American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[activeStick]

Some questions, as I came across something, and in trying to figure out what is truth, what is fact, I'm struggling lol.

1) Do you read media that is generally from the same side? Example: You might take in all your updates for world news from CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, etc. or you solely consume news from Fox, Washington Post, etc. Sources from the other side, for you, are useless, mostly, if not all lies, so you don't bother and haven't bothered for a long time now. Or do you read up on events from all sources, regardless?

2) If you find a discrepancy between the 2 sides (only if you actually will read stuff from MSNBC occasionally even though you consume Fox for the most part, as an example), what do you conclude? Which take is right?

3) Do you have any sources you take in that you believe are presenting news without any slant?

4) If you think all media sources have a slant that promotes one ideology over the other, how do you decide what to believe? Does it come down to how you lean?

Since I asked, I'll go first...

1) All sources, all sides. I've mentioned this before, I watch all of Bernie's stuff, and follow a lot of "progressive podcasts", like The David Pakman Show, but I also listen to Tucker Carlson's podcast depending on the guest and watch both Fox and MSNBC.

2) I have come to conclude, I think, that all media sources are lying. Lol.

3) Associated Press is closest, though I find they tend to lean left. NPR is close too, but they also lean left.

4) I believe that all media in the US (including AP and NPR) are not trustworthy 100% of the time. AP and NPR are much better than the others (MSNBC, Fox) though.

[pseudoreality]

1) Most of my media comes from CBC and social media (redit). I do look at r/conservative regularly to see what's trending there. I also use to peak at foxnews.com and rt.com, but foxnews.com doesn't like ad blockers so I stopped going there.

2) They definitely focus on different things and have different views on the same events.

3) No, it is almost impossible to tell a story without your perspective bleeding out as you focus on different things.

4) You need to know that the reporter/organization has pre-existing views and dogmas while consuming the media and read between the lines. Often there are things they they don't report on the jump when reading a story. That works with people too, its what they are not telling you that tells you everything you need to know.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

1) Most of my media comes from CBC and social media (redit). I do look at r/conservative regularly to see what's trending there. I also use to peak at foxnews.com and rt.com, but foxnews.com doesn't like ad blockers so I stopped going there.

2) They definitely focus on different things and have different views on the same events.

3) No, it is almost impossible to tell a story without your perspective bleeding out as you focus on different things.

4) You need to know that the reporter/organization has pre-existing views and dogmas while consuming the media and read between the lines. Often there are things they they don't report on the jump when reading a story. That works with people too, its what they are not telling you that tells you everything you need to know.

Based on the sites you mentioned, it looks like CBC is your source from the left. I read their stuff occasionally, but for some reason, don't that often. I think I'll add them as a source actually.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Here, just go by this. These guys are pretty on point with their analysis.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Some questions, as I came across something, and in trying to figure out what is truth, what is fact, I'm struggling lol.

1) Do you read media that is generally from the same side? Example: You might take in all your updates for world news from CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, etc. or you solely consume news from Fox, Washington Post, etc. Sources from the other side, for you, are useless, mostly, if not all lies, so you don't bother and haven't bothered for a long time now. Or do you read up on events from all sources, regardless?

2) If you find a discrepancy between the 2 sides (only if you actually will read stuff from MSNBC occasionally even though you consume Fox for the most part, as an example), what do you conclude? Which take is right?

3) Do you have any sources you take in that you believe are presenting news without any slant?

4) If you think all media sources have a slant that promotes one ideology over the other, how do you decide what to believe? Does it come down to how you lean?

Since I asked, I'll go first...

1) All sources, all sides. I've mentioned this before, I watch all of Bernie's stuff, and follow a lot of "progressive podcasts", like The David Pakman Show, but I also listen to Tucker Carlson's podcast depending on the guest and watch both Fox and MSNBC.

2) I have come to conclude, I think, that all media sources are lying. Lol.

3) Associated Press is closest, though I find they tend to lean left. NPR is close too, but they also lean left.

4) I believe that all media in the US (including AP and NPR) are not trustworthy 100% of the time. AP and NPR are much better than the others (MSNBC, Fox) though.

It seems like every one of the bolded examples is someone trying to convince you of what to think.

I think newspapers take journalistic integrity the most seriously. I don't read a lot of opinion pieces, but I pay for the Washington Post, and generally trust their reporting to be accurate.

[ResAlien]

Instead of working yourself up trying to apply a golden mean fallacy to news I’d recommend a touch of media literacy. That will help you out a lot more in the long run

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Some questions, as I came across something, and in trying to figure out what is truth, what is fact, I'm struggling lol.

1) Do you read media that is generally from the same side? Example: You might take in all your updates for world news from CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, etc. or you solely consume news from Fox, Washington Post, etc. Sources from the other side, for you, are useless, mostly, if not all lies, so you don't bother and haven't bothered for a long time now. Or do you read up on events from all sources, regardless?

