Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Users Interacted Most With Articles From Fox News, CNN and Breitbart In Month Leading Up To Nov 10

Quartz's charts and visualization service The Atlas, has released an insightful chart that shows the "total reader interactions with articles on Facebook" between October 11, 2016 and November 10, 2016. What's surprising is that Breitbart beat a list of establishment media outlets in total Facebook interactions. By far the source with the most interacted articles was Fox News, as it had more than 44 million people interact with its articles. CNN and Breitbart were neck-and-neck with more than 18 million interactions.

114 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. I got most of my news from the Onion by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It seemed to make as much sense as anywhere else.

    1. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      And it was about as fair and accurate.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by saloomy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This. It's insane to me as a person who grew up overseas how the US news orgs conduct themselves. Gone are the days when you heard the news anchors recite the facts of the day, letting you know what new laws were adopted, who did what, anything notable that happened, and who died. Watch BBC World Service for accurate reporting on US events. It will fry your brain less than the absolute garbage the various news orgs put out these days.

      I can not believe news organizations are actually endorsing politicians! Its effectively saying: We are for Candidate X, so anything we are going to report to you on Candidate X is going to be portrayed in a positive light. Anything their opponents do or way will be portrayed negatively. We are not fair, or balanced, we are encouraging you to pick our choice, who is Candidate X. Fucking rubbish. I don't need your opinions, thats not why you travel with the president. I need the facts, and just that.

    3. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Many publications had never endorsed a candidate before. Maintaining neutrality is of utmost importance to journalists, so it should impress upon you the urgency they saw in a potential Trump presidency that they would turn their backs on this tradition. If you saw a great evil rising to power in your nation, would you not feel compelled to do what you could to stop it?

    4. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Marsoupial · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is almost impossible to report news without some sort of bias, implicit or explicit. The way I get my news is by reading both liberal- and conservative-leaning news outlets. The truth is often somewhere in between.

    5. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The saying goes:

      The news isn't the news. The news is how you should feel about the news. And the MSM lost it's 5th column power (rooting out corruption) a long time ago...and this election it lost it's persuasive power.

    6. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Well there are two parties in the US that dominate. The media is pretty much aligned with one or the other. Most are aligned (D) and Fox is more or less aligned with (R).

      If the Media/News were reporting actual "news" (like WikiLeaks dribble) Hillary would have lost by a lot more.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Once you understand that the news outlets categorize themselves as entertainment and not news, it makes much more sense.

    8. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Fortunately you're in the minority. I would much rather have everyone's minds scrubbed by Fox and Breitbart. It makes it so much easier for me to find fodder by which to feed my superiority complex.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    9. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't care that major media outlets are biased. What I find troubling is that media outlets continue to claim to be unbiased when they they are obviously are not (both left and right).

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    10. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by haruchai · · Score: 1

      What happened to the story about Facebook censoring rightwing news? Where such a fuss was made that the Cons got a face to face with Zuck himself?

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...

      More rightwingnut noisemaking bullshit. To paraphrase Trump, they whine & whine & whine until they get their way

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    11. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by tsotha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is almost impossible to report news without some sort of bias, implicit or explicit.

      But that's no excuse not to give it the old college try. I expect people to have viewpoints different than my own, but I don't like to be deliberately manipulated.

    12. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Chas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is almost impossible to report news without some sort of bias, implicit or explicit.

      No it's not. The news media has simply stopped trying. AT ALL.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    13. Re: I got most of my news from the Onion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You've got to be kidding me. Among so many sources the Wiki leaks of the DNC emails showed how corrupt the MSM is. I saw the leftist propaganda the year Clinton first ran for President back when I did not know or care anything about politics. I was just shocked at the evening news propaganda for Clinton and against Bush. He'll, I assumed Clinton would win because he had the "look", but I was shocked and disgusted that the first time on my life when I paid attention to politics I was watching propaganda on the evening news like I would expect out of the Soviet Union. It took me a few decades to realize a huge percentage of the population can't see the propaganda and fall for it and they all vote Democratic. Since then I have found those who are immune to news propaganda either don't vote or vote Republican or Libertarian.

    14. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Yeah. They're busily fixing that "problem" as we speak.

    15. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by saloomy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. Evil is as much defined by history and its victors as it is by the consensus of the public. Is America evil? Most would say no, but it did pop two nuclear bombs to effectively end the Japanese campaign to fight in their own vicinity. America also committed mass genocide when it moved westward and ended an entire civilization of millions of people (Native Americans). It keeps humans captive with no day in court (Guantanamo Bay), kills human being ex-judiciously (drone strikes and collateral damage), and supports oppressive dictators who play ball (Saddam Hussein is given a key to the city of Detroit).

      Surely we don't consider America totally evil. They gave us the west coast and a subdued Japanese empire, allowing for the rest of the oriental countries to flourish. Back then though, I'm sure many modern SJWs would have campaigned against those efforts.

      Let me be clear. I'm not condoning the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I am not condoning genocide either.

      We see trump and his alt-right compatriots,racist and incendiary remarks towards illegal immigrants, and muslims, and are quick to paint him with Hitlers colors, but that is not an accurate depiction of the man. He did not make disparaging remarks about all Mexicans, or all Mexican Americans for that matter. He made disparaging remarks about "rapists, and murderers", or "bad hombres". He wants to stop the bad ones from importing massive amounts of narcotics, smuggling in convicts from Mexico and most of Central and South America. I don't necessarily agree with that policy, but I see where he is coming from. Lets be honest with ourselves on illegal immigration. It is a crime. There is a sovereign state that demands an entry process for immigration. Millions of honest and hard working foreigners work effortlessly to qualify and seek to relocate their lives in hope of a better future with more freedoms than they presently have. Those who are here illegally are effectively cutting in line to get here, and undermining the country they are trying to become a part of from the get go. That is not fair. It is not fair to those who have followed procedures, it is not fair to those who took the time and followed the law.

      If I break into your house, and squat in it, instead of working hard to afford to purchase it, I would fully expect that I will be evicted, if no charges are brought on me for breaking and entering. Even if I have lived in it for a long time, and have no where else to go, I am still breaking the law and deserve to be kicked out. Trump isn't even going that far either. He has stated that he wants to deport the criminal elements either, those who have committed terrible crimes. I don't have a problem with that. Why do you? There is a reason we have an immigration process and a department we spend a lot of money to enforce it. It's to vet who we give visa's to, and who we allow to naturalize. If these Mexicans were Arabs, and it was Iraq, or Iran, or Sudan on our Southern Border, would deporting them still be such a huge issue?

      Back to trump: I believe he has a lot of bad positions, and he surrounds himself with some very questionable people in my book. But we elected him, and we have to see what he renders. We don't have a choice in that matter. I don't believe for a moment that he or anyone he is bringing into the White House are out to harm America. I believe they are patriots and their intentions are good.

      I don't believe he is evil, but because the news outlets want to decide for me, I can not rely on their reporting to receive fair facts. This is worse due to the consequence of not knowing what really happens in politics. The best defense against an evil government is a well informed public with free access to information, and the freedom of the press is supposed to gaurantee us that. But what happens when the "free press" aligns itself with a falsehood? I can no longer be informed, and can not decide for myself what is evil. Thats the real problem here.

    16. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by saloomy · · Score: 1

      Until you understand that all those entertainers have a seat in the presidential press pool.

    17. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      I can not believe news organizations are actually endorsing politicians!

      Why? They've been doing it for a couple of hundred years.

    18. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by cfalcon · · Score: 2

      Psh. The truth is in the Venn diagram where they intersect. Everything else requires further research. If a right wing website claims because of A, B will happen and is terrible and C is already happening, and a left wing website claims because of A, B will happen and is great, and D will happen, your conclusions are "A happened" and "pundits agree that B will happen". If you care about C and D, whether the pundits are mislead about B, or the merits of B, you need to keep reading.

    19. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      And of course, when I say "they they are obviously are not", I'm simply referring to the prevailing two political parties in proper newspeak grammar.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    20. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by oakgrove · · Score: 3, Funny

      The way I get my news is by reading both liberal- and conservative-leaning news outlets.

      So now instead of being misinformed, you'll be twice as misinformed!

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    21. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Marquis231 · · Score: 1

      See; The Banality of Evil

    22. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      . Gone are the days when you heard the news anchors recite the facts of the day, letting you know what new laws were adopted, who did what, anything notable that happened, and who died

      Facts aren't cut and dried. They have context. They have spin. If the budget raises $1b, that can be a 1% increase, a $1b increase, a deficit increase of $1b, an increase per taxpayer of $3.00, or any other number of framings. Choosing what context is highlighted involves biasing decisions.

      For instance, is putting live fact checking up when a political candidate is giving a speech "just the facts". Is omitting fact checking and allowing a lie to be unchallenged "just the facts". Is cutting the speech off when lies start "just the facts".

      On the totally other side, suppose only one candidate, Candidate X, is qualified for the office. Is saying so not a fact?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    23. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by saloomy · · Score: 1

      We see trump and his alt-right compatriots,racist and incendiary remarks towards illegal immigrants, and muslims

      You were doing good, albeit long-winded, until you went and threw your credibility in the shitter with that one. Next!

      Captcha: wilted

      What do you mean? That's not even a complete thought. How did I throw my credibility away with half of one thought? Are you suggesting he has no alt-right compatriots? He didn't make incendiary remarks towards illegal immigrants or muslims?

    24. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by dinfinity · · Score: 2
    25. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      Oh come off of it, such thinking is in no way tied to the right-wing, it's what people are talking about when they say Human Nature.

      In other words, you're projecting as well.

    26. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      In the last few months, The Daily Mash and The Rochdale Herald have had depressingly accurate news. The Guardian actually ran an article about a month ago that had exactly the same headline as The Daily Mash a year earlier (Unelectable Man Wins Election).

