46% of Americans think the media make up stories about Trump

[kramer]

Kramer...the Giants are imploding.

You SOB, I saw your avatar today and thought to myself that "it's a good thing Paul doesn't come to these boards that much because if he did, I'm sure he'd let me know about the Giants"!
(Don't take the SOB comment personally, you're one of a few libs here that I think are cool... - but politically lacking).

I think 19 and 1 still stings a little...

[Wabash]

hree prominent CNN journalists resigned Monday night after the network was forced to retract and apologize for a story linking Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment fund under congressional investigation.

They resigned. When a conservative news purveyor makes an error of this magnitude they don't resign or get fired.

BTW, Bannon was here in OC over the weekend addressing what's left of the CA GOP. No word on whether or not he proved he could suck his own you know what as was claimed by Scaramucci.

[Omar Bongo]

we both know that the use of some facts, while omitting others, leads to wrong conclusions

Fact-checking has nothing to do with drawing conclusions (about the cause of global warming, for example), it's about checking the veracity of easily verifiable statements such as "the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period," “Obamacare covers very few people" or that Trump claimed he had called the families of “virtually everybody” in the military who has been killed this year.

Using selective facts to imply a favored conclusion is a completely different subject.

[Vilepagan]

Assuming you want to add some value, If you feel the need to interject yourself in another's conversation, try reading the entire conversation. That way you can actually grasp the context of the comments.

1. If you think your conversation is "private" I don't know what to say to that.

2. I did read the entire conversation, I always do before responding.

3. I'm sure I grasp the context of all the comments.

What you just did, exemplifies the point of the thread.

Really? I somehow showed how the media makes up stories?

You cherry-picked a response out of context, and went into attack mode with an attempt at insulting sophomoric rhetoricals.

But if you're doing your typical Modo-troll thing, run along and hump someone else's leg.

Not into leg-humping thanks, but if you have a response to what I wrote, I'm right here.

[Vilepagan]

This 2013 US News article re: a George Mason U study that pre-dates Trump. Conclusion drawn here brings into question the veracity of the fact checkers....

Your "article" is in fact an op-ed piece from a blog. Seriously dude, if this is your idea of an example of biased "media" we don't have much to discuss.

[John Q. Public]

I did something unusual with Bick's link. I removed the one in VP's post because it was a 404 as copied and I removed the one in Bick's original post because the article contained a malicious redirect. Never done that before.

As to the post, yes, it was an editorial on a blog but it was a US News blog, so I'll count "blog" as a technicality in the way they publish editorials. But from what I could gather before I was redirected a second time, it seemed to be saying that any unfairness didn't relate to the veracity of the fact checks, but to the number of fact checks of Republicans vs. those for Democrats. That might show bias or it might show that Republicans make claims they think should be looked into more often than Democrats do.

[John Q. Public]

Oh. And anyone who doubts Snopes' veracity might do well to read their piece on the claims that the Niger ambush was "worse than Benghazi." Their position was that "we don't know enough about it yet" but what they shot down were the anti-Trump talking points. It's actually a very informative rundown of what took place and how the events unfolded. Without the spin. As it should be.

https://www.snopes.com/was-niger-attack ... -benghazi/

[Bick]

Your "article" is in fact an op-ed piece from a blog. Seriously dude, if this is your idea of an example of biased "media" we don't have much to discuss.

Can't get anything past you. Did the words "opinion" and "blog" in the link title give it away?

And yes, I completely agree with your last sentence.

[Vilepagan]

Can't get anything past you. Did the words "opinion" and "blog" in the link title give it away?

Sure did..so why did you call it an "article" if not to lend it some credibility it doesn't have?

[Bick]

Fact-checking has nothing to do with drawing conclusions (about the cause of global warming, for example), it's about checking the veracity of easily verifiable statements such as "the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period," “Obamacare covers very few people" or that Trump claimed he had called the families of “virtually everybody” in the military who has been killed this year.

Using selective facts to imply a favored conclusion is a completely different subject.

I agree, and you articulated a much more important point about using selective facts to build a case very well. One involving a glove not fitting carried the argument over victim's blood all over the car of the perp, and the perp's blood being at the crime scene. Many here on this board seem more concerned with using facts to support their case v. gathering all the facts available, and then coming to a conclusion. Isn't the idea to objectively seek the truth, and then work towards deciding the best approach to tackle the problem?

My sense of fact checker outfits is they are prone to bias. Politifact is operated by a left leaning newspaper that's endorsed a grand total of zero republican candidates. As for Politifact Florida itself, not surprisingly some 22 of its 27 Pants on fire rulings went against republicans per a 2012 piece by mediatrackers in Florida.

Maybe the underlying issue here is there now is a need to verify the statements our leaders are making? What does that say about how little integrity truly matters? Seems politics is all about gaining power through whatever means is deemed necessary. Then once in power, no cooperation from the other side, so increasingly more power is used, legal or not, by the guy in charge. We've got to put a stop to this.

As to the point of this thread, it's not at all surprising that nearly half of Americans think the media would make up stories about Trump to put their candidates back in power.

[Omar Bongo]

"Prone to bias" is a very vague charge...everyone and everything in the known universe is biased in one way or another to some degree...wouldn't it follow from your assertion that facts are essentially unverifiable?

I think well-informed, intelligent people are capable of making judgments based on information gleaned from a variety of sources...including reputable fact-checking sites

[Bick]

Thank you for qualifying the prone to bias remark with to some degree. If we can can agree with the dictionary definition that bias means prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair, wouldn't it then stand to reason those more biased fact-checkers, like Politifact, aren't credible?

And to directly answer your question, no, it would not follow that facts are unverifiable. A more accurate conclusion to my remarks would be the people who are prone to bias, are not reliable as objective fact-checkers.

[John Q. Public]

So PolitiFact "fact checked" this poll. They gave it a "half true". I give their fact check a "half true".

They gave two main arguments: 1.) they questioned the poll's accuracy since it was an online poll and 2.) they questioned the use of the word "fabrication". I agree with both points but the poll's results can only be 100% true.

Explanations:

They say that since it was an online poll, it required the respondents to take an action, which makes it less than random - and less than accurate - from the start. The pollsters then ran the results through their formulas to try to take that factor out and then to "nationalize" their sample. They're obviously on a little bit of shaky ground there.

"Fabrication," as in "made up from whole cloth" is not a neutral word and it's a real stretch to say that any of the media have done that, except for the ones that have been caught actually doing it. If I were one of the people surveyed, my first response would be "of course not" but then I'd think of the ones who've been caught and I'd be forced to answer "yes". So... by using that word, they pretty much rendered their survey meaningless. But they didn't render the results half true.

Like I said before, I think the survey should have been broken down by outlet and the language should have been more neutral - something more like "Do you think the reporting of _________ is accurate, somewhat accurate, etc." A breakdown by party preference or who they voted for would have made the survey more interesting but wouldn't have been necessary. It could have even made it less meaningful, since many of the responses from the different groups would be so predictable. The overall feelings would be far more meaningful.

[Omar Bongo]

wouldn't it then stand to reason those more biased fact-checkers, like Politifact, aren't credible...a more accurate conclusion to my remarks would be the people who are prone to bias, are not reliable as objective fact-checkers

How are "bias" and "credibility" determined or measured? These are individual value judgements, not universal truths. Like beauty, they are in the eye of the beholder.

[Bick]

Have a nice night Bongo

[Omar Bongo]

Hard questions are hard

[not4u13]

Bias exists in anything created by humans. That includes fact checking sites. What makes fact checking sites like Snopes different to me, is they include links and references that allow you to see for yourself. The very nature of fact checking includes making an opinionated statement. Whether or not the reported fact is true. Nobody is using the scientific method of proof.

Truth is, fact is simply a data point that is known to be true. Articles will take what is typically a subset of all facts about something and then use those data points to draw readers to a conclusion. Often it isn't the facts that are wrong but the facts that are chosen, the method of linking the facts together or the method of logic used to draw the conclusion (e.g. use one of the 10 logical fallacies). We seem to fall victim to the slippery slope fallacy most often.

The purpose of a fact checking site should be to test the veracity of the facts presented. The final analysis how valid the original article is (or was) is based on the facts provided in the original article or statement to support the conclusion.

I find the nature of bias really fascinating and I've been interested in it since High School I remember taking a copy of the LA Times and the OC Register every morning and reading the same article written by each newspaper. Looking at article placement, headline writing, article source (e.g. AP vs. staff writers), pictures chosen and that sort of thing. The bias was really evident, all the while each paper claiming their editorial staff worked hard to eliminate bias. I didn't do an analysis on the advertisers but I suspect there was a bit of a bias there too, which may have driven the editorial bias. That's just a supposition though.

Doing that type of analysis is more difficult these days with all the different types of news sources and the downfall of real reporting from newspapers. Don't even get me started on TV news. Everything about what they do contains heavy bias that plays on stereotypes. They have to. They don't have time to give background and develop a story.

What's most disturbing though is Americans seem less able to think for themselves. If you rely on information that is pushed to you, know you are going to be suffering from information bias. Once you click on and read one of those click bait stories, you are going to be targeted for more of the same. The same company will write two different versions of the same story using different sites and they use algorithms to figure out who is most likely to click on which version so they can target their audience. The more clicks, the more revenue. You see several different sites saying the same thing and decide it must be true based on volume. Only, you may be seeing the exact same story all from the same "media company" that is targeting you.

[Professor Fate]

Great post Not4u13. I've seen examples of many of the things you mentioned.
I"d like to nominate it for post of the year. (not kidding).

[Wabash]

Oh. And anyone who doubts Snopes' veracity might do well to read their piece on the claims that the Niger ambush was "worse than Benghazi."

After a U.S. consulate in Benghazi was attacked and four Americans were murdered in 2012, the Republican-led House of Representatives ordered eight congressional investigations, including a special select committee whose two-year, $7 million probe lasted longer than the main Watergate investigation. But after four American soldiers were ambushed and killed in neighboring Niger five years later, House Republicans opened no such investigations.

As T.S. Elliot wrote:

"Ends with a whimper. Not with a bang."