Talk:Liberal bias

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver


I have noticed that this wiki treats FOX as having a conservative bias, and attacking it for doing so, while defending the remainder of the media against any accusation of liberal bias. I would expect that both sides are biased. We seem to have a problem with a logical fallacy along the lines of "most media is less conservative than FOX, thus FOX is super-conservative and everyone else is perfectly in the middle." Zau (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think most people are quite critical of MSNBC and HuffPo for being liberal. The difference being that they're usually open about it, whereas Fox is the only one with the audacity to claim it's fair and balanced. The bias tropes associated with more liberal media are slightly different to the likes of WND and Fox. Link=User:Armondikov...I'll crystallize your blow-up doll! 23:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

years of hindsight is 20/20 but this discussion really makes this page look bad. Every one of these outlets should have an interstitial that says "The stories and information published by this organization are artistic works of fiction for entertainment purposes" (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

On RW[edit]

Perhaps it might be worth adding a (reasonably tongue-in-cheek) passage about liberal bias on RW? I've noticed most articles here tend to have a pretty obvious liberal slant (just compare the pages for "conservative" and "liberal"). — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 2012-07-09T08:22:58

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!. Bad Faith (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that's really a "RATIONAL Wiki" moment. The liberal bias is mostly acknowledged, and there's no assertion that such a bias is "not rational". Scarlet A.pngpostate 21:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
It might be because if they had a conservative slant, they would happen to just be factually wrong. Not all conservative ideas are bad or wrong, of course, but on many hot button topics, the plain old facts without any alteration or later interpretation happen to not look very much at all like mainstream conservative talking points. Not!Conservative doesn't equal Liberal; they aren't opposites. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 12:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The liberal bias of the editorship has been noted, and I think mostly isn't denied. But it's a bias of the population, not a requirement nor editorial stance. But, as they say, reality has a well-known liberal bias, so this explains things a lot more. If you have conservative pundits making shit up about "Death Panels" and questioning Barack Obama's legitimacy as the President of the United States, then what stance would you expect us all to take? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 15:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a self-referential para on the Groupthink article (she said, spamming one of her own articles again). Sophiebecause liberals 21:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Original commenter here. I didn't realize at the time I wrote that that RW's original purpose was to serve as a troll counterpart to Conservapedia, in which context the ubiquity of aggressive potshots at conservatives make a lot more sense. For what it's worth I consider myself a moderate conservative, and I view RW as a great resource for info and frank opinions on science and some philosophy-related issues; it's just that the explicitly political topics are a lot more one-sided (yes, there's still plenty of interpretation going on). But, again, knowing the site's "mission" and overall demographic (moderate liberal, atheist, pro-science, empiricist/materialist, predominantly American, very anti-Conservapedia) this makes a lot more sense. In that light it would seem unreasonable to ask to compromise the slant that's a part of the site's very identity, especially not when it's acknowledged outright on the site. So, carry on I suppose. (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the "predominantly American" bit. I think we're aiming for a more international (or at least "internationalized") audience.--Spud (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It's English-speaking, that's for sure. So if it looks like focusing on predominantly UK and US issues mentioned, then well duh - also, emphasis on "original purpose". Scarlet A.pngbominationModerator 15:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

some name-dropping[edit]

Penn and Teller (partners of the Koch brothers) might take issue with your assertion that "reality as a liberal bias." JRCHReason (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
And then again, they might recognize the Stephen Colbert quote, and take it for what it is. I've taken the liberty of moving your comment out from under Armondikov's nearly two-year-old remark, and into its own sub-heading. Re-title it if you like, and welcome! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Simply put...[edit]

When one side is caught being ignorant or stating things that are not entirely true....BANG the other side strides to make them look stupid. To me this is just an era that favors the left more so than the right. WHOM have seen the likes of "their" politicians stating some of the stupidest things in known history..(aka Palin, Beck etc etc).

Opinions in Article on Bias Should be Minimized[edit]

This article should be cleaned up to reflect both talking points rationally. Also the article reads more like a rant than a wiki page. — Unsigned, by: / talk

I don't see your edits as rational. Please explain why you're removing the part with conservative pundits and why you think it's rational, and please, do not edit war with other users that disagree with you (in which that is clearly an irrational action, counterproductive to your pearl-clutching emphasis on rationality). БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 03:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
We're not Wikipedia. If something is stupid, we make fun of it. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Ninja'd: Reading this again, you don't seem to understand that we're not diet Wikipedia. Lambasting conservative pundits who sling around the term "liberal bias" towards views they don't agree with (which do happen, as further down in the article source effectively) is pretty much our schtick here, and at no point did we ever say we were aiming for a neutral pov, even talked about in this article. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 03:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@Azenth Define "Liberal" for me. It's an odd request but humor me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@Azenth One more thing I forgot to mention, if you have a grievance about edits to a certain article, please keep discussion of those grievances to the article's corresponding talkpage. It makes things simpler, and that way we don't have to go jumping to many different articles during one conversation. Thanks. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini I will keep that in mind. I also do not disagree with having edge or opinion in the article - I only wish for a wiki based on rationality to use rational argument rather than woo. Appealing to emotion is what led to this wiki being needed in the first place - I left untouched the rest of the article and simply asked that certain parts be revised later in the talk page. Azenth 03:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
We do would rather have a priority on valid sources than spouting out "lel snark" but if sources and evidence are already there, we'll probably take on that tone, which is what the article does. I don't think you should get rid of the points though, because I think they add further elaboration on the point attempting to be made in the article. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 04:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course, if there are things with an actual liberal bias (which do in fact exist) and not just conservative pundits who don't know what they're talking about slanting organizations that disagree with them, you are free to list it in the article. Though considering how frequently the term is thrown around, you're hard-pressed to find a legit case. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 03:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed and Occupy Democrats are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm sure somebody who hangs out in left-wing spheres more than I do could do better. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini Sites like Occupy Democrats used to be my scene until mid-2016 when I got fed up with the partisan bullcrap and hypocrisy and left. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I can also think of ThinkProgress as well. There's also the anti-GMO fear-mongering that's associated with both wings but it's still pretty prominent among left-wingers. I do think the article should go into detail about the flaws of liberal bias, which includes repeating bad talking points (such as the talking point that Republican tax package in 2017 making millions of families pay more taxes when that's not quite true and falling in the same trap as conservatives (generalizing a kooky statement on Twitter as representative of conservatives even if the statement doesn't really say much about conservatism itself I'd imagine). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I just thought I should chime in...[edit]

As my username says: I'm not a liberal. I enjoy the science based articles, and, yes, I'm an atheist, and enjoy doing annotated biblical things and putting funny quotes on articles. I originally did them with just my IP until someone told me to join. So I did. Anyway, my boring backstory out of the way, politics, voting preferences, and basically anything that isn't math is unprovable. Saying one conservative theory is better than one liberal theory on the same issue is a non-starter, because it assumes that there is some unalterable proven thing, which simply, does not exist. It all amounts to a nonsensical fight over what we choose. This isn't the same as Noah's Ark didn't exist. This is concrete and real, and not some ridiculous story in the past. People (and, by this, I mean the general population of a given state) tend to do better under some people than others. There are so many other subtle factors to consider than that. Anyway, if the people at RW can't understand such a basic concept as this (past some ridiculous black slave/white American owner equivalency) then I'll just keep annotating the Bible. I intend to annotate the entire thing lol. Best regards - Notaliberalnosrs (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Notaliberalnosrs I'll make the same request of you that I made above. Define "Liberalism" for me. What are it's defining traits? How does it handle social, economic, and foreign policy issues? Which exact sub-type are you referring to? Are you even aware that there are sub-types of Liberalism, just as with any political ideology? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Arguably, every thing is math around us, and predictions made based on science are based on very rigorous research on the subject, where we tested and eventually understood phenomenon built on centuries of unexaminations. Saying anything that isn't math isn't "provable" is naive. Additionally, all the Bible is is simply a work of fiction, annotating and basing off that onto reality often doesn't get you very far. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 18:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)