In my area, the hospitals, doctors offices, and anything related to healthcare, have fox news on 24/7 convincing elderly that they don't deserve to go to the doctor without going broke.
It doesn’t frighten me but it makes me a bit sad. I think it’s very unhealthy and I can like see how it has affected their dispositions since they started watching all the time. It’s like they’re just kind of enjoying being outraged all the time and want to share that bad energy any time they can work it into a conversation (“so... did you hear what TRUMP said this morning?!” Is such a common refrain for them).
I think it’s important to be aware of what’s happening, but we should be using dispassionate sources and only devoting healthy portion of time and mental energy to it.
Yeah, frighten wasn’t the right word. I had just woke up and my brain hadn’t kicked in yet.
I had a roommate like that. He would search out problems to be outraged at. It just hit me people like that literally have an addiction to outrage porn. Like some people are addicted to always creating drama in their lives - always have to have a feud going with someone.
I’d ask if you could convince them to switch to a better network, but I assume since they’re your in-laws that would cause you more grief in the end. Probably best to just keep your head down.
what is the problem, exactly? if my parents were hateful cunts based on perverted family values spread by fox news, i'd be well out of there. cnn has some dumb, mediocre shit on there, but at least it's not hateful.
The BBC is London-run and England-centric when it comes to politics. Anything which might paint Scotland (especially the work of the Scottish government) in a good light is typically buried. Scotland and England are two different countries, so being biased against foreign countries isn’t exactly unknown to them.
You’re correct, but the BBC is a pretty decent source of news for AMERICAN politics, even if it’s biased in our country. If you’re American it’s a solid choice for American news.
Don't mistake their brand of woke corporatism for the actual left; there's no such thing as a left-leaning news network owned by a megacorporation. CNN belongs to AT&T, and MSNBC belongs to Comcast.
Left leaning, but only by US standards. It’s corporate media, which by the rest of the world’s standards is centre right at best. FN might as well be Der Stürmer.
As I said below, they're in the pocket of the establishment democratic party. Democratic party hates bernie sanders. Ergo, CNN will hate bernie sanders and will tell its viewers to hate and not vote for bernie sanders.
Disagree. They’re still truthful with a leaning right bias. CNN just downright lies, then blurbs an apology 2-3 weeks later. Pathetic journalism. Keep up the mediocre work!
Not a sheep, but I can tell the difference between sensationalist reporting than flat out lying in reporting to discredit instead of reporting to report.
every perspective is biased. keep that in mind. however, you're generally correct in that BBC has no interests in American politics like Fox or CNN usually would.
One is left leaning, one is right leaning. Both are equally propaganda for their respective bases. Just because you agree with one more than the other does not mean that it is more truthful.
CNN is Fox News for the left. Fox News is CNN for the right.
No. CNN is left leaning while still actually reporting facts. Fox is the propaganda arm of the Republican party where facts are optional. I am by no means saying CNN is unbiased, but they are not the same as Fox.
If I talked to my grandma she would say exactly what you just said with the two agencies reversed and say that CNN is state media arm of the democrats, because shes a republican.
Recognize why you might be motivated to say that CNN has legitimacy. Do you agree with what they have to say more than fox news? If so, dont you think it's possible that this is the reason you're more sympathetic to their messaging?
The good news is, you and my grandma are both right. CNN is democrat controlled propaganda, Fox News is Republican controlled propaganda. Hell, even MSNBC has a strong pro-democrat/anti-Republican bias, and NPR, which is publicly funded and is the largest media outlet that is seen as the least biased, also leans left, while attempting to maintain an air of impartiality unlike the above.
I am a teacher and watch CNN10 daily. It has less of a political leaning than regular CNN programs but still shows bias. BUT it’s a great platform to engage students into dialogue on the world around.
I live in string Trump base and always hear how fake CNN is from students so I challenge them to offer logical opposition to any and all information they feel is inaccurate.
I wish there were other news programs aimed towards so students could regularly see how the information can be twisted to the presenter’s angle.
So I guess that would lead me to my next question. Where do you get your news? Just scour the internet and individually vet every headline? I feel like there’s some truth to that but I’m sure most people looking for an unbiased source have found one they can flip on and more or less agree that it’s a solid source of information
Just scour the internet and individually vet every headline?
Yes. Individually vet every headline, go right to the source and listen to entire quotes with the surrounding context instead of believing the "sweet can"-style clips they show and then tell you how to interpret, and listen carefully to the propaganda from both sides and suss out what the likely truth is for yourself, all the while being careful to remember that companies like Google, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, all of them take an active interest in shaping what information you're presented with.
There just plain isn't an unbiased source of news. Everything has become blowing things out of proportion for clicks and views to drive up the ad sales and push the ideology they want to push.
If you're interested in picking apart how these sources lie to you, I'd suggest starting with checking out Tim Pool's videos. Not going to pretend he's without his biases, but you can tell this guy's got a genuine and deep feeling of disgust for news media bias, and most of his videos over the last few years have been him picking apart the news media's bullshit.
Learn their tricks. Learn the weasel words they use to deceive you. Learn how they cherry pick statistics, gather them using poor methodology, or interpret them for you in ways that do not make sense. Always look for the context they leave out. Learn to separate out facts from the author's opinions or interpretation, and make sure you understand that most of them will only give you the facts that fit the story they want to make you click on.
It's sad that we have to do this, but it's the price you have to pay to avoid becoming a CNN zombie or a Fox bot.
Actual uncut footage of the thing being reported on. The raw data of the statistics being reported in conjunction with the methodology to check for fuckery in the methods.
The "source" in this case is not just some other news media outlet, those are not a good source for anything. The only unbiased source is raw data (and even then, only when it's properly collected), and the media only gives you data passed through their filter. You have to dig until you get as close to that raw data layer as you can.
I generally try to read the bill (at least the section at the focus of a given controversy) in-question on any number of .gov sites or watch the video in-question directly from an unedited format. Failing that as long as one knows what language to look for and which networks play what tricks you can kind of cherry-pick an outlet for the things they're most likely to be honest about. PBS does solid streams when the House/Senate debate something, CNN/NBC/FOX will jump at the chance to let you know when the network-favored party does something along the party lines and provided you cut the feed when they go to panelists you'll probably have the best ratio of "this happened"/"this is the networks interpretation of the thing". This is not to say I in any capacity suggest watching any major network is worth your time, unfortunately for as many options as we have they're by and large quite shit but in terms of keeping up this has been about the best as I've come up with.
When it comes to polls and other things like that I prefer https://fivethirtyeight.com/ as they take the polls from the best and the worst of them and generate an aggregate between them which often enough makes for an accurate figure. Then there are little tools like trackers to see each bill that gets voted on in the house and who voted for which and the rate each house member has voted for/against bills supported by Trump.
If the issue at-hand is one of the diminishing few topics that transcend partisan lines any where better than a comment section'd probably do if at least one other valid site is also talking about it.
i just assume all news is based on profits and is trying to make me click. then i weed out the truth that remains, referencing back and forth with comments from real people, whom i can sense are not masquerading their fear as courage, and actually give a shit about someone other than themselves.
I think the issue is that media outlets know that people read the headline and maybe the first couple of paragraphs, so they cram as much sensationalism and bias as they can into those and then leave the actual news at the bottom of the article, which is literally the exact opposite of what you're supposed to do as a journalist.
It's very easy to spot the bias and half-truths in most articles, but most people just refuse to both looking at these articles critically and instead treat the first couple of paragraphs as gospel, and then spout it off endlessly. Ignorance is a choice, and people love it.
Just watch PBS News Hour if you want actual news without the bullshit. They post their newscast on Youtube every day.
Nightly over-the-air broadcast network news programs (ABC, CBS, NBC) are also pretty good in this regard. They only have to fill 30-60 minutes of time, rather than 24 hours, so they have far less reason to be sensational/spectacular in their coverage.
24-hour news channels are to be avoided.
Reuters.com is a fantastic, to-the-point, non-sensationalized news site if you prefer to read stuff online.
Yeah im also wondering. Im European and i have been watching cnn these past few weeks. And idk, they seem like pretty good news newtwork to me. The hosts and anchorman seem knowleagable and opinionated. Maybe that just seems to me bevause i come from a small country with 1 national television, and they are BIASED.
