Media Bias

Biden's decline and the coverup is a story. And yes, it's getting told in more detail now from the safety of a lost election. There are a lot of lessons and blame in that loss, but Democrats are rallying around the theory that Biden's refusal to step aside much, much earlier was the culprit, although I don't see that letting everyone else off the hook.

As mentioned in previous posts, ditching the incumbent anytime in 2023 would have seemed crazy at the time, and even March 2024 Joe who gave the State of the Union speech still seemed viable. Apparently the decline from March to June was quick and often catastrophic. The White House team not only lied to the press, fellow Democrats, and prominent fundraisers, they lied to Biden himself. I don't know how you would have unseated Joe for a traditional primary, but there was plenty of evidence that he never should have been allowed to take that debate stage. Some of those donors were stunned by Joe's feebleness even in managed settings. Rumors spread, but the people spreading them were often doxed by White House and Party operatives.  

Everyone was paralyzed because any Plan B was contingent on Biden stepping down willingly. He never went willingly. They were kinda f#&%ed. 

Political allies and media spokespeople covered for Biden out of raw partisan instinct. And no, that's not the media's job. They were blinded by the likelihood Trump would be reelected and the already vengeful and childish President would be a profound danger to America.

And they were right.

So yes, liberal cover-up of Biden's decline is a story worth considering. What slice of the larger American conversation should it take? Hard to say. Are the people concerned about this level of media bias equally concerned about the misleading coverage and non-reporting on Trump by, let's say America's most popular news channel? Happening as we speak? With massive consequences still in play? 

I think we can have both conversations at the same time. But who wants to do that? 

 
BigRedBuster said:
Obviously Mr. Miller hasn't paid attention to other "dishonest media campaigns in his life time".
Click to expand...
Good point.   He probably forgot we did have Dan Rather report a known false story about Bush that got him fired.   And then we had all the “if true” “ walls are closing if reports are true” (though they didn’t turn out true) of the Russia/Trump campaign collusion nonsense that was all the rage.  

 
Archy1221 said:
Good point.   He probably forgot we did have Dan Rather report a known false story about Bush that got him fired.   And then we had all the “if true” “ walls are closing if reports are true” (though they didn’t turn out true) of the Russia/Trump campaign collusion nonsense that was all the rage.  
Click to expand...


Well the Texas National Guard documents that got Bush fired were not known to be false at the time. They were forgeries specifically designed by rightwing pranksters to get someone like Rather fired. CBS should have been more vigilant in the first place, but by gosh they did fire their single most prominent newsman. 

But it's not a bad comparison, Arch. The document that doomed Rather wasn't accurate, but the larger story of Bush ducking service in Vietnam remained true. The liberal media bit on a fraudlent dossier in hopes of a smoking gun against Trump, but the larger story of an American president with a shadowy relationship with Vladimir Putin, making unilateral decisions to the benefit of Putin remains true.  

 
someone has a  bad case of Biden derangement syndrome.   as far as i can recall...the democratic party kicked joe off the ticket yet here we are with MAGA obsessing about it like it's some sort of big story.   all it really is at this point is a distraction from trumps bribery, disobeying court orders, tariff B.S. and assorted other scandals and blunders.     

 
Who knew Jake Tapper and the Axios dude were MAGA🤷‍♂️.   I guess I’ll ask again, how do you and the other guy/girl here define what is maga?   Still haven’t gotten your answer but you still use it a lot to describe people.  

 
Archy1221 said:
Who knew Jake Tapper and the Axios dude were MAGA🤷‍♂️.   I guess I’ll ask again, how do you and the other guy/girl here define what is maga?   Still haven’t gotten your answer but you still use it a lot to describe people.  
Click to expand...


MAGA is a loyalty to Trump that allows followers to move the goalposts and ignore hypocrisy as needed, which is often. It may be as simple as punishing liberals regardless of the larger consequences. It's seeing yourself as a culture warrior, fighting for a nostalgic America that may not have existed, and/or is more sexist/racist/homophobic/xenophobic than you want to admit. It's a willingness to swap Democracy for a personality you believe is a gift from God. 

I certainly wouldn't label anyone who criticizes Democrats as MAGA, since I'm one of those critics.  

btw, I don't consider you MAGA Archy. But at the end of the day if you're not fighting Trump's influence over the Republican Party, that distinction doesn't make much difference. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top