• 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!

Breaking: CNN Reports Darren Wilson Did Not Suffer a Fractured Eye Socket

Bwahahahahahaha

Another example of the right pretending to be a victim on an island.

You serious clarke? Hell the lefts whole identity is victimhood. Gay, black, hispanic, even pretend native americans like e. Warren.

That was not a well thought response.
 
And listeners go to fox to reinforce their ideologies, not for objective news.

That's what they all do. We're going back to the Founder's era of journalism, not the perhaps hopelessly idealistic concept of journalism that started to take shape in the early parts of the last century.
 
So has this been discredited, or is it the usual "I don't want to hear evidence that doesn't support my side?"
 
All news outlets can get it wrong from time to time, its the risk of trying to be the first one out. At least CNN isn't filled with opinion!

The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."[43]

Fox News Channel controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't find it shocking that the Columbia "J" school would find FOX more bias....It's kind of laughably transparent in a sick sort of way.
 
You serious clarke? Hell the lefts whole identity is victimhood. Gay, black, hispanic, even pretend native americans like e. Warren.

That was not a well thought response.

The right does just as good of a job playing victim. Go hang in the media bias forum if you don't think so. Or look for any thread where the "War on Christians" comes up.
 
So has this been discredited, or is it the usual "I don't want to hear evidence that doesn't support my side?"

It came from CNN so yeah, that is instantly discrediting
 
That's what they all do. We're going back to the Founder's era of journalism, not the perhaps hopelessly idealistic concept of journalism that started to take shape in the early parts of the last century.

It surprises me that nobody really realizes that this spectre of "unbiased" journalism doesn't exist anywhere in the world, and never really has. It only existed as an ideal, but not in reality - kind of like communism.
 
It came from CNN so yeah, that is instantly discrediting

So like I said - the usual "I don't want to hear it if it doesn't reinforce my preconcieved notions."
 
So like I said - the usual "I don't want to hear it if it doesn't reinforce my preconcieved notions."

Like I said, Don Lemon is a hack...And CNN's credibility has been questionable for some time, but I am willing to see what comes out at trial if it even gets that far.
 
The right does just as good of a job playing victim. Go hang in the media bias forum if you don't think so. Or look for any thread where the "War on Christians" comes up.

Are you denying there is a media bias. I only know of 1 network that is viewed as hyper conservative because it doesnt echo the liberal by line the other networks do.

Fox is right but by far not as right as they are labeled. There is often an objective opinion on their commentary shows.

Print journalists are even more skewed to the left. Its difficult to find someone that isnt a cheerleader for liberal causes.

Radio is dominated by conservatives but they are not taken as anything but entertainment. I dont listen to rush. Few i know do. But if you are keeping score, the left have about 100 in the tank for every one of the right
 
Well since CNN is being criticized for doing what FOX has done more, yeah I'd say so.

It's a distraction. This is about CNN and what they are saying, not about FoxNews. FN may indeed be worse about injecting their opinions, but again, this isn't about something FN has done.
 
And listeners go to fox to reinforce their ideologies, not for objective news.


The Fox News audience skews more ideological than that of its two main competitors. Fully, 60% of Fox News viewers describe themselves as conservative, compared with 23% who say they are moderate and 10% who are liberal, according to a 2012 survey by the Pew Research Center. By contrast, the ideological makeup of CNN viewers (32% conservative, 30% moderate, 30% liberal) and MSNBC viewers (32% conservative, 23% moderate, 36% liberal) is far more mixed.

5 facts about Fox News | Pew Research Center

That's great, but it doesn't validate CNN as a source.
 
I don't find it shocking that the Columbia "J" school would find FOX more bias....It's kind of laughably transparent in a sick sort of way.

Anybody that exposes inconsistencies, failures, lies or propaganda on the right has an agenda, ANYBODY!
 
It surprises me that nobody really realizes that this spectre of "unbiased" journalism doesn't exist anywhere in the world, and never really has. It only existed as an ideal, but not in reality - kind of like communism.


Didn't you start a thread asserting that Michael Brown PAYED for his stolen cigars ?
 
Anybody that exposes inconsistencies, failures, lies or propaganda on the right has an agenda, ANYBODY!

Well, yes. The ones who do so on the left do as well. We ALL have agendas. What that agenda is and how much we allow it to color our reporting is what is significant.
 
Not at all. And one example from a few years ago about a mistake made on Fox doesn't change the OP.

No it doesn't change the op. A and 2, I posted more than one example. It just proves Hillary Clinton's testimony to congress that ALL American media is shallow and for "real news" one must go to Al Jazeera.
 
Anybody that exposes inconsistencies, failures, lies or propaganda on the right has an agenda, ANYBODY!

No, not true, that is only the rhetoric you are using to distract from the fact that you tried to use an ultra liberal source like U of Columbia's "J" school to distract the actual topic of the thread....Just be honest and we get along better.
 
No it doesn't change the op. A and 2, I posted more than one example. It just proves Hillary Clinton's testimony to congress that ALL American media is shallow and for "real news" one must go to Al Jazeera.

I'd like to stay on topic, which is the fractured eye socket, Jim Hoft & CNN. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Well, yes. The ones who do so on the left do as well. We ALL have agendas. What that agenda is and how much we allow it to color our reporting is what is significant.

So if ones agenda is used to dismiss such findings, then we all might as well turn off the lights and go home.
 
It surprises me that nobody really realizes that this spectre of "unbiased" journalism doesn't exist anywhere in the world, and never really has. It only existed as an ideal, but not in reality - kind of like communism.

Exactly. Objectivity is a great thing to strive for. The problem is we won't ever get there. The neutral point of view is never actually neutral (hence why Wikipedia is probably more hopeless than the establishment presses).
 
Crazy Redress, who wants to do that?

No seriously...who wants to do that, because it seems almost no one in this freaking country is actually doing that. I've actually largely avoided trying to post in most of these threads thus far because frankly the ZEALOT like nature of people on both sides is frustrating and rather worthless to try and wade through. So few people actually seem to honestly just want to know what happened, they want to know what happened that fits their preconceived notions and agendas and thoughts.

Much like Trayvon and Zimmerman in the end, I imagine that after all is said and done and all the bull**** and propaganda and protests and police action and all the other crap....the reality is going to be a lot more murky on both sides and it'll be somewhere in between what either one has been claiming so loudly since the start.

/double like.
 
So if ones agenda is used to dismiss such findings, then we all might as well turn off the lights and go home.


You're predisposition is to attempt to mainstream obvious left wing sources and then use them to marginalize the sources that counter YOUR agenda.

Like using HuffPo as a source or using the Columbia School of Journalism to pigeon hole Fox news as the " most partisan News network. "

Its nothing new as most Libs here have done it.

The distinction is is when you do it its so blatantly obvious it looks like your parodying other Libs more discreet attempts at providing " unbiased " information.

Maybe you just need to practice a bit more.
 
Like I said, Don Lemon is a hack...And CNN's credibility has been questionable for some time, but I am willing to see what comes out at trial if it even gets that far.

I don't think he is a hack. I think he is more often than not, quite sensible. He doesn't presume that he is being objective (I think he instead tries to convince people he is "fair"), but he doesn't try to force feed viewers, either.
 
So if ones agenda is used to dismiss such findings, then we all might as well turn off the lights and go home.

No, you could instead stay on topic and forgo the distractions.
 
Back
Top Bottom