      I'm using a news app that pulls in things from a load of sources and it's often difficult to tell the real news from the parody these days.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    27. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Often, but not always and it's difficult to find sources biased in opposite directions on all issues. Brexit is nice and easy in terms of bias: The Guardian and The Express are diametrically opposite in their biases, but the truth isn't in the middle, it's often perpendicular to the line between the both - they both cherry pick facts and pile on interpretation to the point where truth is nowhere to be found. If you look at anything involving copyright, then you'll find it very difficult to find a mainstream news source that will question the core assumptions, in spite of radical anti-capitalists like the Harvard Business School publishing numerous reports showing the harm that current copyright policy is doing to the economy.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    28. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      On the totally other side, suppose only one candidate, Candidate X, is qualified for the office. Is saying so not a fact?

      Facts are things that happen. If a candidate meets the legal qualifications for POTUS, it is a fact that they have met those qualifications. If some random shit has an opinion they pulled out of their anus, that is not a fact. So, it depends on which definition of "qualification" you are using.

    29. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Try reading Reuters. They only do simple, factual reports that other news outlets then pick up and add editorial to.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    30. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Absolutely true. It is however possible to TRY to be unbiased. Unfortunately, most news sources have stopped trying. I do not mind that a reporter reports things from a perspective that differs from mine, or even when he leaves out facts which support my interpretation because he thinks they are insignificant. I do mind when a reporter intentionally misquotes, or leaves out part of a quote, in order to portray the person in question as having said something offensive.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    31. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Here I mean "qualified" as in "capable of doing the job". Suppose someone has an IQ of 60. Does that not suggest that the person is unqualified. You think the news should have to present the dry number to people and shut up? Can they tell you that's classified as mentally retarded in your world? Can they tell you a person with an IQ of 60 will be unable to handle the job effectively? What about the expert who explains that the candidate grew up in a home speaking Spanish, and therefore the majority of that score is due to linguistic biases in the test and their real IQ is probably 150?

      What about if their opponent says that they are really only 34, or born in Canada, or born in Kenya. Certainly, it's a fact that someone said it. But what that person said may not be true.

      Facts are rarely cut and dried. In science, they can be, but numbers have to be interpreted. Sometimes the explanations are counter-intuitive (it's colder in New England because of, not in spite of, global warming).

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    32. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by greythax · · Score: 1

      Nah, it is totally possible. Allow me to demonstrate. "Candidate Y says that gravity does not hold things down." - Explicit, only showing one viewpoint. "Candidate Y says gravity doesn't hold things down, Candidate X says it does" - Implicit, implying that both statements have equal validity. "Candidate X says gravity holds things down, Candidate Y doesn't agree. Here are the facts why candidate Y is talking out of his ass." - Bias free. The job of the media has historically been not to parrot what each candidate says, but to do actual investigation and inform the populace about the FACTS. There is a difference between INFORMING the populace and bias.

    33. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Is America evil?
      the atom bombs I'll say are debateable.
      But drone striking funerals, wedding, and birthday parties I'll say is pretty evil.
      As is the then followup drone striking what we would call "first responders" trying to help the injured after the first attack.

      As for Trump being evil: Hitler wasn't "Hitler" when he first came on the scene either.
      He too was seen as a loon, a long shot, not taken seriously, said hate rhetoric, but given a pass because he wanted to "make Germany great again".

      No, it developed over time, and was helped along by the people he surrounded himself with, the German political elites who thought they could control him and so compromised in little ways, and with the willing participation of the German people.

      And thus far Trump has some real "winners" next to him (Ailes, Bannon), and plenty of willing enablers in both the Congress (Ryan, McConnell) and the public.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    34. Re: I got most of my news from the Onion by saloomy · · Score: 1

      Good on the responsibility of the press. On the atomic bombs, there seems (to me at least) a third option: calling a truce and walking away knowing you could have saved even more lives by not bombing or invading. Know you beat your enemy, demand a truce with conditions, and live in peace. I have heard the arguments, that we saved countless more lives by bombing, but we obliterated two huge civilian populations with the solders we killed. There were babies, children, grandmothers and non-combatant adults that we decided should be a casualty of war. There was a more humane way to just stop the fighting and end the war a bit more amicably. I know the japs were extremely stubborn, but you call a cease fire, you get the generals on neutral ground, and save lives by negotiating with your enemy and gaining their respect. You don't nuke two cities.

    35. Re: I got most of my news from the Onion by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Actually, the credibility this round would be maintained by either remaining apolitical or going after both sides. The Left should not be escaping censure for its role in all of this, merely because their games finally didn't go in their favor...which is something that has been seen coming for decades. The only things that weren't certain was when and who, not that the sword of Damocles was going to fall.

    36. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's more complicated than that. Most journalists are under D, but most media owners are under R. It gets complicated from there.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    37. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      As an aging American type, I remember the days of the Walter Cronkite and Paul Harvey types.
      Don't bother with any news outlets anymore. They're all corporate produced shit. Most of what's broadcast is filtered and/or totally slanted politically in some way. Fox News being the most dangerous offender IMV as their spew is purely slanted for right wing minded audiences, as you point out. 50% of FNC content, and I'm being generous, is related to current events. The 'Balance' is all "conservative" opinion spewed out from right wing think tanks, and there are many sick twisted minds among those groups. Gone are the days of good honest journalism. Garbage in, garbage out.

      Personally, whenever I care to look at whatever BatShitCrazy event is going on with this world, I scour about the internet and find what's there, all the available facts and make up my own mind without outside interference telling me what to think.

      Scouring the internet for news can also reveal documentation of American agencies toying with things like mind control since the 50s. Seeing how television has become so popular among the unwashed masses makes me wonder how much of the CIA's work may actually be working wonderfully. Product advertizing, Corporate bailouts, How to convince a country to go to war on nothing but lies,

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
  2. Re:New Fox News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    neither does CNN NBC or ABC. It's all clickbait these days. Shitty thing too.

  3. Wonder what percentage consulted real news outlets by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Like the NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, and LA Times instead of infotainment news sources like CNN, Fox News, and Breitbart. Not to say the newspapers I listed are not without their own institutional bias but at least they have actual investigative journalists on the payroll and at least try to be objective.

  4. So the stories of fake news are true by Going_Digital · · Score: 1, Troll

    Goes to show all the fuss about fake news stories on Facebook was true after all, Fox News is about as fake as it gets.

  5. More Americans get their news from the Daily Show by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    than any other nationality.

  6. Interact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've seen the Facebook crowd interact with FOX news articles on Facebook. "Interact" doesn't mean "excitedly agreed with." Most of the stories Facebook chooses from right-leaning sources are designed to incite a response from the left, and are hence counter-productive to the right. If they choose a left-leaning source then it's much more likely to be somewhat vapid and softball in nature, something along the lines of "A bird landed on his podium. Tee-hee!"

    I'd wager most of these stories were chosen to incense the left, and the fact they were viewed isn't proof of Facebook's conservative leanings, an idea which anyone who has visited the site realizes is just plain silly to even consider.

  7. No alternatives by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's why:
    http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_...

    The only mainstream media to the right is Fox News. Breitbart is even further right, and that's one of the only other alternatives. However if you look to the left, there are a dozen news organizations (including PBS, which just seems wrong somehow, being government funded).

    So what this means is that FB users that identify with the liberal news organizations have their "interactions" divided across those dozen news organizations on the left (CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, Washington Post, on and on). Whereas those with conservative views only had a couple of options to choose from. Thus those couple options on the right got more interactions because they were not diluted across so many news choices.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:No alternatives by jrumney · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or maybe America's idea of centre is fucked up.

    2. Re:No alternatives by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or maybe the world's view of "center" is fucked up.Because if your idea of "center" is Liberal Socialist ... what is right? Barely socialist?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:No alternatives by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      For definitions of "right" which actually mean "frames reality in ways that don't challenge my existing preconceptions".

    4. Re:No alternatives by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      Most media is Centrist. The outlets not targeting a specific audience, like Fox News and the Huntington Post, have nothing to gain by straying far from the center. The "under siege" mentality that has permeated the Conservative camp has lead to a "you are with us or against us" mentality and anything and anyone that even dares question their orthodoxy is immediately discredited as "Liberal Media". During the Primeries Terd Cruize even accused Fox News of making "Liberal Media attacks against him" when one of its reporters dared ask uncomfortable questions

    5. Re:No alternatives by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Maybe America's idea of center should be represented more in American media?

    6. Re:No alternatives by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      There's more on that tree than those cherries you picked.

    7. Re:No alternatives by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What are centrist views then? What's an example?

      ACA is based on a paper from a right-wing think thank, so why is it "left"? Single payer would be "left" I agree, but ACA looks centrist, or even slightly right to me.

      Gun control? Most of the population agree to the limits and background checks proposed by Hillary. Wouldn't that make them "centrist"?

      And why is climate change "left"? The vast majority of the world doesn't believe it's a hoax. The right are very lonely on the hoax position.

    8. Re: No alternatives by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      Right: Barack Obama was born in Kenya Left: Barack Obama was born in Hawaii

      The whole Birther thing was started by Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign.

    9. Re:No alternatives by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      There really are very few conservatives in Washington. Republicans are no longer conservative as conservatives believe in less government. Bush Jr. was a radical who massively grew the Federal government. The UnPatriotic act that he signed is an obscene violation of everything a true conservative who would cherish individual freedom would never touch. The fact that so many Republicans approved of it repudiates any belief in conservative values. Modern Republicans are for more government control over citizens lives. That's why Trump went through them like shit through a goose. They're fake and everyone knows it. Fuck them.

    10. Re:No alternatives by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      'Left' and 'Right' are useless terms, don't use them. The terms were invented because of how people sat during the French Revolution. Show a little thought and use a term that more accurately matches the group you are trying to describe.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re: No alternatives by Holi · · Score: 1

      So you agree that the HRC campaign did not start it. No one is claiming they did not think about using it.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    12. Re:No alternatives by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's not really a socialist/libertarian divide any more, it's more a bigot/tolerant divide.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:No alternatives by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Calling people bigots is probably the weakest form of debate. It basically says "I can't argue on the merits, so I am going to call you names"

      I am sure that works in your circles, but in mine, there are plenty of voices that do not conform to your viewpoint. It is funny how a black man is called a Nazi and Clansman by people like you. Which really shows who is the bigot.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    14. Re:No alternatives by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I don't measure via "left vs right" which is purely subjective and relativistic.

      I have said that I am so far to the right, that I am coming up on your left.

      Personally, I measure things in the form of Liberty. If you are arguing against me, you're arguing against Liberty. Which is fine, if tyranny is what you're really fighting for. Here is my view in a nutshell.

      All humans have innate value, and their rights stem from that innate (Endowed by their Creator) value. These rights should apply to everyone equally (all men are created equal). True Liberty requires everyone to honor and respect all people at this level, an allow "self determination". AND That is where "rights" are derived .

      There are other values people have, based on ability. Athletes are more athletic. Smart people are smarter. Some people work harder than others. Some people are born richer / poorer. These values are such that makes life "unfair" by default. However you cannot take from one, to give to another based on these "unfair" values without violating the primary values as a human and those "inalienable" rights mentioned in the previous paragraph. And that is the folly of progressives and left wingers.

      Mixing these two things up, "results based" rights and rights that are inalienable are common, because people don't actually value Liberty any longer, they only value equal outcomes (from each according to ability, to each according to needs). I dare say you cannot have equal outcomes, without extreme tyrannical government "spreading the wealth around"

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    15. Re:No alternatives by dywolf · · Score: 1

      No, the MSM is, other than Fox News (which, having the lion's share of ratings is by definition VERY mainstream) fairly objective in their reporting.
      Claims otherwise are examples of projection from Fox fans. No MSNBC is not included in the MSM; they are small potatoes compared to the big 6: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS/NPR, and CNN (I'd include HLN, but ever since they were sold off, does anyone even watch them anymore???)

      and PBS/NPR have probably the best quality reporting and most carefully protected objectivity in the nation.

      the definition of bias is not "reporting things I don't agree with" or "challenging my worldview", though you'd never know that listening to conservatives.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    16. Re:No alternatives by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      America's idea of center is largely in line with worldwide ideas, just not EU ideas. But the EU seems to think it's the part of the world that counts, for some reason.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    17. Re:No alternatives by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      This opinion piece might be interesting to you. It's not nearly so clear-cut.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    18. Re:No alternatives by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You will note that when I do describe someone as a bigot, I justify it with further comment. Using a single word as evidence of a weak debate while ignoring everything else said is probably the weakest form of debate.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:No alternatives by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Minor quibble: Saddam did have poison gas, it was just the leftover stuff the US gave him long ago.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    20. Re:No alternatives by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that if you say continually pointing out racism is bad for you, then all the other side has to do is continually be racist and it appears legitimate because no-one calls them on it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:No alternatives by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I'd say the statement isn't so much "continually pointing out racism is bad for you" as much as it is "continually pointing out perceived racism, over-generalizing and exaggerating it, and focusing on that to the exclusion of other, more legitimate criticisms is bad for you". Trump has said bigoted things about Muslims, no doubt, but he hasn't said anything against Hispanics. What he said was about illegal immigrants from Mexico; still a bigoted and untrue statement, but not racist. And he has praised legal immigrants numerous times. The attack should have been against what he actually said, not at an exaggerated or false version of it.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    22. Re: No alternatives by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I challenge you to find a general dictionary that clearly spells out the differences such that we can apply it to any political topic and get a definitive answer.

    23. Re:No alternatives by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I actually agree with a lot of this.

      Equality of outcome is a really bad idea. Equality of opportunity is easier to approach and much more useful. I'd like to see everyone have a good chance to succeed. What they do with that chance is up to them. In order to approach equality of opportunity, we have to supply people with things. A child who grows up with malnutrition, bad education, and treatable medical conditions which aren't treated, has very little opportunity, and is being denied basic human rights. Liberty is worth very little to someone lacking the basic necessities.

      In fact, most people don't want equal outcomes, and are in fact not Communist. ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is actually a pretty good way to run a society. Doesn't work with human beings, of course, but there might be an intelligent species out there that could live like that. Note that this is not an enforced equality of outcome in general, but an equality of material reward. There are other ways to pay people.)

      You need to lose the idea that your ideas are pure Liberty and everyone else is arguing for tyranny. It makes it impossible to argue with you, since anyone disagreeing with you by definition wants tyranny, which by definition is evil. It makes it difficult for you to convince anyone of anything, since your reasoning will swiftly come back to an axiom other people don't share. It makes it difficult for you to refine and change your ideas, since you see yourself as absolutely right, and you're not willing to accept that other people may have different but valid points of view. One thing I learned from was once when I realized that a Communist I knew was just as patriotic as I was. We both wanted what's best for our country, but we differed greatly in what that "best for our country" was, and we had extremely different ideas on how to approach it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    24. Re:No alternatives by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      "Socialist" and "Conservative" are not necessarily opposites (and both have a lot of different meanings).. I can think of two right-wing socialist movements, the US "Nationalism" kicked off by Bellamy's "Looking Backward", and the "Showa Restoration" in Japan between world wars (the Meiji Restoration was when power was returned to the emperor, and the Showa Restoration would be when all property was returned to the emperor). IIRC, after the fall of the Soviet Union it was the conservatives who wanted to restore Communism.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:No alternatives by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'd say it's both. They tend to coincide, with tolerant people tending socialist and bigots tending libertarian, but, for example, a classic libertarian is tolerant libertarian.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    26. Re:No alternatives by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      He was talking about illegal immigrants. Saying that they're primarily criminals is bigoted and factually wrong, but it's not racism, especially when he's gone on to praise legal immigrants numerous times. I think he'll be a bad president for a lot of reasons, but I do blame the media for primarily, and to the exclusion of everything else wrong with him, focusing on this sort of "racism".

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    27. Re:No alternatives by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Here's why: http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_...

      This chart doesn't show bias by the news outlets, it shows bias of the audience. Saying the news outlet is biased biased on its audience's bias is a fallacy.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  8. Breitbart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Breitbart values it's credibility and doesn't indulge the the crazy "fake" news. They aren't perfect, but they're also no worse than the rest. If Breitbart is what GoogleFacebookTwitterCNBCetal are calling "fake" news then this whole "fake" news meme is exactly the kind of bullshit I suspect it is.

    1. Re:Breitbart by Bartles · · Score: 1

      This [biased news source] fact checked your [biased news source] and said your [biased news source] is biased. Please. Just because a news source speaks with British accents, doesn't make them credible. Unless you are easily swayed by that kind of thing, which unfortunately many are.

    2. Re:Breitbart by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Is that why ACORN lost it's funding and no longer exists?

    3. Re:Breitbart by Spoke · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In fact it almost seems (like in your case) that there is some sort of neocon badge of honor in being willfully ignorant of the facts.

      Actually, there's quite a few people out there who are willfully ignorant of the facts, and proud of it. In fact, I would say that most Trump supporters are indeed willfully ignorant.

      How else could you vote a person into the most powerful office on the planet who blatantly lies far more often than not, has been married 3 times and flaunts every other norm while running for office and is also willfully ignorant themselves?

    4. Re:Breitbart by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      How ironic.

    5. Re:Breitbart by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Breitbart actively fakes news. Not just reporting things without properly checking them out first, they go out of their way to manufacture fake stores. For example, the Sherrod and ACORN videos, both of which were carefully edited to give a misleading version of events. In both cases Breitbart has to pay out large sums of money.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  9. And Slashdot posts the most stories about Facebook by Gussington · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, fucking give up with Facebook stories, we know it's shit so leave us in peace.
    Is Slashdot getting paid to keep Facebook on the front page, it sure seems that way....

  10. Re: Wonder what percentage consulted real news out by tomhath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    NYT and WaPo both list all credibility this election cycle. Pretty much everything they published was anti-Trump opinion. NYT admitted it, the Post is still in denial.

  11. I get my news from real sources by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    Real sources like discarded fish wrappings, poems written on leaves, the patterns on clouds in the sky

    Hey, it's probably more accurate.

    Never trust the MSM. In just one day, Washington Post wrote 18 articles attacking Bernie Sanders, from 12 writers.

    In just one day.

    They don't want you to know what's going on, just like they don't want you to see the seven fully operational NSA data collection complexes inside the USA (not the one you think you know about).

    Just like they don't want you to know that all US government drones purchased since July 2016 have had line of sight tracking and facial recognition software. Every single one.

    Think about who controls all that in a couple of months.

    Oh, and the Chinese get feeds from your cell phones. Including Apple. Not just Android.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:I get my news from real sources by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Real sources like discarded fish wrappings, poems written on leaves, the patterns on clouds in the sky

      Isn't that a Simon and Garfunkel lyric?

  12. Re: Gender bias by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    Look, there is a likely reason for her lack of anything on the Campaign Trail, as it might have killed her, with her health issues.

    And everyone saying she was "healthy" is pretty much taking her word for it (and ignoring every piece of evidence to the contrary).

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  13. Re:naturally by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As opposed to getting their news from .. comedy channel like the whiny children rioting in the streets today?

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  14. Re:And Slashdot posts the most stories about Faceb by whipslash · · Score: 4, Informative

    No

  15. If your in a walled garden by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Compliance with site policy to keep an account is not approval or support of the sites or its politics.
    People soon learn not to post links to material they really enjoy and use other IM, email or enjoy much or fun and better stand alone portals.
    Social media can offer a few safe listed media sites but its users will just play along.
    If every comment and link is been watched by teams of SJW, best just to use the sites features.
    What a social media site then offers as group think is then exposed by the reality of elections results nation wide.
    If a social media site only allows links to a set few media sites, all its users will learn to use such links on that site.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  16. Now one trusts the mainstream media anymore by Nova+Express · · Score: 1, Informative

    The major media outlets went all into the tank for Hillary. The New York Times abandoned even a pretense of objectivity to editorialize against Trump on their front page. Wikileaks proved that CNN and the Washington Post (among others) actively colluded with the Clinton campaign against Trump.

    And you know who this hurt most of all? Democrats. Because the MSM was so in the tank for Hillary, the Clinton campaign couldn't get the information it needed to make tactical choices on what money and effort to spend where. Wouldn't it have been more valuable for them to hear "Hey, Hillary may have a problem with previously Democratic blue collar voters in the rust belt" than "Campaign Inevitable is going to crush all puny obstacles between her and the White House! You go girl!"?

    Instead they tried to drag the most corrupt candidate ever to run for President of the United States over the finish line, and now they wonder why no one trusts them anymore.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Now one trusts the mainstream media anymore by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      Your news filter is out of calibration. None of those articles actually say what you claim (apart from your own blog).

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Now one trusts the mainstream media anymore by bryanbrunton · · Score: 1

      Ok, which of the new articles (not editorials) in the NY Times coverage of the electer were in the tank for Hillary?

      Oh, what's that? You can't actually provide specifics or details or anything aside from the hot air spewing out of your mouth.

      Well, I guess that makes you just a shill for our new Racist Overlord, Donald Trump.

    3. Re:Now one trusts the mainstream media anymore by Hulfs · · Score: 1

      If the major media outlets were in the tank for Clinton then they wouldn't have spent so much time on lead stories about her emails, rehashing the scandal over and over and over again constantly. They wouldn't have spent hours talking about her feinting spell, they wouldn't have spent time on the Clinton Foundation...and yet they did.

    4. Re:Now one trusts the mainstream media anymore by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      [The New York Times] demonized Trump from start to finish

      Trump demonized Trump from the very beginning -- it's not 'demonizing' to report on his public statements.
      And the MSM never stopped harping on Hillary and her stupid email story either. It's a manufactured scandal that could have died, but the main stream media never allowed it to, no matter how much you claim they were "in the tank" for Hillary.

  17. This Explains our Racist Overlord by bryanbrunton · · Score: 1

    Americans consume a healthy diet of propaganda and lies. No wonder, our racist overlord won the election. It would be interesting to go back in time to 1861, and compare the amount of racist propaganda consumed by the American South versus the average Trump voter.

  18. The Left.... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...still looking for someone, anyone to blame for their colossal defeat at the polls.

    When the simple answer is that people were sick of patronizing liberalism, enough to roll the dice on goofy blowhard like Trump.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:The Left.... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      At least you feel the same way about the voters that Hilary does.

      --
      -Styopa
    2. Re:The Left.... by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Calling the DNC "the left", that's fucking rich!

      --
      Eat the rich.
  19. Source? Methodology? by michaelcole · · Score: 1

    Is there anything to back this up?

  20. Um... wtf are you talking about by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    CNN isn't left. MSNBC isn't either. Rachel F'n Maddow doesn't make MSNBC left. When I start seeing front page editorials demanding stronger Unions and Single Payer Health Care I'll start calling them left.

    Oh, you meant social issues, right? Gays marrying and such? That's nice and all. But it doesn't pay the bills. The media is left on social issues and hard right on economic issues. When you take even a cursory glance at who owns them the reasons become obvious. You can't run anything bigger than Mother Jones without getting bought out by some billionaire. If all else fails they'll do to you what they did to Gawker.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  21. Re:More Americans get their news from the Daily Sh by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    [More Americans get their news from the Daily Show] ... A damn comedy show. Pathetic.

    Fox News is also a comedy show. Most viewers just don't realize that.

    Why is it The Right sucks at comedy and The Left sucks at AM radio?

  22. Re:Wonder what percentage consulted real news outl by Nostalgia4Infinity · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Wikileaks emails revealed that The Washington Post hosted a joint fundraiser with the Clinton campaign, although the Post was unlisted at the fundraiser. “We were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it,” DNC Finance Director Jordan Kaplan wrote to DNC Election Strategies Adviser Anu Rangappa. http://observer.com/2016/08/wi...

  23. Re:Wonder what percentage consulted real news outl by Nostalgia4Infinity · · Score: 1

    Juliet Eilperin, The Washington Post’s White House bureau chief, emailed several people close to Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, to give him a “heads up” that his name would appear in a pending article about lobbyists, according to Wikileaks. Throughout the email exchange uncovered by Wikileaks, Eilperin tried to reassure Podesta that his place in the pending story is just “one line” buried late in the story. She also reached out to several people to make sure that it did not catch Podesta “off guard.”

  24. Re:And Slashdot posts the most stories about Faceb by lgw · · Score: 1

    Hey, whipslash, how about fixing the annoying IE bug?

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  25. Re:Wonder what percentage consulted real news outl by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    That's unfortunate but I wonder if it's really that uncommon for reporters to give their recurring subjects heads up, perhaps to keep them as future sources. And the paper still reported the news. Contrast that will the selective disclosure we see on the TV news outlets.

  26. Re:And Slashdot posts the most stories about Faceb by whipslash · · Score: 1

    Is it when you hover over your account name and then Account? or where

  27. Re:And Slashdot posts the most stories about Faceb by lgw · · Score: 1
    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  28. Re:And Slashdot posts the most stories about Faceb by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    I'm with whiplash on this one.

    The right wing people have been whining here horrendously how facebook has this massive liberal bias. This actually sheds light on whether that is true or not. It appears it is not true.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  29. No measurement of the tone by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Were more people interacting with these news sites in a positive way or a negative one? For example, say Breitbart posts a story saying something positive about Trump. Where there more Likes or "dislikes" (angry, sad, haha) on Facebook? That information could tell you a lot about the mood of the Facebook voter.

  30. unfortunate. by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

    Once, news agencies at least pretended to be interested in the facts. However, now profit and ratings are more important then responsible journalism. Now the news companies must compete with twitter and blogs. Of course there used to be a lot more chance of monetary loss for inaccurately reporting facts, but most of that was gutted in court because the big networks tried to use it to shut down bloggers. Maybe it is time to bring some of it back.

    Feeling old that I remember the days when networks were expected to give equal voice to opposing opinion if they presented anything other then plain facts.

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
  31. Re:More Americans get their news from the Daily Sh by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I meant in terms of commercial success. Accuracy and relevance is another matter altogether.

  32. Re: Wonder what percentage consulted real news out by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

    [..] Trump had one major advantage in this election. He's not Hilliary Clinton. That, and only that, got him elected. [...]

    I'd note that from some of the leaks, apparently they'd wanted him as an opponent on the off chance that people would decide that Trump was worse than her--which is its own major problem, since if you're having to worry about that...maybe you've anointed the wrong heir.

    I think you're slightly off here on how free they were to pick who to run, too, but that's because I actually have found rather convincing that the popularity of both Trump and Saunder represented a popular rejection (on both the Left and Right) of the establishment--the problem of who we got as the alternate to the establishment is beside the point, though I think it's worth appreciating the irony of the establishment candidate ending up being the one run by the Left.

  33. Rural Vs. Urban [Re:No alternatives] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    'Left' and 'Right' are useless terms, don't use them.

    To communicate ideas we need something that is understood by both the speaker and the listener. There are not any concise decent alternatives yet.

    But there is a strong pattern in the US of "rural" culture versus "urban" culture, and this is often what right versus left is about. Maybe "centrist" would then be between these, such as suburbia.

    In general, these are differences in assumptions or behaviors between them.

    Urban (left):
    - Multiculturalism is embraced and celebrated
    - Mixed economic system (market & socialism)
    - All religions treated equally
    - Variety is good
    - Laws should focus on the practical over morality (because diff religions have diff morality concepts)
    - Profiling is offensive
    - Government to help the poor and sick
    - Bigger law enforcement instead of reliance on personal guns for protection
    - Climate change is a real problem
    - Respect for formal education and subject experts

    Rural (right):
    - Laws and culture guided by religion, generally Evangelical
    - Protestant European culture is superior
    - Profiling is acceptable
    - Capitalism is far superior to socialism in almost all cases (small gov't)
    - Churches and donations are to take care of poor and sick, not gov't
    - Large military
    - Gun for DIY law enforcement instead of lots of cops
    - Climate change is a gov't influenced hoax to grow gov't control
    - Suspicion of subject experts, favoring alleged common sense and "gut feelings", often guided by prayer

    1. Re:Rural Vs. Urban [Re:No alternatives] by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And part of that is practicality. Relying on the police works better in the city, while having guns for self-defense makes more sense in the countryside. Cities are much more mixed places, so people have to get along with more different people. Churches and donations work far better for the poor when communities are small and homogenous.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:Rural Vs. Urban [Re:No alternatives] by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      But there is a strong pattern in the US of "rural" culture versus "urban" culture

      Then say urban/rural. That is both more descriptive and doesn't derive from archaic French politics.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Rural Vs. Urban [Re:No alternatives] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      In in the US, we borrowed the French terms and somewhat redefined them for our own use. Using urban/rural by itself would likely confuse readers because it's not common, and they make take them literally, thinking one is talking about physical locations. Use what you want, I elect not to.

    4. Re:Rural Vs. Urban [Re:No alternatives] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      When the 2nd Amendment was written, most people were rural. Therefore, based on what you said (and what I generally agree with), the 2nd may be obsolete for non-rural.

      A compromise could be to let the states manage gun laws, BUT it's too easy to export guns across state borders, as Chicago found out. State X's decisions affect State Y's. Thus, we have a sticky conflict.

      The welfare issue is a little bit easier push to the states, but it can result in the poorest and sickest flooding into states with the most generous benefits. Therefore, another sticky conflict.

  34. Re:Brietbart was one of the top news feeds on FB? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Sometimes you've gotta call a spade a spade.