BBC and NPR are my primary go to’s for a less biased take on things. That and a couple local news outlets for what’s going on around me.
I’ll scroll down a google newsfeed from time to time, as it does do a good job in bringing things to my attention that I may have otherwise missed, especially local, but I usually don’t use their link, but rather look for the story elsewhere.
I don’t have cable, and don’t watch much “TV”. I very very occasionally will watch some snip of Maddow or something if someone links to it here, but that’s about it.
I’m just saying, I do agree with you that it is up to each of us to stay informed. However, I can only really do that for myself.
In the Cronkite days, a man who thought he was a woman would have been considered to be bullshit as well, and would not need a fair and balanced representation.
Did you? The research showed that knowing interracial couples and spending more time with them was associated with less implicit and explicit bias, but just living in the same neighbourhood wasn’t. That doesn’t show which way the causation went, but at least there is a positive effect.
Next, we wanted to test whether having close contact – in other words, spending quality time with interracial couples – was associated with positive attitudes toward interracial couples. Psychological evidence has shown that contact with members of other groups tends to reduce intergroup biases.
To get at this, we asked participants questions about how many interracial couples they knew and how much time they spent with them. We found that across all three racial groups, more interpersonal contact with interracial couples meant more positive implicit and explicit attitudes toward interracial couples.
Finally, we examined whether just being exposed to interracial couples – such as seeing them around in your community – would be associated with more positive attitudes toward interracial couples. Some have argued that exposure to interracial and other “mixed status” couples can serve as a catalyst to reduce biases.
Well, I wasn’t suggesting we return to the 70’s. Just that network news would do well to be more NEWS and less DRAMA. Seems we both agree there are contemporary examples where that works quite well.
It’s why NPR and BBC are less biased, they don’t have commercials, they don’t need to draw eyeballs. They don’t need to create drama and spectacle in order to make money, and being non-profit, there are not shareholders who are demanding greater and greater profits.
I don’t believe that Fox news was created to destroy our democracy, it was created to make money off of an untapped market of idiots. The destruction of our democracy was just an acceptable byproduct.
Drama is an inevitable outcome of commercialized news.
Total nonsense. What actually happened – laptop and supposed emails appeared out if thin air. No evidence or chain of custody has been put forward by anyone about where they came from. So Biden, rightly, ignored it. Because it was no different than “some guy on the internet says…”
Didn’t sound like she had time to deal with advocacy on these programs, so much as being shown off as a curiosity and a joke.
They didn’t want to hear her advocacy, they wanted to hear about her sex life.
Anyway, my point is that you cannot present all points of view, so someone has to choose what is valid and what is bullshit. Great until what you think is valid is what the media considers to be bullshit.
Of course not. He’s saying that sexual assault is as bad or worse, yet up until recently, it was much easier to get away with. Now that people are speaking up using, you know, free speech, it is getting investigated far more regularly.
Finally, we examined whether just being exposed to interracial couples – such as seeing them around in your community – would be associated with more positive attitudes toward interracial couples. Some have argued that exposure to interracial and other “mixed status” couples can serve as a catalyst to reduce biases.
Our results, however, showed no evidence of this.
So, mere “experience” of multiracialism does squat, like I said. Only close contact does. Not the same thing.
And I note the non-answer to my direct question in that same post, asking for an example of where non-racist views are redefined to to be racist.
You really do seem to loathe giving direct replies to straightforward questions, don’t you?
Well then, he’s implying that mildly questionable views are as bad or worse than being a neo-Nazi or paedophile. Either way it’s a bullshit comparison.
Experience doesn’t mean just exposure. I meant actually getting to know people, not just seeing them around.
Please calm down, I’m doing my best to keep up. I’m talking about things like opposing affirmative action in med school admissions and tweeting this:
Post-MLK-assasination race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon. Non-violent protests increase Dem vote, mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage.
Plus the claim that all demographic differences between races must be due to racism, and to believe otherwise is racist.
It’s hard to tell if you’re genuinely unclear on how analogies work (hint: not every part is directly analogous!), or if you’re just pretending that you don’t understand them in order to try to score cheap points. Either way, your self-own is embarrassing to witness, so I’ll not get involved with it, and trust that other readers understand what I’m saying.