Damage Done by the Right-Wing Media in 2016

[_Some Schmo]

If you believe race in intrinsically significant - You're probably a leftist.

LOL

Wow... I didn't realize the KKK was a leftist club. I'm sure they're proud of that.

[_Ceeboo]

Ceeboo is ignorant

Ha!

and proudly consumes media that constantly tells him that anything that *isn't* right wing media is liberal/leftist media. He believes them.

More examples of your super powers on display.

To me, the most bizarre thing about you is the absolute certainty and extreme confidence that you have in yourself concerning what you write about other peoples specific and individual beliefs - or what other people may or may not be proud of - or what other people may or may not consume - or what other people may or may not believe. It's literally mind-bending.

[_EAllusion]

I thought the point of learning to think critically involved recognizing bias in the news as a tool for identifying where the facts likely lie.

There's a very important distinction I tried to highlight earlier in the thread between material that is intentionally ideological and material that is dishonest. There are lots of perfectly good sources that are ideological in nature where their biases are related to what topics they choose to cover and how the writing editorializes the implications of reported facts. I think it's a good idea to try to get a well-rounded sense of the public debate by checking in on multiple respectable ideological points of view. That needs to be kept distinct from sources that are dishonest, and especially those that are egregiously so. The main problem with the right-wing media ecosystem isn't simply that it is right-wing. It's that dishonesty and bad faith is pervasive.

[_EAllusion]

To me, the most bizarre thing about you is the absolute certainty and extreme confidence that you have in yourself concerning what you write about other peoples specific and individual beliefs - or what other people may or may not be proud of - or what other people may or may not consume - or what other people may or may not believe. It's literally mind-bending.

Uh, are you the same Ceeboo he keeps pimping Prager U videos over and over and thinks the idea that CNN isn't a "leftist" news source is laughable? I'm not using my mind-reading powers here so much as my reading powers.

[_honorentheos]

The only daily news source I pay for is the Wall Street Journal. I consider it to be slightly right of center as far as the views it represents, but I also consider the level of journalism top tier. I read the BBC page online, as well as CNN and Reason.com. I listen to NPR daily. My Google feed sends me to Fox News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and a smorgasbord of other sources.

I thought the point of learning to think critically involved recognizing bias in the news as a tool for identifying where the facts likely lie.

I pay for the sltrib precisely because it's left-leaning, but as you can see whatever it is that I consider to be left-leaning is actually a hard right e-mag on par with stormfront. GET YOUR ____ TOGETHER KIRBY!

Anyway.

I think it's funny that you're suggesting critical thinking lies in recognizing bias, but reject it (maybe?) when someone states they see Leftist bias at CNN (therefore it's a Liberal network). I'm not sure anyone is equating CNN as the flipside of Breitbart, but I do think Conservatives are completely justified in identifying a news outlet as Leftist or Liberal and they're not idiots for thinking that. They just recognize an outlet as not sharing their perspective, ideology, values, or whathaveyou.

- Doc

Leftist used to have a meaning that would not apply to any major news outlet in the US. If you referred to it having a left-leaning bias I'd agree. Like I said, in pragmatism if everyone agrees an apple is blue then I guess it's blue. But it would be wrong to say doing so does not do damage to the concept of blue. You're basically arguing for Orwellian Newspeak at this point.

[_Some Schmo]

Ceeboo is ignorant

Ha!

I don't think it's that funny, really.

Based on what you read (at least, the samples you've provided), there's no question you're ignorant. Believing incorrect things makes you ignorant of what's correct.

But you know, everyone's ignorant on certain subjects. The trick is to recognize when you're being bullshitted so you're not filling your mind with nonsense. And of course, reveling in your ignorance is a nonstarter.

[_Ceeboo]

To me, the most bizarre thing about you is the absolute certainty and extreme confidence that you have in yourself concerning what you write about other peoples specific and individual beliefs - or what other people may or may not be proud of - or what other people may or may not consume - or what other people may or may not believe. It's literally mind-bending.

Uh, are you the same Ceeboo he keeps pimping Prager U videos over and over

No - I am the same Ceeboo that started a thread titled "A taste of Prager U" - so including some Prager U videos - in a thread that I started about Prager U videos - would be seen as extremely rational and reasonable to 99% of the human population (Obviously you're not i that 99%)

and thinks the idea that CNN isn't a "leftist" news source is laughable? I'm not using my mind-reading powers here so much as my reading powers.

No - You're not using your mind-reading powers or you reading powers - You're projecting a lie with an intent.

This is what you said and this is what I laughed at: (Because, like many other things you post on the board, I found it to be ridiculous!)

EAllusion wrote:
CNN isn’t remotely “leftist.”

You said CNN isn't remotely leftist. (Not even in the slightest degree leftist)

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

If that is the definition of "liberal", then I proudly and unequivocally regard myself as a liberal. I have extreme difficulty understanding why any truly rational, honest and fair minded person would not be a liberal, given that definition.

That's just it, though. It's not "the" definition of Liberal, or Leftist, or Socialist, or whatever. It's that person's definition of Liberal, and while entitled to define for himself or herself what Liberal is I can't see projecting that onto everyone who identifies with that label. Let's face it, the moment you want to define something as Liberal you typically get someone chiming in that it isn't accurate and will offer a definition that doesn't quite align.

This is why I'm kind of arguing that it's more practical to define the opposition, like EA and to a lesser degree Honor like to do, because planting a flag in the ground makes you a target and then you're on the defensive, which is never a good look for a partisan. It's better to be on the offense when it comes to politics.

Whatever the case may be I'm not arguing in favor of how news outlets may view themselves, but rather how they cater to their perceived audiences. Here in Utah we have the Salt Lake Tribune, which generally caters to a more secular crowd. We also have the Deseret News which caters to a Mormon perspective, which is a de facto Conservative position. To argue otherwise, in my opinion, is just disingenuous bull crap. Obviously this can be extrapolated to the national level, as Honor was apt to point out with his take on the WSJ.

- Doc

[_Ceeboo]

I don't think it's that funny, really.

Based on what you read (at least, the samples you've provided), there's no question you're ignorant.

Ha!

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Leftist used to have a meaning that would not apply to any major news outlet in the US. If you referred to it having a left-leaning bias I'd agree. Like I said, in pragmatism if everyone agrees an apple is blue then I guess it's blue. But it would be wrong to say doing so does not do damage to the concept of blue. You're basically arguing for Orwellian Newspeak at this point.

Perhaps I should coin a new term called Leftish? Leftishism? That might be more accurate...

- Doc