Trump

[ShockerPrez]

I've seen this graphic before. Is this agreeable?

Vox skews liberal??

[Kung Wu]

I've seen this graphic before. Is this agreeable?

npr and cnn in the middle. That's lol funny.

[RoyalShock]

I've seen this graphic before. Is this agreeable?

Shift the whole thing (other than the lower corners) to the left about half a category and I would agree with it. NYT, WP, MSNBC don't just have a barely-noticeable leftward tilt, IMO.

[ShockerPrez]

My contention is that there is no organization out there that is straight news.

For instance. Straight news on the riot in Berkley would read.

Milo was scheduled to speak at Cal Berkley. But protesters gathered to voice opposition to his presence on campus. Some protesters turned violent, damaging nearby property and causing injury to some bystanders. The speech was cancelled before it started and the speaker was moved off campus. There was 1 arrest.

To me, that's straight news. All facts, no shading anywhere.

Was that the story reported like that anywhere?

Was there any story that did not use an adjective to describe Milo, the protesters, etc? I don't believe so.

[jdshock]

My contention is that there is no organization out there that is straight news.

For instance. Straight news on the riot in Berkley would read.

Milo was scheduled to speak at Cal Berkley. But protesters gathered to voice opposition to his presence on campus. Some protesters turned violent, damaging nearby property and causing injury to some bystanders. The speech was cancelled before it started and the speaker was moved off campus. There was 1 arrest.

To me, that's straight news. All facts, no shading anywhere.

Was that the story reported like that anywhere?

Was there any story that did not use an adjective to describe Milo, the protesters, etc? I don't believe so.

Which kinds of adjectives do you want removed? I like knowing that it was a right-wing speaker and opponents of him who were protesting. I also like knowing that a second group of protesters caused the damage.

[Kung Wu]

Which kinds of adjectives do you want removed? I like knowing that it was a right-wing speaker and opponents of him who were protesting. I also like knowing that a second group of protesters caused the damage.

For example on CNN they said, "Black-clad protesters wearing masks threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police." [emphasis mine]

Really? Commercial-grade, huh? They obviously snuck that adjective in to brainwash the reader into believing that these leftist protestors are more sophisticated than the right-wing Tea Party protestors of yesteryear that used 25-cent smoke bombs.

[Aargh]

I watch for unnecessary words that are more useful in forming the reader's (or listener's) opinion than they are in describing what happened. There are also a lot of buzzwords that will automatically generate an opinion.

As I recall Newt Gingrich had either a book or some papers he wrote explaining how to use specific words to shape public opinion. A list of words to use and another list of words to never use. It was well-written for the intended purpose.

If a reporter is using terms to shape your opinion rather than relate an event, you are reading a story from a slanted perspective. You might want to check out the reporting of the event from the other side of the issue. The truth will likely be somewhere in between. If you are getting your news only to reinforce the opinions you've already formed, then you are an opinionated, rather than informed, voter. Unfortunately, that category probably applies to a large majority of voters on the right and the left.

[ShockerPrez]

Which kinds of adjectives do you want removed? I like knowing that it was a right-wing speaker and opponents of him who were protesting. I also like knowing that a second group of protesters caused the damage.

I believe CNN said he was a white supremacist. But they will always call a conservative, at best "controversial". But a left wing speaker is never cast as such.

And its always funny that conservatives who espouse conservative views like limited government and more individial freedom are "Radical".

[jdshock]

For example on CNN they said, "Black-clad protesters wearing masks threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police." [emphasis mine]

Really? Commercial-grade, huh? They obviously snuck that adjective in to brainwash the reader into believing that these leftist protestors are more sophisticated than the right-wing Tea Party protestors of yesteryear that used 25-cent smoke bombs.

I guess that just shows how one's own bias affects your interpretation of something.

I actually took that to mean that as an elevation of the seriousness of what they did. Throwing rocks (albeit, not high-tech rocks) and commercial-grade fireworks makes it sound like they had more of an intention to cause harm than if they had just thrown 25-cent smoke bombs. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if it had just said "fireworks," there would have been people on the right that said "these weren't just 25-cent smoke bombs. These were commercial grade, serious fireworks."

I guess my point is that they either were or they were not commercial-grade fireworks. If they were, that is an objective fact even though it is an adjective. You should never share fewer objective facts because you don't want to have a slant. If there's a major terrorist attack and the person is Islamic, I'm sure that's an adjective that you would think informs the reader, right?

[Kung Wu]

I guess that just shows how one's own bias affects your interpretation of something.

I actually took that to mean that as an elevation of the seriousness of what they did. Throwing rocks (albeit, not high-tech rocks) and commercial-grade fireworks makes it sound like they had more of an intention to cause harm than if they had just thrown 25-cent smoke bombs. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if it had just said "fireworks," there would have been people on the right that said "these weren't just 25-cent smoke bombs. These were commercial grade, serious fireworks."

I guess my point is that they either were or they were not commercial-grade fireworks. If they were, that is an objective fact even though it is an adjective. You should never share fewer objective facts because you don't want to have a slant. If there's a major terrorist attack and the person is Islamic, I'm sure that's an adjective that you would think informs the reader, right?

Crap, you took me seriously.

[ShockerPrez]

I actually find a lot of it amusing to see how different networks slant it by the little digs here or there that will not even be noticed by the average viewer. But it's always there by either adjectives, what they include and what they don't.

[Aargh]

then there's also listening to the source, instead of what's reported about the source.

For example, I find Trump's "don't worry about it" statement to be a concern. The right is going to report that he's going to be tough and at this time we need a tough President. The left is going to question how we are supposed to be able to trust him.

"Don't worry about it" is about equivalent to "you can trust me". I do not have good experiences with people who have said, "just trust me".

[Eric]

Exactly. "Trust me" is the PC version of "Eff You"

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

CNN is flawed. ABC is flawed. Fox News is flawed. Etc.

But if you can't tell the difference between their flaws and INFOWARS?... Well, if that is you, please don't ever vote, ever, ever again.

[WuDrWu]

Which kinds of adjectives do you want removed? I like knowing that it was a right-wing speaker and opponents of him who were protesting. I also like knowing that a second group of protesters caused the damage.

I'll renew my objection on the label. How about instead, FACTUAL based reporting? A speaker from Breitbart.com? I see him as more the common man.

Are you ok with them reporting left wing radicals, led by Soros funded hired hit men, destroyed property and assaulted the 1st Amendment rights of an invited speaker who had done nothing wrong and hundreds of students interested in his message?