05-19-2020, 03:14 PM
![[Image: youth-unemployment-for-newsletter-articleLarge.png]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/05/18/multimedia/youth-unemployment-for-newsletter/youth-unemployment-for-newsletter-articleLarge.png)
Apropos, nothing, it looks like it is the young who have gotten screwed. Again.
BC
Scenes from the Class Struggle in Lockdown
Apropos, nothing, it looks like it is the young who have gotten screwed. Again.
BC
Apropos, nothing, it looks like it is the young who have gotten screwed. Again.
BC
05-19-2020, 04:33 PM
- What experts think is news. News organizations covering expert opinions is not evidence of bias. That's news. The overwhelming opinion of experts in favor of shutdown is just the fact. It's like client change — fact, verified by science, not opinion.
- Demonstrations, particularly armed demonstrations, are news. News organizations covering demonstrations against shutdown is not evidence of bias.
- Leaders ignoring health expert recommendations, or overriding them, is inherently news. That's always been news and always will be. It's unexpected. Covering that disconnect is news, not evidence of bias.
- When a leader lies to the public, on issues that can be fact checked, the act of lying itself is news. It's unexpected. News has always covered lies from leadership as news. Covering that news is not evidence of bias. When a president looks straight into the camera and lies, that is news in itself and ought to be covered as news in a society that has a free press.
- Fact checking is good news coverage, not evidence of bias. And always has been.
- Publishing opinion clearly labeled as opinion is not bias. The journalistic ethic is to separate opinion from fact. What Peggy Noonan or anybody else writes in a piece clearly labeled opinion is evidence of her bias. Bias can creep in when a publication publishes only those opinions that match one side of a debate or discussion. We all know the general positional bias of WSJ. Some media produce bias in their choice of which opinions to publish. That's a fact. It's their pub.
- What is particularly dangerous in today's climate is publishing opinion as fact, or lies as fact. Some media generate bias in their reporting of the news, with alternative facts and the like. That's dangerous and should be called out.
- What experts think is news. News organizations covering expert opinions is not evidence of bias. That's news. The overwhelming opinion of experts in favor of shutdown is just the fact. It's like client change — fact, verified by science, not opinion.
- Demonstrations, particularly armed demonstrations, are news. News organizations covering demonstrations against shutdown is not evidence of bias.
- Leaders ignoring health expert recommendations, or overriding them, is inherently news. That's always been news and always will be. It's unexpected. Covering that disconnect is news, not evidence of bias.
- When a leader lies to the public, on issues that can be fact checked, the act of lying itself is news. It's unexpected. News has always covered lies from leadership as news. Covering that news is not evidence of bias. When a president looks straight into the camera and lies, that is news in itself and ought to be covered as news in a society that has a free press.
- Fact checking is good news coverage, not evidence of bias. And always has been.
- Publishing opinion clearly labeled as opinion is not bias. The journalistic ethic is to separate opinion from fact. What Peggy Noonan or anybody else writes in a piece clearly labeled opinion is evidence of her bias. Bias can creep in when a publication publishes only those opinions that match one side of a debate or discussion. We all know the general positional bias of WSJ. Some media produce bias in their choice of which opinions to publish. That's a fact. It's their pub.
- What is particularly dangerous in today's climate is publishing opinion as fact, or lies as fact. Some media generate bias in their reporting of the news, with alternative facts and the like. That's dangerous and should be called out.
05-19-2020, 04:47 PM
(05-19-2020, 04:33 PM)oregontim Wrote: My point: let's stop blaming news organizations for covering the news. Save the outrage for news organizations that don't cover the news or hide facts or present easily check-able lies as if they were facts. We all know how that goes.While I mostly agree with the points you made, I think you are ignoring the important problems that exists in deciding what is news. For instance, it is impossible to report what all "experts" think, there are too many of them. It is often a matter of opinion who is a "legitimate" expert. It is also clear that the choice of what to report is partly based on who will watch. It may be that 80% of the experts say "X is not a threat", while 20% say "X is a threat". The first is not interesting, the second is. Reporting only the second is biased, but that is often what will happen.
