• 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!

The White House buys foreign flowers as US growers see business wilt

Did you happen to follow the link to "News in a Digital Age - Comparing the Presentation of News Information over Time and Across Media Platforms" before you "replied"?

I ask because it's looks very much like you didn't, but I could be wrong.

If you did, you are to be congratulated upon your (rough estimate) 5,000+ word per minute "reading for comprehension" speed.

When a poster demands something, I don't pay attention to anything else. The post becomes meaningless.

This is especially true when a poster exposes their irrelevance by making snarky bull**** statements like: "On the other hand, I do realize that "primary source research" is one of those quaint, old fashioned, things that people sort of remember but aren't quite sure what it actually was any more."

It's my conclusion there is nothing of value that comes from posters who engage in that kind of crap.

BTW:

Key Results Rand.webp
 
Your probably right.

It is true that bias is subjective, and is based on the political views of those who are asked to judge it. The study I referenced touches on that.

However, when the ideological preference pushed by the MSM is accounted for, it's clear their is an extreme liberal bias in the majority of the outlets, and rather than mainline objective reporting, a subjective opinion/bias based presentation has become the norm. The Rand Study confirms this.

The “liberal bias” was always an assumed conclusion by fox news even when those networks were all Bush’s lapdogs during the Iraq war.
 
When a poster demands something, I don't pay attention to anything else. The post becomes meaningless.

This is especially true when a poster exposes their irrelevance by making snarky bull**** statements like: "On the other hand, I do realize that "primary source research" is one of those quaint, old fashioned, things that people sort of remember but aren't quite sure what it actually was any more."

It's my conclusion there is nothing of value that comes from posters who engage in that kind of crap.

BTW:

View attachment 67256838

Cry moar little trumpkin.
 
When a poster demands something, I don't pay attention to anything else. The post becomes meaningless.

This is especially true when a poster exposes their irrelevance by making snarky bull**** statements like: "On the other hand, I do realize that "primary source research" is one of those quaint, old fashioned, things that people sort of remember but aren't quite sure what it actually was any more."

It's my conclusion there is nothing of value that comes from posters who engage in that kind of crap.

BTW:

View attachment 67256838

Put your chart into context

This study is one of the first to empirically assess differences in the ways that news is presented over time and across platforms, using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. We must be careful about generalizing too far from the specific sources that we analyzed, but we do observe some broad trends consistently across our different analyses. As we move from news coverage prior to 2000 to news coverage after 2000, and as we move from conventional media to “newer” media (e.g., cable and online), our analysis suggests that news coverage has shifted away from a more traditional style characterized by complex, detailed reporting that emphasizes events, context, public figures, time, and numbers toward a more personal, subjective form of reporting that emphasizes anecdotes, argumentation, advocacy, and emotion. Observed shifts have not been wholesale, however, and there is much that has remained the same over time and across media. For example, journalism across platforms is often characterized by continued adherence to reporting styles (e.g., sequencing, events, dialogue, motion) and often a similar anchoring in common public values. In this chapter, we take a step back, discussing key insights from each analysis and drawing parallels across the different comparisons to build a more holistic sense of what has changed, what has stayed the same, and why these factors could be important. Key findings from our analysis are summarized in Table 6.1.

In our temporal analyses of broadcast news and newspapers, we observed a shift in reporting from event-based reporting rich with contextual details and description to a reporting style that is more subjective and oriented toward advocacy, interpersonal interaction, and argumentation. In addition, the use of emotional appeals, subjective reporting, and argument have increased over time in the sources that we explored. The specifics of these shifts have differed somewhat across platforms. Changes have been least notable in print journalism; they are more visible in our empirical analysis when comparing changes in television broadcast journalism over time.

Print Journalism: Modest Shifts Toward More-Subjective Reporting

...

Television News: Stronger Shifts to Subjectivity, Conversation, and Argument

...

(Page 119 et seq).
[SOURCE]

IOW, the findings were just "slightly" more nuanced than you would have people believe (as you would have known had you actually read the whole report.
 
Back
Top Bottom