*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[OngBonga]

I'm talking about the deeper truth reflected in the journalists "baseless" comment, which poopy has addressed, though perhaps not to your liking.

I addressed this. It's irrelevant what I think about the topic of whether Alex Jones has grounds for his theories. I'm talking about bias in the media, I have no interest in discussing the career of Alex Jones. I really can't be bothered to research him to find out what he actually claims. It's not the topic in question.

When you see an expressed bias that is much softer than anything nanners brings to FTR, you object that it's unethical,

I really don't want to have to say this again. banana is not a journalist. I do not expect ethical journalism from the bananas of this world.

Media bias is not "soft", it is far too influencial.

I'm saying bias is a part of human nature and ignoring that will lead you to misunderstand the context of things you are told.

I'm not disputing that bias is human nature. So is urinating, but there's an appropriate place for that. Journalists should not show bias, you guys of all people should appreciate this. Free press. You think a journo spouting his opinion is freedom of press? Depends who's paying him. If he's on the government's payroll, well that opinion will likely be in line with state policy. The opposite of freedom of press... state media.

Your participation in the consuming of that news article was purely voluntary.

So is the journalist's decision whether to be impartial.

When I click a link that takes me to a news article, I am consenting to news, and I expect the journalist in question to subscribe to journalism ethics and standards. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journa..._and_standards

If you take a link and you computer gets infected, did you consent to it? Of course not. Same principle applies here. It's reasonable for me to expect impartial news, especially from mainstream media. Well, it's not because I know it's hard to find these days, but it should be a reasonable expectation.

Does that mean it's not really about the expression of bias, but the fact that the expressed bias was antithetical to your own biases?

Ok no, if I agreed with the bias I would still be outraged at the lack of ethical journalism.

So the liberal media outlets and the conservative media outlets are the same entity? and both of those contrary entities are a state tool?

Ultimately, yes. Of course it's a state tool... welcome to identity politics. Divide and conquer.

A much simpler explanation is that neither gives a wet slap about presenting unbiased news, but both care a great deal about ratings and the value of melodrama to rake in viewership.

Rating isn't just money... it's influence.

Stop with the whole, "I'm so sad that you guys are not me." talk. If ever there was a victim tactic, that's it.
If you're feeling depressed, then that sucks, man,

It's like the final days of a favourite pub, the last few alcoholics propping up the bar discussing where they're going to go next, bickering about the pros and cons of each candidate pub. Yeah it's sad. Not depressing sad, but sad. Sorry if that smacks of victimhood, I was hopinh it would strike a chord with some people, seeing as we're all stubbornly refusing to let this place die. This "ignore" thing, it could be the final nail. I felt it needed saying.

[CoccoBill]

It's like the final days of a favourite pub, the last few alcoholics propping up the bar discussing where they're going to go next, bickering about the pros and cons of each candidate pub. Yeah it's sad. Not depressing sad, but sad. Sorry if that smacks of victimhood, I was hopinh it would strike a chord with some people, seeing as we're all stubbornly refusing to let this place die. This "ignore" thing, it could be the final nail. I felt it needed saying.

Ok now you're just being ridiculous. As if one person putting another on ignore has anything to do with this place dying. You don't need to like it, but my other option would have been to do what the other used-to-be-regulars did, leave. Sure, banana has been active and kept the conversations more active than they were a while ago, but it isn't about the quantity, it's about the quality. I'm sure you, spoon and wuf don't mind him, since you seem to be sharing a lot of the same views, which I guess is why he hasn't directed his toxicity towards you. You like him, I get it. It just seems that most other people don't. The only thing still keeping me here is I guess some nostalgia about the great discussions that used to go on here some years ago. At best they've been eye-opening and have calibrated how I see the world, and if not that at least they've been fun and funny. I don't see a lot of that anymore, just stubborn arguing about some inane technicality or word definition, and zero attempt to understand the person you're talking to. That's sad.

[OngBonga]

OK, so now you know that news source is not for you. Seems like it was an easy enough lesson to learn.

Yeah if only it were this easy.

Literally every news source is biased

No it isn't.

I don't get the "nanners isn't a journalist" argument. I don't see why it matters at all, other than your desire to find a trustworthy source of world information.

The point is that I don't care if banana is biased or not, or if I'm biased for that matter. We're having a conversation, not telling the world what's happening. It's not about a "trsutworthy" source, it's about "ethical" journalism. That is actually a thing you know.

People have bias. You will never find a news source which you can simply absorb without critical thinking.

So you agree the media is not to be trusted?

People can control when they urinate (most of the time, at least), but people cannot control whether or not they're biased. People are biased.

People can choose whether or not to report an event with impartiality.

I don't think the news media have as much control over public sentiment as they are a sounding board for public sentiments...

I wish I agreed with you, but I don't.

In fact, I'm glad I don't agree, because then there's hope. If it's a reflection of public sentiment, and not the manipulation, we really are fucked.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yeah if only it were this easy.

It is that easy. Don't make it harder than it needs to be. You have identified a bias from that news agency. Now let that bias sink in and let it color everything you read from that news agency. Just like you do with everything I say and with everything everyone else you talk to says.

Everyone comes from a perspective, and everything we say and do is colored by that perspective.

No it isn't.

Ball's in your court to serve me some unbiased news, then.

The point is that I don't care if banana is biased or not, or if I'm biased for that matter. We're having a conversation, not telling the world what's happening. It's not about a "trsutworthy" source, it's about "ethical" journalism. That is actually a thing you know.

Yes, I know. It's a thing that is noble to strive for, despite it being an impossible goal.

I just can't get on board with the "not telling the world what's happening" statement. I don't see any value in suspending critical thinking in any conversation.

So you agree the media is not to be trusted?

Yes, of course. No single source is to be trusted for anything. Duh.
It's called research because any single search is inconclusive. (I mean, probably not, but it makes a good point.)

It's actually pretty fun to check Al Jazeera's main page from time to time. They release negative stories about the USA about a day or 2 in advance of those same stories being released in the states. Vice versa for negative stories. That's an expression of bias on both sides.

... actually, I don't see how you can make these 2 quotes back to back without irony.

People can choose whether or not to report an event with impartiality.

No, they can only choose to highlight or suppress their bias; they cannot eliminate their bias under any circumstances.
They cannot eliminate that the choice to report expresses a bias, the choice on what tone to use expresses a bias, the choice of whom will present the story expresses a bias, the choice of what to include given a time frame expresses a bias, the choice of which sources to search and which to present expresses bias.

Hunter S. Thompson exploded this wide open.

I wish I agreed with you, but I don't.

In fact, I'm glad I don't agree, because then there's hope. If it's a reflection of public sentiment, and not the manipulation, we really are fucked.

You might be letting the public shouting match paint you a future that is at odds with history. The shouting match is ever-present, and societies will rise and fall around it. Keep in mind that people love to shout and put up a stink in public, but are usually more responsible behind closed doors.