New York Times distortion-bias of comment section...
Posted: Aug 13th, '16, 21:03
So, here's the latest NYT hit piece....they are a bit more effective because they still manage to sound journalistic, compared to some of the more rabid media outlets:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/us/po ... n-gop.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Few months ago, you could read the comments in NYT's section, and see a variety of viewpoints, some anti-Trump, some pro-Trump refuting an article, maybe about 60/40 or 70/30. I just read about 100 comments here, or about 20%, sorted several ways......not a single one was pro-Trump. Now, it's a known phenomenon that there are shady companies out there that are basically paid to shill in comment sections. But there's no way for a comment section to be 100% biased on unless it's done by the people who control it. In this case, it seems clear that either:
- Conservatives have entirely given up on posting in the NYC comment sections
- Conservatives are being heavily censored in the comment sections
- Conservatives are being banned from the comment sections
......or a combination of all of the above. Looks like they are strongly curating the comments:
https://gigaom.com/2015/02/25/while-oth ... pand-them/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Considering there is very clear and documented bias leading to censorship on Twitter, Facebook and Reddit, I'd say its highly likely that the NYT is doing the same.
In contrast, here's a Washington Post article whose comments have a wide variety of political leanings, clearly more left, but right also:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... l#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The mainstream media can be summed up by this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/us/po ... n-gop.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Few months ago, you could read the comments in NYT's section, and see a variety of viewpoints, some anti-Trump, some pro-Trump refuting an article, maybe about 60/40 or 70/30. I just read about 100 comments here, or about 20%, sorted several ways......not a single one was pro-Trump. Now, it's a known phenomenon that there are shady companies out there that are basically paid to shill in comment sections. But there's no way for a comment section to be 100% biased on unless it's done by the people who control it. In this case, it seems clear that either:
- Conservatives have entirely given up on posting in the NYC comment sections
- Conservatives are being heavily censored in the comment sections
- Conservatives are being banned from the comment sections
......or a combination of all of the above. Looks like they are strongly curating the comments:
https://gigaom.com/2015/02/25/while-oth ... pand-them/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Considering there is very clear and documented bias leading to censorship on Twitter, Facebook and Reddit, I'd say its highly likely that the NYT is doing the same.
In contrast, here's a Washington Post article whose comments have a wide variety of political leanings, clearly more left, but right also:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... l#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The mainstream media can be summed up by this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.
Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".
Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.
Groupthink is a construct of social psychology but has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields of communication studies, political science, management, and organizational theory,[1] as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.[2][3]
Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of conservatives versus liberals,[4] or the solitary nature of introverts.[5] However, this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate group decision-making, and might be better explained by the collective confirmation bias of the individual members of the group.
Most of the initial research on groupthink was conducted by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University.[6] Janis published an influential book in 1972, which was revised in 1982.[7][8] Janis used the Bay of Pigs disaster (the failed invasion of Castro's Cuba in 1961) and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 as his two prime case studies. Later studies have evaluated and reformulated his groupthink model.[9][10]