The Swamp

Thats my contribution BTW. But yes, perhaps a distiction between TV news and internet news divisions. Still CNN comes in just south of the New York Post.

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:33 am Your words not mine. The fabrication is the assumption that the source is solid. CNN is not worthy of that assumption and Enoch brought the goods.

Slightly left leaning against near propaganda level slant is bringing the goods?

I won't argue that CNN and most if not all TV news networks sensationalize what they can for clicks eyes and ad dollars, but an above average reliability score and a bias determined to be 3-4 orders of magnitude less than their counterparts and you read "sources aren't solid"?

What makes a "solid source" in your mind here? You've yet to answer how you'd prefer they do their jobs. Thoughts?

Also can we all agree that the most surprising thing about this is that Weather.com gets an ~80% accuracy score? They're right half the time at best, amirite???

BSF21 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:38 am

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:33 am Your words not mine. The fabrication is the assumption that the source is solid. CNN is not worthy of that assumption and Enoch brought the goods.

Slightly left leaning against near propaganda level slant is bringing the goods?

I won't argue that CNN and most if not all TV news networks sensationalize what they can for clicks eyes and ad dollars, but an above average reliability score and a bias determined to be 3-4 orders of magnitude less than their counterparts and you read "sources aren't solid"?

What makes a "solid source" in your mind here? You've yet to answer how you'd prefer they do their jobs. Thoughts?

I'm pretty sure he doesn't understand the numbers.

i think there's an important venn diagram that could be made with 'sensationalism' and 'news' where you can actually be annoying as shit (CNN) but actually report, you know, facts.

i hadn't watched CNN (or any news) since we moved back to the States 3+ yrs ago for obvious reasons until two weeks ago; i'm understanding why some people "hate" CNN and although my beliefs and prejudices generally line up well with their "pundits" many of them come across as self-aggrandizing and overwrought. It's a bad move, IMO, in that they're not likely to make people change their minds if they're entrenched. Having said that, to my knowledge they haven't reported anything false and in the end to me that's what matters. I have confidence that when they're reporting (as opposed to, say, Van Jones staring into the camera and emoting) I'm getting the truth.

Now if we could just eliminate all tickers on all stations, get Crossfire and Sports Tonight back on the air, we'll truly be making america great again. :P

I mean, just completely ignoring numbers and sticking with the "CNN is too untrustworthy to not name their sources" is straight-up right-wing head in the sand bullshit.

How about you reduce to the 15 largest media organizations on that list and then sort by reliability score. Are they even in the top 10? Top 12? My guess is 36 will put them second to last ahead of Fox. Good company there.

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 12:03 pm How about you reduce to the 15 largest media organizations on that list and then sort by reliability score. Are they even in the top 10? Top 12? My guess is 36 will put them second to last ahead of Fox. Good company there.

You can't add the numbers together. They measure two totally different things.

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 12:03 pm How about you reduce to the 15 largest media organizations on that list and then sort by reliability score. Are they even in the top 10? Top 12? My guess is 36 will put them second to last ahead of Fox. Good company there.

Go for it. Just make sure you're comparing cable news scores vs cable news scores and web site scores vs web site scores. Your assertion seems to be taking CNN's lowest score regardless of medium.

Jesus. Whoever created OPS would have an issue with just adding those numbers together. If you're even trying to blend, which you shouldn't, wouldn't you take reliability minus absolute bias?

Just reliability. No adding. Not sure where that comes from. 36 is cnn tv and yes not apples to apples as many don't have large tv organizations.

The fun part is anyone assuming misinformation at CNN is lefty based. As I alluded to before, they employ all manner of chattering heads, up to and including Rick fucking Santorum. How much of the supposed misinformation comes from those folks.

This is stupid.

tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:13 pm The fun part is anyone assuming misinformation at CNN is lefty based. As I alluded to before, they employ all manner of chattering heads, up to and including Rick fucking Santorum. How much of the supposed misinformation comes from those folks.

This is stupid.

Right. If Fox News regularly had anyone on to the left of Hillary Clinton, their viewers would go apeshit, but Rick Fucking Santorum gets to spew his ridiculous nonsense on CNN almost every day.

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:02 pm Just reliability. No adding. Not sure where that comes from. 36 is cnn tv and yes not apples to apples as many don't have large tv organizations.

OK you must have a larger sample than I saw and it happened that the math kinda worked. But still.

tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:13 pm The fun part is anyone assuming misinformation at CNN is lefty based. As I alluded to before, they employ all manner of chattering heads, up to and including Rick fucking Santorum. How much of the supposed misinformation comes from those folks.

This is stupid.

And relatedly, when they measure "accuracy", are they including stupid right-wing things that people like Santorum say while they are on CNN? Is that measurement limited to just straight news programs?

Well at the very least I gained some worthy sig material.

#FAKENEWS!

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 1:57 pm
you have some really terrible opinions

this post applies again

I've been locked out of the site for a couple of days.

The CNN = Fox News false equivalency is a huge part of why this country is so fucked up and will remain so until people cut the shit.

the only thing I'd add to this absurd discussion is that the data on page 5 shouldn't be used at all. it's an absolute waste of time and energy to talk about reliability and bias if you're going to rely on a chart that was compiled five months ago given the utter bile that's been spewed from various sources and figures since then.

Quick round-up of thoughts:

* Yesterday... the entire day... was just pitch perfect. Biden's speech was important and hit all the right notes. But, overall, I couldn't turn away from any of it. It felt so good to have such extreme competency on display.

* I even enjoyed the evening ceremony, which I usually tune out as too hokey. I loved almost all of it.

=-=-=-=-=

While it's certainly a "knock me over with a feather" moment, the fact that the Trump Admin totally shit the bed is no less repugnant and appalling. And the discussion on here going back to last week about whether a Federal response would've been helpful is pretty infuriating.

I'm not to trying to re-stir shit up, but go ask public health officials, go ask former experts from previous presidential administrations in charge of this stuff have been saying.

The inaction and downplaying by the Trump Administration are CRIMINAL in their dereliction of duty.

Special place in Hell for all those involved.

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:35 pm the only thing I'd add to this absurd discussion is that the data on page 5 shouldn't be used at all. it's an absolute waste of time and energy to talk about reliability and bias if you're going to rely on a chart that was compiled five months ago given the utter bile that's been spewed from various sources and figures since then.

Disagree. While it is somewhat dated (5 months?), it’s a frame of reference. A jumping-off point, where it’s up to you to challenge what the data reveals.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:40 pm* I even enjoyed the evening ceremony, which I usually tune out as too hokey. I loved almost all of it.

Yeah, Bon Jovi sucked and was creepy.

the last five months have been a tsunami of propaganda and misinformation and that timeframe is over one third of the timeframe of the initial study referenced in the data presented

the combination of that tsunami and the significance of the size of that timeframe render any constructive discussion based on the numbers a waste of time

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:48 pm the last five months have been a tsunami of propaganda and misinformation and that timeframe is over one third of the timeframe of the initial study referenced in the data presented

the combination of that tsunami and the significance of the size of that timeframe render any constructive discussion based on the numbers a waste of time

But none of that changes the fundamental conclusions one draws from that study. The nature of current events tells us it’s ongoing, even with a coup attempt.

Shit dude, this is the snapshot you would need to begin discussing the media’s role that led up to the insurrection itself.

I'd also love to know how they set what zero bias is. Like what is the platonic neutral stance?

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:21 pm I'd also love to know how they set what zero bias is. Like what is the platonic neutral stance?

Yeah, because even the most unbiased media outlet is still making very distinct choices about WHAT to cover. Like, that's probably.. I dunno, 40 or 50 percent of the overall approach (editorial) on any given day.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:21 pm I'd also love to know how they set what zero bias is. Like what is the platonic neutral stance?

Peer-reviewed scientific research.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:55 pm

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:48 pm the last five months have been a tsunami of propaganda and misinformation and that timeframe is over one third of the timeframe of the initial study referenced in the data presented

the combination of that tsunami and the significance of the size of that timeframe render any constructive discussion based on the numbers a waste of time

But none of that changes the fundamental conclusions one draws from that study. The nature of current events tells us it’s ongoing, even with a coup attempt.

Shit dude, this is the snapshot you would need to begin discussing the media’s role that led up to the insurrection itself.

absolutely not ...

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:21 pm I'd also love to know how they set what zero bias is. Like what is the platonic neutral stance?

... because of this!

there's no way to quantify what "neutral" is because "objectivity" in journalism is a myth that won't go away. thankfully journalists and journalism classes are getting much better at addressing this myth and working through framing what the role of journalism is and why objectivity is a thing that simply doesn't exist

and even setting aside the unknowability of what 0 is in this case, we're gonna look at a chart that shows OAN as less conservative relative to the Daily Kos' liberalism and not immediately go "yeah this study is messed up"?

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:26 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:55 pm

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:48 pm the last five months have been a tsunami of propaganda and misinformation and that timeframe is over one third of the timeframe of the initial study referenced in the data presented

the combination of that tsunami and the significance of the size of that timeframe render any constructive discussion based on the numbers a waste of time

But none of that changes the fundamental conclusions one draws from that study. The nature of current events tells us it’s ongoing, even with a coup attempt.

Shit dude, this is the snapshot you would need to begin discussing the media’s role that led up to the insurrection itself.

absolutely not ...

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:21 pm I'd also love to know how they set what zero bias is. Like what is the platonic neutral stance?

... because of this!

there's no way to quantify what "neutral" is because "objectivity" in journalism is a myth that won't go away. thankfully journalists and journalism classes are getting much better at addressing this myth and working through framing what the role of journalism is and why objectivity is a thing that simply doesn't exist

and even setting aside the unknowability of what 0 is in this case, we're gonna look at a chart that shows OAN as less conservative relative to the Daily Kos' liberalism and not immediately go "yeah this study is messed up"?

Fact-based journalism is objective journalism.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:35 pm Fact-based journalism is objective journalism.

"fact-based" is doing a loooooot of work here to hold up the myth of "objective journalism"

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:35 pm

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:26 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:55 pm

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:48 pm the last five months have been a tsunami of propaganda and misinformation and that timeframe is over one third of the timeframe of the initial study referenced in the data presented

the combination of that tsunami and the significance of the size of that timeframe render any constructive discussion based on the numbers a waste of time

But none of that changes the fundamental conclusions one draws from that study. The nature of current events tells us it’s ongoing, even with a coup attempt.

Shit dude, this is the snapshot you would need to begin discussing the media’s role that led up to the insurrection itself.

absolutely not ...

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:21 pm I'd also love to know how they set what zero bias is. Like what is the platonic neutral stance?

... because of this!

there's no way to quantify what "neutral" is because "objectivity" in journalism is a myth that won't go away. thankfully journalists and journalism classes are getting much better at addressing this myth and working through framing what the role of journalism is and why objectivity is a thing that simply doesn't exist

and even setting aside the unknowability of what 0 is in this case, we're gonna look at a chart that shows OAN as less conservative relative to the Daily Kos' liberalism and not immediately go "yeah this study is messed up"?

Fact-based journalism is objective journalism.

That's only possible if all facts can be covered, in all possible ways.

If I run a highly publicized series in my newspapers profiling victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and only those victims, I am not being "objective" even if everything I report is true.

perfect example is an AP story about, oh, let's say Trump's tax returns. the story is big and significant enough to be put as the main modular story on numerous mainstream news outlets. it's buried to a small and friendlier "fact-based" headline past the scroll point on other news outlets.

it's the same "fact-based" and "objective" story (keeping the myth of objectivity alive for the sake of the scenario here) -- but the failure of "objectivity" in this case doesn't come with the story itself but rather its presentation and front page framing.

I could write a lot of posts about how Gary Sanchez leads all MLB catchers in HRs since 2018 and, if presented in a certain way, that would be both fact based and wildly biased.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:54 pm I could write a lot of posts about how Gary Sanchez leads all MLB catchers in HRs since 2018 and, if presented in a certain way, that would be both fact based and wildly biased.

OAN simply tried to ignore Biden's inauguration yesterday. Not acknowledging something isn't a lie!

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:50 pm If I run a highly publicized series in my newspapers profiling victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and only those victims, I am not being "objective" even if everything I report is true.

That’s not journalism. That’s a collection of interviews with victims of crime by illegal immigrants to reach a biased conclusion.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:49 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:35 pm

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:26 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:55 pm

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:48 pm the last five months have been a tsunami of propaganda and misinformation and that timeframe is over one third of the timeframe of the initial study referenced in the data presented

the combination of that tsunami and the significance of the size of that timeframe render any constructive discussion based on the numbers a waste of time

But none of that changes the fundamental conclusions one draws from that study. The nature of current events tells us it’s ongoing, even with a coup attempt.

Shit dude, this is the snapshot you would need to begin discussing the media’s role that led up to the insurrection itself.

absolutely not ...

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:21 pm I'd also love to know how they set what zero bias is. Like what is the platonic neutral stance?

... because of this!

there's no way to quantify what "neutral" is because "objectivity" in journalism is a myth that won't go away. thankfully journalists and journalism classes are getting much better at addressing this myth and working through framing what the role of journalism is and why objectivity is a thing that simply doesn't exist

and even setting aside the unknowability of what 0 is in this case, we're gonna look at a chart that shows OAN as less conservative relative to the Daily Kos' liberalism and not immediately go "yeah this study is messed up"?

Fact-based journalism is objective journalism.

That's only possible if all facts can be covered, in all possible ways.

Objective journalism was born from the scientific method, after all.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:11 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:50 pm If I run a highly publicized series in my newspapers profiling victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and only those victims, I am not being "objective" even if everything I report is true.

That’s not journalism. That’s a collection of interviews with victims of crime by illegal immigrants to reach a biased conclusion.

What's biased about "13 people were brutally murdered by illegal immigrants last year"?

(Use of the phrase "illegal immigrant". Gotcha!)