(05-19-2020, 04:33 PM)oregontim Wrote: My point: let's stop blaming news organizations for covering the news. Save the outrage for news organizations that don't cover the news or hide facts or present easily check-able lies as if they were facts. We all know how that goes.While I mostly agree with the points you made, I think you are ignoring the important problems that exists in deciding what is news. For instance, it is impossible to report what all "experts" think, there are too many of them. It is often a matter of opinion who is a "legitimate" expert. It is also clear that the choice of what to report is partly based on who will watch. It may be that 80% of the experts say "X is not a threat", while 20% say "X is a threat". The first is not interesting, the second is. Reporting only the second is biased, but that is often what will happen.
05-19-2020, 05:42 PM
(05-19-2020, 04:47 PM)Goose Wrote: For instance, it is impossible to report what all "experts" think, there are too many of them. It is often a matter of opinion who is a "legitimate" expert.
Interesting point: is it really just a matter of opinion? Back in the 1970s when I was a mainstream journalist, it was a matter of credentials, not opinions. Positions of authority, degrees, publications, and books written were considered credentials. Editors were pretty hard-nosed about who I got to quote. If I'd quoted crackpots as if they were experts, editors would have gone straight to the credentials and tossed them out. If I'd tried to cherry pick my experts for one side of an opinion, editors would have caught that too, and tossed that out.
Sure, it's been decades since for me (I changed careers), but I keep up, and journalistic ethics haven't changed. True, there's a lot more noise from non-journalists exercising opinions and even propaganda that sometimes looks like journalism. That's regrettable. But New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, other major newspapers, plus news from the major networks and serious cable news are still prestigious jobs, hard to get, and steeped in the culture of journalistic ethics. IMO.
Quote:It is also clear that the choice of what to report is partly based on who will watch. It may be that 80% of the experts say "X is not a threat", while 20% say "X is a threat". The first is not interesting, the second is. Reporting only the second is biased, but that is often what will happen.
I agree with you on this, but every real journalist would agree with you that reporting only the second, in this case, is biased, and bad journalism.
And I don't see that happening so often. Do you? I don't believe the editors of the major news organizations allow it to happen. Yes, there are crackpots with amplified voices, but they are still crackpots. And there are those quasi-state-media organizations that spout party line instead of journalism. Finding this kind of imbalance is evidence of poor journalism or politics disguised as journalism (e.g. Fox News, IMO).
I'd recommend the media bias map work at adfontesmedia.com. They do a pretty good updated review of where the major news organizations fit on two variables, reliability (fact) on the vertical, and political position on the horizontal.
(05-19-2020, 04:47 PM)Goose Wrote: For instance, it is impossible to report what all "experts" think, there are too many of them. It is often a matter of opinion who is a "legitimate" expert.
Interesting point: is it really just a matter of opinion? Back in the 1970s when I was a mainstream journalist, it was a matter of credentials, not opinions. Positions of authority, degrees, publications, and books written were considered credentials. Editors were pretty hard-nosed about who I got to quote. If I'd quoted crackpots as if they were experts, editors would have gone straight to the credentials and tossed them out. If I'd tried to cherry pick my experts for one side of an opinion, editors would have caught that too, and tossed that out.
Sure, it's been decades since for me (I changed careers), but I keep up, and journalistic ethics haven't changed. True, there's a lot more noise from non-journalists exercising opinions and even propaganda that sometimes looks like journalism. That's regrettable. But New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, other major newspapers, plus news from the major networks and serious cable news are still prestigious jobs, hard to get, and steeped in the culture of journalistic ethics. IMO.
Quote:It is also clear that the choice of what to report is partly based on who will watch. It may be that 80% of the experts say "X is not a threat", while 20% say "X is a threat". The first is not interesting, the second is. Reporting only the second is biased, but that is often what will happen.
