Back to the basics: what determines the reliability of a media source or an individual story, and is it possible to give an objective reliability scor

[Alcoholic Actuary]

The point is that the 'liberal media' (and NPR in particular) is often accused of ignoring the liberal candidate's flaws while attacking the conservative candidate. I tend to agree that a candidate under FBI investigation warrants scrutiny by the media. I was merely presenting evidence to the fact that this actually occurred - at least among more respected news organizations. I also provided links to the search results. If there was some question as to the quality of the reporting, one could click the link and read the headlines or stories themselves. IMO NPR handled the accusations and investigation fairly.

Basically, I have no idea what point you were trying to make with your post. Like somebody reading a Fox News article, I am less informed about what you're trying to tell me than I would have been if I hadn't read your post.

Clearly an oversight on my part. I presented only statistical facts. Had I included some more bias and opinion in my reporting, you would no doubt have been better informed on how to think regarding this issue.

aa

I'd ask what the fuck you're talking about, but if that's your idea of an answer, I doubt it would clear anything up.

As to the first part of the response - I guess I'm wondering why Hillary's FBI investigation got so much coverage (and Donald's pussy grabbing comment got 5 times less coverage) from a news organization that has a supposed liberal bias. It seems as though conservatives here are pretty convinced that's not how it went down.

As to the second part of the response - I assumed you were being sarcastic (a stretch, I know) and so I answered you with irony and sarcasm. That if I really were like Fox News, I would likely tell you exactly what to think and probably have left you worse off than had I just presented the stats alone. (similar to the evidence provided earlier in the thread).

aa (fair and balanced)

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Are you ok? You are saying some crazy shit. There are an infinite number of facts. News organizations can't report them all. They must use editorial discretion. This is basic reality that any one above two can grasp.

And Also - anyone above 2 can grasp facts relevant enough to be used to draw conclusions, from other facts like 'today is tuesday'.

The FBI investigation into Hillary had 100s of agents reviewing thousands of emails and conducting hundreds of interviews.

And their conclusion was? No charges. Boom, here's a link to their report. Dissect it to your heart's content.

There are billions of people whose opinions can be asked about it.

Agree, but that's not "News" that's an opinion. I too enjoy opinion pieces, but I know where it belongs on the mantle 'fair and balanced reporting'

No news agency covered all of this, so is that pro-Hillary bias?

No. And it was covered on some of the farthest fringes of tabloid news - apparently it was 'covered' enough to convince one news consumer to shoot up a pizza restaurant looking for child porn rings.

Or would you like to take another shot at objectively quantifying how much time they should have spent on the story?

All relevant facts of Hillary's FBI investigation ran their course and turned up 0. Once you start to double down on the conspiracy theory BS, you will easily find some rag outlet to cater to your wildest perversions.

aa

 

[dismal]

And Also - anyone above 2 can grasp facts relevant enough to be used to draw conclusions, from other facts like 'today is tuesday'.

The FBI investigation into Hillary had 100s of agents reviewing thousands of emails and conducting hundreds of interviews.

And their conclusion was? No charges. Boom, here's a link to their report. Dissect it to your heart's content.

There are billions of people whose opinions can be asked about it.

Agree, but that's not "News" that's an opinion. I too enjoy opinion pieces, but I know where it belongs on the mantle 'fair and balanced reporting'

No news agency covered all of this, so is that pro-Hillary bias?

No. And it was covered on some of the farthest fringes of tabloid news - apparently it was 'covered' enough to convince one news consumer to shoot up a pizza restaurant looking for child porn rings.

Or would you like to take another shot at objectively quantifying how much time they should have spent on the story?

All relevant facts of Hillary's FBI investigation ran their course and turned up 0. Once you start to double down on the conspiracy theory BS, you will easily find some rag outlet to cater to your wildest perversions.

aa

Still waiting for that objective analysis of how much a given story should be covered.

 

[ronburgundy]

And Also - anyone above 2 can grasp facts relevant enough to be used to draw conclusions, from other facts like 'today is tuesday'.

And their conclusion was? No charges. Boom, here's a link to their report. Dissect it to your heart's content.

There are billions of people whose opinions can be asked about it.

Agree, but that's not "News" that's an opinion. I too enjoy opinion pieces, but I know where it belongs on the mantle 'fair and balanced reporting'

No news agency covered all of this, so is that pro-Hillary bias?

No. And it was covered on some of the farthest fringes of tabloid news - apparently it was 'covered' enough to convince one news consumer to shoot up a pizza restaurant looking for child porn rings.

Or would you like to take another shot at objectively quantifying how much time they should have spent on the story?

All relevant facts of Hillary's FBI investigation ran their course and turned up 0. Once you start to double down on the conspiracy theory BS, you will easily find some rag outlet to cater to your wildest perversions.

aa

Still waiting for that objective analysis of how much a given story should be covered.

Then you are waiting on yourself (good luck). You are the one who asserted that unbiased reporting requires an precise % of coverage for a given issue, story, or candidate. You asserted that NPR is biased for spending anything less than 47% of its coverage on the opinions of Trump supporters.

 

[dismal]

And Also - anyone above 2 can grasp facts relevant enough to be used to draw conclusions, from other facts like 'today is tuesday'.

And their conclusion was? No charges. Boom, here's a link to their report. Dissect it to your heart's content.

There are billions of people whose opinions can be asked about it.

Agree, but that's not "News" that's an opinion. I too enjoy opinion pieces, but I know where it belongs on the mantle 'fair and balanced reporting'

No news agency covered all of this, so is that pro-Hillary bias?

No. And it was covered on some of the farthest fringes of tabloid news - apparently it was 'covered' enough to convince one news consumer to shoot up a pizza restaurant looking for child porn rings.

Or would you like to take another shot at objectively quantifying how much time they should have spent on the story?

All relevant facts of Hillary's FBI investigation ran their course and turned up 0. Once you start to double down on the conspiracy theory BS, you will easily find some rag outlet to cater to your wildest perversions.

aa

Still waiting for that objective analysis of how much a given story should be covered.

Then you are waiting on yourself (good luck). You are the one who asserted that unbiased reporting requires an precise % of coverage for a given issue, story, or candidate. You asserted that NPR is biased for spending anything less than 47% of its coverage on the opinions of Trump supporters.

Good luck with the reading comprehension in 2017. Not off to a great start.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

And Also - anyone above 2 can grasp facts relevant enough to be used to draw conclusions, from other facts like 'today is tuesday'.

And their conclusion was? No charges. Boom, here's a link to their report. Dissect it to your heart's content.

There are billions of people whose opinions can be asked about it.

Agree, but that's not "News" that's an opinion. I too enjoy opinion pieces, but I know where it belongs on the mantle 'fair and balanced reporting'

No news agency covered all of this, so is that pro-Hillary bias?

No. And it was covered on some of the farthest fringes of tabloid news - apparently it was 'covered' enough to convince one news consumer to shoot up a pizza restaurant looking for child porn rings.

Or would you like to take another shot at objectively quantifying how much time they should have spent on the story?

All relevant facts of Hillary's FBI investigation ran their course and turned up 0. Once you start to double down on the conspiracy theory BS, you will easily find some rag outlet to cater to your wildest perversions.

aa

Still waiting for that objective analysis of how much a given story should be covered.

Why? How much you think a story should be covered is your opinion. Just answer yourself and be done with it.

aa

 

[dismal]

And Also - anyone above 2 can grasp facts relevant enough to be used to draw conclusions, from other facts like 'today is tuesday'.

And their conclusion was? No charges. Boom, here's a link to their report. Dissect it to your heart's content.

There are billions of people whose opinions can be asked about it.

Agree, but that's not "News" that's an opinion. I too enjoy opinion pieces, but I know where it belongs on the mantle 'fair and balanced reporting'

No news agency covered all of this, so is that pro-Hillary bias?

No. And it was covered on some of the farthest fringes of tabloid news - apparently it was 'covered' enough to convince one news consumer to shoot up a pizza restaurant looking for child porn rings.

Or would you like to take another shot at objectively quantifying how much time they should have spent on the story?

All relevant facts of Hillary's FBI investigation ran their course and turned up 0. Once you start to double down on the conspiracy theory BS, you will easily find some rag outlet to cater to your wildest perversions.

aa

Still waiting for that objective analysis of how much a given story should be covered.

Why? How much you think a story should be covered is your opinion. Just answer yourself and be done with it.

aa

It's nice to see you talk a little sense. That "keep reporting until you've reported all the facts and stop" nonsense was pretty silly.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

And Also - anyone above 2 can grasp facts relevant enough to be used to draw conclusions, from other facts like 'today is tuesday'.

And their conclusion was? No charges. Boom, here's a link to their report. Dissect it to your heart's content.

There are billions of people whose opinions can be asked about it.

Agree, but that's not "News" that's an opinion. I too enjoy opinion pieces, but I know where it belongs on the mantle 'fair and balanced reporting'

No news agency covered all of this, so is that pro-Hillary bias?

No. And it was covered on some of the farthest fringes of tabloid news - apparently it was 'covered' enough to convince one news consumer to shoot up a pizza restaurant looking for child porn rings.

Or would you like to take another shot at objectively quantifying how much time they should have spent on the story?

All relevant facts of Hillary's FBI investigation ran their course and turned up 0. Once you start to double down on the conspiracy theory BS, you will easily find some rag outlet to cater to your wildest perversions.

aa

Still waiting for that objective analysis of how much a given story should be covered.

Why? How much you think a story should be covered is your opinion. Just answer yourself and be done with it.

aa

It's nice to see you talk a little sense. That "keep reporting until you've reported all the facts and stop" nonsense was pretty silly.

This?

It is perfectly possible to objectively quantify how much time should be spent reporting the news- once the facts are reported, you're done. If you want to keep rehashing it, or opining on it, or forwarding rumor and speculation, you are out of the news business and into opinion and readership goals.

Not sure why this is a hard concept to grasp.

I never said stop covering it, I said that was the end of "News Reporting". That is the point of demarcation between professional journalism and Op Eds. Opinion pieces are not "News Reports", but I've also said several times that I enjoy reading opinion pieces as well.

aa

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you ok? You are saying some crazy shit. There are an infinite number of facts. News organizations can't report them all. They must use editorial discretion. This is basic reality that any one above two can grasp.

The FBI investigation into Hillary had 100s of agents reviewing thousands of emails and conducting hundreds of interviews. There are billions of people whose opinions can be asked about it. No news agency covered all of this, so is that pro-Hillary bias?

Or would you like to take another shot at objectively quantifying how much time they should have spent on the story?

1) I saw plenty of mentions of it.

2) Continued mudslinging eventually becomes not news. The Republicans are basically complaining that the MSM grew tired of their "Wolf!" cries.

 

[dismal]

Are you ok? You are saying some crazy shit. There are an infinite number of facts. News organizations can't report them all. They must use editorial discretion. This is basic reality that any one above two can grasp.

The FBI investigation into Hillary had 100s of agents reviewing thousands of emails and conducting hundreds of interviews. There are billions of people whose opinions can be asked about it. No news agency covered all of this, so is that pro-Hillary bias?

Or would you like to take another shot at objectively quantifying how much time they should have spent on the story?

1) I saw plenty of mentions of it.

2) Continued mudslinging eventually becomes not news. The Republicans are basically complaining that the MSM grew tired of their "Wolf!" cries.

The consistent inability of our local champions of objectivity and truth to directly address the actual argument I have made is rather ironic.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

1) I saw plenty of mentions of it.

2) Continued mudslinging eventually becomes not news. The Republicans are basically complaining that the MSM grew tired of their "Wolf!" cries.

The consistent inability of our local champions of objectivity and truth to directly address the actual argument I have made is rather ironic.

On the contrary, every single argument you have made has been directly addressed.

Every.

Single.

Argument.

Even all the usual strawmen.

Just like the conservative media that repeats the same things over and over and over and over again - the repetition doesn't somehow magically turn into fact. It just tries to convince others that it's fact.

aa

 

[dismal]

The consistent inability of our local champions of objectivity and truth to directly address the actual argument I have made is rather ironic.

On the contrary, every single argument you have made has been directly addressed.

Every.

Single.

Argument.

Even all the usual strawmen.

aa

Ah, so can you point me to the objective formula for how much a news story should be covered again? I must keep missing it.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

On the contrary, every single argument you have made has been directly addressed.

Every.

Single.

Argument.

Even all the usual strawmen.

aa

Ah, so can you point me to the objective formula for how much a news story should be covered again? I must keep missing it.

Post # 86.

The question is also a straw man as well as logically inconsistent. The word "should" already assumes that the person answering will be providing their opinion - which may differ from yours. "What are the objective criteria for me to hold my opinion on what's covered?" is inherently subjective, not objective. You can keep demanding an answer to it until you are blue in the face, but the fact remains it has been addressed (twice now).

What else?

aa

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) I saw plenty of mentions of it.

2) Continued mudslinging eventually becomes not news. The Republicans are basically complaining that the MSM grew tired of their "Wolf!" cries.

The consistent inability of our local champions of objectivity and truth to directly address the actual argument I have made is rather ironic.

You notice that nothing of importance has come of the e-mail "scandal". The MSM was right to basically ignore it.

 

[dismal]

Ah, so can you point me to the objective formula for how much a news story should be covered again? I must keep missing it.

Post # 86.

The question is also a straw man as well as logically inconsistent. The word "should" already assumes that the person answering will be providing their opinion - which may differ from yours. "What are the objective criteria for me to hold my opinion on what's covered?" is inherently subjective, not objective. You can keep demanding an answer to it until you are blue in the face, but the fact remains it has been addressed (twice now).

What else?

aa

It seems like my original point was exactly that what is and isn't covered requires a subjective opinion and thus can't be done objectively. After all this you agree?

 

[dismal]

The consistent inability of our local champions of objectivity and truth to directly address the actual argument I have made is rather ironic.

You notice that nothing of importance has come of the e-mail "scandal". The MSM was right to basically ignore it.

My point had abso-effing-lutely nothing whatever to do with Hillary's email scandal. It's an example. My point was what is and isn't on the news requires subjective editorial judgement. Hillary's email is one of an infinite number of things upon which news time can be spent. Feel free to substitute the birth of a panda at the San Diego zoo or a severe storm in Djibouti.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You notice that nothing of importance has come of the e-mail "scandal". The MSM was right to basically ignore it.

My point had abso-effing-lutely nothing whatever to do with Hillary's email scandal. It's an example. My point was what is and isn't on the news requires subjective editorial judgement. Hillary's email is one of an infinite number of things upon which news time can be spent. Feel free to substitute the birth of a panda at the San Diego zoo or a severe storm in Djibouti.

How about Obama's fake birth certificate?

 

[dismal]

My point had abso-effing-lutely nothing whatever to do with Hillary's email scandal. It's an example. My point was what is and isn't on the news requires subjective editorial judgement. Hillary's email is one of an infinite number of things upon which news time can be spent. Feel free to substitute the birth of a panda at the San Diego zoo or a severe storm in Djibouti.

How about Obama's fake birth certificate?

Yes, this is among the infinity possible things that a news report could spend time on. But the thing about infinity is: so is everything else.

You notice that nothing of importance has come of the e-mail "scandal". The MSM was right to basically ignore it.

Well, I guess if that's the objective standard then I guess Trump's pussy grabbing comments and tax returns weren't news either.

Who'd have ever guessed "objectivity" = "ignoring that a candidate is under FBI investigation".

Not me. I wonder how we're going to know what's "objectively news" in advance.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Post # 86.

The question is also a straw man as well as logically inconsistent. The word "should" already assumes that the person answering will be providing their opinion - which may differ from yours. "What are the objective criteria for me to hold my opinion on what's covered?" is inherently subjective, not objective. You can keep demanding an answer to it until you are blue in the face, but the fact remains it has been addressed (twice now).

What else?

aa

It seems like my original point was exactly that what is and isn't covered requires a subjective opinion and thus can't be done objectively. After all this you agree?

Nope, see how you switched it again? What I never disagreed with was your previous exact statement "the AMOUNT OF COVERAGE is subjective". I have not yet opined on whether "is or isn't" can be done objectively. I mean I suppose that 0% coverage is 'an amount' but I also don't think that ignoring stories completely puts you under the umbrella of responsible professional journalism. I don't know, why don't you make an argument that it can't be done objectively and convince me? Is a gay couple that gets turned down for a wedding cake news? (maybe locally). Same story goes all the way to federal court and has the potential to impact public policy? Definitely news.

BTW I responded to you to make the broader point that what is and isn't news is more of a function of HOW it is reported and less a function of 'if and to what extent'.

aa

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How about Obama's fake birth certificate?

Yes, this is among the infinity possible things that a news report could spend time on. But the thing about infinity is: so is everything else.

You notice that nothing of importance has come of the e-mail "scandal". The MSM was right to basically ignore it.

Well, I guess if that's the objective standard then I guess Trump's pussy grabbing comments and tax returns weren't news either.

Hold on there, buddy.

Trump's pussy grabbing was a thing he said he did. Journalism uses sources, especially primary sources and documentation to confirm news stories. In Trump's case, there was a video (documented evidence) of him saying he grabbed women by the pussy.

On the other hand, Obama did not have a fake birth certificate. He had a real one.