Opinion on Media Bias

Hypothetically, what would a balanced and fair media coverage of a candidate who constantly used contrafactual statements look like?
 
It would like Fox News and MSNBC on a Saturday morning.

At those times slots, they put on young journalists who aren't cocky enough to espouse opinions and at that slot, they don't have panels of opinionated windbags.

They still only report what they report but the top 3 networks all compete for the same stories so one you remove the pundit portion, it becomes just reporting.
Less opinionated reporters give you less bias, but that still isn't "unbiased".
 
Glances over the headlines. Nothing about the numerous Hillary scandals. All anti-Trump headlines.

How are they trying to keep it close?

Are moderators supposed to troll? Things are pretty bad for you when you find yourself agreeing 100% with Savage

LOL. Not a word about all her contract murders or bribes, right? If that's your standard, even Fox is pro-Clinton, right?
 
I thought so for a long time too. Several networks have viewers tanking and they still stick with the fuck white America narrative. They're ready to bankrupt themselves for their message.

It's not about money.

oh but it is...it must be. they arent businesses that exist anymore if it isnt about the money. you have to be wrong or the people you're talking about arent there to talk about any longer.
 
oh but it is...it must be. they arent businesses that exist anymore if it isnt about the money. you have to be wrong or the people you're talking about arent there to talk about any longer.

It is about money, but it is not all about money.

Media in China or Russia, or pretty much anywhere isn't all about money. The MSM is a propoganda conduit also which is extremely important to those in power.
 
It is about money, but it is not all about money.

Media in China or Russia, or pretty much anywhere isn't all about money. The MSM is a propoganda conduit also which is extremely important to those in power.

the way that russian and chinese outlets make their money is different than clear channel and the like.

youre looking at the media political relationship backwards. its an issue of directionality...kinda like, "do killers simply like violent video games or did the games make them violent?" im betting that occam's razor and capitalism explain our media, including your conspiracy sites.
 
the way that russian and chinese outlets make their money is different than clear channel and the like.

youre looking at the media political relationship backwards. its an issue of directionality...kinda like, "do killers simply like violent video games or did the games make them violent?" im betting that occam's razor and capitalism explain our media, including your conspiracy sites.

It's both. It's capitalism and propaganda as a balance. Money makes the world go round, but the pen is still mightier than the sword. That power is not to be overlooked (and it isn't).

The mechanism in the Western nations is more advanced, running through private platforms, as is the propaganda more advanced.
 
It's both. It's capitalism and propaganda as a balance. Money makes the world go round, but the pen is still mightier than the sword. That power is not to be overlooked (and it isn't).

The mechanism in the Western nations is more advanced, running through private platforms, as is the propaganda more advanced.

maybe so. i guess ill take the blue pill and keep watching the olympics.
 
oh but it is...it must be. they arent businesses that exist anymore if it isnt about the money. you have to be wrong or the people you're talking about arent there to talk about any longer.
They don't need to be making money when they got billionaire sugar daddies. That's why they don't care that they're losing money and lots of it. Their business is trying to shape reality with their narratives.
 
Last edited:
oh but it is...it must be. they arent businesses that exist anymore if it isnt about the money. you have to be wrong or the people you're talking about arent there to talk about any longer.

You're very much in denial Ringo
 
Ofcourse the media is biased. Has been since man discovered language and the process of writing on stone tablets.

But one can't completely blame the media on every little thing. That's only one big portion of the whole process.
 
Oh, come on. Venezuela has about as much relevance when talking about American liberals as Pinochet's Chile has when talking about American conservatives.

The Socialism that led to Venezuela's current state is the exact same Socialism that the Liberals in the US and Western Europe love to peddle as "The perfect system for a Utopian soicety" To think they're not the same is gross ignorance.
 
Me? Funny from someone that pulled "murder and bribes" out of thin air when I said "Hillary scandals"

We should go back to ignoring each other now.

You started threads on that stuff. Don't be disingenuous. So you believe all this kooky stuff about Clinton (I saw your meltdown in the Soros thread, too) that you see on fringe blogs and hear on talk radio, but the legitimate media doesn't report it. So naturally, you think the media is biased. But in reality, the media is pretty strongly biased *against* Clinton.
 
All media is bias. It's impossible to be completely objective.

What I look for is what exactly the motives behind the bias are and just how smart and respectable the person is that I'm reading/watching/listening to.
 
The Socialism that led to Venezuela's current state is the exact same Socialism that the Liberals in the US and Western Europe love to peddle as "The perfect system for a Utopian soicety" To think they're not the same is gross ignorance.

European social democracies are like the Scandinavian nations are, within reason, legitimate comparisons. Venezuela isn't. You're being stupid on purpose. Stop it. It's bad for political discourse.
 
All media is bias. It's impossible to be completely objective.

What I look for is what exactly the motives behind the bias are and just how smart and respectable the person is that I'm reading/watching/listening to.

What I think is that "bias" is a shitty measure of the quality of media. Tell the fucking truth, guys, and stop worrying about appearing to favor one side or the other when you do it. But it's primarily a business, and they don't want to risk alienating customers (plus, right-wingers have been worked up about it so they're hypersensitive to bias accusations so they have to go further in that direction).
 
Glances over the headlines. Nothing about the numerous Hillary scandals. All anti-Trump headlines.

How are they trying to keep it close?

Are moderators supposed to troll? Things are pretty bad for you when you find yourself agreeing 100% with Savage

What scandals of Hilary would you like the media to further report on? The emails? Benghazi?

They've already covered this stuff in detail, and there's nothing else new for them to report. On the other hand, Trump gives them fresh material almost each day. Pretty sure if Hilary was saying stupid stuff everyday, they would want to cover that too.
 
Back
Top