• 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

OlNate

Shameless Canuck
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
22,093
Reaction score
13,487
Location
Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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
 
*Sean Hannity in the morning

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the biggest hack of them all?
 
Thanks for this. I'm going to read it a few times as there is much good information to be garnered from the article. 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? I must go back and read the article again.

Theres Ed a lot to think about here.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Thanks for this. I'm going to read it a few times as there is much good information to be garnered from the article. 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? I must go back and read the article again.

Theres Ed a lot to think about here.
Click to expand...

Conservatives don't trust established news sources because content is at variance with their worldview. It's much easier to believe that all poor people are lazy. It's much easier to believe that all Muslims are terrorists. It's much easier to believe all black people are asking to get beat down by the cops. The cognitive dissonance of discarding 60, 70 years of Repulicanism to agree with objective reality, is too large. Especially if that objective reality is sourced by the liberal news media. Bill O'Reilly has framed the situation as an "us vs. them" contest. How many times has he or Sean Hannity used "the left" disparagingly or in horror? They have painted the media and especially educated people as a monolith of traitors, hedonists, socialists whose beliefs are dangerous to the fabric of America. Fox News does propaganda, when they convince conservatives that the sky is green, rather than throw out 50, 60 years of trusting Republicans to give it to them straight, conservatives double down on a green sky.

Luckily, the digital media is on pace to phase out the news media. The Millenial generation is about to hit their maturity date. Most millenial's nowadays aren't just living to frisbee golf, pound tall boys, and chase skirt. They're starting to wake up to the ugly reality that our world is controlled by an elite bunch of psycopaths who are addicted to money. They control the news media that is in place to protect the status-quo, and the status quo is in place to protect the large moneyed interests, the fossil fuel industry, big pharma, the insurance lobby, the prison industrial complex, and the military industrial complex. CNN is fake news too they just don't have a pro-conservative bias like Fox. CNN will truth tell on Trump's health care plan being garbage but, when's the last time they were de-escalating the Cold War 2.0 or running a segment on climate change?

Since most millenials get their news from Facebook, "fake news" is an issue. But, fake news is not brand new. Millenial's know when they're in the supermarket, and they see the Enquirer headline, "Grey Aliens Abducted George Bush", it's garbage news. They can distinguish the same thing online. But, the Bill O'Reilly's of the world have convinced their viewers that all news from Facebook is fake news. And that mutates into All news online is fake news. Which enshrines the TV news source that always tells the news consumer what they want to hear, in protection. And it protects O'Reilly's ratings in a dying market.

Do you think we live in a post-scandal world now? I can almost guarantee that the Christian right's primary news source is Fox News despite Roger Ailes going down for being a sexual predator. I can also confirm that the Christian right voted for Trump despite Trump condoning sexual assault. (You can't just walk up and grab people's genitals. That's wrong. You shouldn't do that. If Trump was exageratting, so what, he's still a gross scumbag.) None of that matters, the perception of family values win out. Tomi Lahren went down for some scandal too. A bunch of old tweets surfaced of her, exhibiting normal drunk college girl behavior, but behavior that is at variance with her wholesome, girl next door, marketing image.
 
Last edited:
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...

Incredible article, thanks. Seeing the data for yourself is really important to providing strong evidence that it isn't just a hunch but something that is verifiably happening. The right is overwhelmingly mainlining a coke and heroin speedball while the left is mostly smoking pot and occasionally hitting the hard stuff. Huffington Post is god awful and one I can no longer stand visiting for any reason.
 
Verax said:
Incredible article, thanks. Seeing the data for yourself is really important to providing strong evidence that it isn't just a hunch but something that is verifiably happening. The right is overwhelmingly mainlining a coke and heroin speedball while the left is mostly smoking pot and occasionally hitting the hard stuff. Huffington Post is god awful and one I can no longer stand visiting for any reason.
Click to expand...

The Intercept FTW
 
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...

LOL.

Columbia Journalism Review........

Who is that, and who pays for it to exist?

Masthead - Columbia Journalism Review

Major Funders
Major funders for CJR and CJR.org include non-faculty members of the Board of Overseers and the Maria Moors Cabot Fund, The Commonwealth Fund, Craigslist Charitable Fund, Democracy Fund, Inc., The Saul and Janice Poliak Center for the Study of First Amendment Issues, Rockefeller Family & Associates, M & T Weiner Foundation, The Robert R. McCormick Foundation, New York Community Trust, The Tow Foundation, James H. Ottaway Jr., Dave and Kathy Scially, and R. Ted Weschler​

So, all the above are well known Socialist Progressive operations.


What we have here is a report funded by far left progressives claiming the polarization is a right wing issue, so all the problems caused by it is their fault.

This would be like the Koch Brothers funding a study that confirms the left wing is bad.

What a pathetic bit of propaganda.
 
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...

So, THIS "study" was conducted by the "Columbia Journalism Review."

Our own study of over 1.25 million stories published online between April 1, 2015 and Election Day shows that a right-wing media network anchored around Breitbart developed as a distinct and insulated media system, using social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world....We began to study this ecosystem by looking at the landscape of what sites people share.
Click to expand...

"Major study" indeed. :roll:

What have we learned about "studies?"

Let me retort:



Funny video, but to the point.

We have also learned that polling is subject to bias as demonstrated by the results of the last Presidential election.

Data can be skewed, sources can be skewed, all sorts of things can occur based on assumption bias in studies.

So we have this "major study," but like any other it should be taken with a dose of salt unless replicated.
 
Last edited:
ocean515 said:
What a pathetic bit of propaganda.
Click to expand...


sigh...case in point.

Their research methodology is clearly demonstrated, I'm satisfied with it. But some will never be, which is kind of what the article is saying...back to OP.
 
Captain Adverse said:
So we have this study, but like any other it should be taken with a dose of salt unless replicated.
Click to expand...

Totally fair...though I would suggest that the conclusions may debated, but the reason I like the article is that the numbers are the numbers. We can draw our own conclusions if we are unsatisfied with the study's findings, so long as we acknowledge the data set.
 
OlNate said:
sigh...case in point.

Their research methodology is clearly demonstrated, I'm satisfied with it. But some will never be, which is kind of what the article is saying...back to OP.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, everything that you disagree with is a progressive conspiracy. Just like climate change and scientists, right? It's all an elaborate ruse.
 
Verax said:
Yes, everything that you disagree with is a progressive conspiracy. Just like climate change and scientists, right? It's all an elaborate ruse.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is true.

However, it's certainly true about the topic of this thread, and the people and corporate structure that created the content for it.
 
OlNate said:
Totally fair...though I would suggest that the conclusions may debated, but the reason I like the article is that the numbers are the numbers. We can draw our own conclusions if we are unsatisfied with the study's findings, so long as we acknowledge the data set.
Click to expand...

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?
 
ocean515 said:
I don't think that is true.

However, it's certainly true about the topic of this thread, and the people and corporate structure that created the content for it.
Click to expand...

So unless it is a right-wing source, dismiss it out of hand?
 
Winston said:
Conservatives don't trust established news sources because content is at variance with their worldview. It's much easier to believe that all poor people are lazy. It's much easier to believe that all Muslims are terrorists. It's much easier to believe all black people are asking to get beat down by the cops. The cognitive dissonance of discarding 60, 70 years of Repulicanism to agree with objective reality, is too large. Especially if that objective reality is sourced by the liberal news media. Bill O'Reilly has framed the situation as an "us vs. them" contest. How many times has he or Sean Hannity used "the left" disparagingly or in horror? They have painted the media and especially educated people as a monolith of traitors, hedonists, socialists whose beliefs are dangerous to the fabric of America. Fox News does propaganda, when they convince conservatives that the sky is green, rather than throw out 50, 60 years of trusting Republicans to give it to them straight, conservatives double down on a green sky.

Luckily, the digital media is on pace to phase out the news media. The Millenial generation is about to hit their maturity date. Most millenial's nowadays aren't just living to frisbee golf, pound tall boys, and chase skirt. They're starting to wake up to the ugly reality that our world is controlled by an elite bunch of psycopaths who are addicted to money. They control the news media that is in place to protect the status-quo, and the status quo is in place to protect the large moneyed interests, the fossil fuel industry, big pharma, the insurance lobby, the prison industrial complex, and the military industrial complex. CNN is fake news too they just don't have a pro-conservative bias like Fox. CNN will truth tell on Trump's health care plan being garbage but, when's the last time they were de-escalating the Cold War 2.0 or running a segment on climate change?

Since most millenials get their news from Facebook, "fake news" is an issue. But, fake news is not brand new. Millenial's know when they're in the supermarket, and they see the Enquirer headline, "Grey Aliens Abducted George Bush", it's garbage news. They can distinguish the same thing online. But, the Bill O'Reilly's of the world have convinced their viewers that all news from Facebook is fake news. And that mutates into All news online is fake news. Which enshrines the TV news source that always tells the news consumer what they want to hear, in protection. And it protects O'Reilly's ratings in a dying market.

Do you think we live in a post-scandal world now? I can almost guarantee that the Christian right's primary news source is Fox News despite Roger Ailes going down for being a sexual predator. I can also confirm that the Christian right voted for Trump despite Trump condoning sexual assault. (You can't just walk up and grab people's genitals. That's wrong. You shouldn't do that. If Trump was exageratting, so what, he's still a gross scumbag.) None of that matters, the perception of family values win out. Tomi Lahren went down for some scandal too. A bunch of old tweets surfaced of her, exhibiting normal drunk college girl behavior, but behavior that is at variance with her wholesome, girl next door, marketing image.
Click to expand...

Damned fine post. :thumbs:
 
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 following paragraph alone should have been a warning where the authors were coming from ...

The size of the nodes marking traditional professional media like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN, surrounded by the Hill, ABC, and NBC, tell us that these media drew particularly large audiences. Their color tells us that Clinton followers attended to them more than Trump followers, and their proximity on the map to more quintessentially partisan sites—like Huffington Post, MSNBC, or the Daily Beast—suggests that attention to these more partisan outlets on the left was more tightly interwoven with attention to traditional media. The Breitbart-centered wing, by contrast, is farther from the mainstream set and lacks bridging nodes that draw attention and connect it to that mainstream.
Click to expand...

The implication being the traditional media sources aren't biased but rather are examples of down the line honest pure straightforward journalism-as-it-ought-to-be-practiced and "Clinton followers attended to them more than Trump followers" soooooooo...conclusions anyone?

Personally I'm not at all surprised that the Left is as completely comfortable with the NYT as they are with HuffPo.

IOW, who didn't already intuitively know that a media alternative to traditional media found an audience because of the failure of the latter ... and the authors think it's "disconcerting".
 
Captain Adverse said:
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?
Click to expand...

The lion's share of the right-wing data concerns major publications: Breitbart, Fox news, Daily Caller, Gateway Pundit, Washington Examiner and how it is concentrated on this very, very right-wing sphere of media.
 
bubbabgone said:
The following paragraph alone should have been a warning where the authors were coming from ...



The implication being the traditional media sources aren't biased but rather are examples of down the line honest pure straightforward journalism-as-it-ought-to-be-practiced and "Clinton followers attended to them more than Trump followers" soooooooo...conclusions anyone?

Personally I'm not at all surprised that the Left is as completely comfortable with the NYT as they are with HuffPo.

IOW, who didn't already intuitively know that a media alternative to traditional media found an audience because of the failure of the latter ... and the authors think it's "disconcerting".
Click to expand...

Those sources are well recognized as left of center but also as being more professional and trustworthy than say Breitbart. There are different shades of bias and truthiness, it takes a skilled observer to notice the differences. You'll also notice HuffPo is much farther left than the NYT, comparable to how Breitbart is far right.
 
slick said:
Lawrence O'Donnell ups him 2X.
Click to expand...

No one is a bigger hack than ol slap head Hannity, the guy has made a fortune clucking to his flock.
 
Verax said:
Those sources are well recognized as left of center but also as being more professional and trustworthy than say Breitbart. There are different shades of bias and truthiness, it takes a skilled observer to notice the differences. You'll also notice HuffPo is much farther left than the NYT, comparable to how Breitbart is far right.
Click to expand...

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.
 
slick said:
Lawrence O'Donnell ups him 2X.
Click to expand...

Yeah, all those suits on TV have different biases. Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow, IMO are two of the biggest pieces of **** in news.
 
yankintx said:
No one is a bigger hack than ol slap head Hannity, the guy has made a fortune clucking to his flock.
Click to expand...

If there was a Mt. Rushmore of opinionated ideology purists on cable news my candidates would be:

1) Lawrence O'Donnell
2) Rachelle Maddow
3) Jale Tapper
4) Don Lemon
5) Wolf Blitzer

Hannity may come in in the top 10, for sure his ratings are higher than the leftwing crew
 
slick said:
If there was a Mt. Rushmore of opinionated ideology purists on cable news my candidates would be:

1) Lawrence O'Donnell
2) Rachelle Maddow
3) Jale Tapper
4) Don Lemon
5) Wolf Blitzer

Hannity may come in in the top 10, for sure his ratings are higher than the leftwing crew
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom