Objectivity and bias in media

#21

Trump didn’t just kick out a reporter for asking a question though did he? It’s not like he called on a journalist to ask a question and then kicked him out because he didn’t like the question.

But one would not get that impression from reading the way you present what happened. Which is part of the problem with most of the media, they want to cast events in as negative as possible light to disparage Trump. Omitting facts that would put things in context, or omitting important stories altogether if they don’t fit their narrative.

1 Like
#22

No, you can lump them together and they’re all unreliable. Maybe it’s more accurate to say their problems with revenue are driving them, forcing them to slant their opinions - true for all legacy media whether print, television, or radio. Those channels are fighting for financial survival while brand new news channels open up like daily on youtube.

The last time I looked at “fact check” websites they, too, slanted things and all the slant went one way.

Here seems like a good place to inject an old piece of wisdom that’s as true today as it was when it was recorded:

2 Likes
#23

Your HuffPost is showing.

4 Likes
#24

Maybe the bigger problem has always been that the legacy media wants to be in the midst of history making, they want to be conspicuously in the eye of the history hurricane.

The legacy media in the US has always striven to present news in a way that fits an overall editorial narrative. That overall narrative can be seen as the best fit to history as their managing editors see it developing and thus the path that guarantees them the most footnotes when history is told. If they can define that narrative then obviously they define the eye; it’s not like they have zero incentive to be partisan.

Example. Watch a history documentary until the credits roll. See British Pathe cited? See AP cited? See the Reuters cite scroll down the screen? That’s where they want to be seen in 75 years.

NYT, WaPo, LAT, PBS, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, all of them. At least Fox is tongue in cheek about it, calling itself “fair and balanced.”

Maybe the only straight news channel in the US is C-SPAN and it’s on television. C-SPAN records events with no comment.

1 Like
#25

Not even close in comparison.

Trump and the media are openly hostile with each other but the most he really does is to go after them in rallies.

Obama, on the other hand was a terror with the press, primarily Fox News, who they labeled a political enemy (as opposed to enemy of the people) keeping them from interviewing members of his administration, blocking certain reporters, spying on reporters, going after records of Fox reporters to find out who they talked to and on and on.

Perhaps Trump will do worse eventually but it’s not a contest thus far.

3 Likes
#26

So if CNN reports that 2 + 2 = 4, you won’t believe it because it’s on CNN?

#27

Which means what to you exactly? Please explain.

#28
#29

Unfortunately, CNN is highly unlikely to report 2 + 2 = 4. That’s just not their style. More like 2 + 2 = 2,397.

1 Like
#30

CNN doesn’t leave it at that, though. CNN will take the fact that two plus two is four and use that to say that Trump believes that INSTEAD 2 - (-2) = 4 and THAT means Trump is evil.

He believes in negative numbers, just like white supremacists. The Saudis believe in negative numbers, too. And who’s the biggest user of negative numbers? VLADIMIR PUTIN !!!

Or similar.

3 Likes
#31

I watched the Yankees play the Mariners on Fox today. They reported that the Yankees won 3-1. But it was on Fox, so can’t trust that.

How does that read?

#32

Sorry, sports metaphors are the sure sign of a political hack. :sunglasses:

#33

Probably. But hey, if it’s on MSM it can’t be believed right?

Life is much easier when you can just make things up and deny whatever you don’t want to be true. I’m gonna roll with that for a while.

#34

Why not? That’s how the MSM rolls these days.

1 Like
#35

The smart money is definitely on this side of the bet. If you’re not thinking for yourself, you’re likely not thinking at all.

#36

What is mainstream anyways? How are we deciding what’s mainstream? size of audience? can we define this?

#37

This is a legitimate question. For example, CNN’s audience is shrinking rapidly.

#38

What sites are considered mainstream? I’m asking this in seriousness because I don’t know which media outlets fall under that umbrella…

#39

You’re joking but actually you’re not far off.

These days I don’t believe any analysis or opinion or clickbait piece I read in any MSM channel. I assume it’s another example of their TDS causing them to state that 2 + 2 = 5.

It’s working out pretty well, you know. They screamed for more than two years that Trump was a traitor. Wasn’t true. He colluded with Russia was a daily thing, wasn’t true. They screamed that Mueller would pull him up on obstruction charges. Didn’t happen. The MSM was all in against Kavanaugh, they were wrong. Duke lacrosse players, wrong. Covington kids, wrong. China trade war, wrong. Tax cuts would kill the economy, wrong. Trump is a racist, wrong.

Who in the wide world of sports would still believe they’re truth peddlers?

2 Likes
#40

From today’s digital edition of the nation’s newspaper, WaPo, whose motto is “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

One might come away thinking that President Trump is colluding with a foreign government to get reelected, that he’s corrupt, and that he’s a traitor. No worries, though. Totally evenhanded. :roll: