I've written a lot in this thread and others on the biases in all of mainstream political coverage -- both siderism, conventional wisdom, laziness, etc. that apply to most outlets, including CNN. When the two political parties are not symmetrical and one is bat **** crazy it disadvantages the sane party (i.e., Democrats). Just because I don't want to get in the middle of two guys' tedious and idiotic dispute doesn't mean I haven't otherwise made my point here.
You can continue to think CNN and NYT are biased against Democrats, I'll continue to think that's a loony left stance if there ever was one. We'll have to agree to disagree.
You can continue to think CNN and NYT are biased against Democrats, I'll continue to think that's a loony left stance if there ever was one. We'll have to agree to disagree.
I'll agree that your mind is closed on this issue.
How about if we say they don't think they're biased against the Ds, maybe even believe they favor the Ds, but in fact their framing of issues, headlines, both-siderism disadvantage the Ds (not to mention the truth and possibly the well-being of the country, imo).
How about if we say they don't think they're biased against the Ds, maybe even believe they favor the Ds, but in fact their framing of issues, headlines, both-siderism disadvantage the Ds (not to mention the truth and possibly the well-being of the country, imo).
that’s pretty much my last post on the topic. Intent is not important if the outcome is biased.
if you had an actual well thought out position on this my mind is open to it. But it doesn’t appear your POV is anything more than —“you’re loony left.”
How about if we say they don't think they're biased against the Ds, maybe even believe they favor the Ds, but in fact their framing of issues, headlines, both-siderism disadvantage the Ds (not to mention the truth and possibly the well-being of the country, imo).
that’s pretty much my last post on the topic. Intent is not important if the outcome is biased.
if you had an actual well thought out position on this my mind is open to it. But it doesn’t appear your POV is anything more than —“you’re loony left.”
I have written many posts on the media angle recently, both here and in Rose garden thread, many of which are detailed and substantive. You may not read or care to read, but my POV has been established. Distilling all of that down to "you're loony left" pretty much embodies a closed mind.
if you had an actual well thought out position on this my mind is open to it. But it doesn’t appear your POV is anything more than —“you’re loony left.”
I have written many posts on the media angle recently, both here and in Rose garden thread, many of which are detailed and substantive. You may not read or care to read, but my POV has been established. Distilling all of that down to "you're loony left" pretty much embodies a closed mind.
none of them address the points I’m making. I doubt you’ve even read the articles I’ve linked to.
I’ll make my point more directly. The failure to honestly and directly report on what the GOP is and is doing, is a de facto bias against Democrats. The Froomkin article lays it out better.
I’ll make my point more directly. The failure to honestly and directly report on what the GOP is and is doing, is a de facto bias against Democrats. The Froomkin article lays it out better.
Froomkin devotes most of his essay to criticizing horse-race political reporting that fails to make clear the means of the jockeying or the final stakes. First, however, he credits “political journalists in our top newsrooms” with doing the job they should be doing often enough to convey an “inescapable conclusion”: that “if this Republican Party wins back control of even one house of Congress, they will grind governing to a halt — and that, if they win the presidency again, democracy as we know it may well no longer exist.”
Again, in Froomkin’s own words, this is the “inescapable conclusion” from even the “occasional story.” Yet it’s not enough to dispel bias against Democrats.
I’ll make my point more directly. The failure to honestly and directly report on what the GOP is and is doing, is a de facto bias against Democrats. The Froomkin article lays it out better.
Froomkin devotes most of his essay to criticizing horse-race political reporting that fails to make clear the means of the jockeying or the final stakes. First, however, he credits “political journalists in our top newsrooms” with doing the job they should be doing often enough to convey an “inescapable conclusion”: that “if this Republican Party wins back control of even one house of Congress, they will grind governing to a halt — and that, if they win the presidency again, democracy as we know it may well no longer exist.”
Again, in Froomkin’s own words, this is the “inescapable conclusion” from even the “occasional story.” Yet it’s not enough to dispel bias against Democrats.
the bigger picture he notes is the failure to connect that to the horse race coverage.
How about if we say they don't think they're biased against the Ds, maybe even believe they favor the Ds, but in fact their framing of issues, headlines, both-siderism disadvantage the Ds (not to mention the truth and possibly the well-being of the country, imo).
Fair point, but IMO getting into the framing of issues, headlines, and both-siderism can be a slippery slope. Where is the line between judging whether the media's reporting on an issue is fair or unfair (which is a fully legit exercise), and projecting one's personal truth onto the way s/he thinks the media "should" be covering the issue (which is a function of bias) ?
I don't claim to know precisely where that line is, but I do believe it's crossed more than it should be.
the bigger picture he notes is the failure to connect that to the horse race coverage.
In the context of this thread, I’d say the bigger picture to draw from Froomkin’s piece is more like this: Even if the conclusion from overall news coverage is inescapable, any individual stories that don’t hammer it home can be cited as evidence of failure.
How about if we say they don't think they're biased against the Ds, maybe even believe they favor the Ds, but in fact their framing of issues, headlines, both-siderism disadvantage the Ds (not to mention the truth and possibly the well-being of the country, imo).
Fair point, but IMO getting into the framing of issues, headlines, and both-siderism can be a slippery slope. Where is the line between judging whether the media's reporting on an issue is fair or unfair (which is a fully legit exercise), and projecting one's personal truth onto the way s/he thinks the media "should" be covering the issue (which is a function of bias) ?
I don't claim to know precisely where that line is, but I do believe it's crossed more than it should be.
with all due respect, this thread is not the place to argue "slippery slope". I only post the most egregious examples of bad reporting here, where the bias, be it implicit or explicit, is pretty obvious.
Take my last CNN example. Do you actually think that you can argue that it was fair, or that my objection to it is based on my bias?
Or the absurd CNN piece about inflation? Same thing.
Or pick any of my numerous examples. You have never (as far as I can recall) attempted to argue that the reporting was in fact fair and I was just being biased.
Your reactions to all of my examples are simply knee-jerks, because you just assume I'm a wild-eyed liberal wacko.
When did “fair and balanced reporting” become a danger to readers? Is the public that stupid? Hum, maybe I should rework that last comment. Onesidership means closed minds and fixed convictions, right? But if people read/watch a variety of news sources, there is always the hope that people learn to think for themselves, filtering out bias because they recognize it.
Calling someone else’s comment “looney “ is a playground response , no substance.
When did “fair and balanced reporting” become a danger to readers? Is the public that stupid? Hum, maybe I should rework that last comment. Onesidership means closed minds and fixed convictions, right? But if people read/watch a variety of news sources, there is always the hope that people learn to think for themselves, filtering out bias because they recognize it.
When did “fair and balanced reporting” become a danger to readers? Is the public that stupid? Hum, maybe I should rework that last comment. Onesidership means closed minds and fixed convictions, right? But if people read/watch a variety of news sources, there is always the hope that people learn to think for themselves, filtering out bias because they recognize it.
How about if we say they don't think they're biased against the Ds, maybe even believe they favor the Ds, but in fact their framing of issues, headlines, both-siderism disadvantage the Ds (not to mention the truth and possibly the well-being of the country, imo).
Fair point, but IMO getting into the framing of issues, headlines, and both-siderism can be a slippery slope. Where is the line between judging whether the media's reporting on an issue is fair or unfair (which is a fully legit exercise), and projecting one's personal truth onto the way s/he thinks the media "should" be covering the issue (which is a function of bias) ?
I don't claim to know precisely where that line is, but I do believe it's crossed more than it should be.
with all due respect, this thread is not the place to argue "slippery slope". I only post the most egregious examples of bad reporting here, where the bias, be it implicit or explicit, is pretty obvious.
Take my last CNN example. Do you actually think that you can argue that it was fair, or that my objection to it is based on my bias?
Or the absurd CNN piece about inflation? Same thing.
Or pick any of my numerous examples. You have never (as far as I can recall) attempted to argue that the reporting was in fact fair and I was just being biased.
Your reactions to all of my examples are simply knee-jerks, because you just assume I'm a wild-eyed liberal wacko.
Here is the critical distinction that you either don't get or don't want to get. And it's the primary reason we're not on the same page.
I've said this before --the. media. plays. up. conflict. and. tension. It's what they do. How do I know this? Well one way I know this is because I used to be a journalist at a major news organization and a senior editor would always ask "where's the conflict? where's the tension?" when he thought a story was lacking. Another top editor's critique would be "this is dry as toast". Same premise.
So, whenever there's conflict or tension, the media plays it up. No matter who's in charge. If Trump were president today and inflation were the same, the articles would be the same (or maybe worse, but let's say the same).
So the articles you posted. Were they all Pulitzer worthy? No. Were some overdone and perhaps even just plain wrong in ways? Yeah, probably.
But the warts on those articles are a function of the media's systematic overreaching on conflict and tension, and (quite possibly), a short staff and a 23-year old writer making $45k behind the wheel.
The warts on those article are not a function of having it out for Biden, or anti-Dem bias.
So that is where we disagree. An imperfect media business model, plus possibly a pinch of incompetence, does not equal bias.
some of the coverage of the Wisconsin parade tragedy, just since last night, supports Smedley’s contention. The very old adage, “if is bleeds, it leads,” is true today — advertising profits and competition in our 24/7 news cycle decides what the public consumes.
I worked back in the day when glue pots on desks could make reporters giddy, as they cut and pasted their stories.How we do things have changed over the decades, but not why we do them.
Today the NYT shows how the paper of record can write a truthful report without resorting to too much both-siderism. They put the blame where it belongs, right in the headline:
Today the NYT shows how the paper of record can write a truthful report without resorting to too much both-siderism. They put the blame where it belongs, right in the headline:
If mtierney were to follow Stephens into never-Trumpdom, I'd be happy to let her post whatever she wanted with no critical comment from me. Should be an appealing deal, no? I mean, does anyone really want to be stuck defending the kidnapping of children and a violent attack on our democracy? One can continue being as irritating as one likes to the MOL liberals without tying oneself to Trumpism...
It's easy to not bother addressing Mr. Stephen's smugly proud ignorance.
I actually read it today. He's as dumb as ever. He tries to lay the blame on progressives for the guy who drove his SUV through a parade this week, among other ignorant pronouncements. One of the commenters pointed out that the $950 threshold for shoplifting being a felony is the case in the majority of states. And the feds also don't consider hard drug possession a felony if it's below a certain amount for personal use.
So the idea that these are all "progressive" ideas, instead of sensible criminal statutes that are the case across most of the country is not true.
tedious?