• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Statistical Analysis of Left vs. Right Partisan Media Consumption

Yeah, all those suits on TV have different biases. Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow, IMO are two of the biggest pieces of **** in news.

Rachel Maddow gets paid to be partinsin, just like ol slap head Hannity. Now if they were actual journalist delivering the news with there bias it would be an issue. I switched off Hannity when they dumped Colmes and there was just one opinion spoken, like most of Fox News. Maddow I will watch in snippits, good ratings lately for her show, not so much for Tucker, getting his butt handed to him in the ratings. Why are ratings important, unsure but the Don sure spends loads of time tweeting and talking about them.
 
Rachel Maddow gets paid to be partinsin, just like ol slap head Hannity. Now if they were actual journalist delivering the news with there bias it would be an issue. I switched off Hannity when they dumped Colmes and there was just one opinion spoken, like most of Fox News. Maddow I will watch in snippits, good ratings lately for her show, not so much for Tucker, getting his butt handed to him in the ratings. Why are ratings important, unsure but the Don sure spends loads of time tweeting and talking about them.

I don't like Maddow because she uses her liberal talking head platform to protect the oligarchy. And confuses liberals who aren't diligent enough to find good information.
 
I don't like Maddow because she uses her liberal talking head platform to protect the oligarchy. And confuses liberals who aren't diligent enough to find good information.

That is why I watch any opinion/editorial with skeptism, and in short segments, prevents brainwashing, some folks need to switch off MSNBC and Fox, think for themselves.
 
I don't like Maddow because she uses her liberal talking head platform to protect the oligarchy. And confuses liberals who aren't diligent enough to find good information.

Then by all means switch the TV off, its that easy lol
 
Farther, anyway, but yes it is to the left of the NYT.
And Clinton followers were comfortable at both.
People tend to go where their positions will be reinforced.
Did that really surprise you?

The implication of choosing the NYT, WAPO, and CNN to be ground zero with everything else located to its left or right was a dead giveaway and flawed assumption.
There's very little center about the NYT, WAPO, or CNN.
And it shouldn't take that skilled observer to notice it.

Yes, Clinton followers were comfortable with NYT and Huffington Post, as well as CNN. Bernie supporters however were very much not during the primaries as they showed their true colors.

NYT, WAPO, and CNN as "ground zero"??? Did you not notice how they are different shades of left of center? It's like you won't acknowledge this because then your whole victim ideology won't work.
 
Yes, Clinton followers were comfortable with NYT and Huffington Post, as well as CNN. Bernie supporters however were very much not during the primaries as they showed their true colors.

NYT, WAPO, and CNN as "ground zero"??? Did you not notice how they are different shades of left of center? It's like you won't acknowledge this because then your whole victim ideology won't work.

Do you have the same outrage over Fox's obvious slant?
 
Really, one hack is equal to another. Any top 10 list is just going to reflect personal opinion. But, for the sake of argument.. If you want to argue who the biggest hack is of all times, I would say Rush Limbaugh. But, I'm a liberal.. so, of course I'm going to say that.

There was a period where I forced myself to listen to Rush and then Hannity on talk radio for longer than any human should have to endure so that I could try and understand where the right-wing id comes from. There is something special about Hannity in which I think it is how frothing and annoying he is that it is almost impossible to keep him on for more than 15 minutes at a time. He is the definition of an obnoxious snot nosed hack. Rush is much more listenable but is as hardcore as they come in a polemic right-wing worldview.
 
Do you have the same outrage over Fox's obvious slant?

Fox was the originator of mainstream hardcore bias on Tv and the internet. Now that the left is starting to catch up the entire media industry has turned into a mixed bag of varying strengths of poison.
 
I think this gives liberals and left-wingers a bit too much comfort than they deserve.

The partisan internet phenomenon, while stronger on the Right, is disturbingly consumed on the Left.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
I think this gives liberals and left-wingers a bit too much comfort than they deserve.

The partisan internet phenomenon, while stronger on the Right, is disturbingly consumed on the Left.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

I dunno. The right has graduated to just flat out making **** up and now our president is repeating it. That's pretty ****ing disturbing.
 
True.

But the data source is "stories published online" during the campaign period.

While I agree that online blogs, videos, etc. have a tendency to be extremist; that's because the vast majority are published by individuals exercising their personal views through "free expression" without any expected journalistic restraint.

Most have very small followings, if any at all.

This is not comparable to Main Stream Media which has broad appeal reaching hundreds of millions of citizens on a daily basis, and coloring their viewpoints based on trust that they are presenting honest and truthful "news."

Where is the evidence that those online sources have a greater effect on public opinion than the MSM?

I'm not sure that this is the case that the article is trying to make, merely it is presenting the data set that is generated when online trends are plotted. In fact, given the way the data is plotted, I would suggest that the majority of Americans *were* influenced by MSM, vs. the alt-right media.

That we have Ocean here dismissing that out of hand because of where it comes from, and the assumption that it means something negative for his side, sort of speaks to the opinion side of the article, however. If we want to have a discussion around the validity of the opinion, we can start right there, and go through every thread in this forum where conversations cannot even begin because we can't even get past which articles we allow into the conversation, let alone discuss. This tends to point to the opinion portion of the article as well, or the conclusions of the analysis, as clearly folks on the Left are willing to consider information far further to the right than the Right is willing to consider to the left, and this difference becomes more pronounced the further to the right we go (also, predictably to the left as well, but not in the symmetrical fashion one might predict).

I would also argue that these "extremist" venues have a much more far reaching influence than you suggest, mainly because I would consider Breitbart to be one of those venues, as would anyone, regardless of political leaning, who is more interested in fact than fanaticism. Fact checking makes minced meat of that site in seconds. Yet look at the influence it has, look at the number of people who actually believe every word printed. The unconditional acceptance by the extreme right of this type of "journalism" from Breitbart makes it easy to then believe the next thing that supports similar views as it flashes across one's FB newsfeed, regardless of what basement it was conceived in. And on it goes.

The one thing this article doesn't seem to want to do is change minds. More, this is a primer on "the rest of us" can understand what's going on on the Right at the moment. My biggest concern with the state of affairs today is that we can't even talk to each other, and we need to, to fix so much of what's wrong with the world at the moment, and to do that we need to simmer things waaaay way down. :) For those from the Middle to the Left, this should be a cue that simply getting into forum duels trading partisan articles is not going to lead to anything but name calling and further polarization. Here are the numbers that support that.
 
I think this gives liberals and left-wingers a bit too much comfort than they deserve.

The partisan internet phenomenon, while stronger on the Right, is disturbingly consumed on the Left.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

The data set supports what you're saying, however, as I've said elsewhere, the extent to which each side takes it is demonstrably uneven, with the Left far more likely to consider information from Right leaning sources than the other way around....again, not my opinion, but supported by a very broad sample of what's going on on social media.
 
True.

But the data source is "stories published online" during the campaign period.

While I agree that online blogs, videos, etc. have a tendency to be extremist; that's because the vast majority are published by individuals exercising their personal views through "free expression" without any expected journalistic restraint.

Most have very small followings, if any at all.

This is not comparable to Main Stream Media which has broad appeal reaching hundreds of millions of citizens on a daily basis, and coloring their viewpoints based on trust that they are presenting honest and truthful "news."

Where is the evidence that those online sources have a greater effect on public opinion than the MSM?

You either didn't read or didn't understand the article.
 
I'm not sure that this is the case that the article is trying to make, merely it is presenting the data set that is generated when online trends are plotted. In fact, given the way the data is plotted, I would suggest that the majority of Americans *were* influenced by MSM, vs. the alt-right media.

