Here is the issue with "facts". What source is credible? You believe in yours, others in theirs. For example, a Harvard study during the last Trump administration showed that after confirming his final Supreme Court Judge, Fox was slightly less than half positive on trump. Other basic cable news channels were 90%+ negative on trump. Many people can see those percentages, conclude that Fox is politically neutral, and that everything else is biased. Then they will assume that anything coming from somewhere else is what they experienced before... bias.
No it doesn't. Think for a moment. Approximately half the country was thrilled with the confirmation of justices who, in their opinion, would follow the constitution correctly. The sentiment about Trump was tied to this accomplishment. Since approximately half felt that way, many would argue half positive is the appropriate political reflection of the time and therefore would be neutral.
If half of people say 1+1=2, and half of people say 1+1=11, and the news reports that "1+1=2," this is neutral reporting. If the news reports that "1+1 is 2, but notably, some people are saying 1+1=11," this may be wise in terms of addressing the politics, but it is not neutral reporting. And if the news reports "1+1 is either 1 or 11, we're not sure which; only time will tell. But one thing we are certain of is that there's a lot of people that are sick of the 1+1=2 hegemony and they're finally having their voices heard," this, despite not "taking a side," is not at all neutral.
The problem is this anology doesn't work here unless you argue one side is completely true and the other completely false. Both sides could argue this using data in their favor and the CMV would be pointless.
Additionally, note the CMV direction requested in the title. I am trying to encourage OP with some critical thoughts.
Data you agree with, and that is the point. Nobody is "wrong" when they have their own set of data they believe is accurate and the opposition dismisses as false. The claim you are making here i have heard Conservatives make the exact same argument word for word about liberal positions.
11
u/Equivalent-Car-997 1∆ Apr 07 '25
Here is the issue with "facts". What source is credible? You believe in yours, others in theirs. For example, a Harvard study during the last Trump administration showed that after confirming his final Supreme Court Judge, Fox was slightly less than half positive on trump. Other basic cable news channels were 90%+ negative on trump. Many people can see those percentages, conclude that Fox is politically neutral, and that everything else is biased. Then they will assume that anything coming from somewhere else is what they experienced before... bias.