h a l f b a k e r yI heartily endorse this product and/or service.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
This is a bit of an oddball idea, but...
I would posit that most "mainstream" (i.e. N.Y Times,
Washington Post) media is to the left of center (as
center
would be defined in the States) is a truism.
Increasingly such media outlets have also introduced
paywalls, showing a number of articles
to browsers, but
then requiring payment and subscription.
The assumption would be that many that already
subscribe
to these publications therefore mostly subscribe to their
views. Whereas more conservative readers probably do
not, yet still sample them occasionally.
Now, if one also buys the premise that reading such
"skewed" articles or opinions does impact ones
understanding and opinion, then the conservative is
most likely to be
influenced by liberal opinions early in the month, and
revert to their own healthy self by mid to late month.
Polled opinion should thus also resonate in sync with this
periodicity, and this resonance should therefore be taken
into account by pollsters.
8% more likely to vote Democrat
http://internationa...n_gerber_karlan.pdf
if randomly subscribed to Washington Post [4and20, Jun 26 2013]
News from the Future
https://www.nytimes...ic-engineering.html
[theircompetitor, Jun 01 2019]
Someone suggesting canceling paywalls through the election
https://www.theatla...t-democracy/678032/
[theircompetitor, Apr 15 2024]
[link]
|
| |
I'll see your truism and raise you a false-ism. |
|
| |
Once upon a time we had a conservative daily and
liberal evening paper. Now we're lucky if the town
has a paper at all. This was a trend that was brought
on by conservative types, in my estimation. |
|
| |
why do you say that? If papers are liberal, and
liberals read them, it's conservatives fault that papers
are going out of business? :) |
|
| |
The time of the month is often a red state. |
|
| |
Thing is, I don't want to read anything with *any*
kind of bias at all. I know that's practically
impossible in a strict sense, but any newspaper that
taints its news with the stench of party politics
deserves to go down the drain. |
|
| |
One issue with that is that one man's rational
objective perspective is another's reactionary
madfest. The politicisation and subsequent
polarisation of the media is a real issue. If swerving
violently from left to right each month promised a
balanced point of view, I'd grudgingly accept - but I
don't think it would achieve that. |
|
| |
What's needed is some integrity from journalists and
the ideal of a fair and balanced media. I don't know
how to fix that in the states since Fox took the
shamelessly partisan road such that anything in
comparison looks left-leaning. |
|
| |
Most major media use the same few wire services for everything reported. Then they copy each other. |
|
| |
The edits, editorials and on occasion, real journalism they add do reflect a clear slant, although the physics of each slant seems to be common knowledge in the UK. |
|
| |
Nonetheless, few people seek out a wide spectrum of activist bloggers, from all sides of political debate, preferring instead the blind righteousness of an overarching, limited view. |
|
| |
I'm not (here) lamenting the state of the media.
Merely pointing out that unless you are subscribed to
the NY Times, by the second week of any month, you
are unable to avail yourself of its opinions, and
postulating that this might actually affect your own
opinions over time. |
|
| |
It seems that the core idea here is a proposal for a study of how paywalls might result in a diminishing political influence (either on a national scale, or an individual/temporal scale), and the liberal/ left/ centre/ conservative/ maintream media stuff is not helping discuss the merits of the core idea. |
|
| |
I've read the N.Y. Times every day for years, mostly to see in what direction bleating edge intellectuals in the U.S. may try to push the world, but I've never hit "the wall" you describe. Maybe I've been reading the "wrong" articles. |
|
| |
BTW, their coverage was once so execrable that even I foresaw -- within a few days -- the Editor-in-Chief's dismissal. Strange that it's now run by the former BBC Director-General who feted Savile. |
|
| |
Why do I say that? Because of the political
affiliations of the corporate take-over class,
perhaps? Or do you think that the Standard
Oil types are generally for big government
liberal policies? Do you think that the trend
of media consolidation originated with the
lefties? |
|
| |
The fix is perhaps that more conservatives
should read more, and that some should learn to. |
|
| |
I would argue that the news sections of most
major papers don't have a particular bias. I would
argue the same for the news programs of most
major television stations (Fox and MSNBC
excepted). |
|
| |
If you read the editorials, well, you're paying to
hear someone's opinion, and that's your own fault. |
|
| |
(As an aside, per one recent study, on a current
hot button issue in front of the SCOTUS, NPR,
generally considered a hotbed of liberalism by the
right, had more conservative commentators than
Fox News did. Bias is often in perspective, not
fact.) |
|
| |
[don't have a particular bias]. There are two kinds of
people in this world. Those that realize that every
sentence is selling them something. And those that
buy without realizing it. Hold on a sec, I think my
Kraft(r) Mac & Cheese is ready in my GE microwave. |
|
| |
Everyone has bias, and it affects everything they do. |
|
| |
I think that by seeing the bias that does exist in
every situation, we lose the perspective to realize
that some biases are a bit stronger than others and
that in some disciplines, facts can and do exist,
regardless of opinion. |
|
| |
There is a difference between having some biases,
and even having them affect what you do, and an
organization having a systemic bias. |
|
| |
I think the bias feels stronger the further away
you are from a particular point of view. |
|
| |
I've never read a news story that was not trying to
make a point. All that's changes is that I've grown
older, and notice it more. |
|
| |
Here's an interesting proposed test. Take 5
headlines from the NY Times, and from the Wall St.
Journal -- not opinion articles, news articles. Do
you believe you'd confuse which news paper
wrote which article if you did not see the
masthead? |
|
| |
But again, I did not really do this idea to debate
their politics. Merely wondering if paywalls are
actually impacting opinion. |
|
| |
Some students must have done studies on the effect of articles read on opinions held. Sounds like a Phd thesis to me. If you can prove the well dries up each month and that things read a few weeks ago no longer effect one's opinions strongly, you might have something. |
|
| |
I wonder what sort of double blind test you could construct, based on the day of the month. ? |
|
| |
continues to be relevant -- couldn't read the linked op-ed
until today because of Times paywall |
|
| |