Does the mainstream media actually lie in it's reporting?

[ckalli1998]

@QuickSilver

I agree. Trump doesn’t need CNN’s help to look bad.

Your snark notwithstanding, it’s good to see someone acknowledge CNN’s bias

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

I won’t object to anyone’s saying the DNC was hacked.

The election? No. The election was perhaps influenced by the results of the hacking. But that’s not what hacking means.

I did some Google searches:
“Travel hacks”-381,000 hits.
“Sex hacks”-35,800 hits.
“Marriage hacks”-17,000 hits.
“Relationship hacks”-187,000 hits.
“Work hacks”-310,000 hits.
“Kitchen hacks”-457,000 hits.
“Life hacks”-9,340,000 hits.

Now, why don’t you tell us what “hacking” means, again?

[sear]

** Does the mainstream media actually lie in it’s reporting? **

Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post

“CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, NPR, Associated Press, etc. can and do make errors in reporting but those errors are often self correcting because they hold themselves to high standards of truth & facts. Unlike the agenda driven and fact shy outlets like Fox, Breitbart, Enquirer, conservative radio, etc…” QS #51

The rate of change is accelerating exponentially.

I’m not even sure what definition we’re using for “mainstream media” here.
But as The New York Times is still regarded as a newspaper of record
I’m willing to include that.

Some blogs may be quite popular.
But many of them aren’t sources, but merely parasites, plagiarizing the sources that go to the expense of having foreign news bureaus, etc.

Point being, many of those are the enterprise of one blogger.

The New York Times is an enterprise of thousands.
And they all have a stake in maintaining highest journalistic standards.

The standards of The New York Times is literally more stringent than that of the president of the United States.
President Trump said President Obama wire-tapped Trump Tower.
The Trump administration has offered ZERO evidence to support this claim.

The New York Times has elaborate vetting procedures it would engage before ever making such claim.

The sanity check is unity of message.
If a variety of print, broadcast, and cable mainstreams all reported the same lie, that would require impressive coordination.

But if they all report the same truth, such coordination is not needed.

And let’s not overlook the non-reciprocity of lying.
If a man lies all his life, from his first sentence to his dying day, that man is a liar.
If in his death bed he tells one truth, and then expires, that one lone truth does not render him an honest man. HE’S A LIAR.

If a man tells the truth his entire life, from his first sentence to his dying day, has he not to that point been truthful?
But if that truthful man, in his death bed, utters one single lie, and then expires, does that one lie not make him a liar?

News media face the same issue.
The more they report the truth, the more they become invested in their own reputation for honesty.
And only one single lie can negate a century of superlative journalistic integrity, sending it down the tubes.

[QuickSilver]

@ckalli1998

Your snark notwithstanding, it’s good to see someone acknowledge CNN’s bias

And in our newfound spirit of glastnost, do you then also acknowledgeFox News bias?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

BTW, one thing that should be noted for context - and in opposition to the general tendency of media bias - is that (elements of) the media had access to the infamous Trump dossier before the election and did not publish it because none of it had been verified. This is impressive, IMO (and a bit surprising, frankly).

[CurtC]

The website lifehacker.com has been in operation for more than 12 years, and it’s an extremely popular site. I just pulled this from Wikipedia:

In 2005, TIME named Lifehacker one of the “50 Coolest Web Sites”[26] in 2005, one of the “25 Sites We Can’t Live Without”[27] in 2006 and one of the “25 Best Blogs 2009”[28]

CNET named Lifehacker in their “Blog 100” in October 2005.[29]

Wired presented Gina Trapani with a Rave Award in 2006 for Best Blog.[30]

In the 2007 Weblog Awards, Lifehacker was awarded Best Group Weblog.[31]

PC Magazine named Lifehacker in “Our Favorite 100 Blogs” in October 2007.[32]

US Mensa named Lifehacker as one of their top 50 sites in 2010.[33]

So if you’re not familiar with the term “hack” in relation to things other than computers, that’s on you. The rest of the world seems to be aware of it.

[ckalli1998]

@QuickSilver

And in our newfound spirit of glastnost, do you then also acknowledgeFox News bias?

I will admit that Fox News’ political commentators do lean conservative, yes, but it also has and has had many liberal commentators over the years, including Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Bob Beckel and so on.

Yes, Fox News’ opinion commentary is predominantly conservative. But that doesn’t mean Fox News reporting is biased altogether. I’m sure reasonable people know the difference between a newspaper’s reporting page and it’s opinion pages, just as someone should know the difference between Fox News’ objective news programming and its opinion programming, the latter of which doesn’t pretend to be objective.

That’s the way I see Fox News:it has a “hard news” reporting every day without political commentary, and then in the evenings it has its opinion news shows, which are not meant to be neutral–that’s why they have political commentators from left and right.

Fox News’ senior vice president, when questioned on this in 2009, put it succintly: “The average consumer certainly knows the difference between the A section of the newspaper and the editorial page.”

Precisely.

[DrCube]

@Czarcasm

I did some Google searches:
“Travel hacks”-381,000 hits.
“Sex hacks”-35,800 hits.
“Marriage hacks”-17,000 hits.
“Relationship hacks”-187,000 hits.
“Work hacks”-310,000 hits.
“Kitchen hacks”-457,000 hits.
“Life hacks”-9,340,000 hits.

Now, why don’t you tell us what “hacking” means, again?

Does vanilla journalism fall into any of those categories? If not, what is your point?

Yes, the term “hack” has changed over the years. It still doesn’t apply to the simple publication of unfavorable news.

[Czarcasm]

@DrCube

Does vanilla journalism fall into any of those categories? If not, what is your point?

Yes, the term “hack” has changed over the years. It still doesn’t apply to the simple publication of unfavorable news.

Neither does what we are talking about, dispite your strenuous efforts to relabel what is actually going on.

[QuickSilver]

Interesting.

Here’s the PolitiFact stats on CNN News bias.

Do the same assumption you made about Fox news apply to CNN and its audience?

If so, whose perceptions are more likely to be coloured by lies?

[ckalli1998]

@QuickSilver

Interesting.

Here’s the PolitiFact stats on CNN News bias.

Do the same assumption you made about Fox news apply to CNN and its audience?

If so, whose perceptions are more likely to be coloured by lies?

Politifact is not a reliable fact-checking organization, as critics from the left and right have shown over over again (The Trouble With Politifact, Running The Data On PolitiFact Shows Bias Against Conservatives)

[Czarcasm]

@QuickSilver

Interesting.

Here’s the PolitiFact stats on CNN News bias.

Do the same assumption you made about Fox news apply to CNN and its audience?

If so, whose perceptions are more likely to be coloured by lies?

Now compare side-by-side with PolitiFact stats on Fox News bias, and realize that your “They do it tooo!” effort just ain’t gonna fly.

Those who live by the cite sometimes die by the cite.

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

I did some Google searches:
“Travel hacks”-381,000 hits.
“Sex hacks”-35,800 hits.
“Marriage hacks”-17,000 hits.
“Relationship hacks”-187,000 hits.
“Work hacks”-310,000 hits.
“Kitchen hacks”-457,000 hits.
“Life hacks”-9,340,000 hits.

Now, why don’t you tell us what “hacking” means, again?

The problem with each of your examples is that their context makes it clear that the “hacking” cannot be illegal computer intrusion and the alteration of data.

My objection to “the Russians hacked the election,” is that it creates an impression of illegal computer intrusion and the alteration of data. If you say, “Here are a few marriage hacks,” there’s no such inference, unless we learn you’re married to Rosie the Maid.

[QuickSilver]

@Czarcasm

Now compare side-by-side with PolitiFact stats on Fox News bias, and realize that your “They do it tooo!” effort just ain’t gonna fly.

Those who live by the cite sometimes die by the cite.

I understand, but it’s not my intent to be dishonest by pretending non-right leaning news sources don’t ever lie. Just that the differences between (for example) CNN and FOX are significant and that matters.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

The problem with each of your examples is that their context makes it clear that the “hacking” cannot be illegal computer intrusion and the alteration of data.

My objection to “the Russians hacked the election,” is that it creates an impression of illegal computer intrusion and the alteration of data. If you say, “Here are a few marriage hacks,” there’s no such inference, unless we learn you’re married to Rosie the Maid.

I’m sorry you are still getting that impression. A lot of others apparently aren’t.

[TimeWinder]

@ckalli1998

There are many, many, many examples of CNN gratuitiously lying in its reporting, especially in last year’s election cycle, to make Mr. Trump look bad.

And this nonsense is why I dismiss Trump voters’ opinions out of hand at this point. You have to absolutely twist yourself knots to get some of the conclusions in that list, but the same standard isn’t applied to anything your side produces.

Does CNN (et. al) lie in it’s reporting? Almost certainly. Any institution that includes humans includes lies. But going from that to “both sides do it equally” is blatantly deceptive, misleading, and itself a lie. Compare virtually any story from Breitbart, for example, to the weak sauce list here (“OOh, CNN used the word ‘racist’ when it meant ‘bigot’” is my personal favorite) from vague, journalism-free sources.

Lying from mainstream media is rare, generally minor, and generally corrected when it occurs. Lying from the right-wing media approaches the baseline state, and is almost never corrected when demonstrated to be false.

Until both sides REALLY DO “do it equally,” and until we agree that factual matters (including scientific facts) reflect reality and real data, there’s not much middle ground to meet on.

[ckalli1998]

@TimeWinder

And this nonsense is why I dismiss Trump voters’ opinions out of hand at this point. You have to absolutely twist yourself knots to get some of the conclusions in that list, but the same standard isn’t applied to anything your side produces.

Does CNN (et. al) lie in it’s reporting? Almost certainly. Any institution that includes humans includes lies. But going from that to “both sides do it equally” is blatantly deceptive, misleading, and itself a lie. Compare virtually any story from Breitbart, for example, to the weak sauce list here (“OOh, CNN used the word ‘racist’ when it meant ‘bigot’” is my personal favorite) from vague, journalism-free sources.

Lying from mainstream media is rare, generally minor, and generally corrected when it occurs. Lying from the right-wing media approaches the baseline state, and is almost never corrected when demonstrated to be false.

Until both sides REALLY DO “do it equally,” and until we agree that factual matters (including scientific facts) reflect reality and real data, there’s not much middle ground to meet on.

I walk on untrodden ground. There is scarcely any aspect of my conduct which may not hereafter be drawn into precedent. Unless you can show me a list of people intentionally lying on outlets like the Wall Street Journal, Fox News etc, there’s nothing to talk about. There is a destiny that has he control of liberals’ actions, not to be resisted by the strongest efforts of human nature. Few liberals have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. It’s a shame you aren’t one of them.

[puddleglum]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I’ve not read the book, but it sounds ridiculous to me.

Expectations of professionalism and even-handedness don’t counteract bias. The whole point of bias is that people don’t realize that they’re biased, so there’s no way for expectations of professionalism and even-handedness to counteract it. This is especially so when pretty much everyone all around you shares your views, which would additionally color your perspective on what’s “even-handed”.

Pressure from media conglomerates is likely not a factor. I doubt if there’s much pressure from media conglomerates to be even-handed - I don’t think media conglomerates care particularly much, as long as it doesn’t hurt the bottom line. But even if they did care, it would be virtually impossible for a media conglomerate to control the types of subtle bias that people are discussing in this thread (as opposed to the OP and official topic of lying). The only way to control that would be for media conglomerates to micromanage every story, every headline, constantly be vigilant for it. No way this happens.

The ironic thing to note is that liberals are always advocating for diversity for judges, juries, panels, etc because they don’t want group think prevail and for minorities to be excluded. Yet we are supposed to believe that diversity of viewpoint in journalism is unimportant and they don’t need to watch out for group think because they not susceptible to the temptations of mere mortals.

[watchwolf49]

@CurtC

I challenge you to find any MSM reports that imply the Russians hacked into voting machines to mis-report votes. ALL the reports have been that the Russians hacked into computers, and released information that would be harmful to one side only.

Saying that the election was hacked by the Russians is shorthand for all this, but it has never been said, or implied, that voting machines were hacked. I’d wager that the number of people who are informed enough to get a grade of C who think that the Russians hacked voting machines is pretty darn close to zero.

So I call bullshit on your claim.

It’s all about context … there was a hacking in the archaic sense … someone broke into the DNC’s computers … so it’s just good English to stick to that definition throughout the story … “The Russians hacked the DNC computers and then used the information to hack the elections” … that’s poor English …

Another example … “NASCAR announces today that they will sanction next year’s Pocono 500 and that they will sanction Team A for unsportsmanlike conduct” … does this mean the Pocono 500 is off the event list and Team A is congratulated on their dirty tricks? …

It’s just bad journalism to mix these two definitions … and journalists know it … but they do anyway and my contention is that they write this bad journalism with the intent to deceive the public … “hacking the election” makes this a national issue … “hacking the DNC computers” narrows the problem down to Democrat Leadership … which sells more newspapers?

I do appreciate the folks here who are apologizing for MSM … just remember MSM puts their own financial profits before your best interests …

[QuickSilver]

@ckalli1998

I walk on untrodden ground. There is scarcely any aspect of my conduct which may not hereafter be drawn into precedent. Unless you can show me a list of people intentionally lying on outlets like the Wall Street Journal, Fox News etc, there’s nothing to talk about. There is a destiny that has he control of liberals’ actions, not to be resisted by the strongest efforts of human nature. Few liberals have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. It’s a shame you aren’t one of them.

Are you going to correctly attribute these words you’ve twisted to serve your own ends, or just pretend they are your own because you’ve strategically inserted “liberals” here and there?.

And I did give you examples of lies told by Fox News. You chose to dismiss them.