View Poll Results: Does media source cause you to embrace or reject claims based on percieved biases?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    5 22.73%
  • No

    9 40.91%
  • It depends if the claim is also difficult to accept or not

    8 36.36%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: News source tribalism

  1. #11
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,497

    Re: News source tribalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    I was just talking to a friend who says someone he had a conversation with completely rejected a claim solely because the source wasn't a part of his ideological tribe. I think a lot of people are simply more committed to their side than they are the truth.
    I don't necessarily disagree with the premise that individuals subscribe to ideological groups who they are attracted to for whatever the reason. It might be culture related, family upbringing...the variable are many. And we're all biased by our environments in one way or another. But it's probably more complicated than exposure to family, culture, or other environments as to why people believe what they do about politics, religion, government, etc, etc, etc.

    But the problem is: Whose truth? People are often given misinformation or just plain lies by ideological groups that they subscribe to. I don't think there's any exemptions regardless of the purpose of the ideological group - including religious related. Without further inspection as to the reliability or validity of information disseminated by their respective ideological groups, subscribers simply accept the information and deem it to be "the truth". Some will bet their lives on it.

    Hell, there are a lot of people who can't discern the difference between opinion and hard news. You can image what "truth" must look like to them.

  2. #12
    Sage
    mpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,769

    Re: News source tribalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    What media sources do you consider neutral?
    possibly C-SPAN, no others
    If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.

  3. #13
    Sage
    mpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,769

    Re: News source tribalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    I was just talking to a friend who says someone he had a conversation with completely rejected a claim solely because the source wasn't a part of his ideological tribe. I think a lot of people are simply more committed to their side than they are the truth.
    almost everybody
    If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.

  4. #14
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    12-14-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    997

    Re: News source tribalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?
    If I'm citing a news source, I'll use BBC or Al Jazeera. Why? Because **** Fox News, MSNBC, Infowars, Huffington Post, and so on. I'll find certain media sources less reliable, so I'll express my skepticism. I'll definitely be skeptical of MSNBC and Fox News because of a couple studies:
    (http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/final.pdf)
    (http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/final.pdf)
    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)

  5. #15
    Imposition of miscellany
    NoC_T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    11-25-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,193

    Re: News source tribalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    Ever since I got slammed for a post I made elsewhere, I have been particularly cautious about what source I'm using when providing documentation for comments I make. No matter how truthful something may be, for many political hacks simply being reported by a media source they've classified as on the opposition's team, the validity of the documentation must be outright rejected for no other reason than their seeing the source as coming from their opposition.

    Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?
    None. Ever.

    There's no neutrality in politics or it wouldn't be politics. Politics is opposition. Both Left and Right fail to appreciate how their own validity will only ever be as good as that of their opposition's, being ideologically symbiotic. They mistakenly believe they could exist at all independently. This is why neither side ever prevailed, or ever will.

    I'd suggest a case-by-case appraisal, with no attempt to either apply your conclusions universally or preserve any outcome into perpetuity. Once you take the broader view, you'll always be several steps ahead of both sides, shackled as they are to their impossible ideologies. Of course you'll never be supported, but it's a negligible deficit in return for clarity. Whatever the positions of your sources, unless they're purely mathematical in content, they never come without an ideological price tag.

    As a rule of thumb, don't sweat 'sources' unless they originate within fringe extremism. Other than that, the person criticising you is equally FOS if not more so. Especially when s/he's of the Con-Lib duality. That ****'s for kids.

  6. #16
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,655

    Re: News source tribalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    Ever since I got slammed for a post I made elsewhere, I have been particularly cautious about what source I'm using when providing documentation for comments I make. No matter how truthful something may be, for many political hacks simply being reported by a media source they've classified as on the opposition's team, the validity of the documentation must be outright rejected for no other reason than their seeing the source as coming from their opposition.

    Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?
    I try to refer to source information as much as I can. Generally speaking, the report that I first see is an interpretation of other data so I try as best I can to locate that source. Doing things that way seems to cut out a lot of the spin but if it's a significant issue I'll still go to sites from multiple political leans to pick up the various interpretations. Having the source information allows me to judge the quality of those interpretations.

  7. #17
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,655

    Re: News source tribalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    I was just talking to a friend who says someone he had a conversation with completely rejected a claim solely because the source wasn't a part of his ideological tribe. I think a lot of people are simply more committed to their side than they are the truth.
    I'd absolutely agree with that.

    We see it all the time around here when someone posts something from Fox. For many folks all they need to see is that the article is linked to Fox (whether it originated there or not) and the blinders come down.

  8. #18
    Global Moderator
    Custom User Title
    LaughAtTheWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seoul/Chicago
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 01:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,541

    Re: News source tribalism

    These days I only use the Economist and BBC as reliable sources. I don't frequent other sites but will generally believe most news stories if they're from mainstream media (CNN, FOX, etc...). I believe that where the difference lies are the subtle bias underlined in the reported news and the outright bias in the editorials and op-eds. That's why I prefer the Economist and BBC.
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" - Joan Robinson
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

  9. #19
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: News source tribalism

    1) Source and its history. Daily Mail and its history of making **** up and supporting fascists.. that is a factor in taking them seriously or not.
    2) Admitted political leaning. Some news organisations admit that they support X party or leaning, hence their news reporting has to be viewed in that context. Those organisations that dont admit a political leaning and clearly show that they favour one over the other, are actually the most dangerous.
    3) Multiple sources saying the same thing.. sources from across the political spectrum if possible.
    4) Facts
    5) Logic
    6) Facts
    7) Facts

    All news organisations have bias of some sort, but it is to the degree and the consistency they are biased. Certain organisations are biased all the time, others are some of the time and others yet again rarely biased.. but they are all biased.

    Bias has nothing per say to do with political leaning but the inability to give the facts as uncut as possible and let the viewer make his or her mind up based on those facts.

    Just because you dont agree with what a news organisation is saying does not mean it is biased. It is biased if it is not giving you all the facts or promoting a certain view point over others or even worse...hiding facts that debunk the view that the news organisation is trying to promote.
    PeteEU

  10. #20
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:55 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,292

    Re: News source tribalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    Ever since I got slammed for a post I made elsewhere, I have been particularly cautious about what source I'm using when providing documentation for comments I make. No matter how truthful something may be, for many political hacks simply being reported by a media source they've classified as on the opposition's team, the validity of the documentation must be outright rejected for no other reason than their seeing the source as coming from their opposition.

    Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?
    I use sources that I perceive to be unbiased or whose bias I believe to know. If I expect a difference of opinion to surface I check the source at least against two or three opposing positions.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •