It is a claim that has been proven over and over again, despite your repeated attempts to claim that lies and mistakes are the same thing. Even if they were(and I repeat that they most certainly are not), Fox would still have far more than CNN according to the hard evidence contained in the Fox thread.
I hadn’t heard of the “Fairness Doctrine” debate but a quick google search brought up a cite from 2009 that sstated that a couple of Democratic senators wanted to revive it. The article also said that Obama was not in favor of restoring the Fairness Doctrine.
Like it or not, statements that come directly from the President of the United States carry more weight and garner more attention that statements from individual Congressmen or random Democrats. Yet everytime Trump says something stupid or horrible, there are supporters who will counter it with something stupid that some random Democrat said.
In the wake of McCains death, I have read some absolutely horrible smear pieces on him published by hard right Trumpist media outlets.
Yet I do not think that all or most conservatives agree with this and I’m not going to pretend that they do ( although I considered it, it might have been fun) But all it takes is a couple of idiot liberal college kid saying something stupid, and suddenly conservative media is convinced that all liberals share that belief.
I’m still trying to figure out if Fox News is a parody site!
But Conservapedia is great! Here’s the opening sentence of their page on climate change: “Climate change is the new name used by liberals for their global warming hoax, which they coined as it became obvious that there is no crisis in global warming.” They also have a terrific page on evolution, the gist of which can be summarized in one word: False! More specifically, the theory of evolution is a belief held only by liberal atheists incapable of critical thinking.
So we can see that, unlike Google results which are polluted by liberal propaganda and tech-industry liberal conspiracies, Conservapedia presents only the Truth as understood by conservatives; indeed, according to its own self-congratulatory intro page, “Conservapedia is a clean and concise resource for those seeking the truth. We do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here.”
Further to my last post about that great authoritative resource Conservapedia, notable for its absence of liberal bias and dedication to objective truth, they actually have a whole page dedicated to what liberals believe. It tells you the Truth about liberals, without being diluted by liberal bias. We learn that liberals advocate the following, among other things: wasting money, censorship, communism, denial of science, Islamic terrorism, brainwashing, hate, murder, rejection of the Bible, fascism, racism, bigotry, immorality, and perhaps the worst of all: “crying instead of accepting reality”.
Conservative facts are truly wondrous things. It seems that their debunking of the liberal climate change and evolution hoaxes is barely scratching the surface of their terrific world view, free of liberal bias. No wonder they want to get rid of Google and the mainstream media, the enemy of the people.
It shows that an overwhelmingly-liberal message board has an obsession with trying to discredit Fox News. That shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
piffle.
Besides some obsessive (they are in that thread, but not all) points, several were acknowledged even by a conservative in the thread as clear evidence of why FOX is bad in the sense that what they are doing does not lead to an informed conservative public. Like in this very important example:
And that is why I said we should be comparing apples to apples here. The democratic president was not in favor of the fairness doctrine, but the republican president wants to regulate google to make him look better.
I said President, you said random democrat.
I’m gonna start by saying that wolfpup answered pretty well, and I think I agree with his answer, and I only have a bit to add.
I see them as the same basic catagory of politics and speech, but that does not mean that they are the same, nor should be treated the same. The fairness doctrine was over media outlets regulated by the FCC. The FCC also says that they can’t say “fuck” during primetime. Citizen’s united is about whether or not people and corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money into the political process. The political process is different from any sort of private enterprise, and should be regulated differently. The political process is literally what makes this country run, ensuring that it is not taken over by corrupt processes is paramount to preserving our democracy. I’m obviously against the govt telling google that trump needs more favorable search results.
The govt also enforces laws about libel and slander, threats and calls to violence, and obscene things like child pornography. Are these things that you are in the “or not” camp in as well?
Now, the fairness doctrine was a thing that I think was necessary at the time it was created. There were literally 3 national TV news outlets, about the same national papers of record, and even radio was pretty limited. Given that, with the pretty strong oligopoly on the news, I do think that regulating what went into the news, ensuring that all parties had fair time, and none were shut out of the ability to reach the public was necessary. In today’s age of 27 million 24/7 cable news channels, along with radio and social media, there is much less concern that parties will not have access to the public to share their views.
As far as making the news be accurate and truthful, well, they already do that. There is nothing that one media outlet likes more than to discredit another’s story. They check on eachother, and as they know that they are being checked on by their competitors, they double check their own stuff before publishing. A govt bureaucracy to do this would be unnecessary and counterproductive. The shame of being called out on inaccurate reporting has kept most of the media outlets pretty accurate. You had outlets like National Enquirer to run all the unverifiable or veritably false stories.
There are a few reasons that this is less robust than it was just a decade or so ago, and part of that is specifically fox news. See, when NBC gets called out on inaccuracies, heads roll. Brian Williams made a mistake in recounting a personal anecdote that is entirely in line with the way that memories change over time, and he was canned. Dan Rather took information that he believed to be accurate, and was forced to resign when it turned out that he was given unvetted and unverifiable info. When Fox news gets caught in an inaccuracy… they just keep on going. It has created an atmosphere where vetting a story is less important than it used to be, as it has been shown that Fox news has not lost any viewership or any reputation whatsoever for continually being inaccurate in their reporting, but rather, are rewarded for it. It does become hard for your reporter on the ground to hold themself to such a high level of journalistic integrity, when they know that their competitor is being rewarded for not doing so.
Now, as far as why there are more mistakes than in the past, I would chalk that up to more a matter of budgets and time. 25 years or more ago, a reporter was told to have copy on the editor’s desk by morning. Then the editor read it, verified any sources, made sure it was legible, and then would add it to the paper to be printed.
Now, they are told to publish as soon as they can. There are not hierarchies of people ensuring that what goes out is up to the same standards. The loss of advertising revenue means that there just are not people in these jobs anymore. So, more mistakes are made, meaning more corrections.
Still, they try, and they get it right the vast, vast majority of the time, and correct it when they don’t. That you even pointed out that there are consequences in most media outlets when they mess up badly enough should demonstrate to you that they are actually taking it seriously. Can you tell me when the last fox news person got fired for inaccuracy?
Fox News discredits itself, and there are enough direct links in that thread that overwhelmingly show this. If the amount of evidence in that thread doesn’t convince you, what would?
They read 1984 and saw it as a template, not a warning. We have always been at war with Eastasia and the boot stamping on a human face forever, of course, would be theirs.
International and supranational are very different things.
My business is international: it involves multiple countries. For example, right now I’m in France doing work for which my Spanish company will bill a company in the UK. That’s international.
Supranational means above multiple countries/nations. The EU is a supranational entity. The UK as well, by local definitions, and Spain depending on how you look at it.
As far as I know and while Google is certainly an international entity, so far it doesn’t officially tell any countries which are part of it how to conduct their business.
What does that have to do with anything? The First Amendment isn’t about US citizens, or US companies. It’s about the US government. The US government isn’t allowed to abridge the freedom of the press. If the US government tried to restrict Pravda, that would still be a violation of the First Amendment, because it’s the US government doing it.
Some people are doubting Google has political bias. According to Wikipedia “YouTube now operates as one of Google’s subsidiaries.”
In this Youtube video:
a “conservative” Youtuber points out that while his channel has 1.25M subscribers, more than:
- NBC News with only 760k subscribers
- CBS News with only 800k subscribers
- MSNBC with only 1M subscribers
If he types in the exact title of his most popular Youtube video:
Donald Trump’s Funniest Insults and Comebacks
with 8.9M views, it comes 51st in the search results. While NBC News comes in number 3 with a video that has only 60k views. Watching him scroll through the results in his video, I saw only one of the 50 above him with anywhere close to the number of views his video has. He makes a lot of other related points in his video. Including noting that prominent “conservative black Youtubers” were excluded from Youtube’s #YouTubeBlack program. So there is evidence of Google’s political bias.
In essence: Being popular is not a good enough reason to get to the top of searches, and just by experience I know that many conservative sources in YouTube and the internet do not bother much to criticize when their souces get it wrong, or to control contributors or supporters that are indeed spreading hate. Very important factors that IMHO do end up lowering a link’s place in a search due to that old adage of “Show me who your friends are and I’ll tell you who you are”.
That’s proof that Google uses something other than number of views or subscribers to rank video results. It’s not proof that Google has a political bias.
Well if it’s not a weighting of relevance (note it was an exact title search) and/or views, then who adjusts the other parameters? Who decides which sources are “Authoritative”, and how? The youtuber in my link above, Mark Dice, has actually written a book “The True Story of Fake News”, where he analyzes the bias of the mainstream news media, showing their bias and low authoritativeness. You really should read it. I think you will expect to disagree with it, but instead feel a large part of your worldview has been upended. How can you resist such a possibility? You can order it off of amazon (and check out those reviews!). But the last time I checked it was available on: https://www.infowarsstore.com/
so you can support Infowars which was virtually simultaneously banned from most major social media platforms. The “simultaneous” part should make you doubt it is “terms of service”, not politics behind it. You don’t have to agree with anything Alex Jones says. Remember the patriotic quote they drilled into you at school:
“I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to my death your right to say it”?
Were you replying to Jim Peebles?
Anyhow, Jim Peebles, before linking to people like Mark Dice I do check a few of the videos, links and past publications to see if they are a source to be counted on.
So, really, pointing at “research” by Mark Dice is like posting a defence of anti evolution in Panda’s Thumb, or posting climate change denial in the journal Nature, or posting conspiracy pap on The Straight Dope. Issues that, BTW, have been championed before by Mark Dice.
It is only after I confirmed my suspicions about how wrong or misleading Mark Dice is/was, is than then I can mention that just being a contributor to Alex Jones should be enough reason to dismiss Dice as a yahoo.
The nano second I noticed that when doors like Youtube or others are closed, then others are opened for them: and I have seen articles where even the ones “blacklisted”* tell others where to go so as to get more of their infotainment. And really, they already have a big megaphone with the internet. The reality is that they are just demanding a fair playing field to misinformation, forgetting to mention that they already have many other ways to distribute their discordant message.
- Really, even the ones proposing that they are being “blacklisted” can only point to a lowering in ratings or places in a search, no one is stopping them to broadcast their message.
I will read that. I thought it was wikipedia, which I already read on Mark Dice. I was going to say (and still do): you should read the chapter on Wikipedia in Mark Dice’s “The True Story of Fake News”.
Nope, the evidence so far points at Mark Dice as an unreliable narrator. I actually did read his intro to the book, and it is just a tome dedicated to show how the sources he uses are the “truth” when in reality they are part of the disinformation we have to deal with.
Actually it is mostly a criticism of “mainstream media”, not an advertisement for “other sources”. I also didn’t get into it in the first few chapters. It really picks up (or I got used to his writing style) after the first few chapters.