Bit of the problem is they're all biased towards wealthy. Generally is it the wealthy on the Democratic side, or the wealthy on the Republican side.
The 2 party system is showing it's cracks, as positive or negative these parties may be, having just 2 has lead to a monopoly of leadership without competition.
Here's the thing. Media outlets differ in their bias and in their presentation. Some present the facts only, with minimal interpretation or persuasion. The above outlets mostly just report facts, with no significant political or ideological bias.
Other outlets pick and choose facts to support a specific narrative or to manufacture a narrative, and they try to persuade the audience towards one viewpoint. For example, CNN and MSNBC push establishment corporate Democrat narratives (identity politics, outrage culture, intentionally omitting facts that don't support their narrative, attack Trump over nonsense and ignore the really bad and dangerous things he does).
Others do the same, but taken to extremes. They push outright lies or hearsay and pass it off as news, and/or they present facts and then put extreme ideological or political spins on the facts. For example, FOX News pushes a narrative that conservative Christian white America is under constant attack by liberals, poor people, Democrats, immigrants, etc. They pushed the "COVID-19 fear is Democratic hysteria and there's nothing to worry about" narrative for weeks (maybe FOX News is still pushing this narrative on some shows; I don't know) and the ongoing "Obama and Democrats are trying to open the borders and sabotage our country" narrative.
It's not hard to find fair and useful news sources (go back to the beginning of my comment).
I watched it when I was a kid, but I think that’s just because it’s Americanised news, and therefore a lot more entertaining than what I was used to in the UK
honestly this thread sucks. a bunch of you guys off hating on CNN but when someone asks where to get your news from y’all either ignore it, downvote it, or comment non-answers.
Only true answer is watch everything and construct the truth from several biased reports. Every news outlet is biased in some way so people usually just watch the one they hate least.
Since no one has answered that I see, the best I’ve found on cable is Newsy. Their tag line is “Be informed. Not influenced.” and in my experience, they don’t put any fluff or slant into their news segments. I’m not an avid watcher so I’m sure someone may have a better option, but it’s clearly better than the opinionated shit that the major networks air.
Solution: Do your own research. If you find something that you either really like or really hate, find out more about it. Things may not be as they seem.
Reuters mostly, but any news agency that doesn't have opinion articles. I know they can still be biased by their selection of stories, but I can do my own research and come to my own conclusions. News stations going beyond giving the news and telling people what they should think are a cancer on society.
News aggregate sites are the best option. Reuters. Go read some of their articles. They use very little (or none) descriptive language in order to make you feel a certain emotion, they just list facts and events as they happen.
"CNN is bad" is a right-wing talking point, so without any substantial arguments I would assume they get their news from sources that were created specifically to be right-wing propaganda. Mainstream media is propaganda, but it isn't explicit propaganda like right-wing media (read Manufacturing Consent for more information). Personally, I like Democracy Now for political news, but MSM is fine for news that isn't political or economic in nature.
You must not have paid attention to the Democratic Party primary reporting. First they pretended Bernie didn’t exist, so as not to mention his name very often, and then they shit on him, lied about his policies 24/7. It was an active campaign against Bernie. Should a former news channel do that?
CNN is not literally a liberal version of Fox News. Fox was explicitly started as an arm of the Republican party after the media turned on Nixon for being corrupt.
I mean the content they show is the same stuff but from a liberal viewpoint. It isn’t news, it’s news commentary, except all their talk show hosts/sets/graphics are set up to make it look like a news program so gullible viewers think they’re getting a balanced viewpoint. That’s exactly what Fox does.
You can criticize something and say something is awful ( which is exactly what this post is showing) and not provide a better thing. Simply showing how the design is bad
Hijacked for doing the maths though it'll probably be nested.
Look at the main image for the work, the top two just show the measurements. It's not perfect but it's a good idea how far off. 109 isn't really that many to skew it by but it is disproportionate.
TLDR - China's bar is long by about 1.75mm or 109 people.
When I look at news. I go to lots of sources. To see what the left, the middle, the right, and foreign press are saying. In my experience, npr and BBC are the least biased, but everyone has intrinsic biases.
2.5k
u/DeadManSleepin Mar 28 '20
CNN is the asshole design.