Biased news

[Chad]

@JP

Yeah, I didn't even look for the decision yesterday. I thought it was interesting a few delegates were saying they weren't going to vote for Trump, but there was no way he wasn't getting the votes.

The media is just covering Trump right now because it's easy and it peaks the interest of most people. I have been as guilty as most for clicking on an article only to regret it.

Writing a story to either extreme is guaranteed a certain amount of clicks. Even the business channels are getting into it and they are usually better at not overly reporting on non-financial news.

Another big issue is all these reporters, news agencies, etc. are all still trying to find the appropriate business model for the new environments. This is resulting in more mistakes and bad judgement than normal. It's hard to tell when this will end or how it will end.

On a side note, the new daily 30 minute Vice News on HBO is really good. It usually does 3 in-depth stories in 20-30 minutes. All of them are directly from the reporter on the ground and with video of their interviews, events, etc. No anchor giving their "opinion." On the chart Jacob initially posted, it probably falls around the Atlantic in terms of overall rating. Shame it's on HBO, so I will be missing it until Game of Thrones is back on.

[Riggerjack]

@spartan:
TITLE V--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES

(Sec. 501) This title establishes an executive branch interagency committee to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence over peoples and governments (with the role of the Russian Federation hidden or not acknowledged publicly) through front groups, covert broadcasting, media manipulation, disinformation or forgeries, funding agents of influence, incitement, offensive counterintelligence, assassinations, or terrorist acts. The committee shall expose falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, and assassinations carried out by the security services or political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies.

The committee must report annually on the steps it is taking to counter Russia's active covert influence measures.

Sounds fairly ominous. But this is an appropriations bill for the CIA, whose charter forbids operations on US soil. I would be much more worried if such wording applied to the NSA or DSH. I assume this has been part of the CIA's mission since the "red scare" of the 1920's. OK, OSS and SS, back then, but you see what I'm saying.

As we talk about bias news and Russian interference, I can't help but think back to the pro-Nazi press of the 30's, that did an about face when Germany and the USSR went to war. Russian influence in US news is nothing new, and I find it strange that we are talking about it as though it is news.

[Riggerjack]

IMO, the most important thing to realize is that when you are expressing concern about other people being duped or driven by information you believe to be biased or incorrect, you are de facto taking a paternalistic stance in relationship to other adults, and thereby acting in a manner in alignment with a preference to deprive "the poor fools" of their liberty. If your primary concern is that you will be duped or driven into behavior not in alignment with your self-interest by a piece of inaccurate or biased news, then you are de facto declaring yourself to be an infant incapable of making your own judgments and decisions without some "Daddy" (Walter Cronkite? Edward R. Murrow?) you can ultimately trust and rely upon. People blatantly lie? Attempt to convince others in alignment with their own self-interest? Take arguments into the realm beyond the rational in a moment of passion? Are sometimes too lazy to fact check? Santa Claus won't stuff my stocking no matter how good I was this year? Really?????

Absolutely!

I want spin, from all sides. I can make up my own mind, thank you.

And speaking of spin, and the revolution, I read a history of the revolution written by an English history professor. Wherein it was referred to as the War of American Succession. Interesting details come out. Like Samuel Adams being pre-Sicilian mafia, controlling longshoremen and Boston's docks. And he called for hanging pamphleteers who criticized him after the war. Oh, and he instigated the Boston Massacre, assaulting a squad of 6 men with a mob throwing bottles and chunks of ice.

Old histories, and histories written by the losers, tell entirely different stories. I have a US history schoolbook, that barely mentions slavery as a cause of our civil war. Slavery was just one of several economic reasons for the war. It also has some very unflattering things to say about American Natives.

All information put together by someone else has spin, whether news or history. I prefer they be blatant.

[Ego]

The mainstream media has always had disinformation, misinformation, and manipulation along with accurate reporting. Sometimes knowingly. Sometimes not. The amount of non-accurate reporting (or intentional failure to report) has always been limited by the self-correcting nature of media. The currency of the news business is reputation. Report something that is later shown to be false and the reporter/producer/organization suffers consequences and loses credibility.

Contrast that with the new media. They act as a megaphone for any and all perspectives, and then get to say I told you so when one of their hundred or so stories turns out to be correct. Everyone knows this and goes along for the ride.

The trouble is, people are losing the ability to distinguish one from the other because they both look the same on their screens.

[Tyler9000]

IMO, the most important thing to realize is that when you are expressing concern about other people being duped or driven by information you believe to be biased or incorrect, you are de facto taking a paternalistic stance in relationship to other adults, and thereby acting in a manner in alignment with a preference to deprive "the poor fools" of their liberty.

The line I've always liked about this idea is "The soft bigotry of low expectations."

[subgard]

Our culture seems biased toward bias creation.
Children are asked "What's your favorite color?" Same with favorite food, favorite holidays, subjects in school, etc.
All absurd questions that demand a child create a firm bias where none need exist.
As they get older, it's demanded that they "have an opinion", mostly on subjects that they know too little about to form an opinion.
Not having a position on a subject is equated with being "uninformed", when usually, the opposite is true.
The news did not create those biases. Cultural pressure did. Probably long before the internet came around to profit from it.

If people were more agnostic about things they know little about, the confirmation-bias industry we call the news would not be nearly so profitable.

Does any one know if the internet has caused the Japanese to be hyper-partisan on everything? If the collectivist conformist Asian cultures have become just as polarized as us with the internet, it's a universal human phenomenon. If they haven't, it's probably our faux "individualism" that's done it.

[JohnnyH]

in all fairness, while Ron Paul might not be Russian, he's most definitely a socialist.

Uh, should I be reading sarcasm? Ron Paul is about the furthest thing from a socialist.

[fiby41]

All news is biased.

Only problem is finding news source that are biased as much as you are and that they are biased in the same direction.

[Tyler9000]

It looks like fake news has officially made its way to the Washington Post.

[George the original one]

Just because Assange knows where the publicly leaked emails came from doesn't mean the Russians aren't hacking.

But, yeah, Washington Post has some troubles. Is the lack of oversight intentional (considering who owns the Post) or not?

[Ego]

We can't just point to a newspaper story anymore.

Disbelief in the self-correcting nature of science seems to be correlated with disbelief in the self-correcting nature of journalism.

Why is that?

ETA: Sorry, that wasn't directed at you ffj.... It just occurred to me when I read your post. I know you are not an anti-science person.

[Chad]

It would be interesting to see the percent of news articles/reports that were untrue in each decade. Is the proportion of untrue stories from reputable outlets (not the ones on the edges of the graph) bigger now? Or, are we just better able to see, track, and identify them because of the vast improvement in communication?

[Spartan_Warrior]

@RJ: From what I can tell, it's an appropriations bill for the entire intelligence community under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which includes the CIA as well as the FBI, NSA, DEA, DHS, military, state department, etc. (See Sec. 101). Section 501 specifically refers to the establishment of an "executive branch interagency committee", which implies cooperation between several agencies that would obviate any restrictions on any particular agency, like restrictions on the CIA's domestic operations... if, in fact, such restrictions actually exist in practice. (I personally don't believe so for a second.)

@George: Speaking of the CIA influence on public opinions, it's interesting to note that Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post and second wealthiest person in America, has $600 million in CIA contracts involving data collection through Amazon.

TBH, on the rare instances I read a WaPo article, I do so with the thought, "Let's see what the CIA wants us to believe today."

@Ego: Can you elaborate on the self-correcting mechanisms of journalism? TBH, I don't understand how it can be compared to the scientific method which involves replicable circumstances and peer review, as opposed to second- and third-hand reporting of one-time observations filtered through the mouthpiece of six for-profit mega corporations. Indeed, if their truth-verifying and self-correcting mechanisms are comparable, perhaps I should have less faith in science.

@Chad: Good question. I'm inclined to believe the improvement in communication is simply revealing the falsehoods and half-truths that have always been peddled, rather than a recent increase in falsehoods and half-truths. I'm not sure which scenario is more alarming, actually.

[jennypenny]

From Politico ... The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think

[BRUTE]

From Politico ... The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think

very interesting. for reference, brute had a very rude awakening in the election. he had not realized how much he himself had been stuck in the bubble. consequently, he stopped reading the Times.

[ThisDinosaur]

That article made me think of the Sand Pile theory of history discussed here recently. The idea that major events result from a confluence of factors, and we like to rationalize them after the fact. The various narrative explanations for the election outcome are probably all true, in the sense that they are contributing factors for different groups of people. The first election I was old enough to vote in was Hanging Chad: Bush v. Gore. Most of the subsequent elections have also been pretty close. Flip 200 million coins and then make up a story about the result.

[IlliniDave]

I haven't been a consumer of MSM since 1998. So this makes perfect sense to me and fits with what I see. There are increasing trends toward people clustering in cities/urban areas and with air travel and the forms of communication available, it's very easy to ignore vast swathes of the country. Unfortunately we're seen as rubes and buckets of deplorables, which makes the MSM-types reluctant to attempt meaningful engagement. I don't think there is a likely solution. With the trend of demographics it won't be long before, even with the electoral system, the non-urban population can safely be ignored.

[Dragline]

That article made me think of the Sand Pile theory of history discussed here recently. The idea that major events result from a confluence of factors, and we like to rationalize them after the fact. The various narrative explanations for the election outcome are probably all true, in the sense that they are contributing factors for different groups of people. The first election I was old enough to vote in was Hanging Chad: Bush v. Gore. Most of the subsequent elections have also been pretty close. Flip 200 million coins and then make up a story about the result.

