91–100 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In an alternative scenario you could have the state-run media, cough insert-name-here cough , simply forcing every single outlet to run with their version of the headline: "There still is no Facebook, only use National Party Communication Gathering Website!"
Studies have found that state run media in democratic nations are the least biased. NPR, BBC.
"But with nearly two-thirds of Facebook users saying they get at least some of their news from the online platform, conservatives said any chance of bias could skew political conversations." I really don't understand this whole situation? How is this happening? If the argument is "We don't like how you're skewing news about our kind", how is this not seen as pure hypocrisy and laughed out of the room? Can you imagine…
Just because someone is wrong about one thing doesn't automatically make them wrong on everything else. That's just an excuse to dismiss them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I think liberal publications, I think Huffington Post, Salon, the Intercept, Vox, etc. What are they saying? The NY Post and WSJ are Murdoch/Fox/News Corp publications; they are on a mission. Last I knew the Washington Times was owned by the cult leader Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church - I never understood why anyone takes it seriously. But there still is apolitical journalism in the world; it's hardly…
> The NY Post and WSJ are Murdoch/Fox/News Corp publications; they are on a mission And Huffington Post, Salon, Vox are not on a mission?
Yes, that's why I identified them as the liberal publications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In an alternative scenario you could have the state-run media, cough insert-name-here cough , simply forcing every single outlet to run with their version of the headline: "There still is no Facebook, only use National Party Communication Gathering Website!"
Studies have found that state run media in democratic nations are the least biased. NPR, BBC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny how BuzzFeed or Vox shit is deemed reasonable by the left while Fox News shit is treated as, well, shit. No. Both are shit.
I'm not sure when I've ever seen someone deem Buzzfeed's shit "reasonable".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My anecdata suggests conservative outlets tend to acknowledge their bias, as a counterweight to liberal bias in the "mainstream" media, whereas liberal outlets tend to believe themselves to be unbiased. Given how much liberal outlets scoff at the notion of there being a pervasive liberal bias in the MSM, I suspect they legitimately just don't see it as they're surrounded by people with the same political views and so…
From the perspective of an American, the American MSM has a liberal bias. From the perspective of a citizen from most other first-world countries, the American MSM has a hardcore conservative bias.
I'm totally fine with this. If you want to advocate for a world in which all resources are privately-owned (leaving no commonly-owned space for discourse) and that a global, multi-billion-dollar social media service has the same free speech rights as a mom and pop grocery, then you deserve to reap the rewards of your own ideology.
It's not always that. Most of the thinking I've heard about this is not to control what Facebook may or not do. Many critics say that Facebook is a private company and can do what they want. The complaint among them is that Facebook lies about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I think liberal publications, I think Huffington Post, Salon, the Intercept, Vox, etc. What are they saying? The NY Post and WSJ are Murdoch/Fox/News Corp publications; they are on a mission. Last I knew the Washington Times was owned by the cult leader Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church - I never understood why anyone takes it seriously. But there still is apolitical journalism in the world; it's hardly…
Shall we talk about WaPo and Bezo's beef with Trump?
It's interesting how media outlets are spinning this news. People that read conservative media are left thinking that Facebook has admitted bias. People that read liberal media are left thinking the opposite. Washington Times: "Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives" LA Times: "Facebook investigation reveals no evidence of bias against conservative topics, company says" NY Times: "F…
Either way, Facebook wins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, other than Facebook admitting to the possibility of bias.
Well, that's why everyone who's ever been on trial for murder is a murderer. Wait, that isn't correct? Neither is the Washington Times headline... but then, the Times is about as mainstream as it gets for the right-wing fringe. The content of the article disagrees with their headline. Saying that there's a possibility is not the same as saying that there's a certainty. Except when it comes to political nonsense.