• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bias in the mainstream media

SmartCat said:
January 2, 2016

A national poll carried out by Quinnipiac University predicts that not only will Bernie Sanders defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination come June, but will beat Donald Trump by a landslide to become America’s next President in November, 2016. A report published in The Hill showed that Sanders will defeat the Republican candidate in a general election by 13 percentage points, with the former leading with 51 percent to Trump’s 38 percent.

If this indeed turns out to be the margin that Bernie Sanders wins by, Democrats would almost certainly regain control of the United States Senate and very possibly the House of Representatives.

Read more at President Bernie Sanders? New Poll Tips Sanders To Defeat Clinton And Prevail Over Trump [Report]
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. Right now it's Sanders against Hillary and he's not even close to her.

.
 
Grim17 said:
That's irrelevant. Right now it's Sanders against Hillary and he's not even close to her.

.
Click to expand...

exactly eight years ago i recall seeing this same observation being made

only then the name was 'Obama' instead of 'Sanders'
 
Grim17 said:
But Obama got big time media coverage.
Click to expand...

And Obama was not colored as a kook, and except at the very beginning, long before this point is the cycle, Obama was not assumed to have no chance of winning.
 
SmartCat said:
January 2, 2016

A national poll carried out by Quinnipiac University predicts that not only will Bernie Sanders defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination come June, but will beat Donald Trump by a landslide to become America’s next President in November, 2016. A report published in The Hill showed that Sanders will defeat the Republican candidate in a general election by 13 percentage points, with the former leading with 51 percent to Trump’s 38 percent.

If this indeed turns out to be the margin that Bernie Sanders wins by, Democrats would almost certainly regain control of the United States Senate and very possibly the House of Representatives.

Read more at President Bernie Sanders? New Poll Tips Sanders To Defeat Clinton And Prevail Over Trump [Report]
Click to expand...

Man are you wrong on everything in that post.
 
SmartCat said:
With the exception of FOX News, which fought and won a law suit protecting its right to lie, the major networks and newspapers do not lie. What they print in news stories is nearly always true. If they make a mistake, they admit it.

Where bias comes to play is which events they choose to cover, and how they choose to cover them.

In 1998 Matthew Shepard was killed by two men he picked up in a bar. That was in the news for months. It was only years later that I learned of a thirteen year old boy who was raped and tortured to death by two adult homosexuals a year later.

The tragic story of Jesse Dirkhising

There was no organized conspiracy to cover up this information. Various news media simply decided not to cover it. Years ago I read an essay in The New York Times that said that liberals seldom want to read anything bad about blacks or homosexuals. Many newspapers do not print the race of criminal suspects.

The mainstream media has been eager to report the Roman Catholic priestly pedophile scandal. Little attention has been given to the fact that 85% of the victims of these pedophile priests have been boys. That tells me that homosexuals are more likely to be sex abusers than heterosexuals. That is seldom even suggested, however.
Click to expand...

I don't really follow mainstream media that much. I mean, I read news articles from a wide range of sources but I don't follow any particular network or newspaper enough to know if they lie or not. But...I wasn't aware that Fox won a lawsuit protecting its right to lie. Is this a fact? Or is it some kind of spin?

Can you give me a link to the lawsuit?
 
Mycroft said:
I don't really follow mainstream media that much. I mean, I read news articles from a wide range of sources but I don't follow any particular network or newspaper enough to know if they lie or not. But...I wasn't aware that Fox won a lawsuit protecting its right to lie. Is this a fact? Or is it some kind of spin?

Can you give me a link to the lawsuit?
Click to expand...

April 29, 2010
CMW REPORT, Spring 2003
Title: “Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie”
Author: Liane Casten

ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION, March 7, 2004
Title: “Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson Must Pay Trial Costs for $24.3 Billion Fox Television; Couple Warns Journalists of Danger to Free Speech, Whistle Blower Protection”
Author: Al Krebs

Faculty Evaluator: Liz Burch, Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Sara Brunner

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox’s actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury’s words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida’s whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation.” In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.
11. The Media Can Legally Lie – Top 25 of 2005
 
SmartCat said:
April 29, 2010
CMW REPORT, Spring 2003
Title: “Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie”
Author: Liane Casten

ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION, March 7, 2004
Title: “Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson Must Pay Trial Costs for $24.3 Billion Fox Television; Couple Warns Journalists of Danger to Free Speech, Whistle Blower Protection”
Author: Al Krebs

Faculty Evaluator: Liz Burch, Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Sara Brunner

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox’s actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury’s words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida’s whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation.” In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.
11. The Media Can Legally Lie – Top 25 of 2005
Click to expand...

Thank you for the link. As I said, I had never heard of this story and I find it very interesting.

Now...for my reaction:

1. I am dismayed that the authors of this article didn't give the title of this case. I mean, they described the case, but there is no easy way for me to find more factual information about it without the actual case number.

2. The article makes many uses of the word, "lie", but I wonder if that word was actually used in the court filing, especially from the ruling of the Judges.

3. Based on what little I know of this case...and that little bit being provided by the obviously slanted...and possibly distorted...words of the author...I disagree with the ruling in the first case and agree with the ruling in the 2nd case.

Let's face it...all media distorts and slants their news reportage depending on their lean, bias or other motives. Anyone who thinks that is not so is quite naive. The FCC recognizes this and, as the court states, has no law, rule or regulation against this.

Also, someone who enters into a contract with a news organization must realize that they have agreed to the terms of that contract unless the terms violate the law.. If they don't fulfill their side of the deal, then they are legally subject to being fired.


So...bottom line...I'm not so sure that Fox News actually won a lawsuit protecting its right to lie, as you and the author of the article you linked contend and I think justice was ultimately served in this series of court cases.
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
Thank you for the link. As I said, I had never heard of this story and I find it very interesting.

Now...for my reaction:

1. I am dismayed that the authors of this article didn't give the title of this case. I mean, they described the case, but there is no easy way for me to find more factual information about it without the actual case number.

2. The article makes many uses of the word, "lie", but I wonder if that word was actually used in the court filing, especially from the ruling of the Judges.

3. Based on what little I know of this case...and that little bit being provided by the obviously slanted...and possibly distorted...words of the author...I disagree with the ruling in the first case and agree with the ruling in the 2nd case.

Let's face it...all media distorts and slants their news reportage depending on their lean, bias or other motives. Anyone who thinks that is not so is quite naive. The FCC recognizes this and, as the court states, has no law, rule or regulation against this.

Also, someone who enters into a contract with a news organization must realize that they have agreed to the terms of that contract unless the terms violate the law.. If they don't fulfill their side of the deal, then they are legally subject to being fired.


So...bottom line...I'm not so sure that Fox News actually won a lawsuit protecting its right to lie, as you and the author of the article you linked contend and I think justice was ultimately served in this series of court cases.
Click to expand...

Two reporters were hired by FOX News to investigate bovine growth hormone. I believe that this hormone was used by one of the advertisers of FOX News. When the reporters reported that the hormone was dangerous, FOX News refused to carry their story and fired them. When they sued for wrongful termination they eventually lost.

The case is complicated. I do not know if FOX went on to report that bovine growth hormone is safe. If FOX did not, one could argue that FOX did not lie; it simply did not report what it knew to be true. Nevertheless, this event cooled the ardor of investigative journalists.

Wouldn't you like to know when food you consume is dangerous?

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were fortunate in that the publisher and editor of The Washington Post supported their efforts to investigate the Watergate Scandal. A pro Republican newspaper could have fired them, and that would have been the end of it. We never would have known.

As I have mentioned in this thread, the mainstream media in general has been reluctant to report news stories that portray blacks, homosexuals, and immigrants negatively. Nevertheless, it is one thing not to report the truth about something. It is something else to lie about it. I admit that in this case it is not clear to me that FOX News lied. What is clear is that it did not allow two employees to report important facts they uncovered.

Rush Limbaugh lies. His lies have been documented since at least 1994.
 
SmartCat said:
Two reporters were hired by FOX News to investigate bovine growth hormone. I believe that this hormone was used by one of the advertisers of FOX News. When the reporters reported that the hormone was dangerous, FOX News refused to carry their story and fired them. When they sued for wrongful termination they eventually lost.

The case is complicated. I do not know if FOX went on to report that bovine growth hormone is safe. If FOX did not, one could argue that FOX did not lie; it simply did not report what it knew to be true. Nevertheless, this event cooled the ardor of investigative journalists.

Wouldn't you like to know when food you consume is dangerous?

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were fortunate in that the publisher and editor of The Washington Post supported their efforts to investigate the Watergate Scandal. A pro Republican newspaper could have fired them, and that would have been the end of it. We never would have known.

As I have mentioned in this thread, the mainstream media in general has been reluctant to report news stories that portray blacks, homosexuals, and immigrants negatively. Nevertheless, it is one thing not to report the truth about something. It is something else to lie about it. I admit that in this case it is not clear to me that FOX News lied. What is clear is that it did not allow two employees to report important facts they uncovered.

Rush Limbaugh lies. His lies have been documented since at least 1994.
Click to expand...

Why are you saying all this in response to my post? I mean, you quoted my post...but you haven't actually addressed anything I said. All you've done is express your opinion and ask me an irrelevant question.
 
SmartCat said:
Please list several lies of the mass media, other than FOX News. Quote the statement, date it, and explain why it was a lie.
Click to expand...

I just finished Sharyl Attkisson's book "Stonewalled", so I'm laughing a bit too hard right now from your post to be able to write much.

Abbottabad and 911 are 2 glaring examples of the media lying. Actually, a better description might be "morbid lack of curiosity" or "extreme gullibility" in believing and propagating false government press releases.
 
Mycroft said:
Thank you for the link. As I said, I had never heard of this story and I find it very interesting.

Now...for my reaction:

1. I am dismayed that the authors of this article didn't give the title of this case. I mean, they described the case, but there is no easy way for me to find more factual information about it without the actual case number.

2. The article makes many uses of the word, "lie", but I wonder if that word was actually used in the court filing, especially from the ruling of the Judges.
Click to expand...

The short answer is no. The appeals court ruled in effect that the FCC's policy against broadcasting false or misleading news wasn't an "adopted rule" that was covered by the whistleblower statute. The court never got to merits of the claim by the reporters because it ruled that, effectively, even if the station broadcast false or misleading news, the couple wasn't entitled to whistleblower protection because the FCC had never adopted a rule prohibiting that. Presumably the FCC could still sanction the broadcaster or deny the station an extension of their license but that reporters could not recover damages by revealing it and later getting fired because of it.

IMO it's not really a problem with the station a Fox affiliate. They had a winning legal argument and their lawyers were professionally obligated to make it and it boils down to: "It doesn't matter if the plaintiffs prove our clients lied or misled their viewers - our client is still not obligated as a matter of law for whistelblower damages." The court agreed.

If anything it reveals what we know of most of the regulatory agencies in D.C. which is they are toothless for the most part and for the most part are friendly to the industries they supposedly regulate.

Let's face it...all media distorts and slants their news reportage depending on their lean, bias or other motives. Anyone who thinks that is not so is quite naive. The FCC recognizes this and, as the court states, has no law, rule or regulation against this.
Click to expand...

But they do have a policy against it. It is here. There are perhaps good arguments why the FCC might NOT want to formally adopt a policy into a rule, but I'm not clear what they are and the bottom line is employees of a station or news org have no recourse if they're fired for disclosing what is at least unethical behavior on the part of their employer. The FCC says intentionally lying or distorting is not allowed but by not adopting it into a formal rule, they leave employees without any recourse but to quit or be fired if they refuse to play along.
 
SmartCat said:
With the exception of FOX News, which fought and won a law suit protecting its right to lie, the major networks and newspapers do not lie. What they print in news stories is nearly always true. If they make a mistake, they admit it.

Where bias comes to play is which events they choose to cover, and how they choose to cover them.

In 1998 Matthew Shepard was killed by two men he picked up in a bar. That was in the news for months. It was only years later that I learned of a thirteen year old boy who was raped and tortured to death by two adult homosexuals a year later.

The tragic story of Jesse Dirkhising

There was no organized conspiracy to cover up this information. Various news media simply decided not to cover it. Years ago I read an essay in The New York Times that said that liberals seldom want to read anything bad about blacks or homosexuals. Many newspapers do not print the race of criminal suspects.

The mainstream media has been eager to report the Roman Catholic priestly pedophile scandal. Little attention has been given to the fact that 85% of the victims of these pedophile priests have been boys. That tells me that homosexuals are more likely to be sex abusers than heterosexuals. That is seldom even suggested, however.
Click to expand...
Any commercial venue that promotes itself to the general public as a "News Source" should be legally bound to that strict standard; otherwise it is nothing more than propaganda_

The omission and manipulation of pertinent/relevant information, or any other ploy to influence the perception of the general public, is a blatant case of fraudulent advertisement with intent to deceive_

And should a legitimate "News Source" choose to promote their own social policies and/or politics; it should be clearly segregated from NEWS programming and clearly labeled as "opinion/analysis"_

News is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

Opinion is whatever one is smart or stupid enough to believe!

And of course; everyone thinks they're the smart one!

Have a lovely day! :peace
 
Empirica said:
Any commercial venue that promotes itself to the general public as a "News Source" should be legally bound to that strict standard; otherwise it is nothing more than propaganda_

The omission and manipulation of pertinent/relevant information, or any other ploy to influence the perception of the general public, is a blatant case of fraudulent advertisement with intent to deceive_

And should a legitimate "News Source" choose to promote their own social policies and/or politics; it should be clearly segregated from NEWS programming and clearly labeled as "opinion/analysis"_

News is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

Opinion is whatever one is smart or stupid enough to believe!

And of course; everyone thinks they're the smart one!

Have a lovely day! :peace
Click to expand...

News sources have always included people expressing opinion. Being one does not preclude the ability to be the other.

Anyone who demands such preclusion is being naive and quite unreasonable.
 
SmartCat said:
With the exception of FOX News, which fought and won a law suit protecting its right to lie, the major networks and newspapers do not lie. What they print in news stories is nearly always true. If they make a mistake, they admit it.

Where bias comes to play is which events they choose to cover, and how they choose to cover them.

In 1998 Matthew Shepard was killed by two men he picked up in a bar. That was in the news for months. It was only years later that I learned of a thirteen year old boy who was raped and tortured to death by two adult homosexuals a year later.

The tragic story of Jesse Dirkhising

There was no organized conspiracy to cover up this information. Various news media simply decided not to cover it. Years ago I read an essay in The New York Times that said that liberals seldom want to read anything bad about blacks or homosexuals. Many newspapers do not print the race of criminal suspects.

The mainstream media has been eager to report the Roman Catholic priestly pedophile scandal. Little attention has been given to the fact that 85% of the victims of these pedophile priests have been boys. That tells me that homosexuals are more likely to be sex abusers than heterosexuals. That is seldom even suggested, however.
Click to expand...

"FOX News, which fought and won a law suit protecting its right to lie"

What a ridiculous argument. Maybe they won the lawsuit because they weren't lying? It is so hypocritical of the left to believe that when the biased media puts a slant on something it is not lying but when Fox News puts a slant on something it is lying. Both sides cherry pick facts to report.
 
Mycroft said:
News sources have always included people expressing opinion. Being one does not preclude the ability to be the other.
Click to expand...
Anytime opinion and news are incorporated with no clear distinction;

the facts become construed, the truth subjective, and reality blurred!

Anyone who demands such preclusion is being naive and quite unreasonable.
Click to expand...
There is so much more to what I said than the one small segment you responded to; and ultimately judged me on!

1st; carefully read the post I quoted, which was the OP!

2nd; re-read my response to said post, which you quoted!

3rd; staying in context, consider the entire content of both posts!

And never allow your personal feelings to blur your perception of reality!

Have a lovely day! :peace
 
Empirica said:
Any commercial venue that promotes itself to the general public as a "News Source" should be legally bound to that strict standard; otherwise it is nothing more than propaganda_

The omission and manipulation of pertinent/relevant information, or any other ploy to influence the perception of the general public, is a blatant case of fraudulent advertisement with intent to deceive_

And should a legitimate "News Source" choose to promote their own social policies and/or politics; it should be clearly segregated from NEWS programming and clearly labeled as "opinion/analysis"_

News is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

Opinion is whatever one is smart or stupid enough to believe!

And of course; everyone thinks they're the smart one!

Have a lovely day! :peace
Click to expand...

I usually disagree with editorials I read in The Wall Street Journal.

On January 9. 2009 The Wall Street Journal ran a story acknowledging that from the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

In September 17, 2010 The Wall Street Journal reported, "inflation-adjusted income of the median household—smack in the middle of the populace—fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2009, even worse than the 1970s, when median income rose 1.9% despite high unemployment and inflation. Between 2007 and 2009, incomes fell 4.2%."
Lost Decade for American Income - WSJ

In November 6, 2012 The Wall Streat Journal reported, "Since 1900, the Dow has averaged a 7.8% annual gain under Democratic presidents, compared with a 3% annual gain under Republicans."
What an Obama Win May Mean for Stocks - MarketBeat - WSJ

I am reasonably confident FOX News would not have reported this information. I know Rush Limbaugh would not have.

When The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial claiming that there is a shortage of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates in the United States, The Wall Street Journal ran a letter from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), Chairman or the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest that pointed out: "Each year, the U.S. graduates twice as many students with STEM degrees as are hired in STEM occupations. Contrary to the suggestion that these students are finding better, higher-paying jobs, the opposite is true. About 35% of science students, 55% of technology students, 20% of engineering students and 30% of math students who recently graduated are now working in jobs that don’t require any four-year college degree. As further proof of no shortage, wages in the profitable IT industry have been largely flat for more than a decade."
The H1-B Visas Don?t Help American STEM Graduates ? Letters to the Editor - WSJ

When accusing a newspaper of lying one must distinguish between news stories and editorial constant. One must realize that just because one does not want to be told something does not mean it is a lie.
 
Last edited:
SmartCat said:
Please list several lies of the mass media, other than FOX News. Quote the statement, date it, and explain why it was a lie.
Click to expand...

I suggest you do the same with the Fox News division.
 
Mycroft said:
Thank you for the link. As I said, I had never heard of this story and I find it very interesting.

Now...for my reaction:

1. I am dismayed that the authors of this article didn't give the title of this case. I mean, they described the case, but there is no easy way for me to find more factual information about it without the actual case number.

2. The article makes many uses of the word, "lie", but I wonder if that word was actually used in the court filing, especially from the ruling of the Judges.

3. Based on what little I know of this case...and that little bit being provided by the obviously slanted...and possibly distorted...words of the author...I disagree with the ruling in the first case and agree with the ruling in the 2nd case.

Let's face it...all media distorts and slants their news reportage depending on their lean, bias or other motives. Anyone who thinks that is not so is quite naive. The FCC recognizes this and, as the court states, has no law, rule or regulation against this.

Also, someone who enters into a contract with a news organization must realize that they have agreed to the terms of that contract unless the terms violate the law.. If they don't fulfill their side of the deal, then they are legally subject to being fired.


So...bottom line...I'm not so sure that Fox News actually won a lawsuit protecting its right to lie, as you and the author of the article you linked contend and I think justice was ultimately served in this series of court cases.
Click to expand...

It seems to me this was a small Fox affiliate in Florida that filed the suit, not Fox News itself.

The OP claimed Fox News won a suit allowing it to lie.

That doesn't seem to be the case here.
 
Mycroft said:
shrug...

You can do all the searches...for whatever you want to search for...that you want. You can make all the comments you want. But if none of it actually pertains to anything I said, then you will always get that kind of question from me.
Click to expand...

My point, which I repeat, is that bias in the mainstream media consists of and is limited to which stories the MSM chooses to cover, which stories it chooses not to cover, how it covers those stories, and the content of editorials.

Because I enjoy investigating different points of view press bias is not an issue for me. Nevertheless, I take facts seriously. It matters, for example, that more jobs were created per year under Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan, and that the Carter recession of was shorter and milder than the Reagan recession.
 
SmartCat said:
My point, which I repeat, is that bias in the mainstream media consists of and is limited to which stories the MSM chooses to cover, which stories it chooses not to cover, how it covers those stories, and the content of editorials.

Because I enjoy investigating different points of view press bias is not an issue for me. Nevertheless, I take facts seriously. It matters, for example, that more jobs were created per year under Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan, and that the Carter recession of was shorter and milder than the Reagan recession.
Click to expand...

I fully understand the point you were trying to make in your OP...the reason you started this thread...but I haven't addressed that point. In fact, in my first post I made it clear that I wasn't going to address that point. That's why I simply asked about that claim from you about Fox News. Everything I've posted subsequent to that first post of mine has been limited to the Fox News issue. So any attempt from you to speak to me about your initial topic...the one in your OP...is irrelevant to me.

If you want to have a meaningful dialogue with me, I suggest you limit yourself to talking about what I'm talking about. No mater how much you care about it, all this other stuff is, as I said, irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom