Media Bias

[Spider-Dan]

Tenshot, I have an easy question for you before we proceed further:

In the original video that came out - the one that got everyone mad at the Covington teens  - did you see anything wrong?  I mean, in that specific video alone.

[Tenshot13]

When I saw that video, the first thing I thought was there is more to this story and I looked into it further.  I try very hard not to jump to conclusions until enough information comes out.  I've always been more analytical than emotional, but sometimes my emotions get the better of me.

I can't look at the first video and make a snap judgement.  I have to know what the situation was, who was involved, who instigated this, why is this kid smiling, why is this man beating a drum in his face, etc.  I was late to the party on the video, the longer one had come out by then so when I did look into it, I saw what really happened.

[Spider-Dan]

You're dodging the question.

We know that there are more videos that provide more context. But that's not what I'm asking.  I'm asking if you see a problem with the teens' conduct in the original video.

Because if you don't, it seems like the entire discussion is a waste of time.  "We need more context" is a meaningless statement if your starting point is that (absent any additional context) the conduct in the original video is perfectly acceptable to begin with.

For example, if I was here defending the Hebrew Israelites, I could say, "Well, there's EVEN MORE video that shows the Covington teens being horrible to HI first." But it wouldn't make any sense for me to offer that defense if my underlying belief was that HI still didn't say anything wrong anyway.  I should just state the latter and make my stand there.

[Tenshot13]

I'm not dodging any question.  You're obviously trying to setup a point, but I don't think that way.  If you think it's a waste of time, that's on you.

[Cathal]

You're dodging the question.

We know that there are more videos that provide more context. But that's not what I'm asking.  I'm asking if you see a problem with the teens' conduct in the original video.

Because if you don't, it seems like the entire discussion is a waste of time.  "We need more context" is a meaningless statement if your starting point is that (absent any additional context) the conduct in the original video is perfectly acceptable to begin with.

For example, if I was here defending the Hebrew Israelites, I could say, "Well, there's EVEN MORE video that shows the Covington teens being horrible to HI first." But it wouldn't make any sense for me to offer that defense if my underlying belief was that HI still didn't say anything wrong anyway.  I should just state the latter and make my stand there.

Don't forget, he's probably part of the crowd that didn't hear the UN laugh at Trump.

I mean, there are certainly mistakes the media makes at times. The thread started because of a perceived bias against Trump. I mean, Wilbur Ross just came out today or yesterday saying furloughed workers should get a loan and they may have to pay interest on that loan. He doesn't understand why some of them, after not receiving 2 paychecks, need to go to food lines and get donated items. Sarah Sanders doesn't do press briefings anymore (not like she had that many going for her anyway). Trump won't go through with the SOTU until the government is open. Michael Cohen is subpoenaed by the Senate Intelligence Committee. There are dozens of more stories and all of that is just this week! But people like Tenshot and the others will think it's a bias just reporting how bad this president is and the absolute destruction he is causing this country.

[Tenshot13]

When I made this thread, it was about general media bias. I appreciate all the assumptions and lies though.  I'm not some forever Trumper I've made that very clear, but you'd rather believe I'm some alt-righter.

It's unjust to attack me because I'm not talking about the shutdown.  No one else brought it up and had ample opportunity.  Btw I think they're both huge babies regarding that.  Just make a damn deal already.

General discussion about media bias.  Personally, ever since the election I have been nothing but pissed off at the media.  From FoxNews gagging on Trumps ween day in and day out to CNN trying to find any and everything they can to demonize the right, people forget, WE are who they are pointing their blowholes at.  Things used to be more subtle, CNN used to be more down the middle and Fox wasn't as far to the right.  Now, you can't find an unbiased new source, even PBSNewshour is left leaning.  I guess the Economist is the closest I'll get?  Regardless, I've watched the media on both sides add so much fuel to this fire, THEY are what are really tearing this country apart.  Guess what?  White supremacy is not over taking us (Only hundreds showed up to the biggest “alt-right” meeting in the country.)  Cops are not slaughtering as many unarmed blacks as the media would have you think--This is certainly a sensitive issue that shouldn't be ignored, but it's being blown up with factual inaccuracies that are weakening the argument.  Bringing up alleged sexual abuse from a 17 year old 36 years ago, RIGHT BEFORE he is appointed to the supreme court?  Pretty convenient timing there.  Way to take a movement like #metoo and use it for political gains.  That's not the media though, it's the nonstop coverage on it, like this weak ass accusation will stick long enough to delay this until elections...pretty pathetic.

