False Equivilence and Logical Fallacies.

[rangerx]

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

It seemed extremely biased to me, and not just reporting on a story in a negative light.

 

16 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I fail to see how saying that speculative reporting on Trump's thoughts is a false equivelance. I didn't equate it to anything.

And yet you did, by equating bias to accusations of racism.

Had you left it at extreme bias, your point would stand without contention. But no. Instead undermined it by lumping it in with something else entirely, if not just negative reporting.

This thread is about false equivalence, not a one-off report by one media outlet. What is the false equivalence in your comment?
 

Never mind. It's probably better to just drop it, because it's off topic anyway.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, rangerx said:

Some people. Not most people. That's a false equivalence.

Besides that, while it may be wrong to report what Trump may be thinking, it's reporting what Trump says and does that really matters. Another false equivalence.

Who is claiming reporting what someone says or does is equivalent to speculating what someone is thinking based on no evidence? 

Yes that would be a false equivalence...if anyone had said or implied it. No one did.

Cuomo was, absolutely, participating in false news when he did that, and should be ashamed of himself. There is no justification for it, and he hurts CNN's credibility along with his own.

And no, "but it's Trump" does not justify it.

[rangerx]

52 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Who is claiming reporting what someone says or does is equivalent to speculating what someone is thinking based on no evidence? 

Yes that would be a false equivalence...if anyone had said or implied it. No one did.

Cuomo was, absolutely, participating in false news when he did that, and should be ashamed of himself. There is no justification for it, and he hurts CNN's credibility along with his own.

And no, "but it's Trump" does not justify it.

I'm not the one who brought it up the Cuomo example, maybe you can discuss that with Raider in another thread because it's off topic here.

If they claim they hadn't implied it was a false equivalence, why bring it up in the first place? It's off topic if not a bait-and-switch tactic to derail the dialog.

Whataboutism perhaps? In that case is just another form of false equivalence whether it was implied or not.

Edited November 2, 2018 by rangerx
grammar and spelling

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Who is claiming reporting what someone says or does is equivalent to speculating what someone is thinking based on no evidence? 

Yes that would be a false equivalence...if anyone had said or implied it. No one did.

Cuomo was, absolutely, participating in false news when he did that, and should be ashamed of himself. There is no justification for it, and he hurts CNN's credibility along with his own.

And no, "but it's Trump" does not justify it.

Just stop watching CNN if you don't like it. The situation is that simple. CNN has no legitimate influence or power over your life. You can just ignore it. Govt officials on the other hand have power and influence. Seems like myopic vision to me that you are constantly complaining about CNN. To my knowledge no one participating in these political discussion watches CNN. They are irrelevant. 

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Just stop watching CNN if you don't like it. The situation is that simple. CNN has no legitimate influence or power over your life. You can just ignore it. Govt officials on the other hand have power and influence. Seems like myopic vision to me that you are constantly complaining about CNN. To my knowledge no one participating in these political discussion watches CNN. They are irrelevant. 

Good point.

I'm going to apply the same thing to Fox news and stop complaining about it.

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Just stop watching CNN if you don't like it. The situation is that simple. CNN has no legitimate influence or power over your life. You can just ignore it. Govt officials on the other hand have power and influence. Seems like myopic vision to me that you are constantly complaining about CNN. To my knowledge no one participating in these political discussion watches CNN. They are irrelevant. 

I don't believe that's true. I have a lot of respect for the power of the free (and otherwise) press and have concerns about where they are heading. In some respects they have more power and influence than some levels of government, and have influence over all levels.

From Wiki on CNN:

As of August 2010, CNN is available in over 100 million U.S. households.^[6] Broadcast coverage of the U.S. channel extends to over 890,000 American hotel rooms,^[6] as well as carriage on subscription providers throughout Canada. As of July 2015, CNN is available to about 96,374,000 pay-television households (82.8% of households with at least one television set) in the United States.^[7] Globally, CNN programming airs through CNN International, which can be seen by viewers in over 212 countries and territories.^[8]

[CharonY]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't believe that's true. I have a lot of respect for the power of the free (and otherwise) press and have concerns about where they are heading. In some respects they have more power and influence than some levels of government, and have influence over all levels.

From Wiki on CNN:

As of August 2010, CNN is available in over 100 million U.S. households.^[6] Broadcast coverage of the U.S. channel extends to over 890,000 American hotel rooms,^[6] as well as carriage on subscription providers throughout Canada. As of July 2015, CNN is available to about 96,374,000 pay-television households (82.8% of households with at least one television set) in the United States.^[7] Globally, CNN programming airs through CNN International, which can be seen by viewers in over 212 countries and territories.^[8]

Last time ratings were brought up, CNN had half the viewership of Fox News. That being said, that was not Ten oz's broader point. The real issue are the policies that are being reported on (even if you do not like the style) rather than the report itself. 

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't believe that's true. I have a lot of respect for the power of the free (and otherwise) press and have concerns about where they are heading. In some respects they have more power and influence than some levels of government, and have influence over all levels.

Quote

 

In fact, the top 25 cable news programs for the 2nd quarter in total viewers aired on Fox News or on MSNBC.

CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time, which premiered June 4, was CNN’s most-watched show for the quarter (1.04 million viewers), ranking No. 26.

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/the-top-cable-news-programs-in-q2-2018-were/368822

 

You have targeted Cuomo in several of your posts referencing CNN. Coumo is the 26th most watched cable news media personality here in the U.S.. CNN doesn't have a single top 25 rated news program. I don't think that warrants the suggestion that they have influence and power equivalent to elected officials. Not in any respects. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You have targeted Cuomo in several of your posts referencing CNN. Coumo is the 26th most watched cable news media personality here in the U.S.. CNN doesn't have a single top 25 rated news program. I don't think that warrants the suggestion that they have influence and power equivalent to elected officials. Not in any respects. 

OK. I guess I won't suggest that then...whatever it means...and just stick with what I wrote...which is most obviously true. The press has a significant and important influence over our lives, and when they choose to distort the truth they do all of us a disservice.

Edited November 3, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

OK. I guess I won't suggest that then...whatever it means...and just stick with what I wrote...which is most obviously true. The press has a significant and important influence over our lives, and when they choose to distort the truth they do all of us a disservice.

You aren't criticizing the press as a whole. Lots of jouranlism out there which  hasn't come up in this conversation. You are specifically criticizing CNN. It is Trump who is making lifetime appointments, Trump who is changing trade deals, Trump who is ordering troops to the border for asylum seekers, and etc. Bringing up things you heard some lowly rated pundit say on CNN is not an equivalent counter balancing point to thing done by the U.S. govt. You keep attempting to draw these equivalencies between groups with disproportionate levels of audience and power. 

Just stop watching CNN. Problem solved. We are all adults here. No one is forcing you to watch anything you don't like. Lots of stuff on TV I am sure I would hate. The NRA has its own TV channel and neither watch it or complain about it. 

20 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Good point.

I'm going to apply the same thing to Fox news and stop complaining about it.

Seems straight forward me. No reason to reward cable shows you don't like with viewership. I am not even attempting to recommend a specific alternative which matches my world view. Just find something you feel reasonably comfortable with. Debating difficult problems through the lense of which 15 minute cable news segment we watched is stupid. 

I think a lot of people, not you or J.C. nessecarily, have become so accustom to hearing about how both sides feel that they don't trust themselves to form opinions without knowing what others are saying. I don't need to check with FoxNews before committing to a point of view as if to ensure I am not accidentally siding with Republicans or whatever. If I look into an issue and come to a conclusion which mirrors that of Paul Ryan than oh well I guess on that issue I am a bit more conservative. One shouldn't lean on cable news for perspective. News provides information but we all should be attempting to disgust that information for ourselves. 

Edited November 3, 2018 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You aren't criticizing the press as a whole. Lots of jouranlism out there which  hasn't come up in this conversation. You are specifically criticizing CNN. It is Trump who is making lifetime appointments, Trump who is changing trade deals, Trump who is ordering troops to the border for asylum seekers, and etc. Bringing up things you heard some lowly rated pundit say on CNN is not an equivalent counter balancing point to thing done by the U.S. govt. You keep attempting to draw these equivalencies between groups with disproportionate levels of audience and power. 

Just stop watching CNN. Problem solved. We are all adults here. No one is forcing you to watch anything you don't like. Lots of stuff on TV I am sure I would hate. The NRA has its own TV channel and neither watch it or complain about it. 

Seems straight forward me. No reason to reward cable shows you don't like with viewership. I am not even attempting to recommend a specific alternative which matches my world view. Just find something you feel reasonably comfortable with. Debating difficult problems through the lense of which 15 minute cable news segment we watched is stupid. 

I think a lot of people, not you or J.C. nessecarily, have become so accustom to hearing about how both sides feel that they don't trust themselves to form opinions without knowing what others are saying. I don't need to check with FoxNews before committing to a point of view as if to ensure I am not accidentally siding with Republicans or whatever. If I look into an issue and come to a conclusion which mirrors that of Paul Ryan than oh well I guess on that issue I am a bit more conservative. One shouldn't lean on cable news for perspective. News provides information but we all should be attempting to disgust that information for ourselves. 

I am to some degree, including in other threads you have participated in. You just don't pick up on it. No one questioned my criticism of Fox News. It seems to be well accepted even by them themselves that they serve a Republican agenda. With nothing for me to reply to or clarify...why would I elaborate? String Junky has commented on my concerns with the press in general, and has similar concerns.

Stop telling me what not to watch. CNN doesn't change if I stop watching. If at some point I wish to look at gun control in depth, I would absolutely look into more of what the NRA is saying. I understand some of their point of view...I just don't agree with it. 

If you only watch what you wish to hear...you end up with Trump as your President...I'm sure you would have scoffed at that suggestion 3 years ago...as would have I.

You underestimate the power of the press and media.

Edited November 3, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Stop telling me what not to watch. CNN doesn't change if I stop watching.

If one person stops watching, you’re quite right. No change. 

However, if ENOUGH one persons stop watching, change becomes the only possible result. 

[Ten oz]

58 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No one questioned my criticism of Fox News.

Numerous FoxNews employees work in the current  administration. Comparing FoxNews directly to CNN is a falls equivalency. When Democrats are in power they don't hire CNN staff members to come work for them as Republicans do with FoxNews. Plus FoxNews gets double CNN's ratings and has a more partisan audience. All things I have already provided you citiations for. CNN may very well be garbage news but it is not the media arm of the Democratic Party as FoxNews is the Republican Party. If you called CNN garbage and left it at that I don't think anyone would bother to respond. It is the equivalency between CNN and FoxNews which is being debated. 

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

CNN doesn't change if I stop watching.

Actually it would. CNN is a TV Channel and like all channels it needs ratings. If people stopped tuning in they would have no choice but to change or go out of business. You watching CNN helps CNN's ratings. You are literally reinforcing via viewership support (the only support they care about) the very thing you are against. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If at some point I wish to look at gun control in depth, I would absolutely look into more of what the NRA is saying. I understand some of their point of view...I just don't agree with it. 

I personally don't evaluate political issues that way. I don't care what anyone on television (NRA TV, CNN, HBO, etc) says about Gun Control. Everyone who hosts a show on TV is performer first  and foremost. I don't care about their performances. I care about actual laws on the books, what additions or changes are being proposed, the legal challenges, and so on. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You underestimate the power of the press and media.

I think you underestimate the impact of voter suppression and Russia's involvement in the election. Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million. Only Tens of thousands of votes secured Trump's electoral win in an election where over 130 million people voted. If you accept that voter suppression and Russia impacted even just .02% of the vote than you should understand that is what put Trump in the White House and not CNN. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Numerous FoxNews employees work in the current  administration. Comparing FoxNews directly to CNN is a falls equivalency. When Democrats are in power they don't hire CNN staff members to come work for them as Republicans do with FoxNews. Plus FoxNews gets double CNN's ratings and has a more partisan audience. All things I have already provided you citiations for. CNN may very well be garbage news but it is not the media arm of the Democratic Party as FoxNews is the Republican Party. If you called CNN garbage and left it at that I don't think anyone would bother to respond. It is the equivalency between CNN and FoxNews which is being debated. 

 

Actually it would. CNN is a TV Channel and like all channels it needs ratings. If people stopped tuning in they would have no choice but to change or go out of business. You watching CNN helps CNN's ratings. You are literally reinforcing via viewership support (the only support they care about) the very thing you are against. 

I personally don't evaluate political issues that way. I don't care what anyone on television (NRA TV, CNN, HBO, etc) says about Gun Control. Everyone who hosts a show on TV is performer first  and foremost. I don't care about their performances. I care about actual laws on the books, what additions or changes are being proposed, the legal challenges, and so on. 

I think you underestimate the impact of voter suppression and Russia's involvement in the election. Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million. Only Tens of thousands of votes secured Trump's electoral win in an election where over 130 million people voted. If you accept that voter suppression and Russia impacted even just .02% of the vote than you should understand that is what put Trump in the White House and not CNN. 

Can you not see how ridiculous that second bolded statement is? Even if it was just .02% (what was the voter suppression in Florida on criminal ineligibility alone?) and that was enough to make the difference, why could it not have been from other factors as well? Are you thinking the popular press, or even CNN alone, has less than a .02% effect?

You underestimate the power of the press. (Not trying to discourage the first bolded, which is commendable)

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Can you not see how ridiculous that second bolded statement is? Even if it was just .02% (what was the voter suppression in Florida on criminal ineligibility alone?) and that was enough to make the difference, why could it not have been from other factors as well? Are you thinking the popular press, or even CNN alone, has less than a .02% effect?

You underestimate the power of the press. (Not trying to discourage the first bolded, which is commendable)

CNN's average audience is less than a million people nationally. In Florida alone 1.5 million people were barred from voting for past legal charges alone. Never mind other forms of voter suppression like manipulation of the location & hours of voter sites, state prescribed voter ID laws, and etc. Trump won Florida by 100k votes. I absolutely think voter suppression efforts matter more than CNN. If we are only talking felons who can't vote just that number is 6 million people and far greater than CNN's dismissal audience. 

Quote

2017 was CNN’s most-watched year in network history. The 779,000 total viewer average (No. 5 across all of basic cable) is up +3 percent from 2016. Here

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

CNN's average audience is less than a million people nationally. In Florida alone 1.5 million people were barred from voting for past legal charges alone. Never mind other forms of voter suppression like manipulation of the location & hours of voter sites, state prescribed voter ID laws, and etc. Trump won Florida by 100k votes. I absolutely think voter suppression efforts matter more than CNN. If we are only talking felons who can't vote just that number is 6 million people and far greater than CNN's dismissal audience. 

 

Right. My point being that both have significance well above .02%

 

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 

I think you underestimate the impact of voter suppression and Russia's involvement in the election. 

So I could say it is you who underestimate both, not me, but I know from previous threads that's not true. You have a good grasp of voter suppression. I read what you say,

You just underestimate the power of the press and make false claims and try to distort what I say.

Edited November 3, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

42 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Right. My point being that both have significance well above .02%

 

So I could say it is you who underestimate both, not me, but I know from previous threads that's not true. You have a good grasp of voter suppression. I read what you say,

You just underestimate the power of the press and make false claims and try to distort what I say.

I don't believe CNN has any impact. The .02% made was the low bar for what it would have taken for voter supression and Russia influence. You are the one push the CNN stuff. You need your on means of outlining the influence they have. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I don't believe CNN has any impact. The .02% made was the low bar for what it would have taken for voter supression and Russia influence. You are the one push the CNN stuff. You need your on means of outlining the influence they have. 

Right. So my not watching them would have some impact on them, but they have none whatsoever on voters.

Fair enough. We can disagree.

 

[Ten oz]

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Right. So my not watching them would have some impact on them, but they have none whatsoever on voters.

 

 

This is another false equivalency. Your impact on their ratings is not equivalent to the impact you are implying they have on elections. What ever impact you believe they might have it is an indirect one at best. Your impact on their ratings is direct, no middle man. Not allowing people to vote or hacking voting machines in direct. What direct influence are you claiming CNN has? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

20 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

This is another false equivalency. Your impact on their ratings is not equivalent to the impact you are implying they have on elections. What ever impact you believe they might have it is an indirect one at best. Your impact on their ratings is direct, no middle man. Not allowing people to vote or hacking voting machines in direct. What direct influence are you claiming CNN has? 

1. I am not claiming equivalency. I am clearly claiming the opposite. CNN has much more effect on voters than I have on CNN.

2. I realize it is indirect...it is still, clearly again, many, many times my "direct" effect on CNN.

3. I am in favour of ending disenfranchisement of eligible voters. Regardless of the crime they've committed, and regardless of whether they are incarcerated or not. Also regardless of how I think they might vote. I did not underestimate the effect this would have, or had. (when you did with your .02%, I did not buy it, and I knew you knew better...you were busy failing to make a point with it)

4. I did not claim CNN had more impact than voter disenfranchisement. I claimed they had more than .02%, the number you came up with as enough to make the difference in the last election (depending on where counted, I would agree it's enough)

Why are you struggling with this?

Edited November 3, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[rangerx]

59 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

1. I am not claiming equivalency. I am clearly claiming the opposite. CNN has much more effect on voters than I have on CNN.

CNN is an apple and you are an orange. What does that have to do with the OP?

To bring it back on point, by your own admission, FOX has much more effect on voters than CNN, correct? The false equivalency is substituting CNN with MSNBC.

CNN is infinitely more objective than either FOX or MSNBC. Endlessly nitpicking CNN in the absence of context is bias, yet here you are criticizing bias with bias.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, rangerx said:

CNN is an apple and you are an orange. What does that have to do with the OP?

To bring it back on point, by your own admission, FOX has much more effect on voters than CNN, correct? The false equivalency is substituting CNN with MSNBC.

CNN is infinitely more objective than either FOX or MSNBC. Endlessly nitpicking CNN in the absence of context is bias, yet here you are criticizing bias with bias.

Nice word salad...

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Nice word salad...

Got anything better than a facetious insult?
 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, rangerx said:

Got anything better than a facetious insult?
 

You would prefer an incoherent rant?

If that was your best effort I apologize, but right now I think you are capable of better.

Bring up a point properly and I will clarify or discuss it, but I'm not replying to something you make no effort at, except to disparage.

Edited November 3, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[rangerx]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You would prefer an incoherent rant?

If that was your best effort I apologize, but right now I think you are capable of better.

Bring up a point properly and I will clarify or discuss it, but I'm not replying to something you make no effort at, except to disparage.

Hogwash.

My point was clear as day. If you don't understand something about it, state it.

Cut with this insulting my intelligence bullshit.