to...

 

The problem with hacks like Hannity or Tucker or Ingraham is that they start with a conclusion and try to find evidence to support it. It usually results in a pretty tortured argument.

[Ric Flair]

On 4/8/2018 at 1:38 PM, Clifford Franklin said:

 

I don't know many conservatives that seek out liberal sources of information. There aren't a ton of people in rural Nebraska tuning in to MSNBC or reading HuffPo for their info.

 

People self-sort when it comes to media. Most people I know try to consume a variety of sources, and that's what I'd tell anybody who asked how to get news.

 

But again, I think your initial assertion is wrong. There may be a slight bias in favor of liberalism in the U.S. media as whole. But they certainly aren't automatically, reflexively in the tank for libs. I think you're discounting the extent to which Trump is a polarizing figure on his own, and the amount he just says and does really dumb sh#t. Media outlets have to report on that stuff, even his idiotic tweets.

Plus, there's often an overcompensation by the media in trying to combat a perceived liberal bias that winds up making liberals look bad. See: Hillary Clinton's emails.

 

You’re dramatically understating the extent of political bias in the media. Even most liberals in the media acknowledge it.

9 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

I heard it described REALLY well the other day, though I forget who to attribute this to...

 

The problem with hacks like Hannity or Tucker or Ingraham is that they start with a conclusion and try to find evidence to support it. It usually results in a pretty tortured argument.

 

Literally everyone in cable news does that...on both sides.

[Ric Flair]

12 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Wait!

 

First you admit there's no evidence to back up your claim, then you make some unsubstantiated statements and conclude your claim is correct. So you're doubling down on the same claim based on more of your own opinion and in the absence of evidence?

 

And the last sentence is obviously false just based on this thread. And to be clear: liberal bias is not overwhelming and I do dispute your claims.

 

How do you survey liberal bias in the media? Even those who are clearly liberals often describe themselves as moderates and independents. The evidence of the bias is in the slanted news reporting, which is there for anyone even making an attempt to be objective.

 

Here’s a good read on how and why it happens: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048

 

 

[Landlord]

23 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I’m unaware of any study that dives into the numbers.

 

...

 

I’m not sure how you would unpack that and conduct a fair study that results in an absolute percentage. But the liberal bias is overwhelming. No one disputes that.

 

 

I am disputing that right now. And since you've just admitted that you don't actually have any evidence or studies to support your unfounded opinion, and since I guess that evidence isn't important, I've decided that I'm right and you are wrong.

[knapplc]

8 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

How do you survey liberal bias in the media? Even those who are clearly liberals often describe themselves as moderates and independents. The evidence of the bias is in the slanted news reporting, which is there for anyone even making an attempt to be objective.

 

It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.

[RedDenver]

11 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

How do you survey liberal bias in the media? Even those who are clearly liberals often describe themselves as moderates and independents. The evidence of the bias is in the slanted news reporting, which is there for anyone even making an attempt to be objective.

 

Here’s a good read on how and why it happens: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048

 

 

So you do see that your own claims can't be verified. Why not just admit that your "90% of media is liberal" claim was hyperbole at best?

 

And how people label themselves isn't part of the issue. Plenty of conservatives, libertarians, and right-wingers often describe themselves as moderates and independents.

 

And I'm guessing you didn't read the article you linked as it doesn't support your claim, but instead shows that media is heavily influenced by geography (emphasis mine):

 

Quote

To some conservatives, Trump’s surprise win on November 8 simply bore out what they had suspected, that the Democrat-infested press was knowingly in the tank for Clinton all along. The media, in this view, was guilty not just of confirmation bias but of complicity. But the knowing-bias charge never added up: No news organization ignored the Clinton emails story, and everybody feasted on the damaging John Podesta email cache that WikiLeaks served up buffet-style. Practically speaking, you’re not pushing Clinton to victory if you’re pantsing her and her party to voters almost daily.

 

...

 

Resist—if you can—the conservative reflex to absorb this data and conclude that the media deliberately twists the news in favor of Democrats. Instead, take it the way a social scientist would take it: The people who report, edit, produce and publish news can’t help being affected—deeply affected—by the environment around them. Former New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent got at this when he analyzed the decidedly liberal bent of his newspaper’s staff in a 2004 column that rewards rereading today. The “heart, mind, and habits” of the Times, he wrote, cannot be divorced from the ethos of the cosmopolitan city where it is produced. On such subjects as abortion, gay rights, gun control and environmental regulation, the Times’ news reporting is a pretty good reflection of its region’s dominant predisposition. And yes, a Times-ian ethos flourishes in all of internet publishing’s major cities—Los Angeles, New York, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco and Washington. The Times thinks of itself as a centrist national newspaper, but it’s more accurate to say its politics are perfectly centered on the slices of America that look and think the most like Manhattan.

 

[BigRedBuster]

12 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

The evidence of the bias is in the slanted news reporting, which is there for anyone even making an attempt to be objective.

 

And, it's evident when outlets like Fox News, Rush, Brietbart, Infowars....etc. promote this theory of overwhelming liberal bias for their own gain.  If they say it enough.....it sticks with you....doesn't it?

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by BigRedBuster

[Enhance]

12 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Here’s a good read on how and why it happens: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048

That's well-written and I can agree with much of it, but there's one key paragraph in there that warrants specific attention and further discussion:

 

Quote

Resist—if you can—the conservative reflex to absorb this data and conclude that the media deliberately twists the news in favor of Democrats. Instead, take it the way a social scientist would take it: The people who report, edit, produce and publish news can’t help being affected—deeply affected—by the environment around them. Former New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent got at this when he analyzed the decidedly liberal bent of his newspaper’s staff in a 2004 column that rewards rereading today. The “heart, mind, and habits” of the Times, he wrote, cannot be divorced from the ethos of the cosmopolitan city where it is produced. On such subjects as abortion, gay rights, gun control and environmental regulation, the Times’ news reporting is a pretty good reflection of its region’s dominant predisposition. And yes, a Times-ian ethos flourishes in all of internet publishing’s major cities—Los Angeles, New York, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco and Washington. The Times thinks of itself as a centrist national newspaper, but it’s more accurate to say its politics are perfectly centered on the slices of America that look and think the most like Manhattan.

 

This article largely side steps a deeper meaning, which is society and industry is increasingly moving to metropolitan areas and these areas are decidedly more liberal than others. It's not just the journalism industry affected by cities - it's many industries. Journalists just happen to have one of the loudest voices which places a high responsibility on the quality of their work.

 

Ultimately, this all circles back to something I preach and something many others around here preach: there is no reason for any citizen to get or trust their news from any one source without measure and skepticism. The news is managed by people. People are humans. Humans are full of beauty but, perhaps more importantly, they're also full of error.

[Ric Flair]

22 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

I am disputing that right now. And since you've just admitted that you don't actually have any evidence or studies to support your unfounded opinion, and since I guess that evidence isn't important, I've decided that I'm right and you are wrong.

 

People are unwilling to admit their own biases. They may not even be aware of them. So it’s difficult to survey them effectively. Democratic journalists are aware of their perceived biases...so more and more self-describe as “independents.” 

 

Quote

The political diversity of journalists is not very strong, either. As of 2013, only 7 percent of them identified as Republicans (although only 28 percent called themselves Democrats with the majority saying they were independents). And although it’s not a perfect approximation — in most newsrooms, the people who issue endorsements are not the same as the ones who do reporting — there’s reason to think that the industry was particularly out of sync with Trump. Of the major newspapers that endorsed either Clinton or Trump, only 3 percent (2 of 59) endorsed Trump. By comparison, 46 percent of newspapers to endorse either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney endorsed Romney in 2012. Furthermore, as the media has become less representative of right-of-center views — and as conservatives have rebelled against the political establishment — there’s been an increasing and perhaps self-reinforcing cleavage between conservative news and opinion outlets such as Breitbart and the rest of the media.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-really-was-a-liberal-media-bubble/

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Ric Flair

[Ric Flair]

10 hours ago, RedDenver said:

So you do see that your own claims can't be verified. Why not just admit that your "90% of media is liberal" claim was hyperbole at best?

 

And how people label themselves isn't part of the issue. Plenty of conservatives, libertarians, and right-wingers often describe themselves as moderates and independents.

 

And I'm guessing you didn't read the article you linked as it doesn't support your claim, but instead shows that media is heavily influenced by geography (emphasis mine):

 

 

 

90% is a reasonable estimate based on the available evidence. How people view themselves is absolutely relevant. Liberals self-identify as independents to mask their biases...making it difficult to use polls or surveys to determine how many journalists are liberals or conservatives.

 

I did read the article, but you seem to have missed the point. The author is suggesting that the geographic locations of major media outlets in predominately liberal areas influences the thinking of journalists who live and work there, contributing heavily to the political biases of those journalists.

[Ric Flair]

10 hours ago, Enhance said:

That's well-written and I can agree with much of it, but there's one key paragraph in there that warrants specific attention and further discussion:

 

This article largely side steps a deeper meaning, which is society and industry is increasingly moving to metropolitan areas and these areas are decidedly more liberal than others. It's not just the journalism industry affected by cities - it's many industries. Journalists just happen to have one of the loudest voices which places a high responsibility on the quality of their work.

 

Ultimately, this all circles back to something I preach and something many others around here preach: there is no reason for any citizen to get or trust their news from any one source without measure and skepticism. The news is managed by people. People are humans. Humans are full of beauty but, perhaps more importantly, they're also full of error.

 

Agreed. Along those lines, we need to recruit more conservatives to post here. Diversity is a good thing. 

[Landlord]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

90% is a reasonable estimate based on the available evidence.

 

No, it isn't. Stop lying. There is no evidence to support this. This is runaway conclusions in your brain that aren't supported by any data. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

Liberals self-identify as independents to mask their biases...

 

 

Prove it.

 

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

...the geographic locations of major media outlets in predominately liberal areas influences the thinking of journalists who live and work there, contributing heavily to the political biases of those journalists.

 

 

I actually agree with this, but so what? It's not the fault of the media that conservatives/Republicans opt to live in more rural areas. If the right doesn't like it, then stay in the cities, or start your own damn rural news networks and watch how you can't make money.

 

The bias of the media is profit. To achieve that end, the bias of the media is outrage, sensationalism, and conflict. To the extent that that correlates into a liberal bias is a coincidence, and is not a causal relationship.