• 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!

... but there is no such thing as liberal bias in the MSM

Grim17 said:
Look, this slanted, biased coverage by the main stream news media has been going on for decades. They report on the factual stories they deem to be newsworthy, while omitting factual stories that they decide aren't. Time and time again, especially during election season, the stories they overwhelmingly spend more time covering, are stories that either benefit democrats and the liberal agenda, or reflect negatively on republicans and the conservative agenda.

Just look at post #1 and try to offer a rational explanation for that level of unethical political collusion by the news media, other than liberal bias? I'd ask you to find examples in the past of the main stream news media colluding with republican candidates in that fashion, but there aren't any. The news media has been burying stories that make the left look bad for years, but you'll be very hard pressed to find stories that look bad for the right that they have done the same on.

If you want to make the case that the news media doesn't have a liberal bias, then all you have to do present legitimate examples of them doing the opposite of what I claim... You know, tit-for-tat.

The ball is in your court... I'm willing to back up my beliefs... are you?
Click to expand...

Perhaps the Media had a liberal bias for years, but the current bias is about ownership of the NWO/Grand Chessboard/Unilateral/permanent war camp that profits from the atempt to control the World and profits handsomely from Wars and ignorant policy. Hillary is in their tank, similar to a septic tank, and the media substitutes for the active organisms in the tank. Smells bad, but that doesn't show up in pictures and text, don't ya' know.
 
AlbqOwl said:
As a former member of the press, I can say that something being 'factual' or 'accurate' is not necessarily the truth. I can say I saw an elephant and that is both factual and accurate. But if I allow you to believe the impression that the elephant was in my living room and I don't bother to clarify that I once saw an elephant somewhere, I am both factual and accurate and absolutely promoting a lie.

It is in the placement of the information, the qualifiers that are inserted and those omitted, the extenuating circumstances that the reporter does not bother to mention lest the impact of the story be blunted, the headlines used, the photos or illustrations used, or unrelated material included that can distort and obfusicate the actual truth and leave the public getting an impression that isn't what they should know. Or omits information the public should have.

One example: one of Trump's recent accusers said they were riding in first class in an airplane when he raised the dividing arm between them and improperly touched her. But so far I haven't found anybody who can recall that dividing arms being movable in any first class section on any airline. Little facts like that are what good reporters will look for when fact checking, but our MSM doesn't bother, nor will they report such a fact when it is offered to them. The original story is just too juicy and provocative and provides the effect they want us to get.
Click to expand...

Owl, they already have a name for people like you "armrest truthers".
 
Vern said:
er uh Grim, I showed your "logic" concerning the story about the FBI and Hillary was flawed. Why should NBC, ABC NYT etc should report on a story that is a fox news "story" based on an "unnamed" source? The fact you demanded a response to that post, got one and then ignored the response speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

I guess it's the same as when CBS News did that story about Bush in 2004 that centered around documents from an anonymous source, who got them himself from an anonymous source, that every single main stream news outlet in America reported on?

How about the 2008 story from the NY Times about John McCain having an affair? That one sure made the rounds...
 
Grim17 said:
I guess it's the same as when CBS News did that story about Bush in 2004 that centered around documents from an anonymous source, who got them himself from an anonymous source, that every single main stream news outlet in America reported on?

How about the 2008 story from the NY Times about John McCain having an affair? That one sure made the rounds...
Click to expand...

uh Grim, that wasn't an "unnamed source" story. They had documents and they interviewed Bush's commanding officer's secretary. Dan Rather was fired because they couldn't authenticate the documents to a level required for someone attacking a republican president. Was anybody fired for the "Obama was born in Kenya" story? was anybody fired for saying his BC was a forgery? death panels, etc? And just so you know, the secretary for Bush's commanding officer said the content was correct. So sorry Grim, thats not an "unnamed source" story.

As far as McCain, I never heard of it. I do remember the "black love child" narrative spewed by Bush's campaign in south Carolina. But enough chit chat, you wanted someone to respond to your post 56 and you were quite rude in your request. I responded. any comments?
 
Vern said:
Owl, they already have a name for people like you "armrest truthers".
Click to expand...

I always know I hit a nerve and offered something reasonably unrebuttable when all my opposition has is personal insults and calling names. Have a great evening Vern.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I always know I hit a nerve and offered something reasonably unrebuttable when all my opposition has is personal insults and calling names. Have a great evening Vern.
Click to expand...

First off owl, its not a "personal insults and calling names". Its just a funny name for people who are suddenly experts about seats on planes 30 years ago. But owl, you calling this statement "reasonably unrebuttable " is not only funny it may explain why you're no longer part of the media.

AlbqOwl said:
But so far I haven't found anybody who can recall that dividing arms being movable in any first class section on any airline.
Click to expand...

if you post something that can be disproven by twitter, its not "reasonably unrebuttable ". Its "rebuttable",very "rebuttable. " Let me ask you a question. How many people did you ask about "dividing arms"?
 
Moot said:
Wow,...it's almost like the Russians are stealing Podesta's emails in real time. I mean the Donna Brazil thingy just happened...so how did the email get leaked so quickly?
Click to expand...

It was during the primaries ... it didn't just happen.
 
Vern said:
First off owl, its not a "personal insults and calling names". Its just a funny name for people who are suddenly experts about seats on planes 30 years ago. But owl, you calling this statement "reasonably unrebuttable " is not only funny it may explain why you're no longer part of the media.



if you post something that can be disproven by twitter, its not "reasonably unrebuttable ". Its "rebuttable",very "rebuttable. " Let me ask you a question. How many people did you ask about "dividing arms"?
Click to expand...

I asked my uncle who was the pilot on commercial flights for 25 years and who is quite knowledgeable on first class conditions on numerous airlines being a frequent flyer up until the last few years. And I can assure you that I am no longer part of the media purely by my own choice. And I am not mostly because of the dishonesty, lack of ethics, and lapdog quality that you find in the media these days and the types of people who think the media is just fine.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
I asked my uncle who was the pilot on commercial flights for 25 years and who is quite knowledgeable on first class conditions on numerous airlines being a frequent flyer up until the last few years. And I can assure you that I am no longer part of the media purely by my own choice. And I am not mostly because of the dishonesty, lack of ethics, and lapdog quality that you find in the media these days and the types of people who think the media is just fine.
Click to expand...

Did you tell your uncle that twitter proved him wrong? Oh and I see you worked in the conservative media. You are right, conservatives are fine with the dishonesty, lack of ethics, and lapdog quality. You hit the nail on the head with this

AlbqOwl said:
As a former member of the press, I can say that something being 'factual' or 'accurate' is not necessarily the truth. I can say I saw an elephant and that is both factual and accurate. But if I allow you to believe the impression that the elephant was in my living room and I don't bother to clarify that I once saw an elephant somewhere, I am both factual and accurate and absolutely promoting a lie.

It is in the placement of the information, the qualifiers that are inserted and those omitted, the extenuating circumstances that the reporter does not bother to mention lest the impact of the story be blunted, the headlines used, the photos or illustrations used, or unrelated material included that can distort and obfusicate the actual truth and leave the public getting an impression that isn't what they should know. Or omits information the public should have.
Click to expand...

Lets say this elephant was testifying to a Benghazi committee and you only quoted the elephant as saying "what difference does it make" and left out the context that clearly showed the elephant wasn't showing a lack of concern then you agree that it was intended to distort or obfuscate the actual truth. You call that dishonest right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom