Media Bias

[Joe]

It claims hateful comments without showing any of them. I guess we are just supposed to believe the author/publisher.

Sure be easier if they included evidence, but it wouldn't surprise me if this were linked by a lot of folks later, who wanted to show how racist the linkedin crowd were.

Sometimes, it's turtles all the way down.

Well, it did give two quotes that I figure is what people are complaining about. That's why I asked.

"As a non-minority, all this talk makes me feel like I am supposed to feel guilty of my skin color. I feel like I should let someone less qualified fill my position," one anonymous staffer commented, per the Daily Beast. "I believe giving any racial group privilege over others in a zero sum game would not get any support by others. Any thoughts on hurting others while giving privileges with the rosy name called diversity?" another reportedly said.

It just looked like BI reported the story pretty straight, though the photo they used of Roslansky wasn't the most flattering.

I did see those quotes, but didn't see anything hateful. Being a person of mixed race, I think it would be easy to find, but I can't.

Where is the 'hate'?

In the eye of the beholder as always, and those people are quoted too.

But that's not the question. We're discussing media bias, and I don't see any in this story.

Where is the reporting biased?

Calling normal questions 'hateful', which will be referenced by other reporters as 'evidence of hate'...

With no 'hate' to be found, except as you say, in the eye of the beholder.

Now, what if you multiply this story by thousands? Will it start looking like a media bias in favour of promoting racism protests? During a pandemic?

It's almost like they are deliberately trying to infect poor communities, while staying safe in their mansions...

The reporter didn't call anything hateful. She quoted the LinkedIn CEO who called the comments hateful,

Roslansky, who only started as CEO of the Microsoft-owned social network on Monday, apologized for allowing the comments."We are not and will not be a company or platform where racism or hateful speech is allowed," he said.

and gave us the quotes he was objecting to so we can make up our own minds.

What if's aren't evidence Cunt, and where unscrupulous people might take this story says nothing about its bias. Haters are gonna hate, but that's not the reporter's fault. She just laid out the facts, and though she appears to be pretty accomplished, I don't think she lives in a mansion.

Give the lady a break Cunt. She was doing her job, and covering a story her editor assigned her.

Just the facts, Ma'am.

[Cunt]

Sure, she only wrote a puff piece quoting a linkedin manager who lied about hateful comments. She didn't ask him to say what was hateful, or which comments were hateful, she just was acting as a press-release person for linkedin.

No problem. Unless she was trying to look like an unbiased report on it.

[Brian Peacock]

What kind of comments do you consider hateful?

[Cunt]

What kind of comments do you consider hateful?

Calling someone 'white' so you can safely and bravely accuse them of racism springs to mind...

[Brian Peacock]

Really? When did someone accuse you of being a white racist exactly? Would you like me to have a word with them?

[Cunt]

Really? When did someone accuse you of being a white racist exactly? Would you like me to have a word with them?

I seem to remember some ignorant bigot calling me 'white' here. I simply assumed it was to allow themselves room to accuse me of racism or something...

Maybe I misunderstood their racial epithet...

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, that's probably what happened.

[JimC]

Maybe I misunderstood...

[Seabass]

Maybe I misunderstood...

[Cunt]

Yeah, that's probably what happened.

What happened is that you just won't explain why you called me 'white', or what you meant.

I'll just continue with my theory of 'protecting your racist pronouncements' as long as you decide to stand by your words.

No big deal though. You didn't have any credibility around the race issues with me anyway. You have a lot more credibility about your heart-health and cardio capacity.

[Joe]

Sure, she only wrote a puff piece quoting a linkedin manager who lied about hateful comments. She didn't ask him to say what was hateful, or which comments were hateful, she just was acting as a press-release person for linkedin.

No problem. Unless she was trying to look like an unbiased report on it.

Now Cunt, there's no need to be hateful about it. It's not a puff piece to write up an embarrassing incident a new CEO had to apologize for, and she put the quotes he and others considered hateful in the article, so you can't say she didn't ask. As for Roslansky, how can you say he was lying, when other LinkedIn staffers called the comments "disturbing and racist?"

You still haven't shown any evidence of bias in the article, but you have shown unusual animosity toward a young reporter. Calling her a LinkedIn spox is pretty mean.

[JimC]

I would never call anyone a spox!

[Cunt]

No problem. Unless she was trying to look like an unbiased report on it.

Now Cunt, there's no need to be hateful about it. It's not a puff piece to write up an embarrassing incident a new CEO had to apologize for, and she put the quotes he and others considered hateful in the article, so you can't say she didn't ask. As for Roslansky, how can you say he was lying, when other LinkedIn staffers called the comments "disturbing and racist?"

It's up to him to provide evidence of 'disturbing and racist', rather than just declaring it.

I've heard people say the president was a racist for calling looters 'thugs'. That doesn't mean he's racist. It means their accusation is unsupported (so far)

You still haven't shown any evidence of bias in the article, but you have shown unusual animosity toward a young reporter. Calling her a LinkedIn spox is pretty mean.

Irritated by the matter, honestly. Probably because it looks like they offered their staff a safe place to speak anonymously, then kind of called their staff terrible.

The vagueness of the accusation is one of the current 'biased media' tricks. As long as they accuse vaguely, there are no consequences to false accusations.

Imagine if someone called the US President a racist, for example. How silly would THAT be?

[pErvinalia]

I've heard people say the president was a racist for calling looters 'thugs'.

No you haven't.

[Joe]

No problem. Unless she was trying to look like an unbiased report on it.

Now Cunt, there's no need to be hateful about it. It's not a puff piece to write up an embarrassing incident a new CEO had to apologize for, and she put the quotes he and others considered hateful in the article, so you can't say she didn't ask. As for Roslansky, how can you say he was lying, when other LinkedIn staffers called the comments "disturbing and racist?"

It's up to him to provide evidence of 'disturbing and racist', rather than just declaring it.

You're the guy calling him a liar, so the burden of proof is on you. In fact, if he sues you for libel, you'll want to be able to do that.

I've heard people say the president was a racist for calling looters 'thugs'. That doesn't mean he's racist. It means their accusation is unsupported (so far)

You still haven't shown any evidence of bias in the article, but you have shown unusual animosity toward a young reporter. Calling her a LinkedIn spox is pretty mean.

Irritated by the matter, honestly. Probably because it looks like they offered their staff a safe place to speak anonymously, then kind of called their staff terrible.

The vagueness of the accusation is one of the current 'biased media' tricks. As long as they accuse vaguely, there are no consequences to false accusations.

Imagine if someone called the US President a racist, for example. How silly would THAT be?

I think the problem here isn't the article, the reporter, or Business Insider. It's that the story irritated you and you're shooting the messenger.