Charting a News Media Narrative

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Solver, Jun 7, 2019.

  1. Solver, Jun 7, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2019

    Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #1
    “Georgia State University PhD student of Political Science, Zach Goldberg, searched through LexisNexis archives of the New York Times to perform a deep dive into how they've shaped the narrative by using terms like "whiteness," "white privilege," "implicit bias" and "diversity and inclusion" in their articles.”

    http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=60274

    upload_2019-6-7_10-40-17.jpeg
     
  2. MacAndMic, Jun 7, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2019

    MacAndMic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    #2
    You can see this with any subject, especially the Trump investigation. The more you say a lie, it has to become true right? It's just the old whisper down the road technique but they're yelling now. No worries, voters have become very aware.
     
  3. Khalanad75 macrumors 6502

    Khalanad75

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2015
    Location:
    land of confusion
    #3
    Do this with "witch hunt" on Fox news or any right leaning media site. You would see the exact same thing.

    It's all an echo chamber.
     
  4. villicodelirant Suspended

    villicodelirant

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    #4
    My favourite is, and has always been, "implicit bias".

    You see, you have those evil, faceless, amoral corporations that are willing to cover up major environmental disasters and even hire gunmen to kill aboriginal chiefs in order to, er, facilitate the building of a dam.
    They really are hell-bent on making money.
    They have managers that get promoted if their division makes money.

    So it would be very hard to justify that, when it comes to hiring, they'd all rather hire a man instead of a woman who is equally or more productive in the name of Oppression and Male Privilege.
    I mean, that could happen for a time, until someone got smart, hired all those unemployed brilliant engineers and made a ****ton of money, driving up their salaries in the process.

    At which point you realize it can't be.
    Unless... unless... there is an "implicit bias", in which Coca Cola is actively and unknowingly fighting a war against middle class white women and losing a boatload of money without even noticing, while they evict entire villages to pay a few pennies less for water after careful calculations.

    I can only imagine the board meetings, in which they probably wear capes and burst out in sinister laughter.
     
  5. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #5
    You've just shared Trump's methodology.
     
  6. hawkeye_a macrumors 65816

    hawkeye_a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    #6
    I don't think it's an unreasonable assertion to point out that the vast majority of news and media outlets(both public and private) are left leaning and anti-conservative, as are most of the communication(social media, search, etc) companies in silicon valley, Hollywood and higher education institution.

    Yes, everyone is "biased", but it is nowhere near evenly balanced. If there is a 50-50 split between liberal(conservative) and socialists, as most elections over the past 20 years have indicated, one would expect that, over time the narrative would approximate to the middle. It hasn't.
     
  7. villicodelirant Suspended

    villicodelirant

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    #7
    Or that it form two very polarized clusters. Which has sort of happened.
    (You're also assuming that readers are the same population as voters, which I don't think is the case.)
     
  8. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #8
    But there is a difference between bias and propaganda. The former deals with and reports the facts but approaches a given topic from a particular point of view (e.g., MSNBC’s evening programming). The latter is built on false narratives and twists and misreports the facts as necessary to make sure that their point of view prevails (e.g., Fox News evening programming).
     
  9. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #9
    Maybe there's a reason why it appars to those on the right that the rest of the world seems to appear to be to their left...

    maybe.. cause the rest of the world doesn't agree with the minority of conservative mindset? around the world, Conservative movements tend to have no more than 40% support at the max. But most political systems are setup in such a way that you can gain controlling governance with as little as 30% of the popular support of a country. (Canada's is just as bad with the First past the post system).

    But back on point. If you find yourself constantly in the minority, in which you are being told by 70% of the rest of the world you are wrong... I'm not saying that means you are automatically wrong. But it might be worth doing some introspection that your opinions are not held by the majority of people.
     
  10. villicodelirant Suspended

    villicodelirant

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    #10
    I mean, that usually opens up the possibility that you might be right, whereas if you find that's not the case you are almost certainly dead wrong :p
     
  11. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #11
    I try to be dead wrong at least twice a day. that way I get learn something I didn't know before..
     
  12. villicodelirant Suspended

    villicodelirant

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    #12
    That's very commendable, but remember to be wrong with those opinions that are not held by the majority of people.
    If you adopt those opinions that are wrong and popular, you'll probably never get a chance to learn.

    There's very many terrible ideas to pick from, both popular (Windows 10 Home Edition) and unpopular (installing Gentoo Linux from stage 1, or Nazism).
     
  13. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #13
    I know. I was sort of being flippant with that comment about being wrong.

    But I take the mental approach that any opinion I have can very well be wrong and that instead of trying to convince everyone I'm right (which tends to be a theme for most posters here), I try and discuss, and learn from others opinions.

    The only time I get pissy about it is if someone has formulated an opinion based on misinformation and refuses to accept real facts.
     
  14. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #14
    Because 70% of the world doesn't have your best interests at heart, but in the end, you can be sure they do it for themselves. So of course the rest of the world wants the good ole U.S. of A to be for globalism.
     
  15. hawkeye_a macrumors 65816

    hawkeye_a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    #15
    Probably deserving of a thread for itself; Here's an interesting take on women in politics, and how they are portrayed by the media.

    It's something I've noticed, but since I don't spend every waking hour going through the tabloidesq-content of mainstream media outlets, could never confirm this particular type of political+sexist bias.

    Prominent conservative women ignored, belittled and insulted by the mainstream media.....
    Sandra Day O'Connor, first female chief justice, appointed by a Republican president.
    Kellyanne Conway, first woman to run a succesful US presidential campaign.
    Ayan Hirse Ali, one of the only prominent women speaking out about the persecution of women in the real-life 'Handsmade's tale'.

     
  16. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
  17. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #17
    out of curiosity: what's the real reality then?
     
  18. villicodelirant, Jun 11, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019

    villicodelirant Suspended

    villicodelirant

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    #18
    You know the one before Twitter?
    Right, that one.

    A key principle of scientific investigation is avoiding explanations that require an excessive number of hypotheses to be consistent with reality.
    All the major companies in the world unknowingly burning money due to their avoidance of more productive female staff which, in turn, is due to implicit bias seems like an incredibly big extra hypothesis to explain the lack of career advancement by women in certain fields - particularly engineering.

    There is a simpler explanation:
    1. The most important point is that in the west women prefer high-status partners.
      Therefore, men will be more competitive on the job, period.
      Men are very driven to be the top performing employee and receive benefits and promotions.
      This is a very big one already.
    2. Partly for the above reason, partly due to cultural and biological factors (men don't get pregnant), women are more likely to take parental leave.
      This makes a woman inherently less valuable for an employer (an employer buys resources on the job market, there's an A model and a B model, B model is more likely to go offline for a few months straight, what do you buy?)
    3. Particularly in engineering fields, the prior gender ratio is already skewed: my school used to graduate 10 female engineers every 90 guys; simple combinatorics/pigeonhole principle tells you that you can only expect the average female:male ratio among employers to be exactly that, it's not as if there is a gazillion female candidates that get turned down due to implicit bias.
      This might be due to biology or cultural factors: makes no difference to me, unless you want to go all North Korea and send the whole of the Western society to a re-education camp.
    4. Corollary of the above: more men usually take extracurricular activities somehow related to engineering.
      On this forum, how many guys have built an Hackintosh? How many girls? There you have it.
      Incidentally most statistics which claim to "prove" (poor Sir Ronald Fisher) that The Patriarchy is conspiring against professional women don't measure this, preferring to focus on GPA vs. income or stuff like that.
    Moreover, the notion of "implicit bias" needs to do away with either
    1. how the market works
    2. with the idea that companies aim to make money, or
    3. with the idea that at least some companies use rational and quantitative instruments for management as a means to make money
    If there was something like "implicit bias", in the free (job) market it would be extremely unlikely that nobody eventually realized that there's a pool of underused high-performing women there and started firing their male employees and replacing them with women that are paid the same and perform uniformly better, thus driving up their salaries in the process.

    Equality of outcome will never be achieved, because the attitudes of women are intrinsically distributed differently from men, due to biology and culture/upbringing.
    Distributions have tails, of course, so that's not a problem.

    True equality is equality of opportunity.

    If,
    somewhere, there's a minority of women (tails of the distribution) that want things in life that are typically more associated with men, they should be able to get them.

    This, you obtain by:
    1. silencing Twitter feminists and SJWs as soon as possible,
    2. making even thinking about "gender quotas" illegal
    3. doing things; for example by socializing or insuring the costs of maternity, thus equalizing the inherent disadvantage women have.
      Alice gets pregnant? Nevermind, the employer won't have to regret not hiring Bob, because it gets to cash a fat check.
    In closing, note that I do support affirmative action for minorities.
    For minorities, not for women -- not for 50% of the population in a free country, particularly if they have the right to bear arms and are born into wealthy families just as often as the other 50%.
     
  19. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    So how come in Britain so many powerful people went to Eton?
     
  20. villicodelirant Suspended

    villicodelirant

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    #20
    I'm not a Briton, so I'm not sure how this is related to the matter at hand.
    However, I seem to recall Eton is an expensive and prestigious school, so it doesn't seem an unlikely outcome to me - even obvious:
    • powerful people send their children there, and power is very often hereditary
    • networking with powerful people is a predictor of power
    • a prestigious school in and of itself helps one's rise to power
    What about it, then?
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Hardly seems like a meritocracy.

    And doesn’t seem like it’s picking our best leaders.
     
  22. villicodelirant Suspended

    villicodelirant

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    #22
    No, it's not.
    Power is often hereditary.

    "Merit" itself is often hereditary - a guy from the slums of a third world ******** who works three jobs, even after putting all of his effort in, can barely reach the results in terms of e.g. income or learning that a middle-class American guy gets simply by coasting and flunking Algebra.

    How does this have anything to do with the ad-hoc hypothesis of "implicit bias" that Twitter feminists have invented?
     
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    If you only hire leaders from one school you can hardly claim with any credibility to be hiring “the best”. The reality is that companies can still succeed despite having a broken culture or not hiring the best people - even so diversity helps people succeed.
     
  24. villicodelirant Suspended

    villicodelirant

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    #24
    You lost me, sorry (the use of Twitter jargon like "diversity" doesn't help).
    If I am understanding correctly, you are saying that, indeedly-doodly, all of those faceless money-making corporations will only hire from one school, and that would be Eton?
    And not because they want to make money but because they have a "broken culture" that gets in the way of the money-making?
    And that this is rewarded on the market and by Wall Street because there is no company acting... actually rationally?

    That's a very, very huge additional hypothesis.
    I prefer my explanation.

    incidentally, if I were to hire from one school I'd definitely pick Eton over a community college in the backwater of nowhere...
     
  25. Eraserhead, Jun 12, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019

    Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    You don’t really think capitalism 100% works do you? How cute.

    And you don’t realise that the reason Britain built her empire in the 18th and 19th centuries was largely down to (relative) diversity.
     

Share This Page

25 June 7, 2019