• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Deleted member 41502

User requested account closure
Banned
Mar 28, 2018
1,177
And your argument misinterprets the claims made in a rather baffling manner.
You still haven't made an argument to explain what I said wrong. I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you want me to really make fun of her, in trying to explain how media bias isn't necessarily just the men on top telling the writers what they can/can't write, her first example of "Access Journalism" is that her bosses at MSNBC required her to get their approval before running any anti-Clinton stories. i.e. the men on top telling the writers what they can/can't write.

Making that even funnier, the reason she had to do that was because she gave an biased monologue on MSNBC "begging Hillary Clinton not to run" because she didn't like her. The problem she points out in the end isn't "why the hell would the press even be running monologue of useless biased opinion", but "it made the Clinton campaign mad and then they threatened to cut our access if we did it again and thats how you get bias in the media".

There's certainly an argument to make that the press is awful. I wouldn't argue against that. They ask dumb questions about things no one cares about. They care more about generating clicks than giving out information. Some of those awful traits CAN and DO generate bias. They can ignore a candidate entirely who's just not generating enough revenue. They can elect a racist nazi president because he does generate revenue.

But... there's no evidence that is happening to Sanders.
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,482

That kind of data is often based on algorithms programmed to analyze patterns in basic sentence structures in an attempt to gauge sentiment from one article to the next in a very efficient way, but this systematic approach to data collection is deeply flawed when analyzing something as subjective as 'sentiment' (something that people will never agree on 100%) and cannot account for more nuanced undertones/more complex sentence structures, and a more comprehensive investigation into whether or not an article was a hit piece or puff piece would require a more rigorous, human critique.

It's always important to consider the methodology used to obtain the data so that the full context of the data can be understood.


This has always been the more granular argument from progressives and leftists. Bernie (who fits squarely in that demographic) gave a very surface level critique of WaPo and their relationships to power which many in the press and in this thread took advantage of by disingenuously interpreting as conspiracy theorizing.

Yeah, his penchant for simplifying things to the point where everyone can understand him also makes him highly susceptible to disingenuous interpretation.

Helio, brainchild, thanks for making some great informative posts (and I'm sure others too, I haven't been keeping up with the whole thread since yesterday and my eye was drawn to your posts on this page).

Thanks, just trying to keep the discussion up to date.

An article about the Iowa State Fair didn't report on what he did outside of the Iowa State Fair??!?!! Shocking?!?!!!?!!!?!!!

Bernie literally attending the state fair is, by definition, retail politics, and besides the point, because the article used the State Fair as a basis to concoct a narrative that reaches far beyond the scope of the fair grounds; essentially suggesting a campaign strategy that doesn't comport with reality. Even a cursory glance at his whereabouts at the local level in Iowa would easily reveal the campaign's take on retail politicking and dispels the article's notion that the campaign chooses not to engage in retail politics.

This quote:

Mr. Sanders's approach to the event on Sunday — stride briskly, wave occasionally, converse infrequently — underscored how he has grounded his campaign in championing ideas rather than establishing human connections.

is just patently, demonstrably false, as there's plenty of evidence since his campaign launched that he has put a great deal of effort into establishing personal, one on one human connections with people, even if he's not begging the media for attention about it.
 
Last edited:

nelsonroyale

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,128
This is obvious, funny that the old 'narrative' of unelectability also has reared its nasty head.

Many on here still seem to be bitter about Bernie in regards to the last election.
 

Deleted member 41502

User requested account closure
Banned
Mar 28, 2018
1,177
That kind of data is often based on algorithms programmed to analyze patterns in basic sentence structures in an attempt to gauge sentiment from one article to the next in a very efficient way, but this systematic approach to data collection is deeply flawed when analyzing something as subjective as 'sentiment' (something that people will never agree on 100%) and cannot account for more nuanced undertones/more complex sentence structures, and a more comprehensive investigation into whether or not an article was a hit piece or puff piece would require a more rigorous, human critique.

It's always important to consider the methodology used to obtain the data so that the full context of the data can be understood.
I don't think I really agree with that. A human assessment would likely be more prone to bias than the AI one.

Even that "16 articles in a day!" FAIR story linked above lists a few stories that I would probably call "neutral" by their titles.

I mean maybe ideally, MAYBE you have 100 people (from a non-biased sample set) each all read every article in every paper and offer an opinion about 1.) Who was talked about and 2.) Was it positive/negative/neutral. Then you take the average. That's how you would build a training set for an AI like this. But its unsustainable to do that for every article in every newspaper over months let alone over decades (and is unlikely to differ much from the AI).

The nice thing about the AI is, if you find a bug and fix it (or just retrain with slightly better data), you can rerun the entire set of news articles from the last 40 years if you want. If you find a bug in the human analysis.... you have to find 100 people to each read a million articles again.
 

y2dvd

Member
Nov 14, 2017
2,481

Bezos don't need to directly tell individuals how to go about in order to have influence. And great point made by Sam. Yall are saying Bernie is using Trump talking points but will never call out the MSM for using Republican talking points.
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,482
I don't think I really agree with that. A human assessment would likely be more prone to bias than the AI one.

The problem is the purview of the algorithm's analytics is limited by design. The AI doesn't actually understand human languages and only looks for key words within set parameters. It's not even about bias at that point, it's about the fact that humans are exponentially more capable of just merely perceiving the 'sentiment' of an article (correctly or incorrectly) than the handicapped AI is.
 

alexiswrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,418
The consistent whining by Bernie and his people looks bad for his campaign. Especially when a lot of the time it isn't really warranted.

Part of running an electoral campaign is creating media narratives which give you an advantage. Its wild to me that this is the media narrative they want to go with right now.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,964
The article used that Sanders did not work the Iowa Fair the same way the other candidates did (which seems entirely accurate) to draw a line to that his campaign is not working Iowa in the same way that other campaigns do, which also seems accurate, with quotes from his staff, local party officials, reflecting that. The Vox article also notes that Sanders eschews rah rah baby kissing pageantry.

Also Media Tenor which provided analysis for the Shorenstein Center study does not use automated text analysis.
 

Afrikan

Member
Oct 28, 2017
16,990
The consistent whining by Bernie and his people looks bad for his campaign. Especially when a lot of the time it isn't really warranted.

Part of running an electoral campaign is creating media narratives which give you an advantage. Its wild to me that this is the media narrative they want to go with right now.

Creating a media narrative?

Who controls the narrative?
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,482
to draw a line to that his campaign is not working Iowa in the same way that other campaigns do

But it went a bit further than the campaign being different than other campaigns. It suggested that the campaign is focused on ideas at the expense of local engagement, and it's just not true.

There are all sorts of ways to do retail politicking, and it doesn't start and end with kissing babies and photo ops.

Also Media Tenor which provided analysis for the Shorenstein Center study does not use automated text analysis.

What was their methodology?
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,510
I wonder if some of those people(in this thread and elsewhere) are still going to dangerously compare Trump to Bernie even after his clarifications?
I mean, why would they anyway? To even suggest that is fucking ludicrous but that doesn't register apparently.
You'd have to be incredibly malicious to make that comparison, there are no two ways about it.

Comparing a leftist/progressive who is speaking truth to power to Trump is some fucking bullshit.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,964
This paper evaluates news media coverage of the invisible primary phase of the 2016 presidential campaign through the lens of the election reporting of eight news outlets—CBS, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post.

The data were provided by Media Tenor, a firm that specializes in collecting and coding news content. Media Tenor's coding of print and television news stories is conducted by trained staff members who visually evaluate the content. Computer-based coding is less reliable and is not used in Media Tenor's research. Coding of individual actors (e.g., presidential candidates) is done on a comprehensive basis, capturing all statements of more than five lines (print) or five seconds (TV) of coverage for a given actor. Coders identify relevant themes (topics) for all actors in a given report and evaluate tone (positive or negative) on a six-point scale. These tonality ratings are then combined to classify each report for each actor as being negative, positive, or having no clear tone. Coding quality is maintained through comprehensive spot checks and inter-coder cross checks to maintain a minimum 85 percent inter-coder reliability rate.
 

alexiswrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,418
Creating a media narrative?

Who controls the narrative?

Do you not think that campaigns spend a significant amount of time thinking about how they can sculpt the narrative around themselves in the eyes of the media?

When Bernie or his campaign complains about this they know its going to get a lot of press, that is somebody knowingly generating a media cycle.
 

Deleted member 6230

User-requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,118
You still haven't made an argument to explain what I said wrong. I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you want me to really make fun of her, in trying to explain how media bias isn't necessarily just the men on top telling the writers what they can/can't write, her first example of "Access Journalism" is that her bosses at MSNBC required her to get their approval before running any anti-Clinton stories. i.e. the men on top telling the writers what they can/can't write.

Making that even funnier, the reason she had to do that was because she gave an biased monologue on MSNBC "begging Hillary Clinton not to run" because she didn't like her. The problem she points out in the end isn't "why the hell would the press even be running monologue of useless biased opinion", but "it made the Clinton campaign mad and then they threatened to cut our access if we did it again and thats how you get bias in the media".

There's certainly an argument to make that the press is awful. I wouldn't argue against that. They ask dumb questions about things no one cares about. They care more about generating clicks than giving out information. Some of those awful traits CAN and DO generate bias. They can ignore a candidate entirely who's just not generating enough revenue. They can elect a racist nazi president because he does generate revenue.

But... there's no evidence that is happening to Sanders.
This isn't making fun of her this is you just being pedantic.

So her claim from the start that media biases do exist on a structural and cultural level with in media outlets themselves and she provides argumentation for that using her own experiences working in media. She to me seems to be addressing the sentiment that criticizing the media the way Bernie has done is some sort of Trumpian move. Her argument has way less to do with whether Bernie's claims that the media is bias against him is valid.

I think her points are valid. I don't know why you put "Access Journalism" in quotes like you don't think it's an actual thing that effects outlets.
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,482

Understandably, the number of media outlets they were able to include (8) in their analysis was quite limited, which is what happens when human evaluation is required for something like this, and even still, they were only able to evaluate tonality, which isn't the only way in which news coverage can positively or negatively affect the candidates, nor does it wholly reflect the nature of the content being published. One major element missing here is the corrolary effect of framing stories or information in a way that can indirectly put a candidate in a positive or negative light without necessarily focusing the narrative on said candidate. This happens all the time with coverage of the race from a macroscopic viewpoint where all of the candidates are relevant to the story, but some may only be visible in a graph, or conspicuously missing from the story for some reason.

The truth is that there is no practical, easy solution for getting objective data about how fairly the candidates are being covered by the media at large, and while sentiment and tone analyses can be useful, they certainly aren't rigorous and comprehensive enough to be used to account for all of the other aspects of news coverage that affects how the candidates are perceived.
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,482
I still don't get why people keep being needlessly obtuse, hell after the clarification what's there to argue?

That's what I want to know. The man clarified his statement so it's not like people are still confused or still misunderstand what he meant. Surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet.
 

Bonafide

Member
Oct 11, 2018
936
I still don't get why people keep being needlessly obtuse, hell after the clarification what's there to argue?

It's weird as all hell.

You can easily make a topic on FOX or OneAmerica or any conservative news network and point out the connections between the narrative they push and who owns/funds the network, but when you start doing the same with CNN, MSNBC or any other "objective" channel or newspaper, suddenly we start to have problems...
 

alexiswrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,418
It's weird as all hell.

You can easily make a topic on FOX or OneAmerica or any conservative news network and point out the connections between the narrative they push and who owns/funds the network, but when you start doing the same with CNN, MSNBC or any other "objective" channel or newspaper, suddenly we start to have problems...

I think there's a big difference between the insinuation that based on a policy position the owner of a media outlet is pushing the contributors to the outlet to write bad things about a politician (Bernie did walk the claim back though), and the fact that there are cultural/institutional biases in every media outlets' coverage.
 

PixelatedDonut

Chicken Chaser
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,966
Philly ❤️
You ask what there is to argue but all I see is a bunch of people talking at a wall and congratulating themselves for it. Why is it toxic to draw attention to it.
Well maybe you should read the thread then, because if that was the case the thread would be dead. Like come on I'm not even mad at you, it's just ridiculous to see the topic turn into mudslinging in calling each other names. Listen I don't know if you're trying to troll and not either way I'm just going to end it here just got off of work and I feel like you're arguing in bad faith. It's not really worth it.
 
