Editor of Buzzfeed said this about the publishing of the possibly fake Trump/Russia dossier.

go gop wrote:

FakeNews wrote:http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664

This is the first google hit and it was from 2005. This has been studied and covered to death. It is basically accepted by most people these days.

oh please - that study has been debunked for its weird methodology

If mainstream media were biased and made stuff up you would be perfectly able to cite examples. But you can't and nobody can.

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

Do you think FoxNews is biased?

FakeNews wrote:

...

Where/when has a ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for american elections failed? Term limits? White house officials lobbying on behalf of foreign governments?

...

Something legal that does the same thing will take it's place. It always does. I'm sorry, but that's how the real world works.

Oh, and you might find it interesting that federal employment has been flat since about 2000. And there are already great lengths of wall/fence on the Mexican border. Facts can be challenging that way.

His fiscal, labor and industrial policies are all old ideas that are generally recognized as failures. The labor policies are more of the same ones that punished his voters in the last 20 years.

Winterman wrote:

go gop wrote:

oh please - that study has been debunked for its weird methodology

If mainstream media were biased and made stuff up you would be perfectly able to cite examples. But you can't and nobody can.

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

Do you think FoxNews is biased?

Fox is a tricky one because they deliberately blur the line between news and commentary. News companies are supposed to designate a sharp line between the two, and Fox deliberately blurs it.

So yeah Fox is not to be trusted, for that reason. But it's more poor journalism than fake news.

go gop wrote:

Winterman wrote:

Do you think FoxNews is biased?

Fox is a tricky one because they deliberately blur the line between news and commentary. News companies are supposed to designate a sharp line between the two, and Fox deliberately blurs it.

So yeah Fox is not to be trusted, for that reason. But it's more poor journalism than fake news.

LOL

go gop wrote:

Winterman wrote:

Do you think FoxNews is biased?

Fox is a tricky one because they deliberately blur the line between news and commentary. News companies are supposed to designate a sharp line between the two, and Fox deliberately blurs it.

So yeah Fox is not to be trusted, for that reason. But it's more poor journalism than fake news.

You really can't see the biases in both Faux News reporting and CNN's reporting?

go gop wrote:

exactly? I dunno. But a lot more than 2. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, Reuters, AP, NYT, Boston Globe, LA Times, Chi Trib, USA Today, London Times, The Atlantic. I could go on for a long time. .

I mean really - you want a list of all credible sources? That's crazy talk.

I'll throw it back at you - show me how all those I cited are not trustworthy. Show me why they have lost all credibility. You won't be able to. And don't show where they made a mistake every now and then. That doesnt' rob them of credibility.

You just really really want to believe in a conspiracy against trump, it seems. You are really dumb to think it exists.

I'm not dumb. You are. For example, I never said anything about a consipracy against Trump. I never said anything about Trump at all.

Most if not all of those sources you listed are not credible or trustowrthy. Everytime they say something, it needs to be vetter first. None of them can be trusted on a whim. They make mistakes often.

Some of them do indeed conspire against Trump (or against Democrats if they are Republican leaning media). For example, it was shown in the wikileaks that NYT was colluding with Hillary Clinton's group when it came to stories. For another example, Huffington Post blatantly put an editorial note on ALL of their Trump stories calling him racist, xenophobic, misogynist, etc. That is not neutral media. That is biased and conspiring media.

reporters talk to sources to make sure they get the stories right. That is what reporters do. Are you saying NYT reporters shoudl NOT talk to sources? What kind of moronity is that?

Huffpo is not an unbiased source - they don't pretend to be even handed.

go gop wrote:

reporters talk to sources to make sure they get the stories right. That is what reporters do. Are you saying NYT reporters shoudl NOT talk to sources? What kind of moronity is that?

Huffpo is not an unbiased source - they don't pretend to be even handed.

Clinton was not a source. Nice try on changing the subject. You are the one being a moron.

Thank you for supporting my point. Huffpo is not unbiased. Neither are many of those other media you listed. Again, you are arguing against yourself now. Good job.

go gop wrote:

FakeNews wrote:http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664

This is the first google hit and it was from 2005. This has been studied and covered to death. It is basically accepted by most people these days.

oh please - that study has been debunked for its weird methodology

If mainstream media were biased and made stuff up you would be perfectly able to cite examples. But you can't and nobody can.

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

A blog post does not debunk a peer reviewed study in the quarterly journal of economics. However, if you don't believe that article just go to google scholar and type in media bias. You'll get a whole field of research that has established findings from a variety of peer reviewed journals in fields like economics, political science, and communications. Here are just a few that I quickly found. I haven't read these in depth, but if you want to waste your time I'm sure you can find a blog post complaining about them in some way.

Editors and journalists are humans, they have incentives that drive behavior and it is difficult to remain completely neutral. This is well established in numerous peer reviewed studies. I can come up with numerous specific examples, but that would be a waste of time and anecdotal.

Gentzkow, Matthew, and Jesse M. Shapiro. “What Drives Media Slant? Evidence from U.S. Daily Newspapers.” Econometrica, vol. 78, no. 1, 2010, pp. 35–71.

.

This gem shows the type of self-selecting behavior that the audience has that I discussed as damaging previously.

Bubbly Stuff wrote:

go gop wrote:

Fox is a tricky one because they deliberately blur the line between news and commentary. News companies are supposed to designate a sharp line between the two, and Fox deliberately blurs it.

So yeah Fox is not to be trusted, for that reason. But it's more poor journalism than fake news.

You really can't see the biases in both Faux News reporting and CNN's reporting?

well I don't watch Fox much so I don't have much to say other than that they rarely tell you if someone is a commentator or a reporter.

CNN - no. I don't see their bias. They are mainstream, down the middl.e

go gop wrote:

CNN - no. I don't see their bias. They are mainstream, down the middl.e

haha ok I'm done then. it was worth a shot. journalism is dead bro. enjoy reading your news on Facebook. you really should try to grab a beer and talk to people with a different point of view with an open mind some time.

FakeNews wrote:

...

Where/when has a ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for american elections failed? Term limits? White house officials lobbying on behalf of foreign governments?

...

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Something legal that does the same thing will take it's place. It always does. I'm sorry, but that's how the real world works.

That sort of logic is so ridiculous. If that is the case, why try to make any improvements to our government? Why not pack it up and go home?

FakeNews wrote:

go gop wrote:

CNN - no. I don't see their bias. They are mainstream, down the middl.e

haha ok I'm done then. it was worth a shot. journalism is dead bro. enjoy reading your news on Facebook. you really should try to grab a beer and talk to people with a different point of view with an open mind some time.

go gop spews the left talking points. Don't expect any critical thinking.

By the way go gop all your sources are biased, and yes fox news is bias. I don't deny any of this. Fox news and other right wing sites exist to counteract the left trash. All the fact checkers are biased. I've pointed this out to you many times.

I'll just point out that noone has pointed out any verifiable examples of bias at mainstream media companies.

Because it doesn't exist.

go gop wrote:

I'll just point out that noone has pointed out any verifiable examples of bias at mainstream media companies.

Because it doesn't exist.

For the love of Rojo... I can't stop because you're so unhinged. I posted 5 or 6 academic studies of media bias at mainstream media companies above, please look there or go to google scholar and type in "media bias." It is well established in the social sciences. I can anecdotally pull verifiable examples for every company (CNN and Donna Brazile gave Hillary Clinton debate questions - Wikileaks), but those are anecdotes.

go gop wrote:

FakeNews wrote:

I was using the locker room talk as sarcasm, sorry you guys missed that. No man crush, but unlike some of you I don't think his ideas are all bad.

The report is completely ridiculous and not corroborated or verified by any facts that have been presented. That is what I mean by a media hit job on the President Elect. The author of the report won't even make a statement or stand by it.

It's not a media hit job...if the intelligence community feels it has to brief the president and president elect about it. Remember that that is what CNN reported - that trump and obama were briefed on it. CNN did not report the actual accusation.

Clearly the IC feels there is a chance it is legit.

Or the IC leaked it to disparage Trump, as a warning of sorts.

Once the documents were posted, they have started backtracking...

There are legs to this story, as they say in news.

It is not over, despite Trumpsters saying it is. Between Don and Tillerson, we're essentially sold out to Russia. Think Ronnie would be okay with that? Why do you Neocons hate America so much?

It ain wrote:

There are legs to this story, as they say in news.

It is not over, despite Trumpsters saying it is. Between Don and Tillerson, we're essentially sold out to Russia. Think Ronnie would be okay with that? Why do you Neocons hate America so much?

FakeNews wrote:

go gop wrote:

I'll just point out that noone has pointed out any verifiable examples of bias at mainstream media companies.

Because it doesn't exist.

For the love of Rojo... I can't stop because you're so unhinged. I posted 5 or 6 academic studies of media bias at mainstream media companies above, please look there or go to google scholar and type in "media bias." It is well established in the social sciences. I can anecdotally pull verifiable examples for every company (CNN and Donna Brazile gave Hillary Clinton debate questions - Wikileaks), but those are anecdotes.

I think we need to define 'bias'

you are taking tiny shades of meaning and word choice and seemingly extending that into 'CNN is fake news'

that's the absurdity I'm railing against. I'm really not interested in talking about word choice and length of quotes, which is what your articles seem to focus on.

Rump has told his idiot followers not to trust the mainstream media - that they make up stories and are dishonest.

THAT is what we are talking about. And there is no proof or even evidence that mainstream media makes stuff up or shouldn't be trusted.

But fine, if you want to focus on microaggressions by the Washington Post I can't really have that debate.