Cerebralbore101 said:
The problem here is that News outlets are not supposed to be political outlets. News isn't supposed to present the ideas or arguments (at least not themselves). I have no idea how German politics works so maybe it is different in your country. The Trump fish thing was propaganda, by omission of important facts. The Huffington Post article was on point. People who defend themselves against domestic violence are not guilty of domestic violence regardless of gender. Both sides do not do it equally. At least not in the U.S. Fox News' overwhelming bias has been well documented for years. Your second paragraph admits that conservatives are interested in propaganda more than they are interested in real news. It basically says that liberals and conservatives will never agree on what's fair and unbiased, because conservatives don't value being fair and unbiased. Yes, mainstream media is capable of lying too. The odds of either Trump or Clinton winning shifted as the election came near. Anybody saying that Clinton had a 90% or higher chance of winning the day before the election was either lying, or not able to understand the data. According to various polls around the midwest both of the blue wall states that Trump took had around a 33% chance of going to Trump. He only really needed one of them to stand a good chance of winning the election. |
I'm not really sure what to say here. Conservatives are definitely not only interested in propaganda and I'm not sure how you read that into my post. Conservative and liberals have different values - but values are not objectively right or now. Your values are not "better" than my values and vice versa. Your argument here is that conservatives are bad - what should I argue here? You advocate for facts but are very emotional about your values and the "other" political side.
The Huffington Post article was absolutely not on point because there was no data to back up the claim that women only hit back. Same goes for campus "rape" rates and other stuff: The studies that argue 1 in 4 women get raped on campus consider it rape when both parties are equally drunk - because the woman can't give consent anymore. But the "consent" rape laws have only even been discussed for the last few years! So there is absolutely more to this than simple statistics - to define what rape is, you have to define gender relations and what is "normal" or "natural" behaviour for men and women. In the case of these feminist studies it is assumed that men always want sex while women only want it after having given consent - but is this true? It's a matter of interpretation. There is more to politics than just numbers. All numbers have to be interpreted. Both sides lie and the conservative side isn't worse here - you just have a predisposition to believe the liberal side (and its supporting studies) because you identify yourself as a liberal. A classic example of confirmation bias. And that opens Pandora's Box! How do we "objectively" weigh interpretation bias or political bias in studies?
Same goes for your last example: The data journalistic sources you cite interpreted raw data and thus got to the conclusion that Trump had around a 30% chance of winning the election. But there is no "correct" way to interpret data and historical figures. We only call sites like fivethirtyeight clever in hindsight because they got it right (or rather: "less wrong" than other media). But what if Clinton had won the election? Then you would now be arguing that the mainstream media was right and wasn't lying / doing propaganda and I would still argue my point, just from another direction.
But maybe we should just agree to disagree. It has been a decent discussion in my opinion and I had fun arguing.
