patrick.net

Should liberals be allowed to yell insults at president? Time to ban MSM

Let’s be honest, they aren’t free media. It’s all owned by 2 corporations. Only free media was Infowars and Patrick.net

Aphroman says

Should people be allowed to yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater?

Should The Government force private companies to give Alex Jones free air space to harass the parents of the dead children from Sandy Hook? Even if it hurts their bottom line?

ThreeBays says

That rubbish aside, when it comes to policies the right wing media is 10x more corrupt than the left.

Accountability Journalism is Fake News.

It basically says News Media has no responsibility to attempt to be fair, but call it like they see it. Push "The Truth"

Problem with that is, their truth can and is often wrong. Remember we were definitely pushing North Korea too hard? That was the Pundit/Media Consensus View. Over 3% GDP Growth impossible? Markets going to crash if Trump Elected? Can't simply bomb ISIS into Oblivion?

So then people only get wrong conclusions based on incorrect information, or the wrong conclusions based on the bias of the Journalists, who are overwhelmingly Coastal Leftists born into the Professional Class (almost no Journalists are born into the working class anymore, as it used to be).

A wonderful way bias works is that we see article after article, based on nothing really but rumor. Anonymous, "Highly Placed" Source says X. No confirmation from anybody else, no supporting documents, nothing. If it ties into the Media's bias, it plays. Then, self-referencing takes place - "this must be true because it was reported widely, even though all reports trace back to ONE anonymous source from ONE outlet."

I'm so old, I remember just a couple of years ago when the Left was Shrieking for a return to the "Equal Time" Laws.

I remember when the Left wanted Tariffs and Eco/Labor laws applied to imports to level the playing field. Now they're for one-sided free trade no matter what. Oh, and their Accountability Journalism, where the pushed the "FACT!" that retaliating over trade abuse would result in a crash, don't forget that.

I just read a piece not too long ago where Journalists were "Thanking God" that the "Equal Time" Laws were no longer in effect.

Finally, the timing is suspicious, as the age of "Accountability Journalism" was heralded just after Trump won the Election that all the truthful, smart people said there was no way he could win.

Oh, and that it was impossible to rig a national election, just like Obama said.

Then of course, we get into Fact Checking.

A while back I'm sure I made a post about how Politfact treated more-or-less the same claims about Black Unemployment (or Crime?) raised by both Bernie and Trump. Both men extrapolated the numbers, and the final numbers of either were pretty close to each other. Politfact ranked Sanders as "Mostly True" but Trump's as "Mostly False", as the statements were made several weeks apart. The further ironic thing is that the author/reviewer I think was "Caitlin" Somebody, so it was the same fact checker.

MrMagic says

I know simple words like "explode" confuse you, so maybe a simple graphic can help, kinda like your daily Sesame Street lesson:




Should I go get Big Bird to help explain what that RED arrow is pointing to?

Sesame street says if there are dozens of sites millions of infowars fanatics are going to for infowars then there is only 1 then the one will get all the traffic from millions of people. duh. If you take a million divided by 10 it's 100,000. Divide it by 1 and it's a million. That's exploding. Math explained, although everyone else got it already.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

A while back I'm sure I made a post about how Politfact treated more-or-less the same claims about Black Unemployment (or Crime?) raised by both Bernie and Trump. Both men extrapolated the numbers, and the final numbers of either were pretty close to each other. Politfact ranked Sanders as "Mostly True" but Trump's as "Mostly False", as the statements were made several weeks apart. The further ironic thing is that the author/reviewer I think was "Caitlin" Somebody, so it was the same fact checker

Why don't you post both links instead of I said so. That way people can see what was actually written instead of what you believe was written.

bob2356 says

Why don't you post both links instead of I said so. That way people can see what was actually written instead of what you believe was written.

Couldn't find the post after a few searches, so here's the original.

Bernie extrapolates numbers, comes up with Black Youth Unemployment at around 51%.
Politfact: MOSTLY TRUE!
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/10/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-statistic-black-hispanic-unemployme/

Trump extrapolates numbers, comes up with Black Youth Unemployment at around 59%
Polifat: MOSTLY FALSE!
https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/

Note how Politfact gives Bernie the Benefit of the doubt and moves the Goalpost to "African Americans Youth worse off than others." but Trump gets no such consideration. This is how Fact Checks are easily biased.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

Note how Politfact gives Bernie the Benefit of the doubt and moves the Goalpost to "African Americans Youth worse off than others." but Trump gets no such consideration. This is how Fact Checks are easily biased.

I don't see the bias. Bernie singled out a very specific narrow focus group high school graduates 17-20 not enrolled in school. The campaign provided their exact source for the claim. Politifact says his information is a little out of date but it's basically accurate. Trump said african american unemployment youth rate and the campaign provided no source for the number. Trump's numbers for that group were simply wrong by a big margin. Did you read the articles at all?

This is a perfect example of how ideological bias can either lead to invalid conclusions.and/or produce willful ignorance. .

You could argue that Bernie was being deceptive by using such a narrow group to come up with a shocking number, but almost everything trump says is deceptive or simply false so I don't see how that argument can carry water.

bob2356 says

almost everything trump says is deceptive or simply false so I don't see how that argument can carry water.

His stats certainly need to be checked, but his underlying point is rarely wrong or deceptive. Do your homework, understand what hes talking about and you will find his message far more transparent than any POTUS in our lifetime.

Saying chicago murder rates are highest in 30 years (or whatever he said) when he meant murder rate increase is highest in 30 years is a legit gaffe, but it's not a lie. Also very easy to see what hes talking about w one glance at the numbers. Also, any political response would be the same: try to lower murder rates.

Compare this to Obama using the debunked M/F wage gap myth to push his college student indoctrination program via his Title 9 "Dear Colleagues" letter. This is willful manipulation w a diabolical ulterior motive.

bob2356 says

I don't see the bias. Bernie singled out a very specific narrow focus group high school graduates 17-20 not enrolled in school. The campaign provided their exact source for the claim. Politifact says his information is a little out of date but it's basically accurate. Trump said african american unemployment youth rate and the campaign provided no source for the number. Trump's numbers for that group were simply wrong by a big margin. Did you read the articles at all?

This is a perfect example of how ideological bias can either lead to invalid conclusions.and/or produce willful ignorance. .

You could argue that Bernie was being deceptive by using such a narrow group to come up with a shocking number, but almost everything trump says is deceptive or simply false so I don't see how that argument can carry water.

Nope, it's a great example of how Bernie's numbers can be in the 50s and rated Mostly True, Trumps numbers - also in the 50s - can postulate it at 59% and be Mostly False.

That's why factchecking is biased bullshit determined by the "Accountability Journalism" of the factchecker. Friendly subjects get generous interpretations behind their statement, Evil Ones Who Must Be Stopped So We Can Change The World (tm)(R)'s statements are put through a tendentious ringer.

CBOEtrader says

Compare this to Obama using the debunked M/F wage gap myth to push his college student indoctrination program via his Title 9 "Dear Colleagues" letter. This is willful manipulation w a diabolical ulterior motive.

Exactly. But the factchecker wouldn't compare the hours worked, flexibility, benefits, etc. of women's work to men's work and would quote the "Womyn are Paid less than men" as "Mostly True" without any contextualization.

That's the tendentious Accountability Journalism at work. The old standard of fairness, they would at least seek out and quote a think tank or researcher who provided contextualizing information.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

That's why factchecking is biased bullshit determined by the "Accountability Journalism" of the factchecker. Friendly subjects get generous interpretations behind their statement, Evil Ones Who Must Be Stopped So We Can Change The World (tm)(R)'s statements are put through a tendentious ringer.

Wait, wait, wait.... but Snopes said....