Re: Narrow information party

[Tunnelcat]

A new poll found that Republicans mostly trust the news information that comes from one source, Fox News. That same poll found that Democrats typically trust the news from multiple sources, MSNBC (no surprise) AND most other mainstream news outlets, except Fox News. So who's going to be more clueless, or at least potentially manipulated by someone with an agenda? The one source voter, or voters who get their news from multiple sources?

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/1/11340882/re ... -media-fox

[Spidey]

The problem is…propaganda is very much more effective when it does come from multiple sources.

Just do a web search on just about anything…you will get countless examples of the same story, pretty much word for word, did all of those sites do the investigative work needed?

And basically that is why I stick to The NewsHour.

[Tunnelcat]

But when you only trust one source, you're more likely to ignore or reject anything from any another source and just suck it right up as the truth. They won't even look at the information from other sources that would even allow them to possibly think for themselves with their own brains. You must also know that most Republicans believe that The NewHour is be nothing but leftie propaganda anyway.

[Spidey]

I can’t say what is worse, using a single source like FOX, or using multiple sources to enhance the echo chamber, and therefore produce a confirmation bias.

Perhaps the Democrats would have an information advantage if all of those “trusted” sources actually did their own homework.

But if what you are trying to say is Republicans=dumb Democrats=smart…well I’m not going to argue with that, but nothing here proves it.

[callmeslick]

The problem is…propaganda is very much more effective when it does come from multiple sources.

Just do a web search on just about anything…you will get countless examples of the same story, pretty much word for word, did all of those sites do the investigative work needed?

And basically that is why I stick to The NewsHour.

NewsHour is a great jumping off point, and when you utilize the web links to sourcing and all, can be nearly complete.

[Tunnelcat]

I can’t say what is worse, using a single source like FOX, or using multiple sources to enhance the echo chamber, and therefore produce a confirmation bias.

Perhaps the Democrats would have an information advantage if all of those “trusted” sources actually did their own homework.

But if what you are trying to say is Republicans=dumb Democrats=smart…well I’m not going to argue with that, but nothing here proves it.

No, not quite. I'm saying that Republicans don't want to hear opposing views. It interferes with their worldview. That doesn't make them stupid, just insular. Democrats aren't necessarily smarter than their counterparts either, but they tend to be more willing to listen to other views and information sources. But whether Democrats want to agree with those other views or even change their minds when presented with conflicting information to their worldview, is open to debate. My guess is any tribe will tend to stick to their worldview. I'm postulating that liberals are more open to contrarian views, but not as much as they like to think.

The fact is though, most Republicans consider PBS, and by extension The NewsHour show, nothing but leftie propaganda to avoid at all costs. They're missing out on a great source of relatively unbiased news information, boring as it can be at times, so what does that tell you about Republicans?

https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-PBS-News ... ws?share=1

[Spidey]

I’m dumfounded that you can refer to an echo chamber as “other points of view” you’re still missing the point that most of these “other points of view” are simply repeating the same thing.

[Ferno]

It's getting pretty hard to get the full information these days when filter bubbles are so prevalent.

[Tunnelcat]

I’m dumfounded that you can refer to an echo chamber as “other points of view” you’re still missing the point that most of these “other points of view” are simply repeating the same thing.

So you believe that everything out there is nothing but an echo chamber? Why is having the ability and desire to comb through that echo chamber, as you call it, possibly worse than only listening to one source of information, one source that is well known to have a bias? Sometimes informed people actually can think for themselves and sift through all that chaff and actually pick out the valuable wheat. Someone who only listens to what they want to listen to is either too lazy to use their brain or cannot even acknowledge that there are other viewpoints out there than may be more truthful that the biased noise from their one source. Sometimes it pays to see what other people in the world are thinking and saying, truthful or not. Even lies are telling.

[Herculosis]

I'm conservative and get my news from TONS of different sources: Fox News, talk radio, WSJ, Newsmax, Breitbart, TheBlaze, several conservative blogs, and a host of others. For a daily quick-see of what's going on, it's Drudge.

Ok, that list was just an illustration of Spidey's point in the other direction. The sources listed in the OP for Democrats is kind of like this one for Repubs.

[callmeslick]

current rotation(changes over time)--
local paper(NewsJournal), Christian Science Monitor, Manchester Union Leader(NH), Washington Post, Huffington Post, National Review,
Weekly Standard, Boston Herald(friend works there), Village Voice and Time.

from these I try to avoid tabloid hack sites(ex--Breitbart or Kos) with a pretty decent ideological balance in the mix.
I toss in Paris Match and Al Jazeera for a bit of International perspective, along with others I get linked to from friends.

[Tunnelcat]

I'm conservative and get my news from TONS of different sources: Fox News, talk radio, WSJ, Newsmax, Breitbart, TheBlaze, several conservative blogs, and a host of others. For a daily quick-see of what's going on, it's Drudge.

Ok, that list was just an illustration of Spidey's point in the other direction. The sources listed in the OP for Democrats is kind of like this one for Repubs.

That's true, but do you ever believe or listen to anything that you know is from a left-leaning source? Even though I consider myself liberal, I will look at Drudge's site from time to time and even sample that whole list of sources you named. I'll even post some of their links. Hell, I even listened to Drudge way back when he had a TV show during Bill Clinton's reign. He was refreshing change of pace from all that liberal Clinton butt kissing that was going on in the mainstream press during his impeachment. I will even take into consideration some of what they say and I won't always dismiss it as rightie propaganda. I always search through the "echo chamber" and form my own opinions, right or wrong because knowledge is a valuable commodity. But conservatives seem to have this revulsion to anything they even think even remotely smells liberal. They won't even consider that sometimes sources other than most of the right wing sites they usually peruse, such as most of those you listed and Fox News, are even valid or trustworthy to bother to read or listen to. They want comfortable news, not contrarian news that doesn't fit into their worldview. That's why they're conservatives.

[Herculosis]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The list I gave was just "an illustration" to make the point, not an exclusive (or even completely accurate) list. Personally, I DO actually enjoy hearing the liberal viewpoint when its reasoned. What I absolutely hate is all the talking point crap that comes from both sides. Its tough to find good back-and-forth discussions these days where each side actually listens and tries to understand the other.

One of the most enjoyable sources I've found is the POTUS channel on satellite radio (Politics of the United States). Steele and Unger is a good example that I've heard a number of times. Both guys make really good points and are clearly very good friends by the way they treat each other. You hear actual reasoning behind viewpoints, and attempts to get to some common ground. Some of the NPR stuff can be good as well, and other times it's just as bad as MSNBC. Years ago, one of my wife's and my favorite shows was Hardball with Chris Matthews. He actually used to try to act like he was pretty close to the middle on topics. Now, he's just a shill.

[Spidey]

I’m dumfounded that you can refer to an echo chamber as “other points of view” you’re still missing the point that most of these “other points of view” are simply repeating the same thing.

So you believe that everything out there is nothing but an echo chamber? Why is having the ability and desire to comb through that echo chamber, as you call it, possibly worse than only listening to one source of information, one source that is well known to have a bias? Sometimes informed people actually can think for themselves and sift through all that chaff and actually pick out the valuable wheat. Someone who only listens to what they want to listen to is either too lazy to use their brain or cannot even acknowledge that there are other viewpoints out there than may be more truthful that the biased noise from their one source. Sometimes it pays to see what other people in the world are thinking and saying, truthful or not. Even lies are telling.

You admitted yourself that Democrats don’t trust FOX, so exactly where are Democrats getting their "alternate" opinions?

[Tunnelcat]

The difference is that smart Dems will at least check out what Fox News has to say. Sometimes, we liberals will actually find factual news there in the middle of all that trash. It pays to watch what your opponents are saying.

[Spidey]

Well, just to change tactics a little, how many other polls did you use to confirm the one used in this story?

Seriously?

I mean you have one conservative here that says he uses multiple sources, and one that admits to using a “liberal” source.

So where is your confirmation that the poll is correct?

Money=Mouth

[vision]

Well, just to change tactics a little, how many other polls did you use to confirm the one used in this story?

The story actually cites multiple sources. It's kind of an interesting article and makes a clear and important point. Vox does a better than average job when it comes to journalism (though I have read some real crap on that site).

However, the title of this thread is wrong. Low information isn't the problem, narrow information is.

[Tunnelcat]

Well, just to change tactics a little, how many other polls did you use to confirm the one used in this story?

Seriously?

I mean you have one conservative here that says he uses multiple sources, and one that admits to using a “liberal” source.

So where is your confirmation that the poll is correct?

Money=Mouth

Is this better Spidey? It was a Pew Poll the information came from. I've also got a couple of older neighbors and all they listen to all day is Fox News, then when they walk by, they love to harp about either that Muslim Obama or those damn liberals. The wife of one of those neighbors is really fed up with her hubby's Fox News addiction.

https://newrepublic.com/article/119922/ ... h-fox-news

I took your suggestion vision.

[Spidey]

Ok, your point.

It’s just a damn shame such a large number of people feel so disfranchised by the media that they trust only a single source.

That’s a pretty sad state of affairs.

[Tunnelcat]

I'd call it purposely wearing blinders. They may be disenfranchised, but if they don't ever want to hear anything that doesn't fit their worldview, they will always be angry and disenfranchised and they will always be misinformed.

[Sergeant Thorne]

A new poll found that Republicans mostly trust the news information that comes from one source, Fox News. That same poll found that Democrats typically trust the news from multiple sources, MSNBC (no surprise) AND most other mainstream news outlets, except Fox News. So who's going to be more clueless, or at least potentially manipulated by someone with an agenda? The one source voter, or voters who get their news from multiple sources?

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/1/11340882/re ... -media-fox

So I trust one person and you trust everyone, and it makes me clueless?

(Disclaimer: Sergeant Thorne does not actually watch Fox News)

[Tunnelcat]

Nope. Ronald Reagan famously said: "Trust, but verify". For me, it's "Verify first, then trust".

[Nightshade]

But when you only trust one source, you're more likely to ignore or reject anything from any another source and just suck it right up as the truth. They won't even look at the information from other sources that would even allow them to possibly think for themselves with their own brains. You must also know that most Republicans believe that The NewHour is be nothing but leftie propaganda anyway.

Of course it is. Most "mainstream media" are completely owned by leftist ideologues. The major problem is that most people don't want to take the time to do their own critical thinking and question the motives behind presenting news a certain way or completely omitting other stories completely.

They take the media at its word- which is lazy at best and potentially dangerous at worst.

- and YES, Fox News is biased...but it took the appearance of Fox News on the scene to expose the bias of all media to more people.

Think for yourself- and I really point that out to "progressives" as well because they tend to be the most closed minded sheep in society.

[snoopy]

Nope. Ronald Reagan famously said: "Trust, but verify". For me, it's "Verify first, then trust".

I think that's backwards... I don't think Reagan's subject was some unknown party... It was the people that he had already concluded should be trusted - and the point was never completely trust any one source. If you don't have truth sources that you already trust, how are you supposed to go about your task of verification? And, if you apply complete trust once you've established your verification, how do you find sources that give you anything other than confirmation of your preexisting conclusions about truth?

On the OP, I tend to agree with Spidey - having many sources tell you the same lie isn't any better than only having one, and I don't have much faith in any news source providing their wares agenda-free. I think the key question is who evaluates their news critically and who just accepts it because it came from (a) certain source(s)?

[vision]

Of course, there is always the chance that the "mainstream" is right and you're in a cult.

[Ferno]

Nope. Ronald Reagan famously said: "Trust, but verify". For me, it's "Verify first, then trust".

my experience can be summed up thusly: "extend a hand but watch your back".

[woodchip]

I say, "Shoot first, ask questions later"

[Tunnelcat]

Nope. Ronald Reagan famously said: "Trust, but verify". For me, it's "Verify first, then trust".

I think that's backwards... I don't think Reagan's subject was some unknown party... It was the people that he had already concluded should be trusted - and the point was never completely trust any one source. If you don't have truth sources that you already trust, how are you supposed to go about your task of verification? And, if you apply complete trust once you've established your verification, how do you find sources that give you anything other than confirmation of your preexisting conclusions about truth?

On the OP, I tend to agree with Spidey - having many sources tell you the same lie isn't any better than only having one, and I don't have much faith in any news source providing their wares agenda-free. I think the key question is who evaluates their news critically and who just accepts it because it came from (a) certain source(s)?

Actually, it's a quote from a Russian proverb. Доверяй но Проверяй. Reagan used it in his dealings with the Soviets after he got the phrase from a writer on all things Russia. I don't think Reagan trusted the Soviets either, but he had to start somewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify

Of course it is. Most "mainstream media" are completely owned by leftist ideologues. The major problem is that most people don't want to take the time to do their own critical thinking and question the motives behind presenting news a certain way or completely omitting other stories completely.

There's the problem. Conservatives automatically assume the mainstream press is leftie and therein lies the problem. They won't even listen to it because of their preconceived assumptions on the slant of that source of news. I agree that in past history, that pretty much summed up the truth, especially up and through Bill Clinton's reign. The mainstream press pretty much kissed Clinton's butt. Why do you think I was watching Drudge back then? But today, I don't think that's true anymore after watching the news for years. I'm a leftie and I personally think some of the mainstream press has drifted to the right now. Maybe you should start sampling it. You may not like what you hear, but some of it may just be the truth. If you have half a brain, you should be able to sort it out.

I say, "Shoot first, ask questions later"

Tell that to Will Smith's wife.

[woodchip]

I guess you missed the winky.

[Ferno]

you're all on the right to me.

[woodchip]

I say, "Shoot first, ask questions later"

Tell that to Will Smith's wife.

Seems there may be more than road rage involved:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/04/11/po ... tcmp=hpbt4