There’s different kinds of dishonesty and maliciousness though. The examples I listed are plain stupid, easy to catch.
then there is jumping on the bandwagon of stories another publication has gone with “Bombshell if true” kind of stories. Usually from anonymous sources, like Buzzfeed runs a story that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress. The MSM then goes with that non stop till Mueller comes out and says. “Not true”.
We haven’t even got to the symbiotic relationships that exists between the intelligence community and some newspapers or cable channels.
News, Politics, and Entertainment have been dangerously conflated as well.
I personally can’t stand Ann Coulter but she said one thing in her life that I thought was a great idea: When congressmen and women are talking on CSPAN there should be an infographic on the page listing their corporate donors, and how much they’ve been paid to lay their biases clear for everyone to see. Maybe we can label media sites the same way, some sort of tag or color coding system.
Goowardian and CNN need to be moved left, into firmly skew liberal if not wholly placed in Hyper-Partisan Liberal. That Fox is further right than OAN with a foot in “Most Extreme” tells you (or should tell you) that your parabola is itself news designed to lie, distort, and specifically mislead its readership for political aims.
For example. Your graphic has CBS, ABC and NBC as “neutral”. Those networks gave Russia Collusion story over 2,202 minutes of coverage. Senate Intelligence Committee a couple of days ago had one ranking member from the Republican side say there was zero evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians, the Democrat said he didn’t disagree with what the republican had said but that there would be a report coming out in 6 months or so that won’t be good for trump. But basically on Trump colluding with Russians both sides agree.
Yet that got zero coverage on any evening newscast. Does that sound “balanced” “fair” or “balanced bias” to you?
there’s a media conspiracy, and whenever a site not curated towards your biases reports something that doesn’t agree with your assumptions, it’s proof there’s a conspiracy.
No conspiracy. It was just a great coincidence that all the media that now bashes Trump 24/7 for futile readons, in 2016 predicted in mass that he had basically 0% chance of winning and voting for him was a waste of time. Just stay home, fellas!
I repeat: obviously a coincidence, only far right nut jobs could believe that a large portion of the media was pushing their candidate in any way possible.
Yes, it was the great coincidence of 2016, there was no bias in the reporting or polling, just some honest mistakes.
Some could argue that it was Trump’s fault for being so divisive.
I’m trying to sift through the snark to get at what you’re actually trying to say.
Are you saying you can’t envision a scenario where NY Times made an inaccurate prediction, or polled inaccurately? This lousy poll is clear proof they were pushing an agenda?
It’s funny how you never heard these conspiracy theories when they were stupid enough to buy W’s rationale for the Iraq war back in the day.
