Jussie Smollett's "Hate Crime"

[MillauFr]

I would very stongly disagree with the placement of several 'news outlets' on this chart.
The absolute and uncontrolled bias committed by many so-called 'news outlets' is a very real concern.

The biggest problem I see is that people continue to watch "news" media outlets on the bottom 2/3 of the y-axis on that chart. They are all absolute garbage. Why do people continue to watch those just spouting off false opinions. Only news outlets worth anything are those who strive to just report facts. Opinions should be only used on the editorial page. People are smart enough to make up their own minds.

 

[JaxDad]

I would very stongly disagree with the placement of several 'news outlets' on this chart.
The absolute and uncontrolled bias committed by many so-called 'news outlets' is a very real concern.

If one does not believe that spreading a biased agenda is just as important to keeping viewers tuned in, on many news media outlets today... I would say that person would be sadly mistaken.

And, I think that most so called news outlets should have to show a mandatory disclaimer when any piece goes beyond what would be considered to be facts, and goes way off into biased commentary.

It is a very sad day when many, if not most, so called news outlets do not even report on the true facts that come out, sometimes even well after the facts become viral on social media.

This results in a situation where we see news and information coming from social media, instead of credible news outlets with any respect for the facts or the truth.

Yeah. That chart is pretty laughable.

 

[cabanafrau]

I'm all for fact checking. All day/every day/24/7/365. Let the facts speak for themselves and the chips fall where they may.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

As badly as the press handles things these days, I honestly can’t blame them for this. There was a police report filed, and the police were investigating this as a crime against the actor. And that’s basically what was reported.

When the police announced the brothers were no longer considered suspects & that this was being investigated as a hoax, most reported that as well.

 

[MillauFr]

Yeah. That chart is pretty laughable.

People get too hung up on the position of news outlets on the x-axis. It doesn't matter if you would shift them one category to the right or left. The real use of this chart is to select news outlets based on how high up the y-axis they are. Anything below the 2/3 on the y-axis is absolute garbage. Only outlet I would make an exception is for the National Review. Sure it is an obvious partisan news source with mostly editorial content, but their writers are extremely bright and have well reasoned arguments.

 

[dclpluto]

As badly as the press handles things these days, I honestly can’t blame them for this. There was a police report filed, and the police were investigating this as a crime against the actor. And that’s basically what was reported.

When the police announced the brothers were no longer considered suspects & that this was being investigated as a hoax, most reported that as well.

Totally agree with you as long as the news networks said allegedly.

 

[MillauFr]

Reliance on shortcuts... lack of resources...
Really.... Really?????
Has one looked at their resources and budgets....

The only shortcuts I am seeing are those that result in rushes to judgement, and promotion of an obvious agenda.

Their ample resources seem to be very specifically allocated.

Newspapers are losing money at an alarming rate. Their advertising revenue has been decimated by the web. Their resources are getting cut every year.

 

[Deb & Bill]

Yeah. That chart is pretty laughable.

Agree. This one is a bit less biased than the previous. https://sharylattkisson.com/2018/08/28/media-bias-a-new-chart/

 

[Southernmiss]

Newspapers are losing money at an alarming rate. Their advertising revenue has been decimated by the web. Their resources are getting cut every year.

It's just a matter of time before our regional newspaper goes under. Two ladies I know in their 70s and 80s cancelled their subscriptions last week. Just no news left in the paper to read. These 2 ladies were those who always read the paper daily for years.

I like to read the news, but found several years ago that I did not have time to open a paper and read it daily. So the papers sat stacked until I discarded them. Made no sense to keep subscribing when all I did was trash the paper.

Our paper now charges to read on line articles. I can go to our local tv stations app or website and read their news for free and get the same info. If I need to read an obituary, I go directly to the funeral home website.

It will be a shame to loose the real journalists and paper history that news papers provide, but printed news is an era that has had it's time.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

The biggest problem I see is that people continue to watch "news" media outlets on the bottom 2/3 of the y-axis on that chart. They are all absolute garbage. Why do people continue to watch those just spouting off false opinions. Only news outlets worth anything are those who strive to just report facts. Opinions should be only used on the editorial page. People are smart enough to make up their own minds.

The entire problem was the creation of the 24 hour news tv station.

Just stick to the newspaper or your local news. Although even then, the local news can get opinionated. Especially when it's owned by a large media conglomerate with an agenda.

 

[JaxDad]

People get too hung up on the position of news outlets on the x-axis. It doesn't matter if you would shift them one category to the right or left. The real use of this chart is to select news outlets based on how high up the y-axis they are. Anything below the 2/3 on the y-axis is absolute garbage. Only outlet I would make an exception is for the National Review. Sure it is an obvious partisan news source with mostly editorial content, but their writers are extremely bright and have well reasoned arguments.

Still laughable. Most if not all of the sources in the green rectangle are VERY selective in what they choose to report and not report, which would put them at least halfway down the axis.

 

[MillauFr]

Still laughable. Most if not all of the sources in the green rectangle are VERY selective in what they choose to report and not report, which would put them at least halfway down the axis.

Do you have any examples you care to share?

I would say the reporting/lack of reporting of car accidents versus airplane crashes come to mind. Many people think they are far safer in their own car then flying on a airplane. They read about airplane crashes but there is relatively little reporting on auto accidents. 40,000 people die and millions are injured in auto accidents every year.

 

[Wishing on a star]

When I talk about mainstream news media outlets in the US, today, in the 21st century... Newspapers are not the biggies on my list.
NOTHING based on paper is making it. And, I don't know of them could be expected to have any credibility anyhow.
That is totally irrelevant to the conversation in this thread, and my comment.

My point, about ANY news outlet being excused for taking shortcuts and lack of resources, still stands... 110%.

Most any outlet has access to many of the basic resources.
I am not talking about heavy duty, months long, investigative stuff.

When they spend hours and days and months and years reporting one side of a story, but do not even mention a major publicly released report...
That isn't shortcuts or lack of resources.
THAT IS NEGLIGENCE AND BLATENT BIAS.

No question...
No matter what comment anybody else can try to throw at it as justification.

 

[Wishing on a star]

ALL outlets have access to most all of the basic information coming out in the ongoing current events of the past few years.
It is how they have chosen to ignore, handle, and misrepresent, that information, and the issues.
No way this has anything to do with shortcuts or lack of resources.

It is like they will endless promote baseless innuendo and outright lies, with no effort to even try to corroborate... When it fits their agenda.
Totally ignore any credible and verifiable information that does not promote their agenda.

It is like the huge preponderance of what they are putting out there is totally devoid of actual fact.

This is almost a tried and true daily occurrence. Which, really, is sad.

The day that the news is beginning to come out about these brothers and what is being alleged, verified by the Authorities involved... What is on ABC... Huge, extended, two-part two-day, hourly repeated clips and promotion, every day, of that interview with Jussie Smollett.

No mention of these real facts of the investigation, until after the whole thing went viral on social media... THEN, we got a short 'blurb' on the ticker.

Nobody is going to be able to make me think that these major outlets, with huge budgets and endless access to information, are not committing negligence and editorial bias.

 

[cabanafrau]

When I talk about mainstream news media outlets in the US, today, in the 21st century... Newspapers are not the biggies on my list.
NOTHING based on paper is making it.
That is totally irrelevant to the conversation in this thread, and my comment.

My point, about ANY news outlet being excused for taking shortcuts and lack of resources, still stands... 110%.

Most any outlet has access to many of the basic resources.
I am not talking about heavy duty, months long, investigative stuff.

When they spend hours and days and months and years reporting one side of a story, but don not even mention a major publicly released report...
That isn't shortcuts or lack of resources.
THAT IS NEGLIGENCE AND BLATENT BIAS.

No question...
No matter what comment anybody else can try to throw at it as justification.

I made no attempt to excuse or justify -- but merely to illuminate what I see as an important change to what is happening in regards to our free press, something I hold very dear and take seriously. Note, my comment on the issue was in response to a call for shutting down media outlets. In a landscape of fewer and fewer options I don't think that's a good idea. I'm perfectly capable of making a decision myself not to accept information from any source I do not respect as putting in due diligence to uncover and report the facts of an issue.

I'm not schilling any charts or bell curves to attempt to convince anyone else what they should and should not read or listen to. As I said above, I'm all about fact checking, 24/7/365. I'm not about getting in a snit because some website puts this or that media outlet in a "good" part or a "bad" part of a bell curve that conflicts with whatever I might think. When I was about five my friend Janice Wesley told me that blue was a dumb color and it was for boys and purple was better, and it was for girls. She claimed she knew more than I did about it because she was six. I didn't fall for that line of thinking then, I haven't grown out of my obstinate way of thinking yet. I'll figure out my own way and everyone else is free to do the same.

 

[EMom]

I thought the story sounded odd from the beginning, but I really couldn't see any logical reason someone with his talent and his position would try to pull off a hoax. I still can't see the logic behind the plan. So destructive on so many levels -- and for what?

For.....
More followers
Getting his name and face out there, as he tried to get a music career going
Promoting himself as a poster boy for Blacks and gays
Going viral
Advancing his political views that Trump and his supporters are to be feared and must be neutralized. How great to be a social media darling for that.

I hope he's convicted and gets the maximum sentence, so as to discourage anyone, no matter what their political or social agenda, from perpetrating a hoax and playing the victim.

 

[JaxDad]

Do you have any examples you care to share?

I would say the reporting/lack of reporting of car accidents versus airplane crashes come to mind. Many people think they are far safer in their own car then flying on a airplane. They read about airplane crashes but there is relatively little reporting on auto accidents. 40,000 people die and millions are injured in auto accidents every year.

Economic data is frequently cherry picked. Quotes from Congressional hearings for sure. Combat deaths. Just so many!

What is laughable is how that site takes very subjective information and tries to make it look like real scientific data. Did you read how they came up with their chart?

“Each of the nearly 2000 individual articles and TV news shows will be rated by four analysts with different political views. This means each analyst will be analyzing about 370 articles and about 17 TV shows, and each analyst will be rating at least four articles from each of the 100 news sources on the chart. As a result, we will have nearly 8,000 individual ratings.”

It’s not even a legitimate poll. It’s four people “with different political views.” Really? Who are these four people? What exactly are their views? It’s faux statistical nonsense!

In the end, you just have to go with the source(s) you can most consistently trust.

 

[cabanafrau]

ALL outlets have access to most all of the basic information coming out in the ongoing current events of the past few years.
It is how they have chosen to ignore, handle, and misrepresent, that information, and the issues.
No way this has anything to do with shortcuts or lack of resources.

It is like they will endless promote baseless innuendo and outright lies, with no effort to even try to corroborate... When it fits their agenda.
Totally ignore any credible and verifiable information that does not promote their agenda.

It is like the huge preponderance of what they are putting out there is totally devoid of actual fact.

This is almost a tried and true daily occurrence. Which, really, is sad.

The day that the news is beginning to come out about these brothers and what is being alleged, verified by the Authorities involved... What is on ABC... Huge, extended, two-part two-day, hourly repeated clips and promotion, every day, of that interview with Jussie Smollett.

No mention of these real facts of the investigation, until after the whole thing went viral on social media... THEN, we got a short 'blurb' on the ticker.

Nobody is going to be able to make me think that these major outlets, with huge budgets and endless access to information, are not committing negligence and editorial bias.

I didn't see it, but that interview isn't any less newsworthy with more (conflicting) information coming out. IMO if he's been selling a bunch of BS and the wheels are coming off the cart and he's still going to attempt to peddle nonsense, broadcast it and let everyone have a clear look at him telling his lies. I think most of what has been out there on the story has been secondhand retelling of what he's purported to have said. Let everyone see firsthand what he has to say for himself. Can't blame anyone else for getting it wrong if it comes right out of his own mouth.

I would not feel the same about broadcasting something when it's being widely discredited if it was simply a report from a reporter giving a version of the "facts" and purporting them to be the truth as they've investigated it when there is demonstrable and credible evidence otherwise. That's not okay.

 

[cabanafrau]

For.....
More followers
Getting his name and face out there, as he tried to get a music career going
Promoting himself as a poster boy for Blacks and gays
Going viral
Advancing his political views that Trump and his supporters are to be feared and must be neutralized. How great to be a social media darling for that.

I hope he's convicted and gets the maximum sentence, so as to discourage anyone, no matter what their political or social agenda, from perpetrating a hoax and playing the victim.

Real civil rights leaders from the African American community agree. They realize the danger of a hoax like this. They've spoken out about it.

The reason I found the situation odd from the beginning is that he is successful. He has talent. He has(had) fans. It's not as if his being black or gay was exactly on the downlow. I still don't get the logic of someone in his position deciding this was a good idea. So destructive, for absolutely nothing, no upside, no benefit.

 

[MillauFr]

In the end, you just have to go with the source(s) you can most consistently trust.

Do you agree that ALL of the "news" sources on the bottom half of the y-axis are garbage?