We are all Slave now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You’ve arbitrarily limited the scope of the drips to one article.

No. I've said there is no "drip" in that article. If your flood of media bias is made of that kind of moisture, it is a desert.

Unless, of course, you suggest that when I said drips, I meant several subtle drips within one article. Or that I was not arguing that these drips are innumerable, and scattered throughout CNN’s reporting, in the majority of its articles.

You can't actually identify any of them, but you say there are lots somewhere else.

There is zero anti-Trump bias on display in that article. Instead, you see CNN reporters accepting at face value the White House's claim it is acting in good faith, and only passingly noting the fact that Trump has been lying -- deliberately, according to ABC News today, something you keep ignoring -- for months about the subject. That article is close to stenography. That sort of coverage is what incents the White House to lie, because it works. The idea that it shows bias against Trump is just silly.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Reporting in a biased manner is an intentional act. You cannot say the majority of the media biased against Trump, and working against him, is actually biased in favor of Trump because its biased reporting backfires and winds up aiding Trump.

This board may live in a post-intent world, and on some issues, that seemingly defective approach may, strangely, make sense. This is not one of those instances. Re bias: no intent, no bias. The effect, on which you’re focused, is another question. One strident progressives may school themselves on by googling the “law of unintended consequences.”

Read each of these sentences again, slowly.

Do you thing any of them hold water?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Reporting in a biased manner is an intentional act. You cannot say the majority of the media biased against Trump, and working against him, is actually biased in favor of Trump because its biased reporting backfires and winds up aiding Trump.

This board may live in a post-intent world, and on some issues, that seemingly defective approach may, strangely, make sense. This is not one of those instances. Re bias: no intent, no bias. The effect, on which you’re focused, is another question. One strident progressives may school themselves on by googling the “law of unintended consequences.”

I'm sure it must be comforting in some way to have a belief system constructed entirely of ideas that you pulled out of your ass, but it must be also kind of gross.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I'm sure it must be comforting in some way to have a belief system constructed entirely of ideas that you pulled out of your ass, but it must be also kind of gross.

What’s a “belief” system? Faith is a belief. Faith as typically minifested, in organized religion, is objectively ludicrous (except as a palliative/placating/organizing myth). Belief is like morality. The usefulness and borders of it are arbitrary and fluid.

Everything is subjective. If you hate any politician entirely, you’re not thinking very deeply. The correct assessment is to view all of the issues discretely. If we took that approach more often, the debates would be less heated. We’d avoid the risk of demagogues. We’d avoid “belief,” which is the kind thing that enables them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Read each of these sentences again, slowly.

Do you thing any of them hold water?

Bias requires a choice. It may become unintentional, subconscious even, at some point. But one must decide to acquire it initially.

When you choose to do something, you’ve acted with intent. You may be misguided. But you’ve decided to throw your hat in with one “side” or in allegiance with others aligned against an enemy.

Trump is as worthy an enemy as has ever existed. But if one decides to join a cultural movement against him, he’s biased.

I don’t like or hate Trump. I think he’s personally a joke. I think many of his policies are bad. But some, like the recent justice reform bill he got behind, are good. I also don’t know that my Econ 101/Free-trade-is-always-good doctrinaire distaste for tariffs on China is entirely right. He may be stumbling into a necessary check on a pernicious power. I could be right and Trump wrong on that issue. Again, it’s all subjective.

The media cannot deal with the world issue by issue. It cannot take the accurate perspective that it’s all subjective. It must trade in bias to sell advertising space because its viewers are tribal. They want (a lot of people even here want) to be able to pick a side and “believe.” That’s a method of interacting that holds us back. I don’t know how to get around it in our political system, but the coming gridlock, which will lead hopefully to issue by issues compromise as much as is possible, is a good start.

I “believe” I want Reagan and O’Neill cutting deals once again. I “believe” we need to bury the zero sum game politics of Gingrich.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What’s a “belief” system? Faith is a belief. Faith as typically minifested, in organized religion, is objectively ludicrous (except as a palliative/placating/organizing myth). Belief is like morality. The usefulness and borders of it are arbitrary and fluid.

Everything is subjective. If you hate any politician entirely, you’re not thinking very deeply. The correct assessment is to view all of the issues discretely. If we took that approach more often, the debates would be less heated. We’d avoid the risk of demagogues. We’d avoid “belief,” which is the kind thing that enables them.

Sorry, I didn't mean to trigger you with my language. All I meant by "belief system" was "things you believe." For example, you believe that if there is no intent, there is no bias. I would address the substance of this belief with you, if it were not for the fact that you don't engage in honest debate, are unable to admit the possibility that you are ever wrong, and are consumed with the spectacular delusion that you are the sole person in your world capable of engaging in skeptical, critical, and unbiased analysis of issues. I now predict that you are going to say that this is a word salad. Because you fucking LOVE that expression, to the point where you have engaged in elaborate extended metaphors based on the concept of "word salad." Which. Is. Weird.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I would address the substance of this belief with you, if it were not for the fact that you don't engage in honest debate, are unable to admit the possibility that you are ever wrong, and are consumed with the spectacular delusion that you are the sole person in your world capable of engaging in skeptical, critical, and unbiased analysis of issues.

Sebby is pretty candid about the fact that he comes here to provide an antidote to our liberal elitist groupthink, not because he always believes what he is saying. That being the case, I wonder why I let it irk me.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby is pretty candid about the fact that he comes here to provide an antidote to our liberal elitist groupthink, not because he always believes what he is saying. That being the case, I wonder why I let it irk me.

I do not label the discourse here, or the participants, elitist. William Henry III holds my proxy on that definition. In some regards, say, views on free trade, and socially tolerant policy, the groupthink here is elitist. In some others, like momentarily fashionable extreme forms of identity politics and old-line redistributionist economic policies, it’s very non-elitist.

It’s also worth noting “elitist” works like Fight Club. If you suspect it applies to you, two other realities apply:

1. You’re being manipulated (like stupid voters who think saying they’re Republicans willsignal positive wealth status); and,
2. You’re not truly elite.

I’d limit the truly elite to the .0001%. If you’re there, why on earth are you here?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You can't possibly think this. Sometimes it is, but the whole point about bias in the media is that it is not intentional.

You have this reversed. Sometimes it is unintentional. Most of the time it is intentional. At its inception, it is always intentional. One makes a decision to be for a view or against another.

Journalists and authors debate bias bitterly. One argument often made is that unbiased journalism is impossible, as one's views necessarily bleed into one's work. This is somewhat in line with your argument that bias is unintentional. But I find that unavailing because, if a journalist is doing his job, which is to present facts as objectively as possible, he should be working against that bias and scrubbing even the unintentional appearance of it from his text. Failure to do so betrays a decision to allow the bias to stand -- to "get one's view out there."

I'm not sure anyone could decipher what you mean here. He said that reporting what Trump says that is clearly and easily proven to be a lie without actually stating that it is a clear lie benefits Trump.

It's quite easy to avoid the use of a loaded word like "inflated." All one needs write is "Trump stated that the Saudi relationship involves hundreds of billions of dollars. Other sources quote the amount at issue at a 50 billion dollars."

If you cover Trump like other politicians, hoping that the audience will be able to make up their minds about his many and obvious lies, such a tack is to his advantage because it legitimizes his bullshit in the eyes of many.

Is it the journalist's job to delegitimize? Or is it his job to report?

You love to do this. When we talk about impact vs. intent it does not mean that intent is no longer important. I wish you could have two separate ideas float around in your head at the same time.

I'm not conflating them. Ty is doing so. He is suggesting that because the biased media stories about Trump have the unintended effect of helping Trump, it cannot be said that the media which produces such stories is biased against Trump. This is flatly idiotic. The correct assessment - the only correct assessment - is that most of the media is biased against Trump, but expressing its bias in a counterproductive fashion that often helps Trump.

Again, the bias is intentional. The effect is not. That the effect is something other than what is intended does not undo the reality of what is intended.

• People are often intentionally biased. That's bad. We all agree on that and therefore we do not need to discuss it.
  
• Often there is behavior that has a negative impact on people that is not the result of intentional bias. Trying to get people to understand that in these cases, their intention is not what is important is a real feat. It is very difficult to do because people tend to see the issue as a simple good/bad binary. If you are good and you didn't intend it, it doesn't count and will not be discussed.

I understand the difference between intent and effect. Those two thoughts coexist quite easily in my head, as I noted. In Ty's? Not so well.

Do you see how both of those concepts can exist and how we can talk about one of them without arguing that the other no longer exists?

Yes, quite simply. Unless one says something like Ty has here: That the effect of biased media (accidentally helping Trump) somehow undoes the fact that that same media is biased against Trump. That statement does not make sense in any context, anywhere. (He'll dissemble on it and state that he actually made a much different or much more limited point. But whatever point he makes, if it includes the illogic that an effect can undo an intent, he's not making sense.)

TM[/QUOTE]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Sorry, I didn't mean to trigger you with my language. All I meant by "belief system" was "things you believe." For example, you believe that if there is no intent, there is no bias. I would address the substance of this belief with you, if it were not for the fact that you don't engage in honest debate, are unable to admit the possibility that you are ever wrong, and are consumed with the spectacular delusion that you are the sole person in your world capable of engaging in skeptical, critical, and unbiased analysis of issues. I now predict that you are going to say that this is a word salad. Because you fucking LOVE that expression, to the point where you have engaged in elaborate extended metaphors based on the concept of "word salad." Which. Is. Weird.

I'm not sure "belief" even works for most of the people in our strata who profess strident political views these days. I'd say most of it is signalling.

If one wishes to demonstrate that he is cultured and smart, he must offer his anti-Trump bona fides early and loudly. Most of my upper middle class friends who wish to ensure you know they're well thought on issues offer that signal to each other and bond over it.

If one wishes to demonstrate he is well-off, he lets you know he's turned off by Trump, but thinks Trump's policies are decent. This same person may have voted for Hillary out of concern that his portfolio would get killed by Trump's election, but is now happily surprised to the upside.

The only people I see who aren't signalling are those falling into minority groups that are targeted by Trump and the Trumpkins in their #Maga hats. The first group of people have serious concerns and are pissed and scared for good reason. The second group have no shame, as they've gotten behind a bigoted agenda and a coalition of voters that includes xenophobes, racists, know-nothings, and deluded fools. Those people are either confused, deluded, or hold deplorable views and goals.

The shy Trump voters aren't signalling anything. They're acting in self-interest.

I find myself signalling a fair amount. I feel like I have to say anti-Trump things in certain circles so as not to upset the group (being quiet or pointing out where they make be misinformed can often cause socially awkward moments... and you certainly can't question whether they're engaged in status signalling). Among Trump fans, you can rip the man all you like, but you cannot say things would have been better with Hillary, or were better under Obama. So I signal. Among my status conscious friends shining their Trump bashing bona fides, I signal with sympathetic criticism. Among the Trump supporters, the stock line is, "I just wish he'd shut up and stay off Twitter."

But it's really all subjective. On immigration, individual taxes, and environment, Trump is miserable. On trade, his impact is yet to be fully understood. I'm skeptical, but it's beyond my pay grade, and Europe seems to be following our lead on China, so there must be some wisdom behind his moves which I am missing. On infrastructure, Trump's ideas are solid, and inevitable (it's going to be done with a mix of private and public money because that's the only option we have), and to the extent his corporate tax policy provided continued and in certain regards more robust growth, allowing the Fed to raise rates, which gives it ammunition just in time to drop them once more when we go into the next recession, it's a solid move (even if accidentally helpful in this regard).

Like all Presidents, he's a mixed bag. An ugly, horribly embroidered, mixed bag of good, decent, bad, and downright atrocious policies. It's unwise to focus on any one of them as overshadowing all others. It's best to just look at them discretely.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Bias requires a choice. It may become unintentional, subconscious even, at some point. But one must decide to acquire it initially.

When you choose to do something, you’ve acted with intent. You may be misguided. But you’ve decided to throw your hat in with one “side” or in allegiance with others aligned against an enemy.

Trump is as worthy an enemy as has ever existed. But if one decides to join a cultural movement against him, he’s biased.

I don’t like or hate Trump. I think he’s personally a joke. I think many of his policies are bad. But some, like the recent justice reform bill he got behind, are good. I also don’t know that my Econ 101/Free-trade-is-always-good doctrinaire distaste for tariffs on China is entirely right. He may be stumbling into a necessary check on a pernicious power. I could be right and Trump wrong on that issue. Again, it’s all subjective.

The media cannot deal with the world issue by issue. It cannot take the accurate perspective that it’s all subjective. It must trade in bias to sell advertising space because its viewers are tribal. They want (a lot of people even here want) to be able to pick a side and “believe.” That’s a method of interacting that holds us back. I don’t know how to get around it in our political system, but the coming gridlock, which will lead hopefully to issue by issues compromise as much as is possible, is a good start.

I “believe” I want Reagan and O’Neill cutting deals once again. I “believe” we need to bury the zero sum game politics of Gingrich.

I hope that you wrote this when drinking heavily. If not, I'd recommend you start drinking now, so at least you'll have that excuse for the response.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby is pretty candid about the fact that he comes here to provide an antidote to our liberal elitist groupthink, not because he always believes what he is saying. That being the case, I wonder why I let it irk me.

Whether you believe he is just a provocateur, a supreme Trump apologist, or some of both does not make engaging in debate with him any more rational. His arguments are nothing more than a shifting target of strawmen, made-up facts, disingenuous assertions, inconsistent positions, and pathetic attempts to dig himself out of the holes he has created. In the last day alone, he has asserted that 1) with no intent, there is no bias; 2) that bias may become unintentional; and 3) bias is sometimes unintentional. I doubt he is even capable of recognizing any incongruity in what he is saying. I made a joke about how ridiculous his beliefs on bias are, and he responds with this:

"Everything is subjective. If you hate any politician entirely, you’re not thinking very deeply. The correct assessment is to view all of the issues discretely. If we took that approach more often, the debates would be less heated. We’d avoid the risk of demagogues. We’d avoid 'belief, which is the kind thing that enables them."

If that were a word salad, it would be called the Post-Brutus E Coli Caesar. I'm not saying you shouldn't continue to endlessly argue with him. I'm just explaining why I find it pointless.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Reporting in a biased manner is an intentional act. You cannot say the majority of the media biased against Trump, and working against him

This is a fantasy that exists in your head, likely based on consumption of too much right wing media.

The media is not actively working against Trump. It's reporting on the chaos that surrounds him, which is news. This requires no desire to harm him, even if some individual reports would like to do so.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Bias requires a choice. It may become unintentional, subconscious even, at some point. But one must decide to acquire it initially.

This is not how any of this works.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's quite easy to avoid the use of a loaded word like "inflated."

This is not a loaded word. I'd accept the argument that "lied" is a loaded word, although I don't agree with it. "Inflated" is the water-down attempt at appearing unbiased. It's also 100% accurate, and thus not biased.

All one needs write is "Trump stated that the Saudi relationship involves hundreds of billions of dollars. Other sources quote the amount at issue at a 50 billion dollars."

This would be misleading, suggesting that the question is one of disagreement. There is no disagreement. There's an actually correct number, and it is less than what Trump said. Thus he inflated the number.

Your way is biased against objective truth.

Is it the journalist's job to delegitimize? Or is it his job to report?

It's often said that a journalists job is to report the truth. You're explicitly arguing they should not do so.