Media Bias

[Rum]

At what point I wonder did actual facts become negotiatable depending on your politics. It seems to me that, as an example, some Trump followers would automatically assume his take on a topic trumped (sic) any amount of ‘biased’ science.

[Cunt]

You need to check out the science of global warming rather than looking to the politics. As Peterson said, the politics of climate change is far more divisive and confusing than the science.

The science is clear. The politics is shit.

I really want you to look into that Covington/McKnew/IRA connection please, Brian Peacock.

I think you are smart (though that doesn't mean right all the time) and I think you communicate better than me.

Because of my shit communication, I can't even get anyone to look at it. The media got used in that scenario, and I think the way they were used is frightening.

I don't care about global warming (except to vote against anyone repeating the phrase...I reject it like I reject 'wellness', 'alternative medicine' and other red flags)

We both care about media bias, and that researcher (McKnew) and the Russian villains (IRA) make for a very clear threat to everyone.


Please and thanks. I'm not trying to have a 'gotcha', but to ask your help.

[Rum]

If you care more about media bias than global warming you are very fucked up indeed.

[Cunt]

If you care more about media bias than global warming you are very fucked up indeed.

Can we agree that my communication style is ineffective?

I thought so.

This thread is about media bias, so I am trying to get someone to look into how media bias is used by nefarious agents (such as the IRA)

Most of you who think you are better communicators, or smarter than me, won't even look at it, or mention it.

Weird.

Keep focusing on me though...one northern contrary old fucker is MUCH more relevant to your life than effective, organized election manipulation by foreign agents...

[Rum]

There’s bias in the media - of course - doh. Some serious, some not so much and others attempt to be objective and impartial. I’m sure the IRA and any agency with an agenda tries to manipulate the media. It happens all the time. Hell even statistics at the level I used to produce are ‘spun’ to make the best of them - for example for press releases. Big boys and girls know this and discriminate when they read.

Big boys and girls also go along with the vast majority of reputable scientists who tell us the planet is warming and humans are contributing to it.

[Cunt]

Big boys and girls also go along with the vast majority of reputable scientists who tell us the planet is warming and humans are contributing to it.

Childish understanding of the written word might lead a young person to believe that I don't agree with the claims that the planet is warming and humans are contributing to it.

Media bias is what was used to vilify the Covington teens, the Indiginous idiot, the Hebrew Isrealites and the media geniuses who took the bait.

What I want to know, and can't find out, is who baited the hook?

Haven't even seen anyone asking about that.

[Forty Two]

The fact that the FBI coordinated with CNN on this should concern everyone. Hate Trump all you want, but that's bullshit right there.

I don't mind it as long as they do the same to Democrat villains.

I'm waiting...didn't a bunch of Dems recently lie to Congress like Stone is accused of? Will we get their perp-walks via CNN? Or is there really something sinister going on?

The FBI's job should have nothing to do with politics, and it's not the job of the cops to be garnering publicity for arrests. They aren't the judge, the jury or the executioner. They think they have a case. Prove it. It's not ethical in the least to call up and tip off news outlets so they can be there to record an arrest.

I agree. Policing shouldn't be political, but when one has a system of political appointment and public elections for policing positions how can it not be. The problem lies in an attitude which assumes that those who appoint the police, political or public, own the police and/or the justice system and are therefore entitled to mandate their scope and activity.

There are no public elections for the FBI. There are public elections at the State level for county sheriffs. Nobody is elected to the FBI.

It's not previously been understood that public officials own the police. And, if the elected officials owned the FBI, you can bet that they would not have coordinated with CNN on this. Trump is the elected official at the top of the executive branch and he appointed the Attorney General and the FBI. So, clearly, the guy who appoints the "police" in this instance is having a hard time "owning" them.

At bottom, someone let CNN be right there at the door with the FBI as they raided an old man's house for crimes related to misstatements, guns drawn, and sirens and lights -- this has raised a significant number of eyebrows and sounded a significant number of alarm bells on both sides of the aisle. There is very little argument that what happened here is right, and it's a rather odious happening.

[Forty Two]

Exhibit A for media bias is how the major media handled the Sandmann/Nate Phillips incident. They just up and lied, intentionally, to distort the events. Not only did they distort the events, but they reported that things happened that did not happen, and they hid events that actually did happen.

How long did it take to hear about the Black Israelites calling the teenagers pedophiles, white crackers and other racist terms? How many times did you hear about the teenagers "taunting" the native Americans, when they actually didn't do anything remotely close to that? What has the media reported about Nate Phillips' lies? What has the media reported about the native Americans telling the teenagers to "go back to Europe" and that they lived on stolen land, etc?

So many people have egg on their face because of what CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Washington Post, New York Times, etc. reported. Celebrities began calling for the "doxxing" of these kids, and to "name names" and to "shame" the kids, to try to ruin their lives. Michael Rappaport was hurling insults, calling them racist scumbags who had nothing better to do than go and harass people in Washington when they should be trying to score chicks. Celebrity after celebrity - pundit after punding - watch the five minute condensed version of the hour long video and reacted with scorn, derision and malice - and they didn't bother to question a single thing about it. Some advocated punching the 15 year old kid in the face, because he was standing still doing nothing but smiling.

If that doesn't show that you can't trust the major media to report an event accurately, then nothing will. They are fake news. They are pushing an agenda. They are not news, they are activists.

National news? Even if the kids were rude and obnoxious to these people, which they were not -- national news? Blast them all over the news? A few kids acting like dicks? Come on. But stress again that the behavior of the teenagers from Covington Catholic school was perfectly fine. They had every right to be where they were. They taunted nobody. They were just there waiting for their transportation after a day of signtseeing. They were accosted by a group of cult "Black Israelites" who hurled horrible racist epithets and profanities at them, and then the native american group piled on and Nate Philips made a bee-line for Sandmann and began howling in his face and banging a drum right next to his ear. Sandmann behaved remarkably well under the circumstnaces - standing and not reacting. Kudos to him. And the black israelites and Nate Phillips and his cohorts can go fuck themselves, as they are lying pieces of shit.

[Cunt]

So many people have egg on their face because of what CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Washington Post, New York Times, etc. reported.

I would like to blame them too. I did, at first.

Will you please take the time to look into it a bit deeper than assigning blame to the news org's you despise?

I despise them, too. Mostly for pretending they aren't biased. We know better, but somehow the lie that they are objective is maintained...

Anyway, it wasn't CNN et al. They were dupes, used by the initiator of this shit-show, and the individual or group who started it is almost never mentioned.

I can't even find the stuff anymore. I asked several times for others to look into who started it.

When I learned what a news story should have, it was 'Who What Where When Why'. Fucking WHO is the FIRST ONE!!!

The twitter account that started this, filmed it, then tweeted it, then had a bunch of promotion on twitter, which made it appear like a 'good story'. The twitter account was then removed (by twitter, it seems) and no-one has been talking about it.

THEY FUCKING STARTED IT!

CNN and their competitors were roped in. Can you find out who did it? The maneuver looks similar to the tactics used by the IRA (a Russian org., not the Irish one) in attempting to compromise recent elections. A Dr. McKnew described it very well.

And even YOU are fucking duped, if you think this is the 'media' being malicious. They were being stupid. The initiator was the malicious one.

So who started it?

[Forty Two]

So many people have egg on their face because of what CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Washington Post, New York Times, etc. reported.

I would like to blame them too. I did, at first.

Will you please take the time to look into it a bit deeper than assigning blame to the news org's you despise?

I despise them, too. Mostly for pretending they aren't biased. We know better, but somehow the lie that they are objective is maintained...

Anyway, it wasn't CNN et al. They were dupes, used by the initiator of this shit-show, and the individual or group who started it is almost never mentioned.

I don't agree that CNN was duped. They are a news organization with investigative journalists. A celebrity seeing a report can be forgiven for reacting knee-jerk-like, at least to some extent. But CNN is supposed to corroborate, verify, and fact-check. They can't be trusted to do that. It would have taken less than one day for them to review the available material, and call some people on the phone to verify the events. They didn't bother. Whether duped or malicious, they are at fault, and they -- again -- failed to do their jobs, and they are so excited by any prospect of selling this kind of narrative that they predispose themselves to being duped. They essentially WANT the original story to be the narrative.

I can't even find the stuff anymore. I asked several times for others to look into who started it.

When I learned what a news story should have, it was 'Who What Where When Why'. Fucking WHO is the FIRST ONE!!!

The twitter account that started this, filmed it, then tweeted it, then had a bunch of promotion on twitter, which made it appear like a 'good story'. The twitter account was then removed (by twitter, it seems) and no-one has been talking about it.

The Old Grey Lady (NYT) - the Washington Post of Woodward and Bernstein -- would never have reported an edited, unverified video "tweeted" by some unchecked source. CNN is "The Most Trusted Name in News," they say. Tweets are not news. A video someone tweets is not news. They have lost even the most minor semblance of journalistic ethics. They don't CARE if it's true or not. And, as the story began to immediately fall apart piece by piece, they continued to try to defend it over and over again - but this, but that, but this, but that, until finally, the story was revealed to be so false as to not even have a kernel of truth. Then they dropped it. No reporting on the racism of the Black Israelites. No reporting of the racism of the Nate Phillips group. No reporting about them harassing and cursing at a group of high school kids around the age of 15. Just dropped it.

THEY FUCKING STARTED IT!

CNN and their competitors were roped in. Can you find out who did it? The maneuver looks similar to the tactics used by the IRA (a Russian org., not the Irish one) in attempting to compromise recent elections. A Dr. McKnew described it very well.

And even YOU are fucking duped, if you think this is the 'media' being malicious. They were being stupid. The initiator was the malicious one.

So who started it?

I don't know who started it. But, CNN knows. The New York Times knows. Washington Post knows. And, they're the ones with the investigative journalists whose fucking job it is to snoop out the scoop. That's a big story, the one you point out - who did it -- who "duped" all the major media and had prominent people the nation-over calling for a 15 year old kid who had done nothing wrong to be punched in the face, doxxed, and to be murdered along with his family, because of how he was just like Nazis in the 1940s, and was a big racist scumbag.

If CNN and the gang were really "duped" as you say, then all the more reason they cannot really be trusted with any story. It used to be, until recently,that I only defaulted to disbelief in stories about science and law - my experience was that the "journalists" just couldn't seem to fathom those two topics, and as a result almost always got key bits of scientific and legal stories wrong. But, now it seems they can't even be trusted to verify the basic facts of current events news stories.

What seems to happen now is that the journalists just publish. It's enough that some person (who now more often than not is anonymous) tells them something. They label that person some vague, indefinable "person close to..." or "person with knowledge of..." etc., and they just go ahead and publish - falling back on "I had a source - he told me X" as a defense.

And, they have such agendas that they want the story they originally published about the Covington Catholic kids to be true. They want that to be the narrative. MAGA hat wearing racists taunt black Israelites who were just there preaching about God and the Bible, and harassing an old, native American man --- see! That's Trump's America! That's Trump's America! They wanted it to be true so bad they have already assumed it to be true. They knew already that that was the reality, and this was just, finally, the clear proof of what they already knew.

[Cunt]

If CNN and the gang were really "duped" as you say, then all the more reason they cannot really be trusted with any story. It used to be, until recently,that I only defaulted to disbelief in stories about science and law - my experience was that the "journalists" just couldn't seem to fathom those two topics, and as a result almost always got key bits of scientific and legal stories wrong. But, now it seems they can't even be trusted to verify the basic facts of current events news stories.

They indeed can't be trusted.

It's hilarious when people fail to look at who manipulated them, though.

It's like the Stone bust...it doesn't matter much to me that CNN was there. What matters is HOW they got there. If it was a good hunch, then great. It sure looks like that would be hard to back up though.

Even if they were tipped, I don't care about them.

I care much more about who tipped them. If CNN were closed tomorrow, that tipster would simply find another media group to use.

And, they have such agendas that they want the story they originally published about the Covington Catholic kids to be true. They want that to be the narrative. MAGA hat wearing racists taunt black Israelites who were just there preaching about God and the Bible, and harassing an old, native American man --- see! That's Trump's America! That's Trump's America! They wanted it to be true so bad they have already assumed it to be true. They knew already that that was the reality, and this was just, finally, the clear proof of what they already knew.

The most outrageous thing to me, is that it seems to be ok to treat someone poorly because they support one very popular political party.

I wonder why a pink hat is license to scream and harrass, without penalty, while a red one will get you destroyed while merely smirking.

(I don't know if he was smirking, or if that was just an uncomfortable smile, but 'facecrimes' are a bit unclear at this time)

[Forty Two]

If CNN and the gang were really "duped" as you say, then all the more reason they cannot really be trusted with any story. It used to be, until recently,that I only defaulted to disbelief in stories about science and law - my experience was that the "journalists" just couldn't seem to fathom those two topics, and as a result almost always got key bits of scientific and legal stories wrong. But, now it seems they can't even be trusted to verify the basic facts of current events news stories.

They indeed can't be trusted.

It's hilarious when people fail to look at who manipulated them, though.

It's like the Stone bust...it doesn't matter much to me that CNN was there. What matters is HOW they got there. If it was a good hunch, then great. It sure looks like that would be hard to back up though.

Even if they were tipped, I don't care about them.

I care much more about who tipped them. If CNN were closed tomorrow, that tipster would simply find another media group to use.

CNN should report who gave them the tip. It's impossible for the reporter to be telling the whole story. He says that he noticed the grand jury met on Thursday rather than Friday. So, he had a hunch that he needed to fly down to Florida for a pre-dawn raid on Stone's house? I mean, why in the world would he think that would happen, much less happen in 12 hours?

And, they have such agendas that they want the story they originally published about the Covington Catholic kids to be true. They want that to be the narrative. MAGA hat wearing racists taunt black Israelites who were just there preaching about God and the Bible, and harassing an old, native American man --- see! That's Trump's America! That's Trump's America! They wanted it to be true so bad they have already assumed it to be true. They knew already that that was the reality, and this was just, finally, the clear proof of what they already knew.

The most outrageous thing to me, is that it seems to be ok to treat someone poorly because they support one very popular political party.

I wonder why a pink hat is license to scream and harrass, without penalty, while a red one will get you destroyed while merely smirking.

(I don't know if he was smirking, or if that was just an uncomfortable smile, but 'facecrimes' are a bit unclear at this time)

And, even if he was smirking, so what? Smirking in the face of being a called a white cracker, pedophile faggot, and told to go back to Europe, while some asshole bangs a drum in your face seems to me to be quite a mild retort.

What also bothers me is how prominent adults are now at such a hair-trigger mental state that one mention of something like the original report of the non-incident will set them off on a tirade. Not just mentioning being upset or outraged or disapproving of the alleged behavior, but just half-cocked going off calling for the boy to be physically harmed, doxxed, taunted, punched, life destroyed, expelled from school, etc. I mean, there is no fucking perspective anymore. I mean, the National Review had to apologize to them.

Loads of celebrities railing against them - calling them a-holes -- wrongly accusing them of chanting at the native Americans. None of those celebrities is now calling Nathan Phillips an a-hole for lying through his teeth and inventing most of the story. Nobody is saying the Black Israelites were "disrespectful" and "condescending" for hurling racial epithets at the kids and calling them "white cracker faggots." No outrage over that. Some have apologized for their knee-jerk reactions, but none of the media or celebrities reacted similarly the far worse behavior of the Black Israelites and the Native Americans. Nothing. Not a peep.

Where is the outrage reporting about how Nathan Phillips lied about his military record, lied about the events of the day - he said the white kids chanted stuff they did not chant - he said they came toward him, when they did not. He denied going toward them, when he did. What about the "disrespect" and "condescension" when someone takes a drum puts it to your face and bangs on it while howling at you? That's not disrespect, but SMILING back at that person is unforgivable racism? And, what about yelling "go back to Europe!" at the kids who were born here? THAT'S not disrespectful? What about calling them "white cracker faggots?" THAT'S not, as John Cusack said, evidence of a "sick society?"

Why didn't CNN do a nice long show about the event, and the real facts, after those facts were revealed? Why? Because CNN wants the narrative to be "white racist maga hat wearing fascists...." and they have no use for "black racist, homophobic, profane, vulgar cult members..." or "racist, insult slinging native Americans." They can only report on the black oppressed class, and the native American noble savage, and the white, European oppressor. That's why they are activists, and not news outfits.

[Cunt]

CNN should report who gave them the tip. It's impossible for the reporter to be telling the whole story. He says that he noticed the grand jury met on Thursday rather than Friday. So, he had a hunch that he needed to fly down to Florida for a pre-dawn raid on Stone's house? I mean, why in the world would he think that would happen, much less happen in 12 hours?

Not 11, not 15, but 12 hours. Not one other journalist guessed this, and not one other journalist was allowed to film up-close, a high-risk takedown.

I think this Stone guy must be like Jason Bourne.

Or, more likely (and less fun) is the thought that CNN lied about their reason for being there, and the tipster is being protected.

Why didn't CNN do a nice long show about the event, and the real facts, after those facts were revealed? Why? Because CNN wants the narrative to be "white racist maga hat wearing fascists...." and they have no use for "black racist, homophobic, profane, vulgar cult members..." or "racist, insult slinging native Americans." They can only report on the black oppressed class, and the native American noble savage, and the white, European oppressor. That's why they are activists, and not news outfits.

They are 'news' puppets.

My 'facecrimes' comment was an Orwell reference.

The pink/red hat groups and the way they are treated is very instructive. If you want to know who the assholes are, oppose their sacred cows. If you think someone is 'inclusive and tolerant', see if they mean inclusive of diverse opinions, or just race.

Most of 'diversity' is racists insisting we need more blacks in some area or other.

So why won't you look into the IRA and their manipulation tactics? I do think it is key to this story (though it might be another group using IRA tactics)

[Forty Two]

The pink hat folks have a built in rationalization - the folks that oppose their positions are racist, hate-filled, fascists and Nazis. No need to be tolerant of those things, and in fact being tolerant of those things is not tolerance, it's immoral apologetics and tacit support for racism, hate, fascism and Nazism. They wrap that shit up with big, pink bow.

I have no problem looking into anything, but since you're already aware of it, just fire up some links and sources for me.

If I were to speculate, I would think there is enough to know that the people spearheading the Trump-Russia investigation needed to make sure that they get a big splash in the media. Trump has taken a beating in public opinion, even though there is nothing real uncovered. Stone is arrested for false statements? The question was asked soon after, if the FBI sends 29 SWAT guys and CNN to bust Roger Stone for lying, why in the world would there not be enough evidence to do the same to Hillary Clinton, when even James Comey testified before Congress that many of the statements Hillary Clinton made to the FBI were false?

James Clapper perjured himself before Congress. No bust there.

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

The pink hat folks have a built in rationalization - the folks that oppose their positions are racist, hate-filled, fascists and Nazis.

If by "pink hat folks" you mean progressives in general, then your statement is an absurd over-reaction. I'm very much aware that racist red-neck Nazis are a small (but dangerous) minority amongst those one could call right of centre.

Who you are probably referring to is a small sub-set of the politically correct left who also vastly exaggerate...