World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[CRTGAMER]

Thank you for at least a partial response to the questions asked. You are correct that there is editorial bias in almost everything no matter what. It is unavoidable. I think that you make the mistake in believing that having editorial bias in showing facts discredits them altogether. You say that all mainstream media is bias and you discredit only the ones with which you don't like on an emotional all level. Fox news is incredibly biased and yet you use that as your primary source of mainstream media.

I would also like to point out these articles that go against your statement that they did not report that those immigrants had criminal records.

Getting ready to head out the door, I'll tackle your questions in depth later. Thanks for the openness in discussion, agree all news organizations including ABC, CBS, CNN and Fox are biased. Huge TV News organizations that have the most viewers should have been more responsible. Did you watch the O'Reilly video clip (jump forward to 2:00) all the way thru showing examples of CNN and MSNBC the worst of the bias collusion? Goes further of the double standard during previous administrations. In addition maybe take a look at the two clips in my signature?

[Sarge]

Also PolitiFact isn't a fringe pundit site; they show you their reasoning for each rating step by step, cite their sources, and call out both sides of the aisle.

This article does an excellent job of laying out what I think of most fact-checking outfits.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... king-facts

[ElkinFencer10]

Also PolitiFact isn't a fringe pundit site; they show you their reasoning for each rating step by step, cite their sources, and call out both sides of the aisle.

This article does an excellent job of laying out what I think of most fact-checking outfits.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... king-facts

I do see the point the article is making for the most part, and I can't say that I'm entirely in disagreement, though I think the "half true" and "mostly true/false" are useful designations because there's a difference between completely making shit up - Bowling Green Massacre - and fudging numbers or leaving out details - "Mexico is America's biggest source of immigrants" rather than "Mexico is currently America's biggest source of immigrants" since, without qualification, the first statement is false (that would be Germany) but could be said to be "mostly true."

When we're talking about things like politics, I think it's important to note when someone wasn't entirely truthful but was just fudging a few details of an otherwise legit source.

[marurun]

Also PolitiFact isn't a fringe pundit site; they show you their reasoning for each rating step by step, cite their sources, and call out both sides of the aisle.

This article does an excellent job of laying out what I think of most fact-checking outfits.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... king-facts

Here's the thing, though... PolitiFact, for example, explains their ratings. They go into detail about why they rate something that way, and it's clear from the Bloomberg opinion piece that they go back and revise their assessments as conditions on the ground change. I see no hoodwink-ery or hypocrisy going on, here. Further, politicians have a habit of issuing grand claims about complex issues, reducing them to overly simplistic statements. It is inherently difficult to tease those apart. I also read the research paper linked in the Bloomberg article and think that it represents quite well the kind of complexity these fact-check organizations are attempting to tackle, but the paper itself attempts to over-simplify their own analysis and open a can of worms by attempting to take on claim selection bias, which is a completely different issue altogether.

Look at their example, Obama's statement that nobody would have to lose their existing plan. The law itself did not require that any companies drop those plans for their customers, so as an initial statement it was true. There was no language in the ACA that directly stripped people of their insurance plans, and there were many people attempting to represent it that way. The ACA did change the dynamics of the insurance market and ultimately many plans did disappear, but those who were criticizing it didn't bother assessing it at that level. They just issued the blanket statement that the ACA would take away people's insurance. But many companies dropped their legacy plans over time as they became unprofitable to them in the new market conditions. The effect of this corporate response to those changes made the statement false after the fact. And PolitiFact responded to the changing conditions on the ground by updating their assessment and and providing the rationale for their judgment.

Fact-checking whether Obama was really born in Hawaii is easy and straight-forward, and was done repeatedly, but people kept repeating the lie anyway. But on more complex stuff you have to look at facts and context, and sometimes the interplay is a little big and cumbersome. And that's why responsible fact-checking establishments have to provide their reasoning. "Show your work," as they would say in school. For some of the claims evaluated, perhaps fact-checking isn't the best term, for for many it is. And the two tasks are very related. So I would say that those services are still much-needed.

And though the Bloomberg piece suggests there is much disagreement, if you look at more scientific topics like anthropogenic climate change, there's actually quite a bit of agreement. The only topic the research paper looked at that generated truly varied results were statements about the budget, but even award-winning economists can be hard-pressed to agree on such things, so I think that might be more a reflection of the art of the science, so to speak.

[Sarge]

Showing your work is great, but once you delve into subjective statements, it is no longer fact-checking, and thus should not carry the weight of being an impartial analysis. At that point, it is opinion journalism.

I'm not saying fact-checkers shouldn't exist, but things should absolutely be more clearly delineated between parts that are provably true, and parts that rely on an interpretation that one may not even have the ability to understand.

As a purely anecdotal example: My recent exchange with jp1 exposes some interesting gaps in both of our knowledge in understanding the "other side". I know he confessed to trying his best to understand where I'm coming from, but was often at a loss. Sometimes I find myself in the same boat. I wouldn't trust myself in any sort of fact-checking endeavor without someone there to provide significant ideological counterbalance, and that is often lacking at these outfits.

[marurun]

Showing your work is great, but once you delve into subjective statements, it is no longer fact-checking, and thus should not carry the weight of being an impartial analysis. At that point, it is opinion journalism.

No, not necessarily. Good fact-checking is like good reporting. It's not just a regurgitation of the day's events or a list of facts, but an attempt to analyze them and put them in context. And when journalists and fact-checking sites show their work, it allows you, the reader, to determine where bias has entered the process and what that bias is. But as a reader or listener, you also have a responsibility to figure out what biases exist in what you take in, and explaining conclusions in detail helps you do that. Fact-checking is not editorializing and it isn't like the opinion content that Fox, CNN, and MSNBC have stuffed their schedules to the brim with. That's just talking heads who rarely connect the dots and make sweeping pronouncements.

I'm not saying fact-checkers shouldn't exist, but things should absolutely be more clearly delineated between parts that are provably true, and parts that rely on an interpretation that one may not even have the ability to understand.

I could get on board with this. Though I've already seen some of this on PolitiFact. I've read explanations before that included stuff like, "based on this, we rate this half-true. But there is room for this other thing, and should that prove to be the case, this statement would become mostly true." That makes it clear that the truth of the situation involves factors that can't be easily predicted by those doing the analysis. PolitiFact is my favorite because they are much more clear on the straight-up factual details and tend to acknowledge where an issue has the potential to go into the weeds. But there are multiple authors for the site, and it's possible some are better than others.

As a purely anecdotal example: My recent exchange with jp1 exposes some interesting gaps in both of our knowledge in understanding the "other side". I know he confessed to trying his best to understand where I'm coming from, but was often at a loss. Sometimes I find myself in the same boat. I wouldn't trust myself in any sort of fact-checking endeavor without someone there to provide significant ideological counterbalance, and that is often lacking at these outfits.

Do you think there are people who can see both sides? Who can be self-balancing? Do you think it's possible that at times where aren't actually two sides, but simply the perception of two sides? Do you know for sure that some of those sites don't have multiple eyes signing off on those analyses?

[Sarge]

I'm sure there are multiple eyes, but I have my doubts, given the ideological makeup of most news rooms, that there are multiple eyes from both sides of view.

And no, some issues aren't left-right.

I think my overall point, and that of the article I posted, is once you put the full-force of the "fact-checking" vernacular in play, that brings a whole different level to the proceedings; it gives the appearance of an impartial mediator, which may not (and often isn't) the case. Furthermore, once you start distilling subjective statements into hard and fast bins (something that even some fact-checkers have had some difficulty adhering to with any rigor), it becomes a sort of intellectual shorthand for folks to point to, devoid of any real meaning or nuance.

Basically, there are things in the fact-checking process, regardless of whether they show their work or not, that should not actually be there, and do belong in opinion columns.

Do I think anyone can be an impartial mediator? Sometimes. Rarely. I know if I were put in that position, I would try my absolute best to set my biases aside, but I don't truly believe that I could completely. I suspect I have biases within myself that I don't even recognize, and I would need someone like you, prf, jp1, or Bogus to provide ideological counterbalance to ensure I wasn't committing that problem. And I would still advocate perhaps a split analysis on issues where there is significant subjectivity involved.

Heh, maybe we can start our own fact-checking outfit.

[marurun]

Heh, maybe we can start our own fact-checking outfit.

Sure! I'm the best librarian! I know all the best sources! I have lots of facts, the best facts, and I check them.

[ElkinFencer10]

Heh, maybe we can start our own fact-checking outfit.

Sure! I'm the best librarian! I know all the best sources! I have lots of facts, the best facts, and I check them.

[CRTGAMER]

My take on Biased News - http://www.racketboy.com/forum/viewtopi ... 3#p1080733

To spur on how bad mainstream news media in biased outright lie reporting, look at the immigration roundup. Most organizations twisted the story as rounding up working immigrants. Very few news made the important mention that the roundup was only on illegal immigrants that have a felon record. A dangerous intentional push by the news to cause hysteria.

Thank you for at least a partial response to the questions asked. You are correct that there is editorial bias in almost everything no matter what. It is unavoidable. I think that you make the mistake in believing that having editorial bias in showing facts discredits them altogether. You say that all mainstream media is bias and you discredit only the ones with which you don't like on an emotional all level. Fox news is incredibly biased and yet you use that as your primary source of mainstream media.

How did you feel about the O'Reilly interview with Donald Trump? Did you feel that O'Reilly was valid in his criticism of the president? Do you feel that Russia is a corrupt government system?

Absolutely correct on Russia corruption, throw in their news as well is a corrupt government controlled system. The people have no say whatsoever, anyone who do speak out will either be jailed or assassinated.



Now here is a point to ponder, on how the public believes in the bias news in each country. Please post your answers. I did the same in this reply.

1. Due to the government control in Soviet News, how much of the Russian population do and do not believe the news?
I would venture to say most people do not believe their news. Stories are twisted and many stories not even told.

2. Due to the differentiating views of bias in the U.S. News Media, how many in the U.S. do and do not believe the news
Sadly, most in the public believe the news as the truth without question. It is the analyzers as us discussing the news that we cast our doubts on the stories twisted and the many stories not told.

I thought the O'Reilly interview did not take a personal, but instead a hardliner keeping respect to the President approach. Not very revealing on some points as the first ABC interview, but also had some new information presented. I will not break it down other then I felt good with most of the President's responses. I leave that for others to judge themselves if they want to view ALL sides and then judge. I will tease that the Presidential Superbowl score prediction exact had the Patriots after winning, kicked the field goal.

Here is the entire O'Reilly interview with the President, the Q/A took place before the Superbowl.

- Bill O'Reilly interviews President Donald Trump - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU65saEdEp8

Personally, I felt the best interview to date was the very first Whitehouse interview after Mr. Trump became the President. ABC Dave Muir really got the President to open up on various issues.

President Donald Trump First Interview At White House - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkHa2-c_8Pk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do I think anyone can be an impartial mediator? Sometimes. Rarely.

Heh, maybe we can start our own fact-checking outfit.

Sure! I'm the best librarian! I know all the best sources! I have lots of facts, the best facts, and I check them.

NO. Nothing against you, but the point as mentioned sooo many times is no news source will be the absolute unbiased truth. Throw in whoever pulls the data also will never be 100% unbiased. Humans are infallible; that is what makes us think and opinionated the way we do. That stated, by all means throw in what you determine as the truth, the more data the better. Fact check each others without someone else deciding what is true and discuss meaningfully without judging each other.

True that CNN, MSNBC and FOX 24 Hour have a lot of editorial style news programs with cuts of immediate breaking news. That is their format. The mainstream ABC, CBS, NBS and Fox have dedicated news channel, but these too are biased controlling how a story is presented and what story not told. Look at how the news on EVERY station is presented with their own in house paid advisors during the opinion part in the news story. Done for control of the news formulating even more bias and so wrong.

@ marurun - The 5 Minute Truth video link in my signature encompasses the biased media take. Why not watch it? How can we trust your liberal pick of data when you refuse to watch or read ALL member's links with a detailed rebuttal comment? Really, I promised you will not go blind.