2) If you find a discrepancy between the 2 sides (only if you actually will read stuff from MSNBC occasionally even though you consume Fox for the most part, as an example), what do you conclude? Which take is right?

3) Do you have any sources you take in that you believe are presenting news without any slant?

4) If you think all media sources have a slant that promotes one ideology over the other, how do you decide what to believe? Does it come down to how you lean?

Since I asked, I'll go first...

1) All sources, all sides. I've mentioned this before, I watch all of Bernie's stuff, and follow a lot of "progressive podcasts", like The David Pakman Show, but I also listen to Tucker Carlson's podcast depending on the guest and watch both Fox and MSNBC.

2) I have come to conclude, I think, that all media sources are lying. Lol.

3) Associated Press is closest, though I find they tend to lean left. NPR is close too, but they also lean left.

4) I believe that all media in the US (including AP and NPR) are not trustworthy 100% of the time. AP and NPR are much better than the others (MSNBC, Fox) though.

Most news that people consume now isn't "news" its commentary on the "news" that is happening.

Most news sites report the same news - the big events. They will down/up play different news that is less newsworthy (why isnt mainstream media reporting this?!?!). But when people now get their news, they are getting it as some opinion or commentary.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Here, just go by this. These guys are pretty on point with their analysis.

This isn't really accurate though. MSNBC might lean strongly liberal, but I wouldn't classify them as "strongly left" in the traditional leftist sense.

[MrButtons]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Here, just go by this. These guys are pretty on point with their analysis.

Glad to see barstool sports is centrist.

[Ped]

True, but not surprising something called "ScienceClowns" is hyper-right

[timun]

That diagram is based on the Overton window having moved to the right.

In reality, using Barstool Sports as a centre point, all of the others on the diagram should rotate clockwise.

[Fuzz]

Sorry, Rebel News "skews right"? What do you have to do to get classified "hyper-partisan right"? That they sit halfway up the reliability scale makes me question how deep this analysis was.

[Itse]

Garbage is garbage, you don't learn more from consuming varied types of garbage "news".

Media literacy and general critical thinking are key.

Btw, the video I "debunked" earlier in this thread that was basically just well-made anti-Democrat propaganda trying to masquerade as something else was from the New York Times, which is still supposed to be a pretty good media. (But it's really not very reliable, they spew a ton of very obvious propaganda of various sorts.)

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's only sort of true in a majority situation and because of partisanship. If a PM was really out of control and held a majority, parliament could still remove them via no-confidence as long as the sitting PM's party voted with the opposition.

The governor general could also dissolve parliament if the PM and his party was out of control. Her post is deemed ceremonial because the house is always pretty normal but she does have this power if needed.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The governor general could also dissolve parliament if the PM and his party was out of control. Her post is deemed ceremonial because the house is always pretty normal but she does have this power if needed.

Nothing actually makes these things happen. The eventual only mechanism is arrest. Everyone choosing to follow the law is about all that protects us. The next layer is who the Police or Army will back in a coup.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This isn't really accurate though. MSNBC might lean strongly liberal, but I wouldn't classify them as "strongly left" in the traditional leftist sense.

They're not far left, but they are quite biased, which this "so huge it should really be spoilered" chart suggests.

[troutman]

There is a difference between bias and bad faith dishonesty.

[dino7c]

As someone who has voted right for 95% of my life I must say reality skews left at the moment. Extremes on both sides are ridiculous at times but the right seems more susceptible to straight nonsense.

We need to get back to elections where positions are debated without name calling and the loser graciously shakes the hand of the winner after the people have spoken. Four years is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

[puffnstuff]

Donald Trump was asked today if he would commit to prioritizing legislation to make childcare affordable, and if so, what specific legislation he would advance.

This is an unedited transcript of his response:

Well, I would do that, and we're sitting down, and I was, somebody, we had Senator Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so, uh, impactful on that issue. It's a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about, that, because, look, child care is child care is. Couldn't, you know, there's something, you have to have it – in this country you have to have it.

But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I'm talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they're not used to — but they'll get used to it very quickly – and it's not gonna stop them from doing business with us, but they'll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Uh, those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we're talking about, including child care, that it's going to take care.

We're gonna have - I, I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with, uh, the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country, because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care, but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I'm talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just, uh, that I just told you about.

We're gonna be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care, uh, is talked about as being expensive, it's, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we'll be taking in. We're going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people, and then we'll worry about the rest of the world. Let's help other people, but we're going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It's about Make America Great Again, we have to do it because right now we're a failing nation, so we'll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question. Thank you.

[Galakanokis]

Perfectly succulent. Clear, concise and right to the point. None of this wishy washy stuff Kamala says. He has my vote.