I’m not really sure what you’re talking about at this point. There’s a lot of sarcasm involved. I’m watching some Miami Vice reruns at the moment let’s catch up later.
I shall award you your 100th like 
I was looking at the Colorado shooting to compare the Reports .
CNN …just basically very superficial report . They stated that the shooter had a history of bullying and violence . Not much else about his history.
I guess when you dig deeper , away from the norm…you find out that one of the suspect’s father is an illegal immigrant ; deported twice previously . Is that information relevant ?
The suspect is also 'transitioning from Female to Male " . Is it relevant ?
The suspect detests Trump . Is it relevant ? Don’t know . The cynic in me says that some details don’t fit the “narrative”, and may have been left out …but as we all seem to agree …Reporting is very subjective on content .
2 Likes
Thank you! Took a little bit longer than I thought might be necessary, but we agree, all news sites have biases. You go on to categorize Fox as the worst and CNN and NY Times not being as bad, no need for me to challenge or get lost in the weeds at this point.
Here’s a question, why was the Covington kids a story? There is I believe a right answer to this, but I don’t think it is one that will be easily admitted to.
The Guardian …sigh
2 Likes
Sorry, I missed this.
I actually have no idea what the Covington kids story is…the irony here is that for someone that hates MSM, you seem to pay a lot more attention to it than I do. To be honest, I view national politics as kind of fantasy football and because of the reasons you’re stating and I don’t follow a lot of these stories.
Last time I went back home some relatives of mine were all worked about the Muller investigation and I just kept asking them why they’re so invested in it? If you want a critique of the left more real world than media conspiracy plots, it’s that they’re so wrapped up in bickering over national politics when they could be writing letters to congress etc. If there’s a villain on the left it’s the comfy armchair progressive that’s yelling at his TV getting Trump impeached instead of volunteering somewhere. We could be all be doing more.
The point you’re making in bias in media is fairly accepted by everyone. I’m not suggesting that CNN, WaPo are without their biases. But that’s a different issue from reporting lies, inaccuracies, outright fabrications and yes in that case Fox is worse. They all have an agenda a present a reality favorable to their causes, but in actual true/false terms Fox lies more and there’s of stats and evidence to show this.
I don’t think I could watch 5 minutes of a CNN broadcast. To your point the way corporate media marginalized Sanders in the last election to Hillary’s favor was ridiculous. They presented Sanders as a sideshow, that effected election outcomes. This is real case of their bias influencing things.
I think it’s safe to say the current administration has had no lack of air time for their views. They do wrong things and govern poorly and papers are reporting it.
Ladies and gents, this is how all such political conversations end.
“Despite talking about nothing but politics 24/7, I have no idea what this story that dominated headlines for two weeks is. Man behind the curtain? What curtain?”
Dominated the headlines of CNN maybe.
Lots of political websites didn’t hype it. If you’re fixated on CNN /MSM then sure hard to avoid. The point was that story was not interesting and not worth following, not that I don’t follow politics.
The topic of this discussion is “Objectivity and bias in media”. The moderator posed a question to me he insisted I answer, and I honored his request.
All the best
This is not true. You can see the entire report here https://www.npr.org/2019/04/18/713974980/see-how-much-of-the-mueller-report-is-redacted , and its got entire pages redacted.
1 Like
I’m talking about the version that was made available to members of oversight.
Of course, no Democrat has bothered to go and see it.
1 Like
Yes, it depends what you mean, no, and it depends what you mean.
7 redacted lines and the media still treats this like Trump and Bar are hiding the ball to obfuscate the truth of his illegal activities. We’ve dived deep into conspiracy theory territory.
1 Like
This is a key part.
Zero. Zero have walked over to read what was unredacted…but they are certain that what is now in the open is…hiding something?
1 Like
I for one am shocked that stories like “White Men Must Be Stopped: The Very Future Of Mankind Depends On It” didn’t prove to be real humdinger cash cows.
Man, Salon was punishing to read when GW Bush was prez, although credit where credit is due: it’s not easy being arrogant, elitist, and nihilist all at once. Salon certainly gave it the old college try. Sounds like decades of dishing out a diet like that is not in fact so healthy.
Hopefully Slate is up on the chopping block next. 
1 Like
“insisted” might be a bit strong. I do appreciate the answer though.
The greater point was going to be how social media influence reporting. Newsrooms being plugged into whats trending on Twitter, Facebook or Reddit. A SJW type of reporting.
CNN is kind of fun to pick on in this regard, in one episode of reporting they tracked down the person who created a meme and Threatened to dox him should the reddit user who went by the name of HanAssholeSolo continue to post offensive content.
In another moment of fine investigative “journalism” they track down some old woman who they confront about joining a Facebook group created by Russian trolls.
It doesnt matter if like the Convington kids if you have never heard of these stories or have no opinion on them, generally I am making a larger point about SJW type of reporting, where the mob attacks and the press is weaponized to target individuals to satiate the mob anger.
Of course if you don’t understand the point I am making I can keep giving examples till the cows come home. To be clear also, I am not insisting you answer, you are free to join the conversation and are free to ignore my post, just as everyone else can do.
1 Like
Back in the early years, Salon was actually a pretty good read, but yeah, the long steady decline began in the Bush years and now it’s just a bad joke. I’m surprised it sold for as much as it did.
1 Like
Good evening
I’m always happy to answer questions you pose and I appreciate you value my take on it enough to ask.
I understand the point you’re making. For whar it’s worth, I feel at times you are engaging in a lot of the practices that you’re accusing the (mainstream?) media of.
For example, we were talking about the proportionality of the reporting of the Muller Report. I have not the report itself in enough to detail to form a strong opinion on it. But the subject of the report–whether or not you agree with its conclusions–is pretty important. This is something that’s understandably going to be of concern for Americans. If their elections were influenced by Russians in some way, if there was collusion w/Russian govt etc. that’s obviously newsworthy and the press should be reporting on it a lot.
Jesse Smollett story is a good example of media amplifying a small story and giving it way too much attention. What he did was ridiculous, a point made not only made by the right wing sites you’d expect, but a lot of liberal sites as well. African-American media was pretty harsh on him as they should have been. But that story is basically a C list celebrity no one had heard of staging an attack on himself to get attention. Far less newsworthy.
Proportionality is pretty much driven by viewer interest as far as I understand. I get your point that all sites have agendas but I don’t think it’s as conspiratiorial in nature as you’re alleging at times. What I see in your own personal coverage of the coverage of these events is that you tend to selectively apply your disdain for ‘media’ when you encounter points of view you don’t agree with or wish to discredit sites that air them.
I understand your point about bias, but you tend to apply your disdain selectively based on whether news reporting is favorable to your views or not. You can’t be vocal about some sites, and then overlook those biases in others.
Hope all is well
but the "outrage " that Kamala and CNN and Co expressed , saying that it was tantamount to the days of Hanging people blah blah , was , in part , amplifying the story in the beginning no?
If they did that, then yes. Sounds like bad reporting.
Are you talking about Christopher Steele, who was working with Russians being paid by the FBI Fusion GPS through Perkins Coie representing Hillary Clinton? Because that was some serious stuff, the dossier became the reason for opening a FISA warrant and an investigation (crossfire hurricane, now known as backfire shitstorm). I don’t think the MSM with the exception of Fox have covered that well at all.
If you mean Trump colluding with the Russians, everyone including all the media outlets that pushed the story knew there was nothing there from day one. You would really have to be a partisan nincompoop to have bought into that one. There was always the possibility of while digging for dirt they might have discovered some dodgy business dealing with a Russian, but thats all it was, a fishing expedition, maybe one that will yet find the fish, but so far no fish for the BBQ.
2 Likes