That we have Ocean here dismissing that out of hand because of where it comes from, and the assumption that it means something negative for his side, sort of speaks to the opinion side of the article, however. If we want to have a discussion around the validity of the opinion, we can start right there, and go through every thread in this forum where conversations cannot even begin because we can't even get past which articles we allow into the conversation, let alone discuss. This tends to point to the opinion portion of the article as well, or the conclusions of the analysis, as clearly folks on the Left are willing to consider information far further to the right than the Right is willing to consider to the left, and this difference becomes more pronounced the further to the right we go (also, predictably to the left as well, but not in the symmetrical fashion one might predict).

I would also argue that these "extremist" venues have a much more far reaching influence than you suggest, mainly because I would consider Breitbart to be one of those venues, as would anyone, regardless of political leaning, who is more interested in fact than fanaticism. Fact checking makes minced meat of that site in seconds. Yet look at the influence it has, look at the number of people who actually believe every word printed. The unconditional acceptance by the extreme right of this type of "journalism" from Breitbart makes it easy to then believe the next thing that supports similar views as it flashes across one's FB newsfeed, regardless of what basement it was conceived in. And on it goes.

The one thing this article doesn't seem to want to do is change minds. More, this is a primer on "the rest of us" can understand what's going on on the Right at the moment. My biggest concern with the state of affairs today is that we can't even talk to each other, and we need to, to fix so much of what's wrong with the world at the moment, and to do that we need to simmer things waaaay way down. :) For those from the Middle to the Left, this should be a cue that simply getting into forum duels trading partisan articles is not going to lead to anything but name calling and further polarization. Here are the numbers that support that.

Nice analysis. My take is different though. These data reinforce what I've suspected for awhile: The right wing has retreated into an insular world of disinformation. It's time to stop giving credence to right-wing lunacy and start shaming it. Reasoned debate isn't possible in this environment.
 
The whole forum is getting stickt from all the mental masturbation going on in this thread. Somebody really needs to bring in a towel and some Lysol.
 
I'm sure you do agree with it.

I would be surprised if a self identified Progressive wouldn't agree with the content created by a Progressive organization. Especially when the context is designed to support the narrative.

It's the reason the Progressive Machine created outfits like the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Lots of numbers, lots of schedules and lots of graphs.

It doesn't mean any of it is representative of reality, it only matters if it's packaged in a way that makes it look scholarly and complete.

Something tells me you knew that already.

No, I don't think you're accurate in your assessment of me. Yes, I self identify as a progressive, but that allows me far greater freedom from partisan constraints, not less - I think of progressive in the literal sense, which simply means that I'm more interested in new political ideas than I am in the old ones that aren't working on either side of the political spectrum. I'm Canadian, and up until recently, our right wing party had Progressive in their name (Progressive Conservatives, up until 2003, when they dropped the "Progressive" part, to the disappointment of many conservative Canadians). So, no, I don't think you're being fair or accurate, as a numbers guy I'm far more interested in unbiased information so I can make my own mind up based on the best information available, regardless of where it comes from or who's "side" it validates.

As for the data, it is what it is, and as I've said before, the conclusion can certainly be debated. But there is no "leftist conspiracy" at play with this, no ulterior motive other than to look at the data, which is about the only thing we can do in today's media climate to actually get to the facts.
 
The whole forum is getting stickt from all the mental masturbation going on in this thread. Somebody really needs to bring in a towel and some Lysol.
People are averse to careful consideration of larger social trends and how that impacts them.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
The data set supports what you're saying, however, as I've said elsewhere, the extent to which each side takes it is demonstrably uneven, with the Left far more likely to consider information from Right leaning sources than the other way around....again, not my opinion, but supported by a very broad sample of what's going on on social media.
To an extent, yes, but much often it is for affirmation of one's pre-existing viewpoints. Occasionally you'll see something to the effect of "even the _____ agrees. That's how you know it's really bad!" I don't exactly think people read, let alone share something that presents a substantially different viewpoint from their own.

Sure it may demonstrate that one ideological grouping over another is more willing to share stories from outlets perceived as being slightly or moderately away from their own predispositions, but when the intent is roughly the same, the self-proclaimed virtuousness still deserves critique.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
The whole forum is getting stickt from all the mental masturbation going on in this thread. Somebody really needs to bring in a towel and some Lysol.

Triggered.
 
I find it interesting that the right wing is most influenced by non- traditional news sources that have not been around long enough to establish their own traditions and standards. It is a source preference for the right wing. But why?

They havent had that much time to be corrupted yet. The fakestream media is owned by six companies down from 50. Its way to much power to be consolidated by an agenda driven group. Anyone with sense would seek alternate sources of information to clarfy and reinforce a suspect story.
The state of media today is such that empowered individuals are put on a level playing field with industry giants.

The only standard should be truth but unfortunately truth in the money or partisan passion driven media has died long ago.

If it bleeds it leads no matter what else is going on..
 
To an extent, yes, but much often it is for affirmation of one's pre-existing viewpoints. Occasionally you'll see something to the effect of "even the _____ agrees. That's how you know it's really bad!" I don't exactly think people read, let alone share something that presents a substantially different viewpoint from their own.

Sure it may demonstrate that one ideological grouping over another is more willing to share stories from outlets perceived as being slightly or moderately away from their own predispositions, but when the intent is roughly the same, the self-proclaimed virtuousness still deserves critique.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

Again, I don't think there's any self-proclaimed virtuousness here...at least, certainly not from me. We're all doing a shameful job of ensuring the dialogue continues constructively between all "factions". This is more a roadmap to see where we're all starting out from, based on raw data. I mean, as fun as the battling is, at some point we're going to have to remember that we have to get along. To your point, careful consideration of larger social trends is vital to that process. In a perfect world this would start a conversation on how to use this data to bridge the gap. (Sorry, I'm an analyst in "real life", and rather obsessed with root cause, regardless of what it reveals).
 
People are averse to careful consideration of larger social trends and how that impacts them.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

Just because 100 fools are all in agreement with each other doesn't mean that they are right.
 
Again, I don't think there's any self-proclaimed virtuousness here...at least, certainly not from me. We're all doing a shameful job of ensuring the dialogue continues constructively between all "factions". This is more a roadmap to see where we're all starting out from, based on raw data. I mean, as fun as the battling is, at some point we're going to have to remember that we have to get along. To your point, careful consideration of larger social trends is vital to that process. In a perfect world this would start a conversation on how to use this data to bridge the gap. (Sorry, I'm an analyst in "real life", and rather obsessed with root cause, regardless of what it reveals).

Lots of points missed. One of them is that both parties in establishment DC had decided long ago that immigration was a settled issue and they didn't want to talk about it and anyone that did was labeled a racist and xenophobe rather than talking about the policy issues involved in not enforcing immigration laws. So while the right wing policy was the one discussed, it was the only one being articulated, because the left was too busy shouting down anyone besides Trump that cared to talk about it and they tried to shout him down.

The "center left" sources were completely biased in their presentation and coverage of the election. They never took Trump seriously and never discussed the policy differences between Trump and Clinton. They simply gave fawning coverage to Clinton while ignoring her absence on the campaign trail and carrying water for her for the various scandals that were brewing while actively seeking to find scandals to talk about with Trump. Even if they were not biased in their coverage because Trump was a somewhat new news commodity, it made them look biased. The center left coverage was overwhelmingly in favor of Clinton over Trump.

Trump played the media in that they gave him endless coverage even if more than some of it was negative. But what little policy that was discussed was mostly his most extreme positions. Again, the media covered the sensational rather than focusing on all aspects of policy and examining issues such as is free trade worth it with countries that don't reciprocate and are cheaper products worth losing American jobs or lower American wages? It was never really discussed in any meaningful way. Instead we got a discussion of trade wars :roll:

The center left media needs to start discussing both sides of issues, not just the confirmation bias of establishment DC. That is, if they want to stay relevant.
 
Just because 100 fools are all in agreement with each other doesn't mean that they are right.
Precisely.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom