Though we can't know for certain, I do wish for a parallel universe where Harris, as president, bombed Iran on the pretense of regime change and toppling a terrorist sympathizing regime. While Trump hasn't covered himself in glory here, CNNs coverage was almost instantly one-sided. Bit gross actually. Calling out how depleted our rocket stocks were, etc. I have a feeling the coverage would have been wholly different had it been Harris at the wheel.@goat journalists are naturally left. IU itself did a study on same. Overwhelmingly so. But I don’t ever remember mainstream media being so radically left as it is today. We see it with the presentation of crime to the trump obsession. They’ve rendered themselves nothing more than propagandists
now again with podcasts and all the rest it might not matter. But msm from the NYT to cbs is pure garbage
Do you think anything that was said was inaccurate?
Do you think they are as biased to the left as fox news is to the right? When making accusations on mainstream media, the accusers love to ignore the fact that fox news has by far the most viewers (qualifying as mainstream) and is at the very least just as biased as any of the other networks. People don't want to point fingers when they agree with the bias though.
I don't watch the news much (get most from online articles and what people argue about on here) but liberal bias seems to be mostly bias by omission or bias based on what they choose to focus on. Fox, on the other hand, has been caught just flat out lying.
If it was Harris that was president and went to war, then MAGA and republicans would still be anti-war like they used to be.
I was really only talking about CNN. Do i think CNN is as biased as Fox? On the spectrum maybe not but pretty close. Bias by omission or bias by focus is bias regardless.
I do agree with your last sentence though.
Fair enough.
Unless a news station sticks strictly to reporting the news and keeps opinions out of it, every single one will be seen as biased by someone based on how it compares to the viewer's personal bias. A far right person will potentially see center as biased to the left and vice versa for someone to the far left.
Is being negative towards trump automatically biased or should it have to pass the hypocrisy test to be biased? If said station would be negative towards any president that did same thing as Trump (which many of the stuff he is doing is far worse than anything done previously by either party in our lifetime), then could argue it's not biased. But people will claim bias simply because it is against their own favorable views of Trump.
In a perfect world, news stations would report news as accurately as possible and separated from opinion peaces and talk shows which are always subject to people's biases but can be equalized by having people on both sides giving opinions. Of course we are far from that happening.
@hurryinghoosiers absolutely wrong per usual. And an incredibly uninformed child-like take. Bias is not subjective. Doesn’t turn on the viewer. It is objective. I can objectively tell you Fox is biased from not only how they cover issues but what they choose to cover and not cover. Sometimes it’s obvious sometimes it’s subtle with a crime and they leave out race. But the bias is easy to detect
more of Pelley's statement:
"...new management has instructed me to inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story. I’ve been told to include assertions that are unverified. To date, in every case, I have managed to ignore these instructions or refuse them. Recently, politicians have been invited to choose correspondents for interviews on the broadcast. Giving politicians control over 60 Minutes interviews is not how this is done. Finally, incompetence and unprofessionalism in the new management have wreaked havoc. In a case involving one of my stories, the entire program came within 19 minutes of not getting on the air at all."
There were multiple stories, multiple cases of attempted interference, and management actually having the gall to ask people being interviewed to pick the reporter who will interview them!
If you think any of this is OK, if true, then you're off the deep end.
This sounds like Pelley couldn’t handle having an editor and struggled to adjust.
Not surprising for a pompous prick.
As to subjects choosing their own interviewer. Again. Specifics where are they?
@hurryinghoosiers absolutely wrong per usual. And an incredibly uninformed child-like take. Bias is not subjective. Doesn’t turn on the viewer. It is objective. I can objectively tell you Fox is biased from not only how they cover issues but what they choose to cover and not cover. Sometimes it’s obvious sometimes it’s subtle with a crime and they leave out race. But the bias is easy to detect
you're wrong as usual.
what we see as biased is most definitely effected by our personal bias.
Bias is ubiquitous. Everyone has it. It cannot be overcome no matter how hard one tries. The worst or the pompous blowhards who claim they are not biased. Smuggary. I can’t stand those people.
The solution lies within us, not within 60 M or other shows. We’ve got to learn about bias, how it works, and how to manage it. I personally don’t believe holding certain biases is a bad thing at all. In some ways I think the country would be better if we were not so damned”objective”. Objectivity is not possible and trying to achieve it is itself harmful. That leads us to saying women are “people with a uterus”. Good lord.
@co-hoosier there's really nothing wrong with any of these shows being biased provided there's enough outlets to provide counter views. a discerning audience is too much to ask for as evidenced by this board
@ohio-guy Flipping channels right now, and also just read a piece from the NYT. The NYT is reporting extensively on more women coming forward with allegations of harassment and even assault on the part of Dem Senate nominee Graham Platner, and more on the Nazi-linked tattoo he sported for many years. It's also a lead story on CNN.
With this reporting, they're helping Republican Susan Collins' campaign.
FOX News would NEVER do this if the shoe was on the other foot.
Platner was just on the Kommie channel and Chris Hayes didn't cut him any slack at all.
MSNOW has continued covering the latest Platner revelations and aren't doing him any favors. Velshi and Hayes are discussing them now and are increasingly pissed that this guy is the candidate.
He keeps claiming the republicans are spreading disinformation. All this stuff that keeps coming out is coming from his own party. If I'm a Republican strategist, I want this freak to win the Dem primary, so I've got all that time to really hammer him and can turn it around on everyone in his party who has supported him.
I believe this is the second time you've referred to him as a "freak." What makes him a freak? He's a United States Marine Corps combat vet, he served our country honorably but, like many combat vets, came back from multiple deployments (Iraq and Afghanistan) fucked up. He's got PTSD, he's fully disabled, and receives VA benefits for it.
Sounds like he's worked through a lot of issues, but the baggage is significant and he's probably not cut out for Congress.
Now do Ken Paxton. Many years of scandals. What's his excuse?
First time I've posted about him is what you quoted above. As to why I called him a freak, it has to do with a grown ass married man sexting with multiple women. One of his exes saying he told her that if someone broke into his home he wouldn't shoot them, but instead would rape them to Exert dominance although not in a gay way.
Stuff like that is what makes him a freak IMO.
I've got a few buddies who served in Iraq and Afghanistan in combat roles, both enlisted and as officers. At no point have they talked about raping someone to show their dominance over them.
He's gonna get Bernie'd by the Dems at some point and never make it to the general election for Senate. More stuff keeps coming out.
Ken Paxton is a shit bird too, luckily for him, he's running against some guy who has a long history of saying dumbass things that don't represent the average Texan. Two absolutely horrible choices, and the slightly less horrible choice will probably end up being Paxton. Still makes him a horrible choice, though.
Hilarious that you think "nOw Do kEn pAxToN" is some sort of gotcha. And by the way, you're the one who is making excuses for them, not me. I'm not excusing anyone in this scenario. Odd that you'd ask me what Paxton's excuse is.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
As to why I called him a freak, it has to do with a grown ass married man sexting with multiple women.
well i do hate judging that behavior
As to why I called him a freak, it has to do with a grown ass married man sexting with multiple women.
well i do hate judging that behavior
You do you. Just be smart enough not to act surprised that a senate campaign will enearth things.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
Hilarious that you think "nOw Do kEn pAxToN" is some sort of gotcha. And by the way, you're the one who is making excuses for them, not me. I'm not excusing anyone in this scenario. Odd that you'd ask me what Paxton's excuse is.
iT WaSn'T iNtEnDeD aS a GoTcHa. MAGA has a very flawed candidate in Paxton. I was curious as to your opinion. To your credit, you didn't defend him.
I'm definitely not making excuses for Paxton. Regarding Platner, I offered an explanation as to why he's messed up. I also opined that he's probably not cut out for Congress.
effected
Affected. and no. any relatively bright person can see it....
and most people with any self awareness would know their own personal bias affects their perception on whether or not something is biased.
more of Pelley's statement:
"...new management has instructed me to inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story. I’ve been told to include assertions that are unverified. To date, in every case, I have managed to ignore these instructions or refuse them. Recently, politicians have been invited to choose correspondents for interviews on the broadcast. Giving politicians control over 60 Minutes interviews is not how this is done. Finally, incompetence and unprofessionalism in the new management have wreaked havoc. In a case involving one of my stories, the entire program came within 19 minutes of not getting on the air at all."
There were multiple stories, multiple cases of attempted interference, and management actually having the gall to ask people being interviewed to pick the reporter who will interview them!
If you think any of this is OK, if true, then you're off the deep end.
I'm willing to hear Scott's take. Given the Benghazi fiasco where they brought a bunch of unverified assertions and stories that turned out to be false and had to retract the story, I can believe he wants to be more certain.
But I want details. If you are going to make claims like this, let's be specific. Exposing people for pushing false information is healthy. Call out specifics.
As to subjects choosing their own interviewer. Again. Specifics where are they?
Are you expecting a 100 page legal brief? He gave a simple explanation about why he was fired.
Answer me this, say it's the 1980s and 60 Minutes wants to interview Ronald Reagan. He says there's no way I'm talking to Dan Rather, Morley Safer, or Ed Bradley. I will talk to [random other person] though.
Do you think 1980s 60 Minutes management says "That's fine!" or says "pound sand!"????
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451