Facebook prioritizing different types of hate speech

Page 12 of 12 [ 179 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,243
Location: Right over your left shoulder

12 Dec 2020, 6:44 pm

Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
I don't have statistics for editorial boards specifically, but I doubt they skew all that different from journalists as a whole.


Speculating that your bias is correct isn't the same as being correct. TYT has discussed this at length for years and provided stats at times to substantiate their point. Editorial boards counterbalance whatever bias the journalists might have.


This would be a lot more convincing if you cited actual evidence instead of "a progressive left wing news show said so"


I'm not concerned with whether or not you're convinced. You haven't made a compelling argument for your position, you've so far just repeated the same unsubstantiated claims that always get used to make a case that there's liberal bias or left-wing bias in the media.

I'm not invested enough in what you or anyone else believes and I don't care enough to waste my life researching and substantiating points when posters on here are rarely convinced by solid arguments and prefer to just retreat back to whatever position they started from.


My argument is substantial and solid. I'll recap it.

1) Rigorously backed claim that journalists are more democratic than the american public
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... ecade-ago/

2) Reasonable conclusion that being more democratic than the american public would affect the bias of reporter's coverage, tilting it to the left.

You made one reasonable counterpoint about editorial bias, but failed to provide any evidence to back it up. You then claimed that my argument was unsubstantiated (it's not).

Assuming you claimed this in good faith, I can only assume that you think since I disagree with you I don't make well-reasoned arguments. Either that or you're too biased to recognize a well-reasoned argument that goes against your pre-conceptions.


You're not the first person to make this sort of argument, it's a common trope.

If self-identified Republicans aren't getting involved in journalism that doesn't make the automatic fair conclusion that journalism has gotten more biased against Republicans. Republicans have grown increasingly skeptical of any media outlets that challenge their preconceived notions. This hostility is likely reflected in their declining representation.

Here's another article from the same outlet with a rather different take on the issue than you're proposing:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... irefox-b-d

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ose-cover/

You're not making a well-reasoned argument now, even if you have made them on other topics in the past.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

12 Dec 2020, 8:39 pm

Antrax wrote:
My argument is substantial and solid. I'll recap it.

1) Rigorously backed claim that journalists are more democratic than the american public
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... ecade-ago/

2) Reasonable conclusion that being more democratic than the american public would affect the bias of reporter's coverage, tilting it to the left.
.


Your point number 2 was invalidated by the journal article I posted. Regardless of what political persuasion journalists carry, the process by which news goes through an editorial process removes openly biased or unsubstantiated news you claim is actively inserted by the journalists. I am amazed you subscribe to such a farcical conspiracy??

Conservative political leaders are in the habit of claiming left wing bias in national broadcasters (nothing new there). Trump has gone further by attacking all the commercial media outlets that report him in a negative light. Even when he tweets garbage and the evidence is there for all the public to see he will attack CNN or ABC for simply reporting what he said and call it fake news.

In terms of your point 1, most journalists are generally left leaning as one the motivating factors in choosing a career in journalism is a passion/interest in social justice rather than making money. But what you conveniently leave out in your "rigorously" backed claim is that all editors and media chiefs (whom they report to) are more in sync with voters and infact vote conservative.
https://theconversation.com/whose-views ... left-13995

So I am afraid your argument falls over. Newspaper media chiefs and editors are never going to publish anti-conservative stories, if anything left leaning voters have more justification to criticise the media as being controlled by conservatives but they don't because left-leaning voters tend to be critical thinkers and prefer to actually read the content of the stories rather than obey their leaders like attack dogs and blindly attack the media.

The MAGAs have been classified as a cult by your own American Psychological Association and judging from the last election result it has a substantial following.



StayFrosty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jun 2019
Age: 1937
Posts: 502
Location: California, United States

13 Dec 2020, 1:18 am

Facebook is just another way you distract the herd from the reality of this Broken World. What's the point of having 300+ friends if you only regularly talk to a handful of them? It's the definition of fake. Instagram and Twitter is no different.