Generational Dynamics World View

[John J. Xenakis]

** 26-Nov-2020 World View: News sources

(11-26-2020, 01:22 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: > Are there objective means of determining the credibility of media?
> Yes.

>

> Yes. At the top are such entities as the AP wires and Reuters,
> news often reported in a 'blitz' style in which reporters relate
> what they see or transmit official statements. This is almost
> stenographic reporting which says nothing more than the story at
> hand. This is minimal news, news at its purest. Putting bias into
> such reports is practically impossible because the reporter has
> little time in which to analyze or spin what he* gets. This is no
> zone for any crusading journalist out to change the world. There
> is no possibility of bias other than from cited sources.

First, this really isn't true. Yes, AP and Reuters write blitz
articles, but most of their articles are analytical. And you can
always slant any article by selecting what facts to include. So my
experience is that AP stories include mostly "left-wing facts," while
I've found that Reuters stories are more balanced in their selection
of facts.

The chart you've posted is far from objective. It's a piece of garbage.

Let's take Bloomberg for example. The chart shows Bloomberg as the pinnacle
of neutrality. That's ridiculous. Anyone who watches Bloomberg TV knows
that isn't true.

It's even worse than that. Mike Bloomberg is a committed Democrat and has
donated tens of millions of dollars to the Democrats, and is probably
still donating. When Bloomberg was running for president, BB announced
a corporate policy of investigating and attacking Trump, but not doing
investigating any Democrat candidates. And believe me, their bias is
obvious if you listen to them, or read their news stories.

And this is just one example. The chart is ridiculous. It shows CNN
as neutral, which is a joke, but Fox News as hyper-partisan
conservative, despite the fact that it's far more balanced. The whole
chart is a ridiculous joke.

There's one more dimension not shown on the chart -- purposeful
censorship, which goes beyond simple ideological bias. Bloomberg has
a stated policy of censoring news critical of Democrats, but CNN,
MSNBC, NYT, WaPost etc. are the same. Because of Stalinist
censorship, readers of these sources know nothing about antifa-blm
looting, burning down cities, and violent attacks on Trump supporters.
They know nothing about the growing support among blacks and Latinos
for Republicans. FNC covers these stories and also the stories you
see on CNN and MSNBC. That's what "fair and balanced" means.

So in the chart you've posted, Fox News and Fox Business Network should be
at the top center, and most of the others should be moved waaaaayyyy over
to the left. And there should be another column to the left of "Most extreme
liberal," and it should say, "Full on left-wing Stalinist censorship of the
news."

So your claim about an "objective means of determining the credibility
of media?" is total bullshit, and the chart that you posted is a
total piece of left-wing crap.

(11-26-2020, 01:22 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: > So what is the fault of such reporting? If you can do your own
> thinking, you can do your own analysis.

I think the mainstream media censorship is a disaster. You're
delighted and thrilled by it, of course, since the censorship is far
left, but I can assure you that one day you'll regret it. These
things always turn out very badly.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

by Martin Niemöller