Originally Posted by nightfighter (Post 1168362)

Do you think that the Silicon Valley based high tech industry stocks are playing political games with their content? I am talking about the FAANG stocks as a class, though not exclusively. Are they exercising censorship over their content? Yes or no?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1168365)

But like in the media, there's an obvious political bias.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1168369)

No, and be careful what you wish for.
Each one of those companies has a user agreement that allows you to post and if you violate their terms you get kicked out, etc.
Perhaps some think that government should be able to tell businesses who to bake a cake for, or not?



Perhaps this is fake news from Fox

"It’s true that some right-of-center users have been suspended or banned from Twitter, put in “Facebook jail,” or had their videos or channels pulled from YouTube. However, in fairness, it’s also true that liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has had some of her content pulled from Facebook and that the company inadvertently labeled every ad with LGBT in it as political, whether it was or not."

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1168370)

Says Jim and Trump with zero evidence. Moth to the flame.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1168370)

Says Jim and Trump with zero evidence. Moth to the flame.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1168375)

so if liz warren got suspended, that means there’s no bias? that's as stupid as me saying obama was potus, therefore there’s no such thing as racism.

to determine bias, you have to look at everything, not one persons experience.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1168382)

Hey, call Fox if you think they are reporting fake news, I already know they do.:bl:

Actually, any search engine ‘bias’ is not down to conscious decisions by the search engine - it’s simply due to the way they all work.

They rank pages based on what real people find useful and what other, real websites link to. Their evil goal is to make money for their shareholders by showing the most useful results, thus increasing their market share and their ad revenues.

They use a math equation to rank the entire volume of content it has indexed, which is pretty much the entire world wide web. Math equations do not have political opinions.

There is no algorithm at Google or Bing that takes politics into account. If you see what you deem to be biased results, it is due to authoritative sites linking to websites which pushes them higher up search.

Authoritative websites are places like Universities (which tend to favour evidence-based research) and media organisations. Most of the rest of what puts a site at the top of a search engine is how users interact with it - do they find the result useful? This could show a bias because people have opinions - more people might click on one result that they agree with more than the other.

Autocomplete is not bias either. It is based on what people actually search - search engines do not just decide what goes in the autocomplete list arbitrarily.

So, in a sense search engines are unintentionally biased towards what the majority think, because this is what powers their results. There is no conspiracy, however :chatter

Now, if you think there is a demand for right-biased search engines, support one like Searchconservative.com , they derate anything that might be liberal, it will give you the answers you want to hear. They have one add or they are owned by Judicial Watch. Better send them money.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1168385)

hannity reports all kinds of fake news. he’s an outlier. at cnn and msnbc, arent they all like
hannity? ALL, like Hannity?

again, you can’t disprove bias by pointing to one example of unbiased censorship. that’s not how logic works.



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1168377)

if you search online, you’ll see plenty of evidence.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/google-...ervative-bias/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1168389)

First of all, the original poster asked specifically about FAANG, which is Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google.
None of which are news reporting organizations that TDF brought into the thread.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1168399)

I included a couple of links in case you want to stay informed.

https://news.google.com/?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

https://www.apple.com/apple-news/

I keep forgetting you don't watch TV
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1168396)

pete, look at msnbcs prime time lineup - chris hayes, rachael maddow, lawrence o’donnell. which one of them, isn’t every bit as biased, as sean hannity?

every night, tucker carlson will
criticize the gop over something, and admit the democrats are right about something. every night.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1168404)

What reporter works for them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1168406)

the business model is changing, try to keep up.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...tflix-for-news

https://www.idownloadblog.com/2018/1...news-team-nyt/

I find it hard to believe Rachel Maddow/Tucker Carlson are pounding the streets for their next scoop too, all these "Journalists" you see on TV are just reporting their own little personal Op/Eds and calling them news.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1168406)

the business model is changing, try to keep up.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...tflix-for-news

https://www.idownloadblog.com/2018/1...news-team-nyt/

I find it hard to believe Rachel Maddow/Tucker Carlson are pounding the streets for their next scoop too, all these "Journalists" you see on TV are just reporting their own little personal Op/Eds and calling them news.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1168413)

Don't confuse journalists with people who play reporters on TV

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1168405)

Tucker Carlson is just another Hannity Maddow type clown.
Just as full of partisan BS, because you agree with him doesn’t make it true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1168423)

There's a reason the media has an issue with opinion pieces and classifying the people who do them as journalists, here is the difference between reporting and opining.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1168423)

There's a reason the media has an issue with opinion pieces and classifying the people who do them as journalists, here is the difference between reporting and opining.


The "media," not sure what that means anymore, and that is a huge part of the problem that the "media" has created. The "media" has re-classified various "classifications," such as extremism, racism, radicalism, lying, and a host of various words that used to mean other things than what the "media" now says they mean. The "media" gives tacit, and even open, approval (is that being a sycophant as Shelley classifies Tucker Carlson?) to things unproven without the skepticism that journalists are supposed to have in many social matters such as "Black Lives Matter" and transgender issues for example.

Shelley wants to make a distinction between reporting and opining. Trouble is, when the "reporting" consistently leaves things unreported which would shed a different light, that amounts to de facto opining.

"Anchor Chris Wallace sat down with the Russian president and pressed him about his track record, the statements he made during the news conference with Trump, and why many of his critics often end up dead or near death.

Wallace was unrelenting, asking the questions many U.S. public officials had been clamoring for Trump to ask. (Trump is not a journalist, and journalists don't negotiate with world leaders where journalistic tactics are not practical) It wasn’t easy, it wasn’t pretty, but it was responsible journalism. Most important, Wallace avoided becoming part of the commentary by following the journalistic process.

Conversely, Fox News’ Sean Hannity kicked off his post-Putin news conference interview with Trump by complimenting him: "You were very strong at the end of that press conference," Hannity stated.

If he indeed was strong at the end, would it be responsible for a "journalist" to point that out?

While much of the rest of the world reacted in near universal outrage to Trump's performance in Helsinki,

Are weasel words such as "much of the rest of the world" and "near universal outrage" language that responsible journalists should use. And referring to it as a "performance" is a slanting technique that responsible journalists would avoid.

Hannity provided an interpretation of what happened through Trump-colored glasses.

More negative slanting and framing. How about saying that Hannity said what he thought. Right . . . right, a sycophant isn't allowed a personal opinion.

He didn’t press the president to explain why he sided with Putin on denying Russian interference in the 2016 election, when U.S. intelligence showed otherwise.

Why is it framed as "siding" with Putin? Trump "sided" both ways at different times. Obviously, he wasn't siding, he was giving his opinion, which changed, back and forth. I suppose, by Shelley's view, Trump was siding with everybody.

Rather, Hannity stuck to talking points that supported the president’s agenda.

He seems to act as a passionate foil to Anti-Trump agendas. Oh . . . the horror!

As the leader of the country’s largest association of broadcast and digital journalists, it is my job to protect and explain the role that responsible journalists play in facilitating the public’s right to know, and how they function as an important balance of power for those who serve on our behalf.

Sometimes, phrases like "the country's largest association of broadcast and digital journalists", are scary. Seems like a huge conglomeration of influence peddling. And it seems that the "media" are a "balance of power" against those not on board with the Progressive agenda.

It is also my job to call out opinion media professionals like Sean Hannity. Do not be confused — Hannity is not a journalist. He is an analyst with an opinion. And he has a right to that opinion, but he does not have a right to claim he is reporting on stories that expose problems in our communities, or that he is transparent and unbiased.

It's scary when powerful media associations proclaim that someone not in their camp does not have the right to say he is reporting on something. And Hannity has investigative "reporters" who provide him for much of the information he comments on.

Has Hannity claimed that he is unbiased? And he seems quite transparent to me. Apparently, Shelley has a strong personal opinion on who Hannity is and what he is allowed to say. Not very journalistic.

Tucker Carlson also distinguished himself Tuesday night as a Trump sycophant with his softball questions and supportive analysis of the president's performance at the Helsinki news conference.

How dare he have a "supportive" analysis! Surely, he doesn't actually believe his own analysis, he is just supporting Trump. I wonder if Shelley ever has "supportive" analyses. Maybe only if he analyses "journalists" who support his agenda (which we are to assume he doesn't have).

As journalists, our enemy isn’t the president who calls us out. Our enemy is the lack of public understanding about the important role we play.

Perhaps, just maybe, the public doesn't understand the "important" role they play because Shelley's so-called journalists so often stray from that role and become advocates, and allow their personal hatreds to slant their reports and their analyses.

We, as responsible journalists, must double down on transparency, inviting the public into our process of asking the hard questions and reporting the truth. We must also hold ourselves publicly accountable for any mistakes we may make, as any human being should.

When has that happened?

To paraphrase Washington Post Editor Marty Baron: We're not at war ... we're at work."
Dan Shelley is the executive director of the Radio Television Digital News Association.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1168440)

The "media," not sure what that means anymore, and that is a huge part of the problem that the "media" has created.

In the past fifty years the media environment has changed almost completely. The media did not create the internet and cable TV, technology, markets and money did.
Where the news cycle in 1960 was a week for political news, it is now minutes, very competitive and compensation is elusive.
I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think the media is the enemy of the people or that there is some deep state existing and plotting in the media.

Apparently, you don't know what the "media" means anymore either.

I'm not interested in your typical tribal assessment of any thing that could be construed as anti-Trump.

Me neither. Don't even know what my tribal assessment is. I certainly don't comment on a lot of anti-Trump stuff like the gibberish that is so ridiculous that it needs no comment. I see a lot of that here.

Trump uses plenty of weasel words, and his reality presidential show is always a performance. Some people tell me they like reality TV shows.

Glad to see that you recognize that the "media's" performance uses similar tactics to Trump's show. Would that be responsible journalism, or journalistic hypocrisy?

Time will tell the Trump story, it looks like a horror show to me and heaven to you.
We'll see eventually.

You have an odd vision of "horror" and of "heaven." I don't even know if there is a heaven. If there is, my vision would not be influenced by the Trump "story." It would be more like the heaven on earth that Adam and Eve resided in before they began to act like journalists and investigated that which they had no right to question but were convinced to do so by an evil deep state snake.

Nixon's approval rating was almost 70% when he was reelected and less than 25% a year later.