Trump, Polarization, Partizanship and Social Media Consumption.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Painterz

Sharing “junk news” is one thing, but being the useful idiot in a smear campaign is quite another.

Please elaborate.

It’s the “sourcing filter” in Chomsky’s propaganda model. Legit reporters and news sources sometimes receive their material from political influence machines, for instance Dana Millbank and Greg Sargent from the Washington Post colluding with the DNC to write hit pieces. Since they rarely reveal the political motives of their sources, the people who read them unwittingly and unknowingly spread information designed to smear another’s opponent.

Does the source matter if the information is factual?

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I wonder how many people here would want to silence sites that publish rhetoric.

Depends on what "rhetoric" you're talking about. It was Trump himself who labeled the media an enemy of the American people for printing negative stories about him.

It's been a while since the last "jail the media that is critical of Trump" thread so maybe Trump people have moved on from wanting to arrest reporters and execute them for treason.

I won't hold my breath though.

He labelled them the enemy of the people and listed off many reasons as to why, none of which included because they print negative stories about him.

a reply to: DJW001

Yes. The readers are entitled to judge the reliability and motives of their sources.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Painterz

Sharing “junk news” is one thing, but being the useful idiot in a smear campaign is quite another.

Please elaborate.

It’s the “sourcing filter” in Chomsky’s propaganda model. Legit reporters and news sources sometimes receive their material from political influence machines, for instance Dana Millbank and Greg Sargent from the Washington Post colluding with the DNC to write hit pieces. Since they rarely reveal the political motives of their sources, the people who read them unwittingly and unknowingly spread information designed to smear another’s opponent.

I would think that such a ridiculously loose criterion that allows so much subjectivity as in the case of this 'analysis' would be written off by even the most biased observer, but apparently not. Fake news has many forms, from lies by omission, to ideological slant on real information, to outright lies. Classifying it so simply as these 'researchers' have done to produce a predominately right-wing list of outlets as the starting point is of course junk. But, if junk carries with it an opportunity to spread more propaganda to suit a political aim, then there will always be those that will defend said junk.

Then why not provide a list of left wing sites that meet those five criteria?
ETA: If you are going to criticise the science, you need to be able to falsify it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I wonder how many people here would want to silence sites that publish rhetoric.

Depends on what "rhetoric" you're talking about. It was Trump himself who labeled the media an enemy of the American people for printing negative stories about him.

It's been a while since the last "jail the media that is critical of Trump" thread so maybe Trump people have moved on from wanting to arrest reporters and execute them for treason.

I won't hold my breath though.

He labelled them the enemy of the people and listed off many reasons as to why, none of which included because they print negative stories about him.

Can you provide an example of the reasons he gave that do not involve their coverage of him, his administration, or his political allies?

a reply to: DJW001

And many of these groups are part of the large media corporations that have their own agenda, and it’s not your agenda, and it’s not the country’s agenda. It’s their own agenda. They have a professional obligation as members of the press to report honestly. But as you saw throughout the entire campaign, and even now, the fake news doesn’t tell the truth. Doesn’t tell the truth.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DJW001

Yes. The readers are entitled to judge the reliability and motives of their sources.

Does that necessitate their being identified? It is possible to judge their reliability by the track record of the reporter, and the motivation can easily be deduced by the nature of the information. Again,what difference does it make if a fact that is reported can be verified by other sources?

Bear in mind: the "mainstream media" was not so biased that it reported the Steele dossier as factual, due to their mistrust of the source. The media listed by the study will publish anything that supports their bias, irrespective of the credibility of the source.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: underwerks

How many of the media were investigated under Obama versus how many under Trump?


The answer may surprise you.

What does Obama have to do with anything? What he did with the media was wrong as well.

That doesn't give Trump a pass as you're implying, nor should it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Doesn't tell the truth about what, exactly?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: underwerks

How many of the media were investigated under Obama versus how many under Trump?


The answer may surprise you.

Good point.

Obama did things for the establishment, I imagine investigative powers are the tip of the iceberg. Now, do you think Trump would have any success investigating, harassing or otherwise making journalists lives hell?

I'm thinking he wouldn't have to, plenty of people inflate his ego for him. That includes harassing journalists.

Apples and oranges... Isn't it?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DJW001

Yes. The readers are entitled to judge the reliability and motives of their sources.

Does that necessitate their being identified? It is possible to judge their reliability by the track record of the reporter, and the motivation can easily be deduced by the nature of the information. Again,what difference does it make if a fact that is reported can be verified by other sources?

Bear in mind: the "mainstream media" was not so biased that it reported the Steele dossier as factual, due to their mistrust of the source. The media listed by the study will publish anything that supports their bias, irrespective of the credibility of the source.

As much information as possible should be provided for the reason I stated.

Sure the information could be verified, but information to the contrary might be suppressed. According to the DNC and their political arms, it’s about controlling the narrative.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Doesn't tell the truth about what, exactly?

Does it matter?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

As much information as possible should be provided for the reason I stated.

But journalists sometimes need to protect their sources, and sometimes there are issues of national security.

Sure the information could be verified, but information to the contrary might be suppressed.

That is why we have freedom of the press. If another reporter can falsify the story, the can always publish an expose. Of course, the government has the power to use "national security" as an excuse to withhold information from the public, as Trump is doing now with the Schiff memorandum.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Painterz

Sharing “junk news” is one thing, but being the useful idiot in a smear campaign is quite another.

Please elaborate.

It’s the “sourcing filter” in Chomsky’s propaganda model. Legit reporters and news sources sometimes receive their material from political influence machines, for instance Dana Millbank and Greg Sargent from the Washington Post colluding with the DNC to write hit pieces. Since they rarely reveal the political motives of their sources, the people who read them unwittingly and unknowingly spread information designed to smear another’s opponent.

I would think that such a ridiculously loose criterion that allows so much subjectivity as in the case of this 'analysis' would be written off by even the most biased observer, but apparently not. Fake news has many forms, from lies by omission, to ideological slant on real information, to outright lies. Classifying it so simply as these 'researchers' have done to produce a predominately right-wing list of outlets as the starting point is of course junk. But, if junk carries with it an opportunity to spread more propaganda to suit a political aim, then there will always be those that will defend said junk.

Then why not provide a list of left wing sites that meet those five criteria?
ETA: If you are going to criticise the science, you need to be able to falsify it.

Please don't call the analysis science. It is anything but. Science has a specific method that the research does not meet. If you are going to use the word science, at least try and understand it.

The five criteria are too broad to be worth any further analysis.

However, I could fit CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT and many more in 4 of the categories for at least one of their crew of 'journalists' and often more (note that the Oxford Uni opinion piece only requires 3 of 5). That said, the criteria are junk in the first place, so why bother? They don't even go into any detail. For example, are they talking about one instance of a story falling into that category, or more, in order to categorise an entire outlet? A percentage maybe? Are they taking into account opinion pieces from pundits or focusing on just journalism? Are they including a site based on just one poor journalist at the outlet or more? A percentage again maybe??? Are they looking at stories that outlets don't carry because those stories don't suit an agenda? Are they relying on the word of the reporter that they have spoken to multiple sources when they are not named? Are they relying on the word of the journalist when they cite 'someone with knowledge' told them???

We simply don't know, because the criteria presented are junk.

Moreover, only someone totally lost in their own world would not question why the vast majority of their final list come from one side of the political debate, whilst ignoring the all-out propaganda war the likes of CNN are waging on the President.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Doesn't tell the truth about what, exactly?

Does it matter?

Yes. He is talking about the media reporting on his campaign. Can you find a specific example of his criticizing the pres that is not about himl

a reply to: UKTruth

Repeating that the criteria are junk does not make them junk. They are actually useful guide lines for consumers of news. (As for the "science," this sort of data analytics is new, and I have my own doubts that of is yet fully a science.)

a reply to: UKTruth

However, I could fit CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT and many more in 4 of the categories for at least one of their crew of 'journalists' and often more (note that the Oxford Uni opinion piece only requires 3 of 5).

Still waiting for examples.

It’s illegal for anyone but certain people to read leaked emails from Wikileaks. Those certain people told me so.

And it’s certain people’s jobs to tell us what to think. I heard them say it.

And because some parts of a dossier are true, the dossier is then not debunked... You can take THAT to the bank... err, court.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Repeating that the criteria are junk does not make them junk. They are actually useful guide lines for consumers of news. (As for the "science," this sort of data analytics is new, and I have my own doubts that of is yet fully a science.)

What makes it junk is that there is no specificity in the sampling criteria, therefore the outcome cannot be judged. That's not opinion, it's fact.

For example - let's take one simple criterion mentioned... correction of stories that turn out to be false. Can you answer whether that is based on 100% compliance to that rule and as importantly what constitutes a correction? There are actually multiple unanswered criteria contained within the list of 5 broad categories, but let's start with that one.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Doesn't tell the truth about what, exactly?

Does it matter?

Yes. He is talking about the media reporting on his campaign. Can you find a specific example of his criticizing the pres that is not about himl

Why? The point was that he wasn’t calling the press the enemy of the people because they print negative stories about him. No where did he say that, and in fact he said the opposite.