• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can you name one neutral media channel ?

phoenix2020 said:
News channels are for chumps.

In 2022 there is no excuse not to go directly to raw sources, rather than consume somebody else's interpretation of or spin on them.
Click to expand...

What are "raw sources"?
 
Neutral News Network

Vanilla Viewpoints

and

Do Your Own Analyses
 
The Mark said:
Everything involving humans is biased, but that doesn't make those things useless.
Click to expand...
It doesn't make them useful, either.

I prefer to decide to let my own bias help me decide how biased media sources are. I don't need someone else...like mediabiasfactcheck...to use their bias to tell me about how biased media sources are.
 
Mycroft said:
It doesn't make them useful, either.
Click to expand...
Sure it does.
All sources give one a gauge to lay against and test other sources.
That is useful.
Mycroft said:
I prefer to decide to let my own bias help me decide how biased media sources are.
Click to expand...
^^^Confirmation Bias man at work!
Mycroft said:
I don't need someone else...like mediabiasfactcheck...to use their bias to tell me about how biased media sources are.
Click to expand...
If you don't check other sources, even ones you might distrust, well, then you are missing out.
 
Mycroft said:

Can you name one neutral media channel ?​


No.

But don't let that stop you from getting information. All you have to do is filter out the bias and the bullshit. There are nuggets of facts in the most biased media stories.
Click to expand...

That ignores the reality that most media bias is accomplished by simply not reporting on a matter.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That ignores the reality that most media bias is accomplished by simply not reporting on a matter.
Click to expand...
Reality is biased.

Reality is, the absolute fact of it, not all matters could ever be reported on, especially for any singular agency of reporting.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That ignores the reality that most media bias is accomplished by simply not reporting on a matter.
Click to expand...
The solution to that is using a wide variety of sources.
 
What is NewsNation Like? Someone told me those guys seem a little more neutral than others.
 
Bloomberg, cnn, and msnbc are the only neutral ones i can think of
 
Mycroft said:
It doesn't make them useful, either.

I prefer to decide to let my own bias help me decide how biased media sources are. I don't need someone else...like mediabiasfactcheck...to use their bias to tell me about how biased media sources are.
Click to expand...
Of course it doesn't make them useful - that requires examining their bias and deciding if the resulting information is useful to you.
In your case, you've decided that mediabiasfactcheck is not useful.



There is a definite possibility for issues to arise out of this though - if someone shares no information sources with another, or both parties refuse to accept the other's information sources for various reasons...

Well then no agreement can be reached, I'd think.
 
Mycroft said:

Can you name one neutral media channel ?​


No.

But don't let that stop you from getting information. All you have to do is filter out the bias and the bullshit. There are nuggets of facts in the most biased media stories.
Click to expand...
Why aren't you, then? This federal judge today destroyed your belief system. You're vulnerable to that because you permit disinfo to cancel what little journalism manages to escape your filtering out the facts..


Pg 16 of 18
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.372.0.pdf

"Emails related to and in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud
Four emails demonstrate an effort by President Trump and his attorneys to press false claims in federal court for the purpose of delaying the January 6 vote. The evidence confirms that this effort was undertaken in at least one lawsuit filed in Georgia. On December 4, 2020, President Trump and his attorneys alleged in a Georgia state court action that Fulton County improperly counted a number of votes including 10,315 deceased people, 2,560 felons, and 2,423 unregistered voters.69 President Trump and his attorneys then decided to contest the state court proceeding in federal court, 70 and discussed incorporating by reference the voter fraud numbers alleged in the state petition. On December 30, 2020, Dr. Eastman relayed “concerns” from President Trump’s team “about including specific numbers in the paragraph dealing with felons, deceased, moved, etc.”71 The attorneys continued to discuss the President’s resistance to signing “when specific numbers were included.”72 As Dr. Eastman explained the next day:

Although the President signed a verification for [the state court filing] back on Dec. 1, he has since been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate. For him to sign a new verification with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate.73

President Trump and his attorneys ultimately filed the complaint with the same inaccurate numbers without rectifying, clarifying, or otherwise changing them. 74 President Trump, moreover, signed a verification swearing under oath that the incorporated, inaccurate numbers “are true and correct” or “believed to be true and correct” to the best of his knowledge and belief.75 The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public. The Court finds that these emails are sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Dr. Eastman to disclose these four communications to the Select Committee.76"
....
IV. DISPOSITION For the reasons explained above, the Court ORDERS Dr. Eastman to disclose the 33 documents77 to the House Select Committee by 2:00 pm Pacific on October 28, 2022.78
DATED: October 19, 2022
DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
 
The Mark said:
Of course it doesn't make them useful - that requires examining their bias and deciding if the resulting information is useful to you.
In your case, you've decided that mediabiasfactcheck is not useful.



There is a definite possibility for issues to arise out of this though - if someone shares no information sources with another, or both parties refuse to accept the other's information sources for various reasons...

Well then no agreement can be reached, I'd think.
Click to expand...
And we see a lot of that around here.
 
Mycroft said:
And we see a lot of that around here.
Click to expand...
There's little pressure to reach an agreement around here, unless the poster in question wants to.
If they just want to present their own perspective and not change it, then little will be accomplished.
 
post said:
Why aren't you, then? This federal judge today destroyed your belief system. You're vulnerable to that because you permit disinfo to cancel what little journalism manages to escape your filtering out the facts..


Pg 16 of 18
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.372.0.pdf

"Emails related to and in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud
Four emails demonstrate an effort by President Trump and his attorneys to press false claims in federal court for the purpose of delaying the January 6 vote. The evidence confirms that this effort was undertaken in at least one lawsuit filed in Georgia. On December 4, 2020, President Trump and his attorneys alleged in a Georgia state court action that Fulton County improperly counted a number of votes including 10,315 deceased people, 2,560 felons, and 2,423 unregistered voters.69 President Trump and his attorneys then decided to contest the state court proceeding in federal court, 70 and discussed incorporating by reference the voter fraud numbers alleged in the state petition. On December 30, 2020, Dr. Eastman relayed “concerns” from President Trump’s team “about including specific numbers in the paragraph dealing with felons, deceased, moved, etc.”71 The attorneys continued to discuss the President’s resistance to signing “when specific numbers were included.”72 As Dr. Eastman explained the next day:

Although the President signed a verification for [the state court filing] back on Dec. 1, he has since been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate. For him to sign a new verification with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate.73

President Trump and his attorneys ultimately filed the complaint with the same inaccurate numbers without rectifying, clarifying, or otherwise changing them. 74 President Trump, moreover, signed a verification swearing under oath that the incorporated, inaccurate numbers “are true and correct” or “believed to be true and correct” to the best of his knowledge and belief.75 The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public. The Court finds that these emails are sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Dr. Eastman to disclose these four communications to the Select Committee.76"
....
IV. DISPOSITION For the reasons explained above, the Court ORDERS Dr. Eastman to disclose the 33 documents77 to the House Select Committee by 2:00 pm Pacific on October 28, 2022.78
DATED: October 19, 2022
DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Click to expand...
This judgement doesn't destroy anything.
 
texasgirl said:
Can you name one neutral media channel?

Click to expand...

If you're **WATCHING** news, then you're getting entertainment. If you're getting news on social media you're getting clickbait. If you want (less) biased news you have to read, and likely you have to pay.
 
The Mark said:
Humans are incapable of neutrality.

Therefor, media channels are also incapable of neutrality.

To be blunt, I don't believe any claims of neutrality when it comes to news reporting - there's literally not enough time in the day to cover everything that is going on, so they have to pick which stories to cover, and that is where the bias starts coming into play.


But to be clear, bias or lack of neutrality isn't necessarily bad - the question is whether that bias impacts the accuracy of the information provided.
Click to expand...
Well stated Mark and ironically so for this thread.
 
Fledermaus said:
According to whom?
Click to expand...
Damn.
I was hoping....

Just went to their site and searched for them to see if they had a bias rating for themselves, but no luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom