Heroscapers

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)
-   General (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Decision 2016 (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53250)

Rich10 September 26th, 2016 04:45 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112169)
Easy: Your premise is that the media is left-leaning. Your premise is wrong.

I understand why people think the media is (note for pedants: "media" is plural, should be "media are," but people don't write that way so I won't, either) liberal. There are two reasons. First, journalists tend to be liberal. I suspect this is so because they also tend to have advanced degrees, and those with advanced degrees tend to be more liberal. It is one thing, however, to note the personal politics of the journalists, it is another - and an unfair attack, IMHO - to attack the integrity of a person because of that person's personal politics. We all have jobs; we all try to do them responsibly without regard for our own personal politics.

Consider the beating that Trump took, when he suggested a federal judge could not be fair to him because of the judge's Mexican heritage. Aren't we making the same mistake Trump did, by confusing something personal about the professional, when we discount the journalist's work?

Second, it's easy to believe that the media is liberal because there is a large opposition media industry, to its right. Fox and its many smaller siblings and cousins on the right have made an industry out of identifying as "fair and balanced," unlike the "MSM," the liberal media. This myth has been around long enough that it's penetrated the *real* mainstream, by which I mean people have come to think of it as true.

Just because there is an accusation, though, does not mean there is truth behind it. I have a little pet expression that I made up, which is that "given two explanations for a person behaving in a certain way, the better explanation is the one that assumes the person was trying to do his or her job." Let's not assume, without evidence, that the "MSM" is actually liberal. Just because there's a (profitable!) cottage industry built around the suggestion that some people are dishonest, does not mean those people actually are dishonest.

There are liberal media outlets, of course. I count MSNBC, The Guardian, and The New Yorker, as liberal media. Often you will find something there of value, particularly (in my experience) in Mother Jones. Of course, I have also occasionally found valuable nuggets in "alt right" sources, and even cited them on this forum, when appropriate. Though I consider those alt right sources to be much more extreme than, for instance, MSNBC, it doesn't mean they never have anything of value.

Most media outlets aren't actually liberal. It's just an accusation that's been around so long that it's seeped into the groundwater. My 2 cents. It pains me to be so frank in this thread, because some of my friends here seem to be reluctant to move past certain prejudices about the status quo. But there it is.

I wasn't trying to impugn reporters. As you said, "journalists tend to be liberal." This can be supported by Wikipedia (yes, I know that it is dangerous to rely on Wikipedia), "it was revealed that the Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816, given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), while the Republican Party received only $142,863 via 193 donations. Both of these figures represent donations made in 2008."

Certainly different media outlets do have a right or left bias. In my opinion, the New York Times has a left bias; the Wall Street Journal has a right bias. At one point, I read both so that I got a balanced view of the world.

As for actual studies:
  • The Media Elite, a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter.[45] They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that the large majority of journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics.
  • Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College investigated the issue of media bias in the 2002 book Press Bias and Politics. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers stated that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints.
  • 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 examine[d], except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress."
  • A 2014 Gallup poll found that a plurality of Americans believe the media is biased to favor liberal politics.
  • A 2008 joint study by the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that viewers believe a liberal media bias can be found in television news on networks such as CNN.
On the other hand:
  • Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corporation (the parent of Fox News), self-identifies as a libertarian. Roy Greenslade of The Guardian, and others, claim that Rupert Murdoch has exerted a strong influence over the media he owns, including Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and The Sun.
  • According to former Fox News producer Charlie Reina, unlike the AP, CBS, or ABC, Fox News's editorial policy is set from the top down in the form of a daily memo.
  • Progressive media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has argued that accusations of liberal media bias are part of a conservative strategy, noting an article in the August 20, 1992 Washington Post, in which Republican party chair Rich Bond compared journalists to referees in a sporting match.
  • A report "Examining the 'Liberal Media' Claim: Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage" by FAIR's David Croteau, from 1998, calls into question the assumption that journalists' views are to the left of center in America. The findings were that journalists were "mostly centrist in their political orientation" and more conservative than the general public on economic issues (with a minority being more progressive than the general public on social issues).[
  • Kenneth Tomlinson, while chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, commissioned a $10,000 government study into Bill Moyers' PBS program, NOW.[76] The results of the study indicated that there was no particular bias on PBS.
So, I guess there's enough data points for either side of this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112169)
The short answer to your question is, almost 50% of the people in this country are prepared to vote for an unqualified, unprepared, lunatic for President of the United States. I don't know why the journalists & media outlets do what they do, but my guess is that there are decisions made up the chain somewhere to pander or to pussyfoot around, and to pretend as if the true center can be found equidistant from the positions in the current state of politics, instead of where it's always been, anchored to a measurable and findable truth.

I'm really not sure how to find a "measurable and findable truth." And while I won't vote for Trump, and I do think that he's likely unqualified and is certainly unprepared, I wouldn't call him a lunatic.

Dad_Scaper September 26th, 2016 04:59 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
You sidestepped my point. Just because journalists tend to be liberal does *not* mean they are failing to do their job.

As for the truth, just because you and I might disagree on it in some contexts, doesn't mean it isn't knowable and we shouldn't seek it. It is a truth that Trump's affiliated businesses owe more money than you or I could ever count to foreign powers. It is a truth that the university bearing his name was a giant scam, targeting the poor and the desperate. There are paper trails for these things and for far, far more. Just because the truth is unknowable in some ways does not mean that we cannot draw meaningful conclusions from things that are demonstrably true.

Will I get run over if I try to cross the street? Just consider how much depends upon your answer to that question. Your *life* depends on answering that question correctly. And yet, you look around yourself for clues, and you draw a reasonable, adult conclusion. Eventually, despite the inherent risk, you are satisfied enough that you will step off the curb.

The epistemological discussion of what separates fact from opinion should not push people into cynicism or disinterest. Every day we make important decisions, based on what we perceive in the world around us and the conclusions we draw.

Rich10 September 26th, 2016 05:21 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
DS, I addressed your point. We both agreed that "journalists tend to be liberal." I presented evidence both pro and con as to whether the media is liberal and concluded, "there's enough data points for either side of this discussion."

I don't know how much money Trump's businesses owe. I am not satisfied with his plan to disassociate himself from the business. And yes, the business dealings seem shady. IMHO, they're not something that one that aspires to the president should be associated with.

I may be (OK, I am) cynical, but I'm not disinterested.

Dad_Scaper September 26th, 2016 05:23 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I wasn't suggesting you were cynical or disinterested, but I happen to agree with your self-diagnosis. ;)

wriggz September 26th, 2016 05:56 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
With journalism there are multiple issues that we must be weary of:

1. The same story told 10 times carries similar weight to 10 stories told once. There have been so many gaffs by trump that none get repeated play while the same few issues with clinton are raised.

2. People remember what the first hear and then add edits. If I tell you 5000 people were killed in an earthquake but later correct it to 500, you recall 5000 but less. Trump has used this to spout false hoods that he can correct later (if he does at all) . The opposit happens in smeer campaigns, the damage is done at the onset.

3. Three minor issues or inunedos are 'stronger' than one truth. Humans suck at balancing things so we rely on heuristics, which are terrible at getting to the truth.

As far as liberal bias To me it seems libra ideology us based on innovation, reasoned arguments and helping the collective.
Conservitive ideology seems based on tradition and individualism. It is no surprise reporters may favour one Over the other. Same with academics and scientists. .

dok September 26th, 2016 08:51 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112137)
I'm not familiar with Jay Rosen or "Press Think", but as I glanced through the site, it certainly seems to be left leaning (very left leaning). ;)

I, too, am unfamiliar with Jay Rosen and that website. I linked it not because I trust the source, but because I agreed with the content of the article I was linking. Did you read it?

Rich10 September 27th, 2016 12:20 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2112231)
I, too, am unfamiliar with Jay Rosen and that website. I linked it not because I trust the source, but because I agreed with the content of the article I was linking. Did you read it?

I think that it is worth reading. It tends towards hyperbole with comments like, "Trump is trying to break" the press.


There is a better balanced article (IMHO) in the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/bu...tors.html?_r=0
While most people recognize the New York Times as left leaning, I thought it was a good article. It begins with:
"If this hasnít been the worst year ever for truth in politics, I canít think of what was. Nor can anyone tell me.
The Republican presidential nominee has produced more falsehoods than the major fact-checking sites have identified from a major presidential candidate since they came into existence. The Democratic nominee hasnít come anywhere close to that. But sheís not exactly dwelling in Honest Abe territory, either."

Rich10 September 27th, 2016 12:44 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112187)
It looks like I muddled my points. Basically:

1. We should copy what works in better countries to be the best (Hence my argument of Hyundai copying Toyoda and that Russian and China are copying the US). Social Health Care works in Canada, Education is top notch in Sweden. Why the US is not copying these success is beyond me.

2. I agree Capitalism is a very powerful force, and can be very beneficial (the 1950-70's showed that). I think the best way to get better shoes is capitalism, same with movies, sporting events and cars. Capitalism sucks at protecting Human rights and the Environment. True innovation (like NASA, DARPA and University Research) cannot be profit driven. Recent history has shown that Capitalism sucks at Pharmaceuticals. I like that the department of transport contracts out road work, but I would not want companies to have control over which roads get fixed. This issue is rampant capitalism starts looking like Monarchies with Business leaders in the place of Kings, this is not good as we are starting to see now. Socialism and Capitalism need to work hand in hand.

3. If you read the article I posted you will see that Bridgeport's problems may very well be due to Greenwich's success. As wealth becomes consolidated and doesn't generate Job's the system begins to fail.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112162)

  • There is a reasonable school of thought that lower taxes (across the board) helps to stimulate the economy. Trump's plan to lower corporate taxes should be implemented even if we need to raise personal tax rates to offset these. I'm tired of seeing US jobs going to overseas tax havens.


This is a terrible argument. People are going to cheat the system, so we are going to lower the costs so they are less likely to cheat. Do you really think they will stop gaming the because taxes are only 20% instead of 27%? Greece tried that, It did not work.

The last 30 years are proof that Trickle Down economics don't work. They worked in the past because money invested in the stock market turned into jobs for R&D and Expansion. Now Corporations are incentivized to pay out bigger salaries at the top, pay dividends and hide money offshore. There is no benefit to re-investing in people.

Sure the government sucks at spending money, but they do eventually spend it. They pay police, fire, army, road work, and lots of other things that keep things running and keep people employed. That money goes back into the economy to be spent, where as money made by Corporations (like Trump's) end up getting stuck in bank accounts. Give 1 million people a Thousand Dollars and you will have a Billion more dollars circulating into local economies. Give a thousand Millionaires a Million dollars and you will have a Billion Dollars put into "Interest generating funds" which stimulate nothing except more Finance.

  1. With respect to healthcare in Canada or education in Sweden, I'm just not qualified in either of these topics. I would like universal healthcare and education for all. It would be nice to have these things. I'm not sure how to pay for these and all of the other "nice things to have" without ending up with a Greece, Spain or Venezuela problem when things go bad.
  2. I agree that Capitalism is not concerned with human rights or the environment. Capitalism probably isn't a good choice to clear snow off the streets. Government has a role in our lives. But, as far as innovation is concerned, government sucks. The iPhone wasn't made by the government. Harvoni, a drug that cures hepatitis C, wasn't made by the government. Tesla wasn't a government program.
  3. I read the article. The loss of manufacturing jobs in the US was caused by globalization and mechanization. Hedge fund managers went to Greenwich because it was a town near New York City, with lower taxes. The hedge fund managers didn't cause the loss of manufacturing jobs. Speaking of taxes, the US has lost jobs and capital from our country to countries with tax havens and/or lower tax rates. This is very different from the Greece problem, in which they are spending too much money. http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...lems-socialism

Ranior September 27th, 2016 01:02 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112142)
It's not (just) about the lying. Consider that we have seen mountains of coverage of the Clinton Foundation, because for a time it appeared there might be traction for a story there (there wasn't). You say, Rich10, that it does appear that there's been coverage of Trump, but where has been the coverage of the payoff to the Florida AG? From *Trump's* foundation? Or the business connections to foreign powers, or the close relationships between his campaign staffers and the Kremlin? Where is the coverage of the enormous business debts of his businesses? You see a story every now and then, and it's gone.

