Opinion on Media Bias

So "Just the Facts" can still be biased. This is my point- everyone wants unbiased media, but no one can tell me what that means.

Omitting important facts seems to be the problem you speak of. "Just the facts", to me, implies all those that are relevant to painting a full picture. Covering one party differently than the other is being guilty of bias by picking and choosing which facts to present.
 
Omitting important facts seems to be the problem you speak of. "Just the facts", to me, implies all those that are relevant to painting a full picture. Covering one party differently than the other is being guilty of bias by picking and choosing which facts to present.
I agree w/ that, but obviously which facts are relevant is subjective.

Usually the 2 parties don't do the exact same wrong things under the same circumstances, or competing w/ the same other headlines so the media winds up making judgment calls.
 
It's hard to have a serious discussion about this because American conservatives are so far to the right that virtually every news outlet in the world is left leaning by their standards.
 
I agree w/ that, but obviously which facts are relevant is subjective.

Usually the 2 parties don't do the exact same wrong things under the same circumstances, or competing w/ the same other headlines so the media winds up making judgment calls.

Sure, it's subjective. That's where good faith effort comes into play and why there's classes on ethics in journalism.
 
So "Just the Facts" can still be biased. This is my point- everyone wants unbiased media, but no one can tell me what that means.
Good point. Everyone has biases, so the media being completely absent of bias might just be impossible. However, the media often makes no effort to hide biases these days. Conservatives have Fox, and Liberals have pretty much everything else.
 
Last edited:
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.

Would you consider yourself an establishment republican?
 
Good point. Everyone has biases, so the media being completely absent of bias might just be impossible. However, the media often makes no effort to hide biases these days. Conservative have Fox, and Liberals have pretty much everything else.

I don't think we can ever agree amongst ourselves on what "free of bias" would mean. If not, asking if the media is biased is like asking if the govt. is unfair. Everyone would agree, even people with diametrically opposing views of how to make it more fair.
 
It's hard to have a serious discussion about this because American conservatives are so far to the right that virtually every news outlet in the world is left leaning by their standards.

BS. Anything that isn't socialism is "far right" to you looney tunes. You have gone so far left that anything moderate looks far right to you.
 
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).

lol-gif-35.gif
 
"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.
Nicely done. All nails flush.
 
Would you consider yourself an establishment republican?

I don't know how you're defining "establishment". If you mean small government, responsible taxation and things related to that, probably. If you mean anti-Democrats just because they're democrats, probably not. If you mean the Christian right, definitely not. If you mean that I support all Republicans in all things, definitely not. If you mean free trade and pro-corporation, anti-union, yeah mostly.
 
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


I
Where the hell have you been? Not only is the media extremely biased, they were proven to have collaborated with the DNC to print false information. Whether smearing the name of an opponent with falsities or lying about the DNC.
 
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.

what concessions and favors?
 
Back
Top