How to consume political media and not get baited

[Jason Voorhees]

If you want to start reading into politics without swallowing the bait and misleads one thing that you have to get it through your head is that all modern political media thrives on a currency of manufactured outrage. They don't give a shit about you, the government, unraveling the truth or any of the basic principles of journalism. They only care about PR ratings and viewership.


Like Fox News knows their viewers want right wing hair so they are hyper focused on cultural wedge issues, culture wars, and border panic that has been running on their shoes since 2000s

MSNBC / CNN are perma left wing hideout. Always moral responsibility. Institution blaming and blame everything as democratic apocalypse.

Some Tips

1. News Article reads like a looksmax.orh evisceration title

Immediate redflag. You always strip the Adjectives and Adverbs. If a headline says "Politician X brutally eviscerates opponent with unhinged, dangerous rhetoric" start reading it as “Politician X disagreed with Politician Y's stance on [Policy] because that's probably what happened

2. Never believe a political commentator

Never let a pundit tell you what a piece of legislation says. If a bill is doing massive public meltdown skip them and search for the actual text of the bill or executive order. Even ChatGPT can do better job and give a more neutral stance than these muh pundits

3. Never believe anything from Tiktok or Instagram

99% of the information on X, Tiktok and Instagram is just blatant lies with again the insentive of rage baiting. Ignore them all.

4. Only trust peer reviewed meta analysis studies

This goes for anything. Not just politics. You can find a study to prove almost anything if you warp the variables enough and media loves to weaponize data and the viewers too ignorant to realize they are being brain washed. Look exclusively for peer-reviewed meta-analyses. Basically studies that aggregate data from dozens of independent trials or papers with multiple people agreeing with it. That is true verified data you can rely on.

5. Look at their funding

This is the number 1 thing to do. Whenever someone has something to say look at his background. Like is that independent expert that is brough to validate a political narrative. Does he have any stakes in it? Follow the money. Are they funded by defense contractors? Part of an industry that has a vested interest etc. 99% of the time it's a pr stunt


Some US media houses that are neutral


The Wires (Reuters & Associated Press)

https://www.reuters.com/

https://apnews.com/

They generate the raw, dry fact-sheets that downstream media operations buy. Their buisness is mostly B2B so they don't care about viewer retention

C-SPAN & USAFacts.org:


Pure policy inputs. C-SPAN gives you zero talking heads telling you what to think. USAFacts aggregates government budget data without the narrative layer

I don't follow the UK media too much but I've heard BBC News, Hansard and the financial Times are neutra.

They aren't flawless but their survival depends on functioning as utilities rather than entertainment. If a source feels tedious, dry, and boring, it’s usually a good indicator that it’s safe to consume.

Problem with neutrality

Neutrality isn't the same as objective truth. To avoid looking biased places like Reuters or the BBC often start treating a verified fact and a total lie with the exact same weight just to seem fair and refuse to take any strong stances. Plus because they need inside access to politicians they naturally protect them.

 

[Jason Voorhees]

@LXR @Resonance @Joeseminate

 

[lowdimotrucel]

yo im actually mirin so much at how much effort you put into each thread

 

[Jason Voorhees]

@LXR @imontheloose @Former Shortcel

 

[shngstaaaa107]

 

[Joeseminate]

dont think ive consumed any political media since I was 18

 

[shedontluv-U]

The connections you're making with some of the forum culture like éviscération it’s a good idea

But I think the part about metadata is more nuanced than that I’ve seen plenty of time two people with opposing views on a subject use the exact fucking same studies to prove their points.

can you be more prescise on that

Edit : nvm I didn read until the end

I got my answer

 

[shngstaaaa107]

The connections you're making with some of the forum culture like éviscération it’s a good idea

But I thinks the meta data pa

But I think the part about metadata is more nuanced than that I’ve seen plenty of time two people with opposing views on a subject use the exact fucking same studies to prove their points.

can you be more prescise on that

Meta analysis is a type of study that looks at hundreds of studies and their results. Then they find the general conclusion from all these studies

 

[shedontluv-U]

View attachment 5344504

Were you got that image

 

[shedontluv-U]

Meta analysis is a type of study that looks at hundreds of studies and their results. Then they find the general conclusion from all these studies

Thanks but still don’t answer in a way

 

[shngstaaaa107]

Were you got that image

Lmao first thing they teach you in AP seminar

look up "ad fontes media bias chart"

 

[LXR]

Newspapers ragebait me by having the first 3 pages full of ads.

 

[Serving]

Who gaf abt politics lil nigga

 

[Viriato_catholic]

dnr but mirin the effort

 

[shedontluv-U]

Lmao first thing they teach you in AP seminar

look up "ad fontes media bias chart"

Found it thanks

 

[iamgoingtoascend]

View attachment 5344504

I mean there is a difference between opinion based reporting and neutral reporting. The people that are either far out on the left or right on this graph obviously are not trying to do objective journalism, but commentary. I dont agree how it says that these outlets "contain misleading info" like i mean that depends on if you agree with the opinion in their reporting.

I for example lean left and although i don't really watch Hasan Piker that much, i just don't believe he or any of those left outlets "contain misleading info". I mean he literally uses like CNN, NBC, Fox, and other mainstream outlets that they are deeming as trustworthy at the top for his reporting. And then he comments on that as a political commentator. Idk how nick fuentes or other right wing people work because i dont watch them but if they do the same thing i also would not deem it as "misleading information".

There is a difference between political commentary and journalism. Neither Nick fuentes or hasan should even be on this list as they do opinion based commentary and are not like a CNN. In summary framing them as having "misleading information" is misleading itself and very centered towards the traditional center-left to center-right establishment. "extremism is bad" argument made by people in the middle, but being for abolition of slavery was also extremism at one point...

 

[shngstaaaa107]

I mean there is a difference between opinion based reporting and neutral reporting. The people that are either far out on the left or right on this graph obviously are not trying to do objective journalism, but commentary. I dont agree how it says that these outlets "contain misleading info" like i mean that depends on if you agree with the opinion in their reporting.

I for example lean left and although i don't really watch Hasan Piker that much, i just don't believe he or any of those left outlets "contain misleading info". I mean he literally uses like CNN, NBC, Fox, and other mainstream outlets that they are deeming as trustworthy at the top for his reporting. And then he comments on that as a political commentator. Idk how nick fuentes or other right wing people work because i dont watch them but if they do the same thing i also would not deem it as "misleading information".

There is a difference between political commentary and journalism. Neither Nick fuentes or hasan should even be on this list as they do opinion based commentary and are not like a CNN. In summary framing them as having "misleading information" is misleading itself and very centered towards the traditional center-left to center-right establishment. "extremism is bad" argument made by people in the middle, but being for abolition of slavery was also extremism at one point...

Thats why its a media bias chart. it shows their bias towards a specific side, and how their bias will mislead you (Not representing the whole case/the facts, only one side)

 

[DazzlingMonkey]

fyi any political opinion means shit, fucking hate politicalFags

 

[iamgoingtoascend]

Thats why its a media bias chart. it shows their bias towards a specific side, and how their bias will mislead you (Not representing the whole case/the facts, only one side)

Yeah i get that but they could show that on the X-axis i just dont understand framing it they way they did on the Y-axis. "contains misleading information" is dumb imo because (once again cant speak for the far-right since i dont watch them), how can it contain misleading information if the information is literally taken directly from the mainstream "trustworthy" outlets?

 

[iamgoingtoascend]

They could frame it as that they do opinion based commentary that stems away from the maisntream middle, not that its "misleading" because that is antagonizing to say imo

 

[shngstaaaa107]

Yeah i get that but they could show that on the X-axis i just dont understand framing it they way they did on the Y-axis. "contains misleading information" is dumb imo because (once again cant speak for the far-right since i dont watch them), how can it contain misleading information if the information is literally taken directly from the mainstream "trustworthy" outlets?

I think it likely means "This source uses data incorrectly or interprets data incorrectly and doesn't acknowledge the other side of the argument" A lot of data can be made misleading, especially without context, good framing, cherrypicking, etc. Also, most of the sites in the bottom right are "conspiracy theory" sites or straight up fake news/satire

 

[munnabhai]

honestly in my opinion nothing you say to people gets thru their head. you can tell em a million times the news is making them into
retarded sheep and they'll think you're the dumbass

 

[munnabhai]

I think it likely means "This source uses data incorrectly or interprets data incorrectly and doesn't acknowledge the other side of the argument" A lot of data can be made misleading, especially without context, good framing, cherrypicking, etc. Also, most of the sites in the bottom right are "conspiracy theory" sites or straight up fake news/satire

data is a idiots favorite way to argue. they don't get the context behind the stat or anything but it says something they like

 

[shngstaaaa107]

honestly in my opinion nothing you say to people gets thru their head. you can tell em a million times the news is making them into
retarded sheep and they'll think you're the dumbass

IMO backfire effect. after its ingrained into their heads for so long they will never concede, they'll only ever get more extreme.

 

[munnabhai]

IMO backfire effect. after its ingrained into their heads for so long they will never concede, they'll only ever get more extreme.

yup no helping em at that point. it's their new religion and you're simply a nonbeliever

 

[iamgoingtoascend]

I think it likely means "This source uses data incorrectly or interprets data incorrectly and doesn't acknowledge the other side of the argument" A lot of data can be made misleading, especially without context, good framing, cherrypicking, etc. Also, most of the sites in the bottom right are "conspiracy theory" sites or straight up fake news/satire

"This source uses data incorrectly" unsure what to make of that, the far-left wing outlets like tony michaels or hasan take the data straight from the outlets at the top so they pass this imo. "interprets data incorrectly" i mean that is a totally opinon based statement. According to them if i take a chart from CNN that says palestinians deathtolls are much higher then israeli deathtolls and say that this points to israel being the opressor, then yeah according to mainstream media they will say i interpreted it incorrectly. I guess thats the sort of way this statement of "wrong interpretation" works, its opinion based from the establishment. "doesnt acknowledge the other side of the argument" i think its pretty clear that they do this even though they dont agree with it they try to understand the counterarguments i mean hasan literally constantly watches fox news on his stream, an outlet which he completely disagrees with, but he does it to see what the opposition has to say. So i dont think they are wrong on that either.

"This source uses data incorrectly or interprets data incorrectly and doesn't acknowledge the other side of the argument" none of the far-left outlets in that graph that i know of do any of this.

 

[iamgoingtoascend]

LIKE i get the point of the graph to show that some outlets have opinions that stray away from the establishment, but they just dont have to label them as "misleading" as that is opinion based. The only way they should be able to label them as such is if they were like using reporting from some like fkn conspiracy source, but they dont they take their data straight from mainstream media

 

[shngstaaaa107]

"This source uses data incorrectly" unsure what to make of that, the far-left wing outlets like tony michaels or hasan take the data straight from the outlets at the top so they pass this imo. "interprets data incorrectly" i mean that is a totally opinon based statement. According to them if i take a chart from CNN that says palestinians deathtolls are much higher then israeli deathtolls and say that this points to israel being the opressor, then yeah according to mainstream media they will say i interpreted it incorrectly. I guess thats the sort of way this statement of "wrong interpretation" works, its opinion based from the establishment. "doesnt acknowledge the other side of the argument" i think its pretty clear that they do this even though they dont agree with it they try to understand the counterarguments i mean hasan literally constantly watches fox news on his stream, an outlet which he completely disagrees with, but he does it to see what the opposition has to say. So i dont think they are wrong on that either.

"This source uses data incorrectly or interprets data incorrectly and doesn't acknowledge the other side of the argument" none of the far-left outlets in that graph that i know of do any of this.

Here is the lower range on the interactive version, on Ad Fontes' website.

Unfair persuasion has a lot of news outlets compared to individual, opinions based reporters.

Same with "Contains misleading info", which should just be bad interpretations of data or unbiased news.

Then inaccurate/fabricated info is straight up lies, fake news, etc. This is a mix of opinions based and some sites.

The thing is, the reason some of these sites are unreliable is because they don't use data at all or write BS.

From the site, "The team considers a variety of factors when rating content. To determine its reliability score, we consider the content’s veracity, expression, its title/headline, and graphics. We add each of these scores to the chart on a weighted scale, with the average of those creating the sample content’s overall reliability score."

https://adfontesmedia.com/wnd-bias-and-reliability/#

Big League Politics Bias and Reliability | Ad Fontes Media

Ad Fontes Media rates Big League Politics, a website begun by a former Breitbart writer, as hyper-partisan right in terms of bias and as ....

adfontesmedia.com

The Jimmy Dore Show Bias and Reliability | Ad Fontes Media

Here are bias/reliability scores for The Jimmy Dore Show according to Ad Fontes Media. Bias: Most Extreme Left; Reliability: Unreliable ...

adfontesmedia.com

I reccommend you read these and the specific linked articles from them (Shows the quality of some of these articles.)

 

[killer/tpu]

If you want to start reading into politics without swallowing the bait and misleads one thing that you have to get it through your head is that all modern political media thrives on a currency of manufactured outrage. They don't give a shit about you, the government, unraveling the truth or any of the basic principles of journalism. They only care about PR ratings and viewership.


Like Fox News knows their viewers want right wing hair so they are hyper focused on cultural wedge issues, culture wars, and border panic that has been running on their shoes since 2000s

MSNBC / CNN are perma left wing hideout. Always moral responsibility. Institution blaming and blame everything as democratic apocalypse.

Some Tips

1. News Article reads like a looksmax.orh evisceration title

Immediate redflag. You always strip the Adjectives and Adverbs. If a headline says "Politician X brutally eviscerates opponent with unhinged, dangerous rhetoric" start reading it as “Politician X disagreed with Politician Y's stance on [Policy] because that's probably what happened

2. Never believe a political commentator

Never let a pundit tell you what a piece of legislation says. If a bill is doing massive public meltdown skip them and search for the actual text of the bill or executive order. Even ChatGPT can do better job and give a more neutral stance than these muh pundits

3. Never believe anything from Tiktok or Instagram

99% of the information on X, Tiktok and Instagram is just blatant lies with again the insentive of rage baiting. Ignore them all.

4. Only trust peer reviewed meta analysis studies

This goes for anything. Not just politics. You can find a study to prove almost anything if you warp the variables enough and media loves to weaponize data and the viewers too ignorant to realize they are being brain washed. Look exclusively for peer-reviewed meta-analyses. Basically studies that aggregate data from dozens of independent trials or papers with multiple people agreeing with it. That is true verified data you can rely on.

5. Look at their funding

This is the number 1 thing to do. Whenever someone has something to say look at his background. Like is that independent expert that is brough to validate a political narrative. Does he have any stakes in it? Follow the money. Are they funded by defense contractors? Part of an industry that has a vested interest etc. 99% of the time it's a pr stunt


Some US media houses that are neutral


The Wires (Reuters & Associated Press)

https://www.reuters.com/

https://apnews.com/

They generate the raw, dry fact-sheets that downstream media operations buy. Their buisness is mostly B2B so they don't care about viewer retention

C-SPAN & USAFacts.org:


Pure policy inputs. C-SPAN gives you zero talking heads telling you what to think. USAFacts aggregates government budget data without the narrative layer

I don't follow the UK media too much but I've heard BBC News, Hansard and the financial Times are neutra.

They aren't flawless but their survival depends on functioning as utilities rather than entertainment. If a source feels tedious, dry, and boring, it’s usually a good indicator that it’s safe to consume.

Problem with neutrality

Neutrality isn't the same as objective truth. To avoid looking biased places like Reuters or the BBC often start treating a verified fact and a total lie with the exact same weight just to seem fair and refuse to take any strong stances. Plus because they need inside access to politicians they naturally protect them.

love this

 

[shngstaaaa107]

"This source uses data incorrectly" unsure what to make of that, the far-left wing outlets like tony michaels or hasan take the data straight from the outlets at the top so they pass this imo. "interprets data incorrectly" i mean that is a totally opinon based statement. According to them if i take a chart from CNN that says palestinians deathtolls are much higher then israeli deathtolls and say that this points to israel being the opressor, then yeah according to mainstream media they will say i interpreted it incorrectly. I guess thats the sort of way this statement of "wrong interpretation" works, its opinion based from the establishment. "doesnt acknowledge the other side of the argument" i think its pretty clear that they do this even though they dont agree with it they try to understand the counterarguments i mean hasan literally constantly watches fox news on his stream, an outlet which he completely disagrees with, but he does it to see what the opposition has to say. So i dont think they are wrong on that either.

"This source uses data incorrectly or interprets data incorrectly and doesn't acknowledge the other side of the argument" none of the far-left outlets in that graph that i know of do any of this.

Also to acknowledge some of your points here.

Hasan might look at the other side of the argument but he likely fails to concede to correct points and is very subjective. The Reliability rating also requires you to put aside your own bias AND create original reporting/content. The news has a lot to say about Hasan himself and his reliability. A lot of his stuff borders on hyperbole and lacks nuance, and quote from Google ai "leading to accusations of spreading misinformation or oversimplifying complex geopolitical issues."

IF, as most streamers do, Hasan also tries to be inflammatory, please his viewers, use hyperbole, and again, never concede, he is not reliable. Same with most other opinions based reporters on the list.

To speak on data misuse: I remember reading that red meat "increases colorectal cancer risk by 18%". However, once you look at the baseline of 5% colorectal cancer risk, this means the baseline moved from 5 to 6 percent. There are many similar cases or methods to make data work in your favor in reporting these days.

 

[iamgoingtoascend]

View attachment 5344707
Here is the lower range on the interactive version, on Ad Fontes' website.

Unfair persuasion has a lot of news outlets compared to individual, opinions based reporters.

Same with "Contains misleading info", which should just be bad interpretations of data or unbiased news.

Then inaccurate/fabricated info is straight up lies, fake news, etc. This is a mix of opinions based and some sites.

The thing is, the reason some of these sites are unreliable is because they don't use data at all or write BS.

From the site, "The team considers a variety of factors when rating content. To determine its reliability score, we consider the content’s veracity, expression, its title/headline, and graphics. We add each of these scores to the chart on a weighted scale, with the average of those creating the sample content’s overall reliability score."

https://adfontesmedia.com/wnd-bias-and-reliability/#

Big League Politics Bias and Reliability | Ad Fontes Media

Ad Fontes Media rates Big League Politics, a website begun by a former Breitbart writer, as hyper-partisan right in terms of bias and as ....

adfontesmedia.com

The Jimmy Dore Show Bias and Reliability | Ad Fontes Media

Here are bias/reliability scores for The Jimmy Dore Show according to Ad Fontes Media. Bias: Most Extreme Left; Reliability: Unreliable ...

adfontesmedia.com

I reccommend you read these and the specific linked articles from them (Shows the quality of some of these articles.)

Also to acknowledge some of your points here.

Hasan might look at the other side of the argument but he likely fails to concede to correct points and is very subjective. The Reliability rating also requires you to put aside your own bias AND create original reporting/content. The news has a lot to say about Hasan himself and his reliability. A lot of his stuff borders on hyperbole and lacks nuance, and quote from Google ai "leading to accusations of spreading misinformation or oversimplifying complex geopolitical issues."

IF, as most streamers do, Hasan also tries to be inflammatory, please his viewers, use hyperbole, and again, never concede, he is not reliable. Same with most other opinions based reporters on the list.

To speak on data misuse: I remember reading that red meat "increases colorectal cancer risk by 18%". However, once you look at the baseline of 5% colorectal cancer risk, this means the baseline moved from 5 to 6 percent. There are many similar cases or methods to make data work in your favor in reporting these days.

i gotta go but ill keep the tab open and read through this later my g

 

[Jason Voorhees]

@negative

 

[1966Ford]

U forgot to list out the fallacies tbh

Good thread nevertheless, Jason