[skinster]

WSWS is one of the most garbage websites I've ever seen.

Why?

[Drlee]

Does the bias of the news source matter if you as the reader understand that its biased?

Yes but to a lesser extent than if you don't know that.

I offer as the obvious example Fox News Channel. It claimed "fair and balanced" and a lot of not so savvy people bought it. It churns out hour after hour of right wing propaganda interspersed with a little decent reporting.

Most people exhibit major confirmation bias. The thing about left-leaning websites (only as opposed to right wing leaning ones) is that they have to serve a higher standard because of the more critical standard applied by left wing viewers/readers.

Here I offer the counter MSNBC. It is clearly biased toward democrats. Nevertheless it is more overtly biased but the standard of "truth" on it is far higher than on Fox. Since the US does not actually have any significant left(ish) movement and for all intent and purpose no socialist or communist movements at all, their ideas are woefully absent in media at all. Even Bernie, who claims to be a "democratic socialist" is center right.

[Rancid]

Why?

Let me preface, I support the existence of WSWS, I just think they need to stop trying to pass themselves off as journalists (yes, I understand the same can be said of much of the MSM).

Anyway, to answer the question more directly. The handful of articles I've read there are just way too sensationalized for my liking. It's almost like they're trying to write theater dramas. However, lots of people post WSWS as though its some sort of news site. The reality is, it's an editorial opinion site. I think most people can't tell the difference though, so they need to be responsible and make it clear. This just like how Fox news needs to stop calling itself "far and balanced".

Example:
There was a series of 'articles' about a strike in Matamoros Mexico a while back. These WSWS articles blew up the story with fake shit saying how the factories are stopped, and that Ford is being brought down to its knees. Further, they didn't fully report what was actually happening between the union and the factories. They failed to mention lots of key information, for example, how many of the factories decided to just fire everyone and move out of Matamoros. Basically, they omitted alot of information, and they sensationalized stuff that just wasn't as big of a deal. All of it was done to make the strike sound like it was a resounding success that was going to change the way corporations deal with labor. The reality was that it achieved mixed results. The mix results being that many workers were laid off, the few that remained, did manage to negotiate a raise. WSWS completely failed to report on that reality.

How do I know this? I did some research. First, I cross checked with a few different other sources. First, I read the local Matamoros new (I speak/read Spanish after all). This is where I found out that some factories decided to lay everyone off and leave Matamoros. This is also were I found out some of the remaining workers did in fact get some raises. Both of which, WSWS did not report. This also were I found out that many of the factories supplied auto parts to the US auto industry (WSWS got his part right).

It just so happens, I read a lot of automotive enthusiast news. These sites tend to not get political, so these are decent sources. These sites were reporting that there was a strike in Mexico (they didn't give details other than saying that there was a strike), and that the strike only affect a single model of car. The Ford Mustang. It went on to say that it only reduced the supply of steering wheels for the Mustang, and thus, it would likely reduce the number of Mustangs you see on dealer lots. Further, if you know anything about cars. The Mustang isn't a high seller, so even if Mustang sales came to a halt, it would not bring Ford to its knees.

Further, I read a few technology websites (because I'm an engineer, and the automotive industry is a segment of the tech industry). These basically said similar things to the auto enthusiasts sites I read.

All of this showed to me that WSWS is full of shit and not news.

[Rancid]

Yes but to a lesser extent than if you don't know that.

I offer as the obvious example Fox News Channel. It claimed "fair and balanced" and a lot of not so savvy people bought it. It churns out hour after hour of right wing propaganda interspersed with a little decent reporting.

Most people exhibit major confirmation bias. The thing about left-leaning websites (only as opposed to right wing leaning ones) is that they have to serve a higher standard because of the more critical standard applied by left wing viewers/readers.

Here I offer the counter MSNBC. It is clearly biased toward democrats. Nevertheless it is more overtly biased but the standard of "truth" on it is far higher than on Fox. Since the US does not actually have any significant left(ish) movement and for all intent and purpose no socialist or communist movements at all, their ideas are woefully absent in media at all. Even Bernie, who claims to be a "democratic socialist" is center right.

