The "Is CNN Biased" post, Poll edition..

[IGIT]

hi EGarrett,

The media *professes* to be centrist because it serves what they *actually* sell to people, which is the feeling of being accurately informed.

This same distinction applies when they create their stories. The journalists and news producers put out what they feel is accurate information. But without a proper understanding of these feelings, the information they choose is corrupted by them. Including, among other things, their need for self-esteem and alignment with their social group. When those things conflict with apparent facts, unless they have a very strong understanding of their own biases and a lot of mental discipline, they actually will reinterpret or ignore and massage those facts until they comply with those primary needs.

interesting post, and i think there is some validity to your point of view.

a good case in point was the disastrous reporting by Judith Miller in the New York Times in the runup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. her pro-administration page one pieces were, without a doubt, a big factor in giving Bush's neocon claims the fig leaf of plausibility that he and his fellow neocons needed.

still, i wouldn't paint with too broad a brush. there are many forms of media that are openly, unapologetically ideological - its part of their credo and key to their appeal to whatever demographic they seek, such as TownHall.com or the now defunct Firedoglake.

the onus, really, is on the consumer to try to discern what is, and isn't, being driven by pure ideology and bias.

not all media is equally credible (ie - i wouldn't compare Breitbart to Propublica).

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

hiya again EGarrett,

Donna Brazile wasn't an interview guest on CNN, she was a "CNN contributor," which means she worked under the umbrella of CNN itself. Her behavior is thus to some degree representative of "CNN."

actually, CNN felt Mrs. Brazile's actions were not representative of the network, which is why she was fired.

So when Donna Brazile goes OUTSIDE the guidelines of what CNN does, in this case NOT by providing a democrat's perspective but by using her information as a CNN employee to secretly aide a candidate in a way that conflicts with CNN's guidelines, her behavior is evidence that CNN is biased.

Mrs. Brazile wasn't fired because of her bias for the Democratic Party; that's why she was hired - to present a counterpoint to the GOP worldview, which as is turns out, ended up being represented by former Trump campaign chief Corey Lewandowski among others.

Lewandowski was of course paid by CNN, which made him an employee of CNN.

Mrs. Brazile was fired because she used her insider network knowledge to favor one Democratic (mrs. Clinton) over another Democrat (mr. Sanders).

- IGIT

 

[EGarrett]

Jack is either

A. A very committed and demented troll.
B. Getting paid to come out with stuff (yes, there are actually people who do this).
C. Being deliberately contrary to look all edgy, like he has some unique insight and we all just don't get it.
or
D. Insane.

@Jack V Savage makes the common mental mistake of thinking that the volume of information someone remembers is what makes them intelligent, rather than how accurately they can process what they do know.

For an example, there's a convincing-looking mathematical proof that ends with 1 = 2.

A person with Jack's mode of thinking will then go around telling others that 1 = 2, feel like they're better than other people, and if anyone challenges him, will cite the complicated proof and then pat themselves on the back if or when it confuses the other person.

But a person who doesn't make this mistake, and who actually can process information accurately, would know beforehand that 1 is not equal to 2, see the end of the proof, know something is wrong, then if necessary go back through the complications and find the mistake (in this case, the proof tries to divide by zero). This pattern usually leads them back to more "normal-looking conclusions" that don't feed their ego as much, which is why people with genuine intelligence are far more respectful and less contrarian.

In this case, "CNN is not liberal-biased" is Jack's 1 = 2.

I had some work to do over the last few days, but I completed it, so now I can devote some time to giving Jack the public reaming he deserves for this behavior.

(and yes Jack, I hope you do try to argue anything I said here)

 

[EGarrett]

hi EGarrett,

interesting post, and i think there is some validity to your point of view.

a good case in point was the disastrous reporting by Judith Miller in the New York Times in the runup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. her pro-administration page one pieces were, without a doubt, a big factor in giving Bush's neocon claims the fig leaf of plausibility that they needed.

still, i wouldn't paint with too broad a brush. there are many forms of media that are openly, unapologetically ideological - its part of their credo and key to their appeal to whatever demographic they seek, such as TownHall.com or the now defunct Firedoglake.

the onus, really, is on the consumer to try to discern what is, and isn't, being driven by pure ideology and bias.

not all media is equally credible (ie - i wouldn't compare Breitbart to Propublica).

- IGIT

Oh yes, there's definitely media that admits its bias. Those are much more constructive sources. Also, these same unconscious errors infect things far beyond the media, but I guess that's another topic.

In terms of consumers, I think the best way to learn about politics is to listen to unedited debates or disagreements where people challenge each other's facts and assertions.

 

[EGarrett]

actually, CNN felt Mrs. Brazile's actions were not representative of the network, which is why she was fired.

Oh no. We can't claim that. Donna Brazile was fired not when she did those things, but when those things became publicly known.

Remember, the media has to maintain the feeling that they are accurate. We can't distinguish between firings due to actual principles and firings due to the need to protect their image. We have to instead look at what CNN owners and employees do that they aren't so tightly controlling, like the unconscious patterns in their own coverage or leaked information, to use as real data on their bias.

Mrs. Brazile wasn't fired because of her bias for the Democratic Party; that's why she was hired - to present a counterpoint to the GOP worldview, which as is turns out, ended up being represented by former Trump campaign chief Corey Lewandowski among others.

Lewandowski was of course paid by CNN, which made him an employee of CNN.

Mrs. Brazile was fired because she used her insider network knowledge to favor one Democratic (mrs. Clinton) over another Democrat (mr. Sanders).

- IGIT

There's a key difference here. Brazile was hired to provide a viewpoint on TV. Not to secretly use CNN information, which she was given access to as a CNN contributor, to aid the Clinton campaign.

That's against CNN's "unbiased guidelines" which by itself should show that CNN (as represented by Brazile) is displaying actual bias AND not in line with their own ethics.

 

[IGIT]

Oh yes, there's definitely media that admits its bias. Those are much more constructive sources. Also, these same unconscious errors infect things far beyond the media, but I guess that's another topic.

In terms of consumers, I think the best way to learn about politics is to listen to unedited debates or disagreements where people challenge each other's facts and assertions.

hi EGarrett,

if the debates and disagreements are being held by actual living, breathing people, then they're going to be subject to the same "need for self-esteem and alignment with their social group" that you feel journalists have...probably more so, since they've often staked their own plausibility on a specific point of view.

i used to work in journalism and have a healthy respect for the profession.

to my way of thinking, the best way to be well informed is to at least make an attempt to seek out good, reasoned sources of media. it isn't hard (at least, i don't think its very difficult).

Media outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC have a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge while NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative sources of news, according to Fairleigh Dickinson University’s newest PublicMind survey.

http://www.businessinsider.com/stud...-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5

with the exception of some campaign related coverage this past year, i don't get any of my news from television, lol. i've found that helps alot.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

hi EGarrett,

Oh no. We can't claim that. Donna Brazile was fired not when she did those things, but when those things became publicly known.

yes, that's the way things usually work. when something is not known - when there is no actionable intelligence regarding a matter - then action isn't taken.

Brazile was hired to provide a viewpoint on TV. Not to secretly use CNN information, which she was given access to as a CNN contributor, to aid the Clinton campaign.

yes. that's why she was fired by CNN.

That's against CNN's "unbiased guidelines" which by itself should show that CNN (as represented by Brazile) is displaying actual bias AND not in line with their own ethics.

i'm afraid i'm not following you here. are you saying that CNN showed bias by firing Brazile because she broke ethical rules of conduct when she aided Clinton against Sanders?

- IGIT

 

[EGarrett]

hi EGarrett,

yes, that's the way things usually work. when something is not known - when there is no actionable intelligence regarding a matter - then action isn't taken.

The point here is that the fact that Brazile was fired doesn't indicate that CNN is honest. Just like how the fact that North Korea holds "elections" doesn't indicate that they're a democracy. Public organizations do things to keep up their image which may or may not show us what's really going on.

i'm afraid i'm not following you here. are you saying that CNN showed bias by firing Brazile because she broke ethical rules of conduct when she aided Clinton against Sanders?

- IGIT

Brazile was part of CNN when she did that. Remember, CNN only consists of things written on paper and owners and employees who work according to those papers. We all agree that the papers itself claim that they're objective, and we're discussing the actual deeds of the owners and employees, who in this case are "CNN," and which obviously are not objective. And for which Brazile's behavior is one valid piece of evidence.

 

[EGarrett]

hi EGarrett,

if the debates and disagreements are being held by actual living, breathing people, then they're going to be subject to the same "need for self-esteem and alignment with their social group" that you feel journalists have...probably more so, since they've often staked their own plausibility on a specific point of view.

Yes, those debaters have those biases, but the other debaters are biased to color the information the other way. So they will try to expose the errors in the other person's thinking which makes it much more accurate information.

If only ONE side presented their case without being challenged by another side, then that information would be WILDLY biased.

i used to work in journalism and have a healthy respect for the profession.

to my way of thinking, the best way to be well informed is to at least make an attempt to seek out good, reasoned sources of media. it isn't hard (at least, i don't think its very difficult).

http://www.businessinsider.com/stud...-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5

with the exception of some campaign related coverage this past year, i don't get any of my news from television, lol. i've found that helps alot.

- IGIT

There might be sources of information that are unbiased. Some sources certainly FEEL more fair than others (the New York Times feels much more fair recently, for example). But it's tough to tell because we judge that with our own slanted perception.

That's why I think it's better to focus on unedited debates where you can hear both sides challenge each other's slanted information in real time.

