Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 35

Thread: Social Media

  1. #1

    Default Social Media

    I get the distinct impression that social media is more important than other media, including journalistic news outlets.

    So why do conservatives routinely complain about the 'lame stream media', or the 'liberal media'?

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I get the distinct impression that social media is more important than other media, including journalistic news outlets.

    So why do conservatives routinely complain about the 'lame stream media', or the 'liberal media'?
    Because there is a well documented liberal bias in traditional media? And while people may *use* social media more they probably use that for you know *SOCIAL* things and events and not news.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    they probably use that for you know *SOCIAL* things and events and not news.
    A majority of social media users say that social media is a source of news for events outside of their friends and family. Its been like that for several years. Not that social media has much to do with media bias; although social media has made it a bit to easy to name and shame bullshit, to the point that its pretty much turned into a game concerning Fox News. Republicans have complained about unfavorable coverage since at least the 60s. Hows that fun quote go? Reality has a liberal bias...
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 11-10-2015 at 12:48 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  4. #4
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Because there is a well documented liberal bias in traditional media? And while people may *use* social media more they probably use that for you know *SOCIAL* things and events and not news.
    People also hype about news headlines on social media, exploding some stories that were really not a story into something big. And there's of course also actual news coming from social media (mostly twitter, I suppose), though that appears to happen more in places with less free media.

    Also, this 'well documented bias', is that even true? I won't deny some are, but all over? Besides, I heard the complaints about the previous GOP debate because the questions were critical, but the questions to the democratic candidates were also critical. Seems to me complaining about media bias on either side is just an excuse and attempt to get out of hard questions (god forbid you get to ask a potential president critical questions..). And add that some even considered Paul Ryan too liberal for speaker of the house, maybe the expectations are a bit skewed too.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  5. #5
    There's actually evidence that the main TV networks have a Democratic bias. They're more likely to give a positive spin to Democrats stories vs. Republican ones. It's probably not for malicious reasons; it just so happens that something like 85% of journalists are Democrats. Implicit bias and all that.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    There's actually evidence that the main TV networks have a Democratic bias. They're more likely to give a positive spin to Democrats stories vs. Republican ones. It's probably not for malicious reasons; it just so happens that something like 85% of journalists are Democrats. Implicit bias and all that.
    Tell that to Hillary Clinton.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  7. #7
    "Communications professor Tim Groeling has devised a test for media bias that may provide accurate results regardless of whether political events favor the Democrats or the Republicans. He has examined how ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News reported public opinion polls that assessed the job performances of Democratic president Bill Clinton and Republican president George W. Bush. Confirming what many suspect, Groeling found that ABC, CBS, and NBC gave Clinton more favorable coverage than Bush—and that Fox gave Bush more favorable coverage than Clinton."

    I saw a similar study about Obama and McCain.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  8. #8
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,797
    He just looks at reporting of polling numbers though, not at the tone of articles and questions*. Very interesting, possibly proof, definitely an indicator. But at the same time there's another political scientist who found that the media were more negative about Obama than McCain, so it can go either way. I wouldn't be surprised if you're right and media is biased somewhat to the left, but I am not convinced it's as big a slant as it is made out to be. And I do think it's a convenient excuse to dodge tough questions or wave away valid criticism. Not unlike sports fans blaming the referee, or the ball, or the field - sure, sometimes it's a valid complaint, but mostly it's just an excuse.

    * I would not be surprised if the GOP candidates get a lot more coverage on their polling now, simply because it's more interesting
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  9. #9
    I remember that study. The problem with it was that it treated "The Greatest President We Will Ever Have May Have Once Frowned in the Presence of Kittens" as the same as "Is McCain a Secret Hitler Who Drinks the Blood of Palestinian Babies?" Obama had more 'negative' articles just because everyone in the media was talking about him more.

  10. #10
    Flixy, I don't know about any individual study (there are always outliers), but the consensus is that network TV does have a liberal bias. It's not overwhelming, but it's there. There's a reason Fox News is so popular; it's the only one that tilts in the other direction.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  11. #11
    How many people get their news exclusively from "network TV" (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) since cable TV and the internet became widely available? I doubt there's any study comparing all TV news, including cable news (CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, C-Span, Bloomberg, BBC, Telemundo, Univision, etc.) that proves a liberal bias across the board.

    But there are studies -- mostly about consumer behavior -- that show people use social media and internet links to get most of their news. And since news outlets want to maximize their 'readership' numbers, their stories will often follow whatever is trending.

    It's a weird cycle, based on popularity and momentum, with "The Press" and news journalists trying to remain relevant in a new media age. Maybe it's easier for conservatives to call the media 'lame stream', or insist there's a 'liberal bias', than admit when their policies are just plain whacky.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I get the distinct impression that social media is more important than other media, including journalistic news outlets.

    So why do conservatives routinely complain about the 'lame stream media', or the 'liberal media'?
    Cuz social media amplifies (and provides a feedback loop) for those stories, while also fragmenting audiences into like-minded groups that aren't too tolerant of debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Tell that to Hillary Clinton.
    I tried, but she couldn't hear me over the media fawning over her testimony a few weeks ago in which she basically admitted to lying. She had a rough summer, but the media flirtation with her opponents is waning. Soon they will pivot back to presenting her as the inevitable, moderate/reasonable/"progressive" Rock of Ages.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    I remember that study. The problem with it was that it treated "The Greatest President We Will Ever Have May Have Once Frowned in the Presence of Kittens" as the same as "Is McCain a Secret Hitler Who Drinks the Blood of Palestinian Babies?" Obama had more 'negative' articles just because everyone in the media was talking about him more.
    It was about percentages, and quite a big difference so it's not just because he was in the news more. But you are entirely correct that it didn't differentiate in levels of negativity or positivity, but that's true for most studies I found on this. I think it's almost impossible to have an entirely objective research on this because selling what is neutral is inherently subjective. A politician could simply get more negative reporting because he says more incorrect things or has flawed plans, or he could by the victim of bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Flixy, I don't know about any individual study (there are always outliers), but the consensus is that network TV does have a liberal bias. It's not overwhelming, but it's there. There's a reason Fox News is so popular; it's the only one that tilts in the other direction.
    Fair enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    How many people get their news exclusively from "network TV" (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) since cable TV and the internet became widely available? I doubt there's any study comparing all TV news, including cable news (CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, C-Span, Bloomberg, BBC, Telemundo, Univision, etc.) that proves a liberal bias across the board.
    Of course there's no study about all media but you don't have to. If you include the big ones, they cover a vast majority of media reach to the public, and the ones you left out can never tip the balance because they are too small.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  14. #14
    Considering that the media doesn't really delve into candidates' platforms, I don't think you can really say that one candidate is more deserving of negative coverage than another. Sure, you have people like Trump and Carson who are easy to bash, but the media did this against Bush, Romney, and McCain.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #15
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Considering that the media doesn't really delve into candidates' platforms, I don't think you can really say that one candidate is more deserving of negative coverage than another. Sure, you have people like Trump and Carson who are easy to bash, but the media did this against Bush, Romney, and McCain.
    I mentioned it because I heard complaints about getting critical questions during the debate. And I think the media should be asking questions about candidate's platforms more but that's another matter.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  16. #16
    Nowadays news networks get videos from Youtubers. So youtubers know first hand.
    Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by ar81 View Post
    Nowadays news networks get videos from Youtubers. So youtubers know first hand.
    Like the woman who live-broadcasted the police shooting (and eventual death) of her boyfriend to Facebook, after a routine traffic stop?

    Yeah, nowadays "news networks" are following any/every thing posted on social networks. Suddenly, any citizen with a cell phone camera is a news journalist. But they don't need commentary or analysis or context......they just turn their phone cameras on and record, and beforeyouknowit there are news journalists following the story.

    I had a great conversation the other day, about what it means to be an "educated and informed" voter. We couldn't agree about what propaganda is, or how it's funded. But we ended up agreeing that "most" voters don't know what the fuck they're voting for, or against, if it's constrained within a political "platform" that's inherently corrupted.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Like the woman who live-broadcasted the police shooting (and eventual death) of her boyfriend to Facebook, after a routine traffic stop?

    Yeah, nowadays "news networks" are following any/every thing posted on social networks. Suddenly, any citizen with a cell phone camera is a news journalist. But they don't need commentary or analysis or context......they just turn their phone cameras on and record, and beforeyouknowit there are news journalists following the story.

    I had a great conversation the other day, about what it means to be an "educated and informed" voter. We couldn't agree about what propaganda is, or how it's funded. But we ended up agreeing that "most" voters don't know what the fuck they're voting for, or against, if it's constrained within a political "platform" that's inherently corrupted.
    Wait, she live streamed the shooting? I thought it was ONLY the aftermath. Why have I not seen this????? Please for the love of the FSM share a link of this video.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    It's not okay to shoot an innocent bank clerk but shooting a felon to death is commendable and do you should receive a reward rather than a punishment

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,080
    I only saw the aftermath. I can imagine she did it though, in her place I'd be scared to be the next one to get shot to pieces by that asshole.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by ImAnOgre View Post
    Wait, she live streamed the shooting? I thought it was ONLY the aftermath. Why have I not seen this????? Please for the love of the FSM share a link of this video.
    My understanding the tape started rolling AFTER the shooting.

  21. #21
    Turkey's president used social media (facetime) to address the nation/world during a military coup, when the press and televised news had been blocked. I'd say that's a pretty good example of social media's power.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Turkey's president used social media (facetime) to address the nation/world during a military coup, when the press and televised news had been blocked. I'd say that's a pretty good example of social media's power.
    The oil from ISIS is carried and sold by the company BMZ, that belongs to Bilal Erdogan, son of the president. The oil is shipped to Japan. His business is so good that recently he bought two new oil tankers for $36 million. His father sends to jail anyone who gets in the way.
    Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.

  23. #23
    bump. Trump won the presidency because he used social media to the nth degree. He knew how to market his brand, and enough voters bought into his propaganda, that influenced the Electoral College, that he's now the President Elect.

    I started this thread over a year ago, when a President Trump was a rhetorical question.

  24. #24
    And now we have a President-elect that uses Twitter to make announcements, bypassing news journalists. It's a new reality show.

  25. #25
    While I don't like to keep bumping my own thread....today's NEWS is about "Pizza Gate". Some guy used fake news about a child porn ring, supposedly run by Clinton supporters, and perpetuated on social media (from 4chan to reddit to Facebook and Twitter?) to shoot a military weapon into a DC pizza shop. Seriously.

    edit: and the scary thing is that Trump's General Flynn apparently re-tweeted this pedophilia ring bullshit as if it was "real news"? Damn, this 6 degrees of separation between fact and fiction is getting downright weird.
    Last edited by GGT; 12-06-2016 at 03:35 AM.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Cuz social media amplifies (and provides a feedback loop) for those stories, while also fragmenting audiences into like-minded groups that aren't too tolerant of debate.
    Is this The End of Journalism?

  27. #27
    No, but it's perhaps a reflection of how our public discourse is shifting?

    I am sorta annoyed at how the media is implicitly blaming social media/the internet for Trumps win because

    1) The complaint is reflective of the media's left-wing sensibilities
    2) Lies weren't invented by social media
    3) It's an implicit call for social media censorship

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    No, but it's perhaps a reflection of how our public discourse is shifting?

    I am sorta annoyed at how the media is implicitly blaming social media/the internet for Trumps win because

    1) The complaint is reflective of the media's left-wing sensibilities
    2) Lies weren't invented by social media
    3) It's an implicit call for social media censorship
    Huh, I see the news media reporting that Clinton's campaign, and many Democrats, are blaming their loss on things like Comey's statement, or Russia hacking the DNC, or the incessant coverage of her private server....and since that's what they're doing, it's factual coverage. Now, that doesn't mean that *is* why she lost -- just that it's not unusual for losing campaigns to blame everything but themselves.

    Dread, surely you see a difference between half-truths or "lies" (that have been part of our political discourse forever) and full-blown FAKE NEWS? Yes, our public discourse is shifting fast! Since most people get their "news" indirectly from social media sites that are NOT considered news sites (but click-based, commercialized entertainment)....fact-based journalism has a messy, complicated future.

    I don't know why "social media censorship" would be considered such a bad thing when it already happens every day? Spammers, trolls, cyberbullies, and stalkers get banned all the time. Now sites like Facebook and Twitter are planning a cooperative effort to remove/delete posts aimed at recruiting terrorists for ISIS. So what would be so horrible about deleting FAKE NEWS links?

  29. #29
    Bump

    Wow, has it been nearly two years since the OP? My, how time flies!

    And today's NEWS is that President Trump's twitter account was deleted for 11 minutes, and might mean a national security threat

  30. #30
    bump!

    My initial question (almost 3 years ago) has been answered. Social media sites like Facebook and Twitter turned out to be important "news" outlets, even attracting trolls from foreign nations that wanted to manipulate opinions. They didn't care if it was left or right leaning, so long as it fomented internal polarity and chaos.

    And now we have a POTUS that used his Twitter feed to call our free press the enemy of the people, almost like a test case. When that didn't get much push-back, he started shouting it at campaign rallies. When that got applause from the crowd, it moved from a meme to a guiding principle. Trump said, "What you're seeing and reading isn't what's happening"....it's all Fake News.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •