Objectivity and bias in media

i’m an academic, that’s how it works. otherwise it is just journalism. some of my stuff traces back to karl marx (since i don’t care about the marx i didn’t keep going) through vygotsky, although epistemologically i align with complexity theory.

if i have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants

Same here but I’m more interested in the mechanisms and motivations behind opinions of media types, than the opinions themselves.

Anyone can have an opinion, being in media and having one isn’t particularly noteworthy.

well, how do you know what those are? how do you describe them? what is the work that has been done before? if you’re not citing anyone, where is your credibility?

almost by definition being in media (a la JP) is noteworthy but it isn’t necessarily more valid. but not being in the media isn’t a sign of validity either

You dig in and investigate.

Uh, you don’t need to cite anyone to argue effectively. :sweat_smile: At least I don’t think so.

It’s only noteworthy if you elevate them to begin with though.

Uhh, ok.

1 Like

You read other people, who you cite.

You said you are an academic?

Someone elevated them to make them noteworthy, yes, that’s how they got in the news

would you like a picture? (it might mean a little math)

Citing facts and opinions are not the same thing.

Noteworthy to you maybe.

No, water is wet, I know, no need for words or pictures.

i don’t choose who gets in the news, silly

Enough people without their own opinions elevating the opinions of others, do. Be a part of the solution!

Anyway it’s been fun. If the Koch bros offer a kool-aid, just say no.

1 Like

I am. Never judge the false assumption of a toupee by its cover, that is wisdom I have shared with the world this evening. Maybe I haven’t convinced you, but there might be someone else who reads this. Best wishes to you as well, I do think we agree on more than you realize :slight_smile:

That’s the letter Bret Weinstein talked about

1 Like

not quite (but close), this is also helpful i think

Damn those PC voting blocks.

1 Like

Tampa Bay Times:

“Gov. Ron DeSantis showed again this week how not to roll out the state’s vaccination supply. Steering thousands of doses to a wealthy Manatee County neighborhood was bad enough. But facing criticism, the governor doubled down, threatening to retaliate by diverting the vaccines to other counties. This bad decision, and the governor’s petulance, will only divide Floridians at the very time residents are looking for hope and encouragement. DeSantis needs to show better judgment, more personal restraint and a greater regard for basic fairness.”

In other words, DeSantis steers vaccines towards wealthy loyalists in specific counties so they can jump the queue, tries to excuse it by saying he’s helping the elderly (just so happens its the elderly only in a couple of wealthy counties of his preferred supporters).

I so do love seeing all of the news in its entirety and not just cherry picked details of it. Seems so much more objective and less emotionally geared that way. Gov. DeSantis, lose the ‘tude | Editorial (tampabay.com)

DeSantis withholds vaccine: ‘I wouldn’t be complaining.’ Gov. DeSantis threatens to pull coronavirus vaccine from communities that criticize distribution: DeSantis threatens to withhold COVID vaccine over complaints - South Florida Sun-Sentinel (sun-sentinel.com)

DeSantis threatens to divert vaccines from communities criticizing distribution | TheHill

It’s pretty insane to see how people spin taking an approach to vaccinations which ensures that the most at risk of dying get them first. Let’s forget the lie that DeSantis threatened to withhold vaccinations, but framing prioritizing the most at risk as being politically motivated might not work out well for the democrats. Did several governors willfully put seniors at higher risk to shift risk to people who were demographically less likely to support them? I’d prefer to not go down that path, and just focus on what type of rollout plans mitigates the most amount of harm.

1 Like

Serious stuff, maybe they can tie it to some conspiracy or another

Newsmax host Greg Kelly took aim at President Biden’s dog Champ on Friday, mocking his appearance during a segment of his show.

“Did you see the dog?” Kelly asked, referring to Champ. “Doesn’t he look a little, uh, a little rough? I love dogs, but this dog needs a bath and a comb and all kinds of love and care. I’ve never seen a dog in the White House like this.”

Kelly then compared Champ to Buddy, former President Clinton’s Labrador retriever, and Millie, former President George H.W. Bush’s English springer spaniel.

“I remember Buddy. I remember Millie. I remember lots of dogs but not a dog who seems — I don’t know. I don’t know how much love and care he is getting,” Kelly said.

Kelly then introduced two guests. One of the guests, Craig Shirley, said Champ looked “very dirty and disheveled and very unlike a presidential dog like Millie or Victory or any other dog that I’ve seen in the White House.”

1 Like

Man, you gotta be a special kind of jerk to pick on an old dog.

1 Like

image
3 Likes

Media working for the deep state. What a surprise:

“Texas licensing standards if applicable. The influx facilities also cost more: about $775 a day per child”.

Crikey, That’s around 11X what a place rents for in my neighborhood.

“If we could find another way, that’d be great,” Weber said. “On the flip side, these kids just come in and they’re turned loose on the street, they end up being homeless kids.”

…So my question @Mick would be what should be done about unaccompanied kids when they arrive–especially since COVID is also a factor in this?

The same as when kids were detained under Trump and the same when kids were detained under Obama, the only thing that has changed is you are now asking reasonable questions instead of being outraged.

The fact is some of these kids are being trafficked, some are not related to the adults who accompany them and if you don’t detain them to find out who they are they run away.

3 Likes