 

[IGIT]

EGarrett,

The point here is that the fact that Brazile was fired doesn't indicate that CNN is honest.

i'm not sure i said anything about CNN being honest or dishonest.

i said that CNN fired Mrs. Brazile because her actions were revealed to be inconsistent with how the network defines itself. it seems reasonable for me to say that Mr. Zucker did not want one of its paid contributors to be leaking inside information about the upcoming debate it was to moderate to candidate Clinton.

hence, Mrs. Brazile got the boot.

Brazile was part of CNN when she did that.

yes. and after it CNN found out she did that, she was shown the door. too late to the supporters of Mr. Sanders, alas, but Mr. Zucker didn't need any time to ruminate on it.

Remember, CNN only consists of things written on paper and owners and employees who work according to those papers. We all agree that the papers itself claim that they're objective, and we're discussing the actual deeds of the owners and employees, who in this case are "CNN,"

i don't dislike you and am enjoying this exchange, so don't take this the wrong way...but can you say what you're attempting to say without such tortured use of language? i don't understand you.

and which obviously are not objective. And for which Brazile's behavior is one valid piece of evidence.

it's a piece of evidence that indicates CNN did not sanction Brazile's use of insider knowledge to help scuttle Mr. Sander's attempt to win the Democratic party's primary.

i gotta sleep, have a good night EGarrett.

- IGIT

 

[EGarrett]

EGarrett,



i'm not sure i said anything about CNN being honest or dishonest.

i said that CNN fired Mrs. Brazile because her actions were revealed to be inconsistent with how the network defines itself. it seems reasonable for me to say that Mr. Zucker did not want one of its paid contributors to be leaking inside information about the upcoming debate it was to moderate to candidate Clinton.

hence, Mrs. Brazile got the boot.



yes. and after it CNN found out she did that, she was shown the door. too late to the supporters of Mr. Sanders, alas, but Mr. Zucker didn't need any time to ruminate on it.



i don't dislike you and am enjoying this exchange, so don't take this the wrong way...but can you say what you're attempting to say without such tortured use of language? i don't understand you.



it's a piece of evidence that indicates CNN did not sanction Brazile's use of insider knowledge to help scuttle Mr. Sander's attempt to win the Democratic party's primary.

i gotta sleep, have a good night EGarrett.

- IGIT

It seems like the key point here is the same in each instance.

CNN fired Donna Brazile. You're suggesting that that means that CNN did not approve of what Donna Brazile did. But that can just as easily mean that CNN wants to give the IMPRESSION that they didn't approve.

In the same way that North Korea holds "elections." But that doesn't mean that they're really democracy, it means that they want to give the IMPRESSION that they are. So the bosses at CNN firing Donna Brazile doesn't mean that CNN is unbiased.

This also connects to what I'm saying about what CNN is. CNN is only guidelines and the people that are part of CNN. Employees/Owners etc.

So if Donna Brazile, as an employee of CNN, does something blatantly biased, that means that CNN itself, in that case, was biased. CNN is the people who own and work for CNN.

 

[CrazyN8]

It seems like the key point here is the same in each instance.

CNN fired Donna Brazile. You're suggesting that that means that CNN did not approve of what Donna Brazile did. But that can just as easily mean that CNN wants to give the IMPRESSION that they didn't approve.

In the same way that North Korea holds "elections." But that doesn't mean that they're really democracy, it means that they want to give the IMPRESSION that they are. So the bosses at CNN firing Donna Brazile doesn't mean that CNN is unbiased.

This also connects to what I'm saying about what CNN is. CNN is only guidelines and the people that are part of CNN. Employees/Owners etc.

So if Donna Brazile, as an employee of CNN, does something blatantly biased, that means that CNN itself, in that case, was biased. CNN is the people who own and work for CNN.

Don't worry, turns out the actual total number of people defending the likes of CNN as being not biased is statistically insignificant on Sherdog. It is truly a vocal minority who has nothing besides dishonest arguments and being loud on there side. Hell, of the 8 votes that said CNN is republican leaning, we know 2 were accidental clicks, so it's really more like 173 to 6. We can argue with them, but at this point, what does it matter.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not to my understanding

Your understanding is incorrect. Bush 41, for example, was part of the GOP's liberal wing and he was VP under the first movement conservative president and then president.

Where is your source that the management of these companies tend towards conservatism? Free Press disagrees

First of all, Free Press doesn't disagree. You misread your source (http://pundithouse.com/2013/01/mass-media-conservative-or-liberal/). Free Press is the source of the ownership chart. Second, Opensecrets reports contributions from all employees (who list their employer), rather than institutional contributions or contributions specifically from management, which makes the metric irrelevant when you're talking about companies with thousands of employees, many of whom are highly paid and many of whom have nothing to do with the media. Note, for example, that by the approach you've chosen, one would conclude that NewsCorp. has a liberal lean. That surely should have set off bells, if confirmation bias wasn't disabling your alarm system (note how you cited the Wiki on media bias dealing with allegations that there is a pervasive liberal bias and completely ignored the rest of the same entry).

As far as the positive case that more-influential employees (such as upper management and to a lesser degree editorial staff) are right-leaning, I'm relying partly on my own knowledge of the industry and partly on demographics. What is called the "conservative" agenda in America is essentially redistributing income and wealth to people like upper management in media companies, and those people by age, race, and income tend to favor that agenda in large numbers. Same applies to advertisers and their management.

Then we have " A 2005 study by political scientists Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia attempted to quantify bias among news outlets using statistical models, and found a liberal bias.The authors wrote that "all of the news outlets we examined, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress."

Congress had a Republican majority at that time, and the average member of Congress was far further to the right than the average American.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Don't worry, turns out the actual total number of people defending the likes of CNN as being not biased is statistically insignificant on Sherdog. It is truly a vocal minority who has nothing besides dishonest arguments and being loud on there side.

See, that's how you guys stay ignorant and in your bubble. Honorable people define "dishonest arguments" as those that are knowingly untrue, while hacks define them as "those that contradict the party line." And given that the point of levying nasty personal attacks at people who disagree is to silence dissent, the fact that there isn't a lot of dissent doesn't seem to be evidence of anything.

 

[IGIT]

CNN fired Donna Brazile. You're suggesting that that means that CNN did not approve of what Donna Brazile did. But that can just as easily mean that CNN wants to give the IMPRESSION that they didn't approve.

hi and good morning EGarrett,

i see now what you're saying.

its a little like saying Foxnews forced Roger Ailes out because the Murdochs wanted to give the IMPRESSION that they don't condone predatory sexual behavior, when the opposite is true.

there may be something to that.

in these case of Mrs. Brazile, though, i've seen no evidence that CNN is ok with its employees leaking debate questions to one candidate or another.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

Don't worry, turns out the actual total number of people defending the likes of CNN as being not biased is statistically insignificant on Sherdog. It is truly a vocal minority who has nothing besides dishonest arguments and being loud on there side. Hell, of the 8 votes that said CNN is republican leaning, we know 2 were accidental clicks, so it's really more like 173 to 6. We can argue with them, but at this point, what does it matter.

heya CrazyN8,

i'm curious, do you dismiss "scientists" who are climate change deniers using the same line of reasoning?

- IGIT

 

[EGarrett]

See, that's how you guys stay ignorant and in your bubble. Honorable people define "dishonest arguments" as those that are knowingly untrue, while hacks define them as "those that contradict the party line." And given that the point of levying nasty personal attacks at people who disagree is to silence dissent, the fact that there isn't a lot of dissent doesn't seem to be evidence of anything.

So your pattern of behavior is to try to insult posters here, then when someone gets sick of you and totally decimates your arguments, you simply ignore that or run away? Then show up later and sling more insults and specious sophistry?

In that case, what you're doing is not discussing but actually flaming and spamming, which might be an issue for the moderating team to handle.

 

[EGarrett]

heya CrazyN8,

i'm curious, do you dismiss "scientists" who are climate change deniers using the same line of reasoning?

- IGIT

If those "scientists" make claims that are easily refutable and then refuse to discuss them, then they can be dismissed regardless of the numbers involved. Which is the pattern of behavior we see here from one of, if not the only, people actually claiming that CNN isn't biased.

 

[EGarrett]

hi and good morning EGarrett,

i see now what you're saying.

its a little like saying Foxnews forced Roger Ailes out because the Murdochs wanted to give the IMPRESSION that they don't condone predatory sexual behavior, when the opposite is true.

there may be something to that.

in these case of Mrs. Brazile, though, i've seen no evidence that CNN is ok with its employees leaking debate questions to one candidate or another.

- IGIT

It's one case where any news network would essentially have their hand forced. To figure out what they do and don't condone we have to go beyond that to see how other CNN employees behave. And of course, wikileaks has provided quite a bit of information there.

 

[IGIT]

'morning EGarrett,

If those "scientists" make claims that are easily refutable and then refuse to discuss them, then they can be dismissed regardless of the numbers involved.

that wasn't crazy's supposition - i was asking a question based on his statement and was just curious how he sees things.

Which is the pattern of behavior we see here from one of, if not the only, people actually claiming that CNN isn't biased.

in terms of the OP, i don't see CNN as being particularly biased for or against either of the two major political parties. i do see the nature of their coverage to indicate a bias towards promoting Mr. Trump's interests, a position i've gone at length to explain and defend.

i've gone on to say that the rationale for this bias wasn't an effort to support to Mr. Trump's policy positions per se, but rather to ride his celebrity to topple the kingpin of the mainstream media, Foxnews.

- IGIT