Last edited:

Gobias-Ind

Member
Nov 22, 2017
4,025
You realize the discussion is basically you lot masturbating with each other about the "smooth brains"

That's the natural evolution once the forum conversation grows beyond the "fake outrage about something I'm not even remotely mad about and totally agree with when someone I'm not predisposed to disliking says it"

But now you're here trying to devolve the conversation again :(
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,741
I think there's a big difference between the insinuation that based on a policy position the owner of a media outlet is pushing the contributors to the outlet to write bad things about a politician (Bernie did walk the claim back though), and the fact that there are cultural/institutional biases in every media outlets' coverage.

This.

I never once took issue with the notion that there's pro corporate bias in reporting. I took issue with the idea that Bernie is singled out (no evidence of that save which can be easily explained by confirmation bias) and how he worded it (which I acknowledged that he clarified).

Moreover, the entire stance is a victim stance that does nothing to appeal to more voters.
 
Last edited:

y2dvd

Member
Nov 14, 2017
2,481
This.

I never once took issue with the notion that there's pro corporate bias in reporting. I took issue with the idea that Bernie is singled out (no evidence of that save which can be easily explained by confirmation bias) and how he worded it (which I acknowledged that he clarified).

Moreover, the entire stance is a victim stance that does nothing to appeal to more voters.

There have been smear pieces that he received in a short period of time than any other candidate. Bernie is going after millionaires and billionaires that not only owns these news publications, but also advertise a good deal on or around them. It's not a far stretch to think the politician who is seeking to hurt the pocket books of the rich owners is having a numerous amount of bad faith articles written about him.

And there's nothing showing this is hurting him. If anything, his appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast helped elevate his support. Only in y'all's mind this isn't looking good. The more the MSM go after Bernie, the more it will do him favors and the more it hurts the MSM credibility. You should probably ask the MSM to stop using right-wing framing.
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,741
Your confirmation bias is showing.

And I bitch about media framing all the time. The fact that immigration is such a huge focus is complete bullshit to begin with.
 
Oct 27, 2017
12,979
I can't stand the persecution complex Bernie Sanders, his campaign and his supporters seem to have.

As a black male, I will never, ever support him or his candidacy for a number of reasons.

One; I find his refusal and inability to adapt when it comes to understanding and willing to understand socioeconomic issues as they relate to individual communities massively problematic. The "rising tide will lift all boats" economic screed isn't one that is suited to serve me or my community.

Two; His massive blind spot when it comes to racial issues and understanding. He has had numerous gaffes and misfires when talking about and trying to appeal to the black community and he hasn't shown himself to be any better in this regard this time around. His campaign's outright dismissal of Southern primaries in 2016 with a high percentage of minority voters was unforgivable in my eyes.

Three; His supporters. Just recently on this very forum (which isn't representative of most people, I know) we saw those peddling the same racist dog whistles Bernie's supporters often engage in claiming that "African Americans" often vote "against their own interests" and that only "low information voters" would refuse to support his candidacy for President. There is a reason why we don't support him and his supporters who benefit from white privilege and hold racist viewpoints (even if they refuse to admit it under the guise of being "progressive" lol) are a large part of the reason why. Don't tell a voting bloc, yes a non-monolithic one at that, how to vote or that we are low information voters when black voters, and black women especially are the ones trying to save this country from itself and are a reliable democratic vote.

Four; the cognitive dissonance and desire to beat each other down instead of lifting each other up. Lessons learned from 2016? Hardly. There is a constant need and desire to make everyone else look worse in order to make Bernie Sanders look better. Why are we doing this again? Stop claiming everything is rigged and stop calling other Democrats "Republicans". This toxic discourse and ridiculous other-ing is such a turn off and disgusts me.

I can not wait until he drops out.
 

Deleted member 4346

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,976
I can't stand the persecution complex Bernie Sanders, his campaign and his supporters seem to have.

As a black male, I will never, ever support him or his candidacy for a number of reasons.

I'm also a black male, I'd like to address some of your points here.

