Truth

[HokieHam]

I'm chuckling that y'all are running down Thomas Sowell. Wow.

How are you surprised? You did the same to Paul Krugman, and he won a Nobel in Economics.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=26725#p243743

Obama won a Nobel Prize too. Doesn’t mean much.

I’ll take your Krugman and raise with a Sowell any day of the week.

[HokieHam]

There is a reason for this........

https://news.yahoo.com/trust-media-hits ... 15376.html

[Uprising]

One of the easiest ways to evaluate the quality of a media outlet and/or what they think of their target audience, is to consider the type of advertising they do. It's impossible to take seriously any outlet that advocates for moving all money to gold or sells doomsday buckets.

[VisorBoy]

One of the easiest ways to evaluate the quality of a media outlet and/or what they think of their target audience, is to consider the type of advertising they do. It's impossible to take seriously any outlet that advocates for moving all money to gold or sells doomsday buckets.

I've noticed that too. A lot of that is because companies won't support fringe outlets lest they lose their mainstream customers, but a good bit is also because certain media outlets and commentators have made headlines by saying specific, outrageous statements on air on which the public calls them out. How many times have advertisers announced they were leaving Limbaugh/Hannity?

[RiverguyVT]

One of the easiest ways to evaluate the quality of a media outlet and/or what they think of their target audience, is to consider the type of advertising they do. It's impossible to take seriously any outlet that advocates for moving all money to gold or sells doomsday buckets.

yeah, advertising targeting people with disposable investment income doesn't quite match up to advertising for fascist and communistic orgs begging for money.

[Uprising]

One of the easiest ways to evaluate the quality of a media outlet and/or what they think of their target audience, is to consider the type of advertising they do. It's impossible to take seriously any outlet that advocates for moving all money to gold or sells doomsday buckets.

yeah, advertising targeting people with disposable investment income doesn't quite match up to advertising for fascist and communistic orgs begging for money.

Sounds like someone has been dipping into their retirement funds to buy gold from metals.com.

[Uprising]

One of the easiest ways to evaluate the quality of a media outlet and/or what they think of their target audience, is to consider the type of advertising they do. It's impossible to take seriously any outlet that advocates for moving all money to gold or sells doomsday buckets.

I've noticed that too. A lot of that is because companies won't support fringe outlets lest they lose their mainstream customers, but a good bit is also because certain media outlets and commentators have made headlines by saying specific, outrageous statements on air on which the public calls them out. How many times have advertisers announced they were leaving Limbaugh/Hannity?

These gold and silver companies target elderly conservatives for a reason. The news they consume makes them fearful for the stability of the country. That then makes them more susceptible to buying gold at highly inflated rates to "save" their investments.

I wonder how many UWSers have gold Trump coins.....

[RiverguyVT]

One of the easiest ways to evaluate the quality of a media outlet and/or what they think of their target audience, is to consider the type of advertising they do. It's impossible to take seriously any outlet that advocates for moving all money to gold or sells doomsday buckets.

yeah, advertising targeting people with disposable investment income doesn't quite match up to advertising for fascist and communistic orgs begging for money.

Sounds like someone has been dipping into their retirement funds to buy gold from metals.com.

you'd have guessed wrong.

[RiverguyVT]

Thread titled "Truth".

Somma y'all numbnuts wouldn't know truth if it bit you in the arse.

[133743Hokie]

They’re all biased and partisan. None of them would pass simple journalistic standards. One has to glean from each story published or reported upon and then research others to find what’s been left out or twisted. It’s the nature of reporting today. It’s especially true of breaking stories. Instead of trying to get things correct, there is a race to get something out. And the narrative is taken into account before the first thing is said.

It is what it is.

Equating the New York Times and Front Page Magazine as equally biased and partisan would be ridiculous. When right-wing media was created and sold to the public 25 or so years ago, it was initially sold as an alternative to "liberal bias" in journalism. But instead, they've gone so far into their own bias (and so far toward promoting conspiracy theories, relying on emotionally charged headlines, and publishing yellow journalism) as to no longer even be in the category of "journalism" which they originally sought to improve.

Total and complete blind spot..... it expected.

So you do equate the bias and journalistic quality of FPM with those of the NYT? That is an astounding claim by an intelligent adult.

Frontpage Magazine does not promote itself as a news outlet. Much less as an unbiased source for opinion. The piece that RG brought to the table is opinion. An opinion of a highly respected economist and social theorist. Frontpage, from what I gather is 90 % opinion pieces. It’s not a site I visit or have bookmarked.

This is where you are completely off the rails. So, your claim is even more astounding and shows how you just look past any truth. You label it as automatically crazed and write it off when it doesn’t even purport to be what you claim it is. Anyone can see what it is.

The NY Times and other journalistic outlets you hold in such high regard say they are unbiased.....you believe it. They aren’t. I can’t remember who it was who was interviewed on MSNBC, but he was a journalist and essentially said the legacy media rallied together to get Trump. Reporting on him was over 80-90% negative and you believe they have any journalistic integrity? Using unnamed sources like they did for major stories? Refer back to my post about the story on Netflix about the Challenger disaster. The vaunted NY Times wouldn’t run with the story about the O-rings until they could name the source. My, how we have fallen.

But please.....continue to trust your biased sources by all means.

There is a lot to unpack here, but I'll try to go point-by-point.

1. I'm not limiting this to news outlets. I'm limiting it to journalism, which takes many forms, among them news reporting, opinion pieces, and news analysis. The NYT provides all three, while FPM is a news magazine akin to any other such magazine out there (with respect to its framework, not its quality). It's articles blend news with opinion. So, it is possible to compare the NYT and FPM on journalism.

2. Why does it matter whether FPM touts itself as a biased source of news and opinion? Whether they say up front they are biased is irrelevant when comparing their journalistic quality. As a general rule, publishing crazy opinions and overly biased news analyses, which all slant heavily in a single direction, is a fault, not a feature of good journalism. My point was that in the last 25 or so years, there's been an outgrowth in conservative "news" (if you will) media sources as a reaction to supposed left-wing bias from traditional sources of media. The reaction has grossly outweighed the biases of those they purported to balance. A skiff slightly listing to one side does not need 30 tons of ballast added to the other side to sail true.

3. My claim was and is simply this: FPM, Zero Hedge, and Gov't Pundit are orders of magnitude more biased than traditional media. What astounded me was that you seemed to disagree.

4. The NYT doesn't say it is unbiased. In fact, no self-respecting journalist nor journalistic enterprise would ever purport as much. Writers, editors, and publishers have their own personal biases that can influence their work. What sets traditional media outlets apart is that they try to adhere to reporting the truth. To wit, "In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it."

https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-stand ... OurReaders

Yes, bias does come through in story selection and opinion writers. In the latter case, I'd argue the Times does a very good job of publishing opinion pieces from both sides.

5. Unnamed sources are not inherently bad. They are, naturally, less preferred than named ones, but the job of the press is to pursue the truth, especially on sensitive stories that impact a large segment of the country. And, of course, in those cases, it's not uncommon that a source cannot expose themselves publicly. I'd much rather rely on unnamed sources than on no sources. If no sources, then no reporting.

In case you wondered, the Times prefers named sources too:

In addition to this handbook, we observe the Newsroom Integrity Statement, promulgated in 1999, which deals with such rudimentary professional practices as the importance of checking facts, the exactness of quotations, the integrity of photographs and our distaste for anonymous sourcing; and the Policy on Confidential Sources, issued in 2004. These documents are available from the standards editor or on the Newsroom home page under Policies.

https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-stand ... AndPurpose

6. You used an unnamed source to protest the use of unnamed sources. Can you link to the MSNBC reporter's opinion?

7. In summary, neither I, nor the NYT themselves, claim that the NYT is unbiased. However, its quality of journalism and its nearness to the "unvarnished truth" is sufficiently high for it to be dependable in most cases. That does not excuse the reader from reading other outlets, especially in cases where an extraordinary piece of news is published by the paper (as Carl Sagan reminds us, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.") But to equate the bias of the Times with the biases (admitted or not) of sites consistently posted on UWS is astounding.

Yes, there has clearly been a growth in conservative news outlets over the past 25 years. To say that they now outweigh liberal ones is absurd though. In fact, during that same time period several moderate outlets became more liberal. The media is still very much a liberal slanted business.

To say the NYT prints the complete and unvarnished truth is just not true. They tell the truthful parts they want to present and that support their biases and leave out or downplay the truthful parts that don't. Their biases bleed thru in everything the write, from headlines, to composition of news articles, to what details they included or exclude. Good writing tells a story, and they are very good at telling their story.

[HokieHam]

One of the easiest ways to evaluate the quality of a media outlet and/or what they think of their target audience, is to consider the type of advertising they do. It's impossible to take seriously any outlet that advocates for moving all money to gold or sells doomsday buckets.

I've noticed that too. A lot of that is because companies won't support fringe outlets lest they lose their mainstream customers, but a good bit is also because certain media outlets and commentators have made headlines by saying specific, outrageous statements on air on which the public calls them out. How many times have advertisers announced they were leaving Limbaugh/Hannity?

These gold and silver companies target elderly conservatives for a reason. The news they consume makes them fearful for the stability of the country. That then makes them more susceptible to buying gold at highly inflated rates to "save" their investments.

I wonder how many UWSers have gold Trump coins.....

This could be interesting.....especially with silver.

I’ve been stacking silver for years just as an investment. Hoping the Redditors have success.........

[awesome guy]

Whenever you post an article from one of these Looney toons sights, I like to go to the frontpage and see what other nonsense they are spewing. Frontpagemag certainly delivers!

I've learned more about tabloids on UWS than I ever did in grocery store checkout lines.

And I’ve learned about naive people who still trust the so called legacy media.

Lol, yes Front Page Magazine, Gateway Pundit, and Zero Hedge uphold the journalistic standards long discarded by the New York Times.

Could anyone of intelligence say that without smirking?

Never claimed they did VB. The NY Times is a joke, though....as are the rest of the legacy media.

Of the ones listed, the NY Times is the only publication caught flat out making up stories multiple times. It's an odd definition of intelligent to then theorize that they have credibility. Very Unusual.

[awesome guy]

A 'member berry. Blair wasn't the only one caught making up stories either.

https://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/0 ... .reporter/

[HokieJoe]

A 'member berry. Blair wasn't the only one caught making up stories either.

https://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/0 ... .reporter/

The unusuals love plagiarism. They voted for the Plagiarist in Chief.

[RiverguyVT]

Frontpage has integrity. Just because they disagree with liberals does not = a lack of integrity.

In fact, Horowitz is one of the more integrity-based opinion writers out there. No one who reads him with any regularity will disagree that when his integrity is attacked, he either defends it vigorously, or gives a mea culpa. In fact, he probably spends to much time on his reputation. Which is impeccable.

[awesome guy]

Frontpage has integrity. Just because they disagree with liberals does not = a lack of integrity.

In fact, Horowitz is one of the more integrity-based opinion writers out there. No one who reads him with any regularity will disagree that when his integrity is attacked, he either defends it vigorously, or gives a mea culpa. In fact, he probably spends to much time on his reputation. Which is impeccable.

Of course they have integrity. Weasels claim they don't just to avoid losing another argument.

[VisorBoy]

A 'member berry. Blair wasn't the only one caught making up stories either.

https://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/0 ... .reporter/

The fact that they run investigations when fraud is perpetuated separates them from the kinds of journalism practiced by the alternatives.

[VisorBoy]

Frontpage has integrity. Just because they disagree with liberals does not = a lack of integrity.

In fact, Horowitz is one of the more integrity-based opinion writers out there. No one who reads him with any regularity will disagree that when his integrity is attacked, he either defends it vigorously, or gives a mea culpa. In fact, he probably spends to much time on his reputation. Which is impeccable.

Just picked the first article currently on the site, authored by David Horowitz.

We are suffering from a Tsunami of Hate emanating from the Democrat Party that seeks to demonize, criminalize and extinguish dissent from the 75 million supporters of Donald Trump. It is now official Washington dogma that to question an election result – something the congressional Democrats have done in the face of every Republican presidential victory since 2000 - is now “insurrection” and “domestic terrorism,” or the incitement thereto, and needs to be prosecuted and suppressed.

Language like that isn't just "disagreeing with liberals."

[awesome guy]

A 'member berry. Blair wasn't the only one caught making up stories either.

https://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/0 ... .reporter/

The fact that they run investigations when fraud is perpetuated separates them from the kinds of journalism practiced by the alternatives.

LOL, they got caught. Nice weasel attempt.

[HokieFanDC]

Frontpage has integrity. Just because they disagree with liberals does not = a lack of integrity.

In fact, Horowitz is one of the more integrity-based opinion writers out there. No one who reads him with any regularity will disagree that when his integrity is attacked, he either defends it vigorously, or gives a mea culpa. In fact, he probably spends to much time on his reputation. Which is impeccable.

I'm not sure Frontpage holds itself to some level of integrity, or cares to. It's an opinion website that publishes pro-right, and anti-left opinions. Sowell is one of the better opinion writers out there. He's got a lot of interesting opinions and angles, and often presents subjects in a new, or thought-provoking manner.
Another guy that has been linked on UWS, is Daniel Greenfield. He is not one of the better opinion writers out there (IMO). He writes exactly what you'd expect from a far right writer who spends much of his writing time bashing the left. He's not subtle or thought provoking. He's a red meat kind of guy.
Just like anything, there's good and bad.
I don't think it's controversial to say that Horowitz has a severe anti-left bias, which results in a lot/most of his opinions highly critical of the left. It's not so much a matter of integrity, as it sometimes makes the opinions less meaningful. I see Horowitz and Sowell as good sources for strong right-wing opinions, if your looking for some thoughts outside of the mainstream.
And you're right, while Horowitz has been guilty of making false claims, he generally takes responsibility, but given his volume of output, it's a pretty minuscule amount.

[HokieHam]

There is a lot to unpack here, but I'll try to go point-by-point.

1. I'm not limiting this to news outlets. I'm limiting it to journalism, which takes many forms, among them news reporting, opinion pieces, and news analysis. The NYT provides all three, while FPM is a news magazine akin to any other such magazine out there (with respect to its framework, not its quality). It's articles blend news with opinion. So, it is possible to compare the NYT and FPM on journalism.

2. Why does it matter whether FPM touts itself as a biased source of news and opinion? Whether they say up front they are biased is irrelevant when comparing their journalistic quality. As a general rule, publishing crazy opinions and overly biased news analyses, which all slant heavily in a single direction, is a fault, not a feature of good journalism. My point was that in the last 25 or so years, there's been an outgrowth in conservative "news" (if you will) media sources as a reaction to supposed left-wing bias from traditional sources of media. The reaction has grossly outweighed the biases of those they purported to balance. A skiff slightly listing to one side does not need 30 tons of ballast added to the other side to sail true.

3. My claim was and is simply this: FPM, Zero Hedge, and Gov't Pundit are orders of magnitude more biased than traditional media. What astounded me was that you seemed to disagree.

4. The NYT doesn't say it is unbiased. In fact, no self-respecting journalist nor journalistic enterprise would ever purport as much. Writers, editors, and publishers have their own personal biases that can influence their work. What sets traditional media outlets apart is that they try to adhere to reporting the truth. To wit, "In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it."

https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-stand ... OurReaders

Yes, bias does come through in story selection and opinion writers. In the latter case, I'd argue the Times does a very good job of publishing opinion pieces from both sides.

5. Unnamed sources are not inherently bad. They are, naturally, less preferred than named ones, but the job of the press is to pursue the truth, especially on sensitive stories that impact a large segment of the country. And, of course, in those cases, it's not uncommon that a source cannot expose themselves publicly. I'd much rather rely on unnamed sources than on no sources. If no sources, then no reporting.

In case you wondered, the Times prefers named sources too:

In addition to this handbook, we observe the Newsroom Integrity Statement, promulgated in 1999, which deals with such rudimentary professional practices as the importance of checking facts, the exactness of quotations, the integrity of photographs and our distaste for anonymous sourcing; and the Policy on Confidential Sources, issued in 2004. These documents are available from the standards editor or on the Newsroom home page under Policies.

https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-stand ... AndPurpose

6. You used an unnamed source to protest the use of unnamed sources. Can you link to the MSNBC reporter's opinion?

7. In summary, neither I, nor the NYT themselves, claim that the NYT is unbiased. However, its quality of journalism and its nearness to the "unvarnished truth" is sufficiently high for it to be dependable in most cases. That does not excuse the reader from reading other outlets, especially in cases where an extraordinary piece of news is published by the paper (as Carl Sagan reminds us, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.") But to equate the bias of the Times with the biases (admitted or not) of sites consistently posted on UWS is astounding.

Ah yes........unvarnished truth......

The New York Supreme Court has ruled against The New York Times, finding that they used "actual malice" and acted with "reckless disregard" in several articles attacking Project Veritas.

https://thepostmillennial.com/supreme-c ... formation/

[HokieHam]

I'm chuckling that y'all are running down Thomas Sowell. Wow.

How are you surprised? You did the same to Paul Krugman, and he won a Nobel in Economics.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=26725#p243743

Krugman won a nObEL pRiIIiZe! I had the choice between this and UI80 trotting this douche out and commenting on Musk……this was better.

KRUGMAN IGNORES INCONVENIENT DATA

https://mises.org/power-market/krugman ... nient-data