• 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

OlNate said:
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).
Click to expand...
The problem with the headline is that it's a two-fold take-away:

1) The study determined that there was a particular my onerous consequence for conservatives. Readers taking that away are fine, because that's supposed to happen. That's most explicitly what the study authors want you to take away.

2) Readers likely to feel self-assured if they belong to the other camp, as their tribe was found by the study to have slightly better exposure to diverse source materials.

This may or may not be the intention of the study authors, but the takeaway from liberals is fairly contradictory to the proclaimed aims of the authors: less tribalism, better penetration to shared and superior source material.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Fiddytree said:
The problem with the headline is that it's a two-fold take-away:

1) The study determined that there was a particular my onerous consequence for conservatives. Readers taking that away are fine, because that's supposed to happen. That's most explicitly what the study authors want you to take away.

2) Readers likely to feel self-assured if they belong to the other camp, as their tribe was found by the study to have slightly better exposure to diverse source materials.

This may or may not be the intention of the study authors, but the takeaway from liberals is fairly contradictory to the proclaimed aims of the authors: less tribalism, better penetration to shared and superior source material.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Good points. I tend to value the data way more than the opinion, and so I don't look at it as the absolution of the responsibility on the part of the Left to be diligent in their responsibility to ensure they are getting the facts. But the reality is that while not perfect, the Left is more likely to consider information from more right leaning sources than vice versa, so if we were to attack this in an effort to fix it, Pareto principle would suggest that we start with the Right. (I know, 80/20 split isn't accurate here, speaking loosely). However, this data shows that both sides have fringes that rely solely on information that validates their point of view. It's just that one side's fringe is larger, statistically, from this study, than the other.
 
OlNate said:
Good points. I tend to value the data way more than the opinion, and so I don't look at it as the absolution of the responsibility on the part of the Left to be diligent in their responsibility to ensure they are getting the facts. But the reality is that while not perfect, the Left is more likely to consider information from more right leaning sources than vice versa, so if we were to attack this in an effort to fix it, Pareto principle would suggest that we start with the Right. (I know, 80/20 split isn't accurate here, speaking loosely). However, this data shows that both sides have fringes that rely solely on information that validates their point of view. It's just that one side's fringe is larger, statistically, from this study, than the other.
Click to expand...
I don't think its a fringe acrivity to have a, let's say, somewhat routine diet of explicitly partisan digital rags. I think among digital consumers, it's very close to the norm. Sole consumption? Yeah, perhaps fringe. But far from abnormal activity in comparison with a guy who reads The National Enquierer once a month or more.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
OpportunityCost said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not missed, we just haven't made our way to all of this yet... :)

And I don't even directly dispute what you're saying. I mean...Trump certainly gave lots of reason for the Center / Left to hate him, but I'm not sure he was ever trying to get them to like him, so I can't help but surmise that a lot of the negative press was not only deserved, but desired. Say what you want about the man, but there are few that come close in terms of branding expertise. However, I would agree that media needs to start discussing both sides of the issues, on both the Left *and* the Right. Opinion should be in the Opinion section, not the front pages.

As for the racism conversation...ya, it's a tough one, made tougher from the fact that we still haven't found a comfortable way to discuss it with each other, and so automatically revert back to our "tribes". I would suggest that there was a lot of intentionally inflammatory rhetoric from the right on the subject as well, not an excuse for either side, but perhaps a holistic look why that conversation went sideways. Again, polarization is the problem. We can't talk unless we talk.
 
OlNate said:
Not missed, we just haven't made our way to all of this yet... :)

And I don't even directly dispute what you're saying. I mean...Trump certainly gave lots of reason for the Center / Left to hate him, but I'm not sure he was ever trying to get them to like him, so I can't help but surmise that a lot of the negative press was not only deserved, but desired. Say what you want about the man, but there are few that come close in terms of branding expertise. However, I would agree that media needs to start discussing both sides of the issues, on both the Left *and* the Right. Opinion should be in the Opinion section, not the front pages.

As for the racism conversation...ya, it's a tough one, made tougher from the fact that we still haven't found a comfortable way to discuss it with each other, and so automatically revert back to our "tribes". I would suggest that there was a lot of intentionally inflammatory rhetoric from the right on the subject as well, not an excuse for either side, but perhaps a holistic look why that conversation went sideways. Again, polarization is the problem. We can't talk unless we talk.
Click to expand...

But we both know opinion is played out at the anchor desk nowadays. The media cant keep pretending otherwise. If they want to regain some relevance, they need to present both sides, not just the one they like. I would love to see some competition with Fox News in conservative viewpoints, it will keep them from being their own echo chamber. I would say a widening of opinions would be good for everyone concerned--right, left, and center.
 
OpportunityCost said:
But we both know opinion is played out at the anchor desk nowadays. The media cant keep pretending otherwise. If they want to regain some relevance, they need to present both sides, not just the one they like. I would love to see some competition with Fox News in conservative viewpoints, it will keep them from being their own echo chamber. I would say a widening of opinions would be good for everyone concerned--right, left, and center.
Click to expand...

"Both sides" is a fallacy. The idea that every issue is double-sided coin is a political construct. In reality, there are myriad points of view and complications behind almost every political issue, and there is plenty of room for the informed to disagree. The problem with the right-wing echo chamber is the prevalence of misinformation.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
"Both sides" is a fallacy. The idea that every issue is double-sided coin is a political construct. In reality, there are myriad points of view and complications behind almost every political issue, and there is plenty of room for the informed to disagree. The problem with the right-wing echo chamber is the prevalence of misinformation.
Click to expand...

FFS...the majority of the major networks don't present but one point of view, your confirmation bias is making you blind.
 
OpportunityCost said:
FFS...the majority of the major networks don't present but one point of view, your confirmation bias is making you blind.
Click to expand...

You're struggling to understand the study. The data allude that people on "the left" tend to consider more points of view from more diverse sources. But I do reject the silly notion that "balance" and "fairness" means giving the ill-informed equal standing to the studied.
 
Verax said:
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.
Click to expand...

My point was that the authors used the NYT as the center from which everyone else is measured.
Being left of center, everyone else should not have been measured against them.
So being far from them doesn't make anyone particularly far right.
It's not appropriate for political extremes to be measured against the NYT.
Understand?

It's like using the low temps of the Little Ice Age as the point to start measuring warming. (which is also done, btw)
 
bubbabgone said:
My point was that the authors used the NYT as the center from which everyone else is measured.
Being left of center, everyone else should not have been measured against them.
So being far from them doesn't make anyone particularly far right.
It's not appropriate for political extremes to be measured against the NYT.
Understand?

It's like using the low temps of the Little Ice Age as the point to start measuring warming. (which is also done, btw)
Click to expand...

Did I miss something some where? Where do they say that the NYT is the center and all data has been normalized to it?
 
This is another one of those studies engineered to achieve a desired outcome in order to make Liberals feel like it's everyone else's fault, but there's and that everyone else is racist, sexist and stupid.
 
apdst said:
This is another one of those studies engineered to achieve a desired outcome in order to make Liberals feel like it's everyone else's fault, but there's and that everyone else is racist, sexist and stupid.
Click to expand...

In this case... I don't think a study was necessary for that. :lol:
 
Verax said:
In this case... I don't think a study was necessary for that. :lol:
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's impossible to challenge Liberals without receiving an insult, or accusation.

Good luck winning elections. :lamo
 
apdst said:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's impossible to challenge Liberals without receiving an insult, or accusation.

Good luck winning elections. :lamo
Click to expand...

I just thought I'd have some fun since your post was so stupid.

If you'd like to rationally discuss what was actually in the article, let me know.
 
Verax said:
I just thought I'd have some fun since your post was so stupid.

If you'd like to rationally discuss what was actually in the article, let me know.
Click to expand...

And this another fine example. The Liberal can't stand to be challenged. When it is, he immediately goes on the attack. This is for two reasons, 1) the Liberal agenda can't stand up to challenge and 2) the Liberal is convinced of it's own superority. The latter being it's chief handicap.
 
apdst said:
And this another fine example. The Liberal can't stand to be challenged. When it is, he immediately goes on the attack. This is for two reasons, 1) the Liberal agenda can't stand up to challenge and 2) the Liberal is convinced of it's own superority. The latter being it's chief handicap.
Click to expand...

Why don't you challenge the topic at hand? Or would that take away from your partisan tantrum.
 
Verax said:
Why don't you challenge the topic at hand? Or would that take away from your partisan tantrum.
Click to expand...

I am challenging the topic at hand. You're doing a great job of helping me, too.
 
apdst said:
I am challenging the topic at hand. You're doing a great job of helping me, too.
Click to expand...

The topic is analysis of the media, not apdst and the confirmation of his victim status.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
You're struggling to understand the study. The data allude that people on "the left" tend to consider more points of view from more diverse sources. But I do reject the silly notion that "balance" and "fairness" means giving the ill-informed equal standing to the studied.
Click to expand...

"Diverse sources" that all espouse the same view? How is that balance or fairness?

You are confusing perspective with facts. The words used, the facts omitted, the favor being given to one political view over another doesn't determine the facts, it determines how the facts are reported.
 
Verax said:
The topic is analysis of the media, not apdst and the confirmation of his victim status.
Click to expand...

I'm being critical of the article's motive. You're my demonstrator and doing a fantastic job.
 
OpportunityCost said:
"Diverse sources" that all espouse the same view? How is that balance or fairness?

You are confusing perspective with facts. The words used, the facts omitted, the favor being given to one political view over another doesn't determine the facts, it determines how the facts are reported.
Click to expand...

In the right-wing media, sure. The media I consume offer all sorts of perspectives and ideas.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
In the right-wing media, sure. The media I consume offer all sorts of perspectives and ideas.
Click to expand...

The majority of major media sources espouse the same view with very minor differences. Thanks for the media water carrier view though.
 
apdst said:
I'm being critical of the article's motive. You're my demonstrator and doing a fantastic job.
Click to expand...

Given that this is the presentation of a data set, I'm not sure motive matters. Do you have a different analysis of the data you would like to share? How would you interpret the outcome of the plotting of full political spectrum social media behaviour and media consumption? You'll never see any post I make be a desire for an echo chamber on my part, I'm very interested in how you would interpret the data as well, from a conservative side. Do you have any feedback, other than outright dismissal?

I mean, please don't look at this as a desire to add fuel to the fire, I'm not really ever interested in the right vs left "I know you are but what am I" thing, but are you kind of doing exactly what the article accuses you of? It appears to me that because you don't like what the article implies you're not even willing to discuss it, but feel it very important to come on here and denounce it. How does that work? What do you get out of it?
 
OlNate said:
I found this article to be very interesting, because it basically demonstrates what anyone using debate forums already knows:

"What's at issue here is not just asymmetrical polarization but asymmetrical news consumption. The left and the center avail themselves of real journalism, however flawed it may be, while the right gorges on what is essentially political propaganda — all the while denigrating anything that contradicts their worldview as “fake news.”"

This is a pretty numbers-heavy piece, but any analysis nerds like me out there will appreciate it.

A Major New Study Shows That Political Polarization Is Mainly A Right-Wing Phenomenon
Click to expand...

The counter argument would be that there's no difference between "real journalism" and the Left's preferred ideological sites. That may be debatable, but it is a serious omission in this study not to address that objection.
 
Verax said:
Did I miss something some where? Where do they say that the NYT is the center and all data has been normalized to it?
Click to expand...
I think you may have.
They measure every other media source against the NYT and WAPO and CNN with the assumption they are the worthwhile center.
So when they wanted to show, for example, that Clinton supporters used more sources than Trump supporters they used those as examples ... unspoken was the implication they were more educated because of it.
But I'm sure you must be aware that they (and you?) typically would go from Daily Kos to the NYT in order find reinforcement for their beliefs.
That doesn't indicate they're better educated but rather that they know NYT will give them what they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom