Media Bias

[NineBerry]

The correct answer is "I can't see that podcast"

[L'Emmerdeur]

See above. If you think a place like CNN doesn't present a political spectrum of voices, then you haven't been paying attention. I watch more Fox News than I do CNN, and even I know that.

Have they presented a fair coverage of the journalist in the UK, 'Tommy Robinson'? I know lots of media outlets lie about him (he IS a bit of an asshole) but they don't seem to lie the same way about others.

Did they lie about Nick Sandman? Why do you suppose they pay him so much?

I have no evidence that CNN has lied about 'Robinson.' Perhaps you do, or perhaps you're Just Asking Questions.

As for Sandman, he's shown himself to be a fellow with an eye for the main chance and a Republican/Trumpist ideologue. CNN's reportage on him resulted in a settlement, which can signify a number of things. The only clear conclusion that can be drawn is that CNN's lawyers and/or insurance company convinced them that settling would be less expensive than going to trial (see nuisance fee settlement). His presence at the location and the confrontation he was involved in speak for themselves, but he's opened his mouth and removed any doubt. Perhaps you can cite the lies you believe CNN told about him.

Crowders 'change my mind' segments are much better examples of fair treatment of discussion, than anything I've seen in mainstream comedy or news.

But you could change my mind. Just show me the lefties who allow long-form interviews between both sides.

No, I don't believe I could change your mind. History informs me otherwise.

Have you ANY lefties who allow long-form interviews of the 'unpersoned'?

I'll wait while you find it.

It seems you're labouring under the misconception that I take you seriously when you tell me to 'find' something.

Fair enough. It seems you also infer [bias] when it isn't plain and acknowledged. So do I.

I assume it is always there. When someone is extra-skilled at hiding it, it raises my caution. Look how many folks think Obama was peaceful, because he talks so slick. (or maybe there was a cooperating media team)

That looks incoherent to me. You jump from the topic of bias in media to the question of whether President Obama was 'peaceful', and whether the supposed perception of him as 'peaceful' is influenced by the fact that he speaks clearly and intelligently. It's telling that Obama's speaking style elicits the snarl word 'slick' from you.

The actual left media was regularly critical of Obama's policies, while mainstream media gave him the benefit of his position. Whether you acknowledge it or not, the mainstream media have given Trump the same benefit.

I'm not concerned with Pool, but I believe I've endorsed at least one commentary on the topic on this site. Being aware of the fact that he pushes right wing conspiracy theories, he will always be an unreliable source in my eyes. Changing one's political views (I'm not sure Pool has done so) isn't any badge of credibility.

The phrase 'conspiracy theory'...do you know it's origin?

It strikes me as an empty insult, and an excuse to refuse to look into a topic, often times.

The first citation in the Oxford English Dictionary for the phrase is a 1909 article in The American Historical Review. It's been in used for over a century to describe a particular well-recognised phenomenon.

Conspiracy theorists often attempt to discredit those who point out their fabulism by deflecting or taking umbrage at being called out as conspiracy theorists. Those attempts are generally fruitless. Tim Pool promotes conspiracy theories, but more specifically he promotes conspiracy theories that circulate in the right-wing media bubble. That goes beyond mere bias--I consider him thoroughly unreliable as a source.

When I say I'm not sure Pool has actually changed his views, I mean that I don't know that he has ever had any particular political views. He makes his living as a video blogger. He's desperate for clicks and views, just like any 14-year-old wannabe 'influencer'. I admit I'm prejudiced against such people as a group. I consider ... them to be inherently unprincipled and meretricious, unless they prove otherwise. Pool has done anything but that.

He got invited to the white house social media summit. He got the interview with Dorsey et al. He invites people onto his show who are unpopular, and lets them say their piece.

Seems pretty respectful. More so than most of the attention whores in news.

Maybe there is some merit in showing respect to publicity hounds with extreme views, but it does nothing to demonstrate integrity or sincerity.

Nor does making a pilgrimage to pay court to an unhinged wannabe autocrat. That 'media summit' was nothing but another event at which Trump brought together sycophants to stroke his ego.

Interviewing Dorsey doesn't do anything to demonstrate integrity.

I'm guessing you know which 'side' gets more policing.

You can guess all you like about me and what you believe I 'know.' Your guesses will be given all the consideration they're due.

[Cunt]

No problem believing you don't see a bias.

As to Obama...didn't he drone a bunch of people, while speaking so well? I believe he also started some cages to put kids in...you know, to seperate them from their folks.

Trump got treated a bit differently about it, once he took over, but I don't remember too many pointing out it wasn't a Trump plan.

Of course, there is no changing your mind. Stick to the 'facebook approved' lines. They are safe.

[Tero]

No problem believing you don't see a bias.

As to Obama...didn't he drone a bunch of people, while speaking so well? I believe he also started some cages to put kids in...you know, to seperate them from their folks.

Trump got treated a bit differently about it, once he took over, but I don't remember too many pointing out it wasn't a Trump plan.

Of course, there is no changing your mind. Stick to the 'facebook approved' lines. They are safe.

[Cunt]

Bunch of barbed wire and 30,000 troops to protect a 'virtual' event, Bidens inaguration.

Be safe, my American friends. I hope every one of you is far too smart to go celebrate there, on the 20th.

Trump told his supporters to avoid it, and so did Alex Jones. Those two things make me worry that someone might be stupid enough to defy their advice. It looks to every reasonable person, like a place to avoid.

[Tero]

Well you do not want the actual president to be shot on the first day. You would then get a black woman. Trumpsters would be shocked at what they have done. We did that?

[Cunt]

I hope you are much safer where you are, Tero. It looks like something more than what has been announced. Sure hope I'm just overworried.

[Tero]

demonstration.jpg (29.54 KiB) Viewed 1537 times

This is the current demonstration at the state capitol. About 8 miles from me.

[L'Emmerdeur]

No problem believing you don't see a bias.

As to Obama...didn't he drone a bunch of people, while speaking so well? I believe he also started some cages to put kids in...you know, to seperate them from their folks.

Trump got treated a bit differently about it, once he took over, but I don't remember too many pointing out it wasn't a Trump plan.

Of course, there is no changing your mind. Stick to the 'facebook approved' lines. They are safe.

It appears you can't be bothered to educate yourself on topics like the differences between Obama's policy for dealing with families requesting asylum at the southern border of the US and Trump's policy for the same. A charitable description would be: 'an ill-informed opinion.' Pertinent: It's a regurgitation of a mendacious right wing talking point.

I don't think you're trying to change anybody's mind here. Lame smears such as 'Stick to the 'facebook approved' lines' are empty noise, but you already know that.

[Brian Peacock]

Their podcast was unusual because one is very left, the other very right. They talk about the bias in media, and Weinsteins 'custom shorthand' of the GIN (gated institutional narrative) and DISC (distributed idea suppression complex)

So relevant to media bias, but some folks don't like to listen to righties. Or to lefties. Or to Weinsteins.

It might help if you actually brought some if the ideas you find interesting to this discussion.

[Cunt]

Their podcast was unusual because one is very left, the other very right. They talk about the bias in media, and Weinsteins 'custom shorthand' of the GIN (gated institutional narrative) and DISC (distributed idea suppression complex)

So relevant to media bias, but some folks don't like to listen to righties. Or to lefties. Or to Weinsteins.

It might help if you actually brought some if the ideas you find interesting to this discussion.

THAT would be crazy!

Just as free for you to listen to a Harvard PhD, who's main message was 'we love each other'.

I think him saying that, in the context he did, says exactly why I won't bother. You can ask me things, or listen to him and we can then talk about things he said.

Talking about him seems more futile than anything. He is quite convincing about the media, and that we do, in fact, love each other.

[Hermit]

He is quite convincing about the media, and that we do, in fact, love each other.

He has undoubtedly convinced you. Keeping in mind that you also regard Rudy Giuliani as convincing while rejecting facts out of hand or simply ignoring them, your assessments are not as widely accepted as you might wish them to be.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Former financial affairs reporter for Fox News turned rabid promoter of Trumpism and Trump lies is now going to try out for a spot in the Fox News evening line-up of liars and bastids. She's doing a bang-up job.

'Maria Bartiromo baselessly alleges that "Democrats infiltrated two weeks ago and put on MAGA clothing" for January 6 insurrection'

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): Well, security in the nation's capital is at an unprecendented level this morning ahead of the inauguration tomorrow. A new report says that some far-right protesters have discussed posing as members of the National Guard to infiltrate the inauguration -- the way Democrats infiltrated two weeks ago and put on MAGA clothing...

Bartiromo is set to begin a trial run as a rotating Fox News primetime host, on its new 7 p.m. opinion show.

She was also was a major promoter of debunked conspiracy theories offered by Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani and ally Sidney Powell, with Bartiromo falsely claiming on December 14 that "President Trump did in fact win the election."

Even after the events of the January 6 insurrection, Bartiromo has still continued to attempt to undermine confidence in the 2020 election result, insisting on January 14 that "we know that that there were irregularities in this election."

[Brian Peacock]

It never ends.

[JimC]

The cult is all consuming...