A ?? For The Political Enthusiasts

ToonaRockGuy · Post by **ToonaRockGuy** » Tuesday Sep 13, 2011

Okay, so I don't get into the political debates and bs that goes on here, but I do have one serious question. No attacks, though, on myself, or each other.

Whether Republican or Democrat, Left or Right, Independendent or whatever your leaning...

If one side says that they view the other side's statements or theories as "spun" to make one side or the other look better or worse...

Where the hell can you just get the straight dope? All I hear is that CNN leans this way, MSNBC leans that way, FoxNews leans this way, USA Today leans that way, Newsweek, Time, YahooNews, and on and on, blah, blah, blah...so where are simply the FACTS without any rhetoric?

Or is politics simply like organized religion, failing purely due to individual interpretation?

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Tuesday Sep 13, 2011

I have to claim the postmodernist take on this question. You're dealing with subjective interpretations of normative truth, which is legitimatized by those who control the language and public sphere. You can argue objective and positivist facts, like GDP or the number of homeless, but the normative values placed upon those numbers are ultimately social constructions that only have truth insofar as they are legitimized by people themselves.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Tuesday Sep 13, 2011

I guess it depends on your perspective and what you intend to do with the information.

I use information to formulate investment strategies and predict economic cycles. For this, you should check the legitimate investing media such as the wall street journal and others like it. Avoid sites that interject too much opinion.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Tuesday Sep 13, 2011

I believe it's necessary to have several arrows in your quiver when approaching media information. First, one needs to know and seperate fact from opinion... opinions are sometimes factual, but fact is independent of opinion. An easy way to do that is look at the source as a whole, check other items on a show or page, as opinion pieces tend to flock together.

Next, one has to question the motive of the outlet to disseminate a story... what does the outlet stand to gain from what they are saying? Does it pander to a specific group or demographic, and does that demographic support the media outlet with time, loyalty, or financial gain?

Also, one needs to look for patterns over time... has the story changed over time (facts usually don't), does the outlet omit or downplay certain information over the course of time, does the outlet's stance change in regard to political climate, etc.

Finally, look at the advertisers on that media outlet. Does it have general-audience advertising, or is the majority of ads aimed at very specific demographics (elderly, religious, college-age, executive, etc.)? Are they ads for toilet tissue and snack foods, or are they for anti-aging potions and reverse mortgages? Do the advertisers tend to appeal to your need for a good product, or your need to do what's "right?"

Remember, media's desire to give you factual information is always balanced with media's desire for market-share... every paid writer has to sell you something in order to be paid.

For a larger percentage of info that is spin-free, try outlets outside the usual area pertinent to the outlet. BBC usually has much less political spin on American politics, because they seldom have a horse in the race, and their American audience is small compared to their home turf. They literally don't care who the next president is. Be aware , however, that outside markets are now vying for share on the world stage, and their own politics may be tainted by their own system of gov't, i.e., don't go to Al Jazeera looking for heartwarming stories about the families of US soldiers. But I think most people get that.

Gallowglass · Post by **Gallowglass** » Tuesday Sep 13, 2011

There is no way to get the "straight dope". It's actually impossible to even provide the "straight dope". Even if one is trying to be as objective as possible, bias begins as soon as a programmer chooses to run one story and not another. There is simply not enough air-time for a station to even begin broadcasting without bias. Every small story would seem like an episode of the old Cross-fire show. The only alternative is to educate yourself and decide for yourself.

Slothkill · Post by **Slothkill** » Tuesday Sep 13, 2011

I would say there is no truth to what any media puts out. We are on the road to a New World Order. The United Staes will fall just as Greese, Rome, The U.S.S.R.
And when I say Greese I meanhttp://youtu.be/zHFbhhi_XVc

Slothkill · Post by **Slothkill** » Tuesday Sep 13, 2011

Sorry
http://youtu.be/zHFbhhi_XVc

ToonaRockGuy · Post by **ToonaRockGuy** » Tuesday Sep 13, 2011

Gallowglass wrote: The only alternative is to educate yourself and decide for yourself.

Agreed, Jason, but therein lies the rub...where can you educate yourself without media bias coming in to play? That's the real crux of my question.

Slothkill · Post by **Slothkill** » Tuesday Sep 13, 2011

This would be a great example why the the U.S. Gov. wants to control the internet
http://youtu.be/ClqUcScwnn8
You and I both were in the military toona, we both know how information is cleaned up.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Tuesday Sep 13, 2011

ToonaRockGuy wrote:
Gallowglass wrote: The only alternative is to educate yourself and decide for yourself.
Agreed, Jason, but therein lies the rub...where can you educate yourself without media bias coming in to play? That's the real crux of my question.

Very good point. You have to take it all with a proper grain of salt. You know conservative sources will paint everything to make the right look like the only choice. Left sources will do the same.

A good rule of thumb is that whatever Chris Matthews says about republicans is usually right, he just forgets to tell you that democrats are guilty of the exact same thing. Whatever Rush or Hannity say about the left if usually right, but they neglect to say the same thing when the conservative politicians do the same thing.

And always remember this, both the left and right media are defending the two party system as strongly as they can. They do all they can to not allow a third or fourth voice to enter into the false 2 party debate. Ron Paul from a libertarian view has the same problems that Ralph Nadar has from a consumer protection viewpoint.

Many other democracies and republics like Great Brittan and Israel have many political parties. Why do we really only have only 2? Why do both the left and right media want to keep it that way?

slink · Post by **slink** » Tuesday Sep 13, 2011

Hi Toonarockguy, one source of info you might want to try is the Drudge report. They can be found on the internet.

hicksjd9 · Post by **hicksjd9** » Tuesday Sep 13, 2011

It is impossible for a source to be unbiased. Even the choice of what they decide to cover or who they choose to interview presents a bias. Documentaries, which most people accept as "truth," are a great example of this. The editing process of picking and choosing what to present (when writing, filmmaking, etc.) is, in and of itself, extremely biased. Basically, it's what Paul said. Just in simpler terms. The truth is whatever we make it out to be.

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Wednesday Sep 14, 2011

Yeah, all sources are biased. You won't find one that is down the middle. Like stated before, the best thing to do is get it from both sides and then decide on your own.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Wednesday Sep 14, 2011

hicksjd9 wrote: The truth is whatever we make it out to be.

I totally disagree with the above statement. There is only one truth.

There is truth. But you have to do your own fact checking to find it.

Frank is right, you have to do you're own research and check out both sides.

It takes effort on your part to filter out the crap.

We each draw our own conclusions based on our personal outlook of what we want or don't want from the government. So while one might cheer a given fact, another might jeer at the same fact. But it is still a true fact.

Gallowglass · Post by **Gallowglass** » Wednesday Sep 14, 2011

Careful there Hawk, you're getting dangerously close to sounding like a Randian styled Objectivist...the funny thing is, this is exactly one of the places I disagree with Mrs. Rand. That's really funny in an ironic kind of way.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Wednesday Sep 14, 2011

Gallowglass wrote:Careful there Hawk, you're getting dangerously close to sounding like a Randian styled Objectivist...the funny thing is, this is exactly one of the places I disagree with Mrs. Rand. That's really funny in an ironic kind of way.

"Like"

hicksjd9 · Post by **hicksjd9** » Wednesday Sep 14, 2011

Hawk,

For someone who likes to argue so much, I can't understand why you wouldn't agree with what I said. Persuasive speaking works simply.

You have an opinion (a claim), you back the opinion up with reasons, and you back each reason up with evidence.

This is why two experts in their respective fields can take the stand and come to two totally different conclusions about any subject in their field (for example, is the murderer insane or not?).

The closest you can get to a truth are facts, however, facts can be wrong AND no matter what you will interpret those facts and assign meaning to them based on your personal experiences. The only problem is, we all have different personal experiences.

There is no one "truth" of a situation, only our interpretation of the truth. Perhaps you could argue--depending on your beliefs--that God is truth, but this is not a religious discussion. Its a discussion about humans and how we create meanings in our world.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Wednesday Sep 14, 2011

Argument over! Bill declares that there IS ONLY ONE TRUTH!

We can all turn our computers off and go on with our lives. I am sure the government will take that truth and do what is best for all.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Wednesday Sep 14, 2011

Well, that didn't take long. I'm out.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Wednesday Sep 14, 2011

Oh boy! Here we go......

ZappasXWife · Post by **ZappasXWife** » Wednesday Sep 14, 2011

I think the most truthful source would be The Onion.

Post by **Jim Price** » Wednesday Sep 14, 2011

I tend to agree that finding one source with the absolute, objective truth about a subject - especially political - isn't possible. Every reporter or writer has their own inherant biases based upon their life experience, so there will automatically be some type of bias, emphasis or slant, however subtle.

I also agree that the best way to determine the down-the-middle facts about an issue is to obtain the information from a varied range of sources, compare and contrast those sources' accounts, and discern your answer of the truth or the facts from the common ground in the sources.

As songsmith said, sometimes viewing stories about the U.S. on international news sites can be helpful, because again they usually are not viewing our politics from either side of the spectrum, and are the outsiders looking in.

I would also suggest that when looking at international stories, try to find sources outside the U.S. news media. An example here is the recent turmoil and political unrest in the Middle East. The networks and cable news channels here all tried to simplify the turmoil in the Middle East, and lump it all together into one big common upheaval. But each country's situation is different; what prompted people in Egypt to rise up and topple the Mubarek regime isn't the same thing that caused the upheavals in Bahrain, Syria, Yemen or Libya. Each nation has its own dynamic and specific situation that led to its own chaos. Our media tries to simplify and lump things together to make it all digestible, but the truth is often much more complex.

ToonaRockGuy · Post by **ToonaRockGuy** » Wednesday Sep 14, 2011

undercoverjoe wrote:Argument over! Bill declares that there IS ONLY ONE TRUTH!

We can all turn our computers off and go on with our lives. I am sure the government will take that truth and do what is best for all.

And this is why I don't get into these discussions. Thanks, Joe, for completely disregarding my request for no personal attacks on anyone in this thread.

I can't even ask a simple question without you going after someone. Christ.

I would honestly like to thank everyone who did take the time to give good honest answers.

I'm going to listen to music now. Fuck politics.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Wednesday Sep 14, 2011

ToonaRockGuy wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:Argument over! Bill declares that there IS ONLY ONE TRUTH!

We can all turn our computers off and go on with our lives. I am sure the government will take that truth and do what is best for all.
And this is why I don't get into these discussions. Thanks, Joe, for completely disregarding my request for no personal attacks on anyone in this thread. I can't even ask a simple question without you going after someone. Christ.

I would honestly like to thank everyone who did take the time to give good honest answers.

I'm going to listen to music now. Fuck politics.

When the resident authoritarian statist speaks, what more is there to be said on the subject? Not an attack, just pointing out TRUTH!

Big Jimi Cee · Post by **Big Jimi Cee** » Wednesday Sep 14, 2011

While I tend to stay away from the political arena, I have based my life on a simple principle and it has worked for me more often than not. You sometimes need to look at multiple sources for your information. In your analysis if it converges it is probably the truth or reasonably accurate. You then need to filter the divergence to determine the deadband from the middle that you are willing to except along with factoring in some margin of error on the areas that diverge. At that point it is up to you whether you are willing to accept your findings based on the number of samples that you have used and your comfort level in the accuracy of the sample data.

When I was living in Europe it was quite interesting in that the European news feeds put a completely different slant on their perspective of our politics so now you take their vantage point and compare with the information that is being pervade by the US broadcasters and sometimes it seemed as if they were reporting two entirely different subjects altogether, that's when it got interesting.