Media Bias

[Archy1221]

15 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I was wondering if the one word in the one caption made the larger case for WaPo pro-Hamas bias.

I’ll take “anti-Israel and let’s  not piss off the Hamasbros” bias for $500 Alex

[teachercd]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I’ll take “anti-Israel and let’s  not piss off the Hamasbros” bias for $500 Alex

It is HAMass.

[Guy Chamberlin]

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I’ll take “anti-Israel and let’s  not piss off the Hamasbros” bias for $500 Alex

 

Do you honestly think the America establishment media leans ANTI-Israel?

 

And has ANY concern about offending Hamas? 

 

Could you not do a :30 Google search to find an internet full of the opposite conclusion, starting with the Washington Post? 

 

This is a case where one word in a caption seems wildly outweighed by millions of words over many, many years. 

 

But I got the memo. We're crawling into our silos now, and the liberal media (believed to be controlled by the Jews until this month) supports the muslim terrorists.  

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Do you honestly think the America establishment media leans ANTI-Israel?

Thats obviously yes.   
 

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

And has ANY concern about offending Hamas?

No to Hamas, absolutely yes to Palestinians whether they supports Hamass or not.  
 

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Could you not do a :30 Google search to find an internet full of the opposite conclusion, starting with the Washington Post?

I could also find a large anti-Israel narrative too, starting with WAPO

 

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

But I got the memo. We're crawling into our silos now, and the liberal media (believed to be controlled by the Jews until this month) supports the muslim terrorists.  

it’s more nuanced than that imo.  
 

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 

 

it’s more nuanced than that imo.  
 

 

Just curious: do you think you can be pro-Israel and perhaps anti-Netanyahu at the same time? 

 

Or perhaps pro-diplomacy, without being anti-Israel? 

 

If you had to walk the fine line of objective journalism, should you acknowledge the suffering of Palestinians before, during and after this latest crisis?  Or does that risk being labelled as anti-Israel by people who actually don't do nuance very well?

 

 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

ust curious: do you think you can be pro-Israel and perhaps anti-Netanyahu at the same time? 

I believe so.  Just like here at home. 

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Or perhaps pro-diplomacy, without being anti-Israel? 

 

Yes sir 

[DevoHusker]

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

13 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 

 

That's an interesting piece, and feeds the theory that the metrics of social media are driving a lot of the political divide, and leaving lazy or outgunned traditional media to go along for the ride. At the same time, Krassenstein wants traditional journalism to be MORE prevalent on social media, which he is presenting as the more thoughtful and prudent platform under Musk, ignoring that the most egregious problem with news today -- a rush to judgement in a  constant FOMO news cycle -- is what both Twitter and X are all about. While Musk has been all about unmuzzling previously banned content and commentators, he is famously doing nothing to increase the veracity of the platform as a news source.

 

Remember, in his very first day as the owner of Twitter, Elon Musk celebrated by promoting the 100% unfounded rumor that Paul Pelosi had been attacked by a gay lover, not a home invader. Krassentein goes into no detail as to why "Musk Isn't Wrong" and it's a real stretch to say Musk was unfairly given the villain role Trump left behind (plenty of villains out there, Trump still leading the pack) as Musk has willfully sought the brightest spotlight he could, happily played Lex Luthor to his many perceived and real enemies, and chosen catty snark and unvetted clickbait for hundreds of his own posts.  

 

The Media Sucks isn't news, nor an insight of Musk's. Read this piece again, and you can almost see Elon hand Krassenstein a check. For that matter, the headline "The Media Sucks & Musk Isn't Wrong" would itself qualify as clickbait, given that the content underneath doesn't really illuminate a damn thing. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

14 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I believe so.  Just like here at home. 

Yes sir 

 

Good to know.

At ease.

[DevoHusker]

40 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

That's an interesting piece, and feeds the theory that the metrics of social media are driving a lot of the political divide, and leaving lazy or outgunned traditional media to go along for the ride. At the same time, Krassenstein wants traditional journalism to be MORE prevalent on social media, which he is presenting as the more thoughtful and prudent platform under Musk, ignoring that the most egregious problem with news today -- a rush to judgement in a  constant FOMO news cycle -- is what both Twitter and X are all about. While Musk has been all about unmuzzling previously banned content and commentators, he is famously doing nothing to increase the veracity of the platform as a news source.

 

Remember, in his very first day as the owner of Twitter, Elon Musk celebrated by promoting the 100% unfounded rumor that Paul Pelosi had been attacked by a gay lover, not a home invader. Krassentein goes into no detail as to why "Musk Isn't Wrong" and it's a real stretch to say Musk was unfairly given the villain role Trump left behind (plenty of villains out there, Trump still leading the pack) as Musk has willfully sought the brightest spotlight he could, happily played Lex Luthor to his many perceived and real enemies, and chosen catty snark and unvetted clickbait for hundreds of his own posts.  

 

The Media Sucks isn't news, nor an insight of Musk's. Read this piece again, and you can almost see Elon hand Krassenstein a check. For that matter, the headline "The Media Sucks & Musk Isn't Wrong" would itself qualify as clickbait, given that the content underneath doesn't really illuminate a damn thing. 

So... you don't care for Musk...

I know social media does drive politics AND regular media. I think the op/ed type article (the style fits perfectly) did a fine job of presenting one outlook.

[knapplc]

49 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

The Media Sucks isn't news, nor an insight of Musk's. Read this piece again, and you can almost see Elon hand Krassenstein a check. For that matter, the headline "The Media Sucks & Musk Isn't Wrong" would itself qualify as clickbait, given that the content underneath doesn't really illuminate a damn thing. 

 

Yeah, Musk's attack on media is pretty self-serving. He's doing everything he can to turn Twitter into a misinformation machine.

 

Quote

 

Blue checkmarks on X are ‘superspreaders of misinformation’ about Israel-Hamas war

A new study finds that most of the ‘false or unsubstantiated narratives’ go viral on X before spreading to other platforms, with verified users responsible for 74 percent of the most engaged content.

 

 

You have to wonder why a Saudi-backed social media owner would be so intent on allowing so much misinformation to spread on his platform.

 

Or... maybe you don't have to wonder. Maybe it's pretty obvious.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

19 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

So... you don't care for Musk...

I know social media does drive politics AND regular media. I think the op/ed type article (the style fits perfectly) did a fine job of presenting one outlook.

 

I'm honestly not clear what that outlook is --- Krassenstein is even suggesting journalists make more of a commitment to X, while acknowledging there is no income or salary to support it, and failing to explain why this solves the social media problem of fomenting villains and rushing to judgement. It's kind of a weird argument. And as mentioned, the article offers no supporting content for the headline Musk Wasn't Wrong.

 

My feelings about Musk being responsible for much of his media portrayal isn't that slanted. It's hard to argue that he hasn't chosen the lightening rod role -- gleefully so --  and it's why his supporters love him. His unfiltered Tweets and public actions have been allowed to speak for themselves. While I loathe the spread of misinformation, as a free speech purist I couldn't argue with Elon rescinding Twitter's politically one-sided bans. Now everyone is free to spew clickbait. No idea why Krassenstein thinks this solves the problem he decries at the outset. 

[Lorewarn]

Not bias, but a massive L for the entire media apparatus.

 

 

https://www.silentlunch.net/p/did-the-entire-media-industry-misquote

 

Did the Entire Media Industry Misquote a Hamas Spokesperson?

I asked a dozen reporters and news outlets for the source of a statement they attributed to Hamas. None of them answered. This is a case study of the failure of journalistic standards.

 

....

 

On October 17, shortly after an explosion at a hospital in Gaza, headlines around the world declared that the Gaza Health Ministry said the blast had killed at least 500 people. This was reported by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, NPR, PBS, the Associated Press, the Guardian, and Al Jazeera.

It was an alarming statistic, and its blanket coverage in the news gave a concrete anchor to the rage expressed by many around the world against Israel.

Except—after an extensive investigation, and a total lack of transparency by many of our most prestigious media outlets—I have found zero evidence that the Health Ministry spokesperson ever said that more than 500 people had died.

[Archy1221]

 

 

[teachercd]

Dang...cold blooded!