It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump, Polarization, Partizanship and Social Media Consumption.

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


So you can't come up with a single left-wing site you would call at least as politically biased as say, The National Review or judicialwatch.org , which were on the list?


And you can't come up with a left wing blog that makes things up like Infowars?




posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: loam


Pointless arguing with someone who thinks anything they have read in the last two years from MSM even comes close to being unbiased or covers the truth.


The issue isn't bias, it's factuality. The right makes things up, the left, less so.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: loam


Where were CNN, MSNBC, NYT, and WaPo, not to mention a laundry list of additional MSM publications who have all consistently met 4 of the 5 criteria used to identify junk media? T


For the record, here are the five criteria:


• Professionalism: These outlets do not employ the standards and best practices of professional journalism. They refrain from providing clear information about real authors, editors, publishers and owners. They lack transparency, accountability, and do not publish corrections on debunked information.
• Style: These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines, excessive capitalization, unsafe generalizations and fallacies, moving images, graphic pictures and mobilizing memes.
• Credibility: These outlets rely on false information and conspiracy theories, which they often employ strategically. They report without consulting multiple sources and do not employ fact-checking methods. Their sources are often untrustworthy and their standards of news production lack credibility.
• Bias: Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed, which is otherwise described as hyper-partisan reporting. These outlets frequently presentopinion and commentary essays as news.
• Counterfeit: These outlets mimic professional news media. They counterfeit fonts,branding and stylistic content strategies. Commentary and junk content is stylistically disguised as news, with references to news agencies, and credible sources, and headlines written in a news tone, with bylines, date, time and location stamps.


comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk...

[Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Please provide specific examples of why you think any of the news media excluded from the list meets any of the requirements besides "bias?" And the importance of "fonts" is that they "counterfeit" legitimate sources.

edit on 11-2-2018 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-2-2018 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: loam


Pointless arguing with someone who thinks anything they have read in the last two years from MSM even comes close to being unbiased or covers the truth.


The issue isn't bias, it's factuality. The right makes things up, the left, less so.


The major difference, is those "factual", but bias left wing news, is perpetuated by 90% of the MSM and fed to 100% of the population.


Who here has even visited or heard of any of these right-sites listed?



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Did you even bother to read the five criteria of the study? Factuality and invention have nothing to do with any of the five.

And I can find plenty of invention from any source you offer as trustworthy. But that's an entirely different thread.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986


Who here has even visited or heard of any of these right-sites listed


Every single one of them has provided the basis for a thread here on ATS.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986


Who here has even visited or heard of any of these right-sites listed


Every single one of them has provided the basis for a thread here on ATS.


If we're going to use extreme hyperbole, then every single major news outlet is responsible for brainwashing the mentally weak liberals.

Wait, that actually might not be hyperbole.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Ask yourself, as you read those criteria, are they subjective? Can you quantify those characteristics and call it science?

When I use a thermometer to take a temperature reading, subjectivity has nothing to do with the result. But look at most of the criteria used above. For example how do I determine an unsafe generalization from a safe generalization?

Honestly it's depressing you think this study shows anything at all.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: loam


Did you even bother to read the five criteria of the study? Factuality and invention have nothing to do with any of the five.


What do you think is meant by "untrustworthy sources?" "Unverified?" "Debunked uncorrected?" "Junk content stylistically disguised as news?"



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: loam


Ask yourself, as you read those criteria, are they subjective? Can you quantify those characteristics and call it science?


Yes. You can count the number of times they use multiple sources or retract items that have proven wrong. You can distinguish between fact, analysis, and opinion, and whether thay are correctly identified.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

trump derangement syndrome



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

Sharing “junk news” is one thing, but being the useful idiot in a smear campaign is quite another.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Open your eyes. I'm not trying to make you trust right-wing sources. But what I'm trying to make you understand is that all of what you consume in media needs to be questioned, and regardless of the source.

We are all being consistently lied to and manipulated. Maybe you'll never bring yourself to understand that. Maybe you need to believe that your sources, whatever they might be, offer only the truth. Perhaps the real truth of that is too unsettling for you to handle.

Or maybe your own political biases require you to believe this study actually means something.

Whatever the case, I doubt anything I will say will move the needle much for you.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: loam


Open your eyes. I'm not trying to make you trust right-wing sources. But what I'm trying to make you understand is that all of what you consume in media needs to be questioned, and regardless of the source.


I question everything. My whole purpose for being here is to encourage people to apply critical thinking to the "information" they are receiving. The study in the OP maps how different groups consume news. The more one actually knows about Donald Trump and his history, the less one is likely to support him. His supporters therefore tend to rely on highly biased, even fictive, sources.Sorry if you can't accept that fact.


We are all being consistently lied to and manipulated. Maybe you'll never bring yourself to understand that. Maybe you need to believe that your sources, whatever they might be, offer only the truth. Perhaps the real truth of that is too unsettling for you to handle.


You keep saying we are being lied to but you never seem to provide people with the tools to spot the lies. Why is that? The five criteria in the study are an excellent guide. Why dispute them? And why has no-one been able to show how the "mainstream media" you disparage meet any of the criteria, other than (arguably) bias? (Incidentally, broadcast media do tend to sensationalize, which is why I urge people to consult print journalism.)



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Painterz

Sharing “junk news” is one thing, but being the useful idiot in a smear campaign is quite another.


Please elaborate.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I wonder how many people here would want to silence sites that publish rhetoric.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Painterz

Sharing “junk news” is one thing, but being the useful idiot in a smear campaign is quite another.


Please elaborate.


It’s the “sourcing filter” in Chomsky’s propaganda model. Legit reporters and news sources sometimes receive their material from political influence machines, for instance Dana Millbank and Greg Sargent from the Washington Post colluding with the DNC to write hit pieces. Since they rarely reveal the political motives of their sources, the people who read them unwittingly and unknowingly spread information designed to smear another’s opponent.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I wonder how many people here would want to silence sites that publish rhetoric.

Depends on what "rhetoric" you're talking about. It was Trump himself who labeled the media an enemy of the American people for printing negative stories about him.

It's been a while since the last "jail the media that is critical of Trump" thread so maybe Trump people have moved on from wanting to arrest reporters and execute them for treason.

I won't hold my breath though.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

How many of the media were investigated under Obama versus how many under Trump?


The answer may surprise you.




posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Painterz

Sharing “junk news” is one thing, but being the useful idiot in a smear campaign is quite another.


Please elaborate.


It’s the “sourcing filter” in Chomsky’s propaganda model. Legit reporters and news sources sometimes receive their material from political influence machines, for instance Dana Millbank and Greg Sargent from the Washington Post colluding with the DNC to write hit pieces. Since they rarely reveal the political motives of their sources, the people who read them unwittingly and unknowingly spread information designed to smear another’s opponent.


I would think that such a ridiculously loose criterion that allows so much subjectivity as in the case of this 'analysis' would be written off by even the most biased observer, but apparently not. Fake news has many forms, from lies by omission, to ideological slant on real information, to outright lies. Classifying it so simply as these 'researchers' have done to produce a predominately right-wing list of outlets as the starting point is of course junk. But, if junk carries with it an opportunity to spread more propaganda to suit a political aim, then there will always be those that will defend said junk.
edit on 11/2/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join