• 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!

Media bias in full display?

nota bene said:
So lame to pretend that you don't know what "above the fold" means...unless you really don't.
Click to expand...

I would not put money on someone born in 1988(assumption) knowing what "above the fold" means.
 
reinoe said:
Actually from what I heard from a DIRECT NEVADA DELEGATE (I have friends on all sides) the anti-Hillary members of Bernie's Brigade unanimously decided beforehand not to BOO Michelle Obama as a courtesy. Her speech was otherwise unremarkable but she got a disproportionately amount of applause because the Sanders supporters decided to provide it before hand. It had nothing to do with the quality of her speech.

Again, this is coming from a direct member who was there. The media is biased because you'll never EVER hear about what's really happening.
Click to expand...

Darn interesting that seemingly everyone in America has decided to be nice to Mrs Barack Obama.

I have yet to hear why,

Do you know?

:unsure13:
 
Erod said:
So which was it?
Click to expand...

Both. Which is why it's ridiculous when people try to act like "the news" is ever entirely unbiased or without slant, or that "reality has a [blank] wing bias".

The reality is that you can look at a given situation or a given set of facts, and then depending on your own personal judgments or feelings can present said facts or situations in ways that could give two entirely different connotations.

On one hand, it would be absolutely reasonable to view the DNC and come away on day one largely swept up in Michelle's speech and Bernie's call for Unity. On the flip side, it's also completely reasonable to instead focus on the unrest and anger by many within the base that were attending that conference and who's anger was not subsided by the speakers.

Neither is untrue, neither is poor news, neither is necessarily even an intentional attempt to present biased coverage. It simply is a matter of the world view of the given editor/writer/etc subconsciously steering what it is that resonated to them as most relevant and impactful from said "news" story.

So the answer is both...both ways is it.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Darn interesting that seemingly everyone in America has decided to be nice to Mrs Barack Obama.

I have yet to hear why,

Do you know?

:unsure13:
Click to expand...

Think about it. Despite all the political hackery going on Michelle had nothing to do with any of it.
She wasn't making any policy decisions.
She wasn't cheating Bernie Sanders out of his support.
She wasn't making ridiculous gaffes in comparison to Laura Bush or Hillary Clinton as a first Lady.

Her "Let's Move/Eat Healthy" campaign for children is as non-partisan as imaginable while addressing a real concern. She was a great First Lady.
 
Ikari said:
if the media were fair and unbiased, we'd be hearing more about Gary Johnson as well. But the press is part of the Republocrat machine.
Click to expand...

In the last several Presidential elections, the presidential picks from Johnsons party have not been able to crack the one percent mark in popular vote. So why should the national media give them much attention at all?
 
haymarket said:
In the last several Presidential elections, the presidential picks from Johnsons party have not been able to crack the one percent mark in popular vote. So why should the national media give them much attention at all?
Click to expand...

Johnson is polling at 10% currently.
 
reinoe said:
Think about it. Despite all the political hackery going on Michelle had nothing to do with any of it.
She wasn't making any policy decisions.
She wasn't cheating Bernie Sanders out of his support.
She wasn't making ridiculous gaffes in comparison to Laura Bush or Hillary Clinton as a first Lady.

Her "Let's Move/Eat Healthy" campaign for children is as non-partisan as imaginable while addressing a real concern. She was a great First Lady.
Click to expand...

I do find it funny how the other night she told the crowd not to let anyone tell you that America isn't the greatest place on Earth... I assume she includes herself from 7 1/2 years ago?
 
Ikari said:
That's cracked the 1% mark you used as an excuse. Are you shifting goal posts now?
Click to expand...

I gav e you historical facts based on November election results.

You gave me a poll in July - 13 weeks before the election. Those are two very very very different things.

the fact is that the label of LIBERTARIAN on the ballot is akin to the skull and crossbones on a medicine bottle to the American voting public. And past election results over a long period of time support that.
 
Moot said:
Well...Trump did threaten the media. So maybe they're not so keen to help him get elected.
Click to expand...

Michelle's husband spied on the media and that didn't seem to hurt them? They are bias even in their reaction to poor treatment of their own, apparently.
 
Moot said:
As a side, I recently read that Ed Shultz is working for the Russian Times (RL), now. lol
Click to expand...
I think I'm speechless, here.

I never liked him.

But Al Jazeera America was purported to have high quality reporting, so who knows about the Russian Times? Sounds scary though.
 
Moot said:
Well...Trump did threaten the media. So maybe they're not so keen to help him get elected.
Click to expand...

Tightening libel laws may not be a bad thing. Maybe we could ask Richard Jewel about that...oh wait we cant he died fairly young possibly due to the hell the media put him through.

Media that acts more responsibly is overdue.
 
The media gets their money from getting the low IQ's voters to bring money from the rich to them... and then the media gets that money from them thru brainwashing and fooling

FOLLOW THE MONEY
 
Mr Person said:
If something isn't presented as all black or all white, it's "biased"?
Click to expand...


how does the media get their money?? to help understand WHY THEY ARE BIASED
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom