Seeing as 96 percent of google search results about Trump come from liberal media outlets
You may wish to rethink you naive view of this.
If you apply some critical thinking then the results make sense. You have most of the entire English literate world using Google, not just the US. Very few outside the US think US conservative media outlets are reputable and therefore avoid them. Google ranking is a convoluted feedback loop so you inevitably are going to end up with results people look at which aren't US conservative media outlets.
Google's search results are also influenced by how many other sites link to a given article. Theory being that well linked articles are considered good by other people. When offering up evidence people tend to link to sources with a reputation for impartiality (aka "extreme far left bias").
Google weights links from less reputable sites lower too, so all those blogs and forum links don't really help Trump supporting sites.
Re-posting a link to a conservative news source is not a refutation. They told you what trends in worldwide traffic might be driving the popularity of less conservative news sources and this is not an argument against that.
You do realize Google customizes its search results by the location the query is submitted from ?
For local matters, yes. News is certainly more regional and national news tends to take precedence over regional news when it comes to national matters.
But that just gives extra weight to the location of the site (or its intended target area). It doesn't change its relative importance on the Internet in the rest of their algorithm. It would make no sense to do anything beyond that with location information. If web sites worldwide are linking to a web site its overall relative importance is still going to be much higher.
Specifically on a survey of sites that are reporting non-stop about Trump? Why would they even make the list? They simply don't write a lot of articles about his antics compared to most sources.
Their location is only relevant in that they're not writing a lot of stories about the topic, and they're not in the country where this is taking place so fewer people are looking to them or sharing from them about that subject.
I am sorry are you now reversing yourself on the amount of coverage being important as opposed to the prominence and global reach of the site ?
How is a page supposed to appear if it doesn't exist? Fewer pages indexed means fewer pages that can rise to the top. Do you think I'm saying "look here, CNN has lots of articles so let's promote all their pages"? No, each page/article gets their own weight and rank.
The BBC having far, far fewer articles on the subject (and being further removed from what they're reporting on) means they have fewer pages that are going to rise in the search results and even fewer that are going to be sought after and sha
How is a page supposed to appear if it doesn't exist? Fewer pages indexed means fewer pages that can rise to the top. Do you think I'm saying "look here, CNN has lots of articles so let's promote all their pages"? No, each page/article gets their own weight and rank.
The BBC having far, far fewer articles on the subject
One do you have any proof of that ? Or do you think the English speaking world has no interest in the actions of the president of the U.S. especially when he is an even more polarizing figure in the U.K. than he is here ?
But lets test your premise looking at the BBC home page right now
Did I say they had no articles on the topic? I did a search for Trump on their own web site and there were relatively fewer results and of course their contents are a rehash of sites that reported before them. Good chance that Google ranks pages higher that report sooner on a specific event, as later pages are duplicate or potentially plagiarized.
So I suppose youtube shut down a site dedicated to economic education as hate speech because page rank ? It also shut down a firearms education channel because hate speech ?
I know anecdote isn't data but when I searched the other day to see what Trump said about McCain's death, the top 3 results were New York Times, Washington Post and the third was BBC.
you do realize that trump's bad behavior has consequences right? The fact that a conservative fish bowl of news won't say the obvious does not change that fact.
you do realize that trump's bad behavior has consequences right? The fact that a conservative fish bowl of news won't say the obvious does not change that fact.
Hey you do realize Google using it's presence to manipulate elections has consequences right ?
The fact that they enjoy legal immunities for being a common carrier can change in a heartbeat
I looked at your link, read the entire thing, so I asked myself, why are the results this way...
Well, I came up with some theories, most likely wrong but might be true.
you have a few sites like infowars what are sensational sites having a narrative of hate and conspiracies. They are adding negative values of trust to the trump name within certain search terms While sites like CNN are adding positive value to the trump name under the same rules
CNN put's out more content on a daily basis than fox and google is scanning both.
it's coming down to truthiness and trust. I trust CNN over infowars, I can trust Barrons over stars and stripes. I can see that CNN seems more truthful than Fox, and it starting to show.
so yes, the leaning to non-trump side. Also, the non-trump side propaganda machine is designed differently than the trump side. that could also be an issue. ( because it sound smart people think it's smart concept )
Story [nymag.com] about CNN outright lying for a month and refusing to retract a story after EVERYONE knows its a lie. Its their Trump is getting impeached any day now, so its not a minor story either.
You believe CNN is honest, you are an idiot. Thanks for letting us know how dumb you are and that your opinion doesn't matter.
HI AC, my views will always count & let me put it clearly, you and your commie friends end game is clear. Like me there are others who can fight, and if anything has been proven, the USA will defeat your ugly ass once again.
I've followed the money looking way out...
While I don't know who or what is causing client change, we do know the co2 helps keep it warm. Who benefits from this at the end, Russia & Canada, polar shipping route and Russia's frozen tundra become the new bread basket and most of Cana
"I will observe, the immediate response was to try and silence my post so it wouldn't be noticed. https://pjmedia.com/trending/g [pjmedia.com]... [pjmedia.com]
Something of a pattern amongst the left."
Oh please, get off your cross. Everyone in here gets modded down for reasons not inline with Slashdot's suggested mod usage. You're not so special that the evil Left targets you special and the same thing happens to them.
Navarro rebuked federal prosecutors — using the words "flagrant" and "reckless" to describe how they withheld evidence from the defense — before saying "that the universal sense of justice has been violated" and dismissing the charges.
It wasn't the land use policies, it was the illegal railroading of a citizen.
I don't pretend my end of the political spectrum doesn't have assholes in it but clearly you do.
Even if that article is true (nice fring news source) the people hit by that car were in fact peaceful protesters. Just because some lunatic chased him with a gun does not mean that running over completely unrelated people is okay. Why I have to explain that to you in beyond me. The guy driving obviously was not defending himself from anyone when he hit that crowd
Even if that article is true (nice fring news source) the people hit by that car were in fact peaceful protesters. Just because some lunatic chased him with a gun does not mean that running over completely unrelated people is okay. Why I have to explain that to you in beyond me. The guy driving obviously was not defending himself from anyone when he hit that crowd
Why you have to explain ? Well I don't know maybe you need to explain how ANTIFA can be considered peaceful anything. Maybe you need to explain how a vehicular accident by someone in fear of their life.
Irrelevant. We have courts for that type of thing.
And we have the 2nd amendment for people like you. And yes it has been used to remove illegal governments in the U.S.
"Why you have to explain ? Well I don't know maybe you need to explain how ANTIFA can be considered peaceful anything. Maybe you need to explain how a vehicular accident by someone in fear of their life."
Sure, charging ones car into a mass of people because some one threatened you several blocks away is completely reasonable. Talk about willful naivete.
"And we have the 2nd amendment for people like you. And yes it has been used to remove illegal governments in the U.S."
Disingenuous much ? Or do you just expect everyone to be as ignorant ?
DUURRR, more stupid. Tell me, how am I lying when I say that? . Show me the reputable source that cast doubts on them. All you're doing now is basically saying "Not uh, that's wrong because I say it is".
Your claim is that loose gun control laws in the U.S. are the cause of our murder rate I showed 1. As our laws liberalized our murder and crime rate went down 2. Between areas within this country gun laws do not correlate with crime 3. Between similar cities with different gun control regimes there is no correlation in the amount of crime over time 4. Between extremes of gun control re
Look, we aren't blind and deaf. When we see/hear stupid stuff like fox news comparing Denmark and Venezuela, or even many other completely ridiculous pretension like part of london being muslim only, and I pass many other, not even counting you have theblaze as conservative media we come to our conclusion alone why fox news is called faux news. You don't like it ? Then ask your conservative media to have a fact based reporting , rather than wishful thinking reporting.
Look, we aren't blind and deaf. When we see/hear stupid stuff like fox news comparing Denmark and Venezuela, or even many other completely ridiculous pretension like part of london being muslim only, and I pass many other, not even counting you have theblaze as conservative media we come to our conclusion alone why fox news is called faux news. You don't like it ? Then ask your conservative media to have a fact based reporting , rather than wishful thinking reporting.
My apologies for Fox news on behalf of the less conservative peoples of the US.
Am in London, have traveled through 63 countries and 42 of US states (+DC & PR); Iâ(TM)m less afraid for my safety here than many places, and Iâ(TM)ve had more dicey situations in the US (once in a mall during shooting for instance) than almost anywhere else.
Aside from war zones, the world is in general reasonably safe. The US isnâ(TM)t as developed in that regard as those who live there and never leave would think.
And yes I am "alpina white" Caucasian (as in pasty white & blond hair because the sun and me we ain't friends). Firstly there is the *perception* of feeling unsafe, and the reality. The reality is that those area (and the other one near Paris which were qualified the same way) are not "muslim" only I am the living proof (*touch self* yes still solid not a ghost). Look joke aside your friends sound like my old uncle, giving the *perception* of something but not knowing the *reality* of that thing, in oth
A story about cyclist killed in Tajikistan (not London/UK) reported by the some foreign journal (again not London/UK) , as a counter argument about some part of London NOT being "no-go" as conservative pretend ? And YOU wonder why people don't trust your handling at facts ?
A story about cyclist killed in Tajikistan (not London/UK) reported by the some foreign journal (again not London/UK) , as a counter argument about some part of London NOT being "no-go" as conservative pretend ? And YOU wonder why people don't trust your handling at facts ?
The story about the cyclists was to illustrate your idiocy about perceptions of safety. I should have realized I needed to explain in greater detail.
really I am looking at the graph in that post and seeing New Yorks line go way down and London's have a slight uptrend on murder (which is not the whole of violent crime, NYC really doesn't have much in the way of acid attacks)
That's despite gun rights being affirmed and expanded in the U.S. while in the U.K. you have people talking about tougher restrictions on knives.
Yes, there are pockets of not nice areas in London, but that is true in most cities.
People are easily swayed by fears that are completely out of line of the reality. I live in a very low crime area in the SF Bay, with, for example, a homicide rate ~10% of the national average. Yet my elderly NRA-member neighbors felt compelled to get a great BIG dog for protection, and told me they were worried about crime -- something that has saddled them with endless unnecessary hassle. (Mind you, they are really love
I think the odds of my mortgage company noticing that I did not pay for home insurance quite high, and the result will be that they will happily add charges to my note for poor insurance coverage at a premium price.. So I am 99% certain of bad consequences for failing to pay for insurance. Insurance looks like a sure thing.;)
To try to address the question in the spirit you seem to be trying to ask it: I tend to hedge towards less insurance, as seems practical.
Having a dog is a fine idea. Choosing the specific dog based on very emotional reasons was unwise. There are many kinds of dogs that can improve your home security significantly. A "great BIG dog" requires physical exertions by the owners and carries the risk of expensive and demanding medical issues -- not an auspicious choice for an elderly couple who do not have family around to lend them a hand.
Having a dog is a fine idea. Choosing the specific dog based on very emotional reasons was unwise. There are many kinds of dogs that can improve your home security significantly. A "great BIG dog" requires physical exertions by the owners and carries the risk of expensive and demanding medical issues -- not an auspicious choice for an elderly couple who do not have family around to lend them a hand.
Your post analyzing why your neighbors got a dog and then poo pooing their reasons is why libertarians are still around. As crazy they may be interfering scolds are far worse.
Your neighbors made it through their longer lives making their own decisions perhaps they just don't need you.
Your post analyzing why your neighbors got a dog and then poo pooing their reasons is why libertarians are still around. As crazy they may be interfering scolds are far worse.
Your neighbors made it through their longer lives making their own decisions perhaps they just don't need you.
Even worse than an interfering scold are crybaby scolds. Yes, that seems to be the majority of libertarians, now that you mention it. But there will always be crybabies, I suppose, as you succeeded in reminding me.
Did I tell anyone they cannot get a dog of their choice? No.
Look up the word "interfering" and get back to me.
Why ? Are you actually asserting you are responsive to input ? Or that you actually comprehend the concept ?
As for self-righteous, any mirror will serve you.
I'm not the guy who is trying to use his old neighbors fear of crime and their reasonable security measure to prove them insane.
Also my replies have a bit more depth than your "I know you are, but what am I", but I doubt you will be able see that no matter how many mirrors, or other optical devices you may be provided with.
Nice circumstantial bullshit. My friends in London think our right wing conspiratorial "no-go" zones are retarded but just like your post that's not proof of anything except their opinions,
I love this. Some idiot can name one city in one country that has strict gun control that is experiencing a spike in crime and they think they've proven that gun control doesn't work. Never mind the fact that every single first world country with stricter gun control has a homicide rate that is on average 5 times lower then ours.
Spikes in crime happen in major urban areas for quite a lot of reasons and you're an idiot.
Oddly enough the Jacksonville shooting were in a NO GUN ZONE.
Chicago, DC, Baltimore have some of the strictest gun laws in the country yet have amongst the highest gun crime rates.
So it seems when you control within the same society gun control laws do not correlate with gun crime rate.
First world countries with guns ? Switzerland which has universal gun ownership for males up to the age of 30, and the lowest crime rate in the world, destroys the idea that guns cause crime.
I'll be the first to tell you American no-gun zones are stupid. They just come in over the border.
"So it seems when you control within the same society gun control laws do not correlate with gun crime rate."
No, they do. That's why every single first world country with strict gun control laws has a vastly lower homicide rate than we do.
"First world countries with guns ? Switzerland which has universal gun ownership for males up to the age of 30, and the lowest crime rate in the world, destroys the idea that
"So it seems when you control within the same society gun control laws do not correlate with gun crime rate."
No, they do. That's why every single first world country with strict gun control laws has a vastly lower homicide rate than we do.
What is it you don't understand about the words "SAME SOCIETY" ?
Norway's society is not America's and despite having very strict gun control laws, it did little to stop Anders Brevik.
Good for Switzerland (although you're not telling me anything I didn't know. That's why I phrased what I said the way I did). Small countries are often able to buck the statistical trends. In the social sciences they're typically where you find you're outliers.
So you understood what the words "Same Society" meant you just deliberately ignored the meaning.
If you want to make your point, you have to show that gun ownership rates and degree of restriction on owning guns (NOTE THE AND) have a high correlation to the crime rate and (NOTE THAT AND AGAIN) there aren't other factors that hav
You being poorly educated on this subject does not change the fact that comparisons in homicide rates between first world nations are considered perfectly valid by those who aren't. They control for all of the typical major exasperating factors like major degrees of poverty, wealth inequality, and government corruption to name a few.
"If you want to make your point, you have to show that gun ownership rates and degree of restriction on owning guns (NOTE THE AND) have a high correlation to the crime rate and
You being poorly educated on this subject does not change the fact that comparisons in homicide rates between first world nations are considered perfectly valid by those who aren't. They control for all of the typical major exasperating factors like major degrees of poverty, wealth inequality, and government corruption to name a few.
In sociology ? You mean a "Science" where studies can't be reliably replicated
Anyway going back to your idiocy. The violent crime rate in Montana a state with very little regulation of gun ownership 281/100k overall violence comparing that to London it's 2200/100k considering strict violence against the person
I can't believe you're calling me an idiot with this stuff.
"In sociology ? You mean a "Science" where studies can't be reliably replicated"
Every field of science is having this problem right now. Meanwhile you're using this as a means of placing doubt on easily comparable statistics no one questions. Stupid.
"Anyway going back to your idiocy. The violent crime rate in Montana a state with very little regulation of gun ownership 281/100k overall violence comparing that to London it's 2200/100k considering str
And if you had looked at the article I had posted you'd have seen that aside from a few recent months New York generally has a homicide rate that is at least twice that of London and it has been like that or more so for decades.
A couple of months is a statistical blip. I'm back to calling you an idiot.
In March it looked like the London rate was higher, but it seems that several of the murder investigations in London were closed with results that concluded they weren't actually murders (accidental stabbings maybe?). So the final figures for those months actually have London (47) lower than New York (54), and the first six months is even more lopsided (London: 80, New York: 141). In the end, there was a sin
I have answered this repeatedly allready but what the hell lets take your point as given
London's murder rate is close enough to NYC's that it can exceed it in reporting periods, London has incredibly strict controls on weapons as does the the whole of the country, NY and the USA does not => weapon laws really don't prevent crime
No, it's not. I'm sorry but you're clearly getting your info from Right Wing shit holes. For the last several decades it has been at least half as much and that's the minimum aside from a spike in violence in the first few months of 2018 where it did exceed New York's (which has not been the worst American city for that type of thing for a couple of decades). The UK has had strict gun control laws for well over half a century.
Nothing that you just said refutes "For the last several decades it has been at least half as much and that's the minimum aside from a spike in violence in the first few months of 2018 where it did exceed New York's (which has not been the worst American city for that type of thing for a couple of decades). The UK has had strict gun control laws for well over half a century." which is what this whole conversation has been about.
You mean how London briefly has had a higher homicide rate than New York, a US city that has been experiencing record lows in that category https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/... [csmonitor.com] ? London, in a country that has had strict gun laws for over a half century.
You're referring to the spike in London that clearly has nothing to do with their gun laws?
Maybe get your information from sources other than right wing news and you might look less stupid.
You mean how London briefly has had a higher homicide rate than New York, a US city that has been experiencing record lows in that category https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/ [csmonitor.com]... [csmonitor.com] ? London, in a country that has had strict gun laws for over a half century.
Record lows despite a 50 year trend of liberalizing gun laws in the us from their most restrictive points in the 60s and 70s
You don't appear to have any grasp on how statistics work. One city does not make a trend, plenty of other American cities are currently seeing spikes in crime.
I'm sure you'd love that to be the reason, and not the fact that the loudest conservative media outlets in the US are demonstrably terrible at being actual media outlets. Those media outlets do it to themselves with their constant bullshitting and scaremongering.
"Very few outside the US think US conservative media outlets are reputable"
And one significant reason for this is the relentless and universal portrayal of US conservative media outlets as disreputable by the US Leftist media.
Sorry, but no. By European standards, Fox News is a conspiracy theorist right-wing tabloid. Pretty much every Fox News opinion host is perceived as a populist, fear-mongering, right-wing extremist. We form this opinion based on our own cognitive abilities and critical thinking skills - no "leftist media" required.
Most US media is right wing, even in American terms, but gets labelled liberal because:
1. It's generally more likely to post stories that reflect the interests of the Democratic party, which is to the left of the Republican party
2. A concerted smear campaign since the impeachment of Nixon and the failure of the Vietnam war, a war that the media covered largely accurately, as a result increasing political pressure to end what was rapidly becoming an unwinnable quagmire.
People who doubt this should ask themselves:
1. Do you think the media often discusses the same issues as the Democratic party because it's biased towards "The Democrats", or because the Democratic party is more likely to listen to the media than the Republicans?
2. Does the media regard the following policies as mainstream or does it frequently describe them as "leftist"? Are they actually "leftist", or are they pragmatic and common among Western democracies outside of the US:
. - Free education, including University education without tuition fees
. - Single Payer healthcare
. - A livable minimum wage
. - An effort to ensure employment is available for all
For those wondering if I just pulled these examples out of my ass, they're on "notorious leftist" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [wikipedia.org]'s Wikipedia page. I omitted views that either the media is usually sympathetic with (Immigration), or stuff that falls outside of the left/right spectrum (such as Israel) and that would count as foreign policy. Coverage of Ocasio-Cortez has been... if not hostile, certainly "This is far from a serious candidate", by most media outlets that right wingers here would call "mainstream" and "liberal". Absolutely none of her positions is remotely radical - like I said, most Western democracies have these in some shape or form - it's just to the left of the media's position, and hence also to the left of the party that treats the media seriously.
To be fair they are just a product of the US political landscape.
In Canada we basically have Conservatives and Liberals (and NDP further left). However in comparison to their US compatriots even the Democrats are far right of what we might even call Conservatives. Within the Democrats there are those like poor old Bernie Sanders that might be considered a bit more comparable, but they would be in the minority (hence his unacceptance as a leader).
on economic issues. So is Hollywood when you look into it. There's a slight bent to the left on social issues, mostly Abortion & Gun Control. Anything that touches the economy at large are media is hard right. This is why Bernie Sanders was buried by MSNBC during the primary. They got caught when the guy who runs The Young Turks Youtube show wouldn't play ball, for all the good it did.
And one significant reason for this is the relentless and universal portrayal of US conservative media outlets as disreputable by the US Leftist media.
Nope, there is NOTHING that other media can do to make US conservative media outlets seem more disreputable.
And one significant reason for this is the relentless and universal portrayal of US conservative media outlets as disreputable by the US Leftist media.
No, it's the relentless nonsensical bullshit coming from US conservative media that is US conservative media's own enemy across the rest of the world.
If even 1/10th of all the bullshit spewed by US conservative media was true, the whole European continent would be utterly bankrupt, over run by barbarians and on fire.
When I look out of my window, that's not what I see.
Hence, their bullshit isn't informative, we outside the US might as well skip it.
(Yes, I know, we're all evil depraved euro-communists over here...)
If even 1/10th of all the bullshit spewed by US conservative media was true, the whole European continent would be utterly bankrupt, over run by barbarians and on fire
Actually, the PIGS, massive Middle Eastern immigration, and car fires in France and elsewhere in Europe make your point less than obvious.
Have you actually *traveled* to "France and elsewhere in Europe" ?
Oh, let me guess : Nope, you never left your house, because the media you've been watching has always been telling you that Europe is a scary communist place and too dangerous to travel to.
I'm not saying that there has never ever been a single car on fire in the whole Europe ever. But it is extremely far from being any frequent thing to begin with, unlike what the media would like you to think. It's not a common part of the landscape, at all. J
Imagine my surprise that this began in the 90s, around Strasbourg apparently...
Reuters [reuters.com], reasonably reliable, offers some more insight. Many reasons, even insurance fraud. Apparently the term 'youths' isn't very precise.
But they do not refute the reality that car burnings are a New Years' celebration in some areas of France, and even for general frivolity or riots. A
This year, New Year's Eve 2018, over 1,000 card were burned in celebration of something. Are you claiming there have been even 1,000 'mass murders' in the US this year?
The latter, obviously; but still, I'd take car burnings over mass murders any day. PS: many car burnings are actually people who just want the insurance on old cars.
Hey you're right, there's like 5 car burnings in France for every 1 mass murder victim in the U.S each year.
Now the question is, do you think that's a good exchange rate? Because a lot of those cars were pretty old, so you're probably looking at around $20,000-$40,000 of property damage for every mass murder victim. Personally, I think I'd stick with the car fires... Especially, if you figure out that for every death in a mass shooting, there are an average of 5 people injured so now you're looking at 1
Mate, I've seen some Fox news and I can tell you that by international standards your "US Leftist media" is being pretty polite.
It took me a few minutes to be sure that it wasn't a piss-take on a statical news show. The amount of distortion would be flat out illegal in a lot of countries I think (as shown when they do have news from outside the US, and get it so hilariously wrong [telegraph.co.uk])
I'm afraid to say it's reality's well known liberal bias, raising it's head again.
Don't forget, a democrat isn't really leftist, they are centrists outside the US. They may be on the left of the far-right, but still, you guys have no understanding of the real political spectrum and positions in the 2D spectrum.
"Very few outside the US think US conservative media outlets are reputable"
And one significant reason for this is the relentless and universal portrayal of US conservative media outlets as disreputable by the US Leftist media.
I assume that your belief is informed by the restrained and nuanced portrayal of the US Leftist media by US conservative outlets. Ahem. (Incidentally, the "conservative" outlets seem to spend a lot more time talking about the "liberals" than vice versa.)
The non-US world has access to Fox just as readily as to MSNBC. In assessing reliability and trustworthiness, they've adjusted their Bayesian priors based on continuously supplied evidence about which networks give the most airtime to hypocritical, self-s
If the algorithm looks for having, as an example, both 'Trump' and 'Orange' in the text in order to give it five extra points, that's bias.
If the algorithm looks at how many times other pages link to the page, as we are reasonably certain is how Google works, then it's content-neutral and only biased towards "stuff liked by a lot of people in the demographic that uses the internet and frequently links to things they like". Whether or not that demographic leans left, right, cent
Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.
Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.
Re: (Score:0, Troll)
Seeing as 96 percent of google search results about Trump come from liberal media outlets
https://pjmedia.com/trending/g... [pjmedia.com]
You may wish to rethink you naive view of this.
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeing as 96 percent of google search results about Trump come from liberal media outlets
You may wish to rethink you naive view of this.
If you apply some critical thinking then the results make sense. You have most of the entire English literate world using Google, not just the US. Very few outside the US think US conservative media outlets are reputable and therefore avoid them. Google ranking is a convoluted feedback loop so you inevitably are going to end up with results people look at which aren't US conservative media outlets.
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's search results are also influenced by how many other sites link to a given article. Theory being that well linked articles are considered good by other people. When offering up evidence people tend to link to sources with a reputation for impartiality (aka "extreme far left bias").
Google weights links from less reputable sites lower too, so all those blogs and forum links don't really help Trump supporting sites.
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of citations for Fox News being horseshit is because people don't fall for your "prove water is wet first" tactic.
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re-posting a link to a conservative news source is not a refutation. They told you what trends in worldwide traffic might be driving the popularity of less conservative news sources and this is not an argument against that.
Re: (Score:1)
You do realize Google customizes its search results by the location the query is submitted from ?
Just noting you are pulling your argument out of your ass or just plain ignorance.
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize Google customizes its search results by the location the query is submitted from ?
For local matters, yes. News is certainly more regional and national news tends to take precedence over regional news when it comes to national matters.
But that just gives extra weight to the location of the site (or its intended target area). It doesn't change its relative importance on the Internet in the rest of their algorithm. It would make no sense to do anything beyond that with location information. If web sites worldwide are linking to a web site its overall relative importance is still going to be much higher.
Re: (Score:1)
So that would be why the BBC managed not to be included ?
HMMMM
Re: (Score:3)
Specifically on a survey of sites that are reporting non-stop about Trump? Why would they even make the list? They simply don't write a lot of articles about his antics compared to most sources.
Their location is only relevant in that they're not writing a lot of stories about the topic, and they're not in the country where this is taking place so fewer people are looking to them or sharing from them about that subject.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sorry are you now reversing yourself on the amount of coverage being important as opposed to the prominence and global reach of the site ?
Seems we were talking about local/regional/national/global and now you are trying to switch over to another metric
Re: (Score:3)
I am sorry are you now reversing yourself on the amount of coverage being important as opposed to the prominence and global reach of the site ?
How is a page supposed to appear if it doesn't exist? Fewer pages indexed means fewer pages that can rise to the top. Do you think I'm saying "look here, CNN has lots of articles so let's promote all their pages"? No, each page/article gets their own weight and rank.
The BBC having far, far fewer articles on the subject (and being further removed from what they're reporting on) means they have fewer pages that are going to rise in the search results and even fewer that are going to be sought after and sha
Re: (Score:2)
How is a page supposed to appear if it doesn't exist? Fewer pages indexed means fewer pages that can rise to the top. Do you think I'm saying "look here, CNN has lots of articles so let's promote all their pages"? No, each page/article gets their own weight and rank.
The BBC having far, far fewer articles on the subject
One do you have any proof of that ? Or do you think the English speaking world has no interest in the actions of the president of the U.S. especially when he is an even more polarizing figure in the U.K. than he is here ?
But lets test your premise looking at the BBC home page right now
http://www.bbc.com/ [bbc.com]
Trump attacks 'left-wing' Google search results
It seems you are factually challenged.
Re: (Score:3)
Did I say they had no articles on the topic? I did a search for Trump on their own web site and there were relatively fewer results and of course their contents are a rehash of sites that reported before them. Good chance that Google ranks pages higher that report sooner on a specific event, as later pages are duplicate or potentially plagiarized.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh now we have another vector. Hmmm
Maybe you're right it's not as if Google doesn't have a pattern of censorship for conservative content. Oh wait what do you know they do.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/20... [foxnews.com]
http://thehill.com/policy/tech... [thehill.com]
https://www.theblaze.com/news/... [theblaze.com]
So I suppose youtube shut down a site dedicated to economic education as hate speech because page rank ? It also shut down a firearms education channel because hate speech ?
Feel free to go again
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
you do realize that trump's bad behavior has consequences right? The fact that a conservative fish bowl of news won't say the obvious does not change that fact.
Hey you do realize Google using it's presence to manipulate elections has consequences right ?
The fact that they enjoy legal immunities for being a common carrier can change in a heartbeat
Re: Occam's Razor (Score:1)
Its easy to test it by doing the same search on google and duckduckgo.
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Interesting)
I looked at your link, read the entire thing,
so I asked myself, why are the results this way...
Well, I came up with some theories, most likely wrong but might be true.
you have a few sites like infowars what are sensational sites having a narrative of hate and conspiracies.
They are adding negative values of trust to the trump name within certain search terms
While sites like CNN are adding positive value to the trump name under the same rules
CNN put's out more content on a daily basis than fox and google is scanning both.
it's coming down to truthiness and trust. I trust CNN over infowars, I can trust Barrons over stars and stripes. I can see that CNN seems more truthful than Fox, and it starting to show.
so yes, the leaning to non-trump side.
Also, the non-trump side propaganda machine is designed differently than the trump side. that could also be an issue.
( because it sound smart people think it's smart concept )
CNN defines Fake News (Score:1)
Story [nymag.com] about CNN outright lying for a month and refusing to retract a story after EVERYONE knows its a lie. Its their Trump is getting impeached any day now, so its not a minor story either.
You believe CNN is honest, you are an idiot. Thanks for letting us know how dumb you are and that your opinion doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
HI AC, my views will always count & let me put it clearly,
you and your commie friends end game is clear.
Like me there are others who can fight, and if anything has been proven, the USA will defeat your ugly ass once again.
I've followed the money looking way out...
While I don't know who or what is causing client change, we do know the co2 helps keep it warm. Who benefits from this at the end, Russia & Canada, polar shipping route and Russia's frozen tundra become the new bread basket and most of Cana
Re: (Score:2)
"I will observe, the immediate response was to try and silence my post so it wouldn't be noticed.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/g [pjmedia.com]... [pjmedia.com]
Something of a pattern amongst the left."
Oh please, get off your cross. Everyone in here gets modded down for reasons not inline with Slashdot's suggested mod usage. You're not so special that the evil Left targets you special and the same thing happens to them.
Re: (Score:1)
I am sorry when was the last time you heard of conservatives pulling a fire alarm to stop libs from speaking ?
Staging a riot to prevent someone visiting a campus ?
Phoning in a bomb threat ?
Shooting a congressman at a baseball game ?
Not me on the cross but a pattern just the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Drive a car into peaceful protester's and kill some one
Shoot up a place of worship because the people there were black.
Hold up against the federal government in a violent manner because they object to federal land policies.
I don't pretend my end of the political spectrum doesn't have assholes in it but clearly you do.
Re: (Score:1)
Drive a car into peaceful protester's and kill some one
Peaceful protestor yeah
https://www.thegatewaypundit.c... [thegatewaypundit.com]
Shoot up a place of worship because the people there were black.
Dylan Roof was certifiably insane
Hold up against the federal government in a violent manner because they object to federal land policies.
The BLM acted illegally http://www.latimes.com/nation/... [latimes.com]
Navarro rebuked federal prosecutors — using the words "flagrant" and "reckless" to describe how they withheld evidence from the defense — before saying "that the universal sense of justice has been violated" and dismissing the charges.
It wasn't the land use policies, it was the illegal railroading of a citizen.
I don't pretend my end of the political spectrum doesn't have assholes in it but clearly you do.
Sure you don't
Re: (Score:2)
"Peaceful protestor yeah
https://www.thegatewaypundit.c... [www.thegatewaypundit.c] [www.thegatewaypundit.c] [thegatewaypundit.com"
Even if that article is true (nice fring news source) the people hit by that car were in fact peaceful protesters. Just because some lunatic chased him with a gun does not mean that running over completely unrelated people is okay. Why I have to explain that to you in beyond me. The guy driving obviously was not defending himself from anyone when he hit that crowd
"Dylan Roof was certifiably insane"
And st
Re: (Score:1)
Even if that article is true (nice fring news source) the people hit by that car were in fact peaceful protesters. Just because some lunatic chased him with a gun does not mean that running over completely unrelated people is okay. Why I have to explain that to you in beyond me. The guy driving obviously was not defending himself from anyone when he hit that crowd
Why you have to explain ? Well I don't know maybe you need to explain how ANTIFA can be considered peaceful anything. Maybe you need to explain how a vehicular accident by someone in fear of their life.
Irrelevant. We have courts for that type of thing.
And we have the 2nd amendment for people like you. And yes it has been used to remove illegal governments in the U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Durrr, good one! Clearly you'd know my oppinions better than I would.
Well unlike you, I am not lying about them. I'm hardly the person who says there's a replication problem in science except for the parts I like.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why you have to explain ? Well I don't know maybe you need to explain how ANTIFA can be considered peaceful anything. Maybe you need to explain how a vehicular accident by someone in fear of their life."
Sure, charging ones car into a mass of people because some one threatened you several blocks away is completely reasonable. Talk about willful naivete.
"And we have the 2nd amendment for people like you. And yes it has been used to remove illegal governments in the U.S."
More nonsense. There's nothing in the
Re: (Score:1)
ure, charging ones car into a mass of people because some one threatened you several blocks away is completely reasonable. Talk about willful naivete.
Running for your own life
More nonsense. There's nothing in the constitution that says you have the right to bear arms against your own government.
http://www.ushistory.org/decla... [ushistory.org]
Disingenuous much ? Or do you just expect everyone to be as ignorant ?
DUURRR, more stupid. Tell me, how am I lying when I say that?
. Show me the reputable source that cast doubts on them. All you're doing now is basically saying "Not uh, that's wrong because I say it is".
Your claim is that loose gun control laws in the U.S. are the cause of our murder rate
I showed
1. As our laws liberalized our murder and crime rate went down
2. Between areas within this country gun laws do not correlate with crime
3. Between similar cities with different gun control regimes there is no correlation in the amount of crime over time
4. Between extremes of gun control re
the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Look, we aren't blind and deaf. When we see/hear stupid stuff like fox news comparing Denmark and Venezuela, or even many other completely ridiculous pretension like part of london being muslim only, and I pass many other, not even counting you have theblaze as conservative media we come to our conclusion alone why fox news is called faux news. You don't like it ? Then ask your conservative media to have a fact based reporting , rather than wishful thinking reporting.
My apologies for Fox news on behalf of the less conservative peoples of the US.
Re: the rightwing media self protrait as unreliabl (Score:3, Informative)
Am in London, have traveled through 63 countries and 42 of US states (+DC & PR); Iâ(TM)m less afraid for my safety here than many places, and Iâ(TM)ve had more dicey situations in the US (once in a mall during shooting for instance) than almost anywhere else.
Aside from war zones, the world is in general reasonably safe. The US isnâ(TM)t as developed in that regard as those who live there and never leave would think.
I have LIVED in one such area (Score:3)
WTF ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A story about cyclist killed in Tajikistan (not London/UK) reported by the some foreign journal (again not London/UK) , as a counter argument about some part of London NOT being "no-go" as conservative pretend ? And YOU wonder why people don't trust your handling at facts ?
The story about the cyclists was to illustrate your idiocy about perceptions of safety. I should have realized I needed to explain in greater detail.
Re:I have LIVED in one such area (Score:4, Informative)
What's more the fact that london now has a higher crime rate and murder than NYC is further proof you are wrong.
Fucking moron.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-... [bbc.co.uk]
It was slightly above in Febuary and less every other month this year and the yearly rate is well under half.
Re: (Score:1)
Apart from murder, crime has actually been moderately worse in England and Wales than in the U.S. for quite a while.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view... [bloomberg.com]
You really need to get your news from a service that makes its living off of being accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
You really need to get your news from a service that makes its living off of being accurate.
Your post link exactly the same: the murder rate in London is way lower than new york.
Re: (Score:1)
really I am looking at the graph in that post and seeing New Yorks line go way down and London's have a slight uptrend on murder (which is not the whole of violent crime, NYC really doesn't have much in the way of acid attacks)
That's despite gun rights being affirmed and expanded in the U.S. while in the U.K. you have people talking about tougher restrictions on knives.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are pockets of not nice areas in London, but that is true in most cities.
People are easily swayed by fears that are completely out of line of the reality. I live in a very low crime area in the SF Bay, with, for example, a homicide rate ~10% of the national average. Yet my elderly NRA-member neighbors felt compelled to get a great BIG dog for protection, and told me they were worried about crime -- something that has saddled them with endless unnecessary hassle. (Mind you, they are really love
Re: (Score:1)
Do you carry homeowner's insurance* ? What do you think the chances are of the things you are insured against actually happening ?
*Seeing as it's SF that would more likely be renters either way
Re: (Score:2)
I think the odds of my mortgage company noticing that I did not pay for home insurance quite high, and the result will be that they will happily add charges to my note for poor insurance coverage at a premium price.. So I am 99% certain of bad consequences for failing to pay for insurance. Insurance looks like a sure thing. ;)
To try to address the question in the spirit you seem to be trying to ask it: I tend to hedge towards less insurance, as seems practical.
Re: (Score:1)
Well in this case you are choosing to have none, while your neighbors have a dog.
Re: (Score:2)
Having a dog is a fine idea. Choosing the specific dog based on very emotional reasons was unwise. There are many kinds of dogs that can improve your home security significantly. A "great BIG dog" requires physical exertions by the owners and carries the risk of expensive and demanding medical issues -- not an auspicious choice for an elderly couple who do not have family around to lend them a hand.
Re: (Score:1)
Having a dog is a fine idea. Choosing the specific dog based on very emotional reasons was unwise. There are many kinds of dogs that can improve your home security significantly. A "great BIG dog" requires physical exertions by the owners and carries the risk of expensive and demanding medical issues -- not an auspicious choice for an elderly couple who do not have family around to lend them a hand.
Your post analyzing why your neighbors got a dog and then poo pooing their reasons is why libertarians are still around. As crazy they may be interfering scolds are far worse.
Your neighbors made it through their longer lives making their own decisions perhaps they just don't need you.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post analyzing why your neighbors got a dog and then poo pooing their reasons is why libertarians are still around. As crazy they may be interfering scolds are far worse.
Your neighbors made it through their longer lives making their own decisions perhaps they just don't need you.
Even worse than an interfering scold are crybaby scolds. Yes, that seems to be the majority of libertarians, now that you mention it. But there will always be crybabies, I suppose, as you succeeded in reminding me.
Did I tell anyone they cannot get a dog of their choice? No.
What's up with bawling, dude?
Re: (Score:1)
What's up with bawling, dude?
Swing and a miss
But please keep on deciding what's best for everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
I never told anyone else what to do. Why you feel the compulsion to perceive victimhood, I will leave to you to figure out.
Re: (Score:1)
I never told anyone else what to do. Why you feel the compulsion to perceive victimhood, I will leave to you to figure out.
Sorry calling you out as self righteous and interfering isn't me claiming victimhood.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up the word "interfering" and get back to me.
As for self-righteous, any mirror will serve you.
Re: (Score:1)
Look up the word "interfering" and get back to me.
Why ? Are you actually asserting you are responsive to input ? Or that you actually comprehend the concept ?
As for self-righteous, any mirror will serve you.
I'm not the guy who is trying to use his old neighbors fear of crime and their reasonable security measure to prove them insane.
Also my replies have a bit more depth than your "I know you are, but what am I", but I doubt you will be able see that no matter how many mirrors, or other optical devices you may be provided with.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice circumstantial bullshit. My friends in London think our right wing conspiratorial "no-go" zones are retarded but just like your post that's not proof of anything except their opinions,
Re: (Score:1)
OK riddle me this how does London with much stricter gun laws than anywhere in the U.S. have a higher crime rate and murder rate than NYC ?
Re: (Score:2)
I love this. Some idiot can name one city in one country that has strict gun control that is experiencing a spike in crime and they think they've proven that gun control doesn't work. Never mind the fact that every single first world country with stricter gun control has a homicide rate that is on average 5 times lower then ours.
Spikes in crime happen in major urban areas for quite a lot of reasons and you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
Oddly enough the Jacksonville shooting were in a NO GUN ZONE.
Chicago, DC, Baltimore have some of the strictest gun laws in the country yet have amongst the highest gun crime rates.
So it seems when you control within the same society gun control laws do not correlate with gun crime rate.
First world countries with guns ? Switzerland which has universal gun ownership for males up to the age of 30, and the lowest crime rate in the world, destroys the idea that guns cause crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be the first to tell you American no-gun zones are stupid. They just come in over the border.
"So it seems when you control within the same society gun control laws do not correlate with gun crime rate."
No, they do. That's why every single first world country with strict gun control laws has a vastly lower homicide rate than we do.
"First world countries with guns ? Switzerland which has universal gun ownership for males up to the age of 30, and the lowest crime rate in the world, destroys the idea that
Re: (Score:1)
"So it seems when you control within the same society gun control laws do not correlate with gun crime rate."
No, they do. That's why every single first world country with strict gun control laws has a vastly lower homicide rate than we do.
What is it you don't understand about the words "SAME SOCIETY" ?
Norway's society is not America's and despite having very strict gun control laws, it did little to stop Anders Brevik.
Good for Switzerland (although you're not telling me anything I didn't know. That's why I phrased what I said the way I did). Small countries are often able to buck the statistical trends. In the social sciences they're typically where you find you're outliers.
So you understood what the words "Same Society" meant you just deliberately ignored the meaning.
If you want to make your point, you have to show that gun ownership rates and degree of restriction on owning guns (NOTE THE AND) have a high correlation to the crime rate and (NOTE THAT AND AGAIN) there aren't other factors that hav
Re: (Score:2)
You being poorly educated on this subject does not change the fact that comparisons in homicide rates between first world nations are considered perfectly valid by those who aren't. They control for all of the typical major exasperating factors like major degrees of poverty, wealth inequality, and government corruption to name a few.
"If you want to make your point, you have to show that gun ownership rates and degree of restriction on owning guns (NOTE THE AND) have a high correlation to the crime rate and
Re: (Score:1)
You being poorly educated on this subject does not change the fact that comparisons in homicide rates between first world nations are considered perfectly valid by those who aren't. They control for all of the typical major exasperating factors like major degrees of poverty, wealth inequality, and government corruption to name a few.
In sociology ? You mean a "Science" where studies can't be reliably replicated
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... [sciencedaily.com]
Anyway going back to your idiocy. The violent crime rate in Montana a state with very little regulation of gun ownership 281/100k overall violence comparing that to London it's 2200/100k considering strict violence against the person
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
https://www.bozemandailychroni... [bozemandai...onicle.com]
So are you an idiot or just not as well educated as you think you are ?
Oh just going back to the with
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe you're calling me an idiot with this stuff.
"In sociology ? You mean a "Science" where studies can't be reliably replicated"
Every field of science is having this problem right now. Meanwhile you're using this as a means of placing doubt on easily comparable statistics no one questions. Stupid.
"Anyway going back to your idiocy. The violent crime rate in Montana a state with very little regulation of gun ownership 281/100k overall violence comparing that to London it's 2200/100k considering str
Re: (Score:1)
I can't believe you're calling me an idiot with this stuff.
I can't believe you haven't come to expect just about everyone calling you an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's what I thought. All you have left is name calling.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh I am pretty certain you actually don't think.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, not one of the gun control threads I'm talking in. Ignore that last post.
How about you are far more likely to be murdered in New York then you are in London for you https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And if you had looked at the article I had posted you'd have seen that aside from a few recent months New York generally has a homicide rate that is at least twice that of London and it has been like that or more so for decades.
A couple of months is a statistical blip. I'm back to calling you an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Has London's murder rate overtaken New York's? [bbc.com]
New York Murder Rate is Much Higher Than London's [metro.co.uk]
In March it looked like the London rate was higher, but it seems that several of the murder investigations in London were closed with results that concluded they weren't actually murders (accidental stabbings maybe?). So the final figures for those months actually have London (47) lower than New York (54), and the first six months is even more lopsided (London: 80, New York: 141). In the end, there was a sin
Re: (Score:1)
I have answered this repeatedly allready but what the hell lets take your point as given
London's murder rate is close enough to NYC's that it can exceed it in reporting periods, London has incredibly strict controls on weapons as does the the whole of the country, NY and the USA does not => weapon laws really don't prevent crime
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"London's murder rate is close enough to NYC's"
No, it's not. I'm sorry but you're clearly getting your info from Right Wing shit holes. For the last several decades it has been at least half as much and that's the minimum aside from a spike in violence in the first few months of 2018 where it did exceed New York's (which has not been the worst American city for that type of thing for a couple of decades). The UK has had strict gun control laws for well over half a century.
Stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes Bloomberg news is a right wing shit hole,
Get outside your echo chamber or at least your moms basement.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing that you just said refutes "For the last several decades it has been at least half as much and that's the minimum aside from a spike in violence in the first few months of 2018 where it did exceed New York's (which has not been the worst American city for that type of thing for a couple of decades). The UK has had strict gun control laws for well over half a century." which is what this whole conversation has been about.
Nice try at deflection though.
Re: (Score:1)
Nice try at ignoring the fact that over the time period it became easier to own guns legally in NYC yet the crime rate went down.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean how London briefly has had a higher homicide rate than New York, a US city that has been experiencing record lows in that category https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/... [csmonitor.com] ? London, in a country that has had strict gun laws for over a half century.
You're referring to the spike in London that clearly has nothing to do with their gun laws?
Maybe get your information from sources other than right wing news and you might look less stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
You mean how London briefly has had a higher homicide rate than New York, a US city that has been experiencing record lows in that category https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/ [csmonitor.com]... [csmonitor.com] ? London, in a country that has had strict gun laws for over a half century.
Record lows despite a 50 year trend of liberalizing gun laws in the us from their most restrictive points in the 60s and 70s
Keep going.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't appear to have any grasp on how statistics work. One city does not make a trend, plenty of other American cities are currently seeing spikes in crime.
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to be completely unable to comprehend that the counter examples are too numerous to list.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure you'd love that to be the reason, and not the fact that the loudest conservative media outlets in the US are demonstrably terrible at being actual media outlets. Those media outlets do it to themselves with their constant bullshitting and scaremongering.
Re: (Score:2)
Terms of Use | Fox News [foxnews.com]
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
"Very few outside the US think US conservative media outlets are reputable"
And one significant reason for this is the relentless and universal portrayal of US conservative media outlets as disreputable by the US Leftist media.
Sorry, but no. By European standards, Fox News is a conspiracy theorist right-wing tabloid. Pretty much every Fox News opinion host is perceived as a populist, fear-mongering, right-wing extremist. We form this opinion based on our own cognitive abilities and critical thinking skills - no "leftist media" required.
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Interesting)
And CNN is seen as right wing as well in Europe.
Politicaly compared to the rest of the world the US has a right wing and extreme right lunatics.
(Yes, Urup also has extreme right, but also extreme left and all things in between.)
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Interesting)
Most US media is right wing, even in American terms, but gets labelled liberal because:
1. It's generally more likely to post stories that reflect the interests of the Democratic party, which is to the left of the Republican party
2. A concerted smear campaign since the impeachment of Nixon and the failure of the Vietnam war, a war that the media covered largely accurately, as a result increasing political pressure to end what was rapidly becoming an unwinnable quagmire.
People who doubt this should ask themselves:
1. Do you think the media often discusses the same issues as the Democratic party because it's biased towards "The Democrats", or because the Democratic party is more likely to listen to the media than the Republicans?
2. Does the media regard the following policies as mainstream or does it frequently describe them as "leftist"? Are they actually "leftist", or are they pragmatic and common among Western democracies outside of the US:
. - Free education, including University education without tuition fees
. - Single Payer healthcare
. - A livable minimum wage
. - An effort to ensure employment is available for all
For those wondering if I just pulled these examples out of my ass, they're on "notorious leftist" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [wikipedia.org]'s Wikipedia page. I omitted views that either the media is usually sympathetic with (Immigration), or stuff that falls outside of the left/right spectrum (such as Israel) and that would count as foreign policy. Coverage of Ocasio-Cortez has been... if not hostile, certainly "This is far from a serious candidate", by most media outlets that right wingers here would call "mainstream" and "liberal". Absolutely none of her positions is remotely radical - like I said, most Western democracies have these in some shape or form - it's just to the left of the media's position, and hence also to the left of the party that treats the media seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair they are just a product of the US political landscape.
In Canada we basically have Conservatives and Liberals (and NDP further left). However in comparison to their US compatriots even the Democrats are far right of what we might even call Conservatives. Within the Democrats there are those like poor old Bernie Sanders that might be considered a bit more comparable, but they would be in the minority (hence his unacceptance as a leader).
All mainstream American media is right wing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News is the RNC's propaganda arm. MSNBC is the DNC's propaganda arm. CNN is the CIA's propaganda arm.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By European standards? By any factual standard Fox News is insane. Perception or subjectivity are not required to make that determination.
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Funny)
And one significant reason for this is the relentless and universal portrayal of US conservative media outlets as disreputable by the US Leftist media.
Nope, there is NOTHING that other media can do to make US conservative media outlets seem more disreputable.
Euro-perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
And one significant reason for this is the relentless and universal portrayal of US conservative media outlets as disreputable by the US Leftist media.
No, it's the relentless nonsensical bullshit coming from US conservative media that is US conservative media's own enemy across the rest of the world.
If even 1/10th of all the bullshit spewed by US conservative media was true, the whole European continent would be utterly bankrupt, over run by barbarians and on fire.
When I look out of my window, that's not what I see.
Hence, their bullshit isn't informative, we outside the US might as well skip it.
(Yes, I know, we're all evil depraved euro-communists over here...)
Re: (Score:1)
If even 1/10th of all the bullshit spewed by US conservative media was true, the whole European continent would be utterly bankrupt, over run by barbarians and on fire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Overrun by barbarians is in progress, how long you think it will be before bankrupt and on fire ? (don't answer that's rhetorical)
Travel much, do you ? (Score:3)
Actually, the PIGS, massive Middle Eastern immigration, and car fires in France and elsewhere in Europe make your point less than obvious.
Have you actually *traveled* to "France and elsewhere in Europe" ?
Oh, let me guess : Nope, you never left your house, because the media you've been watching has always been telling you that Europe is a scary communist place and too dangerous to travel to.
I'm not saying that there has never ever been a single car on fire in the whole Europe ever.
But it is extremely far from being any frequent thing to begin with, unlike what the media would like you to think.
It's not a common part of the landscape, at all. J
Re: (Score:2)
I have not been to Europe since the 70s. So I have to rely upon reporting.
In 2013 this was a thing [cbsnews.com]
And in 2017, so was this [telegraph.co.uk]
And then this year [thelocal.fr]...
Imagine my surprise that this began in the 90s, around Strasbourg apparently...
Reuters [reuters.com], reasonably reliable, offers some more insight. Many reasons, even insurance fraud. Apparently the term 'youths' isn't very precise.
But they do not refute the reality that car burnings are a New Years' celebration in some areas of France, and even for general frivolity or riots. A
Re: (Score:2)
and car fires in France
Car fires in France? That just means it's a day ending in "y". And it's mostly due to it being France.
(Unlike strikes. Strikes seem to be some sort of national sport in France,
Along with car fires during a strike.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Euro-perspective (Score:2)
This year, New Year's Eve 2018, over 1,000 card were burned in celebration of something. Are you claiming there have been even 1,000 'mass murders' in the US this year?
Or are you just being provocative?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey you're right, there's like 5 car burnings in France for every 1 mass murder victim in the U.S each year.
Now the question is, do you think that's a good exchange rate? Because a lot of those cars were pretty old, so you're probably looking at around $20,000-$40,000 of property damage for every mass murder victim. Personally, I think I'd stick with the car fires... Especially, if you figure out that for every death in a mass shooting, there are an average of 5 people injured so now you're looking at 1
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
It took me a few minutes to be sure that it wasn't a piss-take on a statical news show. The amount of distortion would be flat out illegal in a lot of countries I think (as shown when they do have news from outside the US, and get it so hilariously wrong [telegraph.co.uk])
I'm afraid to say it's reality's well known liberal bias, raising it's head again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Very few outside the US think US conservative media outlets are reputable"
And one significant reason for this is the relentless and universal portrayal of US conservative media outlets as disreputable by the US Leftist media.
I assume that your belief is informed by the restrained and nuanced portrayal of the US Leftist media by US conservative outlets. Ahem. (Incidentally, the "conservative" outlets seem to spend a lot more time talking about the "liberals" than vice versa.)
The non-US world has access to Fox just as readily as to MSNBC. In assessing reliability and trustworthiness, they've adjusted their Bayesian priors based on continuously supplied evidence about which networks give the most airtime to hypocritical, self-s
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on the algorithm.
If the algorithm looks for having, as an example, both 'Trump' and 'Orange' in the text in order to give it five extra points, that's bias.
If the algorithm looks at how many times other pages link to the page, as we are reasonably certain is how Google works, then it's content-neutral and only biased towards "stuff liked by a lot of people in the demographic that uses the internet and frequently links to things they like". Whether or not that demographic leans left, right, cent