CNBC's House of Cards Special

CNBC would not be my choice of stations to carry an unbiased report on this subject.

So, I ask you.

Liberal victimology or factual and even handed?

 

I agree. I watch CNBC enough to know that it is very much pro-big corporations, pro-rich people, definitely a Republican kind of channel as it does not favor the middle- and working-class folks.

 

Okay children, let's get grown-up again.

Ken, CNBC's analysts largely come from solid Keynsian presuppositions/theorists. You know better than that. I think you've been watching too much Kudlow :laugh:

 

Enough of the personal comments and squabbles.

Stay on the topic.

 

Let's try this and see if it works: Anyone who watches CNBC knows that it is not pro-big corporations, pro-rich people, definitely a Republican kind of channel as it does not favor the middle- and working-class folks.

As with all news channels, CNBC has its problems, and this story may or may not be accurate. But let's at least note the true nature of CNBC.

 

Isn't our view of television networks, websites, newspapers, etc always based on our own pre-conceived bias? Is it not, in actuality a matter of perception?

 

It can be. But as we know, perception does not often match the facts, and the more one is invested in a conclusion, the more likely they are to see their conclusion justified regardless of the facts.

Perception is not reality.

Some people will claim that a network is biased because they disagree with their conclusions. In some cases, that claim will be right, but not because they disagree with conclusions, but because they are actually biased.

Studies during the last election showed a clear bias in the MSM by studying positive and negative stories about the respective candidates. So someone might say, "X network is biased because they told a bad story about McCain." But that in and of itself is not evidence of bias.

In this case, someone can claim that CNBC is pro-big corporations and pro-rich (which I am not sure why that would be bad, even if it were true), but the facts don't really bear that out it seems to me. That is a conclusion based on one's own biases, rather than on an objective study of the facts.

Now if someone has a story or a study to back up this theory, that would be worth looking at. But one hasn't been offered.

 

Is the phrase in bold not indicative of that fact that we see any supposed 'facts' from our own bias?

Bias is not bad - but it is a fact. What seems pro-big corporation to one may not seem that way at all to another.

Who is right? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

Yes, but bias doesn't negate the facts. We have to see that there are two categories here: perception and reality. They may be the same, they may not be.

But again, the facts are the facts. It is either pro-big corporation or not. And on a network, programs may differ. That someone perceives something as pro big business (or pro whatever) could not be less relevant to the issue. They may need to change their perception.

Perhaps, but this is often a copout made out of political correctness.