If Mort Divine ruled the world

Dak said:
I get that. So, based on this, provide some sort of distribution. All of that aside though, I think my critique still stands.
Click to expand...

Provide a distribution for what?

I'm not making any argument about popularity so I'm not sure what you're critiquing with that. I've already made my case for why assigning ANY political label (left, right, neutral, mainstream) is arbitrary and non-scientific unless clearly defined and validated in some way. If I have a set of data and want to find a correlation between two variables, allowing me to freely define just one of the variables without explaining it is as analytically useless as it would be for me to simply forge data. Political science frequently fails at the first step for this reason, e.g. the "racial resentment" test which is used as a shitty proxy for racism, but at least there it's clear that they're using a shitty proxy because you can find the test for yourself. For this paper I don't even understand where or how they define their variables.
 
HamburgerBoy said:
Provide a distribution for what?

I'm not making any argument about popularity so I'm not sure what you're critiquing with that. I've already made my case for why assigning ANY political label (left, right, neutral, mainstream) is arbitrary and non-scientific unless clearly defined and validated in some way. If I have a set of data and want to find a correlation between two variables, allowing me to freely define just one of the variables without explaining it is as analytically useless as it would be for me to simply forge data. Political science frequently fails at the first step for this reason, e.g. the "racial resentment" test which is used as a shitty proxy for racism, but at least there it's clear that they're using a shitty proxy because you can find the test for yourself. For this paper I don't even understand where or how they define their variables.
Click to expand...

Well I agree that there's a lot of variance or variability possible in assigning political salience to a news entity. However, pretending we can't make assignage intelligently or in terms of a normal distribution is special pleading. I provided a basis for measurement, even if the paper didn't and a prior paper provided a related finding, although I'm having trouble finding the paper again based on the search results I can think of atm.

However they define things, we are still dealing with the entire media outlet option, of which most are "mainstream" by defintion, but we have to ignore "mainstream" as opposed to "neutral", and I've made my argument there.
 
Tucker is a good entertainer but not a particularly good debater, and hides behind controlling arguments either directly (as the host of his show) or through emotional ploys his opponents are unwilling to call him out on ("But how's the suicide rate?"). I respect him for bringing conservative populism back to the television and for his influence, but right now he's just the best-swaying branch on the right in the wind. The most generous evaluation of Shapiro is an autistic-genius ideologue, but at least there are consistent ideas to be found, and in a live setting he can pull out data to back his arguments reasonably well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
Dak said:
Well I agree that there's a lot of variance or variability possible in assigning political salience to a news entity. However, pretending we can't make assignage intelligently or in terms of a normal distribution is special pleading. I provided a basis for measurement, even if the paper didn't and a prior paper provided a related finding, although I'm having trouble finding the paper again based on the search results I can think of atm.

However they define things, we are still dealing with the entire media outlet option, of which most are "mainstream" by defintion, but we have to ignore "mainstream" as opposed to "neutral", and I've made my argument there.
Click to expand...

Never said it can't be done. Simply saying the paper didn't. What was your basis for measurement?

I don't understand your distinction tbh. AP and Reuters almost certainly fall close to the NYT on their chart, and the significance in differentiating between "mainstream" and "neutral" is lost on me when the pressing issue is a far-right outlier, not all the center/mainstream/leftish/whatever outlets that are clearly all about 4-5x the distance from FOX and 10-15x the distance from Breitbart per their x-axis.
 
I'm going to merge HBB posts. Neutral is reporting events vs opinions on events (although there is perspective on this). AP/Reuters does a decent job on this (even if still somewhat liberal, to your point, but not enough to tip the scales, unless we just claim them as lib as well) I don't know what scale you mean by 15xxxxxxxx. Otherwise, everything else is obviously lib. Stop being a cuck yourself. We don't have to pretend TC is presidential candidate material to appreciate his abilities.
 
Dak said:
I'm going to merge HBB posts. Neutral is reporting events vs opinions on events (although there is perspective on this). AP/Reuters does a decent job on this (even if still somewhat liberal, to your point, but not enough to tip the scales, unless we just claim them as lib as well) I don't know what scale you mean by 15xxxxxxxx. Otherwise, everything else is obviously lib. Stop being a cuck yourself. We don't have to pretend TC is presidential candidate material to appreciate his abilities.
Click to expand...

Well, certainly most news outlets have opinion columns, whereas AP doesn't. That would technically make them neutral, though there are still obvious sources of potential bias in how one chooses the stories to report on (e.g. AP is probably going to dodge the kind of stories that get Salon or Breitbart readers fired up). At the same time, simply having opinion pieces doesn't necessarily mean that the reporting itself is biased though. Unless machine learning is strong enough to objectively read the bias of various outlets (something that I believe will be possible eventually but not now), this is all moot because it amounts to inherently biased beings pointing their fingers at where they believe the norm to be. If it's not quantitative, it's not science.

10.1177_2158244019832705-fig1.jpeg

That's the scale I'm referring to and that the paper refers to. I'm making two major points with that. First, there is a clear and massive shoulder on the right of their total distribution, implying two discrete populations that should be accounted for (and aren't meaningfully). As a result, the mode of the primary bell curve is not being taken as the center, which is instead being taken substantially to the right of that, as a result of outlier bias. Secondly, the supposed left-leaning media sources are all relatively close to each other when compared to the right-wing sources. All the named left-wing sources are at the very least within one-half full-width at half-maximum; FOX isn't, and Breitbart sure as fuck isn't. This means that naturally liberals tend to agree with each other because they've been crammed into one small chunk of the left side of the distribution. On the current axis, this gives the illusion that MSNBC and FOX are roughly equidistant from the mode. However, take an arbitrary AP-as-0 measure, and then accordingly add 0.35 to all values. Now MSNBC is at -0.35, NYT is at -0.1, WSJ is at 0.35, and FOX is at a whopping 1.15. Suddenly it becomes a lot less mystifying why more conservatives follow MSNBC on Twitter than liberals following FOX (let alone Breitbart).
 
I don't know where your graph is from, but just taking it at face value, there's a bias built into the data used in that graph in that Breitbart is included, but sites that might be considered comparable to Breitbart on the left are not. No wonder there's so much skew. It's interesting that they used the WSJ as 0, as I've read on more than one occasion it's considered "conservative". I'm wondering if this scale has more to do with coverage of party politics and less to do with values, or something like that. That's about the only way this distribution makes any sense to me.

There is definitely more heterogeneity in viewpoints outside of the narrow set of accepted opinions in/on the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/583072/

Based on the survey results, Tobias Konitzer, the co-founder of PredictWise, investigated which demographic characteristics seemed to correlate with partisan prejudice. He found, for example, that age, race, urbanicity, partisan loyalty, and education did coincide with more prejudice (but gender did not). In this way, he created a kind of profile of contemporary partisan prejudice.

......................

Nationwide, if we disregard the smallest counties (which may be hard to pin down statistically, since they have fewer than 100,000 people), the most politically intolerant county in America appears to be Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which includes the city of Boston. In this part of the country, nine out of every 10 couples appear to share the same partisan leaning, according to the voter-file data. Eight out of every 10 neighborhoods are politically homogeneous. This means that people in Boston may have fewer “cross-cutting relationships,” as researchers put it. It is a very urban county with a relatively high education level. All these things tend to correlate with partisan prejudice.
Click to expand...
 
rms said:
Not huge on the rights perspective on Twitter but this is embarrassingly bad ~20 minutes in. What an inconsistent and cowardice top of the food chain
Click to expand...


Joe: (in the context of the Twitterverse having a left-leaning bias ~29min) In general, things lean far more to the left, would you agree to that?
Vijaya: I don't know what that means.

Are you fucking kidding me? One of the most obvious lies/question dodges I have ever seen in my life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak and CiG
Also said they had never heard of/didn't know what "intersectionality" means or something iirc. Sure.
Tim Pool went on Rubin right after and says he thinks Jack Dorsey isn't on the same page with the Twitter bureaucracy, while Ms. PR most clearly is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JayKeeley
Who ruled the 90's?
Replies
70
Views
2K
RC
NAD
N
UM Store
THE GUITARS THAT RULED THE WORLD CD 1991 HEAVY METAL
Replies
0
Views
236
Metal CD
UM Store
U
UM Store
THE GUITARS THAT RULED THE WORLD CD 1991 HEAVY METAL
Replies
0
Views
266
Metal CD
UM Store
U
MetalAges
FOSCOR Debut “Cançó de Mort” Music Video
Replies
0
Views
121
Metal News 2
MetalAges
MetalAges
no country for old wainds
  • Locked
mort divine found
Replies
0
Views
489
GMD Social Forum
no country for old wainds
N
Top Bottom