Joss Delage

Do you consume media with a bad editorial stance?

15 posts in this topic

I have found that most of my news comes from media whose editorial stance I disagree with, often strongly so. Some are horribly biased (NPR's The Diane Rehm Show), others less so (NPR's To The Point). I've found over time that I am able to separate the bias from the quality of the analysis. Once I'm aware of the bias, I can adopt "corrective lenses", and get great value from quality media, whether biased or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found that most of my news comes from media whose editorial stance I disagree with, often strongly so. Some are horribly biased (NPR's The Diane Rehm Show), others less so (NPR's To The Point). I've found over time that I am able to separate the bias from the quality of the analysis. Once I'm aware of the bias, I can adopt "corrective lenses", and get great value from quality media, whether biased or not.

I concur. I read the Manchester Guardian website. The Guardian has a definite left-wing bias but their articles on science and technology are excellent, sometimes even better than the corresponding items in the New York Times. And what is also good, is the the Guardian does not charge money for unlimited access.

Likewise the Wikipedia. Being an open source medium it has some terribly distorted items under politics and matters ethical. But the science and math items are almost all good, particularly in given pointers to other websites and to the literature.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The San Francisco (Communist) Chronicle has never seen a tax it didn't like or a left wing LTE it didn't like. The Sunday Chron includes a separate editorial section called "Insight" which I find to be quite ironic. One of the columnists for that paragon of Leftism is Robert Reich. After reading one or 2 sentences of his I can't read any more. The local paper, the San Jose Mercury, is not much better. Of course these are California papers so one can't expect anything rational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The San Francisco (Communist) Chronicle has never seen a tax it didn't like or a left wing LTE it didn't like. The Sunday Chron includes a separate editorial section called "Insight" which I find to be quite ironic. One of the columnists for that paragon of Leftism is Robert Reich. After reading one or 2 sentences of his I can't read any more. The local paper, the San Jose Mercury, is not much better. Of course these are California papers so one can't expect anything rational.

Aw come on! The Chronicle is not Communist. It is a pinko stinko liberal rag. But the funny page is pretty good.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The San Francisco (Communist) Chronicle has never seen a tax it didn't like or a left wing LTE it didn't like. The Sunday Chron includes a separate editorial section called "Insight" which I find to be quite ironic. One of the columnists for that paragon of Leftism is Robert Reich. After reading one or 2 sentences of his I can't read any more. The local paper, the San Jose Mercury, is not much better. Of course these are California papers so one can't expect anything rational.

For a much more rational California newspaper, try the Orange County Register. (link)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you consume media with a bad editorial stance?

It depends on what you mean by "consume".

I have found that most of my news comes from media whose editorial stance I disagree with, often strongly so. Some are horribly biased (NPR's The Diane Rehm Show), others less so (NPR's To The Point). I've found over time that I am able to separate the bias from the quality of the analysis. Once I'm aware of the bias, I can adopt "corrective lenses", and get great value from quality media, whether biased or not.

If you know what they are pushing you can learn to separate it out to some extent, but unless you are very familiar with a subject you can't tell what they are omitting and distorting as fact. If you know about their habitual patterns of distortion, you can, however, find clues for what to look into further that they didn't mention, but you have to know enough about the subject to know what to expect and what to look for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's to be gained by trying to guess which part of their lies are reality? Better to look for news sources that don't have a left-wing political agenda. For example, for science and technology news, phys.org is excellent. When you use the MSM sites, you're adding to the page count data they use to convince advertisers to keep giving them money. Starve the bastards out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but on some topics like government land acquisition there is no such source. Often you don't find out about some new scam until seeing it referred obliquely somewhere in propaganda form, then knowing what to look for you can track down what is actually happening. There is no proper role for guessing what part of their lies are reality and leaving it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you use the MSM sites, you're adding to the page count data they use to convince advertisers to keep giving them money. Starve the bastards out.

Exactly, which is why many conservative blogs provide "safe links" when talking about whatever the latest insanity of the day is from the New York Times, MSNBC, etc. On a similar note, I refuse to visit the site Little Green Footballs now that Charles Johnson has gone full moonbat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found that most of my news comes from media whose editorial stance I disagree with, often strongly so. Some are horribly biased (NPR's The Diane Rehm Show), others less so (NPR's To The Point). I've found over time that I am able to separate the bias from the quality of the analysis. Once I'm aware of the bias, I can adopt "corrective lenses", and get great value from quality media, whether biased or not.

Good point. I get some news from Yahoo! They used to be more collectivist, but have actually seemed to have gotten better/more honest in the last month. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can evaluate someone's opinions and reject them but when they are based on distortions of reality, from omissions to inventions, you can't get facts that aren't there using "corrective lenses" to speculate what what was omitted and which you may not have even thought of. At most you can detect clues of what else to look for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MSM in Sweden specializes in covert bias. There's none of the impassioned talking heads of CNN or Fox News; instead they practice a very dry, formal reportorial style so as to appear neutral. Immigration is one of the hottest issues in Sweden but the media and Reichtag political parties try to suppress any discussion of it, any notion that it's an issue at all. Lots of Swedes are starting to rebel, however, by voting for a pseudo-nationalist party as a last resort simply because they're the only ones willing to challenge the government's policy of massive welfare immigration.

Fortunately there are online sources of uncensored news, but the great bulk of Swedes still get theirs from the old telly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing the results of the election, I feel well served by The Economist, NPR, the WSJ, Megan McArdle's, Felix Salmon's & other blogs, etc. It sounds like the right wing media either was getting high on its own supply or made the choice to lie to its audience. This is just based on what I tried to sample - not a critic of what people here might use, since I don't know them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was apparent that candidates and commentators were deliberately promoting an optimism without basis, whether through hopeful thinking or for campaign spin, but it is also true that Romney had moved up to a positive edge in the national polling about a day or so before the election until, for whatever reason, immediately before the election when Obama moved up. The polls showing Romney doing better in the popular vote than the "swing states" were generally correct, but of course useless. There was no justification for spending time analyzing, let alone counting on or obsessing over, uncertain polls that weren't telling us or deciding anything, which made most of the news and endless commentary useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I don't watch TV (so no Fox News) and I don't listen to right wing talk radio, but I have heard and read that the GOP "analytical" bench consisted mostly of old pros (Rove, etc) relying on their experience, and very few quants. If it's true, it's an obvious weakness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites