Media Bias

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

Well let's see. The Reuters article was posted yesterday.

A quick Google search brings up:

Wall St. Journal has picked it up

CNN has picked it up

CBS News has picked it up

New York Times ran it as an exclusive two days ago

CNBC ran it yesterday

And MSN (my main source) seems to be broken right now so I'll give them a pass, but I expect to see something on there about it when it comes back up.

don't use a google search, go to each site's main page, then navigate to that story. Tell me how easy it is to find WITHOUT the search, in other words what the normal site goer might see.

CNN had it on their main page
WSJ had it on their politics page
msnbc didn't have it in their scroll of headlines
CBS was scrolling through the politics page

The NYT which ran it as an exclusive did it on it's Europe page

EUROPE

Exclusive: Alleged Russian Agent Butina Met With U.S. Treasury, Fed Officials

Look at the headline, and tell me if you realize that is meetings with Obama administration officials?



___
Media bias is in how stories are presented, and the weight they are given. Clearly every ap/reuters stories gets loaded into every news site's listings, but how/where it is run and how much screen time it gets plays a huge part in what I would describe as media bias.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

Well let's see. The Reuters article was posted yesterday.

A quick Google search brings up:

Wall St. Journal has picked it up

CNN has picked it up

CBS News has picked it up

New York Times ran it as an exclusive two days ago

CNBC ran it yesterday

And MSN (my main source) seems to be broken right now so I'll give them a pass, but I expect to see something on there about it when it comes back up.

When I searched her name and news...cbs showed it. Cnn had it on there politics side (somehow not a front page story). NYT, didn’t pull the article when I searched.

But, still...weird rueters finds the story and none until they did.

Hey mooby, any guess why CNN not running the shooters name from Toronto on the front page? I see they updated their story at 6 pm and promptly removed (buried it) in their world page. Not a peep of the most circulating story from the last 24 hours.

Muslim I guess? Doesn’t fit the narrative they wanted of crazy white guy mass shooter? Possible terrorist just shouldn’t be news...

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

don't use a google search, go to each site's main page, then navigate to that story. Tell me how easy it is to find WITHOUT the search, in other words what the normal site goer might see.

CNN had it on their main page
WSJ had it on their politics page
msnbc didn't have it in their scroll of headlines
CBS was scrolling through the politics page

The NYT which ran it as an exclusive did it on it's Europe page


Look at the headline, and tell me if you realize that is meetings with Obama administration officials?

___
Media bias is in how stories are presented, and the weight they are given. Clearly every ap/reuters stories gets loaded into every news site's listings, but how/where it is run and how much screen time it gets plays a huge part in what I would describe as media bias.

LOL, so use the internet but only the way I tell you to use it. Don't look now but guess who is trying to control the narrative.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

When I searched her name and news...cbs showed it. Cnn had it on there politics side (somehow not a front page story). NYT, didn’t pull the article when I searched.

But, still...weird rueters finds the story and none until they did.

Hey mooby, any guess why CNN not running the shooters name from Toronto on the front page? I see they updated their story at 6 pm and promptly removed (buried it) in their world page. Not a peep of the most circulating story from the last 24 hours.

Muslim I guess? Doesn’t fit the narrative they wanted of crazy white guy mass shooter? Possible terrorist just shouldn’t be news...

Yet , you don't know so your "assumption" is to fit your narrative.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReRwtkQlXZ8

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Yet , you don't know so your "assumption" is to fit your narrative.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReRwtkQlXZ8

Not an assumption if NYT, Wa post, nbc news, etc chose not to run a story.

What’s the bigger story, a Russian spy at the national prayer breakfast or meeting with top obama adminstration officials?

Clearly biased and news sources which cannot be trusted to tell the American public the entire story.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Not an assumption if NYT, Wa post, nbc news, etc chose not to run a story.

What’s the bigger story, a Russian spy at the national prayer breakfast or meeting with top obama adminstration officials?

Clearly biased and news sources which cannot be trusted to tell the American public the entire story.

Yes it is chico . See I don't know why and I admit it ,you on the other hand don't either and automatically assume the worse,very trumpish of you I must say but not surprising.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Yes it is chico . See I don't know why and I admit it ,you on the other hand don't either and automatically assume the worse,very trumpish of you I must say but not surprising.

G1, what Im able to do is provide clear examples of bias media. This is a perfect example of where major news sources get it wrong. Not only are major news source simply ignoring this story, others report in a manor not consistent with other coverage of the subject i.e. putting it on the backpages, putting it in hard to find spaces like world politics or the European section of the site. Others chose to place unassuming headlines "Russian met with top officials" or write basic, small articles with no analysis or pivotal details.

Like I said, whats the bigger story, Russian Spy meets with Prayer breakfast or Russian Spy meets with top Obama administration officials?

This is a great example

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

G1, what Im able to do is provide clear examples of bias media. This is a perfect example of where major news sources get it wrong. Not only are major news source simply ignoring this story, others report in a manor not consistent with other coverage of the subject i.e. putting it on the backpages, putting it in hard to find spaces like world politics or the European section of the site. Others chose to place unassuming headlines "Russian met with top officials" or write basic, small articles with no analysis or pivotal details.

Like I said, whats the bigger story, Russian Spy meets with Prayer breakfast or Russian Spy meets with top Obama administration officials?

This is a great example

Chico , no you don't you spin your outlook on the subject as fact and at the end of the day it's as phony as the outrage of "fake" MSM. You're like the little boy that cries wolf just to get attention. News organisations handle stories in the priority they see fit to handle for one reason or the other just becuase what they do does not fit your opinion of what a News organization should do does not make it "bias". We get it you love your buddy trump and you want to be like him ........you're looking as good as he does when he does this , yes, that was sarcasm.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Chico , no you don't you spin your outlook on the subject as fact and at the end of the day it's as phony as the outrage of "fake" MSM. You're like the little boy that cries wolf just to get attention. News organisations handle stories in the priority they see fit to handle for one reason or the other just becuase what they do does not fit your opinion of what a News organization should do does not make it "bias". We get it you love your buddy trump and you want to be like him ........you're looking as good as he does when he does this , yes, that was sarcasm.

lol this is the issue G1, "how they see fit" is the problem...if you stringing together a narrative with an agenda...this is wrong and defies the principles at their core.

Answer the question, bigger story: Russian spy at National prayer breakfast/NRA event or meeting with top US officials in the Obama Administration to discuss the US-Russia economies?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

lol this is the issue G1, "how they see fit" is the problem...if you stringing together a narrative with an agenda...this is wrong and defies the principles at their core.

Answer the question, bigger story: Russian spy at National prayer breakfast/NRA event or meeting with top US officials in the Obama Administration to discuss the US-Russia economies?

No it's not,the issue is how you see it and how it fits your narrative .You need to practice what it is you're preaching.

You want people to choose between two stories you choose ,why , to fit your narrative.Your bias on and about Media is showing.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

No it's not,the issue is how you see it and how it fits your narrative .You need to practice what it is you're preaching.

You want people to choose between two stories you choose ,why , to fit your narrative.Your bias on and about Media is showing.

Yeah the narrative of unbiased media reporting and not a mouthpiece for liberal causes across a mainstream media landscape.


Im not asking for a choice between the two, Im asking for equal treatment of information. Context and relevance.

Take that story, remove 2015 and Obama officials AND replace with 2016 and Trump.

How would that story be reported?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Yeah the narrative of unbiased media reporting and not a mouthpiece for liberal causes across a mainstream media landscape.


Im not asking for a choice between the two, Im asking for equal treatment of information. Context and relevance.

Take that story, remove 2015 and Obama officials AND replace with 2016 and Trump.

How would that story be reported?

Again , you can't . You're asking a what if . You openly admit your bias in your first sentence . You ,yourself can not be fair or unbiased .

[Chico23231]

Here is Washington Post printing fake news before researching the story:

7/19 they publish story "We don't tip terrorist" Texas Restaurant bans customer who leaves message....

Today they have killed the link to that story and now provide updated link stating the kid made up the story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a4bcdb31e2b4

So without researching the story, they run with it reporting it as fact to take advantage of a politically charged and identity politics driven atmosphere in order to spread a false narrative.

G1 file this under Washington Post reporting fake news.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Here is Washington Post printing fake news before researching the story:

7/19 they publish story "We don't tip terrorist" Texas Restaurant bans customer who leaves message....

Today they have killed the link to that story and now provide updated link stating the kid made up the story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a4bcdb31e2b4

So without researching the story, they run with it reporting it as fact to take advantage of a politically charged and identity politics driven atmosphere in order to spread a false narrative.

G1 file this under Washington Post reporting fake news.

Thank you for proving my point chico. You claim the "Washington Post is reporting "fake news" all they did was report what happen,they are called facts being a trump fan I realize you are not use to them ,as did all the other media outlets,ALL of THEM!. You are the bias one,you can not be subjective.You're attacks about the media are pointless now.


You claim it was the Washington Post..................


Here are just some of the other outlets......

https://www.theroot.com/texas-waiter...-ad-1827825625
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-w...staurant-says/
https://www.newsweek.com/restaurant-...e-fake-1039843
https://www.insideedition.com/waiter...staurant-45342
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/n.../507-576798091

[CRedskinsRule]

More media, then media bias

Gotta love when news and opinion clash:
below is the lead column on CNN.

US and EU agree to work toward zero tariffs
Both sides agreed to halt for now tariffs that threatened to devolve into a trade war as negotiations proceed
Trump: My favorite word is reciprocal
Europe and the US have the world's most important business ties
The trade war is starting to hurt American automakers
China is killing my business. Now tariffs are too
Opinion: Why the US and the EU need a trade ceasefire
Opinion: Trump's fast and loose trade policy endangers American jobs

{emphasis mine}


Bottom line I see some winning going on-

• Great economy,
• freeer EU trade,
• NK declaring amnesty for crimes against the country (I am really interested to see how that plays out),
• Low unemployment across the board,
• 20 dollars in my pocket each week.
• There really are a lot more, but I don't want heads exploding on my conscience

Spin away those who think more about Russia than what's really happening to everyday citizens, spin away.