The right is just as bad (notice how I say just as bad?  That's correct, they aren't worse than the left, they're equally shitty).  Trump has no scandals according to them, they'd rather talk about how evil the Democrats are EVERY FUCKING DAY!  It's terrible how many people I know that have taken sides based on half truths and factual inaccuracies...and if you want to go down the rabbit hole of what source is what and who is presenting the facts, and ultimately and most importantly what their agenda is...you'll be researching all damn day.  This is not what the news is supposed to be.

Also, Trump isnt allowed to use the house for his SOTU per Pelosi.  That's why he's waiting until after the shutdown

[Spider-Dan]

It isn't "trying to setup a point," it IS the point.  Your original accusation was that the "enemy of the people" media rushed to condemn based on a short clip that looks bad, without waiting for the full context. But that position is significantly undercut if your underlying belief is that no additional context is needed because the original video isn't even bad.

But let's continue:

I'm not saying the Hebrew Israelites and the Native Americans were in it together.  I'm saying there is a much larger narrative here that the media didn't initially show, including what started the whole thing (HI).

If the Natives aren't responsible for HI, why are we talking about HI in the first place?  Why does it matter if HI are "the real racists"?  The original video was between the Covington teens and the Native protesters.  How do the unhinged proclamations of HI change the context of the original video?

I'm not some forever Trumper I've made that very clear, but you'd rather believe I'm some alt-righter.

I mean, I can insist that I'm not a hardcore leftist all day long, but if every argument I make is defending hardcore leftism, then if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

In other words, the reason why you are accused of being a forever Trumper is your consistent, unwavering defense of & excuse-making for Trump.

[Tenshot13]

It isn't "trying to setup a point," it IS the point.  Your original accusation was that the "enemy of the people" media rushed to condemn based on a short clip that looks bad, without waiting for the full context. But that position is significantly undercut if your underlying belief is that no additional context is needed because the original video isn't even bad.

But let's continue:
If the Natives aren't responsible for HI, why are we talking about HI in the first place?  Why does it matter if HI are "the real racists"?  The original video was between the Covington teens and the Native protesters.  How do the unhinged proclamations of HI change the context of the original video?
I mean, I can insist that I'm not a hardcore leftist all day long, but if every argument I make is defending hardcore leftism, then if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

In other words, the reason why you are accused of being a forever Trumper is your consistent, unwavering defense of & excuse-making for Trump.

The original video doesn't matter.  In what world is a snap judgement based on emotion > the facts?  Also, I didn't say the media was the enemy of the people, you're twisting my words.  I said:

You know when Trump says the media is the enemy of the people?  It's shit like this that backs that up.

To continue, we are talking about HI because they are the catalyst that started this whole thing.  I've already said that.  They are part of the whole story.  Why would you NOT talk about them?  They are the reason Phillips got in between them, correct?  I still think it's a political publicity stunt that he seized the opportunity for, but the situation likely doesn't happen if HI isn't calling a bunch of white kids cracker and future school shooters.

So you think I'm an alt-righter?  You pretty much just said so.

[Spider-Dan]

I think you consistently defend the positions of the right (which isn't necessarily the same as the alt-right).  Whether you personally identify as "right" or "alt-right" is not for me to determine.

But I hold myself to the same standard.  I'm a registered independent, yet you don't see me pushing back when conservatives here accuse me of being a Democrat.  At the end of the day, I am responsible for the ideas I defend.

[Tenshot13]

And you're not wrong in your assessment, I'm a registered republican and lean right.  There are things I don't agree with, I think the rights lack of concern for the environment is a mistake.  I didn't vote for Rick Scott any time he was on the ballet, I actually voted for Christ for governor.  Trump just said minutes ago that he thinks most of the government employees support the shut down because they know what's at stake, which is a pretty fucking stupid thing to say, considering 800,000 people need that money now.  

I think the reason I'm consistently defending the right is because everything is liberal in the media, movies and TV shows.  Conservative, there's FoxNews which isn't all that great, Last Man Standing, also not great... That's really all I can think of.  Liberal entertainment, and media has pretty much all of Hollywood, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, anything on the CW, it's constantly in your face. 

[Dolphster]

Anyone who can look at the media apart from their own personal politics should be able to see that all media outlets (at least the major ones) are biased.  They are either biased towards the left or biased towards the right.  The big question shouldn't be about specific incidents.  The big question should be how did we get here?  When did it become okay for the media to be blatantly biased?  I'm probably a little older than most of you, but I can remember when the concept of "journalistic integrity" was a cornerstone of that profession.  Now it is non existent.  If there is no honest broker for information, the masses will be increasingly ignorant of facts.  A pretty good argument could be made for the fact we are already there. 

[Spider-Dan]

I used to think that the end of the Fairness Doctrine was the tipping point, as that was basically the point where most news went from respectable to terrible.  But if I'm being honest, the issues with today's media would not be solved if every news outlet was doing more "both sides" false equivalency.  "Both sides" is the problem, not the solution.  (And in any case, cable news would not be subject to the Fairness Doctrine, which brings me to my next point...)

The problem is cable news.  Prior to CNN and Fox News, news was considered something that was a public responsibility of broadcast companies; it was not expected to be a revenue generator.  But CNN figured out that you can get huge ratings by putting two opposing sides on a panel and having them argue, and Fox figured out that you can get even bigger ratings by taking the standard conservative anger/fear towards The Other and dialing it up to 11.  (Dialing up liberal anger/fear towards the rich doesn't get ratings in America, which is why you see MSNBC doing stuff like this that you would NEVER see from their supposed equal opposite, Fox News.)  Huge ratings = huge money, and then the legacy news sources were "forced" to follow suit because they weren't making the kind of revenue that cable news was.

[Cathal]

Oh, and Roger Stone was just arrested. Funny how everyone associated with the President is corrupt or going to jail. And Republican senators blaming McConnell for the shutdown still going on. Juicy Friday. I guess reporting this is more media bias.

Oh, this is just an F5 kind of day. Now the FAA is ordering more ground stops and is delaying flights  because of a lack of air-traffic control staff. Just Trump operating like normal. Causing the US to fail, just like his business.

More media bias?

[Dolphster]

I used to think that the end of the Fairness Doctrine was the tipping point, as that was basically the point where most news went from respectable to terrible.  But if I'm being honest, the issues with today's media would not be solved if every news outlet was doing more "both sides" false equivalency.  "Both sides" is the problem, not the solution.  (And in any case, cable news would not be subject to the Fairness Doctrine, which brings me to my next point...)

The problem is cable news.  Prior to CNN and Fox News, news was considered something that was a public responsibility of broadcast companies; it was not expected to be a revenue generator.  But CNN figured out that you can get huge ratings by putting two opposing sides on a panel and having them argue, and Fox figured out that you can get even bigger ratings by taking the standard conservative anger/fear towards The Other and dialing it up to 11.  (Dialing up liberal anger/fear towards the rich doesn't get ratings in America, which is why you see MSNBC doing stuff like this that you would NEVER see from their supposed equal opposite, Fox News.)  Huge ratings = huge money, and then the legacy news sources were "forced" to follow suit because they weren't making the kind of revenue that cable news was.

Solid post right there and I totally agree with you about "both sides" being the problem.  It doesn't help that our society has become so "dumbed down" and lazy that they just pick a source that for the most part reflects their ideals and they just repeat whatever those sources are telling them.  I hate that.  Just give me facts and let me make my own opinions about a subject.   But no.  For most people, thinking is hard work and it is easier to just repeat what someone else says.  Don't even get me started on people who get their "news" from the internet.  "I saw on the internet that the Democrats want to allow abortion up until a kid enters high school."  "I saw on the internet that the Republicans want to open up nazi style concentration camps to kill everyone who isn't white."   

It also makes me crazy with how the right wingers will reject everything that the left wing proposes and the left wing will reject everything the right wing proposes.  Don't even look at the validity of the topic.  Just be against the other guy.  Border security is a prime example.  Back in 2013 (I believe that was the year), Obama and Peolosi were both interviewed and the tv footage is still there and both of them said that we needed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants across the border and strengthen border barriers.  The right wanted nothing to do with it because it was the Democrats saying it.  Now Trump is saying the same thing and the left wants nothing to do with it because it is a Republican saying it. I know they all do it in pursuit of the support of their bases because poll numbers are SO much more important than doing what is best for the country.  Sorry, got a little off topic there. 

[Dave Gray]

There is no liberal media bias.  That's bullshit.

Facts have a liberal bias at this point in time, because the conservative party is fucked up at this point in time.  Science points to global warming being real, CNN reports that.  That's not liberal...that's just facts.  What the Republican party is has become a slight to conservative ideals.  It's been hijacked by religious zealotry and wealth protection.

Donald Trump spouts lies like no other politician in American History.  These are verified, intentional lies -- they are daily.  This is like nothing we have ever seen.  This is not like "you can keep your doctor" lies that Obama told, where they were thought to be true.  This is not the lies that Bush told where they were omissions of partial truths or whatever else.  These are new, they are intentional, and they are verifiably false.  They are reported as lies by the media.  That isn't biased.  It's just honest reporting.  Sure, the editorial stuff at CNN probably skews liberal in terms of where their ideals are, but that's not what's at stake here.

That's where we are at.

Spider is right about false equivalency and equal time.  There should be no equal time when it comes to factual reporting.

Conservatives should be fuming mad at what the Republican party has become.