I agree with you on this, but every real journalist would agree with you that reporting only the second, in this case, is biased, and bad journalism.
And I don't see that happening so often. Do you? I don't believe the editors of the major news organizations allow it to happen. Yes, there are crackpots with amplified voices, but they are still crackpots. And there are those quasi-state-media organizations that spout party line instead of journalism. Finding this kind of imbalance is evidence of poor journalism or politics disguised as journalism (e.g. Fox News, IMO).
I'd recommend the media bias map work at adfontesmedia.com. They do a pretty good updated review of where the major news organizations fit on two variables, reliability (fact) on the vertical, and political position on the horizontal.
05-19-2020, 09:43 PM
(05-19-2020, 03:14 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
Apropos, nothing, it looks like it is the young who have gotten screwed. Again.
BC
Sadly, that's the way it is, the young get screwed. Made me think about the ages of my furloughed employees. I went the other direction; 62, 47, 42, 44, 58, 46, 38, and 47.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(05-19-2020, 03:14 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
Apropos, nothing, it looks like it is the young who have gotten screwed. Again.
BC
Sadly, that's the way it is, the young get screwed. Made me think about the ages of my furloughed employees. I went the other direction; 62, 47, 42, 44, 58, 46, 38, and 47.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
05-20-2020, 04:27 AM
Speaking of facts, here’s one. The Republican Party has become financially and electorally dependent on a Right Wing media complex that can only exist by politicizing everything, which ultimately means denying reality and making shit up.
There is no such analog for the Democratic Party. There is no audience for left wing conspiracy theories that can be monetized to any degree, because lefties seek truth. This isn’t to say all liberal policy ideas are the best, but it is to say liberals have a high standard for truth. They are perfectly willing to argue about what is the best way to deal with reality. The problem is the baseless conspiracy culture cultivated by Right Wing media prevents agreement on reality.
Peggy Noonan, unlike the embarrassingly few principled conservatives like George Will and Mitt Romney, knows better, but like all the others riding the Right Wing media gravy train, she doesn’t have the courage to get off it and live in reality. Not wanting to lose her place at the trough, she tries to be elite herself, maybe not using the same course language as her more vile media peers, but still stoking the same politicization, divisive bullshit, with more intelligent sounding writing, rather than simply speaking truth.
There are far far far more business owners against shut down who might be called elite than those who want to keep themselves safe and willing to stay unemployed for the privilege. And what if opinions about opening things up change only as a result of people like Noonan and the Republican Party conspiracy to con people into thinking things are safe when they are not, by feeding them this bullshit? What elites would Peggy want to blame then?
There is no such analog for the Democratic Party. There is no audience for left wing conspiracy theories that can be monetized to any degree, because lefties seek truth. This isn’t to say all liberal policy ideas are the best, but it is to say liberals have a high standard for truth. They are perfectly willing to argue about what is the best way to deal with reality. The problem is the baseless conspiracy culture cultivated by Right Wing media prevents agreement on reality.
Peggy Noonan, unlike the embarrassingly few principled conservatives like George Will and Mitt Romney, knows better, but like all the others riding the Right Wing media gravy train, she doesn’t have the courage to get off it and live in reality. Not wanting to lose her place at the trough, she tries to be elite herself, maybe not using the same course language as her more vile media peers, but still stoking the same politicization, divisive bullshit, with more intelligent sounding writing, rather than simply speaking truth.
There are far far far more business owners against shut down who might be called elite than those who want to keep themselves safe and willing to stay unemployed for the privilege. And what if opinions about opening things up change only as a result of people like Noonan and the Republican Party conspiracy to con people into thinking things are safe when they are not, by feeding them this bullshit? What elites would Peggy want to blame then?
Speaking of facts, here’s one. The Republican Party has become financially and electorally dependent on a Right Wing media complex that can only exist by politicizing everything, which ultimately means denying reality and making shit up.