Going back to this, I typically watch John Oliver's Last Week Tonight show on youtube every week when it goes up.
was on the "scandals" of this election cycle and it's a fun 20 minute romp through them. I know he is a comedian, and many likely consider him biased, but I just would say it's the most fun way to sum up my thoughts on the matter as well.

To those who don't want to watch, the basic summary is that Clinton's scandals are annoying, but they are far from nefarious or criminal. Trump's scandals are numerous and pervasive, painting an image of a man who doesn't know or care about ethics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegietarian18 (Post 2112148)
[
Sorry to argue this with you in particular wriggz, but this whole thing is one of the big issues I have with the direction of the Democratic Party in general.

This is one of the most commonly cited sites for statistics on racial inequality in police shootings. Per millions in a race, whites are certainly killed less by police. But these statistics do not adjust for police encounters. Certain races do have more encounters per capita with the police, which is really the trend you see on that original site in its statistics. Here's a NYT article on that. When you adjust for police encounters, the disparity between races shrinks massively.

You can see similar facts with the gender wage gap. It exists (sorry for podcast link, can't think of a better explanation ATM) , but on a much smaller scale when adjusted for differences in choices each gender makes. The problem is not discrimination by employers; it's discrimination from society as a whole for women to fulfill certain roles.

These are problems, but they require social solutions, not legal ones. They will not be solved instantly, or by any legislation.

Also agreed that the police issue is one area in particular that many individuals seem to be quite wrong and very mislead. There is real work to be done, but right now it mostly seems to be finger pointing and yelling rather than serious discussion about the true cause of the problems or real solutions to them.

On the gender wage gap, I too get frustrated when individuals quote the oft used 79-80 percent number. Most people assume that when we are talking about a pay gap that women are earning 79-80 percent of what men do for the same jobs. That's just not true at all. If you take into account those factors, the real number is about 92 percent. (Article discussing this that I'm taking numbers from, via Washington Post)

Which is why I'm speaking up here. Women still do face legitimate pay discrimination, it's just to a smaller tune than we usually hear about. There needs to be serious work done still to eliminate this type of discrimination where it exists. We need to continue policies that have helped make sure businesses pay women equally to men for the same work.

But overall the reasons for the 79-80 percent figure come from the fact those numbers are just comparing the median women's pay to the median men's pay. And that has other factors clouding the discussion. Namely two big ones.

One, women still tend to work in lower pay professions like secretaries, social work, education, etc. Men continue to work as engineers, actuaries, etc in higher numbers.

Two, women tend to be a bit behind in career development due to taking time off work for child care and rearing. Also there still is some lag in the number of years the average women has been in the workforce compared to the average man which also slightly effects the pay numbers.

And to all of that, different regulations and changes would be required to fix those gaps in the pay system.

But I'll agree vegie. Both of these issues annoy me too since the numbers discussed are often very misleading, and so the discussion and conclusions drawn from them are pretty wrong.

wriggz September 27th, 2016 01:13 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112347)
  1. With respect to healthcare in Canada or education in Sweden, I'm just not qualified in either of these topics. I would like universal healthcare and education for all. It would be nice to have these things. I'm not sure how to pay for these and all of the other "nice things to have" without ending up with a Greece, Spain or Venezuela problem when things go bad.
  2. I agree that Capitalism is not concerned with human rights or the environment. Capitalism probably isn't a good choice to clear snow off the streets. Government has a role in our lives. But, as far as innovation is concerned, government sucks. The iPhone wasn't made by the government. Harvoni, a drug that cures hepatitis C, wasn't made by the government. Tesla wasn't a government program.
  3. I read the article. The loss of manufacturing jobs in the US was caused by globalization and mechanization. Hedge fund managers went to Greenwich because it was a town near New York City, with lower taxes. The hedge fund managers didn't cause the loss of manufacturing jobs. Speaking of taxes, the US has lost jobs and capital from our country to countries with tax havens and/or lower tax rates. This is very different from the Greece problem, in which they are spending too much money. http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...lems-socialism

1. You stop acting like the right to Health and Education are "Nice things to have". A healthy tax structure leads to a healthy Middle class, which in turn supports itself. Stagnant wages while corporations make record profits, pay out dividends at record levels and avoid their tax responsibility all leads to the acceptance that these things cost too much. America is the exception not the rule when it comes to Healthcare and Higher education among the wealthier countries.

2. Your right the Iphone is not a government invention. But the research that created the first computers, the touch screen was invented at CERN and the University of Illinois, Much of the research done on lithium batteries came from Universities including Pennsylvania, Texas and Oxford, the internet started at the Department of Defense and NSF, and we can thank the Military for GPS systems (not to mention NASA, ESA, and Russia for putting all the satellites into orbit). I will still grant you that Capitalism working with Socialism is awesome (otherwise we would never had TANG). I'm not sure how you count universities and hospitals, but their innovations are not profit driven (at least directly) and they make far more advances than companies. I don't think you want to run a comparison between NASA and Tesla for innovation.

3. I drew out the fact that less money is flowing back into the Economy through taxes and that investment in R&D, expansion and higher wages were abandoned for financial wizardry and multimillion dollar salary increases lead to erosion of the middle class. There is likely truth in both our logic, however unless you plan to close your boarders and bust up the robots, financial policy seems the only way to see things return to the prosperity the US had in the 60's.

Dad_Scaper September 27th, 2016 01:17 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112341)
The Republican presidential nominee has produced more falsehoods than the major fact-checking sites have identified from a major presidential candidate since they came into existence. The Democratic nominee hasnít come anywhere close to that. But sheís not exactly dwelling in Honest Abe territory, either.

This is an excellent example of false equivalence. It is correct about Trump; he is a record-setting winner of the "pants on fire" sweepstakes. Having said that about Trump, though, the author is apparently overcome with a need to say something critical of Clinton on the point, and so the author does.

And yet, throughout the long political process, when you've looked at charts from Politico or whatever comparing *all* the candidates, sometimes also including non-candidate politicians as well, she has always been either the most truthful, or the second-most behind Barack Obama. Others have been close, including Bernie, but she's been consistently #1 or #2. So why the dig? It's unsupported, and unnecessary.

What makes it interesting to me, though, is that it's in the New York Times. So people can quick beating on the Times as a liberal standard-bearer. It's not. You don't have to like what you read in it, but I do not accept that it's a bastion of liberal advocates.

wriggz September 27th, 2016 01:30 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranior (Post 2112349)
Also agreed that the police issue is one area in particular that many individuals seem to be quite wrong and very mislead. There is real work to be done, but right now it mostly seems to be finger pointing and yelling rather than serious discussion about the true cause of the problems or real solutions to them.

The point is not that X number people were killed. It is the cultural reaction to innocent people being killed by those Paid to protect and serve them. There is a wide swath of people that maybe (maybe should be) concerned to interact with police. If there is a concern that a police officer may shoot you if you are pulled over, or maybe even call them to your home then something is broken.


Policing is built on trust, and I would not blame the black community in many cities and towns for being fearful. Maybe it is media stirring up the hornets nest, but the increasing Militarization of policing, Firearm focused training, existing stereo typing and lack of measurable consequences all lead to increased deaths where there was no immediate threat.


How many extra traffic violation tickets were issued because the officer could see the face of the driver.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2022 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.