• 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 Graphs

Which graph is more accurate?

  • #1

    Votes: 10 66.7%

  • #2

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • OTHER

    Votes: 4 26.7%
  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
Checkerboard Strangler

Checkerboard Strangler

Make Video Horizontal Again
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
69,468
Reaction score
53,903
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Which news graph do YOU think is more accurate?

#1

News_graph-1.jpg

#2

News_graph-2.jpg
 
The New American is only listed in the second graph. The only way Infowars can be classified as "freedom" would be that it illustrates the freedom to be a total nutcase.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Which news graph do YOU think is more accurate?

#1

View attachment 67234358

#2

View attachment 67234359
Click to expand...

If I must, as requested, choose between the two charts, I have to go with the first one, mainly because preposterous to me is the notion of evaluating news organizations in terms of tyranny and freedom when they control the meting, quality or quantity of neither. That said, the first graph doesn't sit well with me either for the notion of "high quality news" is absolutely incongruous with "garbage" or "hyper-partisan left of right.

News is just that -- news, information. The news reported by pretty much all the major news organizations is high quality. To wit, I don't have a problem with the news presented by any of the following:
  • Fox
  • CNN
  • ABC, CBS, NBC
  • PBS Newshour, NPR
  • Financial Times
  • Reuters, AP
  • BBC
  • The Atlantic, The Economist, Forbes
  • WaPo, NY Times, LA Times, The Trib, WSJ, The Standard
  • Bloomberg, Politico
If there's something to object to or rate in terms of quality (because it can differ materially), it's their editorial content.

Additionally, I don't even know why Cato and Brookings are included at all. They're partisan think tanks, and as such their essays are little other than more rigorous versions of publications such the New Republic and the National Review. That said, none of them is a news organization.
 
Xelor said:
If I must, as requested, choose between the two charts, I have to go with the first one, mainly because preposterous to me is the notion of evaluating news organizations in terms of tyranny and freedom when they control the meting, quality or quantity of neither. That said, the first graph doesn't sit well with me either for the notion of "high quality news" is absolutely incongruous with "garbage" or "hyper-partisan left of right. SNIPPED for brevity
Click to expand...

I understand. I wasn't looking for absolutes. :)
 
News Flash:

I DID NOT MAKE THESE CHARTS.
I just picked them at random.

You're free to choose OTHER, it's perfectly okay by me ;)
 
Xelor said:
News is just that -- news, information. The news reported by pretty much all the major news organizations is high quality.
Click to expand...

Information can be incorrect, biased, misrepresented, etc. Wouldn't that indicate some would be of lower quality, if they are subject to inaccuracy?
 

Attachments

  • Graph.jpg
    Graph.jpg
    18.7 KB · Views: 110
Last edited:
Tres1B said:
Information can be incorrect, biased, misrepresented, etc. Wouldn't that indicate some would be of lower quality, if they are subject to inaccuracy?
Click to expand...

In some instances, yes, and in others no. Broadly:
  • Yes --> When an organization's alleged news content willfully edits its reporting so as to misrepresent context, yes.
  • No --> When an organization's alleged news content omits contextually irrelevant information and/or information that has no logically sound/cogent decision-making value to the topic being covered, no.
There are plenty of news stories whereof space and time limitations prohibit the publisher from presenting 100% of the information available and that pertains to the topic.

If the content presented is editorial, well, that's not news to begin with, so the obligations are very different than what they are for news. If one is watching cable news (Fox, CNN and/or MSNBC) during primetime, the content is heavily editorial, no matter which cable network one watches.


​


My personal opinion is that none of the three are particularly good as sources of information about anything other than politics, and that Fox and MSNBC are only any good at political news if one needs one's own views affirmed.






​

And let me clarify something else. It's not at all clear to me what share of news network/program watchers distinguish between editorial content and news content. My gut suggests to me that many, perhaps most, folks think the editorial content they're hearing/seeing is news rather than highly simplified arguments for/against a way of construing a given matter. I've abducted to that conclusion because I cannot begin to count how many times I've seen/heard folks -- remark on economic policy matters and it's clear to me that they haven't a clue about the basic principles of economics, let alone understand them well. The same goes for foreign policy matters, as well as for legal and political philosophy. The foundational concepts, theorems and whatnot of those disciplines are things that news reporters and editorialists assume (because they have to) that audience members have "under their belts," but it seems to me that not nearly enough people actually do.

​


Other credible reference sources about the nature of content on news and news commentary networks:
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Which news graph do YOU think is more accurate?
Click to expand...

Haven't got a clue. I don't even know half the publications listed.
I'm only chiming in because I definitely don't think Reuters are neutral. They have very high production values, but they were also the first news agency I ever noticed weaponizing language with any degree of sophistication and intelligence.
 
HK.227 said:
Haven't got a clue. I don't even know half the publications listed.
I'm only chiming in because I definitely don't think Reuters are neutral. They have very high production values, but they were also the first news agency I ever noticed weaponizing language with any degree of sophistication and intelligence.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, I find that interesting, any possibility you can clarify, maybe with either an example or a demonstrable working model that you say represents their methodology? (I'll take it at face value and look for myself to see if I notice similarities)
 
Apparently they misspelled Fascism in the second graph as Freedom.

It's disheartening to see any of the media from mid right on equated with Freedom.
 
Xelor said:


​
Click to expand...

Not that you're biased or anything but where's the graph that equates Faux News' level of "Opinion Dominates Reporting"

No evidence of you putting your thumb on the scale … AT ALL … ROFLMAO!
 
Last edited:
StuPedaso said:
Not that you're biased or anything but where's the graph that equates Faux News' level of "Opinion Dominates Reporting"

No evidence of you putting your thumb on the scale … AT ALL … ROFLMAO!
Click to expand...

WTH are you talking about?
 
Xelor said:
Well, then prove that I am because an unfounded accusation is of no merit. Just be sure not to use any of the lines of doing so that are described here: Click here.
Click to expand...

If you aren't biased why didn't you present all sides of the argument?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom