Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
26 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Bias and framing rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The headline for this New York Times article is, "Mike Pence Hints at Trump's Muslim Ban Extending to Other Religions."

When you read that, what do you think? I think the most natural inference is that Trump/Pence have identified other "suspicious" religions, obviously other than Christianity or Judaism, and are considering banning immigration from those as well.

In fact, a more accurate headline would be, "Mike Pence Reaffirms that Immigration Ban Will be National/Regional and not Just on Muslims." What Pence is taking about in the interview -- and IIRC it's been Trump policy for a while now, is that Trump is no longer talking about banning Muslims per se, but banning immigration from countries/regions that are significantly compromised by terrorism. That is, he's removing religion as a trigger -- not extending it to other religions, other than in a highly literalistic sense.

11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josiah Fiscus
United States
Pittsburgh (Monroeville)
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Clickbait: It's not just for websites anymore!
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adrian Hague
United Kingdom
Bristol
Bristol
flag msg tools
badge
RAWKET LAWNCHA!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Agreed, it's more than a bit of a stretch, and borders on almost wilful mis-reporting. Sadly, both sides of the debate a guilty of this.

We had a very similar thing over here with the Brexit vote. It got to the point where the British were totally unable to make an informed decision, due to the hyperbole of the political entities involved, multiplied by the wilfully inaccurate reporting of media (again, both sides were as bad as each other).
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
I'm shocked -- SHOCKED -- to find the New York Times distorting an issue in order to harm the Republican candidate!

shake


We should run this by a less biased site, like The Young Turks.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think we've reached a point where there are virtually no unbiased sources remaining. They all have an agenda and pander to a selected demographic. The most likely source with the least bias are foreign news sources like the BBC.

I briefly watch "The 5" yesterday and they were talking about the idiot climbing Trump Tower. They were trying to be "funny" (epic fail) and were making the same five jokes. Two of which had to do with AGW? I guess the opportunity to proselytize was more important than the humor. Watching I lazily threw out better quips than that. "I wonder if his chin-beard will get caught in a suction cup?" They seemed to think that if they kept repeating them they would suddenly become funny...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 8 27 Feb - 1 Mar 2015 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk Essex Games 27 Jul '15
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AdrianPHague wrote:
Agreed, it's more than a bit of a stretch, and borders on almost wilful mis-reporting. Sadly, both sides of the debate a guilty of this.

We had a very similar thing over here with the Brexit vote. It got to the point where the British were totally unable to make an informed decision, due to the hyperbole of the political entities involved, multiplied by the wilfully inaccurate reporting of media (again, both sides were as bad as each other).


On Brexit, no, they really weren't.

Both sides played the fear card (on economic collapse or overrun by immigrants if you want the extreme cases). But those were based on guessing the future. But only one side went round in a bus with a brazen lie (that the EU cost 350 million ignoring what money came back) on its side. And engaged in multiple accounting of where even that fictitious saving would be spent. (And now denies using that figure despite photographs standing next to that bus.)

And for those watching in the US, Trump is your Brexit. Only much worse.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 8 27 Feb - 1 Mar 2015 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk Essex Games 27 Jul '15
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rcbevco wrote:
I think we've reached a point where there are virtually no unbiased sources remaining. They all have an agenda and pander to a selected demographic. The most likely source with the least bias are foreign news sources like the BBC.


The BBC's institutional bias is in favour of the status quo. Not an entirely unreasonable bias in many cases, but still a bias.

Except there are at least two exceptions. One is the standard press wanting reaction. Which is a reason why when he was still electorally irrelevant Nigel Farage got many more invitations because he would be guaranteed to make "provocative" comments. (Often provocative because plain untrue, but still good ratings.) The other is the false equivalence for "balance". Fine for a typical political issue with views on both sides. Lousy for scientific topics - but the average arts graduate BBC producer can't tell which side of the argument is the flat earth.

(That sounds quite critical of the BBC, and perhaps it is. But it's still an institution we're a lot better off with, not only because of the dreadful nature of others - though other TV news can be as good, in part because political balance is mandatory.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 8 27 Feb - 1 Mar 2015 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk Essex Games 27 Jul '15
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Wow, that's terrible.


What is? That the BBC has a bias in favour of the status quo, but is scrupulous about balance between parties? Rather than the Fox News "what's good for Rupert Murdoch?" standard, with a flagrant disregard for reality (there only being once place balance appears - in their slogan).

It's actually interesting to compare Sky News. Which is Murdoch's UK TV news. It's not bad. I'm not a regular viewer, but it's comparable with the BBC. (As are ITV and Channel 4.) It's completely not Fox. Because it legally couldn't be. Murdoch's paper press, as partisan as he likes - and is.

Or was it that the BBC, for all its grandeur, chases ratings? Like everyone else (not as much as some).

Or something else?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adrian Hague
United Kingdom
Bristol
Bristol
flag msg tools
badge
RAWKET LAWNCHA!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dearlove wrote:
On Brexit, no, they really weren't.

Whilst I agree with your characterisation on the whole, the media were alo firmly intent on labelling Brexiters as racist (esp. Channel 4 news and the Guardian). This was not true in all cases.

Disclosure: I voted remain, but was very disappointed by the hyperbole of both sides.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
I expect BJ meant the headline. Can't see him watching the BBC.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
myopia wrote:
I expect BJ meant the headline. Can't see him watching the BBC.


Yeah he clearly meant the OP.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
It's a clumsy headline, no doubt, but I fail to see what the furor is all about. Pence did say that if the Syrians seeking immigration to the US were Christians or Jews, they would be vetted in the same way as Muslims from Syria. At least that's how I read it, and the headline attempts to indicate that. Personally, I would have written "Trump's immigration ban would cover all religions" or "Trump's immigration ban not just limited to Muslims from Syria."

The problem is that headline writers are usually failed reporters and barely-competent editors. At least at bigger organizations like the fucking NYTimes, may they all rot in hell.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Henry
United States
Manvel
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
It's a clumsy headline, no doubt, but I fail to see what the furor is all about. Pence did say that if the Syrians seeking immigration to the US were Christians or Jews, they would be vetted in the same way as Muslims from Syria. At least that's how I read it, and the headline attempts to indicate that. Personally, I would have written "Trump's immigration ban would cover all religions" or "Trump's immigration ban not just limited to Muslims from Syria."

The problem is that headline writers are usually failed reporters and barely-competent editors. At least at bigger organizations like the fucking NYTimes, may they all rot in hell.

But he didn't say "we're expanding it to Christians and Jews too." He was asked if it would apply to ANYONE, even if they were Christian or Jewish. He said yes. I'm sure he'd have said it applies to Atheists too. They aren't expanding it to other religions--they're expanding it to everyone.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Erik17 wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
It's a clumsy headline, no doubt, but I fail to see what the furor is all about. Pence did say that if the Syrians seeking immigration to the US were Christians or Jews, they would be vetted in the same way as Muslims from Syria. At least that's how I read it, and the headline attempts to indicate that. Personally, I would have written "Trump's immigration ban would cover all religions" or "Trump's immigration ban not just limited to Muslims from Syria."

The problem is that headline writers are usually failed reporters and barely-competent editors. At least at bigger organizations like the fucking NYTimes, may they all rot in hell.

But he didn't say "we're expanding it to Christians and Jews too." He was asked if it would apply to ANYONE, even if they were Christian or Jewish. He said yes. I'm sure he'd have said it applies to Atheists too. They aren't expanding it to other religions--they're expanding it to everyone.

True, but that's a bit nitpicky. Hence my second suggested headline.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chapel
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"Don't be humble... you're not that great."
Avatar
mb
That was definitely a weaselly article title.

Pence/Trump policies are loony enough to stand on their own lack of merits, no need to cloud it through propagandized wording.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xuzu Horror
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
That was definitely a weaselly article title.

Pence/Trump policies are loony enough to stand on their own lack of merits, no need to cloud it through propagandized wording.


Agreed.

And, as far as the policy, I have been saying for a long time how I was so surprised he'd play the religious discrimination card when he could have just banned certain countries - especially since he wanted to back religious freedom at the same time as discriminate, which was crazy.

It doesn't make the initial policy go away just because he realized how hypocritical it was, but it will be easier for the mainstream GOP to back.

It's why people should be careful before throwing out extreme solutions to a problem.

And, note that this does not mean I support (or do not support) his new policy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 8 27 Feb - 1 Mar 2015 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk Essex Games 27 Jul '15
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
myopia wrote:
I expect BJ meant the headline. Can't see him watching the BBC.


Hey, I've watched the BBC before! I get more opportunity to read their website though.

I was referring to the OP in my post though, you were right about that.


OK. Could have been a bit clearer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
When you read that, what do you think?


that they realized that their asshole base who wants this shit will identify any sufficient Arab-looking dude as a terrorist regardless of their religious beliefs, so this way they get to pretend they're not bigots by extending the banhammer against Syrian Christians and the like by saying "look, we just *don't know* if you're telling the truth about not being Muslims"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


Chad_Ellis wrote:
The headline for this New York Times article is, "Mike Pence Hints at Trump's Muslim Ban Extending to Other Religions."

When you read that, what do you think? I think the most natural inference is that Trump/Pence have identified other "suspicious" religions, obviously other than Christianity or Judaism, and are considering banning immigration from those as well.

In fact, a more accurate headline would be, "Mike Pence Reaffirms that Immigration Ban Will be National/Regional and not Just on Muslims." What Pence is taking about in the interview -- and IIRC it's been Trump policy for a while now, is that Trump is no longer talking about banning Muslims per se, but banning immigration from countries/regions that are significantly compromised by terrorism. That is, he's removing religion as a trigger -- not extending it to other religions, other than in a highly literalistic sense.

No, Mike Pence inadvertently made a Freudian Dominionist slip of the tongue because Dominionists not only believe the revisionist fiction that America was established as a Christian nation but also that the the protections of the U.S. Constitution and freedoms of the Bill of Rights are afforded only to Christians of their ilk. (Dominionists do not consider Christians who tolerate LGBT folks, support gay rights, and/ot support a woman's right to have a legal abortion to be true Christians.)

Dominionists like David Lane of American Renewal believe that Americans of other religions should give up their faiths and convert to Christianity in order to not only be able to be allowed to remain here in the United States but also to be considered a bonafide U.S. citizen.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Headlines are often problematic. They aren't written by the authors of the articles. I tend to think it's more often because someone writes something with one line of thought in their heads and doesn't show it to enough other people to see the other ways it could be read. I do have sympathy for those who have to communicate complex ideas in a limited number of words; I suspect it's harder than it seems, until you try it.

The headline writer would probably have written something like, Mike Pence Hints at Trump’s Muslim Ban Extending to People of Other Religions, if not for a word/space limitation. They made a bad decision about what to elide, but I'd need further evidence to be convinced that the reason is bias.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
Headlines are often problematic. They aren't written by the authors of the articles. I tend to think it's more often because someone writes something with one line of thought in their heads and doesn't show it to enough other people to see the other ways it could be read. I do have sympathy for those who have to communicate complex ideas in a limited number of words; I suspect it's harder than it seems, until you try it.

The headline writer would probably have written something like, Mike Pence Hints at Trump’s Muslim Ban Extending to People of Other Religions, if not for a word/space limitation. They made a bad decision about what to elide, but I'd need further evidence to be convinced that the reason is bias.

I already explained this to ya: What Mike Pence said inadvertently revealed more about Pence's own mindset than Donald Trump's, because like most Dominionists, Pence believes that the protections of the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms of the Bill of Rights were intended to apply only to Christians of his ilk.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
The headline for this New York Times article is, "Mike Pence Hints at Trump's Muslim Ban Extending to Other Religions."

When you read that, what do you think? I think the most natural inference is that Trump/Pence have identified other "suspicious" religions, obviously other than Christianity or Judaism, and are considering banning immigration from those as well.

In fact, a more accurate headline would be, "Mike Pence Reaffirms that Immigration Ban Will be National/Regional and not Just on Muslims." What Pence is taking about in the interview -- and IIRC it's been Trump policy for a while now, is that Trump is no longer talking about banning Muslims per se, but banning immigration from countries/regions that are significantly compromised by terrorism. That is, he's removing religion as a trigger -- not extending it to other religions, other than in a highly literalistic sense.



I understood that to be his original intention; did you think otherwise?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
I understood that to be his original intention; did you think otherwise?

Trump himself thought otherwise.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.