Yea. I was thinking a bit more about this. I think so called news outlets need to understand that most people cannot tell the difference between news/facts and opinions. Thus, they have a moral obligation to outright point out when they are sharing news/facts or just opinion/personal analysis/commentary.

[Drlee]

I completely agree. MSNBC is pretty good about calling their shows what they are but Fox can't be bothered.

[foxdemon]

Broader question to everyone:
Does the bias of the news source matter if you as the reader understand that its biased?

I think most of us would regard media in much the same vain as we would regard those emails involving a rich deceased relative leaving a fortune that only requires sending money to obtain. As with emails, one must use some discretion.

As an example of what 'allsides.com' considers 'left' and 'right', ABC, CBS, and NBC are listed as 'leans left', and Fox News (news, not opinion) as 'leans right'. If you're not laughing now, you don't know anything about American media. With a rating system like that, it's no surprise that most stories are listed as 'left' or 'leans left'.

One other thing to make you laugh - they say they've patented their method. Who the hell would want to copy it?

So let’s define the term.

The original usage of left wing/ right wing referred to the French revolutionary parliament. Liberals would sit on the left and monarchists to the right.

In the early 20th century, it came to mean something else. The old aristocracy was pretty much dead as a political force. The ideological struggle of the day was between communism and fascism. Left or right mean’t which extreme of socialist ideology one aligned with. Liberals were left to imagine they were centralists, but really, centralists are those who don’t fit on a spectrum of socialist ideology.

I think this usage is still the case today. Because it is essentially a socialist spectrum, much shoehorning is required to fit the full breadth of political thought onto that spectrum. Is it really a concept of much utility?

You come up with the weirdest tweets. So the Frankfurt school is Fascist now?

I have noticed there is a disinformation campaign amongst those who identify with the left to claim there is no such thing as neo-Marxism, but these terms, and critical theory, have been around for about 100 years. Possibly neo-Marxists are trying to pretend they aren’t Marxists so that they won’t be associated with their ideology’s demonstratively genocidal history?


On a tangent, I have noticed people complaining that they aren’t fascist after some Antifa dude punches them in the face. What they fail to understand is to the Marxist mind, anyone who thinks they should own their own house believes in capitalism, late stage capitalism leads to fascism, and therefore, everyone is at least a want-to-be fascist and so can be punched in the face. At least that is how the Marxist logic goes.

[Palmyrene]

@foxdemon

You come up with the weirdest tweets. So the Frankfurt school is Fascist now?

I have noticed there is a disinformation campaign amongst those who identify with the left to claim there is no such thing as neo-Marxism, but these terms, and critical theory, have been around for about 100 years. Possibly neo-Marxists are trying to pretend they aren’t Marxists so that they won’t be associated with their ideology’s demonstratively genocidal history?

No one is saying critical theory or the Frankfurt school doesn't exist or doesn't derive most of it's ideas from Marxism, it's just that alot of their ideas are nothing like what people like you claim they are. And furthermore, these ideas don't inform most Marxist beliefs let alone other "leftist" ideaa such as anarchism.

Case in point, this bullshit below:

On a tangent, I have noticed people complaining that they aren’t fascist after some Antifa dude punches them in the face. What they fail to understand is to the Marxist mind, anyone who thinks they should own their own house believes in capitalism, late stage capitalism leads to fascism, and therefore, everyone is at least a want-to-be fascist and so can be punched in the face. At least that is how the Marxist logic goes.

See? Literally no Marxist thinks this way. While I can't speak for Marxism, Anarchists (who also are a part of Antifa) are opposed to absentee property ownership. If you occupancy and consistently maintain a specific piece of property it's all yours.

Also, the people who claim they aren't Nazis after Antifa punches them are literal Nazis who wear Nazi clothing or carry Nazi flags. I've never seen Antifa even punch someone who claimed to be a Nazi or fascist so if an Antifa dude punches a Nazi they must be really showing it off.

[foxdemon]

No one is saying critical theory or the Frankfurt school doesn't exist or doesn't derive most of it's ideas from Marxism, it's just that alot of their ideas are nothing like what people like you claim they are. And furthermore, these ideas don't inform most Marxist beliefs let alone other "leftist" ideaa such as anarchism.

Case in point, this bullshit below:



See? Literally no Marxist thinks this way. While I can't speak for Marxism, Anarchists (who also are a part of Antifa) are opposed to absentee property ownership. If you occupancy and consistently maintain a specific piece of property it's all yours.

Also, the people who claim they aren't Nazis after Antifa punches them are literal Nazis who wear Nazi clothing or carry Nazi flags. I've never seen Antifa even punch someone who claimed to be a Nazi or fascist so if an Antifa dude punches a Nazi they must be really showing it off.

Andy Ngo was punched. There was another guy with a US flag who got belted with a bike lock. They weren’t Nazis. In practise they just attack anyone they deem to be a fascist, which seems to be anyone outside their ideology. Plenty of examples of Antifa attacking innocent people. Additionally, they are at fault for using violence to enforce their ideology. Typically Marxist intolerance.

But we will do things your way, if you like. No more talk of cultural Marxists, neo Marxists, critical theorists, or even Bolsheviks or Trotskyists or Maoists. They all just bloody commies. There, are you happy now?

[Palmyrene]

Andy Ngo was punched. There was another guy with a US flag who got belted with a bike lock. They weren’t Nazis. In practise they just attack anyone they deem to be a fascist, which seems to be anyone outside their ideology. Plenty of examples of Antifa attacking innocent people. Additionally, they are at fault for using violence to enforce their ideology. Typically Marxist intolerance.

Andy Ngo was a reactionary and practically a fascist other than name as well as the fact that he intentionally attempted to rile up Antifa. And I don't know what US flag guy you're talking about.

Antifa doesn't enforce an ideology. It isn't an organization nor does is it specifically Marxist. It's a brand that people use rather than a centralized group of people. Antifa is about fighting fascism, not enforcing an ideology.

But we will do things your way, if you like. No more talk of cultural Marxists, neo Marxists, critical theorists, or even Bolsheviks or Trotskyists or Maoists. They all just bloody commies. There, are you happy now?

There are no Marxist-Leninist groups in America. Critical theorists are also not associated with MList groups, they're more in line with anarchists although they do not belong to the tradition.

Also yes calling them commies is better than conspiracy theories. At least you could actually have a discussion instead of dismissing anything left of Nazism as "cultural Marxism". The left-right dictomy is retarded anyways.

[Hong Wu]

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/08/ ... -congress/

The leaked documents contain literal in-code references to Google's projects for "reranking", "censorship" and "blacklists." Compelling evidence of perjury!

MSNBC is not really relevant according to ratings. It's there to give certain trolls a veneer of legitimacy.

[Rancid]

A suggestion to some of you. It's often good to cross check news with business news sites. Often they are more interested in getting the story right. Mainly because they want accurate information to be able to determine how to play the market on the news.

[Drlee]

MSNBC is not really relevant according to ratings. It's there to give certain trolls a veneer of legitimacy.

On the contrary. It is very relevant. It has a very large audience.

Fox News is not News. It fills its evening schedule with pundits.

This is not a ratings battle. The question is effectiveness within demographics. If MSNBC informs democrats and many independents then it is quite relevant. From Trump's perspective, for example, MSNBC impacts an audience he fears deeply while Fox appeals to the already converted. Remember that there are far more democrats than republicans.

As of October 2017, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% identified as Republican, and 42% as Independent.[3] Additionally, polling showed that 46% are either "Democrats or Democratic leaners" and 39% are either "Republicans or Republican leaners" when Independents are asked "do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?"[4]

And it has not been a good last year and a half for republicans.

Issue advantage

The issue mix for next year seems to favor Democrats, according to a Nov. 7-13 Pew Research Center survey. That poll found respondents preferring congressional Democrats to Trump by a wide margin in their approaches to the environment, ethics in government, Medicare, health care and Social Security — and by a smaller but still clear margin on foreign policy, immigration and gun policy.

Trump’s only clear advantage in the national survey was on jobs and economic growth — an advantage that would quickly disappear if the economy slows noticeably, as some economists expect.

Face it. Fox preaches to the converted. As the voters turn against the republicans (and 2018 proved that they have) they will not necessarily look to MSNBC or CNN but may flee the news cycle altogether in favor of local news. Meanwhile CNN and MSNBC continue to energize the democratic base.

This could be a very bad election cycle for down ballot republicans even with their gerrymandering advantages baked in.

[Verv]

Concerning the methodology, it's actually in the article:

To conduct the audit, AllSides searched 10 terms related to the weekend’s tragedies in an incognito Google Chrome browser. Each term was searched six times at 30 minute intervals on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons (EST) for a total of 7.5 hours. AllSides only recorded news stories that appeared as the top three results in Google’s “Top Stories” section for each search query, and noted each source’s AllSides Media Bias Rating. Across each of the 174 queries, AllSides revealed significant Google bias toward prominent left-leaning media outlets. View the raw data here.

This analysis does not show any direct evidence that Google is intentionally suppressing voices from the right in relation to the shootings. It may be that a lack of right-leaning news media overall accounts for the huge difference between left and right-leaning appearances in Google News, or is perhaps an unintended consequence of Google’s algorithm.

This audit had a small sample size, yet tracks closely with prior data on Google bias. Last year, AllSides released a 39-page report on Google News bias that revealed Google News is 65% biased toward sources with a left-wing media bias. In addition, a lengthy audit conducted by researchers at Northwestern University also found Google’s “Top Stories” section favors Left media outlets.

AllSides reviewed 70 news sources on the right, and most of them did cover the weekend’s news along with left-wing media. Yet Fox News (16 times), National Review (2) and the Washington Examiner (1) were the only right-wing media sources that appeared in any of the 174 search queries performed by AllSides — and only for the very general query “Trump.”

(From the original link)

Is that good enough information for you, DrLee?

On their news page they quote as "left" an article entitled:

"New Rules Can Deny Green Cards For Immigrants On Food Stamps"

So I read the article from the Huffington Post. It was nowhere near left.

HuffPo "Nowhere near left?" That is shocking .

Post the article.

[Drlee]

Dude. Look it up. It is on the first page of your reference.

And by the way. If you are for calling all articles from a source left or right depending on some preconceived notion of that source's political bent then I rest my case.

For the record I have seen some pretty progressive stuff on Fox and some pretty conservative stuff on MSNBC.

[Verv]

Dude. Look it up. It is on the first page of your reference.

And by the way. If you are for calling all articles from a source left or right depending on some preconceived notion of that source's political bent then I rest my case.

For the record I have seen some pretty progressive stuff on Fox and some pretty conservative stuff on MSNBC.

There is definitely a difference between the editorial section and the regular news section, though. It could be said that, at that point, simply havign the occasional conservative editorial or liberal editorial would make the source withotu bias by that measure.

But, generally speaking, there is a slant in even the articles that are not editorials, correct? I am sure that many here have pointed out conservative bias in Fox news articles, and they would be right according to AllSides.

So, would you not consider it relevant to say that an abnormally small amount of normally conservative news sources being presented is a form of bias? Or do you think that there is absolutely no difference between Fox News and MSNBC, or the Daily Mail and the Guardian, when we are going to be reading an article on a news event..? Are you ready to go to the mat on that one when someone says that Fox news is biased?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

@Verv , the point is that allsides' definition of what is 'left' and 'right' is laughable. Of major news organisations who you might look to for reporting on a news story like this, they claim:
Left:
MSNBC

Lean Left:
ABC
CBS
NBC
New York Times news
CNN news
Time
Washington Post

Centre:
NPR news
AP
USA Today
Wall Street Journal news
(plus BBC and Reuters, who are global enough to get American readership)

Lean Right:
Fox news

Right:
no significant news reporting organisation

Their classification is just rubbish. They say the major TV networks lean to the left, despite their obvious long standing support of, and dependence on, capitalism. Hell, they claim The Economist leans left. With such twisted definitions, of course they'll come out saying the top reports on Google news are 'left or lean left'. They are just leaving out the "...left of Genghis Khan" bit.

[skinster]

Blah blah blah

All of this showed to me that WSWS is full of shit and not news.

"Marxist analysis is shit, listen to my opinion instead"

[Finfinder]

They should rename this discussion how to be a Rino 101. Next we will get lecture on why there there is no "deep state" in politics.

[Rancid]

Next we will get lecture on why there there is no "deep state" in politics.

What is the deep state?

[Palmyrene]

What is the deep state?

It's anything I say it is.