*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[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.