This Is a Good Time to Stop Getting Your Information from Ideological Zealots

From Wikipedia, FWIW:

Mainstream media is a term and abbreviation used to refer collectively to the various large mass news media that influence many people, and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought. The term is used to contrast with alternative media which may contain content with more dissenting thought at variance with the prevailing views of mainstream sources.

The term refers to traditional media: newspapers, TV, radio, etc. Fox News is mainstream media, as are all the other traditional sources.

Alternative to mainstream media are the social media sources: Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc.

I just watched today’s press conference from the White House. While there are a few honest reporters, the rest are just trying to score gotcha points. It’s plain as day.

And also the definition of “main stream media” is irrelevant. The point is media bias.

I just watched today’s press conference from the White House. While there are a few honest reporters, the rest are just trying to score gotcha points. It’s plain as day.

And also the definition of “main stream media” is irrelevant. The point is media bias.

[Mark_Smith]

And also the definition of “main stream media” is irrelevant. The point is media bias.

My comment was more a response to Joel’s implication that his friend was outside MSM. At least, that is the impression I got. By definition, his friend is very much a part of it.

The reason MSM is disdained is that it will not address issues the people want to or need to know about. There was a big open area that the Main outlets either wouldn’t or couldn’t cover. Talk radio tended to fill that gap first, then the blogs, then the explosion of social media. The genie is out of the bottle now. The MSM continues to be convinced of its objectivity and relevance, but plunging ratings show they have lost some of their prestige and influence, at least.

It baffles me that anyone could question the strong leftward bias of the MSM. A recent example is the enormous difference between the reports of those who accused Brett Kavenaugh of sexual assault, and those who accused Joe Biden. In the first instance, the reports must be repeated endlessly and never doubted. In the second, the reports should be considered questionable and ignored. Really? Another is the hastily altered headlines that first accurately reported the Democrats blocking the small business relief bill, and then re-writing them to eliminate Democrat responsibility. There are usually multiple new examples every week. Any pretense of objective reporting by CNN, MSNBC, ABC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, etc., are long gone. Even NPR, which is a bit more balanced, tilts leftward in most reports, or so it seems to one who listens to them nearly every day.

A MSM reporter declaring his own and his colleagues objectivity, is hardly convincing. It’s like Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hanity declaring their impartiality. I don’t doubt that all of them think this to be true. I am not questioning their integrity, but all of us have blind spots. Believing something to be true doesn’t make it true. The evidence is overwhelming. Most of the MSM have become promoters of the Left, whether they recognize it or not.

[G. N. Barkman]

It baffles me that anyone could question the strong leftward bias of the MSM. A recent example is the enormous difference between the reports of those who accused Brett Kavenaugh of sexual assault, and those who accused Joe Biden. In the first instance, the reports must be repeated endlessly and never doubted. In the second, the reports should be considered questionable and ignored. Really? Another is the hastily altered headlines that first accurately reported the Democrats blocking the small business relief bill, and then re-writing them to eliminate Democrat responsibility. There are usually multiple new examples every week. Any pretense of objective reporting by CNN, MSNBC, ABC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, etc., are long gone. Even NPR, which is a bit more balanced, tilts leftward in most reports, or so it seems to one who listens to them nearly every day.

A MSM reporter declaring his own and his colleagues objectivity, is hardly convincing. It’s like Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hanity declaring their impartiality. I don’t doubt that all of them think this to be true. I am not questioning their integrity, but all of us have blind spots. Believing something to be true doesn’t make it true. The evidence is overwhelming. Most of the MSM have become promoters of the Left, whether they recognize it or not.

Here is the difference. Rush and Sean Hannity openly proclaim their partisanship. They never claimed to be independent journalists. Wolf Blitzer, Chuck Todd, Brian Williams, Chris Matthews, NYT, LA Times, etc. all claim to be “objective” while being openly and willfully partisan. That is the rub.

As for the bias in the MSM, I think people like Aaron here on SI, and a few others here, acknowledge the bias. They simply IGNORE the MSM and focus on the bias in the conservative media that “supports” Trump. That bothers them because Trump is not a conservative thinker. And he has moral issues. But, what shocks me is they ignore the huge influence the MSM has over millions who think the MSM is unbiased. Worse, millions of younger millennial voters get their info not from MSM but from left-wing news outlets on the internet that are even more biased than the MSM.

Wolf, Brian Williams, Chris Matthews aren’t journalists. They’re anchors. Their job is to talk to a camera.

Regarding newspapers, you need to distinguish between opinion columnists and journalists. They co-exist at the same newspapers and have very different jobs.

Everyone has biases. A journalist is someone who takes those into account and doesn’t let it influence his reporting. There are true journalists at every institution. The NYT is an excellent newspaper; even though it’s editorial board and opinion columnists trend left. Their news reporting is excellent.

This broad-brushing is silly. For example, people sometimes claim government civil servants are stupid, inept, incompetent. They broad-brush them. They think “government is evil.” That’s a lie, at least at the level of the individuals. As a humble civil service bureaucrat myself, I work with some very nice, very intelligent, very dedicated people. They are not stupid, inept or incompetent. They’re normal people. They try hard. They’re nice people. They don’t foam at the mouth at Christians. They’re respectful people.

The Christian florist case from Richland WA comes to mind. The standard talking point is that a leftist WA Supreme Court hates the florist. This, too, is a lie. I watched the oral arguments. The justices had very difficult questions for the WA Attorney General, who argued the case for the State in person. He struggled to answer them. His worldview wouldn’t allow him to answer coherently.

We must look beyond the externals when considering ideological divides. Some people are true believers and hate Christianity (Acts 13:6-12). Others are just unwitting captives to a worldview that’s destructive. They aren’t willing actors; they’re passive players who’re caught in a web they don’t even see, operating from the only playbook they know. Should we smear them as “libtards” or share conspiracy videos on FaceBook or “gotcha” talking points from our favorite television pundits? Or, should we have some grace and realize that the Gospel needs to shine a light into their lives?

Let’s not have a cartoonish view of reality.

If the cable news is always on inside your home, whether it’s Brian Williams or Tucker, then your home is a very unhealthy place to be. Most of the elderly people in my congregation watch Fox News incessantly. It’s not a healthy thing. It’s toxic.

Tyler, I think you are being naive. Nobody, but nobody, but nobody is capable of not letting their biases influence their reporting. Your biases color the way you analyze situations. Your biases color the way you think. Could you analyze anything without being influenced by your Christian “biases”? I can’t, not do I intend to try. What’s dangerous is the perception that this is possible, and too many reporters think that their biases do not influence their reporting. It can’t be done. The best course is to recognize this, and endeavor to balance the ideological foundations of reporters by deliberately selecting people with competing ideologies. The problem with most of the MSM, including the venerable NYT, is that the vast majority of their reporters have a leftist orientation. How about something close to a fifty-fifty balance?

Tyler, I wrote the last post before you completed your last one. With the entire post on display, I realize that your understanding is not terribly different from mine. I no longer think you are being naive. :)

Greg wrote:

The problem with most of the MSM, including the venerable NYT, is that the vast majority of their reporters have a leftist orientation. How about something close to a fifty-fifty balance?

It’s a mistake to frame this as a “leftist” issue. It’s a worldview issue. There are serious issues with the Republican Party, too, and it’s craven pandering for evangelical votes every four years is pathetic.

I think the real divide is between folks of an older generation who long, perhaps unwittingly, for a version of Christian America that has gone forever. For younger Christians, like me, we just don’t have that longing - because for us it was never true. We’re less addicted to Fox News. We’re less influenced by siren calls for Ronald Reagan. We’re just a different generation. That doesn’t make us better. It just makes us different.

For some context, see my review of The End of White Christian America.

[G. N. Barkman]… The problem with most of the MSM, including the venerable NYT, is that the vast majority of their reporters have a leftist orientation. How about something close to a fifty-fifty balance?

There is some difficulty even in that notion of “fifty-fifty balance.” If a budding journalist attending a public university is at the fifty-fifty point of his professors and fellow students, does that make him somehow unbiased? I would argue that if he is at that point, he is very far to the liberal side, compared with our founding fathers. “Fifty-fifty” makes it sound like if you look around and you find an equal number of people to your left as you do to your right, then you’re a “moderate.” Or if you simply find that most people in your break room agree with you, then maybe you’re “moderate.” Well, I’m sure that is the reason many MSM execs and journalists believe they are moderate, when in fact, they are liberal.

I think I get the most annoyed by NPR. Private news channels exist based on people who want to watch. And people decide if they are worth listening to. NPR get government funding. So they of course have a vested interest in government that is big and funds things like NPR. If any should be gotten rid of it’s that one, simply for that reason.

[TylerR]

Wolf, Brian Williams, Chris Matthews aren’t journalists. They’re anchors. Their job is to talk to a camera.

Regarding newspapers, you need to distinguish between opinion columnists and journalists. They co-exist at the same newspapers and have very different jobs.

Everyone has biases. A journalist is someone who takes those into account and doesn’t let it influence his reporting. There are true journalists at every institution. The NYT is an excellent newspaper; even though it’s editorial board and opinion columnists trend left. Their news reporting is excellent.

Not true. FWIW, I am a longtime subscriber. I think the NYT has excellent writers, but the left wing bias is evident in almost everything they write.

Why do I stay a subscriber?

1. The crossword

2. The Food Section

3. … hmmm, not much there…

I also subscribe to Christianity Today, so take that for what you will …

Dan, these is much truth in your post. I agree. Mostly. But the fifty-fifty I’m suggesting is not 50% to the right and 50% to the left of an individual reporter. Although ideological evaluations are notoriously difficult, actually impossible, how about 50% Democrats and 50% Republicans? That shouldn’t be too difficult to accomplish. What we have now is about 85% Democrats (or more) reporting for most of the MSM outlets. And they claim they are being objective? Hardly!

And yes, NPR peeves me the most as well. Why should my tax dollars be funding a lobbying effort for the Democrats?

Well then, how does President Biden sound? Get ready sir. There is no real unity in the Republican party because they have lost their direction. Its a circular firing squad in there with the guns on full automatic.

Keep a watchful on Biden’s VP. I hate to say it but I doubt he makes it 4 years without something happening to him.

Joel,

I know you respect and appreciate your friend, but perhaps his comments are demonstrably problematic at best and the fact that he makes those comments in good faith is exactly the point many are making. Many media types are either disingenuous or so biased they are unaware of their bias because it looks normal to them. It is like the old line about not asking a fish what it is like to be wet. He has no answer because it is the only thing he knows. He has no frame of reference. So asking a media person about media bias is the same. It’s the only thing he knows. He’s not going to say the media is biased. It would be self-condemnatory.

First, the idea that there is no MSM is so ridiculous as to seem disingenuous. People might disagree on what the MSM is exactly, but everyone recognizes there is a difference between say CNN and Breitbart or between Fox and HuffPo or between MSNBC and John Solomon/Just the News. And the minute you admit there is a difference, you understand there is MSM. How can one deny that unless they are desperately committed to a narrative?

Second, the idea that journalists are presenting fairly and evenly has been disproven over and over again. There have long been studies regarding the media treatment of conservatives vs. liberals showing how liberals get more favorable treatment. Again, these are studies that are reputable and consistent. They are not outliers nor do they vary much. Dan Rather lost his job over it, and no one thinks that was the only time he did something like that. And that could be multiplied many times over in content (though perhaps not in firing). No one thinks Jim Acosta is trying to treat Trump fairly. Were it not for the internet that your friend decries, Dan Rather’s lies would have never come to light. People would have believed Dan Rather without a second thought because he was trusted. Many examples of bias in the MSM can be demonstrated. Take the fairly recent “Russian collusion” situation and notice how badly the MSM failed and how much is coming to light that the MSM never questioned all of which is coming to light in the non-MSM. The press was widely condemned (including by itself) for its failures leading up to the WMD/Iraq War. Yet they did the same thing with the Russian collusion story. Sure there is a difference between the news and opinion, but the MSM outlets do not make that distinction well nor consistently.

Third, when he says, “the profession of journalism was trusted because they played an important role,” he is right, but only partly right. They were trusted because they were the only voice and they do play an important role. People had no way to question them. I totally agree with him that the internet has created all kinds of “experts” who have no idea what they are talking about. But that is not true across the board. Once there was an alternative to the MSM, there was another viewpoint and people began to see things that were previously unknown. And that is what led to the distrust of journalism. It became clear that journalists were not being truthful or accurate in all cases. And once someone has misled you, it creates distrust. So the media has no one to blame but themselves. It should be the case that every story that pops up in the non-MSM has already been seen in the MSM.

Consider the present coronavirus story. Non MSM outlets are reporting entirely different stories in many respects about numbers and severity. These are things you are not hearing from MSM sources. Why? It appears there is good reason to question the prevailing models which are overwhelmingly inaccurate while other models have been much more in line with reality.

Your friend appears not to consider that the reason the non-MSM is so hated is because (1) it challenges a monopoly and (2) it challenges a narrative. They can no longer hide behind “just trust us.” Too many other things are available that give reason not to trust. And Trump, for all his nonsense of which there is much, is not afraid to push back and that is new. Previously conservatives have generally rolled over and played nice, trying to take the higher ground (though we can debate how high that is … not very IMO). There is now a significant amount of evidence coming out about Michael Flynn that the MSM is not reporting. Why isn’t the MSM reporting on the Flynn case? Are they being fair and truthful? Did they malign and falsely accuse Flynn? It seems that way. The MSM pilloried Brett Kavanaugh but has rolled over in silence on Joe Biden so far. How can your friend not notice that? And these stories could be multiplied over and over. The MSM trumpeted all the indictments of the Mueller report but where is the reporting about the indictments that were dropped?

Fourth, when he talks about the killing of the fairness doctrine, he is undermining the very principles that the free press operates on, namely, that you can’t muzzle speech based on its viewpoint. Nor can you force someone to say something or to listen to something. The fairness doctrine was misguided from the beginning. He should know that. That was the fear with Trump—that Trump was trying to shut down certain viewpoints in the media. But your friend actually has no problem doing that. He just wants it to be different viewpoints.

Lastly, when he says, “You just happen to listen to political leaders and pundits who are great at telling you what to be afraid of and why,” he is saying exactly to the kinds of things that the non-MSM has been saying. The MSM has been great at consolidating their messaging - making it consistent; and they have created a tremendous amount of fear. That is why you hear the same line at CNN, MSNBC, and other news outlets. There are even videos of this. They have consolidated their message. And people accept it because they are trusted—or more likely because they say what they already believe to be true. Think of how many times we have heard that Trump will destroy our democracy. Or that he wouldn’t accept the results of the election. Turns out neither was true.

Notice even here: You can guarantee that certain people will believe certain things no matter how strong the evidence is against them or no matter how good the argument is or no matter how many holes have been poked in an argument. It is confirmation bias—something is true because it repeats what I already believe.

Trump, for all his many follies and evil, has been tremendously useful in pointing out what has gone on. For your friend to ignore that is a problem, isn’t it?

Aaron, what if the gnat is Trump and the camel is the larger system? If so, you are straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel.

You are bothered by someone who calls out liars (however indelicately, even evilly, he does it), but you don’t mind liars calling out liars, as long as they call out the liar you like to call out. Rather, you are bothered when the liar you don’t like calls out the liars who agree with you. As the old saying goes, it’s all a matter of whose ox is being gored. There are some of us who think that it’s fine to gore oxen at times, but those who fight with the sword should be prepared to die by the sword.

I anticipate your response will be that you don’t accept those other liars and are not defending them. But it would be hard to tell that from what you have said. Weakly protesting that you don’t support them is no substitute for condemnation. You say this is about our tribe and by so doing have missed the camel. It is not a tribe problem. It is a culture problem and I think the refusal to call that out is a bigger problem. Perhaps it is more analogous to war than you are willing to acknowledge. The right of self-defense and the defense of higher principles is a just and valid one. Not all means are acceptable, but not all means are unacceptable.

Trump is no more narcissistic and evil than many of his detractors. In fact, in many ways he is slightly better perhaps, in that Trump has no obligation to fair and neutral while those in the press do have a social and civil obligation to tell the truth even when it disagrees with them. Trump is entitled to like Trump and say only good things about Trump publicly. The press has no such entitlement.

Long after Trump is gone, the problems you willingly accept will be here. That is the camel, it seems to me.

I saw a tweet the other day from a progressive/liberal/whatever who said something to the effect that this election matters because of the court — Because Trump will stack the court with conservatives that will ensure conservative policies for decades. I thought to myself, Oh how the children of darkness are wiser than the children of light. It’s sad that we even have to say that, but it is the case that some who call themselves conservatives will give up a decades to save four years, and will not gain anything because the only alternative will be just as bad if not worse morally speaking.

As much as I dislike Trump, I find it far more evil to accept the cultural narrative. We are called to be faithful citizens. To abandon that duty is dereliction, it seems to me.

Someone you disagree with 50% of the time, or someone you always disagree with? That is the question before conservatives and Republicans during the entire Trump presidency. I would say many, if not most, of the traditional conservatives have decided that Trump is unqualified. They were never on his boat, so to speak. So many of the problems with the Trump administration started right away, not merely due to Trump idiosyncrasies, but due to the utter refusal of the “establishment” Republican network to work with him. In many cases Trump had to keep Obama holdovers in their positions because the traditional wave of Republican offers to help and man positions never came. Even many Republicans in Congress opposed Trump’s programs even when they had the majority of both houses. Why? They didn’t like Trump. I suspect many of them feared he had colluded with Russia, so they refused to help. As one example, what really is the excuse that Republicans had no plan to overturn and replace “Obamacare”? That thumbs down by John McCain in the middle of the night was a stunning rebuke of Trump.

That brings me to this:

Recognize it? That is Humphrey Bogart in the The Caine Mutiny as Lt. Com. Quigg. I have often thought the lesson of this movie applies to the Trump presidency and the Republican party. To remind you, that movie is about a small ship in WW2 that gets a new captain, Quigg. He is an odd fellow with many leadership deficiencies. Perhaps he is even a coward. To make a long story short, and you should really watch the movie if you never have, the other officers on the ship turn against Quinn after too many failures by Quinn and take command during a hurricane, removing Quinn from the bridge. There is then a court martial, in which a reluctant lawyer defends the first officer and gets him off by showing Quinn is a little cuckoo.

The end of the movie is most dramatic. The defense attorney, now drunk, walks into the celebration of the officers and berates them. Why? Because they failed their captain. Was he weak? Yes. Was he a coward? Perhaps. Was his leadership deficient? Definitely. But their responsibility was to serve their captain and to help make up for those inadequacies, not to point them out.

To me this sums up the failure of the Republican party, and the conservatives that usually align with it, when it comes to Trump. Right away they determined him to be unfit. When he won, and I think even Trump was surprised, they refused to help him out. I have heard reports that Trump fully expected the Republicans to come along side him and govern. Maybe even a Democrat or two. It never happened. It was opposition from the start. Even before the start. We now know that from the impeachment fiasco.

Is Trump a perfect leader? FAR from it. Does he have major deficiencies? Yes. That is not the point. He is the President. When we can, and especially the party that the President belongs to, ought to help out when and how they can.

Imagine how Trump would have been different if he had not been faced with some much opposition early on, from all sides. I submit that many of his bad traits are amplified by that opposition. What we see now is a product of the early days.

So, if you don’t like Trump, look in the mirror. You helped make him. Learn the lesson of the command crew of the USS Caine. Help your leader, don’t chop his legs off. It makes all the difference in the world.

Source | Twitter

• If there is a plane crash, extreme national weather event, or some breaking tragedy like a mass shooting: CNN
• Print and online:
  • The WSJ (subscriber)
  • New York Times (subscriber) (I see a bias but there is a lot to read there and I value it)
  • BBC
  • Bloomberg (limited articles w/o subscription)
  • Minneapolis Star Tribune (subscriber)
  • AP and Reuters
  • CNBC for business news
• A waste of time: MSNBC, WND

not worth the photons it takes to project the image. Here’s why. The AP comes out right down the middle, so they seem unbiased, right? Here is the problem. Take a simple example. The Democrats in the House are opposing adding to the Payment Protection Plan funds by insisting all kinds of other “protections” be added with strings to the money. Things like preference to minority businesses, women owned business, etc. In other words, a true unbiased report will note that the Democrats are holding the legislation hostage to promote their agenda. How does the AP and other “unbiased” media outlets report it? “Legislation to expand the PPP is bogged down in partisan negotiations…” They get an “unbiased” score when really they are leaning left. Happens all the time every day.

[Jim]

Source | Twitter

No.

Any analysis that believes it is balanced and marks NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, and PBS as “neutral / minimal partisan bias OR balance of biases” immediately has zero credibility.

Furthermore, as some have already noted, it is impossible to even compare many of these as the percentages of opinion and news vary drastically from one place to the next. Any analysis like this requires so many caveats as to make it nearly useless, much like any attempts to analyze COVID-19 statistics.