and glean tidbits of value from what is being said, or do you automatically chalk it all up to spin?
Are You Able to Watch/Read the Other Side's Political News
- Thread starter KYtotheCore
- Start date
That's a great graphic. I love Reuters news, just the facts man. Also like WaPost and the Economist for some educated slant to challenge my biases.
I don't "watch" news anymore at all. All the publications online that I go to that are also listed on the graphic are in yellow. I can't stand ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative ideas being pushed.
I do watch & read the other side's views, whether I'm "able" to or not. I'd liken it to managing to drink the shot... but having a 2 minute long physical reaction reminiscent of the Three Stooges.
I like the guidelines below the graph. In the first column, the first three are habit; the 4th one is one I have to fight to avoid, and I do, though I don't always win that fight.
In the second column, 3rd one is easy. 4th one is legit, but difficult sometimes, especially if the effort isn't reciprocated. The 2nd one... I get it, but I think it's the kind of thing where awareness can help you guard yourself against the negative effects of overexposure. I see the rhetorical question, "Why do they always overreport this stuff?" to usually be code for it's being an inconvenient thing for someone's worldview, so I have some resistance to that one.
I find the 1st one in the second column very much true and incredibly validating. MSM does skew left, but slightly, and I'll add organically -- as the result of following info to its conclusion. In contrast, Fox News exaggerates that liberal lean to justify a far more severe conservative lean where the conclusion is more often predetermined and the info is then manipulated to arrive at that end.
There's a degree of truth that both sides point fingers and claim the other guy does it... TOO, thus conceding they're also guilty of it, but I think it is objectively true that using that to justify doing it worse is more often a conservative thing. Slight liberal lean? I'll raise you one Fox News! Black President? I'll raise you one orange President! First woman nominated for President by a major party? Trump. (I oversimplify. Try not to let it rustle you.)
I also find the graph itself validating. I accept that CNN has more of a liberal bias than I thought it did 2 years ago, and it's a change in me, not them. But they have never been as extreme as Fox News. Never. And that's not a justification for either of them.
I like the guidelines below the graph. In the first column, the first three are habit; the 4th one is one I have to fight to avoid, and I do, though I don't always win that fight.
In the second column, 3rd one is easy. 4th one is legit, but difficult sometimes, especially if the effort isn't reciprocated. The 2nd one... I get it, but I think it's the kind of thing where awareness can help you guard yourself against the negative effects of overexposure. I see the rhetorical question, "Why do they always overreport this stuff?" to usually be code for it's being an inconvenient thing for someone's worldview, so I have some resistance to that one.
I find the 1st one in the second column very much true and incredibly validating. MSM does skew left, but slightly, and I'll add organically -- as the result of following info to its conclusion. In contrast, Fox News exaggerates that liberal lean to justify a far more severe conservative lean where the conclusion is more often predetermined and the info is then manipulated to arrive at that end.
There's a degree of truth that both sides point fingers and claim the other guy does it... TOO, thus conceding they're also guilty of it, but I think it is objectively true that using that to justify doing it worse is more often a conservative thing. Slight liberal lean? I'll raise you one Fox News! Black President? I'll raise you one orange President! First woman nominated for President by a major party? Trump. (I oversimplify. Try not to let it rustle you.)
I also find the graph itself validating. I accept that CNN has more of a liberal bias than I thought it did 2 years ago, and it's a change in me, not them. But they have never been as extreme as Fox News. Never. And that's not a justification for either of them.
Thanks for posting. I'd say that's a pretty helpful graphic.and glean tidbits of value from what is being said, or do you automatically chalk it all up to spin?
Although, if I'm nit-picking, I think there would be room for two more sections - where there is a consistent, if not overwhelming, editorial slant, but that the hard news coverage is consistently valuable. I think somewhere like MSNBC and The Guardian would fit the bill on the left and The Weekly Standard and Commentary magazine could be comparable on the right, as just two examples.
Good distinction.
I'd give Fox News higher marks for journalistic chops than for editorial integrity, too.
I never watch the news. If I’m being honest, I do always go to Fox News website to get my up to date information. That being said, I wouldn’t be turned off from an article from another site as long as it was factual and not biased. Facts are facts regardless of where they come from.
Think that's pretty fair. Guys like Shep Smith and Chris Wallace do good reporting - in addition to the myriad of beat reporters on their digital side. But the vast majority of their content is anything but news.
Why is the "too conservative" section substantially larger than the "too liberal"?
Maybe this infographic is biased.
Maybe this infographic is biased.
Because like it said, MSM leans slightly left, and in response, conservatives have overreacted.
My mother-in-law watches Fox News religiously and constantly. My wife and I are living with my in-laws for a year while we save up for a house of our own, so I end up watching way more Fox News than I'd like to. I do my best to bite my tongue but struggle not to point out blatant lies. I can't watch Hannity but can manage to stomach the other stuff in the background while I'm on my computer or playing with my daughter or whatever. I enjoy laughing at Fox & Friends; I assume they laugh at themselves, too, because there is no possible way any of them take that thing seriously. I've been trying to teach her (my mother-in-law) how to fact check the claims Fox makes, but it's not sticking. Then there's her mother, who is 84 and a lost cause at this point. She's a racist (the harmless kind, but racist nonetheless) full-blooded Italian lady who gets a lot of her news from Facebook... Literally. You know how you heard that 'fake news' on Facebook was spreading mass misinformation and you thought to yourself who the hell was actually getting their news from Facebook and believing it? Well, it was my wife's grandmother, that's who.
Last edited:
That's a problem. I won't belabor it or expand on that, but it is a problem, and the nature of it is such that you can claim you wouldn't be turned off to a different perspective, but that's exactly what an exclusively Fox News diet will train you for.
I get my news from here...is that bad? And I have a big problem with fact check.
If you're going to Fox News' website and reading headlines and some synopses just to see what's going on in the world, that's cool. If you're going exclusively to Fox News and reading the articles, you're getting biased information that is probably then considered the standard to which you measure all other news. If Fox News becomes your standard for factual and unbiased news, then practically all other news that you read or watch is going to seem like it has a strong liberal bias. For instance, USA Today is in the middle but, relative to Fox News, it's Lefty garbage.
People read and watch what they agree with and enjoy. We all get that and that's totally fine. But if I had to make a suggestion to anybody looking for a good mix of actual news and entertainment, I'd suggest making one of the outlets in the middle (AP, Reuters, etc.) the first stop for news and then going to your outlet of choice that tends to agree with your opinions. At least then you can see where opinion is deviating from fact. This applies to both sides of the political spectrum.
If information is correct and factual, then how can anyone argue against it? Read what I just typed to Dat. I don’t take everything fox says as gods word or anything, and I’m willing to read other news.
Outlets like Fox News and MSNBC are experts at distorting facts to match their agendas. If you are able to parse out their BS and figure out where the real facts are in what they publish, then you do you, Jimbo. I have no beef.
Speaking from my experiences with my mother-in-law and her mother, not all people are able to do that. When I first met my mother-in-law 7 years ago, she told me she was a moderate. That was either a bold faced lie, an example of terrible self-awareness, or something happened to move her super far to the right of the political spectrum in those 7 years. I don't know exactly which it was but I do know that I saw her viewership of Fox News increase drastically. When she watches Fox News, and when her mother watches, they are convinced that Fox is looking out for them and making sure they get the real 'fair and balance' truth of what is going on in the world. When I bring up counter-points, they toss back 'liberal media' and 'fake news' barbs to dismiss anything that doesn't jive with what Fox News told them that week. I'm not going to claim that either my mother-in-law or her mother are among the sharper tools in the shed, but they're not dumb. And that's a little scary.
Yea, I’m usually good at being able to figure out what is slanted and what is not. Believe it or not, I do read articles posted by the lefties on here when they are making a point. And as long as I can tell there isn’t a bias towards the information, I have no reason to to not believe what I’m reading. I also don’t post articles from fox in order to back up an argument of mine, I usually try and search for a more neutral source that more people can relate to and take seriously.
I’m not one to call CNN fake news or anything, but Fox is just easier to read for me, not so much becuase of the right slant, but lack of a left slant. I figure most republicans are the same way as well as democrats with CNN and such.
If I am watching the news, it is mainly before the talking heads. I will watch cnn sometimes, I used to exclusively watch cnn untill they got so ridiculous. I mainly watch live update kind of news, but will watch The Five on fox news from time to time. We watch NBC nightly news on the reg. Night time news shows are god awful on pretty much any channel. For as bad as the Lemons and the Maddows are, Hannity is outrageous. I appreciate that he talks about things nobody else talks about. But he gets too far from reasonable for me. And I also believe that if Trump pulled his pants down and told Hannity to suck it, he would.
The graph is questionable though. It has both cnn and the New York Times outside of "too liberal". That's fake news.
The graph is questionable though. It has both cnn and the New York Times outside of "too liberal". That's fake news.
Only site I visit more than this one is DrudgeReport.
Tend to listen to MSNBC or Fox News on satellite radio on way to work to catch up on news. Will change it up every few days.
While Maddow is with out a doubt biased, I actually think she is probably the smartest talking head on any of the channels.
And while I regularly visit a right wing blog, I think Hannity is a complete joke. I doubt he even believes half the shit he says. No one can be that stupid.
Also listen to The No Agenda podcast with John C. Dvorak and Adam Curry, who much like me think almost everyone is full of shit. If you want a good podcast, listen to that. Curry is crazy.
Tend to listen to MSNBC or Fox News on satellite radio on way to work to catch up on news. Will change it up every few days.
While Maddow is with out a doubt biased, I actually think she is probably the smartest talking head on any of the channels.
And while I regularly visit a right wing blog, I think Hannity is a complete joke. I doubt he even believes half the shit he says. No one can be that stupid.
Also listen to The No Agenda podcast with John C. Dvorak and Adam Curry, who much like me think almost everyone is full of shit. If you want a good podcast, listen to that. Curry is crazy.
For some reason, instead of immediately thinking politics when reading the thread title, I thought of Gary Larson.
How is that not essentially the same thing? If you're adverse to a liberal slant, you're cutting that angle from your consideration.
And it's a pretty strong stance to argue just how little from center CNN is compared to Fox News.
Okay, fair enough. lol
I don't remember. Was it me? The Economist doesn't stand out to me as conservative beyond standard deplorable, I mean, deviation.
You’re making this out to be a bigger deal than it is, which is kind of your thing sometimes. All good, any time you post an article that is from a left wing site I still read it.
The whole left vs right paradigm is a bullshit distraction. The only side that need be chosen is Wall St vs Main St. Obama's administration had more lobbyists and Wall St cronies than any in history and people still bought the hope and change rhetoric.
We won't have a real leader until the masses wake up. The last real president was JFK. He was also the last to challenge the military industrial complex and the Federal Reserve. Not a coincidence.
We won't have a real leader until the masses wake up. The last real president was JFK. He was also the last to challenge the military industrial complex and the Federal Reserve. Not a coincidence.
anon_0astpxev9h4gk
Well-Known Member
No, it wasn't you. It wasnt one of the usual so I doubt I will try to find it unless I'm really bored later.
Similar threads
