Media Bias

[Archy1221]

10 minutes ago, knapplc said:

The Mueller probe garnered 34 convictions or guilty pleas in 22 months.

Manafort had 8 of those by himself and none related to why Mueller was put in place at the beginning.

 

Cohen had tax evasion, again no Russia Russia Russia charges.

 

most of the others were process crimes of lying.   Why didn’t they go back and charge them something else actually Russia Russia Russia related?   
 

Maybe we should ask Uncle Joe why the investigation by his DOJ into his family is moving slow 

 

Or maybe it’s moving at an appropriate pace.   You do seem very concerned about wanting to wait until the investigation is over before declaring all is well in Democrat Utopia.  Maybe let the process run it’s course.  You may eventually be right, doubtful, but there’s a chance. 

[knapplc]

7 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Manafort had 8 of those by himself and none related to why Mueller was put in place at the beginning.

 

Cohen had tax evasion, again no Russia Russia Russia charges.

 

most of the others were process crimes of lying.   Why didn’t they go back and charge them something else actually Russia Russia Russia related?   
 

Maybe we should ask Uncle Joe why the investigation by his DOJ into his family is moving slow 

 

Or maybe it’s moving at an appropriate pace.   You do seem very concerned about wanting to wait until the investigation is over before declaring all is well in Democrat Utopia.  Maybe let the process run it’s course.  You may eventually be right, doubtful, but there’s a chance. 

 

Yes, a lot of people in the bloated cheeto's inner circle were convicted in that probe. I'm glad I could jog your memory, since that appears to have been forgotten? Somehow? 

 

Maybe the investigation into Hunter turns up criming by Hunter. If so, convict him and lock him up. Ain't nobody shedding any tears over just punishment for crimes. 

 

But the Benghazi boondoggle is still fresh in most peoples' minds, and we're not super interested in seeing Republicans wield the machinery of justice for political power. If there's criming, let's get on with finding out. Let's not drag this out for the mid-terms (which seems the most likely explanation for the ponderous pace of the process).

[Archy1221]

28 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Let's not drag this out for the mid-terms (which seems the most likely explanation for the ponderous pace of the process).

Ahhhh, now we are concerned about the midterms.  I didn’t hear many people crying about the glacial pace of the Jan 6th commission and butting up to the midterms.   Hmmm

[NebraskaHarry]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

You want me to prove a negative?  
 

what conspiracy theories are being pushed about HB from Russia that people believe to be real?  

Prove a negative? Wtf does that even mean? I'll give you that Russia doesnt have to do much when they've got far right loonies to do it for them most of the time.

 

[Born N Bled Red]

BOY!!! I'm shocked! 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fox-news-doctored-clips-obama-164352197.html

 

Fox News Doctored Clips of Obama’s Visit to the White House to Make It Seem Like Biden Was Lost

[nic]

13 hours ago, funhusker said:

And would you agree with that 80%?

I do not have any issues with PBS. However, you are asking this question to a dude that is generally skeptical. and who believes EVERY new org has biases. Some are worse than others. PBS is probably better than most. Sometimes the problem is rushing a story without verifying the sources or making an honest mistake, but I also see it in what orgs choose to report and what they choose not to report… The wording the authors use….what parts of the story they choose to focus on. Opinion comes out. I did an experiment a while back where I would read the same story from different sources. I would get different pieces of info from the various sources and the slant on the story (and sometimes assumptions made) were different even when using the same quotes from the same people. They would just interpret the quote differently. I always thought wouldn’t it be nice if they just wrote down what was seen, heard, said and let me form my own opinion.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

52 minutes ago, nic said:

I do not have any issues with PBS. However, you are asking this question to a dude that is generally skeptical. and who believes EVERY new org has biases. Some are worse than others. PBS is probably better than most. Sometimes the problem is rushing a story without verifying the sources or making an honest mistake, but I also see it in what orgs choose to report and what they choose not to report… The wording the authors use….what parts of the story they choose to focus on. Opinion comes out. I did an experiment a while back where I would read the same story from different sources. I would get different pieces of info from the various sources and the slant on the story (and sometimes assumptions made) were different even when using the same quotes from the same people. They would just interpret the quote differently. I always thought wouldn’t it be nice if they just wrote down what was seen, heard, said and let me form my own opinion.

 

 

I get so tired of the mantra from the right about how horrible the news media is...well....of course not Fox, OAN and Newsmax.

 

But, it's friggen simple and you spelled out how to get around it.  Read news reports from a number of different sources.  Try to pick the ones that you think are going to be at least the least biased and read several.  It's simple.

 

But, that's not what people do.  They listen to one "news" source that happens to agree with their view of the world and to hell with all the rest because they are all horribly biased.  

 

And...STOP WATCHING NEWS OPINION SHOWS ALL TOGETHER NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE!!!

[Guy Chamberlin]

14 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

It's just such obvious smoke.

 

"But her emails"

 

 

 

I'm not sure where it fits in media bias, but Comey's announcement that the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton's emails 11 days before the election sparked a 10% overnight drop in her polling numbers. It's hard to argue that didn't single-handedly make Trump's election possible.

 

And where does a private email server rank today as threats to our democracy?

 

Let's remember that while collusion was never proven -- and Democrats were mistaken to bet the farm on it -- it's a stone-cold fact that Russia interfered in the American election to the benefit of Donald Trump. I personally think we had enough home grown yahoos to spread crazy misinformation, so I wouldn't say the election turned solely on Russia's massive social media spamming. The only question is why Vladimir Putin preferred Donald Trump as the U.S. President, and it's Trump's fondness for autocrats and flattery (and legal but questionable entanglements to Russian oligarchs) that made him ripe for impeachment. 

 

There is bias and there is bias. Fox News cheerleading for Russia is actually stunning. And sick.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Ahhhh, now we are concerned about the midterms.  I didn’t hear many people crying about the glacial pace of the Jan 6th commission and butting up to the midterms.   Hmmm

 

The glacial pace around this and every other case involving Donald Trump is because the higher ups remain extremely skittish when it comes to turning findings into an actionable prosecution. 

[funhusker]

1 hour ago, nic said:

I do not have any issues with PBS. However, you are asking this question to a dude that is generally skeptical. and who believes EVERY new org has biases. Some are worse than others. PBS is probably better than most. Sometimes the problem is rushing a story without verifying the sources or making an honest mistake, but I also see it in what orgs choose to report and what they choose not to report… The wording the authors use….what parts of the story they choose to focus on. Opinion comes out. I did an experiment a while back where I would read the same story from different sources. I would get different pieces of info from the various sources and the slant on the story (and sometimes assumptions made) were different even when using the same quotes from the same people. They would just interpret the quote differently. I always thought wouldn’t it be nice if they just wrote down what was seen, heard, said and let me form my own opinion.

 

 

Skeptical is fine and absolutely warranted in todays media.  

 

But it's not honest skepticism that leads a person to think PBS is less reliable that Brietbart.

[Guy Chamberlin]

fwiw...Brietbart has taken a huge hit from its heyday but is still the #22 news and journalism website, with about 4.5 million monthly visitors. That's a fraction of CNN.com, but comparable to the WSJ, HuffPo and Forbes websites. The PBS News Hour gets about 1.2 million viewers per show. 

 

Industry analysts decline to call InfoWars a news site, but it does attract 10 million visitors a month. Alex Jones has made $165 million hawking supplements and doomsday prepper equipment. 

[nic]

8 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Skeptical is fine and absolutely warranted in todays media.  

 

But it's not honest skepticism that leads a person to think PBS is less reliable that Brietbart.

Unfortunately I do not read or listen or watch either very often so its hard for me to have an opinion. I rarely come across Brietbart... maybe in link from some other sources once in a blue moon. I don't watch much news unless something big is happening. If you made me pick immediately on gut feel I would choose PBS. Mostly because prior experience from long ago would suggest Brierbart is far right and PBS is left center. The bias of news organizations seems to to be moving rapidly these days. I hope the new CEO of CNN brings them back to the center.

[nic]

16 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Alex Jones has made $165 million hawking supplements and doomsday prepper equipment. 

I didn't just want to put a smiley face for this. I know it's sad, but it still made me belly laugh. I bet I know some of the people buying this stuff. I tease them if I get a chance.

[funhusker]

6 minutes ago, nic said:

Unfortunately I do not read or listen or watch either very often so its hard for me to have an opinion. I rarely come across Brietbart... maybe in link from some other sources once in a blue moon. I don't watch much news unless something big is happening. If you made me pick immediately on gut feel I would choose PBS. Mostly because prior experience from long ago would suggest Brierbart is far right and PBS is left center. The bias of news organizations seems to to be moving rapidly these days. I hope the new CEO of CNN brings them back to the center.

This is good for you.  Glad to hear.

 

But I'm referring to the 25% of republicans that aren't you.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I know it doesn't matter anymore, but there really is a discipline called fact-checking, and it trips up journalists on both sides of the equation.

 

But it trips up one side considerably more than the other. 

 

You can say PBS leans left. The New Yorker certainly does. But you will have a very hard time finding factual inaccuracies in their reporting.