There is no such analog for the Democratic Party. There is no audience for left wing conspiracy theories that can be monetized to any degree, because lefties seek truth. This isn’t to say all liberal policy ideas are the best, but it is to say liberals have a high standard for truth. They are perfectly willing to argue about what is the best way to deal with reality. The problem is the baseless conspiracy culture cultivated by Right Wing media prevents agreement on reality.
Peggy Noonan, unlike the embarrassingly few principled conservatives like George Will and Mitt Romney, knows better, but like all the others riding the Right Wing media gravy train, she doesn’t have the courage to get off it and live in reality. Not wanting to lose her place at the trough, she tries to be elite herself, maybe not using the same course language as her more vile media peers, but still stoking the same politicization, divisive bullshit, with more intelligent sounding writing, rather than simply speaking truth.
There are far far far more business owners against shut down who might be called elite than those who want to keep themselves safe and willing to stay unemployed for the privilege. And what if opinions about opening things up change only as a result of people like Noonan and the Republican Party conspiracy to con people into thinking things are safe when they are not, by feeding them this bullshit? What elites would Peggy want to blame then?
There is no such analog for the Democratic Party. There is no audience for left wing conspiracy theories that can be monetized to any degree, because lefties seek truth. This isn’t to say all liberal policy ideas are the best, but it is to say liberals have a high standard for truth. They are perfectly willing to argue about what is the best way to deal with reality. The problem is the baseless conspiracy culture cultivated by Right Wing media prevents agreement on reality.
Peggy Noonan, unlike the embarrassingly few principled conservatives like George Will and Mitt Romney, knows better, but like all the others riding the Right Wing media gravy train, she doesn’t have the courage to get off it and live in reality. Not wanting to lose her place at the trough, she tries to be elite herself, maybe not using the same course language as her more vile media peers, but still stoking the same politicization, divisive bullshit, with more intelligent sounding writing, rather than simply speaking truth.
There are far far far more business owners against shut down who might be called elite than those who want to keep themselves safe and willing to stay unemployed for the privilege. And what if opinions about opening things up change only as a result of people like Noonan and the Republican Party conspiracy to con people into thinking things are safe when they are not, by feeding them this bullshit? What elites would Peggy want to blame then?
05-20-2020, 07:59 AM
(05-20-2020, 04:27 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: because lefties seek truth.
Don't conflate "typical Democratic voters" and "lefties". I could write a lot on this but I think it would be drifting way too far from covid. But "the left" or "leftists" are a small faction within the Democratic party (and in many ways NOT within the party).
(05-20-2020, 04:27 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: because lefties seek truth.
Don't conflate "typical Democratic voters" and "lefties". I could write a lot on this but I think it would be drifting way too far from covid. But "the left" or "leftists" are a small faction within the Democratic party (and in many ways NOT within the party).
05-20-2020, 11:14 AM
(05-20-2020, 07:59 AM)stupac2 Wrote:(05-20-2020, 04:27 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: because lefties seek truth.
Don't conflate "typical Democratic voters" and "lefties". I could write a lot on this but I think it would be drifting way too far from covid. But "the left" or "leftists" are a small faction within the Democratic party (and in many ways NOT within the party).
Yes, OK, I know. The labeling terms are problematic. I really mean liberals and progressive types, and "lefties" is more political ideological position. I'm definitely a liberal in the classic definition of the term and progressive, but am not a Democrat, or a communist either.
(05-20-2020, 07:59 AM)stupac2 Wrote:(05-20-2020, 04:27 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: because lefties seek truth.
Don't conflate "typical Democratic voters" and "lefties". I could write a lot on this but I think it would be drifting way too far from covid. But "the left" or "leftists" are a small faction within the Democratic party (and in many ways NOT within the party).
Yes, OK, I know. The labeling terms are problematic. I really mean liberals and progressive types, and "lefties" is more political ideological position. I'm definitely a liberal in the classic definition of the term and progressive, but am not a Democrat, or a communist either.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »