CNN liable for defamation in FL court, settles case

ole howard1 said:
How could anyone possibly think that CNN can boast "purity" or is especially liberal when they put that propagandistic Trumper Scott Jennings all the time?

Pretty sure you don't understand the mindset of liberal folks when it comes to the so-called mainstream media.

By the way, the terms "mainstream" in this context is pretty silly. Fox is widely viewed and, therefore, mainstream. Joe Rogan would logically be considered mainstream. Elon Musk's posting of misleading vitriol on the website he owns gets a large audience -- again, mainstream stuff.

In any case, if you're looking for a source that liberals might hold up as pure -- honest, intelligent, fair -- then I'd suggest maybe the Atlantic. They aren't perfect, either. Not by any means. But it's a mighty impressive publication, on the whole.

So, Callatory, I think your arguments are truly bad. Of course, if you are looking for someone here to admit to you they believe the New York Times is more honest and informative, in general, than Fox or Breitbart or Gateway Pundit or some other garbage, then OK -- I'll say yes, it is.
Click to expand...
Do you not see the irony in saying liberals point to the Atlantic as a pure source of journalism? Its a leftist publication. Pure means center / non biased.
 
an0maly said:
Apparently you are striving to be as much of a pompous asshole as Super. Don't give up, you certainly have the potential. Your pretentious post is so full of shit that its laughable. You act as if "real" journalism is some complicated endeavor that consumes tremendous courage and willpower and is very difficult to achieve. Horseshit. I don't know of any occupation besides journalism whose ethics and goals could be accurately summed up in a single sentence. Investigate, verify, and report complete factual information in a manner that the reader or listener is incapable of detecting political bias. Not hard to comprehend or do if ethics matter. The problem is that journalism schools are being increasingly taught by liberal professors to a liberal student body who somehow has some misguided belief that their views are better for society than the views of their readers.

Only a liberal would lecture someone on media sources and then proceed to list 9 sources they offered up as evidence of ethical journalism when 7 of those 9 are leftist or lean left. You just can't make that up. A good media source is one that stays centered. Only The BBC and Financial Times meet that criteria from what you offered (lol at you listing NYT and WaPo). I don't give a damn that each of those are subscribers and members of The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. Several should have their memberships revoked for intentionally printing false stories. That membership apparently isn't worth the postcard it was written on. CBS is a member. Do you think the SPJ condoned CBS intentionally changing kamala's answer to an interview question to make it sound better? Retractions? Yes. NYT did issue a retraction on the hunter biden laptop story that they intentionally sabotaged. It only took a year after the fact to do so.

You have no clue what I read. I guarantee you I read more leftist media than you do conservative media. The Atlantic is one of the sources you listed that I read. That's how I know how far left it is. This was the last story I read from it "How The Ivy League Broke America" You should read it. There is a reason that mainstream America is losing trust in its media sources. They see the failure in journalistic ethics. The problem is that sooner or later the truth comes out. You are so warped that you still are trying to argue team virtue. The truth has come out and your anti democratic party and its media has been stripped naked and the country didn't like what it saw. Your holier than thou view of your media is in shambles in the eyes of the public and I love it. For the time being you are losing the media battle, the education battle, the political battle, the democracy battle, and the justice battle. The Democratic Party is in full retreat.
Click to expand...
 
an0maly said:
You appear to have zero knowledge of journalism, how it works and how it fails, and then works or does not work to correct failure and proceed. This is almost certainly casually connected to the fact that you do not read actual journalism, and have never done so at any time in your adult life. Many conservatives much more informed and intelligent than yourself don't understand some of the same things you don't know and they more than you are why I will take some time to present what follows.

There are specific problems with journalism (pro-corporatism, but I will not digress here), but generally the finest sources do mostly what they should do. A list of the best of the best could be attempted as follows:

The Financial Times
The BBC
The New York Times
The Washington Post (now profoundly compromised as a source, but listed here from a historical status)
NPR
PBS (especially the program Frontline, which is consistently the finest investigative long form broadcast journalism ever produced)

...and highest level magazines

The Atlantic
Harper's
The New Yorker
(and a few others).

Each of these are subscribers and members of The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.

https://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf

Each of them hire the finest journalists in the world, usually already rewarded for good work, usually educated at the finest universities, each of the sources who hire these people benefiting when they are winning awards for investigative journalism.

Apart from NPR, American broadcast news of the highest reputation is a big step below this, and does less actual investigating than they do in relying on and relaying the work of the major sources above (there are other very good ones as well, but the primary sources are those). So mainstream broadcast sources like ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC and AP relay validated news, have pundits comment on this news, interview important figures and legitimate experts, and do a small amount of their own reporting. This level down is not generally a source of investigative journalism.

All of the large news organizations above are owned by larger corporations, which are bound to the only and the ever-present demand of maximizing shareholder value. News organizations compete with each other to be correct on facts, and if one fails the others will seize on this report their error to gain the readership or viewers who are looking for reality, this even more critically increase circulation and reputation in feedback to make the shareholders money--an extremely powerful incentive. Since the arrival and success of Fox "News" there is a niche market opposed to reality news that reflects negatively on conservative ideology, and there are offshoots of this in social media.

Back to most sources of legitimate news. Each of these have a history of, and do print corrections or retractions when they make mistakes. The good results of this system are unsurprising. Each wants to be correct more often than the competition. This competition is the essence of why a consumer of news cross-checks the very best possible sources (a rudimentary at home version of the scientific method each person can and should make use of). One can recognize them as the best sources when what they find repeatedly holds up, has repeatedly held up, or when they have made mistakes they have produced clear retractions to get things right.

Top level journalists are powerfully biased to this ideal, eclipsing ideological bias they hold, if for no other reason than that they are ultimately subject to shareholders via the huge corporations of news journalism, who also compete to be seen as getting things correct (opposite to the radically different business model of for quintessential example, Fox "News" to please and thus sell elderly, mostly white, Republican viewers to advertisers of that reliable demographic). Because their stock-in-trade of most all highly regarded journalism entities is credibility (having even retractions hurts, despite it also being part of the model of credibility). So the connection down the line of the corporate model of actual journalism is they all understand that what they produce as a product for news consumers and shareholders and boss alike had better be verified. Or they won’t be working long--period. That is a bias that in principle exceeds and dominates any other, and a functional reason why top sources are, and can be recognized as top sources.

Extensive research has been done on people who get news stories from different single sources, and how correct or wrong those consumers are on facts as widely cross-validated from many sources. Results of this research show where media sources go badly wrong in misinforming viewers who utilize single sources, but even worse, the most corrupt of those single sources, as with the prime example, the farce that is Fox "News." A large research study was done in 2004 to examine people holding factually false views about the Iraq War a few years after it began, and where they got those falsehoods. They found that people who watched Fox "News" believed more of the falsehoods than those who watched or got their news from other sources, and NPR was the best in terms of people being least likely to believe the falsehoods. A small sample of a larger body of research on this, in some of the most important research findings of modern times on journalism and war:


World Public Opinion, Percentage of Americans Believing Iraq had WMD Rises (2006); https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/10562.

However, conservative Republicans especially since the rise of Fox "News" and other corrupt right wing sources believe falsehoods and distortions of reality on a wide variety of topics, as also demonstrated by research:

R. J. Brulle, J. Carmichael, J. C. Jenkins, Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Clim. Change 114, 169–188 (2012).

J. Pasek, T. H. Stark, J. A. Krosnick, T. Tompson, What motivates a conspiracy theory? Birther beliefs, partisanship, liberal-conservative ideology, and anti-Black attitudes. Elect. Stud. 40, 482–489 (2015).

A. J. Berinsky, The Birthers Are Back (2012); The Birthers Are Back | YouGov.

J. M. Miller, K. L. Saunders, C. E. Farhart, Conspiracy endorsement as motivated reasoning: The moderating roles of political knowledge and trust. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 60, 824–844 (2016).

G. Pennycook, D. G. Rand, Research note: Examining false beliefs about voter fraud in the wake of the 2020 Presidential Election, Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review (2021).

From the findings of 2021 research into...

Conservative susceptibility to political misperceptions​


In sum, American conservatives in the early 21st century are uniquely likely to hold political misperceptions. This is due, in large part, to characteristics of the messages circulating in the political information environment. Widely shared accurate political news disproportionately advances liberal interests, while viral falsehoods most often promote conservative interests. Together, these characteristics contribute to stark ideological differences in citizens’ ability to distinguish between truths and falsehoods about high-profile topics. This pattern may be exacerbated by the fact that liberals tend to experience bigger improvements in sensitivity than conservatives as the proportion of partisan news increases.

Widespread political misperceptions pose a notable threat to democracy, which is dependent on citizens’ ability to make informed decisions. The evidence presented here suggest that it may be possible to enhance conservatives’ ability to distinguish between political truths and falsehoods by altering the political information environment. If widely shared political news contained fewer falsehoods promoting conservative causes or more conservative-favorable accurate information, then misperceptions among conservatives would likely decline.

Click to expand...
Doubt a single MAGAt reads your thorough post.
 
Callatoroy said:
Do you not see the irony in saying liberals point to the Atlantic as a pure source of journalism? Its a leftist publication. Pure means center / non biased.
Click to expand...
Please cite when the Atlantic has published fake news? Please cite when the Atlantic hasn’t published corrections.

Staunch Dubya supporter, David Frum (coined the phrase “Axis of Evil”), a life-long CONSERVATIVE Republican and 1980 Reagan Campaign volunteer, is a SENIOR Editor at the Atlantic.
 
Zoo_View said:
Please cite when the Atlantic has published fake news? Please cite when the Atlantic hasn’t published corrections.

Staunch Dubya supporter, David Frum (coined the phrase “Axis of Evil”), a life-long CONSERVATIVE Republican and 1980 Reagan Campaign volunteer, is a SENIOR Editor at the Atlantic.
Click to expand...
Do you think publishing fake news is the only way to violate journalistic ethics? I’d say if your source is either left or right then it fails to live up to the highest ethical standards. That’s the part you guys seemingly always overlook. Just not lying doesn’t cut it.
 
Zoo_View said:
Doubt a single MAGAt reads your thorough post.
Click to expand...
There is nothing thorough at all about that post. 7 of his 9 examples fail the unbiased standard. The idea that you think that post is anything but long winded would indicate your standards are pretty low too.
 
Callatoroy said:
Do you think publishing fake news is the only way to violate journalistic ethics? I’d say if your source is either left or right then it fails to live up to the highest ethical standards. That’s the part you guys seemingly always overlook. Just not lying doesn’t cut it.
Click to expand...
Wait, what? You’re saying a media outlet cannot maintain the highest ethical standards if it leans left or right?
 
Callatoroy said:
Do you think publishing fake news is the only way to violate journalistic ethics? I’d say if your source is either left or right then it fails to live up to the highest ethical standards. That’s the part you guys seemingly always overlook. Just not lying doesn’t cut it.
Click to expand...
Seriously? Think about what you’re saying here. Even if the information is vetted/confirmed it’s unethical to have a partisan source?
 
Callatoroy said:
Do you think publishing fake news is the only way to violate journalistic ethics? I’d say if your source is either left or right then it fails to live up to the highest ethical standards. That’s the part you guys seemingly always overlook. Just not lying doesn’t cut it.
Click to expand...
It is not a violation of journalistic ethical standards to have a perspective that is anything other than pure unbiased neutrality (even if anyone could ever agree about what that is, which they can't). That is especially true when publishing editorials or other opinion content. Pretty much every source of journalism in history has had some form of bias, at least in interest or ideology. There is not some rule of journalism that if you publish a negative story about one side of the political spectrum, you must also publish a a positive story about them (or a negative story about the other side).

It is a key cornerstone of journalistic ethics to be objective, but being objective does not mean being neutral. If you would like to provide any examples of, say, The Atlantic failing to be objective in its content, feel free to do so. I'm not going to hold them or anyone else up as some perfect example of journalism, but I'd be interested to know what you think is a good example of pure objective journalism.
 
Zoo_View said:
Doubt a single MAGAt reads your thorough post.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's highly unlikely, but what is worse and more disturbing is that their brains simply don't process arguments regarding facts about the real world against ideology. That is a fixed pattern, not even subject to his awareness. Callatoroy wound up posting in the quote box, probably due to emotion, and then erasing my post, replacing it with no content and only partisan, moronic gloating, The thing is his brain reflexively produces this cowardly evasion as a some sort of winning "response" with no possible awareness it does not factually address anything at issue.
 
Last edited:
Callatory's response here is unimpressive to me. I didn't say "pure" meant entirely not-liberal. I also didn't say the Atlantic is perfect. I do think, though, that our fellow poster might be more thoughtful and better informed if he were to read the Atlantic.

Anyway, whatever.....MAGA arguments are generally awful.
 
To the question of specific outlets and their bias, Ad Fontes does great work based on tens of thousands of articles rated manually for bias by analysts representing the left/center/right. They have a very cool interactive platform for visualizing and parsing the data. And they’re very transparent about their methodology, with several videos. It’s good shit.

adfontesmedia.com

Ad Fontes Media Releases New Media Bias Chart | Ad Fontes Media

Ad Fontes Media releases new flagship Media Bias Chart featuring 172 sources. Download version 12.0 for free today!
adfontesmedia.com adfontesmedia.com


 
duluoz said:
To the question of specific outlets and their bias, Ad Fontes does great work based on tens of thousands of articles rated manually for bias by analysts representing the left/center/right. They have a very cool interactive platform for visualizing and parsing the data. And they’re very transparent about their methodology, with several videos. It’s good shit.

adfontesmedia.com

Ad Fontes Media Releases New Media Bias Chart | Ad Fontes Media

Ad Fontes Media releases new flagship Media Bias Chart featuring 172 sources. Download version 12.0 for free today!
adfontesmedia.com adfontesmedia.com


Click to expand...

Yes, the Ad Fontes bias chart is always helpful in having these discussions. And it illustrates the point I've made repeatedly (that callatoroy has ignored) that there's a big difference between bias (The horizontal access on the chart) and journalistic quality/integrity (the vertical access on the chart). And the latter is more of a problem than the former right now, even though both contribute. For example, looking at the current media bias chart there are a lot of people who get a lot of their news from sources below the yellow line on the chart, which is basically the point at which you're getting absolute junk. Things like Russell Brand, Barstool Sports, and Joe Rogan are shown as not being particularly biased (though Rogan clearly drifted right in this last election cycle, as did Brand) but they are so low in legitimate factual content that it is a huge problem for people to be getting their news there even if there isn't any particular "bias."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top