Media Bias

Archy1221 said:
Anyone know what Red is talking about?  The evidence of my eyes and ears,  based of the fact checkers you lefties love and the folks on CNN, NYT’s, etc…saying the “fine people on both sides” referred to the for and against statue people.  
Click to expand...


Can't speak for Red, but any application of the eyes, ears, and brain suggests Donald Trump is riding a wave of white nationalism that makes parsing individual statements like this moot. 

 
Archy1221 said:
Is there an independent analysis to confirm the 20:1 ratio or close to it ratio?  
 

View attachment 21467
Click to expand...


I'll link you to the Facebook page of a lower level Democrat influencer and you can read his posts and the comments section; particularly the meme he shared: Maybe it's time that the New York Times should step aside for a younger, fitter, more coherent newspaper.  Someone there did the math. Whether it's right or wrong isn't the point. 

https://www.facebook.com/john.weir.7796420

I didn't mean to imply it was independent analysis at all. But it wouldn't be surprising that the post-debate fallout fell far heavier on Biden's surprisingly disastrous performance compared to Trump's predictably dishonest performance. Watching the White House and Biden loyalists turn on the media for pursuing an incredibly relevant if highly problematic story is discouraging to me. 

 
Lorewarn said:
I don't think so. Similarly, I don't think there's any real independent analysis of the lazy and vague claims of leftism of the 'mainstream media.'
Click to expand...
Well, not the lazy and vague claims.  However there certainly is independent analysis and one needs to look no further than the party affiliation of “mainstream media” members/journalists.   After looking at that, you can move on to the analysis of political stories.  If one is actually interested with an independent open mind to that sort of thing though.  

 
Archy1221 said:
Well, not the lazy and vague claims.  However there certainly is independent analysis and one needs to look no further than the party affiliation of “mainstream media” members/journalists.   After looking at that, you can move on to the analysis of political stories.  If one is actually interested with an independent open mind to that sort of thing though.  
Click to expand...


But what if a comprehensive analysis of political stories and partisan claims finds the GOP to be 87% full of s#!t and the Democrats 37% full of s#!t? That means both parties are full of s#!t, but the difference remains significant and it's the media's job to point that out.

 
Archy1221 said:
Well, not the lazy and vague claims.  However there certainly is independent analysis and one needs to look no further than the party affiliation of “mainstream media” members/journalists.   After looking at that, you can move on to the analysis of political stories.  If one is actually interested with an independent open mind to that sort of thing though.  
Click to expand...




So, the independent analyses exist? Can you link them? 

 
This is like when people b!^@h about sports announcers and which team the announcer is rooting for...

There really is not a link for it...and fans from both teams think the announcers are rooting for the other team.  

 
teachercd said:
This is like when people b!^@h about sports announcers and which team the announcer is rooting for...

There really is not a link for it...and fans from both teams think the announcers are rooting for the other team.  
Click to expand...
That’s usually a good indicator for a pretty neutral announcer/referee.

 
Back
Top