One; I find his refusal and inability to adapt when it comes to understanding and willing to understand socioeconomic issues as they relate to individual communities massively problematic. The "rising tide will lift all boats" economic screed isn't one that is suited to serve me or my community.

Race and class are intersectional, right? I believe Sanders, and many on the progressive left, have messaging and priority flaws when it comes to addressing issues primarily affecting POC. But the neoliberal stance, which is tokenism and "woke capitalism", is a solution that is totally incomplete.

Issues in the black community aren't just social. They are socioeconomic. Just having token representation while ignoring the vast wealth disparity between blacks and whites in America, doesn't address our issues.

Two; His massive blind spot when it comes to racial issues and understanding. He has had numerous gaffes and misfires when talking about and trying to appeal to the black community and he hasn't shown himself to be any better in this regard this time around. His campaign's outright dismissal of Southern primaries in 2016 with a high percentage of minority voters was unforgivable in my eyes.

Sure, Sanders has had gaffes on race. Worse than Clinton? Probably not. Worse than Joe Biden? LOL son don't play.

Three; His supporters. Just recently on this very forum (which isn't representative of most people, I know) we saw those peddling the same racist dog whistles Bernie's supporters often engage in claiming that "African Americans" often vote "against their own interests" and that only "low information voters" would refuse to support his candidacy for President. There is a reason why we don't support him and his supporters who benefit from white privilege and hold racist viewpoints (even if they refuse to admit it under the guise of being "progressive" lol) are a large part of the reason why. Don't tell a voting bloc, yes a non-monolithic one at that, how to vote or that we are low information voters when black voters, and black women especially are the ones trying to save this country from itself and are a reliable democratic vote.

First of all, there are a lot of POC Sanders supporters here. Don't assume that you speak for all of us. Sanders is the most popular candidate among younger black voters. You say that we're not a monolith, cool, then don't speak for us.

I said that quote myself. I don't know if anyone else did, but I said that exact line in a post (that African-Americans often vote against our own interests). Because it's true! We do. We voted for Hillary Clinton, and Bill before her, racists who deeply harmed our inner-city communities with their crime laws and dogwhistling, who support the systemic racism that keeps black communities poor, keeps black schools bad. We voted for Barack Obama, who inspired us, but who wagged his finger at black Americans who weren't as fortunate as he was, who was deeply invested in respectability politics, who deported more immigrants than prior Republican presidents, and under whose presidency we saw black wealth slip even further. We have voted against our own interests again and again, for a number of reasons.

Four; the cognitive dissonance and desire to beat each other down instead of lifting each other up. Lessons learned from 2016? Hardly. There is a constant need and desire to make everyone else look worse in order to make Bernie Sanders look better. Why are we doing this again? Stop claiming everything is rigged and stop calling other Democrats "Republicans". This toxic discourse and ridiculous other-ing is such a turn off and disgusts me.

I can not wait until he drops out.

Leftists don't owe you support for your milquetoast liberal candidates. I don't know how much more plainly we can make this point. I'm a lifelong Democrat but a candidate like Joe Biden or Corey Booker doesn't represent my values or beliefs, and I wouldn't vote for them. We aren't going to prop up these candidates because not doing so might hurt them in the general election. Honestly, Sanders has handled the liberals in the race with kid gloves so far. I hope he goes scorched earth before the 2020 primary is over. Because there are huge problems in America, in the world today. Problems too big for liberalism to solve, like climate change, the health care crisis, racism in the criminal justice system, and automation. Bernie (and Warren, too) need to give voters a clear choice.

You're going to be waiting a while for Bernie to drop out. For my side, I hope that Harris and Biden split the centrist vote, and it comes down to Sanders and Warren. We have the chance go get away from establishment centrism and do a full reset after Trump. We should take advantage of this opportunity, not put forward more of the same.
 
Last edited:

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Four; the cognitive dissonance and desire to beat each other down instead of lifting each other up.
I can not wait until he drops out.
It's bad when you do it but it's not bad when we do it. Unity!

On this forum, there's a cadre of "usual suspects" that are always around to drop takes on how bad Bernie is but when Bernie does something clearly positive they're conspicuously absent.