|
Post by dillydally on Oct 17, 2016 17:43:22 GMT
Equal media time doesn't mean unbiased. Yes, our media IS biased and always has been. It can be as simple as what to cover, or not cover. Word choice can also play into an unconscious bias. Even our "main stream" media is biased. If you want the full story look for alternate news sources from a variety of positions. Has it never bothered you, or maybe never occurred to you, that CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC all report nearly identical news stories with identical photos/film footage? I agree. And yes, it drives me crazy when we are watching the world news and we flip the channel and another station is running the exact same story - the bigger news items, I understand, but when it comes to a fluff piece and they are all running it, I find it annoying. (And side note, I find fluff pieces on the world news annoying in general - it is 30 minutes long; they can't fill all of that with substantive segments?) As for the rigged election - I don't see that at all.
|
|
loco coco
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,662
Jun 26, 2014 16:15:45 GMT
|
Post by loco coco on Oct 17, 2016 17:58:12 GMT
Yes, I think the media has been extremely biased
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 8:09:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 19:30:58 GMT
Ummm, many believe the FBI did NOT do it's job. Ummm, would that be because the FBI didn't come to the conclusion/take the action you wanted or expected? Probably more because people are comparing the laws with all the instances that Comey laid out that were in violation of those laws and the fact that he said that's not to say anyone else wouldn't have faced consequences, but they're not going to make her face them.
|
|
|
Post by annabella on Oct 17, 2016 19:40:45 GMT
I saw this posted on facebook on Friday, wanted to get feedback from the peas regarding what you think of it?
|
|
Rhondito
Pearl Clutcher
MississipPea
Posts: 4,675
Jun 25, 2014 19:33:19 GMT
|
Post by Rhondito on Oct 17, 2016 19:50:18 GMT
They are definitely biased!
For the past few weeks I've been noticing this at the bottom of almost every Trump story HuffPo posts on its site:
It amuses me greatly.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Oct 17, 2016 19:53:52 GMT
I've been watching this from a sort of neutral standpoint. I have friends that are staunch Republicans and firm Democrats. I don't care about politics and I don't care what side my friends are on. I am just fascinated with the psychology of how this is all playing out. My take on it is this: Hilary is crooked and knows how to work the system. She has deep, deep connections. Even in the media. Trump does not and it pisses him off. So he lashes out and points fingers at anything and anyone. Trump is the biggest Narcissist that we've ever seen and many people are unaware of how this type of person works. Including the media. He is used to getting his way no matter what it takes. Bullying, distraction, pointing fingers, grandiose lies and never ending accusations. The media gives him a lot of attention by reporting what he says. I think the media is typically democratic in it's thinking even though it says it's unbiased. I think they smell what's the biggest story and zone in on it and explode it wide open. Just like Trump does. He sees what triggers his followers and runs with it. But when the tables are turned Trump doesn't like that and so he lashes out and accuses everyone and comes up with conspiracy theories. So I think he is getting his fair share of media attention but he just doesn't like the way it's going for him. I think you are very perceptive
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Oct 17, 2016 19:54:29 GMT
Yes. I believe that the media is biased, all of it. The mainstream media* leans left, and Fox leans right. As an aside, I have been watching the trending topics on FB, and I have never seen (not once) a negative item "trending" about HRC. Negative items trending about Trump are there daily, sometimes more than once daily. I find it hard to believe that no one is saying anything negative about HRC being that there are millions of conservatives on FB. *I am not talking about non-major news sources. I basically only pay attention to Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS. I have found that some of the other sources have non-vetted incorrect information a little too frequently. IMO, this is because Trump continues to say/do things at least daily that keep him in the forefront. Hillary is laying low because of that. I agree
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Oct 17, 2016 20:04:08 GMT
When I was in J-school, I had a very old mentor (old meaning he was around when television news was in its infancy, which I realize makes me old now, too) who gave me one startling piece of advice: Don't vote. Yah, it's your civic duty, an American right, and so forth, but he said it was best if we never officially expressed our political preference. Because once you vote, you have a dog in the hunt. It's more powerful than an opinion. And he's right. I didn't vote for years. And when I finally started pulling the lever, I found myself mentally arguing with sources on issues like education, healthcare, insurance ... every business topic I covered fell back to someone's politics. These days, my journalism colleagues are working the phones for Hillary Clinton. Previously, they did it for Barack Obama and didn't see anything wrong with that decision when I called them out on it. So yah, I personally believe they are biased because it's how human beings work. Even in our small-town, 1-man paper (plus 2 very part-timers), we go to great lengths to make sure we don't show bias either way. I had to laugh when I went to cover a candidates forum for the primary. My boss said to make sure I got a picture from the center of the room, so that all candidates would be the same size - and front & center - so that nobody could complain that we were trying to sway people one way or the other (and our primary was dealing with some rather heated issues, so we very much would have liked to leave one of the completely out).
I've had CNN on for background noise quite a bit in the past several weeks, and I've noticed that they talk about Trump's scandals, if you will, way more than Hillary's. I don't know which way they're known to be biased, if either, but it's a toss-up for me between whether they are biased towards Hillary, or just taking advantage of the stuff Trump keeps feeding them.
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Oct 17, 2016 20:08:39 GMT
I can't even believe this is a 4 page thread - I thought the one thing the Peas knew as truth is that various media outlets are bias one way or another, given the vociferous arguments from either side.....either that or I've dreamt one load of crap over the last few years.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 17, 2016 20:16:45 GMT
Ummm, would that be because the FBI didn't come to the conclusion/take the action you wanted or expected? Probably more because people are comparing the laws with all the instances that Comey laid out that were in violation of those laws and the fact that he said that's not to say anyone else wouldn't have faced consequences, but they're not going to make her face them. From Comey's Testimony: " WHEN I LOOK AT THE FACTS WE GATHER HERE, I SEE EVIDENCE OF GREAT CARELESSNESS, BUT I DO NOT SEE EVIDENCE THAT IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT SECRETARY CLINTON OR THOSE WITH WHOM SHE WAS CORRESPONDING BOTH TALKED ABOUT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION ON E-MAIL AND KNEW WHEN THEY DID IT, THEY WERE DOING SOMETHING THAT WAS AGAINST THE LAW. GIVEN THAT ASSESSMENT OF THE FACTS, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW, MY CONCLUSION WAS AND REMAINS NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD BRING THIS CASE. NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD BRING THE SECOND CASE IN 100 YEARS FOCUSED ON GROSS NEGLIGENCE. I KNOW THAT'S BEEN A SOURCE OF SOME CONFUSION FOR FOLKS, THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS. I KNOW NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD BRING IN THE CASE. I WONDER WHERE THEY WERE THE LAST 40 YEARS BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO SEE THE CASES THEY BROUGHT ON GROSS NEGLIGENCE. SO MY JUST A MINUTE WAS, THE APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION OF THIS CASE WAS NOT WITH A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. FOLKS CAN DISAGREE WITH THAT. I HOPE THEY KNOW THE VIEW WAS HONESTLY HELD, FAIRLY INVESTIGATED AND COMMUNICATED WITH UNUSUAL TRANSPARENCY."
|
|
zella
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,884
Jul 7, 2014 19:36:30 GMT
|
Post by zella on Oct 17, 2016 21:26:22 GMT
I think much of the media, but not all, is biased.
Fox News is very clearly biased. I consider it tabloid television.
Certain shows are obviously biased (The Daily Show, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver). In these cases, the shows make no attempt to try to be non-partisan, and everyone knows it and takes it for what it is. Fox News is different, in that there are some people on the channel trying to be journalists, but they are fighting a losing battle as really Fox News is about entertainment.
I don't find the local or national networks' news coverage (NBC, CBS, ABC) to be biased. Not that I watch most of it. But anyone with legitimate cred as a journalist has to avoid bias other than if they are editorializing. Generally you can tell when this is occurring.
Outside of Fox News and CNN, do reporters tend to be more liberal/Democrats? Yes, I believe so. I think this is because of the difference in perception, values and interests. I could be way off base here, but it seems that journalism is a career choice that tends to appeal more to liberals. JM5cents.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Oct 17, 2016 23:37:53 GMT
Probably more because people are comparing the laws with all the instances that Comey laid out that were in violation of those laws and the fact that he said that's not to say anyone else wouldn't have faced consequences, but they're not going to make her face them. From Comey's Testimony: " WHEN I LOOK AT THE FACTS WE GATHER HERE, I SEE EVIDENCE OF GREAT CARELESSNESS, BUT I DO NOT SEE EVIDENCE THAT IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT SECRETARY CLINTON OR THOSE WITH WHOM SHE WAS CORRESPONDING BOTH TALKED ABOUT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION ON E-MAIL AND KNEW WHEN THEY DID IT, THEY WERE DOING SOMETHING THAT WAS AGAINST THE LAW. GIVEN THAT ASSESSMENT OF THE FACTS, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW, MY CONCLUSION WAS AND REMAINS NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD BRING THIS CASE. NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD BRING THE SECOND CASE IN 100 YEARS FOCUSED ON GROSS NEGLIGENCE. I KNOW THAT'S BEEN A SOURCE OF SOME CONFUSION FOR FOLKS, THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS. I KNOW NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD BRING IN THE CASE. I WONDER WHERE THEY WERE THE LAST 40 YEARS BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO SEE THE CASES THEY BROUGHT ON GROSS NEGLIGENCE. SO MY JUST A MINUTE WAS, THE APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION OF THIS CASE WAS NOT WITH A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. FOLKS CAN DISAGREE WITH THAT. I HOPE THEY KNOW THE VIEW WAS HONESTLY HELD, FAIRLY INVESTIGATED AND COMMUNICATED WITH UNUSUAL TRANSPARENCY." From this article:
|
|