Reminder that the Huffington Post is as bad as the Daily Mail

In the same way CNN is as bad as FOX news.

They're all politically biased shite.

Why do you say that? I know FOX...don't think just like CNN...but you can explain. But what about Huffington?

Original Quill wrote:Why do you say that?  I know FOX...don't think just like CNN...but you can explain.  But what about Huffington?

They pull the same things as each-other.
Granted, CNN and the Huffington Post are not as sensationalist but they really do pull the same bullshit that FOX and the Daily Mail pull.
They're the Left Wing equivalents essentially.

I think if you can't cite specific examples, accusations like this are worthless. I actually have always considered CNN to be slightly right of center. And anyway, everyone has a different take on what "bias" means; to some, a story that makes right-wingers look bad has a left-wing bias even if every word in it is true.

Ben_Reilly wrote: to some, a story that makes right-wingers look bad has a left-wing bias even if every word in it is true.

Why do you think I'm coming at this from a RW perspective?
I'm generally fairly centrist.

Either way, if you want me to cite specific examples then I have to say I'm not in the mood to go scrounging through shit so I suppose at this moment in time I don't have an example to back the claims.

Personally I think it's all fairly whiney when a lot of the shit that goes on around here revolves around finger-pointing towards the LW or RW.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think if you can't cite specific examples, accusations like this are worthless. I actually have always considered CNN to be slightly right of center. And anyway, everyone has a different take on what "bias" means; to some, a story that makes right-wingers look bad has a left-wing bias even if every word in it is true.

Agreed, it is then just the opinions of said poster, tad disappointing to debate without  examples as well.

I tend to take the subject of media bias a little personally because it's what I do with most of my time, how I make my living, etc. So I take my job seriously and I know that most people in professions like journalism take their jobs seriously, and I think if you're going to criticize someone's work, you kind of at least owe them specifics -- if that makes sense.

If someone were to tell me my newspaper is biased, I'd ask them why they think that way and the answer would be important to me, to find out whether we might have a blind spot we're unaware of, an issue we're neglecting or simply if the person criticizing me has a grudge.

I'll tell you the most common agenda I've seen in 18 years working in the media, that's journalists who let their career ambitions get in the way of doing the job honestly and fairly. I see far too many reporters sniffing around for scandals in issues that are plainly not scandals, because they want to break big news.

Most people don't understand that a) a serious journalist works very hard to avoid biased reporting and b) that the top priority of every media outlet is to make a profit, not to influence political trends.

"...Most people don't understand that a) a serious journalist works very hard to avoid biased reporting and b) that the top priority of every media outlet is to make a profit, not to influence political trends...."




Might be the individual journalists aim to avoid bias, but sure as shit the editor will be working to an agenda and only selecting (and editing) stuff that conforms to this agenda.



Any business is interested in making profit, but influencing political trends and the opinions of the public is an undeniable aim and the individual bias of each is proof enough of this and clearly visible.



I used to work in a PR dept and one of my jobs was to read every daily newspaper every day, and collate relevant articles from them all to be circulated to the big wigs upstairs.



It never ceased to amaze me how the same single story could be told so differently in each paper, giving a completely different impression to the reader....




There is no doubt that the aim is to influence.

....to some, a story that makes left-wingers look bad has a right-wing bias even if every word in it is true.....

Tommy Monk wrote:"...Most people don't understand that a) a serious journalist works very hard to avoid biased reporting and b) that the top priority of every media outlet is to make a profit, not to influence political trends...."




Might be the individual journalists aim to avoid bias, but sure as shit the editor will be working to an agenda and only selecting (and editing) stuff that conforms to this agenda.



Any business is interested in making profit, but influencing political trends and the opinions of the public is an undeniable aim and the individual bias of each is proof enough of this and clearly visible.



I used to work in a PR dept and one of my jobs was to read every daily newspaper every day, and collate relevant articles from them all to be circulated to the big wigs upstairs.



It never ceased to amaze me how the same single story could be told so differently in each paper, giving a completely different impression to the reader....




There is no doubt that the aim is to influence.

You worked tangentially to it, I've been right there seeing how it works and have known countless editors over the course of almost two decades.

There is no aim to influence, and you have no credentials with which to contradict me.

Tommy Monk wrote:

It never ceased to amaze me how the same single story could be told so differently in each paper, giving a completely different impression to the reader....

This would be the major thing.

For example, Ben:
"Man mutilates himself due to disorder" and "Anne, formerly Andrew, gets sex reassignment surgery" are the same story through different view-points while both being factually correct.
"Woman destroys parasite infecting her" and "Woman decides to abort unborn child" would be another example of the same thing.

This shit goes on all the time and if you have the background you claim to have then you must know this sort of shit goes on.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I tend to take the subject of media bias a little personally because it's what I do with most of my time, how I make my living, etc. So I take my job seriously and I know that most people in professions like journalism take their jobs seriously, and I think if you're going to criticize someone's work, you kind of at least owe them specifics -- if that makes sense.

If someone were to tell me my newspaper is biased, I'd ask them why they think that way and the answer would be important to me, to find out whether we might have a blind spot we're unaware of, an issue we're neglecting or simply if the person criticizing me has a grudge.

I'll tell you the most common agenda I've seen in 18 years working in the media, that's journalists who let their career ambitions get in the way of doing the job honestly and fairly. I see far too many reporters sniffing around for scandals in issues that are plainly not scandals, because they want to break big news.

Most people don't understand that a) a serious journalist works very hard to avoid biased reporting and b) that the top priority of every media outlet is to make a profit, not to influence political trends.

I don't think it's the same in the UK - papers are clearly linked to a political party; look at the Mirror, Labour's mouthpiece, the Mail the Tories' - the Guardian blatantly left, the Telegraph right...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:"...Most people don't understand that a) a serious journalist works very hard to avoid biased reporting and b) that the top priority of every media outlet is to make a profit, not to influence political trends...."
Might be the individual journalists aim to avoid bias, but sure as shit the editor will be working to an agenda and only selecting (and editing) stuff that conforms to this agenda.
Any business is interested in making profit, but influencing political trends and the opinions of the public is an undeniable aim and the individual bias of each is proof enough of this and clearly visible.
I used to work in a PR dept and one of my jobs was to read every daily newspaper every day, and collate relevant articles from them all to be circulated to the big wigs upstairs.
It never ceased to amaze me how the same single story could be told so differently in each paper, giving a completely different impression to the reader....
There is no doubt that the aim is to influence.

You worked tangentially to it, I've been right there seeing how it works and have known countless editors over the course of almost two decades.
There is no aim to influence, and you have no credentials with which to contradict me.

Yeah, right..... and tv adverts aren't about influencing people to buy stuff either....!?

Sebastian de Grazia, my doctoral dissertation adviser, wrote an article in which he argued, All facts are in se values.  Your examples, Summers, make that point quite strongly.  But that is the nature of humans: cerebral activity goes by scripts, not reason.  As John Dewey said: "Man is not logical and his intellectual history is a record of mental reserves and compromises."

Ben, I too believe that CNN is slightly right wing.  I find MSNBC more to my liking.  CNN and ABC tend to listen to, and take seriously RW bullshite.  I don't even bother.