Media Bias

[Cow Poke]

Rachel Maddow is the only serious journalist doing honest reporting.

[Starlight]

I am fascinated by your external perspective. DO I understand you correctly? The Democratic positions are often seen to be to the right of the right-wing party in the UK and New Zealand? Seriously?

Absolutely.

To pick one recent example, Biden was saying he'd veto Medicare-for-all. New Zealand and the UK have had government funded healthcare for all for the past 75 years (supported over that time by both left and right wing governments).

Biden is suggesting implementing 18 weeks paid parental leave. NZ and the UK have 26 weeks (or more, it can get complicated).

Hillary Clinton didn't start supporting same sex marriage until 2 years after right-wing governments in NZ and UK had passed it.
etc.

Short answer: depends, but mostly accurate. However the main right-wing party in the UK has shifted further to the right since 2016, and much more so following the last election, so this may no longer be quite as true as it has been traditionally.

Plus I also think Starlight is referring to the corporate side of the democratic party, rather than the AOC part.

Yes, I'm thinking Obama / Hillary / Biden / Pelosi / Schumer positions when I say they are typically slightly to the right of major right-wing parties in NZ and UK. I'm not thinking AOC / Sanders / Ilhan Omar positions.

I can't speak much to the new Boris Johnson government or what it's likely to do in future. I did wonder if the NHS saving his life will have any impact on his policies.

[EvoUK]

I was thinking more of Johnson's current cabinet. Many of them are authors of the Britania Unchained book, which is something of a libertarian wet dream, and very right wing with regards to traditional UK politics (but not out of place in the Republican party)

[EvoUK]

But I agree that yes, traditionally this has been the case that we're to the 'left' of right-wing American politics.

[carpedm9587]

And how do you decide if those aggregators are "accurate" without comparing them to your own assessments?

I don't.

As noted - I accept the average of the sources (with myself as a source) as "probably the least biased I am going to get." I accept it even if it doesn't align with how I would assess it. In other words, I adjust my assessment to match the average. Case in point - left to myself, I would personally rank Fox "far right." The average of all of the other sources hauls that significantly to the left, putting them somewhere between "right" and "center-right." I accept that as a better assessment than my own. I personally assess CNN as "center-left." The average of the various sources I use is "solidly left" (not far-left, not center-left). I accept that as probably less biased than my own assessment and adjust my assessment to match.

That way I am not solely dependent on my own "honest self-assessment," which won't get me out of my bias.

Sure they might disagree with you about one or two sources, but let's be honest: you would toss out an aggregator if you encountered significantly more disagreements than agreements. So even on this point, your bias is exerting its influence despite the fact that you've fooled yourself into thinking you have it sufficiently tamed.

[EvoUK]

But to the point of the OP- how on earth can FOX be considered in any way anything other than 'right'?! Being a right wing talking point is basically the meaning of their existence.

[Mountain Man]

I don't. As noted - I accept the average of the sources (with myself as a source) as "probably the least biased I am going to get." I accept it even if it doesn't align with how I would assess it. In other words, I adjust my assessment to match the average. Case in point - left to myself, I would personally rank Fox "far right." The average of all of the other sources hauls that significantly to the left, putting them somewhere between "right" and "center-right." I accept that as a better assessment than my own. I personally assess CNN as "center-left." The average of the various sources I use is "solidly left" (not far-left, not center-left). I accept that as probably less biased than my own assessment and adjust my assessment to match.

That way I am not solely dependent on my own "honest self-assessment," which won't get me out of my bias.

What you fail to understand, and this is likely due to your admitted inability to honestly assess yourself, is that in the end, you're just making a judgement call colored by your own biases. We're not talking a hard science here where an experiment will always produce the same result regardless of who's conducting it. You may allow the opinions of others to slightly shift your own opinions -- for instance, moving CNN from center-left to solidly-left, which really isn't much of a shift -- but you only do it because it feels "correct" in your mind. If you strongly disagreed then you wouldn't budge an inch -- case in point, your shock and dismay at my own personal rankings of various sources.

Like I said, neither of us is being objective here; I'm just the only one who has enough honesty and self-awareness to admit it.

[Mountain Man]

But to the point of the OP- how on earth can FOX be considered in any way anything other than 'right'?! Being a right wing talking point is basically the meaning of their existence.

In their opinion programs, yes. News reporting, however, they cut pretty close to the middle to the point that I've seen conservatives accuse them of being anti-Trump, and liberals accuse them of being pro-Trump.

[Starlight]

I've been intending to more and more make BBC and Al Jazeera my primary international news sources. They have their issues, but seem to be the most neutral in general of a bad bunch.

[carpedm9587]

What you fail to understand, and this is likely due to your admitted inability to honestly assess yourself, is that in the end, you're just making a judgement call colored by your own biases. We're not talking a hard science here where an experiment will always produce the same result regardless of who's conducting it. You may allow the opinions of others to slightly shift your own opinions -- for instance, moving CNN from center-left to solidly-left, which really isn't much of a shift -- but you only do it because it feels "correct" in your mind. If you strongly disagreed then you wouldn't budge an inch -- case in point, your shock and dismay at my own personal rankings of various sources.

Like I said, neither of us is being objective here; I'm just the only one who has enough honesty and self-awareness to admit it.

Like I said, MM, bias can be mitigated - not eliminated.

But at least my attempt to mitigate it is not 100% dependent on "honest self-assessment." Talk about a formula for staying trapped relentlessly in your own bias, not to mention it's an oxymoron because the person doing the "honest" self-assessment is doing it from a biased position to begin with.

I prefer my way - turning to sources outside myself. But that's just my bias!

[Mountain Man]

Like I said, MM, bias can be mitigated - not eliminated.

But at least my attempt to mitigate it is not 100% dependent on "honest self-assessment." Talk about a formula for staying trapped relentlessly in your own bias, not to mention it's an oxymoron because the person doing the "honest" self-assessment is doing it from a biased position to begin with.

I prefer my way - turning to sources outside myself. But that's just my bias!

Your inability to honestly assess yourself is not my problem. The only reason you trust those "outside" sources is because they appear correct to you based on your biases. If you had the ability to honestly assess yourself then you would know that. You're just as biased as the rest of us, but you have fooled yourself into thinking you're not.

[KingsGambit]

I have noticed a distinct shift in CNN's reporting when it comes to Trump in particular. They seem to go out of their way to say "Trump falsely claimed that..." or "this is not true". It's a difficult situation because Trump does tend to make a lot of false statements and it is the media's job to determine truth. However, as far as I can see, CNN doesn't seem to do this with anybody else as far as I can tell or frequently fact check within articles outside of that topic.

[carpedm9587]

I have noticed a distinct shift in CNN's reporting when it comes to Trump in particular. They seem to go out of their way to say "Trump falsely claimed that..." or "this is not true". It's a difficult situation because Trump does tend to make a lot of false statements and it is the media's job to determine truth. However, as far as I can see, CNN doesn't seem to do this with anybody else as far as I can tell or frequently fact check within articles outside of that topic.

I have noticed a similar thing...but then again Trump has upended most norms. Few mainstream media outlets would have previously even considered using the word "liar" with respect to a public figure. Trump so obviously repeats falsehoods that have already been debunked that there is little question about his intent to spread misinformation. And his own writings indicate he believes lying is perfectly acceptable if it gets him what he wants, and that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. So...

There is very little about that man that can be cast in a positive light. Of course, that makes no difference to his base - because he's giving them the "policies" they want. Hence, "selling their souls."

[MaxVel]

I have noticed a similar thing...but then again Trump has upended most norms. Few mainstream media outlets would have previously even considered using the word "liar" with respect to a public figure. Trump so obviously repeats falsehoods that have already been debunked that there is little question about his intent to spread misinformation. And his own writings indicate he believes lying is perfectly acceptable if it gets him what he wants, and that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. So...

There is very little about that man that can be cast in a positive light. Of course, that makes no difference to his base - because he's giving them the "policies" they want. Hence, "selling their souls."

What other choice was there, back then, that wouldn't have involved some degree of compromise with an ideal morality? Options for a pro-life; controlled immigration; more conservative Supreme Court; 'working class' voter - the 'fly-overs' and 'deplorables' in middle America:

(1) Trump - possible change in directions they want, push-back on leftist agendas, policies they can support.

(2) Hilary - more of the past program, but harder and faster, led by a President (Hilary) who despises them. For the people above , a complete non-starter.


(3) Someone else - but none of them had any realistic (or remote) chance of becoming President, and a vote for them would actually increase the chances of (2)

(4) Not vote at all - increases the chances of (2)

(5) (Armed) Revolution and overthrow the whole system.

For those voters that did NOT want (2), Trump was the only option, however unpalatable in other ways. That's politics.


Calling it 'selling their souls' is not helpful (as Juvenal would admonish, if you were a conservative-leaning poster). Present a realistic option that those voters, with those goals, could have taken that didn't involve choosing someone like Trump. Other choices (Cruz ??) didn't make it through the primaries, so weren't an option.

[MaxVel]

I have noticed a distinct shift in CNN's reporting when it comes to Trump in particular. They seem to go out of their way to say "Trump falsely claimed that..." or "this is not true". It's a difficult situation because Trump does tend to make a lot of false statements and it is the media's job to determine truth. However, as far as I can see, CNN doesn't seem to do this with anybody else as far as I can tell or frequently fact check within articles outside of that topic.

I don't think it's the media's job to 'determine truth' - often they are singularly unqualified to opine on the topic at hand. Think of an area where you have some real expertise or knowledge, and then think of the kind of dumb mistakes media make in reporting on that. I have seen basic factual errors (like calling MRSA a 'virus') that makes me cringe.

Secondly, the media mostly has an agenda, and they have their pet politicians and issues that get a soft (or blatantly biased) treatment. They're in the business of selling pageviews and clicks (nowadays), not in telling the truth. Where the second hinders the former, guess what wins?

Thirdly, media are very clever at using language to create an impression (favourable or negative) of a source or person's statement that influences the reader's opinion before they have assessed the actual facts. Poisoning the well, in effect.

Some examples are headlines that use words like 'rants' (implies violent and uncontrolled anger, wild speech); 'blasts' (as a verb, implies vigorous denunciation, anger, explosive mood) ; 'taunts' (implies mockery, jeering, insult); 'boasts' (implies exaggeration and excessive pride); 'lashes out' (implies uncontrolled attack, blind rage).

On that page Trump also 'shares a bizarre video'; 'stokes a partisan divide' (implying that it's his fault, or that he is contributing to it); 'pans globalists' (negative view of them); 'doubles down' (implying persisting in a mistake or falsehood); he is 'accused of lying' ; 'attacked'; 'accused' and so on.

In short, the vast majority of the headlines paint a negative (not a neutral) picture of Trump ( Trump - in this instance, obviously the journalists at the Independent dislike him) which a reader will absorb, BEFORE they have read the actual report. This will tend to bias the reader's interpretation of the story, before they have even read it. The impression given by such headlines is that Trump is angry and unable to control himself, (thus somewhat irrational), prone to lying, boasting and insult. This is an impression that will influence the uncritical reader, and create a bias against Trump regardless of what the actual facts of each story are.

In many cases, the same story could be given a more neutral headline : change " 'Trump is lying' about coronavirus tests, New York City mayor says" to something like "New York City mayor strongly disagrees with Trump over coronavirus tests." that wouldn't poison the well.

NB: This is not an attempt to 'justify' Trump, but a discussion of media bias. I think I've made a clear case that headline choice in this news organisation creates a bias against a particular politician. It's quite common, and is used against other politicians and in other media sources as well.