Quantcast
The three headed dragon against Obama

Forums - Politics Discussion - The three headed dragon against Obama

GameOver22 said:

Because I don't think there is a truly objective viewpoint. Opinions are fine.....best example probably being Murrow's reporting on McCarthyism. The problem is, even with opinionated reporting, there will always be people who disagree. In some ways, I think the media often times tries to be too objective and doesn't call politicians out on their lies. They just try to take what politicians say and report it, with little to no fact checking. If there is anything we know, it's that politicians lie...... a lot....for meaningless reasons often times.

Sure there can.

"Airplane exploded today at 9:15 AM."

"Jim Boehner met with President Obama today to discuss (insert topic)" 

"Congressional Republicans vetoed the (insert bill) today by a margin of (insert vote)"

No need to add opinions to break the news to people.

I find you highly suspect now that you want the media's opinion about their own out of context quotations of politicians.



Around the Network
badgenome said:
theprof00 said:

ok well, that is your opinion.
Most of the CIA and military take their confidentiality very seriously, so I'm not sure exactly what we should do about transparency. The immediate end-result to this would seem to be that the CIA just stops telling the white house and state anything. So we'll just be completely out of the loop.

The then-director of the CIA (who was a lifelong military man) wanted to be more forthcoming with the public, so I'm not sure that's what's going on here.

And the director underneath him disagreed with him and made the calls to which Patreus was upset about (giving less info). Morell said, "less info", state agreed. Patreus was like, "fuck you guys".

Only question I'd like an answer to is why Patreus came out with that scandal. Was he being pressured to leave? Did he come out with it himself because it was the only way to get out cleanly? (with lots of media attention) Or did he do it as a "fuck you" to the CIA?



GameOver22 said:

I'll copy the question I was asked, "Do you think there can be an objective media in regard to politics, despite an overwhelming left bias per individual?"

I agree with your point.....social networks matter, but I don't think this means the media cannot be objective. People just have to be cognizant of their biases and account for them in their reporting (meaning I think the media can be objective......it just takes effort). I also don't know the job market for reporting, but I imagine part of the problem is just self selection, meaning there are more liberals in reporting because liberals value reporting jobs more than conservatives.

Well, theoretically it can be objective, but that's pretty unlikely. And being aware of one's bias doesn't mean that one will address that bias in a productive manner (or at all), much like a white person might try to overcome his biases by being patronizing to all non-whites. It's just bias expressing itself in a different way. It could be that one reason most reporting is so insipid and relies so heavily on false balance is because of an attempt to address this bias. "I'm a liberal, but I have to play it down the middle so I will just say, 'This side said this and this side said that.'"



dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:

Because I don't think there is a truly objective viewpoint. Opinions are fine.....best example probably being Murrow's reporting on McCarthyism. The problem is, even with opinionated reporting, there will always be people who disagree. In some ways, I think the media often times tries to be too objective and doesn't call politicians out on their lies. They just try to take what politicians say and report it, with little to no fact checking. If there is anything we know, it's that politicians lie...... a lot....for meaningless reasons often times.

Sure there can.

"Airplane exploded today at 9:15 AM."

"Jim Boehner met with President Obama today to discuss (insert topic)" 

"Congressional Republicans vetoed the (insert bill) today by a margin of (insert vote)"

No need to add opinions to break the news to people.

I find you highly suspect now that you want the media's opinion about their own out of context quotations of politicians.

I think you're missing my point....I'm talking about philosophical objectivity....not whether the news can report a story without adding their opinion to it, which is why I don't like the term (I thinks it's a loaded term). I don't understand why its a bad thing for me to want politicians called out on their lies....it informs the public. If Obama starts citing some numbers to prove a point, I find it useful if the media can tell me whether those numbers are true or misconstrued. I personally find politifact to be one of the most useful news sources for this reason.....especially during debate season.



badgenome said:
GameOver22 said:

I'll copy the question I was asked, "Do you think there can be an objective media in regard to politics, despite an overwhelming left bias per individual?"

I agree with your point.....social networks matter, but I don't think this means the media cannot be objective. People just have to be cognizant of their biases and account for them in their reporting (meaning I think the media can be objective......it just takes effort). I also don't know the job market for reporting, but I imagine part of the problem is just self selection, meaning there are more liberals in reporting because liberals value reporting jobs more than conservatives.

Well, theoretically it can be objective, but that's pretty unlikely. And being aware of one's bias doesn't mean that one will address that bias in a productive manner (or at all), much like a white person might try to overcome his biases by being patronizing to all non-whites. It's just bias expressing itself in a different way. It could be that one reason most reporting is so insipid and relies so heavily on false balance is because of an attempt to address this bias. "I'm a liberal, but I have to play it down the middle so I will just say, 'This side said this and this side said that.'"

I actually think that is a big problem, which is what I said in my other post. I think the news media is so concerned about being called out for bias (on either side) that they fail to do truly valuable investigative reporting anymore (part of it is also just funding though).



Around the Network
GameOver22 said:

I think you're missing my point....I'm talking about philosophical objectivity....not whether the news can report a story without adding their opinion to it, which is why I don't like the term (I thinks it's a loaded term). I don't understand why its a bad thing for me to want politicians called out on their lies....it informs the public. If Obama starts citing some numbers to prove a point, I find it useful if the media can tell me whether those numbers are true or misconstrued. I personally find politifact to be one of the most useful news sources for this reason.....especially during debate season.

Report the facts. If they lied, back it up with a fact. 

It's completely feasible for a news outlet to remain completely objective.



dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:

I think you're missing my point....I'm talking about philosophical objectivity....not whether the news can report a story without adding their opinion to it, which is why I don't like the term (I thinks it's a loaded term). I don't understand why its a bad thing for me to want politicians called out on their lies....it informs the public. If Obama starts citing some numbers to prove a point, I find it useful if the media can tell me whether those numbers are true or misconstrued. I personally find politifact to be one of the most useful news sources for this reason.....especially during debate season.

Report the facts. If they lied, back it up with a fact. 

It's completely feasible for a news outlet to remain completely objective.

Ummmmm.....okay.....what are you disagreeing with me about then. My quote, "In some ways, I think the media often times tries to be too objective and doesn't call politicians out on their lies. They just try to take what politicians say and report it, with little to no fact checking."




GameOver22 said:
dsgrue3 said:

Report the facts. If they lied, back it up with a fact. 

It's completely feasible for a news outlet to remain completely objective.

Ummmmm.....okay.....what are you disagreeing with me about then. My quote, "In some ways, I think the media often times tries to be too objective and doesn't call politicians out on their lies. They just try to take what politicians say and report it, with little to no fact checking."


GameOver22 said:

Because I don't think there is a truly objective viewpoint. 

^this.



dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:
dsgrue3 said:

Report the facts. If they lied, back it up with a fact. 

It's completely feasible for a news outlet to remain completely objective.

Ummmmm.....okay.....what are you disagreeing with me about then. My quote, "In some ways, I think the media often times tries to be too objective and doesn't call politicians out on their lies. They just try to take what politicians say and report it, with little to no fact checking."


GameOver22 said:

Because I don't think there is a truly objective viewpoint. 

^this.

 

That's really irrelevant to my argument. I think the media can report news as it happens without inserting their opinion into it. If you want to call that objective, that's fine with me....it's just semantics. If that's all you disagree with me on, then we have no disagreement.



GameOver22 said:
dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:

Because I don't think there is a truly objective viewpoint. Opinions are fine.....best example probably being Murrow's reporting on McCarthyism. The problem is, even with opinionated reporting, there will always be people who disagree. In some ways, I think the media often times tries to be too objective and doesn't call politicians out on their lies. They just try to take what politicians say and report it, with little to no fact checking. If there is anything we know, it's that politicians lie...... a lot....for meaningless reasons often times.

Sure there can.

"Airplane exploded today at 9:15 AM."

"Jim Boehner met with President Obama today to discuss (insert topic)" 

"Congressional Republicans vetoed the (insert bill) today by a margin of (insert vote)"

No need to add opinions to break the news to people.

I find you highly suspect now that you want the media's opinion about their own out of context quotations of politicians.

I think you're missing my point....I'm talking about philosophical objectivity....not whether the news can report a story without adding their opinion to it, which is why I don't like the term (I thinks it's a loaded term). I don't understand why its a bad thing for me to want politicians called out on their lies....it informs the public. If Obama starts citing some numbers to prove a point, I find it useful if the media can tell me whether those numbers are true or misconstrued. I personally find politifact to be one of the most useful news sources for this reason.....especially during debate season.


The only probably with Politifact is they often seem to have their answer first, and then work back what the poltician said.  Often lieng or taking out of context what was said to put in a false.  While making the point of difference for the other side.... and genrally just picking what stories they want that benefit them.

I stopped trusting Politifact a while ago, when I noticed they were paraphrasing and taking statements out of context to mean things that were never intended.  This doesn't help either...

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/02/selection_bias_politifact_rate.php

That's why there are so many fact checkers out there right now... they're all biased... and they generally have different answers about what's true, half true or false... even on the same statements.  They'll all give you plenty of numbers to back i up too.

 

Heck you even get blogs fact checking the fact checkers

http://www.politifactbias.com/2013/03/rand-paul-filibuster-you-should-have.html