Media Bias Thread

[yepyepwoah]

Did yall see this series project veritas did recently? What do you guys think about CNN. Do you feel they are sufficiently crooked and biased as a media source? Do you think other agencies are even more crooked?

Do you think CNN actually stands for
Clown News Network and is the main project mockingbird cia news shill factory?

Discuss!

Part I - Zucker’s Vendetta: http://youtu.be/m7XZmugtLv4

Part II - CNN Picks Dem Winners/Losers: http://youtu.be/GgMOBWXusYU

Part III - CNN “Totally left leaning”: http://youtu.be/qbQwAQ0tDTQ

Part IV - #MeTooCNN:

 

[JessFR]

I think this whole concept of attacking the source of information rather than the information itself, this whole fake news concept, is extremely damaging and I'm sick of it.

Its gotten to the point now where the divide is so large there's no way to make any progress in discussion. Because people just accept whatever information they want to believe and disregard any they don't, no matter how plausible it is or what the evidence is.

 

[JessFR]

Jess FR why do you still respond to threads and never comment on the actual arguement you just give some blase opinion that distracts ?

You asked what people thought about CNN and if they're crooked and/or biased. My answer is is completely on topic.

Stop persecuting me for my opinions, and censoring my opinions by arguing back!

 

[yepyepwoah]

You asked what people thought about CNN and if they're crooked and/or biased. My answer is is completely on topic.

Stop persecuting me for my opinions, and censoring my opinions by arguing back!

So if you are not a fan of attacking the source of the information how do you feel about

QANON

 

[JessFR]

Far as I'm aware qanon is not a source of information at all. It's a conspiracy theory. In other words it IS information. So attacking that theory as laughable and absurd isn't attacking the source.

Attacking the source of that information would be saying that random 4chan posters are not a reliable source of information. And I feel no need to say what is abundantly obvious.

 

[yepyepwoah]

Qanon is a source of information. How can you deny this? The conspiracy theory is who is providing the information anonymously, not that information is being provided.

I think this whole concept of attacking the source of information rather than the information itself, this whole fake news concept, is extremely damaging and I'm sick of it.

So now you contradict yourself by attacking QANON (the source of information), which you stated is extremely damaging and you are sick of it. THen why do you keep doing it?

You meant to attack the Qanon "conspiracy theorist" who have views based on the information QANON provides, but you don't attack any Q information

QMAP: Qanon Drops & POTUS Tweets

Be a part of the Great Awakening. Get real-time Qanon drops and POTUS tweets. We are the news now!

qmap.pub

 

[Captain.Heroin]

CNN is quite conservative.

 

[Xorkoth]

I find CNN to be more objective and professional than most, however they are still guilty of irresponsible reporting in terms of drumming up outrage to sell headlines.

I trust NPR and BBC moreso than any other news source we receive here.

I agree with Jess that the situation is dire at this point with respect to information dissemination. It is literally impossible to have a productive conversation because each side considers the other side's source of information to be fake news. What I've done recently is tried to listen to various reporting from different places in the world. For example, to form my opinion of what's been going on in the middle east in terms of Turkey and Syria and Russia, and our role in that mess, I listen to reporting from where it's actually happening, that isn't American.

I don't consider QANON a reliable source of information because it's just some anonymous person saying stuff. They could say anything. I want evidence, not opinion that is unverifiable.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Yep, what is your intended purpose? Is it to discuss biased media, or to pick a fight with staff? I've wanted to a have a media thread for awhile, and would love to discuss such. However, if you simply wish to provoke the moderators, it's a waste of everyone's time and won't be tolerated. I can concede the internet doesn't convey a humorous tone very well, but that you spent the majority of your posts in this thread trying to trap and taunt a staff member, I'm not thinking it's for the laughs. I'm quite certain nobody else finds that amusing. Well, I shouldn't speak for others, but I can say I don't find it amusing in the least. I don't like people choosing to spend time on low return efforts, and I further dislike people who cause others to waste time.

Returning to this as the premise...

What do you guys think about CNN. Do you feel they are sufficiently crooked and biased as a media source? Do you think other agencies are even more crooked?

I think all media is biased at this point. Some look back and say it has been this way for decades - that even in the 70's and 80's you could watch a State of the Nation broadcast and the Cronkite-Rather-et al summarizing it afterward and interpreting the President's words in a direct contradiction to what was actually said in the President's address. I used to believe CNN, and trust the major news channels, but over the past decade or so I've seen too occasions which undermine that faith. As I watched the MSM kiss Obama's ass for years and now trash Trump without checking facts. I did not run to Fox, or other conservative outlets, as being the truth bearers, as I saw them being just as bad but in the other direction.

Online 'news' outlets provide volumes more content that points out their lack of concern for facts, and their prioritizing their own agenda and opinion, presented as facts. That's kind of the basis for the 'media' thread I was looking to have, to highlight how much people need to question what their being told by their preferred sources - regardless of party alignment. Case in point, NYT recently tweeted about al Baghdadi and quickly changed their headline. Neither title changes the fact the US killed him, but the change of headline shows the intent by the publication to sway readers reactions into judging the event as good or bad. I long for the days when the public was given the facts and allowed to decide for themselves. Now, as Xork states, you need to check multiple sources and assume the truth lies somewhere in between...if you check from both sides, as multiple sources with similar agendas does little to cover the truth.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

You all have to be deluded to think CNN is liberal. They have R’s and war machine sympathizers every. Single. God. Damn. Day.

CNN went out of their way to make Cruz (the dumbest fucking loser in the entire world) look good on stage when Cruz didn’t even bother to show up to debate O’Rourke.

Anchors like Cooper are worth tens of millions of dollars.

trust me; these kind of people vote Republican.

 

[SvnLyrBrto]

I find CNN to be more objective and professional than most, however they are still guilty of irresponsible reporting in terms of drumming up outrage to sell headlines.

I trust NPR and BBC moreso than any other news source we receive here.

Objective-ish, I'd agree. They're a bit right-of-center, but not obnoxiously so. But they have a lot to prove in the professionalism side. In their quest to feed the beast that is the 24-hour news cycle and fill up two channels (Don't forget about CNN Headline News.); they resort to sensationalism, hysteria, and superficial trivia way too much. For a recent example; consider when they hosted one of the recent presidential debates. The commercials leading up to it reminded me more of something leading into Wrestle-mania than a serious discussion of the vital issues facing the country. And then, they eventually stopped talking about the issues altogether and asked the candidates what they though about Ellen and GWB sitting together at a goddamned baseball game! They burned presidential debate time on THAT garbage? A stupid social-media clip of someone who is not seeking political office or making public policy and someone who can never do so again... just why do I give a damn about that? And don't even get me started about Nancy Fucking Grace.

Of course, they *DID* eventually kick Nancy Grace to the curb. And I do love ever minute that Anthony Bourdain is on-screen. So there's hope for CNN.

Now, for *REAL* news, I agree on the BBC and NPR. Though I'm more inclined towards the BBC. They're more inclined to admit that there is a "rest of the world" outside the USA. And I really hate the close-minded provincialism of the broadcast news and their domestic-focused navel-gazing. Yeah, I know NPR is better than most. But the BBC is still more-or-less the gold standard for broadcast news in my book.

 

[Xorkoth]

Yeah I agree with you. I listen to the radio/news mostly in my car and my radio station is NPR during part of the day and then BBC later on.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

1%ers for Hillary

lol @ "liberal CNN" anyone who calls CNN "liberal" is really like... living in a subjective reality to which I cannot relate to. I like gazing toward objective reality, not digging my head in the sand. This, or "mainstream media" obsession, or thinking the CIA owns the media (WHEN THEY OWNED A BANK ffs you think if they'd own the media the whole world would be spinning opposing lies instead of being on the same side, unilaterally ON SO MANY DIFFERENT VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES FFS losing my mind over here THE YEAR IS NOT 1984)

CNN may try to stay "objective" but they fall short of the mark; they have a plethora of otherwise distasteful conservative voices/points of view that should disgust free thinkers, liberals, leftists, far-leftists alike. I've made my point and I'm sticking to it GOOD DAY SIR learn2politics

It's quite telling when a totalitarian nation can produce more centrist/objective free media than America.

That feel when you realize Africans have more freedoms in certain ways than Americans.... enjoy

cia

I stopped reading when I came to this.

 

[cduggles]

Okay, we’re back fresh with a new name and some new game.
Where do you get your news from? What do you think of media bias?

 

[mal3volent]

Does Fox News still claim to be "fair and balanced" ?

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Oh god thank you cduggles you're a fucking angel. Hopefully I didn't spill too many beers when I knocked over the coffee table

Does Fox News still claim to be "fair and balanced" ?

It really is. I actually really like Fox News. They air all of Trump's lies and then go through mental gymnastics and logical fallacies to defend him. It's an active lesson in how to be deceptive, and inherently are pointing out ALL of his lies/deceitfulness and only stupid people would think highly of him for watching it.

Ready for the republican ridicule any minute now! :D

P.S. I watch most of the Trump Train rallies on Fox News youtube and I LOVE THE COMMENTS. Some people go rogue like me and start saying LEGALIZE MARIJUANA or LEGALIZE METH while most are actual national socialists. Whilst others are pointing out that the people who are "attending the rallies" are really PAID NATIONAL SOCIALIST ACTORS, and then A NEWS ARTICLE CAME OUT BASICALLY POINTING OUT THAT WAS THE REAL TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So yeah, I fucking love it. Keep the cameras on him, DO NOT LET HIM GET AWAY FROM HIS CRIMES! THANK YOU FOX!

Yeah I agree with you. I listen to the radio/news mostly in my car and my radio station is NPR during part of the day and then BBC later on.

Good news sources IMO! This is why I like you, different conclusions but still reality based and logical. And you listen to real news. Same can be said for cdugs, mal, TLB and most of ya'll from different political backgrounds. I, at points, even agree w/ JG and feel horrified (and will vocalize that as I'm agreeing with him LOL)

 

[✿Dai₷y✿]

Yep, what is your intended purpose? Is it to discuss biased media, or to pick a fight with staff? I've wanted to a have a media thread for awhile, and would love to discuss such. However, if you simply wish to provoke the moderators, it's a waste of everyone's time and won't be tolerated. I can concede the internet doesn't convey a humorous tone very well, but that you spent the majority of your posts in this thread trying to trap and taunt a staff member, I'm not thinking it's for the laughs. I'm quite certain nobody else finds that amusing. Well, I shouldn't speak for others, but I can say I don't find it amusing in the least. I don't like people choosing to spend time on low return efforts, and I further dislike people who cause others to waste time.

Returning to this as the premise...



I think all media is biased at this point. Some look back and say it has been this way for decades - that even in the 70's and 80's you could watch a State of the Nation broadcast and the Cronkite-Rather-et al summarizing it afterward and interpreting the President's words in a direct contradiction to what was actually said in the President's address. I used to believe CNN, and trust the major news channels, but over the past decade or so I've seen too occasions which undermine that faith. As I watched the MSM kiss Obama's ass for years and now trash Trump without checking facts. I did not run to Fox, or other conservative outlets, as being the truth bearers, as I saw them being just as bad but in the other direction.

Online 'news' outlets provide volumes more content that points out their lack of concern for facts, and their prioritizing their own agenda and opinion, presented as facts. That's kind of the basis for the 'media' thread I was looking to have, to highlight how much people need to question what their being told by their preferred sources - regardless of party alignment. Case in point, NYT recently tweeted about al Baghdadi and quickly changed their headline. Neither title changes the fact the US killed him, but the change of headline shows the intent by the publication to sway readers reactions into judging the event as good or bad. I long for the days when the public was given the facts and allowed to decide for themselves. Now, as Xork states, you need to check multiple sources and assume the truth lies somewhere in between...if you check from both sides, as multiple sources with similar agendas does little to cover the truth.

I am going to raise a subject with you (not a fight, just curious) and that is:

Why are you questioning motivations for a thread as an attack on staff unless there is a basis for that assumption already formed in your head?


I hope you don't expect tip toeing around your post.

Having said that this post took too long as I have tip toed around to not piss you off , my beer went warm.













Xolorth is right, I'd add it's not a big ask to check various sources since politics is hard to get away from . It' There's no way in hell any source would be unbiased, the same thing can be written in different ways to project any mental image.

I enjoy different perspectives, if there's people who just like to stick to one and don't value anyone else's viewpoint then there's no point in talking to them.

 

[✿Dai₷y✿]

Btw. Skimmed thread, it reads as if some really do think staff media preferences hold more weight here and that can't be right, if so

If

Does Fox News still claim to be "fair and balanced" ?

If FOX had a slogan like "UNBALANCED AND UNFAIR, SCREW THE TRUTH AND FUCK YOU"

yet have the same content would they lose their reputation?

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Why are you questioning motivations for a thread as an attack on staff unless there is a basis for that assumption already formed in your head?

My questioning the intent of the poster was because the OP seemed like a legit topic to me - media bias. However, the next several of their posts were not on topic, and were instead baiting, taunting, and general asshattery against one of the forum mods who tried to respond. I was concerned that he abandoned the OP and preferred to use the thread in a less than productive manner. You, and most other readers, may not have that context if the mods came behind and cleaned up the off-topic posts in an effort to save the thread.

 

[JGrimez]

Lol someone said that CNN was conservative...

One thing the establishment left and right agree on these days is that war is good and the war agenda must be pushed. That's why the Left hates Gabbard so much and she gets destroyed whenever she steps onto (what should be friendly) liberal media.

The media bias in general is obvious and evident. Hardcore censorship across almost all platforms for anyone who dares to criticize the liberal agenda.