Jump to content

Bias Media?


Chester86

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Bias media, but then post a Fox News link? Man what?!? 
 

 

Okay (against my better judgement) I’ll bite.....where should I get my news.  I typically scour everything from Yahoo (Uber liberal), NewsBreak (which is headlines from all over), KFDM, 12NewsNow, Police One, KJAS and the Tyler County Booster.  As a Christian, conservative, and a hundred other labels people might want to place on me - where (in your opinion) is a reliable news source?  
 

The article is stating that the majority of the news (coming from the judges opinion) is all one-sided.  Objectively speaking, do you agree?  I tend to be very skeptical of anything outside the local news.  Local news is easily verified.  Breaking news....(insert local business name) had a robbery. It will be covered, therefore somewhat verified by multiple sources.  However statewide and national news is much more difficult to verify.  You know all of this.  So serious question, I should shun Fox News and simply trust CNN?  George Stephanopolous (sp) and ABC news is trustworthy?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chester86 said:

Okay (against my better judgement) I’ll bite.....where should I get my news.  I typically scour everything from Yahoo (Uber liberal), NewsBreak (which is headlines from all over), KFDM, 12NewsNow, Police One, KJAS and the Tyler County Booster.  As a Christian, conservative, and a hundred other labels people might want to place on me - where (in your opinion) is a reliable news source?  
 

The article is stating that the majority of the news (coming from the judges opinion) is all one-sided.  Objectively speaking, do you agree?  I tend to be very skeptical of anything outside the local news.  Local news is easily verified.  Breaking news....(insert local business name) had a robbery. It will be covered, therefore somewhat verified by multiple sources.  However statewide and national news is much more difficult to verify.  You know all of this.  So serious question, I should shun Fox News and simply trust CNN?  George Stephanopolous (sp) and ABC news is trustworthy?

 

He doesn’t answer questions about truth,fact or common sense. You might be waiting a while for an answer. Good Luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Chester86 said:

Okay (against my better judgement) I’ll bite.....where should I get my news.  I typically scour everything from Yahoo (Uber liberal), NewsBreak (which is headlines from all over), KFDM, 12NewsNow, Police One, KJAS and the Tyler County Booster.  As a Christian, conservative, and a hundred other labels people might want to place on me - where (in your opinion) is a reliable news source?  
 

The article is stating that the majority of the news (coming from the judges opinion) is all one-sided.  Objectively speaking, do you agree?  I tend to be very skeptical of anything outside the local news.  Local news is easily verified.  Breaking news....(insert local business name) had a robbery. It will be covered, therefore somewhat verified by multiple sources.  However statewide and national news is much more difficult to verify.  You know all of this.  So serious question, I should shun Fox News and simply trust CNN?  George Stephanopolous (sp) and ABC news is trustworthy?

 

ALL news media is biased. It’s the reason for the left vs. right, no compromise, no solution, divisive behavior of most in our country. This divisiveness is promulgated by the news media to keep them relevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my favorite things to do is read the comments on the different articles.  You get a glimpse of perspective, personal bias, talking points and trends.  While the right has their fair share of nastiness toward the left, look at most of these articles and you’ll see the left.  The left’s keyboard champions are very aggressive and pretty hostile toward anyone that doesn’t agree.  Granted the site where the article originated from has a lot to do with it, but the majority of comments (from either side) already have their mind made up.  Just an interesting observation and was wondering if anyone else had noticed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chester86 said:

One of my favorite things to do is read the comments on the different articles.  You get a glimpse of perspective, personal bias, talking points and trends.  While the right has their fair share of nastiness toward the left, look at most of these articles and you’ll see the left.  The left’s keyboard champions are very aggressive and pretty hostile toward anyone that doesn’t agree.  Granted the site where the article originated from has a lot to do with it, but the majority of comments (from either side) already have their mind made up.  Just an interesting observation and was wondering if anyone else had noticed it.

Yes. Most definitely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chester86 said:

One of my favorite things to do is read the comments on the different articles.  You get a glimpse of perspective, personal bias, talking points and trends.  While the right has their fair share of nastiness toward the left, look at most of these articles and you’ll see the left.  The left’s keyboard champions are very aggressive and pretty hostile toward anyone that doesn’t agree.  Granted the site where the article originated from has a lot to do with it, but the majority of comments (from either side) already have their mind made up.  Just an interesting observation and was wondering if anyone else had noticed it.

Yep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...

This is the hidden content, please

From the article:

NBC News anchor Chuck Todd dismissed the notion that there is a liberal bias in the media as a Republican talking point that has been repeated so many times that the left now believes it – but he wishes his mainstream media colleagues fought back to combat the theory. 

"I think objectivity and fairness are not the same thing in some ways. You can’t define objectivity as sort of being equal, that we know. You can’t balance the truth, that we know," Todd told The Verge editor-in-chief Nilay Patel when asked how he maintains a sense of fairness. 

"So you have to be fair and have an open mind," Todd added. "Where we did get lost in this, and this sort of happened to mainstream media in particular, is that we did let Republican critics get in our heads, right?

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2021 at 9:38 AM, SmashMouth said:

ALL news media is biased. It’s the reason for the left vs. right, no compromise, no solution, divisive behavior of most in our country. This divisiveness is promulgated by the news media to keep them relevant. 

I agree, Smash. That’s why it is incumbent upon responsible citizens to check sources and read from different points of view before forming their own opinions. Don’t believe it just because so-and-so said it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, UT alum said:

I agree, Smash. That’s why it is incumbent upon responsible citizens to check sources and read from different points of view before forming their own opinions. Don’t believe it just because so-and-so said it.

Conservatives have been doing that for years, liberals never have.

Why do you think Fox and Newsmax were started and have been so popular?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 10 months later...

This is the hidden content, please

Liberals live in their own little world...and they're always the victim.

Not sure how you say something like this with a straight face.

From the article:

A new book excerpt from former Obama White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer claimed Monday that Democrats' problems with messaging stem from the fact that they are "out-gunned" because "conservative media dwarfs the progressive media in size and scope." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined


  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...