Media Bias

[Cunt]

Both sides you say? You totally ignored Fox News. Must be coincidental that you whine about bias from the alleged left, and ignore it from the right.

That is showing their bias. If it 'paid' to go over this shooting, they would do so - at length. Instead it seems (I didn't watch them OR their competition) they get 'paid more' by glossing over it.

Fuck them.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Fox News is upset that Vice President Harris is not saluting the military when she boards Air Force 2. According to military protocol, as a civilian who's not in the chain of command she should not be saluting the military. In fact, presidents (despite being Commander in Chief) did not salute the military before Reagan decided to begin doing it. Fox News is happy to gin up another ridiculous faux mini-scandal to denigrate the vice president, because they know their audience loves that sort of thing.

'Experts Slam Fox News for Wrongly Attacking VP Harris for "Repeatedly Failing to Salute Military"'

Fox News is taking fire from military experts after the conservative media outlet and some of its strongest allies attacked Vice President Kamala Harris for not saluting members of the U.S. Military. As experts explained, Harris is not a member of the military nor in the chain of command, and it would be inappropriate for her to do so. It would also signal a weakening of civilian control.

“Vice President Kamala Harris is facing criticism for appearing to break with precedent and failing to salute the honor guard when boarding Air Force Two,” Fox News’ Evie Fordham wrote in an online article on Tuesday. “Video reviewed by Fox News showed that her predecessors, former Vice President Mike Pence and President Biden, regularly saluted the honor guard in the same situation.”

Tom Nichols, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College who formerly was a fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, slammed Fox News, saying it would be “incorrect” for her to salute, and they know they’re wrong.

[Brian Peacock]

So it's a matter of etiquette.

[L'Emmerdeur]

So it's a matter of etiquette.

The US military likes to use its own lingo, so in this case instead of 'etiquette' we're talking about 'customs and courtesies'. See the US military magazine Task & Purpose.

[T]here you have it, there is no requirement that the President or Vice President of the United States return a salute.

Nonetheless, given enough time and repetition, anything can become tradition, and traditions, especially those involving the military, quickly become sacred in America. So, although Vice President Harris did not salute those airmen standing at attention on the flight line, it was still expected because past presidents, and vice presidents, have done it before.

But should it be? Really, how badly do we, as service members, veterans, and Americans in general, want to see a politician render what is likely to be a rather distracted and hasty salute to U.S. troops, or to military leaders of a totalitarian state, either with a cup of coffee in hand, or clutching a Scottish Terrier?


Former U.S. Presidents Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and George W. Bush have all rendered awkward, or ill-advised, salutes.

It seems like a better use of everyone’s time, attention, and energy if the top leaders of the United States just dispensed with superficial pomp and circumstance altogether and focused on the more meaningful aspects of their job as it pertains to civilian oversight of the military: Things like ending America’s Forever Wars; pressuring members of Congress to update the use of force authorization that has allowed the Global War on Terror to expand under each new presidential administration over the last two decades; showing sound judgment and, when necessary, restraint when it comes to exercising military force; and ensuring that acts of valor are properly recognized, by awarding deserving heroes the Medal of Honor, like Sgt. 1st Class Alwyn Cashe; to name a just a few.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, Trump was always a bit awkward with his saluting...

[Scot Dutchy]

He is a great Mussolini fan.

[Cunt]

I wasn't asking about retractions, and if I did I wouldn't accept the words of proven liars as evidence unless they are backed up by an independent source.

Give me links to court cases in which the ironically named Project Veritas was accused of lying and won. And no, I don't mean the fact that it has the right to record what public policy figures say.

I was going to tempt you to restate your position, Hermit. That would be shitty.

Instead, I'll ask why not fact-checked yourself? The recent court decision shows that the NYTimes was full of shit, and decided in favour of Project Veritas.

I could only find shitty, biased reporting on it, so maybe you can find something (like original court documents) which show that Project Veritas was lying, and the NY Times was NOT smearing them.

If not, maybe their story about election fraud (or is it vote fraud? Voter fraud?) was worth more attention, especially since major media was clearly injecting their opinions as if they expected their viewers to treat those as 'fact'.

Mr. Mohamed displayed a vast number of ballots littering his car’s dashboard while boasting in Somali, ‘[n]umbers don’t lie! You can see my car here is full. All these here are absentee ballots. Can’t you see? Look at al these, my car is full,’ and ‘[j]ust today we got 300 (ballots) for Jamal Osman.’ In another video, Mr. Mohamed filmed himself exiting an apartment complex with his hand stuffed with voters’ ballots and baosting, ‘[t]wo in the morning. Still hustling.’

The video also included interviews with named sources, as well as multiple confidential sources. Omar Jamal, a community service officer for the Ramsey County Sherriff’s Office and a political consultant in the Minneapolis Somali-American community, said there was widespread corruption by Somali-American politicians, including cash payments to elderly voters in exchange for their absentee ballots. Jamal has been quoted in on-the-record in ten New York Times news stories as a knowledgeable source and political insider.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/22/pr ... ork-times/

[Hermit]

I'll ask why not fact-checked yourself?

Oh, how unexpected. Not. You make assertions, then ask others to back them up with evidence for you.

The recent court decision shows that the NYTimes was full of shit, and decided in favour of Project Veritas.

Quote the relevant bit.

[Cunt]

Nah, this thread being about media bias. I've a bias of my own, it's ok with me. I retract my question, and apologize. Let me just say that a reporter you distrust, seems to again be a victim of a media smear. I hope that smear doesn't work on you.

It's obvious that agreement on media bias, or which direction it flows, is too tricky to pin down, but I've shown a clear bias in Project Veritas' favour, you have one that I daresay is opposite. Or maybe non-existent. Not the same as me, in any case.

I haven't checked from a perspective of trusting the NYTimes, because I can't think of them as fair or honest. Because of my ready identifying with victims of media smear campaigns, like O'Keefe. If you don't want to, that's cool.

It's not likely there is anything new for either of us to learn here, so thanks for taking a moment.

[Brian Peacock]

[Hermit]

Nah, this thread being about media bias.

Wait. You suggested I fact-check assertions you made, and that you won't because this thread is about media bias. Talk about non sequitur.

[Cunt]

Nah, this thread being about media bias.

Wait. You suggested I fact-check assertions you made, and that you won't because this thread is about media bias. Talk about non sequitur.

Um...

I was going to tempt you to restate your position, Hermit. That would be shitty.

Instead, I'll ask why not fact-checked yourself? The recent court decision shows that the NYTimes was full of shit, and decided in favour of Project Veritas.

The decision was mentioned in the article I linked. I doubt you would trust a source of mine, but you have an internet before you.

I understand you want me to take their position, and defend it well, but I'm not interested in doing that. Instead, I remember how the often-smeared PV were not trusted by you, and showed you another smear. Thought you might find it relevant. How many smears equal one 'Acorn' story?

You can check your trusted sources to 'vet' it, or go to the NYTimes and Project Veritas for their respective sides of this story.

Or you can insist I should provide documentation that...something.

[Hermit]

Nah, this thread being about media bias.

Wait. You suggested I fact-check assertions you made, and that you won't because this thread is about media bias. Talk about non sequitur.

Um...

I was going to tempt you to restate your position, Hermit. That would be shitty.

Instead, I'll ask why not fact-checked yourself? The recent court decision shows that the NYTimes was full of shit, and decided in favour of Project Veritas.

The decision was mentioned in the article I linked. I doubt you would trust a source of mine, but you have an internet before you.

I understand you want me to take their position, and defend it well, but I'm not interested in doing that. Instead, I remember how the often-smeared PV were not trusted by you, and showed you another smear. Thought you might find it relevant. How many smears equal one 'Acorn' story?

You can check your trusted sources to 'vet' it, or go to the NYTimes and Project Veritas for their respective sides of this story.

Or you can insist I should provide documentation that...something.

Time to unscramble your assertion.

You warmed up a six week old post of mine, in which I wrote:

Give me links to court cases in which the ironically named Project Veritas was accused of lying and won.

You cited a court case, in which - according to you

The recent court decision shows that the NYTimes was full of shit

That court decision does no such thing. The case was not even about what the New York Times wrote. It was about an application by the NYT to have the case complaining about defamation brought on by the ironically named Project Veritas dismissed. In his judgement Justice J.Woods declined to dismiss it. He made no judgement about the truth or otherwise of the articles in question.

In conclusion, you failed once again to provide links to court cases in which the ironically named Project Veritas was accused of lying and won.

[Cunt]

Time to unscramble your assertion.

You warmed up a six week old post of mine, in which I wrote:

Give me links to court cases in which the ironically named Project Veritas was accused of lying and won.

You cited a court case, in which - according to you

The recent court decision shows that the NYTimes was full of shit

That court decision does no such thing.

You are right, of course. I read an article referencing a court case, which opened with...

A New York judge slammed The New York Times for blurring the lines between news and opinion. The paper had attempted to get a defamation lawsuit against it dismissed on the grounds that, among other things, its reporters were just expressing their personal opinions when they disparaged the investigative journalists at Project Veritas.

The judge ruled the lawsuit can go forward, finding that Project Veritas showed sufficient evidence that The New York Times may have been motivated by “actual malice” and acted with “reckless disregard” when it ran several articles against the investigative journalism outfit.

So yeah, it sounds like another 'news' agency has been spreading bullshit about Project Veritas.

I still think their 'wall of retractions' contains a lot more relevant information about media bias than your dislike of them.

The case was not even about what the New York Times wrote. It was about an application by the NYT to have the case complaining about defamation brought on by the ironically named Project Veritas dismissed. In his judgement Justice J.Woods declined to dismiss it. He made no judgement about the truth or otherwise of the articles in question.

In conclusion, you failed once again to provide links to court cases in which the ironically named Project Veritas was accused of lying and won.

Yes, I said court case, when I should have made the distinction that the article said things about a court case.

I got tricked again.

Funny how I still believe Project Veritas over most other news orgs. Must be that 'wall of shame' thing they do when brave idiots slander them in public (or maybe it's libel)

[L'Emmerdeur]

Professional bonehead on Fox News (Joe Concha, riffing off of fellow bonehead Dan Bongino's yammering) claimed that the CNN fact-checker was notably absent in that network's coverage of President Biden's recent press conference. I think it hurts their feelings that their idol got called out so often for lying (as an apparently compulsive liar, it was only his due).

Since Biden doesn't get called out nearly as often, they think that must be because the rest of the media are ignoring his lies, hence the missing CNN fact checker. In keeping with Fox News tradition, Concha was lying himself.

Someone tell @JoeConchaTV that @ddale8 was on TV fact-checking Biden after his first press conference yesterday. Might be worth watching CNN's coverage -- or at least doing a simple scan of his work, which is available on his CNN bio page -- before going on-air and trashing it!

- Oliver Darcy · Mar 27, 2021