Media outlets and political bias

[Tannin]

Dear me. Stui, do u check ur sources? Fact check the alleged fact checker. The first paragraph in wiki says: media bias fact check is amateur. Later it says it’s methodology is wholly unscientific. Who’d a thunk.

And Wiki is totally professional.

Here's their methodology which they agree on their site is not scientific, but they use the same method on each so it is at least an objective unbiased assessment, unlike yours.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

BTW, I don't think I've ever watched 9 News. If you think it's so biased why do you watch it? If you don't watch it, how can you say it's biased?

Get with the times Stui: 9 media owns 3AW, The Age etc (the age has for years become right wing) etc. They hosted a notorious fund raiser for the Liberal Party last year

[stui magpie]

My father used to get The Age and the Sun each day and then watch the 7 news and then the ABC. He believed the different mediums with their different biases provided different perspectives.

He didn't believe in just using sources that aligned with his views. I tend to be the same.

[watt price tully]

Was on your favourite Sky News, but there was also mention by Dan thanking him for coming up with the most recent campaign they ran

Que? Sorry can you be a bit more specific. I’ve googled & can’t find a mention anywhere.

[Tannin]

My father used to get The Age and the Sun each day and then watch the 7 news and then the ABC. He believed the different mediums with their different biases provided different perspectives.

He didn't believe in just using sources that aligned with his views. I tend to be the same.

Me too Stui. I read the Financial Review (right) as my main paper, but supplement that with the Age and/or SMH (centre-right), the Guardian (all over the place but new-age, woke and and mostly leftish if it manages to remember anything about economics - a sort of David-all-over paper), and the ABC (spotty, but trending more and more lightweight and further and further right as the board-stacking and the government bullying slowly and surely wreck it). Still worth reading but only a shadow of its former self now.

I'd like to add a left-wing view (The Guardian, often said to be left-wing, isn't - it's woke and trendy, and lacks both meat and depth, it is particularly vague and weak on economics - which as you know is the bedrock of any left-right distinction) but I haven't found a good one in this country.

[stui magpie]

The world of stand up comedy lost out the day you decided to do IT.

[Pies4shaw]

I don’t use Twitter, except to get the daily COVID numbers for Victoria. But I just noticed this, which fascinated me. This is not a party-political comment - I assume both major parties use the same tactics when the opportunity arises. I am concerned, though, that this style of large-scale automated attempt to shape our thinking on big issues has the tendency to destroy our democracy and I would like to see more being done to quash the practice.

https://twitter.com/PRGuy17/status/1309 ... 80/photo/1

[stui magpie]

^

Reasonably common I believe both for political parties (of all flavours) and for "causes", when people want a hash tag to trend.

Still, my personal belief is this stuff isn't going to change or shape anyone's opinion. It will reinforce the opinion of those already there and may be used as leverage, but won't actually change minds.

[Pies4shaw]

1 I didn’t suggest it was uncommon. I posted the link because it struck me as an interesting way of mapping the phenomenon.

2. Of course it works. It’s propaganda. Propaganda has always worked. That’s why it persists. If the marketing information said this didn’t work, the political apparatus would do something different.

3 Well, of course it doesn’t change the minds of people who have already formed a view. It isn’t directed at them. It’s directed at the undecided. See point 2.

4 That said, it does give those who agree with the view all the cute little one-liners and memes. It probably assists with motivating the rusted-on, even though they didn’t need to be persuaded.

[watt price tully]

I don’t use Twitter, except to get the daily COVID numbers for Victoria. But I just noticed this, which fascinated me. This is not a party-political comment - I assume both major parties use the same tactics when the opportunity arises. I am concerned, though, that this style of large-scale automated attempt to shape our thinking on big issues has the tendency to destroy our democracy and I would like to see more being done to quash the practice.

https://twitter.com/PRGuy17/status/1309 ... 80/photo/1

Media Watch last week was referring to just that type of fake news & it’s part of the right wing tactics. To say both sides do it you need to have the evidence. This is specifically right wing driven and they’ve been caught in this specific type of activity

https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/dan/12686484

[Tannin]

WPT, saying "both sides do it" isn't meant to say that both sides do it, it is just a standard tactic used by right-wing parties whenever they are caught out doing something dishonest or dishonourable. They always say "both sides do it", no matter what the crime, and no matter how flagrantly they have been caught.

Very often (but not always) there is a small grain of truth mixed in with a great big bucket of lie, perversion, distortion, and evasion. The small, sometimes vanishingly small, grain of truth in there with the lie is like the salt you put in a loaf of bread. Yes, sure, it's only one or two percent, but the loaf just doesn't taste the same without it.

"Both sides do it" practically never means "both sides do it". It means "my side did it and I'm trying to avoid the consequences".

[Sicks Bux]

Green Party Hit Piece by the New York Times!
https://youtu.be/VBUXTMJSelw