Well, yeah it does suffer from that age-old reconstructed correlation = causation problem. Consider the ignored yet obvious fact that the conservative media outlets are located in the same population centers. That's because they are -- surprise -- centers of population, where most concentrated human activity is likely to occur. For example, Breitbart is a creature of that hot-bed of conservatism (not) known as West L.A./Beverly Hills: http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywo ... story.html

Get a few data points, shave off the ones you don't like (here, the rest of the media outside newspapers and internet publishing) and these articles are very easy to construct. If the theory behind this article held water, the conservative media outlets would be concentrated in red states and the liberal ones in the blues.

This reminds me of the spurious headlines/articles that "most Americans don't pay federal taxes" that are based on re-defining "federal taxes" to mean only "federal income taxes."

Hindsight with selected statistics are 20-20.

[Chad]

I'm not sure eliminating decent news sources is the answer. It's not like those sources represent only 10% of the people. They actually represent at least half the population and, as the article points out, these "liberal biased" news agencies actually covered the Clinton negatives rather extensively.

The population map at the link below almost matches the Internet Broadcasting Jobs 2016 map in the Politico article exactly.

http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of- ... ies-2013-9

The Politico article does a good job of noting how these news sources aren't necessarily not the "real America", but that they are a separate part of America. This is true and it ties into something we have talked about on here a long time. Cities are becoming the centers of power and mega-cities, specifically, benefit the most.

So, is the problem bias, in that these main stream sources generally put out articles that are not factual? Probably not. The problem, as the article suggests, is more social. It seems more likely they just don't cover the stories from all the angles. A new wind farm is reported on and the article notes it produces X number of gigawatts, X less pollution, etc, but the coal power plant being closed down is merely a footnote in the article. This is probably the bias that is actually happening. Of course, this is not communicated by the disaffected very well, which is one reason making it difficult to solve.

@Dragline
I agree, but it could be a little different. Could both the liberal and conservative media be the targets of the disaffected? Yes, the liberal media seems to have been the main target for years, but in some ways the disaffected seem to be slowly becoming dissatisfied with the conservative media outlets too. It's probably why they have steadily moved to the extremist outlets like Breitbart and then going further extreme like Info Wars. Of course, these don't have good information at all, especially stuff like Info Wars. Hopefully, they realize that eventually.

However, the problem of them not feeling they are represented would still exist. Now, is that lack of representation as bad as they suggest? Probably not, but I'm sure they will still think it is. Doesn't mean there isn't an issue. I'm just not confident they will meet anyone halfway with a constructive solution.

[Dragline]

@Dragline
I agree, but it could be a little different. Could both the liberal and conservative media be the targets of the disaffected? Yes, the liberal media seems to have been the main target for years, but in some ways the disaffected seem to be slowly becoming dissatisfied with the conservative media outlets too. It's probably why they have steadily moved to the extremist outlets like Breitbart and then going further extreme like Info Wars. Of course, these don't have good information at all, especially stuff like Info Wars. Hopefully, they realize that eventually.

However, the problem of them not feeling they are represented would still exist. Now, is that lack of representation as bad as they suggest? Probably not, but I'm sure they will still think it is. Doesn't mean there isn't an issue. I'm just not confident they will meet anyone halfway with a constructive solution.

The media (both liberal and conservative) is just a convenient scapegoat for public figures who are not performing well and their erstwhile followers and surrogates. It provides a cathartic outlet for Jane Q Public to express her rage.

We need to think about why the Politico article was even written in the first place, and the underlying narrative or beliefs that feed these kind of articles and this kind of thinking. The underlying premise of "we should engage in endless hand-wringing about the media" is that the media somehow magically dictates how people think and what they do. If you read the NY Times you are indoctrinated to vote Blue! If you read the Washington Times you are indoctrinated to vote Red! Form the mobs and get out the pitchforks!

If you believe this premise (and of course it never applies to "yourself" because "you" are enlightened and above all that -- its always "the other morons" at issue), you are easily swayed and emotionally incited by these "blame the media for the ills of society" kind of arguments and their offshoots. But the premise is largely false and this whole thing is just another version of the ancient scapegoating dance. It's also why the First Amendment includes a "freedom of the press" and not a "freedom against the press saying things about public figures they don't like". The media is a natural and easy scapegoat for public figures because it helps misdirect anger that might otherwise be directed towards them.

I fundamentally do not believe this premise, but believe that people choose their media based on their already favored narratives and beliefs, usually based on the five people they spend the most time with. By the time people reach their 20s they have had plenty of time to form these beliefs and the media has had very little to do with it when compared with their other influences (parents, upbringing/social status, Karl Marx, Ayn Rand, five favorite books or television shows). Then they choose their media from there. And learn to blame the "other" media they don't like for society's ills instead of just blaming each other -- which could actually be dangerous because it could lead to violence and even civil war. So the media provides a convenient scapegoat that everyone has a chance to rail against and express their ire. It's cathartic. That's why it works for misdirecting anger and violence, which actually helps maintain order in society in its own peculiar way (per Mimetic Theory).