We were told “I believe the woman”. Joe Biden even said that a woman should be believed when accusing a man of rape during his roasting of Brett Kavanaugh.
So ok. But now the WaPo doesn’t cover the story as they did with Kavanaugh. Thus, by the standard given us by the Left, the paper is a misogynistic fish wrap.
all don’t read your sources of information. What don’t you get about this? I posted the same last week.
(no message)
How the fuck hard is that to understand?
But, I believe the paper provides 3 free articles each month.
Friday is May 1st. Ration carefully.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Ditto NYT.
I would read them if I could, but I can't, so...
But then there's a whole other level of links that are posted here. This includes The Daily Mail and BuzzFeed among others which are essentially Breitbart level tabloids. Posters should be shamed for posting such drivel, IMO.
PBS & NPR are the most unbiased sources, IMO. Of course they have biased guests, but they do seem to make an effort to represent all reasonable POVs.
But that is about it. I don't really trust the MSM and definitely don't treat what they say and print as gospel, like some "intelligent and educated" posters.
They do a good job separating the editorial section from the news.
I didn't go to CL's link, but I assume he linked an opinion piece, which is never "fair" in any paper. Because ... it's an opinion.
(no message)
(no message)
Geez, like we didn't know different media outlets have a bias. Doesn't mean the news is wrong.
This wasn't directed at you Iggle.
NBC, CBS, ABC are available to every human with the most minimal television sources in this country. They're watched by the super-majority of the nation in some capacity each week.
CNN is available on essentially every minimum cable/dish/streaming package in the country. It is broadcasted in airports 24 hours per day.
These 4 media sources present their version of the news in extraordinarily biased and often misleading ways. To just accept that as "no big deal" simply because Fox News and the New York Post exist is an illogical equivalency.
I mean, other than pre-teens?
I'm being serious.
(no message)
(no message)
Because where you're clearly drawing a line to get to is "if everyone knows there's bias, what does it matter?"
The problem is beyond bias - it's blatant dishonesty, misleading angles, and outright omissions of relevant information. This information reaches a large segment of people, and while I might be able to say "I can see the bias that goes against my personal opposite leanings," the problem is when it bombards the average citizen with minimal political leanings or interest. That is, quite frankly, the goal of this sort of thing. And the liberals know this, or they wouldn't have orchestrated this 3-year sideshow circus over freaking purchased Facebook ads.
(no message)
There is a product being developed in association with Cedars-Sinai called "Healight," which is U.V. exposure to the lungs for COVID patients (which Trump was referring to when everyone went crazy as if he were making up insanity).
The videos that were put up about this product keep magically getting removed by Youtube. Wonder why that is?
(no message)
My last move was quite some time ago, so I can't say what is happening now, but at that time, local cable had "Basic" plan with CNN, and "Basic Plus" plan with FoxNews. I had to pay extra to get FoxNews.
(no message)
Honestly, I saw mostly spinning to support an underlying bias so I just got tired of rolling my eyes all the time and shut it off.
But I don't think the long established media outlets like NYT, Washington Post or CNN are trying to intentionally lie.
That makes your complaint kinda weird.
and I sort of thought it was obvious to everyone. I mean, the President talks about it a lot. If people didn't know it before, they should now.
Personally, I use an "eat the meat, spit out the bones" approach to the news. The meat is the facts. The bones are the spin. It's the spin that makes me roll my eyes.
The idea, as I understand it, is that if I get biased right news and biased left news, there's some as yet unexplained process by which I sort of split the difference and find the truth. Of course, it doesn't work like that.
Because I wasn't going there. I'm not sure if people like me would go there. I don't have the authority to speak for them, but I probably should.
Have I mentioned to you before that I watch more CFL football than any Canadian? It's true.
First, we took over Hollywood. Then we took over the music industry. We now own the Winter Olympics.
Next up, we take the White House. Sure, our idea to insert Ted Cruz as President didn't go as planned but we are working on one of Gretzky's kids to be The Next One.
EDIT: Holy Smokes, I just realized I read your post completely wrong. I'm going to leave my post up here anyway.
(echo)Anyone here?(echo)
I haven't watched a CFL game since the 2nd half of the 2017 Grey Cup. Is Flutie still in the league? Does Toronto still have a team?
Football is now a pass-happy game. It makes much more sense to have three downs, not four. Its games move faster. Forward motion before the snap, something I would've opposed, actually opens up the game and makes it more exciting. Live ball in the end zones. No fair catches. Deeper end zone. Wider field.
The Argonauts are still around but even after somehow winning the Grey Cup a couple years ago, they sunk back to the bottom and draw few fans. The league will actually expand in a couple years to Halifax. My suggestion has been that they expand to select American cities in the North, where they would be the only pro teams in town, and where they can sign hometown college players, like: Boise, Madison, Fargo/Moorhead, Omaha, Syracuse, Tacoma or Spokane. When they tried this in the 90s, they expanded in the South, and other than Brimingham, there wasn't much support.
(no message)
(no message)
The major news networks were not always like this. We also had objective major newspapers, like I mentioned. This is a recent phenomenon. The rise of the internet greatly accelerated the descent of the new business. They're in competition.
(no message)
The Big Three were objective sources. CNN in the 80s was an objective news source. This crapola we have now is of recent vintage. When people say "It's always been like this," they are rationalizing.
Up here, you had the Milwaukee Journal and the Milwaukee Sentinel. The former was the "liberal" paper and the latter was the "conservative" paper. If you took out the op-eds, they would read almost exactly the same in their reporting. What has changed is the insertion of political bias into the news copy of newspapers and in TV news coverage. It was not always like that.
And I have yet to have anyone come remotely close to explaining how you get objective news by consulting two biased sources on either side.
Ben Bradlee was one of Kennedy’s best friends. Much was covered up or downplayed in the coverage of him. Nixon was just the opposite in both papers.
CNN was more centrist before sold off, but always leaned more left than right.
The bias has always been there if nothing more than in the choice of coverage. I do agree that all news has let much more opinion slip in under the guise of hard news. Some have been worse than others. The Journal isn’t one of the big offenders there.
But the myth of truly objective news is just that.
There is an abundance of examples of this, don't make me dig them up. Sometimes it is just human error, but many times it is obviously intentional.
And here's where I have a problem with the idea of "all networks have bias and everyone knows about it, so it doesn't matter."
Irresponsible journalism isn't just about fairness - it's dangerous. It contributes to radicalization, which drives violent behavior. Charlottesville, Dallas, stupid antifa rallies, attacks on school campuses, on and on.
They don’t intentionally lie, but they do have an agenda.
Just like the center right WSJ has one.
The media has always had some bias. Newspapers started out as adjuncts of political parties. Some still have their affiliation in their name.
(no message)
It’s coverage leans right as the graph shows, but generally it’s fair.
If it's biased, it's undetectable. The NYT news copy used to be, too. Sad.
they lean small govt, pro business. It’s not that pronounced but it’s there IMHO.
(no message)
Do you think Fox News intentionally lies?
Just want to know definitionally who you are speaking of.
Biased, definitely, which is why I don't consume or source them. I don't know of a specific example of intentionally misrepresenting a story in the manner of the example I provided, but also wouldn't be surprised either.
There are always individual exceptions.
It's up to the consumers to hold them accountable, but these are the same consumers that vote in our elections, so low expectations for change.
Viva Frei youtube channel and others that dissect the main stream media