mcfarm,

I think Chris Wallace is a solid, unbiased reporter.

and as I am sure as you know,  haha, that Joe Biden has no mental problems

He's apparently out to lunch on believing the fake climate crisis but I don't hold that personally against him or others when they cover other issues.

Each issue is independent.

Both political sides are WRONG about some things. Both sides are RIGHT about some things.

I don't pick my THINGS based on what side they are coming from or who is saying it(tribalism), I pick and choose RIGHT things from both sides and discard WRONG things from both sides.

that's a good system until you are very wrong about a particular topic.
For example Chris Wallace. There are tons of words to describe him and few good. Not to mention if he was so damn good and everyone knew it kind of thinking he would draw more than a Tv show about cooking in the nude or some such.

 I thought the losses of Chris Wallace and Shep Smith were huge for Fox. I thought they gave Fox some semblance of objectivity. I especially liked Shep Smith.

 mc and others, what did you think of Shep at Fox? Did you like him at all?

if I watched news at that time of day it was Shepard Smith. Would rather look at Martha Mc Collum though

I thought that the losses of Megan Kelly and especially Bill Oreilly(that was forced out by bad behavior) were pretty bad too.

O'reilly's behavior sounds despicable/unacceptable but I liked his shows. Megan was pretty good too.

for anyone who has a basic understanding of economics, it is obvious that cnn is far left liberal.  when they talk about inflation, they will Never mention the problem of govt or central bank printing and spending too much money.  they will blame everyone and everything except for policies of dems.  

cnn will never give any credibility to any scientists that explain what is wrong with the popular left wing global warming theory. 

cnn will never give objective discussions about different controversies about covid, masks, vaccines, etc. 

and before the war started in ukraine they would spend day after day talking about jan 6,... but would Never mention the violence of left wing demonstrations.  

and even a year after trump was out of office, they would spend every day bashing trump. 

but... all their political cheerleading cannot distract from the fact that inflation is 8% while the average teacher has a pay raise here of only 2 or 3% ...

Wonderful points bear,

When Trump was president, CNN was extreme far left on many issues, partly because what ever Trump's position was, they took the polar opposite position and pushed it hard because their #1 mission was to make him look as bad as possible and oppose all of his agenda to get him out of office.

It worked, although almost everybody that watched CNN was already never Trumpers. 

So how do you rate media bias objectively when that sort of thing was going on?

Sources that also hated Trump didn't see that as being far left and counted CNN as just moderately or just slightly  left. 

I would say they are closer to moderately left now but still pretty left. However, 2 years ago, they were very deep into  EXTREME left territory if a topic related in any way to Trump was being covered. 

Here's some examples of so called objective sources rating the media bias charts.

What do you think?

https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Image&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Link

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts/

One of the most incredible things from all these ratings is the fact that they all call NPR center. 

I listen to NPR during the day on my car radio because they have top notch coverage on many issues but their bias is VERY left. Not slightly but VERY left.

I'm not saying this to bash them. I love listening to them but know that I'm listening to views that often come from the left. I actually enjoy listening to views from both sides, including NPR. 

Even after their hate Trump programming ended and not even counting their off the charts left, delusional, anti authentic science, fake climate crisis programming. ...they are still at least modestly left.

There is a solid rule of thumb that you can go by with most people(including those in the broadcast business) and their favorite information sources.

The farther you lean in one political direction, the less extreme you think that sources that agree with you are.

People like to think of themselves as being more objective and closer to being open minded or seeing both sides than they really are.........especially in the media.

I was on television for 11 years. Reporters, before covering stories, already have a good idea of what they want the story to say before they leave the station with a photographer to interview people and take video or cover a political situation. 

There were likely discussions in previous days with the assignment editor, news director  and others about why the story was important to cover that day.

They don't just decide to mosey around town and see what happens to put on the evening news.

There's a long list of  local things to cover, some have been on the calendar for many days and they are not unbiased by any means. Many people are in the business because they think they can make a difference with their reporting. What better way than to help viewers to understand the worlds problems and solutions by seeing it thru their eyes with their reporting.

They may have an hour of interviews and video in the field that comes back with them and has to be cut to less than 2 minutes in the editing booth for their story during the news later that day.

Viewers have no idea what the other 58 minutes of stuff contained. They see what the reporter wants them to see. 

In all fairness, almost all these people are honest and do a wonderful, very professional job and are presenting stories as objectively as they think they can. But I was there. The vast, vast majority of these people are left and their objective reporting is  what THEY think is objective reporting. 

As sincere are they are, they are presenting an objective presentation from the perspective of somebody who is liberal/left that thinks they are being objective.

well we won't have to worry about the embarrassing bad CNN plus anymore. Seems the service that was going to charge customers to watch the unwatchable has suddenly shut the entire fiasco down. And poor old hypocrite Chris Wallace got caught up in the wash. Just how bad does Tv have to be to draw less than 10,000. Cnn has proven it can be done and at the cost of 100M or so. What a shame for such a highly respectable outfit. Who knows they may be forced to go back and actually cover the Biden crime family to draw ratings.

Thanks mcfarm!

CNN+ shutdown leaves axed staffers ‘aghast and furious’

https://nypost.com/2022/04/21/cnn-shutdown-leaves-axed-staffers-aghast-and-furious/

With CNN+ shutting down, the prevailing sentiment in the newsroom is that Wallace will likely take over Chris Cuomo’s old 9 p.m. time slot. The Post has reached out to Wallace seeking comment.

 “The big people will likely be saved, but what about everybody else, the people who do the real work?” the insider told The Post.

 “The producers, showrunners? Some will get six months’ severance, others will not.”

 Insiders fumed that the corporate suits at Warner Bros. Discovery laid off staffers so soon after the streaming service started operations.

 “Many people left their stable jobs at CNN to go to CNN+ and then they pull it right after launch?” the source said. 

 “Everyone is aghast and furious.”

so everyone is "aghast".....maybe just maybe "everyone" could of pushed those elites at the top to be more truthful, fair, objective in their coverage and they might still of had some kind of audience.

Like at Fox, right?

don't know, never really seen those kind of problems over there. Usually a reason you are number 1

even usatoday and bbc and reuters tend to lean left.  

and PBS is far left.  

Thanks bear!

From the article earlier:

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts/

She added that an equal number of staffers who lean left, right and center conduct each review together. The personal biases of AllSides’ staffers appear on their bio pages. Mastrine leans right.

 She clarified that among the 20-person staff, many are part time, 14% are people of color, 38% are lean left or left, 29% are center, and 18% are lean right or right. Half of the staffers are male, half are female.

1. 38% left vs 18% right is anything but an equal number.

2. 38%-L +29%-C + 18%-R only adds up to 85%! What's the other 15%?

With over double the number that are left vs right, there will be a shifting of their composite opinion to the right because their average is to the left.

What is center for people in the center is right for people on the left. Leaning left is seen as center. Extreme left is not so extreme.

The actual ratings graphs above, clearly show this.

I noted The Weather Channel being rated in the dead center on 1 graph.

Goes to show you how ignorant the ones doing the ratings are about climate change and is the quintessential example of how their ratings can be way wrong.

The Weather Channel only reports weather and climate of course. The only way that they would be considered the middle, is if the middle is defined as sensationalizing  using bogus science that exaggerates weather/climate for ratings and political agenda.............which tells us how what most of the rest of the world thinks.......not what the authentic middle is.

Over a decade ago, the Weather Channel made a decision (based on research into what would attract more viewers) to aggressively push the fake climate crisis. 

The Weather Channel is not just anybody. That IS their business, so they should be presenting, honest, objective science, not exaggerating, using almost impossible/extreme model projections and presenting them as if it really might happen

Almost always telling viewers about how bad it's going to get, when discussing climate, while almost never showing authentic science that tells a story which contradicts that climate crisis narrative.

Here's an example. I picked this article at random but there are hundreds like it on the air from TWC.

9 Trends That Show the Harsh Reality of Climate Change

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2021-04-16-earth-day-climate-trends-data-global-warming

1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and around the world, predicts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years.

metmike: The rate of warming continues to be around 1.3 deg. C  or 2.3 Deg F/century. It has actually slowed down a big the last 2 decades but for them to even mention +10 deg F, more than 4 times the REAL rate, when there is almost no chance that could possibly happen, tells us they are reporting DISinformation being used entirely for political reasons and honest, objective, educated scientists don't report that number to present as a prediction. 

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/83047/

2. Last year was one of weather extremes, including record-breaking wildfires, hurricanes and heat waves. Experts say it wasn't an anomaly - extreme weather events are becoming more frequentand we're likely to see more deadly, destructive and intense years like 2020.

metmike: Last years wildfires and drought, that still exists out West were caused by an anti-warming, La Nina. This is a huge pocket of cold temperature anomalies in the Tropical Pacific. All natural.   What we need to bust the drought, is for that area to warm up, with an El Nino that would boost global warming. https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/82479/#82493

Also, the greatest warming, has been in the coldest places during the coldest times of year and at night. Temperature extremes and SOME other extremes, like violent tornadoes have decreased.

3. Oceans Are Becoming More Acidic

According to NOAA, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Acidification occurs as human-produced carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans.

"Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150% more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years," NOAA notes.

Acidification of oceans imperils marine wildlife, particularly shellfish, which impacts the entire marine food chain, including humans. The reality of a world without seafood, particularly in areas that rely on the consumption of fish, is difficult to contemplate.

metmike: Here's the truth

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/25818/#25873

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm actually an environmentalist with many of my views in this realm following what is considered policies of the left.

But when it comes to the fake climate crisis and fake ocean acidification crisis(as well as energy policies).......I practice the scientific method and just follow the science.

The Weather Channel, however is a great example of corrupt science for self serving motives(ratings in this case), along with letting politics NOT science control their actions. 

List of cognitive biases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

• Objectivity illusion, the phenomena where people tend to believe that they are more objective and unbiased than others. This bias can apply to itself - where people are able to see when others are affected by the objectivity illusion, but unable to see it in themselves. See also bias blind spot^[80]