NPR - Diversity

[ceeboo]

Well, I feel obligated to be honest with you, old friend. I am quite disappointed to see that this is how you chose to reply to my post to you.

No worries though - you have every right to reply how you want to - as I do - just wanted to let you know.

I wasn't specifically thinking about you with my 'moral integrity' jab -- it applies to all of us

You weren't specifically thinking about me with your moral integrity jab? You posted the post directly after my post to you.

And you say that "it implied all of us?" You start your post with the below quote from honor.

Or conservatives could consider the distance between them and factual information is the problem.

And then you added your below quote to honor's.

There's an old saying: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts." Somewhere along the line this became a 'hold my beer' challenge. Welcome to post-truth America, where alternative-fact peddlers will spin any yarn you like for the low, low price of your moral integrity.

I must say - It sure looks like you were taking a direct jab at me about my moral integrity and it sure looks like you were not intending this for "all of us" - Rather, it looks like you were suggesting this about Conservatives (at best) and almost certainly about me, and about my post to you that was directly above the post we are discussing,

Further, I will repay your honesty with a bit of my own: I don't see anything particularly wrong with a couple of old friends disagreeing about something.

Nor do I - Except where I come from, when friends disagree, they usually do it directly - rather than the way you chose to.

Because you have always treated me kindly and with fairness over the years, I wanted to let you know what I did and it is also why I have taken the time to respond to you in this post (for what it's worth - I would not have done so to many other board members here).

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ceeboo is a little bitch snowflake.

- Doc

[Bret Ripley]

I wasn't specifically thinking about you with my 'moral integrity' jab -- it applies to all of us

You weren't specifically thinking about me with your moral integrity jab? You posted the post directly after my post to you.

I wasn't even aware of that post until you mentioned it just now. I just went back and read it, and in that context I can now see why you thought I was speaking directly to you. Your 'disappointment' post now makes more sense to me, but it seems to be based on the assumption I had read (and was responding to) a post I hadn't even seen.

And you say that "it implied all of us?"

I said it applies to us (present tense). You are correct that this implication was not present in my original message.

You start your post with the below quote from honor.

Or conservatives could consider the distance between them and factual information is the problem.

And then you added your below quote to honor's.

There's an old saying: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts." Somewhere along the line this became a 'hold my beer' challenge. Welcome to post-truth America, where alternative-fact peddlers will spin any yarn you like for the low, low price of your moral integrity.

I must say - It sure looks like you were taking a direct jab at me about my moral integrity and it sure looks like you were not intending this for "all of us" - Rather, it looks like you were suggesting this about Conservatives (at best) and almost certainly about me,

While it is true I had specific conservative news sources in mind -- not because conservatives have a monopoly on misinformation, but because at the moment these particular news sources carry more influence at the watercooler -- I can only give you my assurance that I did not intend it to be about you. (If it helps: I am a Notary, so it is medically impossible for me to lie.)

and about my post to you that was directly above the post we are discussing,

As already mentioned, I had not even seen that post. I was not discussing anything you had written.

Further, I will repay your honesty with a bit of my own: I don't see anything particularly wrong with a couple of old friends disagreeing about something.

Nor do I - Except where I come from, when friends disagree, they usually do it directly - rather than the way you chose to.

Ouch. I understand why you see it that way, but I hadn't seen your post and wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that. In fact, the only individual I was thinking of was Ann Coulter and her use of the term 'alternative facts.'

Because you have always treated me kindly and with fairness over the years, I wanted to let you know what I did and it is also why I have taken the time to respond to you in this post (for what it's worth - I would not have done so to many other board members here)

And I am grateful you took the time to do that. I hope my ignorance regarding the post to which it seemed I replied puts things in a more sympathetic light.

[ceeboo]

snip....
And I am grateful you took the time to do that.

I am grateful to you for taking the time to write that explanatory post, and I am more than happy to extend you the benefit of the doubt.

You will never hear me mention it again.

Thanks!

[Bret Ripley]

I have been hearing this. Most of the time, I don't formulate my opinions/thoughts by using highly politicized organizations and/or "many legal scholars" (whatever that's means).

This was a reference to 'genocide' having a specific legal definition: "Section 1091 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits genocide whether committed in time of peace or time of war. Genocide is defined in § 1091 and includes violent attacks with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group." https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/cri ... 8-usc-1091

'Genocide' isn't a hate term in this context. It is a legal term.

What happened on October 7, 2023, was horrific and should not be tolerated. And yes, legal arguments have been made that Hamas' actions should be considered genocidal. And yes, Israel has the right to defend itself against attacks -- it is the aggressive, offensive (as opposed to defensive) methods being employed against the civilian population of Gaza that are problematic.

I don't think anyone seriously argues that the death and suffering inflicted upon the civilian population in Gaza has been orders of magnitude greater than the suffering inflicted by Hamas on October 7. Whether or not Kishkumen or anyone else believes Israel's response can correctly be identified as 'genocide' is rather beside the point, I think. At least, it pales in comparison as a problem when compared to the death and suffering that continues to be inflicted upon tens of thousands of innocent human beings who are targeted simply because they happen to live in Gaza.

(It should be noted that criticism of US government action/inaction regarding Gaza began under the Biden administration -- it is not a specifically anti-Trump thing.)

[Molok]

You know literally nothing about Elon Musk. I have been a first hand witness for years to how much of a pathological lying worm he is. You just accept what he says because he validates your poor wittle feelwings. But hey, if you trust a guy who only became right wing because he knew stories about him attempting to bribe a flight attendant for a handjob for a horse were coming out, that's your peroggative!

Riiiiight. I was somewhat mystified when I first read this, but after doing a bit of what Markk calls 'research' I found that the service allegedly solicited was not designed to bring peaceful relaxation to a quadruped (which is how I first read the words posted), but to someone who was offering the said quadruped as a reward for providing the service,

So I definitely used the wrong preposition here and should have said “with” instead of “for”. My apologies for any confusion LOL

[Bret Ripley]

for what it's worth:



https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive

Ad Fontes Media scores news sources on both reliability and bias. It sometimes gets lost in these conversations that bias and accuracy are separate qualities -- it's much easier to say 'your news source is biased and therefore its reporting is inaccurate.' in my opinion, that's just lazy. WSJ, for example, has a conservative bias and its reporting is generally reliable. Fox News has a conservative bias and its reporting is less reliable than WSJ or NPR. MSNBC has a liberal bias and its reporting is less reliable than WSJ or NPR.

For the graphic appearing above, the filter has been set to look at NPR's website. The up-and-down axis in this graphic is 'reliability', and because the lower part of the graph has been truncated it isn't obvious that the grouping is solidly in the 'reliable' section. The points are concentrated in the 'Middle or Balanced Bias' section and trending slightly left. There are outliers in the 'strong left' and also a few in the truncated 'less reliable' section of the graph.

When folks make generalizations about media sources and cite examples, it is fair to question whether the examples represent outliers or can be seen as representative of a larger body of work. The data from Ad Fontes Media does not support the notion that NPR is generally unreliable or that it is a strongly partisan news source. It is a generally reliable news source that with a slightly left bias.

One of the things I like about NPR's reporting is that it is typically quite good at citing its so sources. This allows the active news consumer to take a deeper dive into the story. Sometimes a result of that dive is to come away with a different take on the story than that of the NPR reporter, which is only natural.

(I have no patience for news stories that bury their source material. I see this a lot on articles posted to social media, where a reporter will make a vague reference to some report without actually identifying or linking to the report itself. That is a huge red flag.) [/soapbox]

[canpakes]

Ad Fontes Media scores news sources on both reliability and bias.

Bret, thanks for posting this.

What is the definition of bias used by AFM?

It seems that when folks get into discussions of ‘bias’, the word is treated much like how children use the word ‘cooties’, in that it is often tossed about by both sides as something more horrifying than the actual or scientific definition would indicate.

[Bret Ripley]

Ad Fontes Media scores news sources on both reliability and bias.

What is the definition of bias used by AFM?

Frome https://adfontesmedia.com/methodology-white-paper/:

B. Definitions

The horizontal (or “Bias”) categories are defined by the policy positions of current U.S. elected officials. For more on why, see this methodology video. This video also discusses how the U.S. left-right spectrum shifts over time. This concept is related to, but distinct from a concept known as the Overton window. Because we rate media for its left-to-right bias, we need a baseline to which we can compare the media rating. We define areas of the horizontal axis, particularly with regards to the “political position” subfactor, as follows:

1. The line between “Most Extreme Left/Right and Hyper-Partisan Left/Right” is defined by the policy positions of the most extreme elected officials significantly relevant to the scope of the issue being considered.

2. The line between “Hyper-partisan Left/Right and Strong Left/Right” is defined by the current policy positions and actions of median leaders of the major left and right parties.

3. The “Strong Left/Right” and “Skews Left/Right” subcategories mark the degree to which a policy position is closer to or farther away from the “Hyper-partisan” and “Middle” categories.

4. The “Middle or Balanced Bias” category is labeled as such because content can fall in the middle for one or several reasons. We don’t label it as “neutral” or “unbiased” because all content has some kind of bias. As described previously, content can land in the middle because it has a centrist or neither-side bias; or because it is balanced, showing two or more biased sides of an issue in similar degrees; or because it is minimally biased, stating facts as straightforwardly as possible.

5. An article, episode or source placing near the midpoint on the horizontal axis may land there for any of these reasons; thus the position does not necessarily represent “neutrality.” Nor is the midpoint on the horizontal axis intended to imply that the position is best or most valid.

There is also a Methodology FAQ that includes this:

Q: Wait...is this Media Bias Chart itself biased?

Yes it is! Everyone and everything is biased. Read more about the effect of bias and how we work to mitigate our own biases here. https://adfontesmedia.com/is-the-media- ... rt-biased/

It seems that when folks get into discussions of ‘bias’, the word is treated much like how children use the word ‘cooties’, in that it is often tossed about by both sides as something more horrifying than the actual or scientific definition would indicate.

Exactly so. In fact, bias per se is not necessarily bad. Personally, I unapologetically carry biases against false information, serial killers, and a particular subset of clowns.

[Dr. Shades]

Ceeboo is a little bitch snowflake.

- Doc

[MODERATOR NOTE: Please do not make personal attacks like that in the Spirit Paradise forum.]