Media - Listen to us because we will tell you what you need to know

[Offthemat]

10 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

The wikipedia page explaining critical thinking... you don't see the connection?

You should be 1st in line to read it, my friend.

That explains a lot. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 1/19/2024 at 3:13 PM, Husker_Du said:

i wonder why MSM doesn't want you to do your own research lol

 

 

Ironic. Sourcing articles incorrectly to prove a point they are not making to further solidify a position the no one is challenging. 

"Critical thinking, as we're taught to do it, isn't helping in the fight against misinformation." Is the line. And you're laying out exactly why this is true by your comment. We need to be better thinkers. Not to 'just' listen and obey. But to be better at navigating the information that is thrown at us everyday. That your take away is 'MSM doesn't want you to do your own research' is the wrong conclusion and highlights the point they are trying to make. That you are bias and only looking for and at information to pick out the things that you already agree with. 

That we are bad at searching through information and discerning objective information from biased data. Being better at understanding where MSM gets and processes their information helps you to hold them accountable if they begin to slip and feed you BS for money. So posting stories like these helps you to challenge their foothold in the information race and threatens their financial interest. Which should make you feel better about their motivation. Will it? Something tells me, no. But you do you. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 1/19/2024 at 9:01 PM, JimmyBT said:

Since 80% of the media is one sided to the left I’d say it all for the sheeples 

Where does that number come from? 

Don't big businesses lean more towards the tax and regulation policies of conservatives? Wouldn't the media that is owned by big business lean more that way, then? If they were in the business of being bias, why go against their obvious self interest? 

I think there is a spectrum of people in media, as all fields, that work to try to tell an honest story or to do their job honestly and ethically. Does everyone in that field have that same motivation? No. Should we malign an entire industry for the actions, whether real or perceived, of a few? Or should we work to ensure the dishonest ones find it more and more difficult to survive in that field and thus leave or find themselves with less influence/market share then they would otherwise have. 

[jross]

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/

[jross]

 

[mspart]

So it appears we have a mix on here that think you should research and those that do not think it is necessary.  

I think the examples I have provided are ample proof that it is necessary to find independent sources.  

The fact that a story is patently not true, and the "journalist" that reported it wrong doubles down on his reporting and the WAPO says the reporting is 100% accurate and that this "journalist" tells me I don't need to research anything, he will tell me what I need to know, seems to lead a rational human being to say Perhaps, Just Perhaps, I should look to another source and verify.

mspart 

[JimmyBT]

4 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Where does that number come from? 

Don't big businesses lean more towards the tax and regulation policies of conservatives? Wouldn't the media that is owned by big business lean more that way, then? If they were in the business of being bias, why go against their obvious self interest? 

I think there is a spectrum of people in media, as all fields, that work to try to tell an honest story or to do their job honestly and ethically. Does everyone in that field have that same motivation? No. Should we malign an entire industry for the actions, whether real or perceived, of a few? Or should we work to ensure the dishonest ones find it more and more difficult to survive in that field and thus leave or find themselves with less influence/market share then they would otherwise have. 

Do some homework jr. 

[JimmyBT]

5 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Ironic. Sourcing articles incorrectly to prove a point they are not making to further solidify a position the no one is challenging. 

"Critical thinking, as we're taught to do it, isn't helping in the fight against misinformation." Is the line. And you're laying out exactly why this is true by your comment. We need to be better thinkers. Not to 'just' listen and obey. But to be better at navigating the information that is thrown at us everyday. That your take away is 'MSM doesn't want you to do your own research' is the wrong conclusion and highlights the point they are trying to make. That you are bias and only looking for and at information to pick out the things that you already agree with. 

That we are bad at searching through information and discerning objective information from biased data. Being better at understanding where MSM gets and processes their information helps you to hold them accountable if they begin to slip and feed you BS for money. So posting stories like these helps you to challenge their foothold in the information race and threatens their financial interest. Which should make you feel better about their motivation. Will it? Something tells me, no. But you do you. 

The MSM knows that most of America is too lazy or stubborn to research both sides. And agin since most MSM is left leaning they tell them what they want them to know. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, JimmyBT said:

Do some homework jr. 

So you are being dishonest and trying to stop me from holding you accountable. Great. Can't say I'm surprised.

There is no need to take you seriously. I'll just continue to point that out. 

Thank you for confirming it. 

[Ohio Elite]

7 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

So you are being dishonest and trying to stop me from holding you accountable. Great. Can't say I'm surprised.

There is no need to take you seriously. I'll just continue to point that out. 

Thank you for confirming it. 

You talking in the mirror?

Edited January 22 by Ohio Elite

[jross]

SMH - read!  https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/

One of many available links with information was provided for you earlier.  Here are some excerpts:

• 462 surveyed financial journalists (58%) described their political views as very or somewhat liberal, while a small minority (4%) described their political views as very or somewhat conservative.  That is 13:1 rate of liberal to conservative rate of journalists in the business world.
  • https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3279453

• From having near-parity with the general information journalist Republicans in the 1970s, Democrats today outnumbered Republicans by four to one as of 2014. In 1971, Republicans made up 25.7% of all general information journalists. Democrats were 35.5%.  By 2014, the share of journalists identifying as Republican had shrunk to 7.1%, an 18.6 percentage point drop.

  • http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-american-journalist-key-findings.pdf

• The percentage of 'independents' grew significantly, but the financial donations are over 90% left.  This could mean that independent journalists are moderately left, at least on social issues.  

  • https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Do_97_percent_of_journalist_donations_go_to_Democrats

Edited January 22 by jross

[JimmyBT]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

So you are being dishonest and trying to stop me from holding you accountable. Great. Can't say I'm surprised.

There is no need to take you seriously. I'll just continue to point that out. 

Thank you for confirming it. 

I find it amusing that most everyone on here thinks the same about you. And you confirm it over and over and over again. Carry on pee wee. 

[Offthemat]

Not much media coverage of this.  The report has been sealed by the court for 2 years.  
 

BREAKING: Professor and Election Expert J. Halderman Hacks into Dominion Voting Machine in Court on Friday in Georgia in front of Judge Totenberg USING ONLY A PEN TO CHANGE VOTE TOTALS

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/01/breaking-professor-election-expert-j-halderman-hacks-dominion/

[mspart]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/expert-report-fuels-election-doubts-georgia-waits-update-voting-softwa-rcna89566

Just in case the gatewaypundit is not reliable enough for some on here. 

This report is on multiple platforms in the interwebs. 

mspart

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/expert-report-fuels-election-doubts-georgia-waits-update-voting-softwa-rcna89566

Just in case the gatewaypundit is not reliable enough for some on here. 

This report is on multiple platforms in the interwebs. 

mspart

Oddly enough, nbc left this part out:

“Now this… on Friday, in a Federal Court In Atlanta, Georgia, J. Alex Halderman was able to HACK A DOMINION VOTING MACHINE to change the tabulation In Front Of U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg in the courtroom!

Halderman USED ONLY A PEN TO CHANGE VOTE TOTALS!”

 The way I heard it, he changed the winner of the election from George Washington to Benedict Arnold.  Right in front of the judge. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

15 hours ago, Ohio Elite said:

You talking in the mirror?

Sick burn. But you're glue!

[ThreePointTakedown]

13 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

I find it amusing that most everyone on here thinks the same about you. And you confirm it over and over and over again. Carry on pee wee. 

Lashing out is what you do when threatened. I get it. I'm sorry that asking questions and hoping that you have the honesty to answer them is a threat to you. I would be threatened too if my sense of self hinged on such weak arguments. If you were better at articulating them instead of flexing on how you're older than everyone, you might learn something. 

Thanks boomer!

 

[ThreePointTakedown]

15 hours ago, jross said:

SMH - read!  https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/

One of many available links with information was provided for you earlier.  Here are some excerpts:

• 462 surveyed financial journalists (58%) described their political views as very or somewhat liberal, while a small minority (4%) described their political views as very or somewhat conservative.  That is 13:1 rate of liberal to conservative rate of journalists in the business world.
  • https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3279453

• From having near-parity with the general information journalist Republicans in the 1970s, Democrats today outnumbered Republicans by four to one as of 2014. In 1971, Republicans made up 25.7% of all general information journalists. Democrats were 35.5%.  By 2014, the share of journalists identifying as Republican had shrunk to 7.1%, an 18.6 percentage point drop.

  • http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-american-journalist-key-findings.pdf

• The percentage of 'independents' grew significantly, but the financial donations are over 90% left.  This could mean that independent journalists are moderately left, at least on social issues.  

  • https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Do_97_percent_of_journalist_donations_go_to_Democrats

Again, this goes back to media being a business and business, typically, likes lower taxes and less regulation. Which party best exemplifies those policies? It would be against their interest to employ a group of people that undermine those motivations. 

Do all people in the truth-telling industry take an ethical approach to it? No. But that is in every industry. I am not saying, 'Everyone does it so there is no reason to try to fix it," We should definitely try to make it better. How do we go about it? I don't know. But honest conversations are a good start. That means conspiracy theories need to be proven with evidence before believed as fact. 

Do people try to muddy the water for fun or their own financial gain? Yes. But that is the goal of the articles, I believe. Is to emphasize learning to determine the difference between honest sources and bias ones. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

12 hours ago, mspart said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/expert-report-fuels-election-doubts-georgia-waits-update-voting-softwa-rcna89566

Just in case the gatewaypundit is not reliable enough for some on here. 

This report is on multiple platforms in the interwebs. 

mspart

'There is no evidence that hackers have attempted to exploit any of the identified vulnerabilities, or that any such hack has occurred in previous elections. But Georgia was at the center of election conspiracy theories advanced by President Donald Trump and his allies, many of whom singled out Dominion Voting Machines and claimed the election had been hacked. Fox News recently agreed to shell out $787 million to Dominion for advancing claims that Dominion voting machines had been rigged in the 2020 election.'

[ThreePointTakedown]

17 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

The MSM knows that most of America is too lazy or stubborn to research both sides. And agin since most MSM is left leaning they tell them what they want them to know. 

I don't disagree. Some institutions are working to correct that. But people with financial stakes in a logically illiterate populous push back. Why do you think that is? 

They create disinformation. They lie. People you support have lied and you know it. I hope you do at least, everyone does or so I've been told. It seems as if you're ok with them lying. Are you? Do you feel its ok if they lie in order to push their agenda? If so, how is it you are comfortable with that? 

They attack public education. Instead of funding it and seeing if it 'helps' they demonize it and say the only option is to privatize it. Great idea. Nothing has ever gone wrong giving someone a huge pot of money and power and influence on several generations of people(cough cough, catholic/any church).

Is public school a great system? No. It needs improvement. Cutting its funding is not a way to help it succeed. Same with health care. Fighting for your life, rationing your insulin, or not going to a doctor for a, seemingly, innocuous issue until it turns life threatening for fear of the bill, is a form of torture that we subject our neighbors to on a daily basis. We don't need to. We have the resources. We just don't want to. My opinion is, because some who like to yell really loud, have gotten theirs and they don't want to see anyone they feel is unworthy, to succeed in a similar way. Because they feel it diminishes their success. 

It doesn't. Your boat isn't less tall because the tide helps others.  

[Bigbrog]

How did this all of a sudden become about public education??  

[JimmyBT]

51 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Lashing out is what you do when threatened. I get it. I'm sorry that asking questions and hoping that you have the honesty to answer them is a threat to you. I would be threatened too if my sense of self hinged on such weak arguments. If you were better at articulating them instead of flexing on how you're older than everyone, you might learn something. 

Thanks boomer!

 

Lashing out????  Bahahahahahahhaha.  You’re sooooooo soft.  And I wish I was a boomer. Not quite but I’ll take it as a compliment. You Zoomers might just understand someday how stupid you really are. 

[JimmyBT]

10 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

How did this all of a sudden become about public education??  

Because that’s where the poison started. 

[Bigbrog]

Just now, JimmyBT said:

Because that’s where the poison started. 

I know...was a jab at that whackadoodle you are arguing with.  Guy seems like he has a few screws loose.

[JimmyBT]

34 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Again, this goes back to media being a business and business, typically, likes lower taxes and less regulation. Which party best exemplifies those policies? It would be against their interest to employ a group of people that undermine those motivations. 

Do all people in the truth-telling industry take an ethical approach to it? No. But that is in every industry. I am not saying, 'Everyone does it so there is no reason to try to fix it," We should definitely try to make it better. How do we go about it? I don't know. But honest conversations are a good start. That means conspiracy theories need to be proven with evidence before believed as fact. 

Do people try to muddy the water for fun or their own financial gain? Yes. But that is the goal of the articles, I believe. Is to emphasize learning to determine the difference between honest sources and bias ones. 

Blah blah excuse blah blah.  You zoomers are clueless