Do you consider the media and news biased? I saw this from Chris Cuomo on CNN and wondered what the general opinion is on if it exists at all
Media is left leaning. Has been for a very long time, and will continue to do so unless it stops being profitable.
The media only leans towards federal. The left leaning or right leaning argument only applies to certain outlets and is always given as one or the other but it is only half the truth.
In this particular cycle, the media is extremely anti-Clinton. Generally, they have a "bothsides" bias, and they root for close races (meaning they support underdog candidates until they become popular).
"Reality has a well known liberal bias." There has definitely been more negative coverage on Trump lately. But there are pretty obvious reasons for that. Put simply, Trump is giving a constant stream of interviews, press conferences, etc and when he's not doing that he is tweeting. And he usually manages to say something controversial and newsworthy. This is the same tactic that got him his original base who mainly like him for the sole reason that he makes a point not to be politically correct (or correct in general), but obviously it's not working very well now. Hillary has been relatively quiet and their strategy seems to be just let Trump keep digging his own grave. Half the cries of media bias are in response to unedited Trump videos, or in context Trump quotes. I completely agree that the stupid fucking KFC and taco salad stuff was ridiculous, but much of it has been relevant. The result is that there is simply MUCH more material, positive or negative, coming from the Trump side. So what we see is that the best the Trump supporters can come up with is this nutty bullshit about Hillary having mental/physical health problems and posting the same 2 irrelevant (though pretty funny) GIFs over and over again. What else do they have? Literally only "EMAILS!" at this point. Some still try to bring up the blatantly untrue and easily debunked Clinton kill list but nobody sane believes that. All the major news outlets are showing what crazy shit Trump did today, while the negative Hillary coverage comes from a few Youtube conspiracy vids lately. Cliffs: It's not that complicated. More material from Trump, and people find him entertaining either because they agree with him, or because they are enjoying watching him make a fool of himself and the entire right wing.
One of the candidates in the current presidential election, in her previous position as Secretary of State, gave concessions and favours to foreign investors and governments who made donations to her private "charity" and paid her husband exorbitant fees for speaking engagements. The fact that this is overshadowed in the mainstream media by Trump eating KFC or having a baby kicked out of his rally or whatever else tells you all you need to know about media bias.
Most of the problem with perceived media bias on bot sides is the fact that people don't understand the difference between what are the pure news segments and the opinion segments. Opinion segments, or shows are not suppose to be unbiased, they are by their definitions the opinions of the hosts and guests.
The tv media is fairly monetarily biased. Whatever brings in the most money, gets the most coverage. On the whole though, the bias is pretty overstated.
Journalists are usually left leaning, but they are the bottom of the ladder. Ownership of the media is definitely not - and while they may seem to sway this way or that, you won't hear them reporting on anything that would be detrimental to preserving the status quo - the variance is tokenistic at best.
Exactly what I've seen. But when you are a conservative with the victimization complex of a teenage girl, the whole world looks liberally slanted. The media has rally failed in vetting and criticizing a lunatic like trump. We've never should've reached this point, but it has based in the things you pointed out.
I am original not used to the biased you have in the US media. So it took me a while getting used to. But watching CNN these days, what a Clinton Shitshow that is. I understand a certain criticism of Trump, but oh boy do they ignore Hillary's shortcomings.
All media is biased to an extent. This particular cycle hasn't been as bad as claimed. As someone else already typed - the problem is that Trump keeps giving people new things to talk about. Hillary certainly has her issues but they're the same old issues from 6 months ago. They don't suddenly rise in relevance or newsworthiness just to keep the scales even. People want more focus on her stuff but there's a simple problem with the request. Her stuff is often far more conjecture than fact. The emails were a problem but once the FBI says that there's no criminal charges to be brought we're left arguing that the media should continue covering something after the FBI says it's not a story. They're asking for conjecture over fact. The relationship between the State Dept., the Clinton Foundation, and foreign donors is another example. If it were true, it would be great news. But for it to be true, we'd need some kind of hard evidence that money was given in exchange for a definite outcome. We don't have it. The most we have is that people who seeking a benefit were also contributors. But anyone with a thirst for truth knows that's far too nebulous to make a story out of. Literally dozens of people with similar interests probably donated to the foundation, how can we claim that X person bought an outcome but other donors with the same interests didn't buy that outcome too? Instead, a discerning eye realizes that her detractors are simply claiming any prominent donor where the outcomes match must have bribed her. No journalist of any integrity would reach the conclusion that bribery was happening without something more concrete. Meanwhile, Trump just keeps saying things that are clearly attributable to him. So, journalists must choose between verifiable Trump statements vs. Clinton conjecture that lacks hard evidence.
I wonder if it is that simple. It is certainly the case that the public is partly responsible for what we see on the media. I find it difficult to believe that people are not at least somewhat influenced by what the media tells them to be influenced by.
