What, Exactly, Is "Liberal" Media Bias?

[jerry mcmasters]

Because they refuse to leave their fucking guns at home or wear a mask?


Just a guess.


I see lots of former republiKKKunts on MSNBC.  Michael Steele, Nicolle Wallace, Steve Schmidt to name a few.  I guess the fact that they have realized that the GOP is now a gang of nazi thugs means they must now be "liberals" huh?

That's a great demonstration of liberal bias, thanks.  Purposely having former Republicans on and not current ones shows dedication to narrative, not desire to show different perspectives and analysis on the events of the day.  The bias is not even being hidden, it's right there in plain sight!

So just because someone does not drink your nazi Kool-Aid means that they can not be republiKKKunts, huh?  I doubt that any of them has given up on the whole "we-only-care-about-tax-cuts-for-the-rich" horseshit which before they went stark raving crazy was the only coherent republiKKKunt position on anything.  I get it.  You embrace crazy and anyone who tells you that is guilty of "liberal bias."  Fuck you.

Wipe the spittle off your screen, prick.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Instead, that defense is sensationalized into a version of the modern KKK forcing blacks back on the plantation.  Racism.  White Supremacy.  This is a liberal bias and liberal narrative and is catering to an audience's desires the same way Fox does for the right.

This is a caricature of the Democrat position. I wonder what news outlet you picked it up from.

The actual Democrat position is that these attempts at restricting voter participation land more heavily upon minority communities, and they are attempts to unravel the Voting Rights Act.

Of course, you're not biased at all.

[jerry mcmasters]

Instead, that defense is sensationalized into a version of the modern KKK forcing blacks back on the plantation.  Racism.  White Supremacy.  This is a liberal bias and liberal narrative and is catering to an audience's desires the same way Fox does for the right.

This is a caricature of the Democrat position. I wonder what news outlet you picked it up from.

The actual Democrat position is that these attempts at restricting voter participation land more heavily upon minority communities, and they are attempts to unravel the Voting Rights Act.

It was a bit of a caricature, yes.  However I am talking about CNN and MSNBC.  You don't have to watch their coverage on the topic very long before they will indeed work in racism and white supremacy and they will NOT work in the Republican / conservative justification.  Thus, there is a liberal bias.  I don't know how you have access to the "actual" Democratic position, but it doesn't matter as far as this debate, what is in question is whether these outlets present the issue in a non-biased way.

Of course, you're not biased at all.

We all have our biases.

[Thumpalumpacus]

However I am talking about CNN and MSNBC.  You don't have to watch their coverage on the topic very long before they will indeed work in racism and white supremacy and they will NOT work in the Republican / conservative justification.  Thus, there is a liberal bias.

I don't own a television. But I am talking about digesting media. If you eat McDonald's regularly, you might expect issues. If you choose your diet consciously, you can obtain better results.

Of course, you're not biased at all.

We all have our biases.

The real trick is recognizing them in ourselves and working to counterbalance them. Most folks don't like broccoli, either, but it's really good for ya. Square-up, just getting your (not you specifically, you generally) from TV/viral hot news is not a balanced diet of information.

Recognizing my own biases, I actively work to counteract that by ordering a la carte, rather than just supping an entire meal from one source.

[jerry mcmasters]

However I am talking about CNN and MSNBC.  You don't have to watch their coverage on the topic very long before they will indeed work in racism and white supremacy and they will NOT work in the Republican / conservative justification.  Thus, there is a liberal bias.

I don't own a television. But I am talking about digesting media. If you eat McDonald's regularly, you might expect issues. If you choose your diet consciously, you can obtain better results.

Of course, you're not biased at all.

We all have our biases.

The real trick is recognizing them in ourselves and working to counterbalance them. Most folks don't like broccoli, either, but it's really good for ya. Square-up, just getting your (not you specifically, you generally) from TV/viral hot news is not a balanced diet of information.

Recognizing my own biases, I actively work to counteract that by ordering a la carte, rather than just supping an entire meal from one source.

You're telling this to the wrong person.  It's everyone else on this thread that think the mainstream media is serving them five-star filet mignon, and everyone else that needs to be slapped into the reality that it's really moldy McDonalds.  You seem to agree with me that many of these "news" outlets can't be trusted to attempt fair and objective news and analysis, and must thus be augmented by multiple sources.

Here's a recent fun example of our intrepid non-liberal biased mainstream news: cbs not even pretending to be objective.

[Cavebear]

However I am talking about CNN and MSNBC.  You don't have to watch their coverage on the topic very long before they will indeed work in racism and white supremacy and they will NOT work in the Republican / conservative justification.  Thus, there is a liberal bias.

I don't own a television. But I am talking about digesting media. If you eat McDonald's regularly, you might expect issues. If you choose your diet consciously, you can obtain better results.

We all have our biases.

The real trick is recognizing them in ourselves and working to counterbalance them. Most folks don't like broccoli, either, but it's really good for ya. Square-up, just getting your (not you specifically, you generally) from TV/viral hot news is not a balanced diet of information.

Recognizing my own biases, I actively work to counteract that by ordering a la carte, rather than just supping an entire meal from one source.

You're telling this to the wrong person.  It's everyone else on this thread that think the mainstream media is serving them five-star filet mignon, and everyone else that needs to be slapped into the reality that it's really moldy McDonalds.  You seem to agree with me that many of these "news" outlets can't be trusted to attempt fair and objective news and analysis, and must thus be augmented by multiple sources.

Here's a recent fun example of our intrepid non-liberal biased mainstream news: cbs not even pretending to be objective.

There are news sites and newspapers that are dedicated to factual information and those that are not. The Fox News "Fair And Balanced" claim has been a laughingstock for a decade and more. I watched an MSNBC host interview a Cato spokesperson recently and it was too embarrassing to watch to the end. He spouted factually-checkable-nonsense from beginning to end.

I don't LIKE watching people being humiliated like that. But when they persist, it is on the record and shown elsewhere the next day.

What I'm never sure of is whether such people actually BELIEVE what they say. I mean, it may well just be a rhetorical argument meant to confuse suckers. I understand that in a way. Some people want to win an argument any way they can. If they really mean it, that's pretty sad, though.

There are few things I assume in a democracy...

The will of the people decide. The more voters the more "will of the people". Voting should be easier, not harder. More voting places are better. Shorter voting lines are better. More hours of voting are better. Mail-in ballots are not fraudulent and encourage voting. Drop-off boxes are not fraudulent and encourage voting. Democracy depends on increasing voter-participation.

Am I missing something here?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The real trick is recognizing them in ourselves and working to counterbalance them. Most folks don't like broccoli, either, but it's really good for ya. Square-up, just getting your (not you specifically, you generally) from TV/viral hot news is not a balanced diet of information.

Recognizing my own biases, I actively work to counteract that by ordering a la carte, rather than just supping an entire meal from one source.

You're telling this to the wrong person. 

I literally wrote "(not you specifically, you generally)". Stop taking everything so personally.

[Dānu]

However I am talking about CNN and MSNBC.  You don't have to watch their coverage on the topic very long before they will indeed work in racism and white supremacy and they will NOT work in the Republican / conservative justification.  Thus, there is a liberal bias.

I don't own a television. But I am talking about digesting media. If you eat McDonald's regularly, you might expect issues. If you choose your diet consciously, you can obtain better results.

We all have our biases.

The real trick is recognizing them in ourselves and working to counterbalance them. Most folks don't like broccoli, either, but it's really good for ya. Square-up, just getting your (not you specifically, you generally) from TV/viral hot news is not a balanced diet of information.

Recognizing my own biases, I actively work to counteract that by ordering a la carte, rather than just supping an entire meal from one source.

You're telling this to the wrong person.  It's everyone else on this thread that think the mainstream media is serving them five-star filet mignon, and everyone else that needs to be slapped into the reality that it's really moldy McDonalds.  You seem to agree with me that many of these "news" outlets can't be trusted to attempt fair and objective news and analysis, and must thus be augmented by multiple sources.

Here's a recent fun example of our intrepid non-liberal biased mainstream news: cbs not even pretending to be objective.

Using a conservatively biased source to evaluate the liberal bias of MSM. I can't see anything wrong with that. </sarcasm>

[jerry mcmasters]

I don't own a television. But I am talking about digesting media. If you eat McDonald's regularly, you might expect issues. If you choose your diet consciously, you can obtain better results.


The real trick is recognizing them in ourselves and working to counterbalance them. Most folks don't like broccoli, either, but it's really good for ya. Square-up, just getting your (not you specifically, you generally) from TV/viral hot news is not a balanced diet of information.

Recognizing my own biases, I actively work to counteract that by ordering a la carte, rather than just supping an entire meal from one source.

You're telling this to the wrong person.  It's everyone else on this thread that think the mainstream media is serving them five-star filet mignon, and everyone else that needs to be slapped into the reality that it's really moldy McDonalds.  You seem to agree with me that many of these "news" outlets can't be trusted to attempt fair and objective news and analysis, and must thus be augmented by multiple sources.

Here's a recent fun example of our intrepid non-liberal biased mainstream news: cbs not even pretending to be objective.

Using a conservatively biased source to evaluate the liberal bias of MSM.  I can't see anything wrong with that. </sarcasm>

I looked for it in liberal sources but strangely, it wasn't mentioned.

[jerry mcmasters]

The real trick is recognizing them in ourselves and working to counterbalance them. Most folks don't like broccoli, either, but it's really good for ya. Square-up, just getting your (not you specifically, you generally) from TV/viral hot news is not a balanced diet of information.

Recognizing my own biases, I actively work to counteract that by ordering a la carte, rather than just supping an entire meal from one source.

You're telling this to the wrong person. 

I literally wrote "(not you specifically, you generally)". Stop taking everything so personally.

You and I don't take each other personally, Thump.  Anyway that was actually meant as a subtle jab to anyone else reading; a lot of people have their heads buried in the sand regarding our intrepid media.  I suspect people are comforted by simplistic and effortless black and white thinking, which results in "My news media virginal crusaders for truth, the other guys are lying liars!"  My rule of thumb is be skeptical of everything, always.

[jerry mcmasters]

I don't own a television. But I am talking about digesting media. If you eat McDonald's regularly, you might expect issues. If you choose your diet consciously, you can obtain better results.


The real trick is recognizing them in ourselves and working to counterbalance them. Most folks don't like broccoli, either, but it's really good for ya. Square-up, just getting your (not you specifically, you generally) from TV/viral hot news is not a balanced diet of information.

Recognizing my own biases, I actively work to counteract that by ordering a la carte, rather than just supping an entire meal from one source.

You're telling this to the wrong person.  It's everyone else on this thread that think the mainstream media is serving them five-star filet mignon, and everyone else that needs to be slapped into the reality that it's really moldy McDonalds.  You seem to agree with me that many of these "news" outlets can't be trusted to attempt fair and objective news and analysis, and must thus be augmented by multiple sources.

Here's a recent fun example of our intrepid non-liberal biased mainstream news: cbs not even pretending to be objective.

There are news sites and newspapers that are dedicated to factual information and those that are not.  The Fox News "Fair And Balanced" claim has been a laughingstock for a decade and more.  I watched an MSNBC host interview a Cato spokesperson recently and it was too embarrassing to watch to the end.  He spouted factually-checkable-nonsense from beginning to end.  

I don't LIKE watching people being humiliated like that.  But when they persist, it is on the record and shown elsewhere the next day.

What I'm never sure of is whether such people actually BELIEVE what they say.  I mean, it may well just be a rhetorical argument meant to confuse suckers. I understand that in a way.  Some people want to win an argument any way they can.  If they really mean it, that's pretty sad, though.  

There are few things I assume in a democracy...

The will of the people decide.  The more voters the more "will of the people".  Voting should be easier, not harder.  More voting places are better.  Shorter voting lines are better.  More hours of voting are better.  Mail-in ballots are not fraudulent and encourage voting.  Drop-off boxes are not fraudulent and encourage voting.  Democracy depends on increasing voter-participation.

Am I missing something here?

Besides reality, I suppose nothing.  I take it your position is MSNBC is "dedicated to factual information" and carries no political slant to their analysis and interpretation.

[Dānu]

You're telling this to the wrong person.  It's everyone else on this thread that think the mainstream media is serving them five-star filet mignon, and everyone else that needs to be slapped into the reality that it's really moldy McDonalds.  You seem to agree with me that many of these "news" outlets can't be trusted to attempt fair and objective news and analysis, and must thus be augmented by multiple sources.

Here's a recent fun example of our intrepid non-liberal biased mainstream news: cbs not even pretending to be objective.

Using a conservatively biased source to evaluate the liberal bias of MSM.  I can't see anything wrong with that. </sarcasm>

I looked for it in liberal sources but strangely, it wasn't mentioned.

That would probably be your first clue.

[Cavebear]

There is a general misplacement among some political commentators. The claim is that Republicans have gone far Right and Democrats have gone far Left. This is a false equivalence... Republican POLITICIANS have gone Far Right, much farther than their voting base. Democrats, both the politicians and the voter base, haven't moved much either way since Bill Clinton. President Biden is hardly the left-wing Communist the Right tries to make him seem.

[jerry mcmasters]

Using a conservatively biased source to evaluate the liberal bias of MSM.  I can't see anything wrong with that. </sarcasm>

I looked for it in liberal sources but strangely, it wasn't mentioned.

That would probably be your first clue.

...which would give me at least one more clue than you have.  You are clueless.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

MSM is admirable in their restraint in not calling Faux News "a bunch of assholes."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Good article in fivethirtyeight ---

GOP Hatred of Media is now Major Point of Identity

Faux News calls liberal outlets "The Media", when leaves Faux News out as a media news outlet. Nothing new there.

[Dānu]

I looked for it in liberal sources but strangely, it wasn't mentioned.

That would probably be your first clue.

...which would give me at least one more clue than you have.  You are clueless.

[jerry mcmasters]

Danu I swear sometimes you make sense and other times it's like you're just aspiring to be a shitty version of the Riddler. What's your point? Was there something mysterious and incomprehensible about the example of extreme liberal media bias I cited or not?

[Minimalist]

Here's an example of "Liberal Media Bias."

When they report on what a scum-sucking sack of shit Matt Gaetz is they only do it because he is a republiKKKunt, right Jerry?


https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/08/politics/...index.html

Matt Gaetz associate likely to strike plea deal, attorneys say

Orlando (CNN)Joel Greenberg, a central figure in the ongoing investigation into Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, is likely to strike a plea deal with federal prosecutors, his attorney and prosecutors said in court Thursday, potentially putting additional legal pressure on the congressman.

Greenberg's possible cooperation with the Justice Department could provide investigators with key details as they work to determine whether Gaetz broke sex trafficking or prostitution laws himself.

[Dānu]

Danu I swear sometimes you make sense and other times it's like you're just aspiring to be a shitty version of the Riddler.  What's your point?  Was there something mysterious and incomprehensible about the example of extreme liberal media bias I cited or not?

Have you read the article in question? If so, what do you find to be unfair or unobjective about it?

[Cavebear]

Danu I swear sometimes you make sense and other times it's like you're just aspiring to be a shitty version of the Riddler.  What's your point?  Was there something mysterious and incomprehensible about the example of extreme liberal media bias I cited or not?

When I listen to MSNBC, I try to find errors. It's my thing to fact-check them . I seldom can find a mistatement (there have been a few). On Fox News I can barely BLINK before the facts are false. And not just false, but absurd.

One reports on posted election results; the other claims the entire election was a fraud. There just isn't an equivalence there...

[Bucky Ball]

There is a very good reason why "The Lincoln Project" is full to the brim with ex-Republicans.
The current Republican Party has morphed itself into "unrecognizable".
147 of them voted to over-turn a perfectly legitimate democratic election because they didn't like the result.
They still all need to resign.

[Minimalist]

147 of them voted to over-turn a perfectly legitimate democratic election because they didn't like the result.

147 of them did it because their fuhrer told them to.  Who knows what, if anything, those shitheads "think."

[Dom]

If you ask me, most media is biased. Most media injects opinions and that alone makes it biased.

Cspan is just plain recording what happened from what I have watched (only watched on occasion). So, that's cool.

I think all the news channels have too much opinion fluff - they need it to fill the time. 

What makes it all worse is that the majority of people just watch their favorite channel, be it Fox or CNN or anything in between - and don't ever see what the other half is being fed.

The result is a complete breakdown of communication between "the people", extreme partisanship and things like the insurrection. I just hope nothing worse will happen.

That's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

[Minimalist]

There is a tribalism in "news" now.  People can find "news" which is tailored to what they desperately want to think is true.  This negates the possibility that they may hear something which they don't want to hear. 

The trumptards never have to leave their bubble. If FOX disappoints them they can always find a bigger nazi shithead.