• 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!

News source tribalism

Does media source cause you to embrace or reject claims based on percieved biases?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 23.8%
  • No

    Votes: 8 38.1%
  • It depends if the claim is also difficult to accept or not

    Votes: 8 38.1%

  • Total voters
    21

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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?
 
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 do pay some attention to my sources. For instance, if I'm looking to start a thread from a story I saw on The Blaze, I wouldn't use that source. I'd find it in mainstream. And if I can't find it there? It's probably a bunch of baloney.

I consider Fox News to be mainstream. Unless it's an editorial, anyone calling a poster for a Fox News story is a bean head.

Edit:

If I'm looking for facts on abortion, I won't be using Planned Parenthood's sight. That'd be another example.

So yes, I do pay attention to my source.
 
Editorials, very much so. Direct quotes I will more tend to believe unless just some blog by someone.
 
I always am aware of the point of origin. MSNBC, Newsmax, HuffPo, moveon, Blaze, etc. have all shown me how not to view subjects.

Agendas are rarely hidden.
 
I do pay some attention to my sources. For instance, if I'm looking to start a thread from a story I saw on The Blaze, I wouldn't use that source. I'd find it in mainstream. And if I can't find it there? It's probably a bunch of baloney.

I consider Fox News to be mainstream. Unless it's an editorial, anyone calling a poster for a Fox News story is a bean head.

Edit:

If I'm looking for facts on abortion, I won't be using Planned Parenthood's sight. That'd be another example.

So yes, I do pay attention to my source.

Don't you just hate it when you do a search and it's biased because you didn't word it properly.
 
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.
 
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?

Actually, it's even worse than that. For example, in a recent post I made I used an author who wrote a book --- my use of that author who, unbeknownst to me, contributed to World Net Daily (and not even recently), was thrown out for a book discussion video he made on C-SPAN. So just by association that this author wrote for a source they don't agree with the hacks swooped in and simply reject anything the guy says because he contributes to WND.
 
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?

Is there such a thing as neutral source when it comes to politics? I think not. On cable MSNBC is definitely in the hands of the DNC, CNN is left of center and FOX right of center. Okay, when FOX starts their talk shows they too are in the hands of the RNC. But their daytime news is right of center. On the over the air networks, NBC, CBS, ABC all tilt left but are careful not to be overly overt about it. Radio and the internet, god help us.

Perhaps the way to tell how biased a network is, is to watch what stories they cover or air vs. which ones they do not or just give a few seconds to. One other thing I always listen for is if the network will give the party of a congressman or senator if they are caught doing something wrong. Almost all networks except fox will just give the name of a Democrat with out mention his party. I.E. Congressman Joe Blow was caught......but if it is a Republican you can count on all the networks to include that. I.E. Republican Congressman Joe Blow was caught.....

But let me finish up, just because something is reported on a certain network does not make it false. One should check into these things. I usually do, but sometimes I don't and those sometimes are usually when I get caught with my pants down.
 
I approach any topic with caution when I see it reported by HuffPo, FOXNews, MSNBC, NewsMax, The Blaze, MoveOn, and other biased agenda driven outlets.

I too, look to validate it from other sites before putting too much stock in it.

But just because FOXNews or MSNBC says 2+2=4, I do not automatically write them off. Facts are facts regardless of the messenger. But I like to dig a bit deeper when considering what I accept to be "facts." There are many here on this site that would dismiss the FACT that 2+2=4 simply because MSNBC or FOXNews said so. I am not one of them.
 
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.

You have that happen all the time. I seen it here on DP. There are a lot of Democrats who only believe what MSNBC says and nothing of FOX. Of course the reverse is true when talking about our Republican Friends, FOX they believe 100%, MSNBC 0%.
 
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.
 
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
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I do pay some attention to my sources. For instance, if I'm looking to start a thread from a story I saw on The Blaze, I wouldn't use that source. I'd find it in mainstream. And if I can't find it there? It's probably a bunch of baloney.

I consider Fox News to be mainstream. Unless it's an editorial, anyone calling a poster for a Fox News story is a bean head.

Edit:

If I'm looking for facts on abortion, I won't be using Planned Parenthood's sight. That'd be another example.

So yes, I do pay attention to my source.

I don't know if we would choose the same sources, but if you have made good experience with a source, I for my part tend to trust them. Probably I would use an article from The Economist. I might check Hustler.
 
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)

I agree and I think for the most part the BBC World Service and Al Jazeera English are excellent news sources. I am a big NPR listener myself, and routinely change my mind on issues based upon what I hear on an NPR program.
 
I think people who link Infowars and MSNBC are either ignorant of both or so ideologically lost there is not hope.

Here is the thing. MSNBC is a station that for the most part does news analysis and opinion. There is not real hard news after 4pm from what I can tell and it leans left. At times far left. While they uncover facts on shows like Maddow and O'Donnell they are unapologetically left-wing. But what I find interesting is that I rarely see anything in their discussions that is clearly a lie. During the day MSNBC does shows that have guests who level their opinions and hosts who attempt to interview them and rarely challenge. Those guests tend to be from both sides of the political spectrum but often are in fact more left of center. Morning Joe, the once best produced show on the station, has a right wing leaning though Joe fancies himself a friend of lefties who he brings on. It has just turned into an impossible to watch clusterf$%K and his partner Mika has become a cartoon.

To argue that MSNBC is a wing of the DNC is laughable. However Fox has been caught using RNC talking points on their shows complete with a typo one time. Their lies are epic and their inability to keep the narratives they create together, sometimes in one segment, are hilarious. Fox is like creationists, they begin with the idea that everything on the left is wrong and seek out ways to promote it. EVEN ON THEIR NEWS SHOWS. It is run by a former RNC operative and owned by a crazy man.


Now we can argue about bias in the major networks but here is the thing, it is hard for the right to come up with clear examples of such when ask. ABC, NBC and CBS Nightly NEws broadcasts tend to give information. The bias might be what they think is an isn't news. There could be an argument there. Sadly few have made it well.
 
I think a lot of people are simply more committed to their side than they are the truth.

Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more.

And because of that, to answer your OP, no, I don't make any effort to find a source people will agree with.

I say what I have to say and if anonymous strangers on the Internet want to take exception to it, for any and sundry reasons, I couldn't care less.

Now, if someone wants to dig down into my "facts" that come from a potentially questionable source and can legitimately dispute them with "counter-facts" I'll sometimes make an effort to find an authoritative source to trump that counter claim.

But if someone says, "I can't believe that, it's from CNN and we ALL know CNN is the propaganda arm of the DNC", then fine, don't believe it, you're an Internet stranger and I really don't care whether you live or die, much less whether or not you believe CNN.

In terms of what I'll believe or accept to be true, it all depends on the nature of the claim.

Of course there are things people say that cause me to think, "You've got to be retarded".

So I'll do a little bit of research and for most things it's pretty east to either substantiate the claim or substantiate my skepticism.

But yeah, for the most part, I think that probably 80% of the membership here is married to a partisan ideology or a philosophy and will defend their belief to the death despite the fact that they're factually wrong.

Last thing I'll add is that sometimes "truth" is in the eye of the beholder.

Sometimes I'll find that a citation, to my reading, doesn't support a claim, but given different value judgments it very well may.

It isn't so much that a member's comments are factually wrong but more that the facts, such as they are, say something different to another person than they'd say to me.
 
Last edited:
A link to one source is fine, but its always best to confirm with various new sources.
 
Back
Top Bottom