Poll

How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?

I trust them completely
Not completely, but quite a bit
I don't trust or distrust them
Not much, but I do at times
I distrust them completely

Voting closes: May 27, 2025, 12:05:53 PM

Author Topic: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?  (Read 11991 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #70 on: October 18, 2019, 10:15:10 AM »
This is simpler than we're making it out to be. I think we all know, including Stadler, that Trump was making aid contingent on Ukraine helping him out with his Biden problem. If they'd agreed to help we'd all be buddies now. At the same time Mulvaney said exactly the opposite of that and it's being misrepresented. That's the point Stadler and I are arguing. Nothing in his remarks suggested that the investigation would have changed our policy. In fact, he made it pretty clear that the investigation was a minor point in the grand scheme of things.  Was he lying? Of course he was. Is he being misrepresented? Of course he is. Welcome to the good ole USA.

Not much to argue with here.  (I mean, I don't KNOW some of those things, like whether Mulvaney was lying or not, but like everyone else, I have my opinions.  But I'm not a journalist, so...)

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #71 on: October 18, 2019, 12:07:43 PM »
I dont think he is being misrepresented.  I haven't heard the media say Mulvaney said there was a Quid Pro Quo for BIDEN dirt....they said there was a quid pro quo to get dirt on The DNC.  Same impeachable problem, different political opponent.  Different "investigation", but BOTH not being investigated by the Justice Dept (as they specifically said yesterday)

Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #72 on: October 18, 2019, 01:41:38 PM »
MSNBC has been there for a while, but FOX is racing to join them in the tabloid news market. For years I've defended FOX for the quality of its journalism. The articles I read are generally excellent and unbiased. FOX's right-wing bias manifests itself in other ways. That's taking pretty fast, though. The quality of writing has taken a pretty big hit,  and the headlines are becoming just as sensationalist as MSNBC. This has been going on a couple of months now.  It honestly seems like they're hiring people away from The Sun to have them write actual news.

You won't believe what Sotomayor did. . .
https://www.foxnews.com/us/sotomayor-breaks-supreme-courts-new-quiet-rule-during-immigration-case
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline The Walrus

  • goo goo g'joob
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17221
  • PSA: Stairway to Heaven is in 4/4
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #73 on: October 18, 2019, 01:44:41 PM »
I'm curious how Mick Mulvaney didn't admit to a quid pro quo given the damage control he tried to do merely hours later and how the White House was reportedly "stunned" with what he said in that briefing... That's a bit cheeky, I'm not curious at all, because he did admit it.
From a Mega Man Legends island jamming power metal to a Walrus listening to black metal, I like your story arc.
"I don't worry about nothing, no, 'cause worrying's a waste of my time"

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #74 on: October 18, 2019, 05:38:35 PM »
It's a little more complicated than a soundbite, which is all we seem to hear these days, so I understand your confusion.

First, a 'quid pro quo' (an item or a service has been traded in return for something of value) is not in and of itself illegal.  EVERY valid contract has one (it's called "consideration" in contract law).

In explaining this, I need to be clear that there are TWO events to talk about; Mulvaney's presser from yesterday, and his "walk back" today.

Mulvaney, in the presser, admitted to "a" quid pro quo, though not "the" quid pro quo required for there to be illegal activity under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Withholding military aid in exchange for the three things that Mulvaney said it was withheld for - whether Ukraine was too corrupt for the money, whether other Eurasian countries were providing aid, and for help in an on-going official DOJ investigation into corruption - was in and of itself legal.  There's no problem with that (Biden did the same thing in his capacity as Vice President when he withheld a billion dollar loan guarantee in exchange for Ukraine removing their prosecutor in an effort to increase the fight on corruption, an act about which CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post, and others have stepped on their dicks to make sure we know there is "no evidence of any wrong doing", even though there MIGHT have been some ancillary personal benefit for him and his son).   Mulvaney EXPLICITLY did not connect this to an investigation of Biden himself or to the collection of "dirt" - which would have clearly been illegal, and he DID NOT (even though many are falsely making this connection) connect this specifically to the DNC server, which might have been illegal.  The reporters (there were two) raised the issue of the DNC server, and Mulvaney did not directly answer that, except to say, with respect to the quid pro quo generally that "it happens all the time, get over it". Note I say MIGHT, since it's a question of intent for a jury to decide whether the ancillary personal benefit Trump might get in the furtherance of his Constitutional duty is enough to trigger criminal charges. Trump's intent is what matters, and that's not at issue in Mulvaney's presser, since he was VERY clear that it was not about Biden or the 2020 election (he never used the words "get dirt" my recollection; that's a press reconstruction). 

The problem is two-fold; one, Trump took no such care in his denials and just bleated "no quid pro quo!" whenever he could, because that's what you do when you deal in soundbites, tweets and quips. There is not one shred of evidence that Trump has acknowledged the difference between personal benefit and a general benefit for the interests of the United States.   Two, now Mulvaney is denying he said "quid pro quo", when he clearly DID, and isn't bothering to make the distinction between the personal benefit and the general wellbeing of the country, and so now is flat out lying, making his case worse.

Why are the Trump reps not making the distinction?  I can only speculate; one answer is that they are handling this as rank amateurs, and their inexperience at foreign policy is catching up with them. They've never exhibited any of the discipline or exactness necessary to be really high level good at politics, and that's never been more clear than now.  Why are the press not making this distinction?  I can only speculate, but I've made my personal opinion clear all along. The number of times I've heard "get over it" used in a sarcastic, judgmental manner kind of reinforces that case (Jake Tapper's disgust and condescension was not even remotely disguised this afternoon, neither was Jim Acosta's).  Why are the Dems not made this distinction?  I can only speculate, but it's CLEARLY not in their best interests if we confuse "quid pro quo", and if they don't HAVE to make the argument that just the possibility of an ancillary benefit to Trump is enough to trigger the Act and get him impeached.  It's also important to note that the Senate hearing is NOT a court of law, and so there doesn't HAVE to literally be a crime for them to remove him from office, so all this hurts his impeachment case regardless. 
« Last Edit: October 18, 2019, 05:52:25 PM by Stadler »

Offline Ninjabait

  • PR permission
  • *
  • Posts: 691
  • Gender: Male
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #75 on: October 19, 2019, 08:13:25 AM »
Going back to the original topic for a sec: it largely depends on the source and often even the medium. Cable news is, in general, wildly untrustworthy and prone to errors and misrepresenting things. Fox News and CNN are the worst about it, but MSNBC is no saint either. I've also seen a worrying number of obvious propaganda sites masquerading as news lately. Stuff like Drudge Report, Think Progress, etc. tends to pop up a lot on my facebook feed. In general, I tend to trust newspapers a LOT more than televised news as they tend to be more factual and less sensationalized than televised news, and are fairly open about their mission statement and any potential biases. A lot of the potential bias is mainly tucked into the editorial section too, so it's easier to parse the fact from the opinion. Bloomberg, Reuters, the Associated Press, Christian Science Monitor, and Sarasota-Herald Tribune (although that's a local paper) tend to be some of my go-to sources for news.

I think a lot of people, especially here in the states, don't have the time or know-how to determine if a news website/paper/news network is good or bad. A lot of them can be hit or miss with the facts, and others have such obvious biases that they're clearly just propaganda. I tend to use mediabiasfactcheck.com to verify the quality of a source, because they tend to be willing to call out both left and right wing sources for factual errors and have a sound, publicly available methodology. imo they tend to be lacking when it comes to non American/British/Australian/Canadian/New Zealand papers, but their coverage of American sources is top notch imo. There are other sites that do that too, which is handy to cross reference things, but they don't tend to be as good as the aforementioned site.

Anyways, this is a good working list of papers that seem to be great sources based on what I've seen from that site. I've grouped it by whether they're left-wing, right-wing, or more centrist and minimally biased sources. Some of the non-anglophone sources may or may not be as good as I think, but tbh it's a pretty good list. There's a lot of Florida papers, naturally, since I'm from Florida lol.

Left-wing news sources with strong factual records:
https://www.theatlantic.com/
http://www.baltimoresun.com/
https://baptistnews.com/ (Christian paper)
https://www.bloomberg.com/ (note: tends to have a strong readership across the political spectrum, other sources label it as "centrist", which I'm more inclined to agree with)
https://www.bostonglobe.com/
http://www.thechristianleft.org/ (Christian paper)
http://www.cnbc.com/
http://www.dw.com/de/
http://www.dutchdailynews.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/observer
http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/
https://independentaustralia.net/
http://www.independent.co.uk/
http://www.irishtimes.com/
https://kotaku.com/
http://www.latimes.com/
https://www.themonthly.com.au/
https://www.naplesnews.com/ (Florida paper)
https://www.npr.org/sections/news/
https://www.nytimes.com/
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/ (Florida paper)
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/ (Florida paper)
http://www.tampabay.com/ (Florida paper)
http://time.com/
https://www.usatoday.com/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/

Centrist or least biased news sources with strong factual records:
https://apnews.com/ (note: editorials tend to lean slightly left)
https://www.bbc.com/news (Note: they lean left on certain issues and right-wing on others, and are typically favored by left-wing patrons)
https://www.csmonitor.com/ (note: they do not have an overtly religious tone in their regular articles, but do publish at least one religion-related story per paper)
http://www.c-span.org/
https://www.c-span.org/WJ
http://www.ledevoir.com/
http://www.dpa-international.com/
https://www.economist.com/ (note: Libertarian leaning, in a sense: right-wing on economic issues, left-wing on environmental issues and social issues)
http://www.heraldtribune.com/ (Florida paper)
https://thehill.com/ (note: leans right in editorial pieces)
https://www.investopedia.com/
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/
http://www.thejournal.ie/
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/ (note: leans right in editorial pieces)
http://www.reuters.com/
https://www.zdf.de/

Right-wing news sources with strong factual records:
http://www.9news.com.au/
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/
http://www.bostonherald.com/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ (Christian paper)
http://jacksonville.com/ (Florida paper)
http://gazette.com/
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/
http://www.independent.ie/
https://www.japantoday.com/
https://www.jpost.com/
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ (Florida Paper)
http://www.tallahassee.com/ (Florida paper)
http://www.tbo.com/ (Florida paper)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/
https://thewest.com.au/

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #76 on: October 19, 2019, 10:23:04 PM »
The DOJ said it had no clue about any request for assistance from Ukraine in any investigation.

Seriously, can we call that a legitimate reason for withholding aid?  Wether or not they were participating or cooperating with an active DOJ investigation, if even the DOJ had no clue of any request for cooperation from Ukraine, or that any aid was tied to it?

Isn’t it then just a BS reason to justify the hold on aid.... and perhaps even an excuse to distract from the other reason (Biden) from the Trump call?
« Last Edit: October 19, 2019, 10:32:07 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 49033
  • Gender: Male
  • Kip Rolled
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #77 on: October 20, 2019, 06:30:16 AM »
Ninja, thank you for compiling that list!
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #78 on: October 20, 2019, 09:10:09 AM »
Going back to the original topic for a sec: it largely depends on the source and often even the medium. Cable news is, in general, wildly untrustworthy and prone to errors and misrepresenting things. Fox News and CNN are the worst about it, but MSNBC is no saint either. I've also seen a worrying number of obvious propaganda sites masquerading as news lately. Stuff like Drudge Report, Think Progress, etc. tends to pop up a lot on my facebook feed. In general, I tend to trust newspapers a LOT more than televised news as they tend to be more factual and less sensationalized than televised news, and are fairly open about their mission statement and any potential biases. A lot of the potential bias is mainly tucked into the editorial section too, so it's easier to parse the fact from the opinion. Bloomberg, Reuters, the Associated Press, Christian Science Monitor, and Sarasota-Herald Tribune (although that's a local paper) tend to be some of my go-to sources for news.

I think a lot of people, especially here in the states, don't have the time or know-how to determine if a news website/paper/news network is good or bad. A lot of them can be hit or miss with the facts, and others have such obvious biases that they're clearly just propaganda. I tend to use mediabiasfactcheck.com to verify the quality of a source, because they tend to be willing to call out both left and right wing sources for factual errors and have a sound, publicly available methodology. imo they tend to be lacking when it comes to non American/British/Australian/Canadian/New Zealand papers, but their coverage of American sources is top notch imo. There are other sites that do that too, which is handy to cross reference things, but they don't tend to be as good as the aforementioned site.

Anyways, this is a good working list of papers that seem to be great sources based on what I've seen from that site. I've grouped it by whether they're left-wing, right-wing, or more centrist and minimally biased sources. Some of the non-anglophone sources may or may not be as good as I think, but tbh it's a pretty good list. There's a lot of Florida papers, naturally, since I'm from Florida lol.

I have family in the Sarasota area.  I can see myself living there someday (soon). I almost moved there after my divorce.

As for bias, "factually accurate" is only a part of it.  El Barto has written on this point a lot, I think. But I was in a discussion with a dude who... well, let's leave it at "he had very strong opinions about the moral wasteland that is the GOP", and he posted an article by Rantt Media that purported to show something along the lines of "over the last 40 years the Republicans have 40 times the corruption of Democrats".  Not exactly it, but close enough for this conversation.   The article passed muster with a fact checker, in that all the bits and pieces of information stacked up, but the conclusion was wildly off base. 

My WHOLE point in generally is less about "fact-based" than it is the idea that singling out Fox as being somehow detrimental and dangerous, and not acknowledging CNN in a similar light is simply flawed analysis. 

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 49033
  • Gender: Male
  • Kip Rolled
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #79 on: October 20, 2019, 09:12:27 AM »
I basically consider CNN and Fox News nothing more than the equivalent of sports talk radio stations.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #80 on: October 20, 2019, 09:16:40 AM »
I basically consider CNN and Fox News nothing more than the equivalent of sports talk radio stations.

Haha, that's not a bad analogy; they both have that feel.  You can even get a sense of when the anchor feels like they are saying something controversial and hoping it lands (like you get with a guy like Chris Russo; his voice and tone change when he's making a point he feels is going to light up the phone banks). 

Offline Ninjabait

  • PR permission
  • *
  • Posts: 691
  • Gender: Male
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #81 on: October 20, 2019, 01:00:39 PM »
I have family in the Sarasota area.  I can see myself living there someday (soon). I almost moved there after my divorce.

Sarasota is a very nice place to live tbh. It's really starting to grow and pick up steam, and there is a VERY vibrant arts/theater/music scene there, especially for the size. There's also the beaches if you're into that sort of thing. Plus it's part of a large metropolitan area, so living there gets you access to 4 other cities. Tampa's also not too far away. Major downsides are the high cost of living (mainly because of the ridiculous housing prices, but the nearby Palmetto and Bradenton have much lower costs), all the snowbirds, hurricane season, and the infrastructure hasn't kept up with the population growth so there's a lot of traffic there.

As for bias, "factually accurate" is only a part of it.  El Barto has written on this point a lot, I think. But I was in a discussion with a dude who... well, let's leave it at "he had very strong opinions about the moral wasteland that is the GOP", and he posted an article by Rantt Media that purported to show something along the lines of "over the last 40 years the Republicans have 40 times the corruption of Democrats".  Not exactly it, but close enough for this conversation.   The article passed muster with a fact checker, in that all the bits and pieces of information stacked up, but the conclusion was wildly off base. 

My WHOLE point in generally is less about "fact-based" than it is the idea that singling out Fox as being somehow detrimental and dangerous, and not acknowledging CNN in a similar light is simply flawed analysis.

I should clarify that I wasn't necessarily responding to you, but to the original topic.

And yeah, I did acknowledge that CNN is also one of the worst large sources alongside Fox once you remove the "literally actual propaganda" sources. They both tend to get a lot of information wrong and don't have a great track record with issuing corrections. Fox has also published conspiracy theories (like the Seth Rich murder conspiracy), and their pundits tend to use very poor sources. They're the least accurate cable news network according to Politifact. One of the main issues is that Fox is widely consumed by conservatives and in some cases is the only news source that conservatives rely on (of course, this is not a 1-1 comparison and a lot of conservatives tend to have a balanced and healthy news diet). If one of the largest--if not THE largest--news sources in the country is widely publishing conspiracy theories and untrue information, that is a major problem. There's also the issue of the slogan "Fair and Balanced" when talking about Fox News. It's highly disingenuous for a news organization to paint itself as such when it is consistently demonstrating right-wing biases. MSNBC and CNN have similar issues, especially with untrue reporting. CNN in particular tends to "jump the gun" with breaking stories instead of verifying their accuracy, and their non-stop Trump coverage during the 2016 election and their handling of the democratic debates this year have also been problematic. In effect, CNN's coverage of the Trump candidacy was one of the major reasons that he moved from a fringe candidate to the mainstream representation of the modern Republican party. All 3 of the major cable news networks are inherently problematic and tend to produce less informed viewership according to surveys by Pew Research Center, but Fox is especially so because of how centralized conservative news consumption habits are around it.

You do raise a good point, however, in that simply being factual is not enough for a news source. A majority of news sources tend to use emotionally loaded word choices and biased story selection when reporting issues despite every bit of information they present being factual. One has to be aware of those sorts of implicit biases and how they affect conclusions and reporting habits when consuming news media. If you're not aware of those biases you might be more influenced by the MANNER in which something is reported than what is actually reported. Furthermore, if you tend to just use right-wing or left-wing sources, you run the risk of placing yourself in an echo chamber. Echo chambers tend to lead to radicalization and have an overall negative effect on the state of political polarization in the country (and, indeed, the entire world).

The most important thing is, I think, to have a truly healthy and balanced consumption of news sources. For example, in my RSS feed, I have:

The Guardian (Left-wing, British)
Le Monde (Left-wing, French)
New York Times (Left-wing)
NPR (Left-wing)
Bloomberg (effectively centrist)
Christian Science Monitor (centrist)
AP (centrist)
Reuters (centrist)
Christianity Today (Right-wing)
Chicago Tribune (Right-wing)
Boston Herald (Right-wing)
(+ some local papers, which are similarly spread across the political spectrum, and two other left-wing papers which I added on accident and can't figure out how to delete them lol)

This is, I think, a good example of what a balanced news diet would look like. It tends to lean a little left, yes, because that's how I tend to lean, but I'm also incorporating right-wing sources to get a different perspective. It also helps to verify a potentially charged story is accurate, as if both right and left wing papers are reporting the same way on the same story, it's probably closer to reality.

As an aside, if I can help it, I'm going to try to find a good center-right or right-leaning English-language German paper to add to balance it more. I specifically want a German one, because of how major of a player they are in international politics so it's important to keep up to date on that. I was going to do FAZ, but they don't have an English RSS option in my app :(

tl;dr: my point is that it's dangerous to rely on any one news source as a primary source of information and one should be aware of the leaning and factualility of papers and take that into consideration when consuming news

I basically consider CNN and Fox News nothing more than the equivalent of sports talk radio stations.

That is a great analogy.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #82 on: October 20, 2019, 03:41:50 PM »
I should clarify that I wasn't necessarily responding to you, but to the original topic.

And yeah, I did acknowledge that CNN is also one of the worst large sources alongside Fox once you remove the "literally actual propaganda" sources. They both tend to get a lot of information wrong and don't have a great track record with issuing corrections. Fox has also published conspiracy theories (like the Seth Rich murder conspiracy), and their pundits tend to use very poor sources. They're the least accurate cable news network according to Politifact. One of the main issues is that Fox is widely consumed by conservatives and in some cases is the only news source that conservatives rely on (of course, this is not a 1-1 comparison and a lot of conservatives tend to have a balanced and healthy news diet). If one of the largest--if not THE largest--news sources in the country is widely publishing conspiracy theories and untrue information, that is a major problem. There's also the issue of the slogan "Fair and Balanced" when talking about Fox News. It's highly disingenuous for a news organization to paint itself as such when it is consistently demonstrating right-wing biases. MSNBC and CNN have similar issues, especially with untrue reporting. CNN in particular tends to "jump the gun" with breaking stories instead of verifying their accuracy, and their non-stop Trump coverage during the 2016 election and their handling of the democratic debates this year have also been problematic. In effect, CNN's coverage of the Trump candidacy was one of the major reasons that he moved from a fringe candidate to the mainstream representation of the modern Republican party. All 3 of the major cable news networks are inherently problematic and tend to produce less informed viewership according to surveys by Pew Research Center, but Fox is especially so because of how centralized conservative news consumption habits are around it.

Some of this has been discussed already.  To wit:
- My point above has been to note that CNN is just as likely to be broadcasting "literal actual propaganda".  They regularly hold Democratic town halls, Democratic debates, and for most issues/events, the on-air interviews are with Democratic representatives.
- I've provided links above that debunk the notion that Fox is a firehose for conservatives.  The breakdowns of the audiences are not as disparate as the "Fox is evil" hypothesis requires.   For fact: there are more non-conservative (i.e. Democrats and Independents) viewers of Fox than there are non-liberal (i.e. Republican and Independents) viewers of CNN.
- I have to dig in to the Plitifact scoring but I'd be curious what happens if you remove Don Lemon and Sean Hannity from the mix.  I have nothing nice to say about Hannity, and I have a gut feeling that he's so over the top that it skews the numbers significantly.
- "It's highly disingenuous for a news organization to paint itself as such when it is consistently demonstrating right-wing biases." True, almost as disingenuous as the news organization that paints itself as "The Most Trusted Name In News" consistently demonstrating left-wing biases.   

Again, I think there's ample evidence that your last sentence is not accurate enough to justify the assumptions that follow from it.   

Quote
You do raise a good point, however, in that simply being factual is not enough for a news source. A majority of news sources tend to use emotionally loaded word choices and biased story selection when reporting issues despite every bit of information they present being factual. One has to be aware of those sorts of implicit biases and how they affect conclusions and reporting habits when consuming news media. If you're not aware of those biases you might be more influenced by the MANNER in which something is reported than what is actually reported. Furthermore, if you tend to just use right-wing or left-wing sources, you run the risk of placing yourself in an echo chamber. Echo chambers tend to lead to radicalization and have an overall negative effect on the state of political polarization in the country (and, indeed, the entire world).

I agree with this 1000%, and though I've been criticized for it, this is in large part why I've spent the last couple pages highlighting how CNN has been helped by the outrageous overshadowing of the reputation of Fox (and in particular it's opinion-tainment evening crew). I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this, but if it makes even one person be a shade more critical of the information they absorb from sources they assumed, previously, that they could have trusted, then that's enough.

Quote
This is, I think, a good example of what a balanced news diet would look like. It tends to lean a little left, yes, because that's how I tend to lean, but I'm also incorporating right-wing sources to get a different perspective. It also helps to verify a potentially charged story is accurate, as if both right and left wing papers are reporting the same way on the same story, it's probably closer to reality.

No criticism here, but if one leans one direction, is there an argument that your news sources should lean the OTHER way?  Not entirely, of course, there needs to be balance, but if you know where your arguments tend to sit, don't you get more benefit from seeing the counter arguments?

Quote
tl;dr: my point is that it's dangerous to rely on any one news source as a primary source of information and one should be aware of the leaning and factualility of papers and take that into consideration when consuming news

One thing I do wish more Americans did is use international news sources.  I'm constantly amazed at how many people - otherwise informed people - don't even know what the Guardian or the Economist are, let alone read them. 

Offline Ninjabait

  • PR permission
  • *
  • Posts: 691
  • Gender: Male
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #83 on: October 20, 2019, 06:17:49 PM »
Some of this has been discussed already.  To wit:
- My point above has been to note that CNN is just as likely to be broadcasting "literal actual propaganda".  They regularly hold Democratic town halls, Democratic debates, and for most issues/events, the on-air interviews are with Democratic representatives.

I personally wouldn't call CNN or Fox literal actual propaganda. Are they heavily biased and bad sources? Yes. But I was referring more to publications like Think Progress or Occupy Democrats on the left or Drudge Report or Prager U on the right.

- I've provided links above that debunk the notion that Fox is a firehose for conservatives.  The breakdowns of the audiences are not as disparate as the "Fox is evil" hypothesis requires.   For fact: there are more non-conservative (i.e. Democrats and Independents) viewers of Fox than there are non-liberal (i.e. Republican and Independents) viewers of CNN.

I was mostly referencing this often cited study by the Pew Research Center from 2014, which seems to corroborate what I said. Fox is #1 among "mostly conservative" and "consistently conservative" respondents, and there's a MASSIVE gap between 1 and 2 of 22 percentage points for the former and 36 for the latter! Compare that to the other three categories, which tend to have more even numbers all around. It also corroborates what you said on there being more non-conservative viewers of Fox than non-liberal viewers of CNN and MSNBC. Unfortunately, that is the most recent reliable study I could find that discusses ideological differences relating to news consumption.

There's also an interesting correlation in a different page of that Pew link: Those in the "Consistently Conservative" category mostly ONLY trust Right-wing sources. They're the only group where the trust level for the more neutral The Economist is not greater than the distrust level, for example. "Consistently Liberal" had several centrist and the WSJ in their trusted column. "Mostly Conservative", "Mixed", and "Mostly Liberal" were more trusting across the political spectrum. This also implicitly supports my claim that conservatives tend to rally around Fox, and right-wing news in general (at least more so than progressives or independents do with left-wing or right-wing news). The Conservative bloc (Mostly + Consistently) in that poll are also more likely to distrust news than the Progressive bloc or the Mixed.

I also could not find those links you mentioned.

- I have to dig in to the Plitifact scoring but I'd be curious what happens if you remove Don Lemon and Sean Hannity from the mix.  I have nothing nice to say about Hannity, and I have a gut feeling that he's so over the top that it skews the numbers significantly.

Pundits are a major source of unfactual claims on all three networks, yes.

Sean Hannity has a 29% of his checked claims listed as "Mostly True" or "True" on Politifact, and 71% listed as "Half-True" or below. His largest is category is "False", which comprises 29% of his claims. Tucker Carlson also has only 1 checked claim listed as "Mostly True" or "True", while the rest are "Half True" or lower. Katie Pavlich is 0 for 3. Bill O'Reily is at 34%. For comparison, Rachel Maddow is at 39%; Wolf Blitzer is 3 for 3; Keith Olbermann is 2 out of 7; John Oliver has 0 false claims and only 2 half-true. Don Lemon (who works at CNN now btw) is 2/3. An observation though is that a lot of these people have fewer claims than expected (specifically the ones I listed numbers instead of percentages for).

And, for additional fun, Rush Limbaugh has 0 True claims and only 2 Mostly True! That's 5% of his total claims. Alex Jones is also 0/4. Wild.

I don't have specific data to support this, but I would imagine that if you controlled for pundits, the factual record for Fox and CNN would improve. It would still be negative, though.

- "It's highly disingenuous for a news organization to paint itself as such when it is consistently demonstrating right-wing biases." True, almost as disingenuous as the news organization that paints itself as "The Most Trusted Name In News" consistently demonstrating left-wing biases.

This is a case of apples and oranges. Fox News is claiming to be unbiased (by being "Fair" to all sides and political opinions and having a "Balanced" display of perspectives) while maintaining a consistent Right-wing bias, meanwhile CNN is claiming it's the most trusted name in news (which is, incidentally, false. The Economist, Reuters, and WSJ are among those listed as most trusted) NOT that it's unbiased. You can make a leap in logic that "must trusted = least biased" but they are not directly claiming that, while Fox is.

I agree with this 1000%, and though I've been criticized for it, this is in large part why I've spent the last couple pages highlighting how CNN has been helped by the outrageous overshadowing of the reputation of Fox (and in particular it's opinion-tainment evening crew). I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this, but if it makes even one person be a shade more critical of the information they absorb from sources they assumed, previously, that they could have trusted, then that's enough.

Actually, I DO agree with this sentiment 100%. CNN's lack of quality is often overshadowed by Fox's. I still, however, believe that Fox being a bad source is a more pressing issue for the reasons I described above.

No criticism here, but if one leans one direction, is there an argument that your news sources should lean the OTHER way?  Not entirely, of course, there needs to be balance, but if you know where your arguments tend to sit, don't you get more benefit from seeing the counter arguments?

I'm not sure, actually. I couldn't find any research that indicates mostly consuming opposite media is beneficial or negative. Just not much research into the topic I suppose. I'll refrain from providing an uninformed opinion on the matter, but that is an excellent point.

One thing I do wish more Americans did is use international news sources.  I'm constantly amazed at how many people - otherwise informed people - don't even know what the Guardian or the Economist are, let alone read them.

You'd be surprised! The Guardian has 300k American subscribers as of 2018, which puts it in the Top 10 most subscribed newspapers in the country! The Pew piece I linked above indicated that at least 40% of people surveyed recognized the Gruaniad as well.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #84 on: October 20, 2019, 08:49:50 PM »
Some of this has been discussed already.  To wit:
- My point above has been to note that CNN is just as likely to be broadcasting "literal actual propaganda".  They regularly hold Democratic town halls, Democratic debates, and for most issues/events, the on-air interviews are with Democratic representatives.

I personally wouldn't call CNN or Fox literal actual propaganda. Are they heavily biased and bad sources? Yes. But I was referring more to publications like Think Progress or Occupy Democrats on the left or Drudge Report or Prager U on the right.

Fair enough; that's my misunderstanding.  Sorry, bud.

Quote
- I've provided links above that debunk the notion that Fox is a firehose for conservatives.  The breakdowns of the audiences are not as disparate as the "Fox is evil" hypothesis requires.   For fact: there are more non-conservative (i.e. Democrats and Independents) viewers of Fox than there are non-liberal (i.e. Republican and Independents) viewers of CNN.

I was mostly referencing this often cited study by the Pew Research Center from 2014, which seems to corroborate what I said. Fox is #1 among "mostly conservative" and "consistently conservative" respondents, and there's a MASSIVE gap between 1 and 2 of 22 percentage points for the former and 36 for the latter! Compare that to the other three categories, which tend to have more even numbers all around. It also corroborates what you said on there being more non-conservative viewers of Fox than non-liberal viewers of CNN and MSNBC. Unfortunately, that is the most recent reliable study I could find that discusses ideological differences relating to news consumption.

There's also an interesting correlation in a different page of that Pew link: Those in the "Consistently Conservative" category mostly ONLY trust Right-wing sources. They're the only group where the trust level for the more neutral The Economist is not greater than the distrust level, for example. "Consistently Liberal" had several centrist and the WSJ in their trusted column. "Mostly Conservative", "Mixed", and "Mostly Liberal" were more trusting across the political spectrum. This also implicitly supports my claim that conservatives tend to rally around Fox, and right-wing news in general (at least more so than progressives or independents do with left-wing or right-wing news). The Conservative bloc (Mostly + Consistently) in that poll are also more likely to distrust news than the Progressive bloc or the Mixed.

I also could not find those links you mentioned.

I'll try to find them again, if you like. 

I want to look at that last study before I say too much more, though.  "Trust" is an odd word to use, in that it can mean wildly different things to different people.   If you "trust" a source, does that mean you believe they are right 100% of the time?  Or that they're just as wrong as the next guy, but at least you understand where the "wrong" is?  Five years ago I would have said I trusted CNN very much, even if I disagreed with their conclusions a significant amount of times.  Now?  Not so much, as I read there documents like the Mueller Report and watch press conferences like Mulvaney's and then see how the words I heard/read are reported.   Which is another kind of trust; what's the agenda?  I know some are bugged by Murdoch and his point of view; I get that, but for me, I'm just as bothered by journalism that tries to effect outcomes of our politics (I don't mean humanitarian causes, I mean influencing elections). 

Quote
- I have to dig in to the Plitifact scoring but I'd be curious what happens if you remove Don Lemon and Sean Hannity from the mix.  I have nothing nice to say about Hannity, and I have a gut feeling that he's so over the top that it skews the numbers significantly.

Pundits are a major source of unfactual claims on all three networks, yes.

Sean Hannity has a 29% of his checked claims listed as "Mostly True" or "True" on Politifact, and 71% listed as "Half-True" or below. His largest is category is "False", which comprises 29% of his claims. Tucker Carlson also has only 1 checked claim listed as "Mostly True" or "True", while the rest are "Half True" or lower. Katie Pavlich is 0 for 3. Bill O'Reily is at 34%. For comparison, Rachel Maddow is at 39%; Wolf Blitzer is 3 for 3; Keith Olbermann is 2 out of 7; John Oliver has 0 false claims and only 2 half-true. Don Lemon (who works at CNN now btw) is 2/3. An observation though is that a lot of these people have fewer claims than expected (specifically the ones I listed numbers instead of percentages for).

And, for additional fun, Rush Limbaugh has 0 True claims and only 2 Mostly True! That's 5% of his total claims. Alex Jones is also 0/4. Wild.

I don't have specific data to support this, but I would imagine that if you controlled for pundits, the factual record for Fox and CNN would improve. It would still be negative, though.

Well, we're in agreement here, generally, because at least you're acknowledging that there might be more similarities between the various large outlets than many of the partisan participants are willing to concede.

Quote

This is a case of apples and oranges. Fox News is claiming to be unbiased (by being "Fair" to all sides and political opinions and having a "Balanced" display of perspectives) while maintaining a consistent Right-wing bias, meanwhile CNN is claiming it's the most trusted name in news (which is, incidentally, false. The Economist, Reuters, and WSJ are among those listed as most trusted) NOT that it's unbiased. You can make a leap in logic that "must trusted = least biased" but they are not directly claiming that, while Fox is.

Well, we're splitting hairs here, but this goes back to my point about "trusted".  I don't nominally disagree with you, but when you have Kate Bolduin, Brooke Baldwin and Jake Tapper ALL, in the same afternoon, materially misquoting Mulvaney, and regularly and consistently opining that "there is no evidence to support that claim" every time Biden is mentioned in the same sentence as "The Ukraine", it's not just bias, it's also veracity and, in my view, the ethics of it. 

Quote
I agree with this 1000%, and though I've been criticized for it, this is in large part why I've spent the last couple pages highlighting how CNN has been helped by the outrageous overshadowing of the reputation of Fox (and in particular it's opinion-tainment evening crew). I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this, but if it makes even one person be a shade more critical of the information they absorb from sources they assumed, previously, that they could have trusted, then that's enough.

Actually, I DO agree with this sentiment 100%. CNN's lack of quality is often overshadowed by Fox's. I still, however, believe that Fox being a bad source is a more pressing issue for the reasons I described above.

It's with respect that I say I'm not in agreement with the degree of severity.  I spent a good amount of time over the last couple days in a conversation with a retired woman who had all the talking points down:  "Trump is evil, racist, bigoted, corrupt, etc. etc." and "Fox is his Nazi-like Propaganda Arm, spewing their hate and vitriol" and then proceeded to basically run down the CNN talking points on Mulvaney, Ukraine ("quid pro quo!").  She was no more interested in information that countered her precious little world view than Trump is.   If it chills discussion, if it chills debate, if it continues to foster a divisive and partisan environment, I don't see how it's any different, qualitatively.  Sure, there are some differences psychologically (I don't have the links on this computer, I can post more tomorrow, maybe) in how information is evaluated, how risk is incorporated into that analysis, etc. etc., but if the outcome is the same, does it matter?  Put another way, if I get bad info from one source, and act on it, and you get bad info from four sources, and act on it, is one better than the other?  I suppose an argument can be made about the odds are better of getting good info with four sources, but that's not the way it's playing out.  When you've devolved everything down to two parties, two ideologies, two poles, that offsets any gains you might have in sheer numbers. 


Quote
One thing I do wish more Americans did is use international news sources.  I'm constantly amazed at how many people - otherwise informed people - don't even know what the Guardian or the Economist are, let alone read them.

You'd be surprised! The Guardian has 300k American subscribers as of 2018, which puts it in the Top 10 most subscribed newspapers in the country! The Pew piece I linked above indicated that at least 40% of people surveyed recognized the Gruaniad as well.

I am surprised.  And I suppose I have to hang around with a better class of people.  :) :) ;)
« Last Edit: October 21, 2019, 08:45:56 AM by Stadler »

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 43461
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #85 on: October 21, 2019, 08:44:10 AM »
Withholding military aid in exchange for the three things that Mulvaney said it was withheld for - whether Ukraine was too corrupt for the money, whether other Eurasian countries were providing aid, and for help in an on-going official DOJ investigation into corruption - was in and of itself legal.     
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not think there was any such DOJ investigation going on.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #86 on: October 21, 2019, 08:54:13 AM »
With deep respect:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/the-carter-page-fisa-a-timeline

"Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been looking into alleged FISA abuse since March 2018, and Attorney General William Barr — along with U.S. Attorney John Durham — has launched his own broader inquiry into the actions taken during the Trump-Russia investigation."

This article is dated early June of 2019; that means there were - at the time of the call (July 25, I believe) - technically two, one led by Michael Horovitz and one led by John Durham.  I would understand if you argued that the Horovitz investigation isn't directly on point, but the Durham one most assuredly is.   Also technically speaking, the Mueller Report is a third, and may qualify here if you consider that Trump believes it was a botched report and needed to be supplemented (though it baffles me why he would; in more strategic, savvy hands, it can be a good document for him all things considered). 
« Last Edit: October 21, 2019, 09:18:51 AM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #87 on: October 21, 2019, 09:04:39 AM »
So, for links on the audience of CNN, MSNBC and Fox:
https://pos.org/whos-watching-a-look-at-the-demographics-of-cable-news-channel-watchers/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/12/fox-news-audience-may-not-be-what-you-think-even-if-programming-usually-is/
https://www.mcall.com/opinion/mc-opi-fox-news-msnbc-cnn-cable-myths-20181109-story.html

So you can read if you like, there's a lot of info in those sources (some of it conflicting if you ask me) but I post them to corroborate the idea that the Fox audience isn't remarkably different than the CNN audience in terms of (political) diversity. This may give some color to that as well.

I referenced the psychology of the differences between the partisan audiences; I won't post the links unless it's relevant and interesting, but I have them.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 43461
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #88 on: October 21, 2019, 09:59:53 AM »
With deep respect:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/the-carter-page-fisa-a-timeline

"Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been looking into alleged FISA abuse since March 2018, and Attorney General William Barr — along with U.S. Attorney John Durham — has launched his own broader inquiry into the actions taken during the Trump-Russia investigation."

This article is dated early June of 2019; that means there were - at the time of the call (July 25, I believe) - technically two, one led by Michael Horovitz and one led by John Durham.  I would understand if you argued that the Horovitz investigation isn't directly on point, but the Durham one most assuredly is.   Also technically speaking, the Mueller Report is a third, and may qualify here if you consider that Trump believes it was a botched report and needed to be supplemented (though it baffles me why he would; in more strategic, savvy hands, it can be a good document for him all things considered).
Thanks, I had my dates mixed up.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #89 on: October 21, 2019, 10:08:09 AM »
Withholding military aid in exchange for the three things that Mulvaney said it was withheld for - whether Ukraine was too corrupt for the money, whether other Eurasian countries were providing aid, and for help in an on-going official DOJ investigation into corruption - was in and of itself legal.     
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not think there was any such DOJ investigation going on.

There was investigations going on, but the DOJ came out THE SAME DAY, and said they had ZERO clue that there was any cooperation with Ukraine tied to Aid.  So either the White House simply forgot to tell the DOJ something pretty important about their investigation, or it was simply used as a BS excuse.
Considering the administrations track record on truth, some my draw conclusions one way or the other.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Ninjabait

  • PR permission
  • *
  • Posts: 691
  • Gender: Male
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #90 on: October 22, 2019, 03:41:53 PM »
I'll try to find them again, if you like. 

I want to look at that last study before I say too much more, though.  "Trust" is an odd word to use, in that it can mean wildly different things to different people.   If you "trust" a source, does that mean you believe they are right 100% of the time?  Or that they're just as wrong as the next guy, but at least you understand where the "wrong" is?  Five years ago I would have said I trusted CNN very much, even if I disagreed with their conclusions a significant amount of times.  Now?  Not so much, as I read there documents like the Mueller Report and watch press conferences like Mulvaney's and then see how the words I heard/read are reported.   Which is another kind of trust; what's the agenda?  I know some are bugged by Murdoch and his point of view; I get that, but for me, I'm just as bothered by journalism that tries to effect outcomes of our politics (I don't mean humanitarian causes, I mean influencing elections).

Well, America's trust in the media in general is pretty much at an all time low. I read earlier that the decline of news media started with Vietnam and all the news orgs pushing administration talking points. It improved a little with Watergate, but then went right back to declining. Before 'Nam, the news was a very trusted institution, especially Walter Cronkite (who was the most trusted man in America). I sold plasma today, so I'm too tired and lazy to find the source though lol. It's still interesting.

I think it's a combination of everything you listed though. I don't really trust institutions like Fox and CNN because they tend to get things wrong and blur the line between punditry/opinion and news reporting. I don't trust institutions like the Daily Mail and Bild because they're objectively terrible. I don't trust institutions like Breitbart and Huffington Post because they put more emphasis on pushing propaganda than reporting the news. I'm hesitant to trust the WSJ on environmental issues, because they have a tendency to push oil companies' propaganda and give a lot of credence to climate change denialists (which is why I didn't list them in my good sources list, among other reasons). They've also had a history of supporting people like Pinochet and Jair Bolsonaro, which hurts their credibility with me a LOT. But, if I was to find a random article by them on say Housing or the Economy, I would be more inclined to trust them on that. Furthermore, I tend not to trust the WSJ and NYT opinion pages as much as the ones for other papers because they're more prone to rubbish and factual errors.

I do trust institutions like the Guardian, even while I'm aware they're a left-wing paper. I trust them because they're willing to report on the facts for controversial things like the Panama Papers and the Assange leaks and bust the balls of people on the left. I trust the CSM because they have a good fact record and their wording is very neutral and less emotional. In general, things that help me trust a news source are: good factual records, less emotionally load/more neutral language, willingness to go against people "on their side" and a refusal to toe the party line, diversity in story selection, and a "mission statement" of sorts that lets you know any potential leanings out the get-go. There's a lot of factors that influence

Well, we're in agreement here, generally, because at least you're acknowledging that there might be more similarities between the various large outlets than many of the partisan participants are willing to concede.

I may be far-left by American standards (or just left by the rest of the world's), but I am proudly NOT a partisan.

Well, we're splitting hairs here, but this goes back to my point about "trusted".  I don't nominally disagree with you, but when you have Kate Bolduin, Brooke Baldwin and Jake Tapper ALL, in the same afternoon, materially misquoting Mulvaney, and regularly and consistently opining that "there is no evidence to support that claim" every time Biden is mentioned in the same sentence as "The Ukraine", it's not just bias, it's also veracity and, in my view, the ethics of it.

No, I agree on that front. I don't have as much information on the Biden-Ukraine corruption scandal, but it seems to me that there is some form of an issue there. I don't much trust CNN either, and I would dispute their claim as the most trusted name in news. I would also like to state, for the record, that I am for the impeachment of Donald Trump and he misused his power in denying aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigating a political rival.

It's with respect that I say I'm not in agreement with the degree of severity.  I spent a good amount of time over the last couple days in a conversation with a retired woman who had all the talking points down:  "Trump is evil, racist, bigoted, corrupt, etc. etc."

I mean, I would 100% agree with all of those assessments just based on what I've seen from his tweets and statements lol. BUT:

and "Fox is his Nazi-like Propaganda Arm, spewing their hate and vitriol" and then proceeded to basically run down the CNN talking points on Mulvaney, Ukraine ("quid pro quo!"). She was no more interested in information that countered her precious little world view than Trump is.   If it chills discussion, if it chills debate, if it continues to foster a divisive and partisan environment, I don't see how it's any different, qualitatively.  Sure, there are some differences psychologically (I don't have the links on this computer, I can post more tomorrow, maybe) in how information is evaluated, how risk is incorporated into that analysis, etc. etc., but if the outcome is the same, does it matter?  Put another way, if I get bad info from one source, and act on it, and you get bad info from four sources, and act on it, is one better than the other?  I suppose an argument can be made about the odds are better of getting good info with four sources, but that's not the way it's playing out.  When you've devolved everything down to two parties, two ideologies, two poles, that offsets any gains you might have in sheer numbers.
 

I agree with pretty much all you said here. We need more political parties tbh. The Libertarian and Green Parties should have as much of a presence in national politics as the RUDEMs. I'm also not a fan of One-Round First-Past-the-Post systems because they tend to foster this sort of garbage. But, while you mentioned the qualitative different between the two, I'm referring more to the QUANTITATIVE difference. Fox's effect is simply worse because they're more popular, and they have such a stranglehold on conservative media, while left-wing media is more spread out over several sources.

So, for links on the audience of CNN, MSNBC and Fox:
https://pos.org/whos-watching-a-look-at-the-demographics-of-cable-news-channel-watchers/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/12/fox-news-audience-may-not-be-what-you-think-even-if-programming-usually-is/
https://www.mcall.com/opinion/mc-opi-fox-news-msnbc-cnn-cable-myths-20181109-story.html

So you can read if you like, there's a lot of info in those sources (some of it conflicting if you ask me) but I post them to corroborate the idea that the Fox audience isn't remarkably different than the CNN audience in terms of (political) diversity. This may give some color to that as well.

I referenced the psychology of the differences between the partisan audiences; I won't post the links unless it's relevant and interesting, but I have them.

I mean, when I look at the data, I see a lot of support for my points as well. But yes, I do agree that there is a lot of similarity between partisan audiences. I think it was in that Pew study I linked (or another one), but it indicated that those who are "consistently" conservative or liberal tend to only speak with other conservatives and liberals, respectively.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #91 on: October 22, 2019, 07:11:16 PM »
I may be far-left by American standards (or just left by the rest of the world's), but I am proudly NOT a partisan.

Neither am I, but in this climate, if you even DARE make certain arguments, you're sunk.  I've been called a Trump Apologist more than anyone else here combined, and I friggin' hate the guy and didn't vote for him.  I just think many of the critiques of him are so over the top as to be as dangerous as he is.

Quote
I would also like to state, for the record, that I am for the impeachment of Donald Trump and he misused his power in denying aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigating a political rival.

I get it's your opinion, and you're entitled to have it, but let's be clear: you or I do NOT get to make that determination.  As much as a scumbag as he might be, as much as a racist as he might be, he gets his day in court.  He gets to make the argument that he was investigating interference in our past election, and it just so happened that it involved a guy that is seeking the nomination - doesn't have it yet, but is seeking it - and he had to make a tough decision.  Sure that might be a specious argument, but that's what the U.S. judicial system calls for.

The so-called objective press, though, isn't bothering to make that distinction or to honor that right that he has as an American citizen. How can you call the media/press the fourth estate, a pillar of democracy, when they are in their own way shitting on it as much as Trump is? 


Quote
I mean, I would 100% agree with all of those assessments just based on what I've seen from his tweets and statements lol.

For the record, I don't believe he IS a racist, but that's me; I honestly don't think he cares enough to be an "-ist".  Personally I think he's victim - wrong word, he's not a "victim" of anything, but you'll get my point - of our guilt-by-accusation society.  You can't even DISCUSS race on decent terms in this climate.  Dennis Lehane, noted author, used the "n-word" in a commencement speech, reciting a quote and was raked over the coals.  He's just an ass with little conscience or sense of place or taste.  That's not racism.

Quote
I agree with pretty much all you said here. We need more political parties tbh. The Libertarian and Green Parties should have as much of a presence in national politics as the RUDEMs. I'm also not a fan of One-Round First-Past-the-Post systems because they tend to foster this sort of garbage. But, while you mentioned the qualitative different between the two, I'm referring more to the QUANTITATIVE difference. Fox's effect is simply worse because they're more popular, and they have such a stranglehold on conservative media, while left-wing media is more spread out over several sources.

But did you see my links?  That's part of the point; they AREN'T that much more popular.  On any given day the Fox audience is around 2.4 million people, and at least half are not Republican.  So we're just north of 1 million people.  Out of what, 30 million registered Republicans?  You add CNN and MSNBC - 2.5 million total - and you have just reached more Democrats than that. 

Quote
I mean, when I look at the data, I see a lot of support for my points as well. But yes, I do agree that there is a lot of similarity between partisan audiences. I think it was in that Pew study I linked (or another one), but it indicated that those who are "consistently" conservative or liberal tend to only speak with other conservatives and liberals, respectively.

But here's the thing: you and CAN both be right as to certain aspects. We agree on a lot, and that's okay.  But it DOES muddy the simplistic point that somehow Fox News is dangerous.  A pack of liberals in a liberal echo chamber is just as non-partisan and dangerous as a pack of conservatives in a conservative echo chamber.  The effect may be different, but it's still damaging to consensus and the idea that government serves all 325 million people, not just those of the majority (that is, ruling) party. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #92 on: October 23, 2019, 08:37:28 AM »
I'm curious how Mick Mulvaney didn't admit to a quid pro quo given the damage control he tried to do merely hours later and how the White House was reportedly "stunned" with what he said in that briefing... That's a bit cheeky, I'm not curious at all, because he did admit it.

Not to reopen this, but as a piece of information, this article is valuable.  This is a widely respected news source, with left-ist leanings, and while you can characterize this as at least in part an op-ed piece, it's factually accurate.  This is also what I was saying when I said that the press was mischaracterizing what Mulvaney said.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #93 on: October 23, 2019, 08:47:50 AM »
I'm curious how Mick Mulvaney didn't admit to a quid pro quo given the damage control he tried to do merely hours later and how the White House was reportedly "stunned" with what he said in that briefing... That's a bit cheeky, I'm not curious at all, because he did admit it.

Not to reopen this, but as a piece of information, this article is valuable.  This is a widely respected news source, with left-ist leanings, and while you can characterize this as at least in part an op-ed piece, it's factually accurate.  This is also what I was saying when I said that the press was mischaracterizing what Mulvaney said.
I've used up my WaPo free stories for the month, so I can't read the article.

You and I are in agreement with the mischaracterizations of Muvlaney's remarks. At the same time it's becoming kind of clear that while he was misrepresented, he was also full of shit. What's being leaked of the insider testimony in the hearings is fairly damning, and it's seeming pretty clear that the quo had nothing to do with corruption and everything to do with attacking Biden before the election. Something that's not getting a lot of play but is damned meaningful to me is the condition that the investigation be announced publicly. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #94 on: October 23, 2019, 09:00:55 AM »
I'm curious how Mick Mulvaney didn't admit to a quid pro quo given the damage control he tried to do merely hours later and how the White House was reportedly "stunned" with what he said in that briefing... That's a bit cheeky, I'm not curious at all, because he did admit it.

Not to reopen this, but as a piece of information, this article is valuable.  This is a widely respected news source, with left-ist leanings, and while you can characterize this as at least in part an op-ed piece, it's factually accurate.  This is also what I was saying when I said that the press was mischaracterizing what Mulvaney said.
I've used up my WaPo free stories for the month, so I can't read the article.

You and I are in agreement with the mischaracterizations of Muvlaney's remarks. At the same time it's becoming kind of clear that while he was misrepresented, he was also full of shit. What's being leaked of the insider testimony in the hearings is fairly damning, and it's seeming pretty clear that the quo had nothing to do with corruption and everything to do with attacking Biden before the election. Something that's not getting a lot of play but is damned meaningful to me is the condition that the investigation be announced publicly.

I don't disagree in the sense of my personal opinion; I regularly criticize others for being all over the map on Trump - one minute he's an evil genius with designs on taking over the world, the next minute he's nothing more than Putin's fannypack, and the next he's too stupid to breathe on his own - so here, it's disingenuous to think that Mulvaney was SO savvy he was purposefully parsing the perfect line of acceptable and "high crimes and misdemeanors" in his answers.  He likely was, if not full then at least some measure of shit.  But nonetheless, that needs to be proved, and not by selectively released soundbites and quips from the testimony. "Investigate Biden!" does not answer the question vis-a-vis the Durham investigation, which the article rightly says is a legal act.   Put another way, it's not enough that he told the Ukraine to investigate Biden IF that investigation is of Biden as Vice President in conjunction with an investigation into the corruption of the 2016 election.  It's just NOT.  That's not a defense of Trump, it's an understanding of the law. 

I do get the point about public announcement; that does go to show that it was less about the actual outcome of the investigation and more about the public perception of the investigation, but even that doesn't necessarily prove the case.  We know, from multiple sources (including his own acts/words) that Trump is unreasonably sensitive to the outcome of the 2016 election.   Now the question is, "does an investigation that doesn't bring objective, external value to Trump but assuages his ego", a "quid pro quo"?   I don't know (and the point is, neither does anyone else unless and until we have a tribunal to determine that question). 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #95 on: October 23, 2019, 09:09:27 AM »
I've used up my WaPo free stories for the month, so I can't read the article.

Yes you can. :)

By the way, when I couldn't access their articles, I don't think it was a matter of my browser; I think I exhausted the free month too.  I ended up spending the dollar (it's not a dollar, but that's the ad) because I like the Post.  I don't agree with all that they say, but they seem to do most of it without the bombast and the sensationalism of some of the other news sources (Jake Tapper basically had an erection all afternoon over the "shocking" and "explosive" testimony of Bill Taylor, when the reality is, what was released was really not new information). 

Offline Ninjabait

  • PR permission
  • *
  • Posts: 691
  • Gender: Male
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #96 on: October 23, 2019, 09:17:22 AM »
I may be far-left by American standards (or just left by the rest of the world's), but I am proudly NOT a partisan.

Neither am I, but in this climate, if you even DARE make certain arguments, you're sunk.  I've been called a Trump Apologist more than anyone else here combined, and I friggin' hate the guy and didn't vote for him.  I just think many of the critiques of him are so over the top as to be as dangerous as he is.

Eh, idk about that last part. Trump is by far the worst president in the history of the US. He's like the combined worst elements of Nixon, Harding, and W. Trump is a genuine threat to the democracy of this nation.

Quote
I would also like to state, for the record, that I am for the impeachment of Donald Trump and he misused his power in denying aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigating a political rival.

I get it's your opinion, and you're entitled to have it, but let's be clear: you or I do NOT get to make that determination.  As much as a scumbag as he might be, as much as a racist as he might be, he gets his day in court.  He gets to make the argument that he was investigating interference in our past election, and it just so happened that it involved a guy that is seeking the nomination - doesn't have it yet, but is seeking it - and he had to make a tough decision.  Sure that might be a specious argument, but that's what the U.S. judicial system calls for.

The so-called objective press, though, isn't bothering to make that distinction or to honor that right that he has as an American citizen. How can you call the media/press the fourth estate, a pillar of democracy, when they are in their own way shitting on it as much as Trump is?

Normally, I would agree with all of your points, but there is this dangerous attitude flying around the executive branch right now that the president is actually ABOVE the law. The president can't be charged with a crime while in office, according to the DOJ. Can we really say the judicial system is giving him a fair trial when he's essentially immune to punishment from crimes through conventional means? He has MORE rights than the average American citizen, so why shouldn't the media be more harsh on him?

And, I will add, the media reacts this way to pretty much all highly publicized criminal trials. It's not a good thing, but his treatment by the media has been decidedly average in relation to other cases.

Otherwise, I would agree with what you said.

Quote
I mean, I would 100% agree with all of those assessments just based on what I've seen from his tweets and statements lol.

For the record, I don't believe he IS a racist, but that's me; I honestly don't think he cares enough to be an "-ist".  Personally I think he's victim - wrong word, he's not a "victim" of anything, but you'll get my point - of our guilt-by-accusation society.  You can't even DISCUSS race on decent terms in this climate.  Dennis Lehane, noted author, used the "n-word" in a commencement speech, reciting a quote and was raked over the coals.  He's just an ass with little conscience or sense of place or taste.  That's not racism.

To counter: he's made so many remarks and negative behavior towards minorities has been so common that it has it's own Wikipedia article. And, by Wikipedia standards, it's a bit of a doorstopper. For example:

Quote
In 1973 the U.S. Department of Justice sued Trump Management, Donald Trump and his father Fred, for discrimination against African Americans in their renting practices.[7][34]

Testers from the New York City Human Rights Division had found that prospective Black renters at Trump buildings were told there were no apartments available, while prospective White renters were offered apartments at the same buildings.[35] During the investigation four of Trump's agents admitted to using a "C" or "9" code to label Black applicants and stated that they were told their company "discouraged rental to blacks" or that they were "not allowed to rent to black tenants," and that prospective Black renters should be sent to the central office while White renters could have their applications accepted on site. Three doormen testified to being told to discourage prospective Black renters by lying about the rental prices or claiming no vacancies were available.[36][37] A settlement was reached in 1975 where Trump agreed to familiarize himself with the Fair Housing Act, take out ads stating that Black renters were welcome, give a list of vacancies to the Urban League on a weekly basis, and allow the Urban League to present qualified candidates for 20% of vacancies in properties that were less than 10% non-White.[38][39]

Quote
In his 1991 book Trumped! John O'Donnell quoted Trump as allegedly saying:

I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes.... Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else... Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that's guy's lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.

Trump told Playboy in an interview published in 1997 “The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true". Two years later, when seeking the nomination of the Reform Party for president, Trump denied having made the statement.

There is a WHOLE lot more on there. A LOT more.

Quote
I agree with pretty much all you said here. We need more political parties tbh. The Libertarian and Green Parties should have as much of a presence in national politics as the RUDEMs. I'm also not a fan of One-Round First-Past-the-Post systems because they tend to foster this sort of garbage. But, while you mentioned the qualitative different between the two, I'm referring more to the QUANTITATIVE difference. Fox's effect is simply worse because they're more popular, and they have such a stranglehold on conservative media, while left-wing media is more spread out over several sources.

But did you see my links?  That's part of the point; they AREN'T that much more popular.  On any given day the Fox audience is around 2.4 million people, and at least half are not Republican.  So we're just north of 1 million people.  Out of what, 30 million registered Republicans?  You add CNN and MSNBC - 2.5 million total - and you have just reached more Democrats than that. 

Quote
I mean, when I look at the data, I see a lot of support for my points as well. But yes, I do agree that there is a lot of similarity between partisan audiences. I think it was in that Pew study I linked (or another one), but it indicated that those who are "consistently" conservative or liberal tend to only speak with other conservatives and liberals, respectively.

But here's the thing: you and CAN both be right as to certain aspects. We agree on a lot, and that's okay.  But it DOES muddy the simplistic point that somehow Fox News is dangerous.  A pack of liberals in a liberal echo chamber is just as non-partisan and dangerous as a pack of conservatives in a conservative echo chamber.  The effect may be different, but it's still damaging to consensus and the idea that government serves all 325 million people, not just those of the majority (that is, ruling) party.

You make some good points here, and I would agree that you and I are both right on this topic. Fox, MSNBC, and CNN are all a threat to the political health of the country. It's probably silly to keep arguing whether one is worse than the other when they're all bad. At this point, we're splitting hairs. I think the question should turn to: what can we do about this, that doesn't set a dangerous precedent for better media?

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #97 on: October 23, 2019, 09:24:24 AM »
I think it's easy to miss the forest from the trees here. We're looking into the finer points of legality at every turn, while at the same time it's kind of obvious that he made US financial aid, which is your and my tax dollars, directly contingent on another country publicly attacking his political rival for his personal gain. You know I share your affinity for process, and those finer points are very important, yet at some point the evidence of this man's unfitness for the office he holds just starts smacking you upside the face, begging for some reaction.

And again none of this actually matters. The senate has already announced they won't convict him. You rightly point to the need for more evidence than "common sense." No argument there. You should also point to the need for some actual accountability, which for better of for worse, one side is actually trying to create.

And while we're wasting our time digging for pointless evidence of what he did Trump's going to come right out and cop to the whole thing "A Few Good Men" style anyway. We're very close to him saying "of course I did it and there's nothing wrong with it!" His aides and fellow republicans will hold their heads in terror, and then blindly defend his actions like the spineless sycophants they are.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 34526
  • Gender: Male
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #98 on: October 23, 2019, 10:01:49 AM »
Eh, idk about that last part. Trump is by far the worst president in the history of the US. He's like the combined worst elements of Nixon, Harding, and W. Trump is a genuine threat to the democracy of this nation.

Andrew Johnson down?  Trump has a long way to go before he approaches the awfulness of Andrew Johnson.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #99 on: October 23, 2019, 10:20:21 AM »
Eh, idk about that last part. Trump is by far the worst president in the history of the US. He's like the combined worst elements of Nixon, Harding, and W. Trump is a genuine threat to the democracy of this nation.

Andrew Johnson down?  Trump has a long way to go before he approaches the awfulness of Andrew Johnson.
My take on Johnson is that he wasn't particularly good, but it wasn't from any flaw of character or general looniness. Somewhat akin to Carter. I haven't heard much to the effect of his personal disposition being totally ill-suited to the job at hand. Trump is more akin to his hero Andrew Jackson, though without the intellect to pull of the maverick approach. I'd say he combines the worst qualities of both Andrews. Bad skill and bad temperament. My hunch is that he sees himself as Jacksonian, but will be seen in the future as one of the presidents who presided over an American cataclysm, and who hastened rather than slowed the collapse.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #100 on: October 23, 2019, 11:34:47 AM »
Eh, idk about that last part. Trump is by far the worst president in the history of the US. He's like the combined worst elements of Nixon, Harding, and W. Trump is a genuine threat to the democracy of this nation.

Nah, that just depends on what your criteria are.  I'm inclined to think that the President that presided over the outbreak of the Civil War - James Buchanan - gets a vote in that discussion, so even if you're correct, it's not "by far".  If you're opposed to the affirmative nature of much of identity politics in the last 15 years - no I'm NOT saying "if you're a racist or a bigot"; that's the soundbite - then maybe you're also inclined to disagree. (And not as argument, but personally? I don't think you can make that case while the person is still in office.)

Quote
Normally, I would agree with all of your points, but there is this dangerous attitude flying around the executive branch right now that the president is actually ABOVE the law. The president can't be charged with a crime while in office, according to the DOJ. Can we really say the judicial system is giving him a fair trial when he's essentially immune to punishment from crimes through conventional means? He has MORE rights than the average American citizen, so why shouldn't the media be more harsh on him?

I only deleted the second half of what you said for space; I'm not trying to change your point.   But what is illegal or even immoral about believing you're above the law?  I'm going to trigger a few people here that won't bother to read everything else I write, but gun to my head, I well and truly believe that deep down, in her heart, Hillary Clinton believes she's above the law.  She has stated, on more than one occasion that she believes she's destined to lead this country, that she was "born" to it.  That's at least as much, if not more, of a nod to "monarchy" than anything Trump has done. 

As to the substance of your post, it's still DUE PROCESS.  He doesn't have more rights than the average citizen, whether he thinks it or not.  His POSITION, though, is unique among American citizens, and that's where the difference is.  Literally on January 20, 2020 (or January 20, 2024) he's no more or less protected than you or I.   EL Barto mentioned forests and trees, and that's applicable here.   If anything, it might be better that we wait; traitors tend to get jail time.  If that violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has legs, he could spend the rest of his days in jail.  (This is partly why I don't at all beleive this is about "justice" as much as it is about vengeance and ideology.)

And independent of the President, the "media" shouldn't be "more" or "less" harsh on ANYONE.  They're supposed to communicate the facts of any given situation.  End of story.  Pun intended.   :tup

Quote
There is a WHOLE lot more on there. A LOT more.
Look, I'm not him, I'm not in his head.  I can't and won't comment on each and every issue or accusation.  But I do know that there are many of those things that in my view don't necessarily mean "racist", or rather, only mean "racist" in the definition that's evolved over the past 15, 20 years or so, which is "anything that even remotely refers to race and isn't 100% supportive and advocative of the equal rights movement".   Is questioning the birth of a person racist in and of itself?  Nope.  Does it automatically become racist if that person is African American?  I don't think so.  Many do.  We're not going to litigate that here, I don't think.   Is there a fundamental difference between housing boards in NYC apartment buildings screening potential applicants for "rock stars" and other "new money applicants" that might lower the marketability of other units in the complex and what Trump did?  Does one necessarily make you a racist?   Again, we're not going to litigate that here.  I think, though, that there is a marked lack of awareness in him that opens him to these accusations.  To me that's at least as big a problem as being a racist, because in a position like President, you need that ability to read a room, to accommodate all 325 million Americans without alienating as many as you are accommodating. 

I also think there's a belief that "racist!" is the best, fasted and most effective way of turning sentiment against him for those that are on the fence and feel discomfort for the man, even if they don't have discomfort for the platform and/or agenda.

Quote
You make some good points here, and I would agree that you and I are both right on this topic. Fox, MSNBC, and CNN are all a threat to the political health of the country. It's probably silly to keep arguing whether one is worse than the other when they're all bad. At this point, we're splitting hairs. I think the question should turn to: what can we do about this, that doesn't set a dangerous precedent for better media?

Well - and why it seems like I'm beating a dead horse - the first step is acknowledging the problem.  As long as Jim Acosta is held to be a victim here, and Don Lemon to be a social justice warrior, while Katie Pavlich and Sean Hannity are considered neo-fascist lapdogs of the racist, bigoted President then we're going to continue to have this problem.   As long as Obama and Clinton get a hip-hip-hooray for calling out Fox News for "swaying elections" and Trump gets railed for "undermining democracy", then we're going to have this problem.   

We need to hold our media - independent of lean, independent of viewership/readership, independent of "righteousness" - to account for their product. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #101 on: October 23, 2019, 12:05:44 PM »
I think it's easy to miss the forest from the trees here. We're looking into the finer points of legality at every turn, while at the same time it's kind of obvious that he made US financial aid, which is your and my tax dollars, directly contingent on another country publicly attacking his political rival for his personal gain. You know I share your affinity for process, and those finer points are very important, yet at some point the evidence of this man's unfitness for the office he holds just starts smacking you upside the face, begging for some reaction.

And again none of this actually matters. The senate has already announced they won't convict him. You rightly point to the need for more evidence than "common sense." No argument there. You should also point to the need for some actual accountability, which for better of for worse, one side is actually trying to create.

And while we're wasting our time digging for pointless evidence of what he did Trump's going to come right out and cop to the whole thing "A Few Good Men" style anyway. We're very close to him saying "of course I did it and there's nothing wrong with it!" His aides and fellow republicans will hold their heads in terror, and then blindly defend his actions like the spineless sycophants they are.

Eh, I lean in your direction, for sure, but there's two points that hold for me.  Unfortunately the process DOES matter.  We all "know" OJ was guilty, but for many reasons, that was the right answer in '95.  Let's ignore the knee-jerk racist nonsense for a moment, but you are sort of advocating for a lynching (that is, an extrajudicial and informal public punishment by a group, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, convicted transgressor, or to intimidate another group) if you're saying that "we know he's guilty, let's just cut to the end of it".   If he did it, he should fry; I'm not even remotely implying anything different.  But for those on the prosecutorial side, it's fundamental to due process that you STILL have to be able to articulate your argument.  There are no shortcuts here.  Jake Tapper mischaracterizing a request to aid a DOJ investigation into the 2016 election that MIGHT implicate Joe Biden because he was Vice President at the time (and MIGHT be the 2020 candidate from the Democratic Party) is not a slam dunk.   Think about the ramifications of that: if, by chance, Liz Warren wins in 2020, and new evidence came out that Trump and Putin DID collude, and ACTIVELY changed votes in 2020.   And on the eve of the 2024 election, in which Mike Pence is running, her hands are now tied in terms of investigating those events.  Is that what we want?   

I'm not necessarily arguing any of this because of Trump, I'm arguing most of this because I think the Democrats are being overly-zealous here and overly partisan.

And all of this, of course, is underlined by the fact that this is but ONE AVENUE to "get" Trump.  Be careful what you wish for, because one option of this is that he gets removed from office, and either Pence takes over or he runs again in 2020, and wins.  By 2024, you've lost your window on prosecution because of the statute of limitations.  If I'm Trump, I fight this like a trapped cat until November 4th; I win, I'm clean, I lose, I cut a deal before January 20th with a friendly Senate wherein I resign, I agree to a plea, and get a pardon from Pence before he leaves office in January.  This basically proves the allegation that he IS above the law and all because the Democrats couldn't let the process play out like it's supposed to.  The end of the day?  There's no shortcut; the Dems STILL have to mount a successful campaign and STILL have to figure out how to get 270 electoral votes for a series of platform issues that don't resonate with the bulk of the country. 

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #102 on: October 23, 2019, 12:41:51 PM »
I'll move my response to the Trump thread so-as not to derail FOX chat.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 1020
  • Gender: Male
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #103 on: October 26, 2019, 09:04:48 PM »
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/republicans-fox-news-chris-wallace-904225/?fbclid=IwAR1OwGR9J5HfmelQIveOXGBV879jp0h0XDPxYUXVQGJ7Tg4WZriFgkSVtBA

this kind of stood out to me:
Quote
“Well, my feeling is that if you are having trouble with the facts, you argue process. That’s what Republicans are doing right now,” Wallace said.


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?
« Reply #104 on: October 27, 2019, 10:05:52 AM »
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/republicans-fox-news-chris-wallace-904225/?fbclid=IwAR1OwGR9J5HfmelQIveOXGBV879jp0h0XDPxYUXVQGJ7Tg4WZriFgkSVtBA

this kind of stood out to me:
Quote
“Well, my feeling is that if you are having trouble with the facts, you argue process. That’s what Republicans are doing right now,” Wallace said.

I honestly don't understand this vitriol to arguing the process.  First, let's be clear that this is almost purely a fight in the public perception right now, because we're in "information gathering" phase (not a small point that with all this testimony, there's STILL no vote in a chamber that is sympathetic to the anti-Trump outcome).  Sure, if you're convinced - based on hearsay information and no trial - that he's guilty, that's what you'd say.  But look at it from Trump's perspective for a second; I've already documented how CNN and others have MATERIALLY misrepresented the "facts" of the case, so why would Trump ever in a MILLION years think he's going to win that fight?  I get that my posts seem very one-note, but that's deeply misreading the content and intent of what I've been saying. It was never about "Brook Baldwin" or "CNN", but it was about the deeper issue of partisanship and how that partisanship is playing out.

When you have supposedly objective people with incomplete information (by definition; if there was complete information we wouldn't need the inquiry) making subjective determinations on outcome, you're going to have this.  Look at the gun thread; many have said "don't run and you won't get shot" - a practical application of "if you're innocent you've got nothing to hide" and yet we don't accept it there.  Why would we not accept it here (unless, of course, you're not interested in the fairness of the process)?

I'm not absolving Trump of ANYTHING here.  If he's guilty, he ought to be punished, whatever that looks like.   But remember that Trump is, among a lot of other things, a sloppy, undisciplined, visceral guy.  He'll ultimately have lawyers in his stead arguing the fineries of the law (nothing wrong with that; Clinton did that, Nixon did that, Hillary did that with her testimony on Capital Hill and to the FBI).  But right now, this isn't an official, under-oath tribunal.  The anti-Trump side isn't treating it that way, why should Trump?  (And again I'm forced to ask, if he's so bad, if he's got so much dirt, why do we always seem to be resorting to the ad hominem?)