Jump to content

Media Bias Thread


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

On 6/11/2019 at 12:30 PM, Foosters said:

"I think Trump did in a much worse fashion."

So Bill Maher thinks that Hillary Clinton, a private citizen, obstructed justice. He also thinks that Donald Trump, the President of the United States, obstructed justice while in office "in a much worse fashion."

What should we do with his opinions?

Roll them up and throw them in the garbage. Maher is such a fucking beating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

Is anybody following (or even aware of) the New York Times ban on reporters going on "opinion" cable news shows? 

I guess MSNBC is pissed that they have banned their reporters from going on some Fox (obviously), MSNBC (Maddow), and CNN (Don Lemon) shows. 

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1138902091164987392
 

it was on the previous page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://mobile.twitter.com/jamestaranto/status/1138882202337497093

 

And why we are on the subject of media bias has anyone else noticed that Joe Biden calling Trump an existential threat to America is not considered to be an attack on Trump however everyone in the media were referring to Trump's response to Biden's remarks as Trump attacking Biden.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jamestaranto/status/1138882202337497093

 

And why we are on the subject of media bias has anyone else noticed that Joe Biden calling Trump an existential threat to America is not considered to be an attack on Trump however everyone in the media were referring to Trump's response to Biden's remarks as Trump attacking Biden.

 

Both were considered political attacks and they were reported as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the this appears to be where we complain about media, here’s another story.   15 year weatherman at a Sinclair owned station defied and openly complained about the Sinclair mandate they use sensationalist weather warnings instead of industry defined terms.  Sinclair wanted to use terms like Code Red, presumably to scare people.

the weatherman was successful in shaming Sinclair and the station to back off.  But he was also fired. Good opportunity for a competitor to hire him.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/13/media/joe-crain-sinclair-code-red/index.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Both were considered political attacks and they were reported as such.

Not during CNN and CBS's top of the hour radio news updates they weren't.  The anchors both described Trump as attacking Biden, neither of them described Biden as attacking Trump.  Instead they said "Joe Biden campaigned in Iowa" and cut to the soundbite of him calling Trump an existential threat to America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Not during CNN and CBS's top of the hour radio news updates they weren't.  The anchors both described Trump as attacking Biden, neither of them described Biden as attacking Trump.  Instead they said "Joe Biden campaigned in Iowa" and cut to the soundbite of him calling Trump an existential threat to America.

Is it attacking, if it's true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Not during CNN and CBS's top of the hour radio news updates they weren't.  The anchors both described Trump as attacking Biden, neither of them described Biden as attacking Trump.  Instead they said "Joe Biden campaigned in Iowa" and cut to the soundbite of him calling Trump an existential threat to America.

as much as i don't want to get into this conversation, i was watching a decent amount of tv that day.

biden called trump an existential threat to america.  that's his opinion.  it's intended to be incendiary, he's on the campaign trail.

trump, and several fox news hosts, made specific comments relating to biden's health, which is baseless speculation - and shit they've done before with hillary - creating a false narrative that an old person is ill.  it's also something trump has recently done with pelosi.  a lot of olds attacking olds for being old.  i guess it's normal now, but it's fucking gross.

when a trump 2020 spokesman was asked about them attacking biden's health, his response was "well biden said bad stuff about trump first".  same excuse about his pelosi attacks - she attacked me first.  3rd grade bullshit aside, as the president you should hope for the occasional high road, but we're well past that.

i saw both being reported, and i was watching cnn.  the attack on biden's health was definitely seen as being the crappier of the two, because there isn't any evidence of health issues.  it's just trump being trump.

sorry that "at the top of the hour" they reported the president's attacks first.  it's called the bully pulpit for a reason, and when he says something like that, it's news.  of course the minute trump's statements slip to 3rd or 4th on the docket, then everyone on the right will be outraged at the slight.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is weird to see the contortionist exercise people go through to both think of Trump as President and very important, and then also think of Trump's statements as not important enough to be elevated to news when he says something. Trumps statements have more weight and importance than just about anyone else in the world. Its what happens when you become the President of the United States. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2019 at 5:32 PM, TornACL said:

"Doing Journalism".

 

LOL. You people who poison your brains with that big font YouTube bullshit are the biased ones. Biased by so much absolute horseshit that it's leaking back out through your mouths. 

So, you don't dispute that they were suspended for doing journalism, you just think people who are "biased" are wrong. That doesn't even make sense. Everyone has a perspective (aka bias).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/24/google-censors-video-exposing-google/

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/

 

The report includes undercover footage of longtime Google employee and Head of Responsible Innovation, Jen Gennai saying:

“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.”

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zavala said:

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/24/google-censors-video-exposing-google/

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/

 

The report includes undercover footage of longtime Google employee and Head of Responsible Innovation, Jen Gennai saying:

“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.”

 

Orwellian dystopia is upon us. The narrative controllers have went all in to censor conservative outlets and it is undeniable at this point in my opinion.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, American Swindle said:

Did you hear Ted's argument that Google has immunity under such and such section as long as they remain a neutral party?

 

 

They have immunity from liability under the communications decency act per the vid. Was this a quid pro quo from establishment folks to do their bidding?  *Conspiracy theory alert!*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Did you hear Ted's argument that Google has immunity under such and such section as long as they remain a neutral party?

I don't listen to anything Ted Cruz says. Nor do I care if Google can get sued to oblivion.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

OK. I watched it. Ted Cruz is hilarious. 

When do the Fox News hearings start?

Swing and a miss.

Fox News doesn't purport to be a neutral public forum as protected by Section 230 of the communication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Google can censor whomever they want.

No, they can't, unless they also want to be responsible for the content, as a publisher. Pretty simple to check. They manipulate everything in a clearly politically biased way.

1561458364480-pol.jpg

 

muh algorithm!

no, it's clearly not that either

1561482903994-pol.png

 

duck-d3uck.jpg

 

Craig James Killed Five Hookers at SMU btw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i assume this is some sort of clumsy algorithm to combat hatespeech?

It's an intentionally edited list that the algorithm spits out and they delete the ones they don't want to show. I understand the need to potentially check the "CJK5H" type of problem, but this isn't that. "Hillary Clinton is" has the predictive completion just turned off because it wasn't positive and it's too obvious when they were doing the manipulation during the election. Basically, they get the duckduckgo version and chop down certain predictive text based on what they want to show. This for sure influences what you type into search, it's intentional manipulation of behavior intended to get their desired political outcome. Problem is, it's so sloppily done that it has the opposite effect (Streisand effect).

Then there is the youtube search, which is totally fucked. There has been plenty of talk about this.

Oh, and speaking of youtube, remember the spider man and elsa creepy kid shit? It's back, just altered slightly. 

1561492098850-pol.png

If you let your kids play with your tablet with access to youtube, they will be getting these creepy fucked up videos fed to them.

Meanwhile, if you search for specific content or video related to politics, the search only gives results of MSM news outlet shit that is vaguely related. I guess that is the "authoritative" content being promoted on the first 3 pages, then what you were searching for comes up after that. So youtube is attempting to limit the influence of smaller creators (that built youtube) and promote the big MSM shit. Basically, if you want to find what you are looking for, you have to use "sort by" in order to get rid of the more "relevant" results (they will only be big MSM news results).

 

 

Edited by Zavala
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zavala said:

It's an intentionally edited list that the algorithm spits out and they delete the ones they don't want to show. I understand the need to potentially check the "CJK5H" type of problem, but this isn't that. "Hillary Clinton is" has the predictive completion just turned off because it wasn't positive and it's too obvious when they were doing the manipulation during the election. Basically, they get the duckduckgo version and chop down certain predictive text based on what they want to show. This for sure influences what you type into search, it's intentional manipulation of behavior intended to get their desired political outcome. Problem is, it's so sloppily done that it has the opposite effect (Streisand effect).

Then there is the youtube search, which is totally fucked. There has been plenty of talk about this.

Oh, and speaking of youtube, remember the spider man and elsa creepy kid shit? It's back, just altered slightly. 

1561492098850-pol.png

If you let your kids play with your tablet with access to youtube, they will be getting these creepy fucked up videos fed to them.

Meanwhile, if you search for specific content or video related to politics, the search only gives results of MSM news outlet shit that is vaguely related. I guess that is the "authoritative" content being promoted on the first 3 pages, then what you were searching for comes up after that. So youtube is attempting to limit the influence of smaller creators (that built youtube) and promote the big MSM shit. Basically, if you want to find what you are looking for, you have to use "sort by" in order to get rid of the more "relevant" results (they will only be big MSM news results).

There's a very easy solution to your problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Zavala said:

It's an intentionally edited list that the algorithm spits out and they delete the ones they don't want to show. I understand the need to potentially check the "CJK5H" type of problem, but this isn't that. "Hillary Clinton is" has the predictive completion just turned off because it wasn't positive and it's too obvious when they were doing the manipulation during the election. Basically, they get the duckduckgo version and chop down certain predictive text based on what they want to show. This for sure influences what you type into search, it's intentional manipulation of behavior intended to get their desired political outcome. Problem is, it's so sloppily done that it has the opposite effect (Streisand effect).

but the trump stuff looks highly edited as well.  looks like incendiary language was taken off search across the board?

i don't have a dog in this fight, because i don't get my information from predictive search, but it's interesting to see what measures they're taking.

also, re: msm coming up in searches, i think there's a lot of reasons for this, and more relevant/more read stuff should come up in google search even if it doesn't match a search quite as cleanly as some offbeat upstart slanted site that can print whatever it wants, don't you think?  it's not like they're scrubbing those sites from the internet, just prioritizing.

and google/youtube has relationships with their "top channels" so of course that stuff is going to show up first.  google is still a business, and fox news shows up the same as cnn/msnbc.

i think the issue comes up with certain sites that attract white-nationalist/hate groups.  once there is overlap, i can see there being some collateral damage.  it's unavoidable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Zavala's issues lie with the fact the far left want trans men to be able to use women's bathrooms and the far right want to hang blacks.  One side is going to be censored harder than the other, but Zavala so....crying. 

Nice projection. I don't think about trannies or black people hanging at all. These are irrelevant silly examples of how you view the ends of the political spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Zavala's issues lie with the fact the far left want trans men to be able to use women's bathrooms and the far right want to hang blacks.  One side is going to be censored harder than the other, but Zavala so....crying. 

You think Tim Pool and Elizabeth Warren and Louis Farrakhan and Dave Rubin are far right? You're completely lost bro.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, elfenix said:

james o'keefe has been caught as a liar 12 different times previously but i'm sure this time he's on the up and up.

The NY Times has committed thousands of lies, including when Walter Duranty deliberately covered up a soviet famine. So you label them @fakenews as well, I presume? 

I don't understand why people brag about their ignorance. It's the craziest thing. "I'm totally uninformed, so you must be an idiot, idiot!!!!!!"

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

The NY Times has committed thousands of lies, including when Walter Duranty deliberately covered up a soviet famine. So you label them @fakenews as well, I presume? 

I don't understand why people brag about their ignorance. It's the craziest thing. "I'm totally uninformed, so you must be an idiot, idiot!!!!!!"

the nyt being an often pro-war muckracking paper doesn't excuse james o'keefe's continuous lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...