Fake News/Real News Chart

[CaptainCourtesy]

I think the rate that that actually happens is pretty small. Most people don't go out looking to challenge their own beliefs.

Not really. People aren't going out to challenge their beliefs. People are going out to get fired up. Back when Howard Stern was first broadcasting, the largest group of people who listened to him were people who despised him. Got them fired up, something that helps people to solidify their beliefs.

 

[ocean515]

limbaugh.com??? Doesn't ElRushie claim to have the most listened to RADIO SHOW in the country??? I think using his website as some metric of his popularity is a little disingenuous.

That was not the metric claimed. The claim was about sites, and sources of news. A radio program is not a site.

 

[jmotivator]

Not really. People aren't going out to challenge their beliefs. People are going out to get fired up. Back when Howard Stern was first broadcasting, the largest group of people who listened to him were people who despised him. Got them fired up, something that helps people to solidify their beliefs.

I wouldn't base too much on the Howard Stern comparison. He was a shock jock that delivered counter-culture for entertainment purposes so a lot of people who said they hated him are like the people who were polled saying they wouldn't vote for Trump but did anyway.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Pretty good grid here to take in at a glance.

You gots to be kidding me.


the NY post was bought by that amazon guy for the sole purpose of an agenda.,


The NY Times is notoriously left wing, biased.


Please list the conservative shows on NPR.


abc, nbc, cnn?


people on CNN WERE IN TEARS!!!! on election night.



I could keep going but this list is ****.

 

[KLATTU]

My biggest issue with this image is actually where Fox News is placed. I think they should move it left more, put it about halfway between the "great sources" and the "ineffective conservative sources" bubbles.

Ineffective? Not according to certain liberal demi-god.
Obama Blames Dem Losses on 'Fox News in Every Bar and Restaurant' | Fox News Insider
" Part of it is Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country, but part of it is also Democrats not working at a grassroots level, being in there, showing up, making arguments. That part of the critique of the Democratic Party is accurate. We spend a lot of time focused on international policy and national policy and less time being on the ground. And when we're on the ground, we do well. This is why I won Iowa.
It comes after Obama, in a sit-down with Bill Maher before the election, said that "if I watched Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me either."

Calling it ineffective is just wishful thinking on your part.

 

[jmotivator]

I offer this without comment.

 

[rocket88]

So the following, according to the chart, are mainstream (minimal partisan bias) and meet high standards?

View attachment 67211175

Such a rating is absolutely laughable and completely destroys the credibility of the chart, and whoever assembled it. Washington Post/New York Times = minimal partisan bias?

:lamo

Well, they can't be unbiased, they don't feed your confirmation bias.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Well, they can't be unbiased, they don't feed your confirmation bias.

Did you see that earlier post I made about how the chart completely falls apart based upon their asininely-placed location of FOX? Everything about it unravels with that one little inconvenient slip-up, and everything else wrong with it becomes apparent and indicative therein from thereon, out.

 

[rocket88]

That was not the metric claimed. The claim was about sites, and sources of news. A radio program is not a site.

So Limbaugh isn't a news source. I agree I'm just surprised to hear you say it.

 

[rocket88]

Did you see that earlier post I made about how the chart completely falls apart based upon their asininely-placed location of FOX? Everything about it unravels with that one little inconvenient slip-up, and everything else wrong with it becomes apparent and indicative therein from thereon, out.

There are flaws with the chart, but the poster I replied to doesn't like anything that is not worshipful toward Trump.

 

[ocean515]

Well, they can't be unbiased, they don't feed your confirmation bias.

:roll:

Care to prove your claim Rocket88?

A chart pulled from Facebook can hardly be considered definitive. However, your response certainly proves who suffers from that you accuse me of.

Those media sources shown in the middle have been confirmed, or have even admitted, they have a liberal bias. In light of such proof and admission, it's laughable the inventor of this Facebook chart would think they could suggest otherwise.

Want to try again, or do you want to just leave it at that?

 

[ocean515]

So Limbaugh isn't a news source. I agree I'm just surprised to hear you say it.

Why would you be surprised?

 

[radcen]

I gotta say, NPR has, since the Trump campaign, been leaning further and further liberal.

NPR is more liberal than they appear on the surface. What they report tends to be accurate, and that's good, but where there lean comes through is in what they choose to not report. There are many times where you will never hear a story at all if it highlights something positive on the conservative side.

 

[jmotivator]

Why would you be surprised?

Ironically it is because he's bigoted and presumed to know what you think based on the caricature he has of people he thinks believe what he believes you believe.

 

[radcen]

My perspective, from the center, is that the chart is roughly accurate. I would make a couple tweaks here and there, but nothing radical.

I notice in the thread, though, that the people who discount it the most are also the farther extreme from the center, which only serves to reinforce my long-standing observation that people on the political extreme are not self-aware. Just another example of some people being only interested in what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.

I first read this as re-posted elsewhere and who I presume is the author said that paying any attention at all to the horizontal rankings misses the point of the chart. I disagree with that. I see both the horizontal and vertical rankings as having value and they should be taken together.

 

[radcen]

I'd trust Pew research more so than what someone posted on Facebook.

It didn't come from Facebook, that's just where someone else re-posted it. :roll:

 

[radcen]

Pretty good grid here to take in at a glance.

What is the one in the bottom left corner with the maroon background and the yellow lettering that says "report"? It's too dark, I can't read what it is.

 

[eohrnberger]

It didn't come from Facebook, that's just where someone else re-posted it. :roll:

Still. Pew Research is reputable, more so than a Facebook post where it would appear that the source has been obscured (or did I miss the source?)

 

[radcen]

Still. Pew Research is reputable, more so than a Facebook post where it would appear that the source has been obscured (or did I miss the source?)

This thread has the source omitted, but I first saw it on FB and the source was included.

Just because somebody found something on FB doesn't mean anything at all one way or the other. FB is ubiquitous.

 

[calamity]

What is the one in the bottom left corner with the maroon background and the yellow lettering that says "report"? It's too dark, I can't read what it is.

Good question

 

[calamity]

You gots to be kidding me.


the NY post was bought by that amazon guy for the sole purpose of an agenda.,


The NY Times is notoriously left wing, biased.


Please list the conservative shows on NPR.


abc, nbc, cnn?


people on CNN WERE IN TEARS!!!! on election night.



I could keep going but this list is ****.

Uh, you mean the Washington Post.

 

[eohrnberger]

This thread has the source omitted, but I first saw it on FB and the source was included.

Just because somebody found something on FB doesn't mean anything at all one way or the other. FB is ubiquitous.

I'm not going to argue that, as nearly anything can be posted to FB, and if it's got a link back to the source, it could even be a Pew citation.

Question is, is that going to continue, now that Facebook is going to be leveraging leftist web sites to identify 'Fake News' for them; you can see already now that most conservative posts are going to be considered as 'Fake' and labeled as 'Disputed', where liberal posts will be far less rigorously marked as such.

Facebook to begin flagging fake news in response to mounting criticism

Facebook takes on fake news with fact-checkers, new 'disputed' label

Facebook unveils first serious effort to wipe out fake news

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/15/facebook-taking-on-fake-news/95444334/

 

[rocket88]

:roll:

Care to prove your claim Rocket88?

A chart pulled from Facebook can hardly be considered definitive. However, your response certainly proves who suffers from that you accuse me of.

Those media sources shown in the middle have been confirmed, or have even admitted, they have a liberal bias. In light of such proof and admission, it's laughable the inventor of this Facebook chart would think they could suggest otherwise.

Want to try again, or do you want to just leave it at that?

You don't accept any news report that is less than worshipful to Trump. That's not uncommon, but your worship reaches to the highest level. (See your sig)

So you won't accept any source which prints or reports a story that is even mildly critical, which leaves you with Breitbart and possibly the Reddit forums proclaiming him a god.

 

[KevinKohler]

NPR is more liberal than they appear on the surface. What they report tends to be accurate, and that's good, but where there lean comes through is in what they choose to not report. There are many times where you will never hear a story at all if it highlights something positive on the conservative side.

And in the way they conduct their interviews.



However, they are 100,000,000,000,000% better than any other radio news.

 

[KevinKohler]

My perspective, from the center, is that the chart is roughly accurate. I would make a couple tweaks here and there, but nothing radical.

I notice in the thread, though, that the people who discount it the most are also the farther extreme from the center, which only serves to reinforce my long-standing observation that people on the political extreme are not self-aware. Just another example of some people being only interested in what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.

I first read this as re-posted elsewhere and who I presume is the author said that paying any attention at all to the horizontal rankings misses the point of the chart. I disagree with that. I see both the horizontal and vertical rankings as having value and they should be taken together.

Have you ever read the "Left Behind" series of books? They're about what would happen post rapture. They're well written, and don't bible thump too hard, but their real value is in allowing you a sort of...."cults eye view" of things. It's like immersing yourself into a cult, without all the risks of actually doing it. From that perspective, I found the books to be absolutely fascinating, and illuminating. You're understanding of cults, and those who subscribe to them, will expand exponentially. I mention this because of your comment about self awareness. Food for thought.