Chuck Todd

[BoilerMadness]

Chuck Todd: Liberal bias in media? What liberal bias? - Washington Examiner

Meet the Press host Chuck Todd in a recent interview dismissed the idea the national corporate press have a “liberal bias," claiming the entire notion is just a Republican talking point. "I think objectivity and fairness are not the same thing, in some ways,” Todd said in a discussion with Verge...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Chuck Todd, the political director of NBC News insisted the media is not biased to the Left. I'm sure that we are all comforted by that reassurance. Apparently, when you live in an echo chamber, where everyone thinks the same and says the same things, you just accept that as your baseline truth and anything that deviates from your belief system has to be untrue, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately, the MSM uses their filters, when they determine what news is worthy of reporting. If it doesn't further their agenda or if a story paints a picture counter to what they've been reporting, that story ends up on the cutting room floor.

-- White Cop shoots Black man, we get around the clock reporting about the poor, innocent, oppressed victim and the institutional Racism that was the root cause of the shooting, regardless of how long the felon's rap sheet is or what he was doing to get shot.

-- Dozens of Blacks, including young children, get shot in Chicago almost every week and it's a "Ho Hum" story, since there's no white cop to vilify. You rarely hear about it.

Which story should the MSM push hardest, if the point is to save the most Black lives? You get the distinct impression that inciting racial tension is far more important to the MSM, than saving thousands of nameless, faceless Black people. They'd argue that they're engaged in the fight to overcome Institutional Racism. The thousands of dead Black people are not impressed with this rationalization.

For 4 years we heard about Trump being Putin's puppet & Russian collusion, although there was NO factual evidence to support this claim, but it helped the Left put the Evil Orange Guy on the defensive, even before he was sworn in. The Dems lied and the MSM lied, using the same talking points. Interesting...

When the Hunter Biden Laptop story broke, it was either suppressed by the MSM & Social Media or dismissed as Russian disinformation. Had they reported the story, as they should have, how much impact would it have had in the election? Getting rid of the Evil Orange Guy was far more important than Journalistic integrity.

Yeah, sure, Chuck, we could look forever and never find any proof of Media Bias.

Unfortunately, that bias has also spilled over to our school systems. That's exactly why the NEA dumbs down our educational system, so people are ignorant enough to believe this crap. Now kids may not know how many genders there are, since Biology is no longer a Science we follow, but 6 year old kids are now aware that they were either oppressors or victims depending on the pigmentation of their skin. Isn't it good that our school systems are indoctrinating our youth to be oblivious to the media bias and preparing them to compete with China?

 

[BCfanatic2020]

Chuck Todd: Liberal bias in media? What liberal bias? - Washington Examiner

Meet the Press host Chuck Todd in a recent interview dismissed the idea the national corporate press have a “liberal bias," claiming the entire notion is just a Republican talking point. "I think objectivity and fairness are not the same thing, in some ways,” Todd said in a discussion with Verge...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Chuck Todd, the political director of NBC News insisted the media is not biased to the Left. I'm sure that we are all comforted by that reassurance. Apparently, when you live in an echo chamber, where everyone thinks the same and says the same things, you just accept that as your baseline truth and anything that deviates from your belief system has to be untrue, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately, the MSM uses their filters, when they determine what news is worthy of reporting. If it doesn't further their agenda or if a story paints a picture counter to what they've been reporting, that story ends up on the cutting room floor.

-- White Cop shoots Black man, we get around the clock reporting about the poor, innocent, oppressed victim and the institutional Racism that was the root cause of the shooting, regardless of how long the felon's rap sheet is or what he was doing to get shot.

-- Dozens of Blacks, including young children, get shot in Chicago almost every week and it's a "Ho Hum" story, since there's no white cop to vilify. You rarely hear about it.

Which story should the MSM push hardest, if the point is to save the most Black lives? You get the distinct impression that inciting racial tension is far more important to the MSM, than saving thousands of nameless, faceless Black people. They'd argue that they're engaged in the fight to overcome Institutional Racism. The thousands of dead Black people are not impressed with this rationalization.

For 4 years we heard about Trump being Putin's puppet & Russian collusion, although there was NO factual evidence to support this claim, but it helped the Left put the Evil Orange Guy on the defensive, even before he was sworn in. The Dems lied and the MSM lied, using the same talking points. Interesting...

When the Hunter Biden Laptop story broke, it was either suppressed by the MSM & Social Media or dismissed as Russian disinformation. Had they reported the story, as they should have, how much impact would it have had in the election? Getting rid of the Evil Orange Guy was far more important than Journalistic integrity.

Yeah, sure, Chuck, we could look forever and never find any proof of Media Bias.

Unfortunately, that bias has also spilled over to our school systems. That's exactly why the NEA dumbs down our educational system, so people are ignorant enough to believe this crap. Now kids may not know how many genders there are, since Biology is no longer a Science we follow, but 6 year old kids are now aware that they were either oppressors or victims depending on the pigmentation of their skin. Isn't it good that our school systems are indoctrinating our youth to be oblivious to the media bias and preparing them to compete with China?

Never graduated from college?

the news on both sides is imaginary.. the actual news is up down.. it’s class based. Walk into peoples houses and without bringing up politics ask them what their concerns are. Whatever their answers are are the news

the news you’re watching, both sides, are what the ultra wealthy offer people as an alternative reality to their reality.

example.. Americans are for ending the wars overseas. They want that money invested here. Will you get that on CNN or Fox? If either were news networks they’d reflect the will of the people back to them.

you’re getting upset about a propaganda model that differs from another propaganda model

 

[Bill4411]

Chuck Todd: Liberal bias in media? What liberal bias? - Washington Examiner

Meet the Press host Chuck Todd in a recent interview dismissed the idea the national corporate press have a “liberal bias," claiming the entire notion is just a Republican talking point. "I think objectivity and fairness are not the same thing, in some ways,” Todd said in a discussion with Verge...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Chuck Todd, the political director of NBC News insisted the media is not biased to the Left. I'm sure that we are all comforted by that reassurance. Apparently, when you live in an echo chamber, where everyone thinks the same and says the same things, you just accept that as your baseline truth and anything that deviates from your belief system has to be untrue, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately, the MSM uses their filters, when they determine what news is worthy of reporting. If it doesn't further their agenda or if a story paints a picture counter to what they've been reporting, that story ends up on the cutting room floor.

-- White Cop shoots Black man, we get around the clock reporting about the poor, innocent, oppressed victim and the institutional Racism that was the root cause of the shooting, regardless of how long the felon's rap sheet is or what he was doing to get shot.

-- Dozens of Blacks, including young children, get shot in Chicago almost every week and it's a "Ho Hum" story, since there's no white cop to vilify. You rarely hear about it.

Which story should the MSM push hardest, if the point is to save the most Black lives? You get the distinct impression that inciting racial tension is far more important to the MSM, than saving thousands of nameless, faceless Black people. They'd argue that they're engaged in the fight to overcome Institutional Racism. The thousands of dead Black people are not impressed with this rationalization.

For 4 years we heard about Trump being Putin's puppet & Russian collusion, although there was NO factual evidence to support this claim, but it helped the Left put the Evil Orange Guy on the defensive, even before he was sworn in. The Dems lied and the MSM lied, using the same talking points. Interesting...

When the Hunter Biden Laptop story broke, it was either suppressed by the MSM & Social Media or dismissed as Russian disinformation. Had they reported the story, as they should have, how much impact would it have had in the election? Getting rid of the Evil Orange Guy was far more important than Journalistic integrity.

Yeah, sure, Chuck, we could look forever and never find any proof of Media Bias.

Unfortunately, that bias has also spilled over to our school systems. That's exactly why the NEA dumbs down our educational system, so people are ignorant enough to believe this crap. Now kids may not know how many genders there are, since Biology is no longer a Science we follow, but 6 year old kids are now aware that they were either oppressors or victims depending on the pigmentation of their skin. Isn't it good that our school systems are indoctrinating our youth to be oblivious to the media bias and preparing them to compete with China?

I suppose his definition of the left does not fit your definition of it. You way of thinking is obviously to the right so I imagine you seek out those type of stories that reinforce your way of thinking. Fortunately we still have the privilege of choosing what we want read and watch. It looks like to me though that we are trending in the wrong direction to retain that privilege. A lot of people who should know better seem to be striving toward censorship of the media.

 

[BoilerJS]

I suppose his definition of the left does not fit your definition of it. You way of thinking is obviously to the right so I imagine you seek out those type of stories that reinforce your way of thinking. Fortunately we still have the privilege of choosing what we want read and watch. It looks like to me though that we are trending in the wrong direction to retain that privilege. A lot of people who should know better seem to be striving toward censorship of the media.

Exactly what we need is more censorship of the media, social media and public speaking.
We should include family and neighbors that should be allowed to turn you in to the authorities for
talking about things, in your own home, that you disagree with and are in opposition to the authorities in power.
In this way we can all be united and not divided on issues. We will have no choice but to agree or we would be financially and socially ruined.
It seems to be working for Communist China.

 

[TheGunner]

I suppose his definition of the left does not fit your definition of it. You way of thinking is obviously to the right so I imagine you seek out those type of stories that reinforce your way of thinking. Fortunately we still have the privilege of choosing what we want read and watch. It looks like to me though that we are trending in the wrong direction to retain that privilege. A lot of people who should know better seem to be striving toward censorship of the media.

Does NBC own and operate MSNBC? Watch that for a week and let me know if MSNBC does “lean” left.

I think Chuck Todd’s definition is somewhere around the middle to far-left of the Democrat party. I know Democrats that think NBC is left biased. MSNBC is just a step right of AOC and Bernie…well, at least most of the time

 

[BleedinGold]

Does NBC own and operate MSNBC? Watch that for a week and let me know if MSNBC does “lean” left.

I think Chuck Todd’s definition is somewhere around the middle to far-left of the Democrat party. I know Democrats that think NBC is left biased. MSNBC is just a step right of AOC and Bernie…well, at least most of the time

Lol and watch Fox News and let us know if that "leans" left.

Fox News has been the #1 rated News Network for eons, yet whenever we talk about the "MSM media" we seem to just ignore the BEHEMOTH that spews the far-right talking points as if they aren't part of the "Main Stream Media".

They are the #1 News Network == and have been since 2002. You can't get more mainstream than that.

The coin "MSM" is a right-wing made-up word meant to discard any viewpoint that doesn't fit the right's narrative.

It fits in the same vocabulary as "War on Christmas", "Where's Obama's Birth Certificate", "Benghazi", "Covid isn't real", "Covid will be gone by Easter". "Trump won the popular vote (in 2016) because millions of illegals voted for Clinton", .... on and on and on.

 

[BoilerBF]

Lol and watch Fox News and let us know if that "leans" left.

Fox News has been the #1 rated News Network for eons, yet whenever we talk about the "MSM media" we seem to just ignore the BEHEMOTH that spews the far-right talking points as if they aren't part of the "Main Stream Media".

They are the #1 News Network == and have been since 2002. You can't get more mainstream than that.

The coin "MSM" is a right-wing made-up word meant to discard any viewpoint that doesn't fit the right's narrative.

It fits in the same vocabulary as "War on Christmas", "Where's Obama's Birth Certificate", "Benghazi", "Covid isn't real", "Covid will be gone by Easter". "Trump won the popular vote (in 2016) because millions of illegals voted for Clinton", .... on and on and on.

Fair enough: Fox opinion hosts lean far right. Chris Wallace down the middle. Everyone else leans right.

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC all left to far left outlets


That's 5 left, 1 right among the top 6 networks.

 

[SKYDOG]

Fair enough: Fox opinion hosts lean far right. Chris Wallace down the middle. Everyone else leans right.

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC all left to far left outlets


That's 5 left, 1 right among the top 6 networks.

So the rights have it then. New math being taught in schools today.

 

[BoilerMadness]

I suppose his definition of the left does not fit your definition of it. You way of thinking is obviously to the right so I imagine you seek out those type of stories that reinforce your way of thinking. Fortunately we still have the privilege of choosing what we want read and watch. It looks like to me though that we are trending in the wrong direction to retain that privilege. A lot of people who should know better seem to be striving toward censorship of the media.

I found it incredible that Todd didn't believe that there was any Liberal bias in the MSM. Without making any value judgments about whether Liberalism is good, bad or indifferent, it should be blatantly obvious to anyone that the MSM tilts to the Left. I believe over 90% of the journalists associated with the MSM voted for Biden and donated to the Democrat Party. That should be a significant clue.

I really try to hear what both sides have to say and then decide which view/spin/perspective is the most logical & rational. I don't want to hear talking points, I want reasons for why things are happening or why they should happen a particular way.

CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the MSM outlets have their Liberal Echo Chambers, where everyone is pretty much in lockstep regarding their view of the world. Try to find anyone that would remotely be called a Conservative in any of their news organizations. Try to find a Conservative working for the NYT or WAPO. If you're not part of the group think, you're purged.

At least at FOX, they have not only Conservatives, but Libertarians & Liberals, too, who are free to express their opinions. I seldom agree with all of them, but occasionally they make a point that causes me to look at an issue from a different perspective. I like the discussions to be thought provoking, rather than just being fed pablum to reinforce my beliefs.

If you only view to get affirmations of your belief system or your daily indoctrination, then you cease growing mentally. I make myself watch CNN periodically, but too often it's roughly equivalent to watching The View. A lot of propaganda & emotion and few meaningful facts.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Never graduated from college?

the news on both sides is imaginary.. the actual news is up down.. it’s class based. Walk into peoples houses and without bringing up politics ask them what their concerns are. Whatever their answers are are the news

the news you’re watching, both sides, are what the ultra wealthy offer people as an alternative reality to their reality.

example.. Americans are for ending the wars overseas. They want that money invested here. Will you get that on CNN or Fox? If either were news networks they’d reflect the will of the people back to them.

you’re getting upset about a propaganda model that differs from another propaganda model

The world loves grand sweeping generalities.

 

[BCfanatic2020]

The world loves grand sweeping generalities.

😃

 

[BoilerMadness]

Lol and watch Fox News and let us know if that "leans" left.

Fox News has been the #1 rated News Network for eons, yet whenever we talk about the "MSM media" we seem to just ignore the BEHEMOTH that spews the far-right talking points as if they aren't part of the "Main Stream Media".

They are the #1 News Network == and have been since 2002. You can't get more mainstream than that.

The coin "MSM" is a right-wing made-up word meant to discard any viewpoint that doesn't fit the right's narrative.

It fits in the same vocabulary as "War on Christmas", "Where's Obama's Birth Certificate", "Benghazi", "Covid isn't real", "Covid will be gone by Easter". "Trump won the popular vote (in 2016) because millions of illegals voted for Clinton", .... on and on and on.

The others are called the MSM, because they were all the Media that was available, before FOX. When FOX came into existence it was considered the Alternate Media, since it didn't share the Leftist views. The whole purpose for creating FOX was to give people an alternative to the Leftist pablum that was being fed to the masses by the other Networks.

Fox has been rated #1, because it gives a Conservative view, which is missing from the MSM, as well as Libertarian & Liberal perspectives. People who think are drawn to FOX, rather than to the indoctrination Networks that all seem to share the same talking points. The MSM likes to demonize FOX in hopes they can influence people to come back, so they can recapture some of the market share they've lost.

You used a lot of words to show that you had no idea what you were talking about.

 

[TheGunner]

Lol and watch Fox News and let us know if that "leans" left.

Fox News has been the #1 rated News Network for eons, yet whenever we talk about the "MSM media" we seem to just ignore the BEHEMOTH that spews the far-right talking points as if they aren't part of the "Main Stream Media".

They are the #1 News Network == and have been since 2002. You can't get more mainstream than that.

The coin "MSM" is a right-wing made-up word meant to discard any viewpoint that doesn't fit the right's narrative.

It fits in the same vocabulary as "War on Christmas", "Where's Obama's Birth Certificate", "Benghazi", "Covid isn't real", "Covid will be gone by Easter". "Trump won the popular vote (in 2016) because millions of illegals voted for Clinton", .... on and on and on.

Really, the graph below tells a different story. I think when you look at “one channel” you are right. But I believe most Americans get their “news” from local stations which is reflected below. And I believe the people that get their news from Fox, recognize it as political news, which is certainly different than getting news from channels with a “hidden” or “not an in your face” bias that is obvious in watching MSNBC or FOX.​

​

Americans’ views of their main sources of news​

​

​

 

[Bill4411]

The others are called the MSM, because they were all the Media that was available, before FOX. When FOX came into existence it was considered the Alternate Media, since it didn't share the Leftist views. The whole purpose for creating FOX was to give people an alternative to the Leftist pablum that was being fed to the masses by the other Networks.

Fox has been rated #1, because it gives a Conservative view, which is missing from the MSM, as well as Libertarian & Liberal perspectives. People who think are drawn to FOX, rather than to the indoctrination Networks that all seem to share the same talking points. The MSM likes to demonize FOX in hopes they can influence people to come back, so they can recapture some of the market share they've lost.

You used a lot of words to show that you had no idea what you were talking about.

Fox News was created to make money for Rupert Murdoch and he saw a market to exploit like his Page 3 girls with the Daily Mirror. He has made a boatload of money with slick marketing but I doubt how sincere his intent is in pushing a conservative position since he is supposedly a liberal himself.

 

[TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong]

Fair enough: Fox opinion hosts lean far right. Chris Wallace down the middle. Everyone else leans right.

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC all left to far left outlets


That's 5 left, 1 right among the top 6 networks.

yeah buddy those networks that took every chance to bury Bernie Sanders are definitely "far left"

 

[charlespig]

Chuck Todd: Liberal bias in media? What liberal bias? - Washington Examiner

Meet the Press host Chuck Todd in a recent interview dismissed the idea the national corporate press have a “liberal bias," claiming the entire notion is just a Republican talking point. "I think objectivity and fairness are not the same thing, in some ways,” Todd said in a discussion with Verge...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Chuck Todd, the political director of NBC News insisted the media is not biased to the Left. I'm sure that we are all comforted by that reassurance. Apparently, when you live in an echo chamber, where everyone thinks the same and says the same things, you just accept that as your baseline truth and anything that deviates from your belief system has to be untrue, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately, the MSM uses their filters, when they determine what news is worthy of reporting. If it doesn't further their agenda or if a story paints a picture counter to what they've been reporting, that story ends up on the cutting room floor.

-- White Cop shoots Black man, we get around the clock reporting about the poor, innocent, oppressed victim and the institutional Racism that was the root cause of the shooting, regardless of how long the felon's rap sheet is or what he was doing to get shot.

-- Dozens of Blacks, including young children, get shot in Chicago almost every week and it's a "Ho Hum" story, since there's no white cop to vilify. You rarely hear about it.

Which story should the MSM push hardest, if the point is to save the most Black lives? You get the distinct impression that inciting racial tension is far more important to the MSM, than saving thousands of nameless, faceless Black people. They'd argue that they're engaged in the fight to overcome Institutional Racism. The thousands of dead Black people are not impressed with this rationalization.

For 4 years we heard about Trump being Putin's puppet & Russian collusion, although there was NO factual evidence to support this claim, but it helped the Left put the Evil Orange Guy on the defensive, even before he was sworn in. The Dems lied and the MSM lied, using the same talking points. Interesting...

When the Hunter Biden Laptop story broke, it was either suppressed by the MSM & Social Media or dismissed as Russian disinformation. Had they reported the story, as they should have, how much impact would it have had in the election? Getting rid of the Evil Orange Guy was far more important than Journalistic integrity.

Yeah, sure, Chuck, we could look forever and never find any proof of Media Bias.

Unfortunately, that bias has also spilled over to our school systems. That's exactly why the NEA dumbs down our educational system, so people are ignorant enough to believe this crap. Now kids may not know how many genders there are, since Biology is no longer a Science we follow, but 6 year old kids are now aware that they were either oppressors or victims depending on the pigmentation of their skin. Isn't it good that our school systems are indoctrinating our youth to be oblivious to the media bias and preparing them to compete with China?

I can see where you are coming from, although I find it funny that you asked, "Which story should the MSM push hardest, if the point is to save the most Black lives?," yet later you seem to value journalistic integrity. Isn't journalistic integrity about reporting truth, and with as little political agenda as possible? So why should they push for stories to save the most Black lives?

 

[charlespig]

Really, the graph below tells a different story. I think when you look at “one channel” you are right. But I believe most Americans get their “news” from local stations which is reflected below.​

The local news is just all parroting what Sinclair Broadcast Group wants the people to hear.

And I believe the people that get their news from Fox, recognize it as political news, which is certainly different than getting news from channels with a “hidden” or “not an in your face” bias that is obvious in watching MSNBC or FOX.​

​

Huh, what are you trying to say? May I suggest breaking long sentences into shorter ones? If I try to break it down, are you saying,

1) MSNBC and FOX are obviously bias - they are not "hidden" or "not as in your face"

2) People getting their news from FOX, recognize that it is "political news."

3) "Political news" is "certainly" different than getting news from channels with a "hidden" or "not as in your face" bias channels, like MSNBC and FOX.

So FOX viewers are getting news that are "certainly" different from a bias channel, like FOX????

Well, if I try to apply MRI (most respectful interpretation), do you mean to say that FOX viewers are smart enough to recognize that FOX is broadcasting "political news", which is inherently biased? Does that imply MSNBC viewers don't? If so, what's the supporting evidence? Because 80% of FOX viewers think FOX is different from other outlets, but only 45% for MSNBC? But that only shows that FOX is biased, and says nothing about MSNBC.

(For example, imagine if 99.99% CBB experts say Matt Painter is not GOAT, but one of them with a cmpGOAT screenname says Painter is GOAT. cmpGOAT is different from all other experts, so he is clearly biased. But it doesn't say anything about the experts are biased)

 

[BoilerBF]

yeah buddy those networks that took every chance to bury Bernie Sanders are definitely "far left"

Many were concerned Bernie couldn't win the general election. They are cheerleading Bernies agenda now. It wasn't Bernie's agenda they disagreed with, it was fear of Bernie losing in general election.

 

[TheGunner]

The local news is just all parroting what Sinclair Broadcast Group wants the people to hear.

View embedded media

Huh, what are you trying to say? May I suggest breaking long sentences into shorter ones? If I try to break it down, are you saying,

1) MSNBC and FOX are obviously bias - they are not "hidden" or "not as in your face"

2) People getting their news from FOX, recognize that it is "political news."

3) "Political news" is "certainly" different than getting news from channels with a "hidden" or "not as in your face" bias channels, like MSNBC and FOX.

So FOX viewers are getting news that are "certainly" different from a bias channel, like FOX????

Well, if I try to apply MRI (most respectful interpretation), do you mean to say that FOX viewers are smart enough to recognize that FOX is broadcasting "political news", which is inherently biased? Does that imply MSNBC viewers don't? If so, what's the supporting evidence? Because 80% of FOX viewers think FOX is different from other outlets, but only 45% for MSNBC? But that only shows that FOX is biased, and says nothing about MSNBC.

(For example, imagine if 99.99% CBB experts say Matt Painter is not GOAT, but one of them with a cmpGOAT screenname says Painter is GOAT. cmpGOAT is different from all other experts, so he is clearly biased. But it doesn't say anything about the experts are biased)

If you read my post, it discusses MSM as being the news sources listed less MSNBC, Fox News (and Newsmax) due to their in your face bias.

Of the other sources most have a hidden left bias (see link below) And Chuck Todd’s (NBC) new service is further left than CBS and ABC (as they continue to cater to the left and are pulled that direction by Chuck and it’s tied to MSNBC)

Home | Ad Fontes Media

Home of the Media Bias Chart® – Ad Fontes Media rates the news for bias and reliability via a proven methodology and politically balanced...

www.adfontesmedia.com

 

[Mr_Scott]

Chuck Todd: Liberal bias in media? What liberal bias? - Washington Examiner

Meet the Press host Chuck Todd in a recent interview dismissed the idea the national corporate press have a “liberal bias," claiming the entire notion is just a Republican talking point. "I think objectivity and fairness are not the same thing, in some ways,” Todd said in a discussion with Verge...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Chuck Todd, the political director of NBC News insisted the media is not biased to the Left. I'm sure that we are all comforted by that reassurance. Apparently, when you live in an echo chamber, where everyone thinks the same and says the same things, you just accept that as your baseline truth and anything that deviates from your belief system has to be untrue, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately, the MSM uses their filters, when they determine what news is worthy of reporting. If it doesn't further their agenda or if a story paints a picture counter to what they've been reporting, that story ends up on the cutting room floor.

-- White Cop shoots Black man, we get around the clock reporting about the poor, innocent, oppressed victim and the institutional Racism that was the root cause of the shooting, regardless of how long the felon's rap sheet is or what he was doing to get shot.

-- Dozens of Blacks, including young children, get shot in Chicago almost every week and it's a "Ho Hum" story, since there's no white cop to vilify. You rarely hear about it.

Which story should the MSM push hardest, if the point is to save the most Black lives? You get the distinct impression that inciting racial tension is far more important to the MSM, than saving thousands of nameless, faceless Black people. They'd argue that they're engaged in the fight to overcome Institutional Racism. The thousands of dead Black people are not impressed with this rationalization.

For 4 years we heard about Trump being Putin's puppet & Russian collusion, although there was NO factual evidence to support this claim, but it helped the Left put the Evil Orange Guy on the defensive, even before he was sworn in. The Dems lied and the MSM lied, using the same talking points. Interesting...

When the Hunter Biden Laptop story broke, it was either suppressed by the MSM & Social Media or dismissed as Russian disinformation. Had they reported the story, as they should have, how much impact would it have had in the election? Getting rid of the Evil Orange Guy was far more important than Journalistic integrity.

Yeah, sure, Chuck, we could look forever and never find any proof of Media Bias.

Unfortunately, that bias has also spilled over to our school systems. That's exactly why the NEA dumbs down our educational system, so people are ignorant enough to believe this crap. Now kids may not know how many genders there are, since Biology is no longer a Science we follow, but 6 year old kids are now aware that they were either oppressors or victims depending on the pigmentation of their skin. Isn't it good that our school systems are indoctrinating our youth to be oblivious to the media bias and preparing them to compete with China?

You wouldn't know a journalist if he/she kicked you in the balls. Let's play a game. Blind study.

A) Has a Sunday morning tv show on a popular cable network.

B) Has a popular weeknight TV show on the same network. Is a bestseller author, has a weeknight radio call in show. Also has the ear of a former United States President.

Which one is the journalist ?

Hint:













It's Chris Wallace or Sean Hannity

 

[charlespig]

If you read my post, it discusses MSM as being the news sources listed less MSNBC, Fox News (and Newsmax) due to their in your face bias.

Of the other sources most have a hidden left bias (see link below) And Chuck Todd’s (NBC) new service is further left than CBS and ABC (as they continue to cater to the left and are pulled that direction by Chuck and it’s tied to MSNBC)

Home | Ad Fontes Media

Home of the Media Bias Chart® – Ad Fontes Media rates the news for bias and reliability via a proven methodology and politically balanced...

www.adfontesmedia.com

Thanks for the adfontesmedia link. Sorry I am still not following. If we agree that the media bias chart is reasonably accurate, shouldn't we all just stick to AP / Reuters / UPI, and ditched all the FOX / NYP / MSNBC / The Week?

Or are you trying to say we shouldn't even trust AP / Reuters b/c they are part of MSM?

 

[BoilerBF]

Thanks for the adfontesmedia link. Sorry I am still not following. If we agree that the media bias chart is reasonably accurate, shouldn't we all just stick to AP / Reuters / UPI, and ditched all the FOX / NYP / MSNBC / The Week?

Or are you trying to say we shouldn't even trust AP / Reuters b/c they are part of MSM?

The days of any news organizations even striving to be somewhat non biased are long gone. That's the problem there is literally nowhere to go to get unbiased news today.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Lol and watch Fox News and let us know if that "leans" left.

Fox News has been the #1 rated News Network for eons, yet whenever we talk about the "MSM media" we seem to just ignore the BEHEMOTH that spews the far-right talking points as if they aren't part of the "Main Stream Media".

They are the #1 News Network == and have been since 2002. You can't get more mainstream than that.

The coin "MSM" is a right-wing made-up word meant to discard any viewpoint that doesn't fit the right's narrative.

It fits in the same vocabulary as "War on Christmas", "Where's Obama's Birth Certificate", "Benghazi", "Covid isn't real", "Covid will be gone by Easter". "Trump won the popular vote (in 2016) because millions of illegals voted for Clinton", .... on and on and on.

You are correct on some things here but oh so wrong on many others.

Yes, Fox is the #1 network since 2002. That is mainly because it's just about the ONLY network that doesn't spew far left ideology. So it gets the majority of conservatives to watch that one network.

What you have wrong is that the MSM refers to the lion share of networks and newspapers. NBC, CBS, MBNBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, etc. All are far left and keep moving farther as time goes on. Yes, Fox is a part of the MSM, but it's only one channel.

 

[BCfanatic2020]

Many were concerned Bernie couldn't win the general election. They are cheerleading Bernies agenda now. It wasn't Bernie's agenda they disagreed with, it was fear of Bernie losing in general election.

Wait are you living in an imaginary world where the Democrats are lefties supporting a populist agenda?

when you say Bernie’s agenda do you mean like when he didn’t put a hold on the CARES act to let Americans know it was the biggest upward transfer of wealth in human history?

Bernie is an establishment democrat who knows how to talk a lot of populist talk but also knows when to fold like a lawn chair.

that’s why during force the vote Bernie was nowhere to be found .. just like the fraud squad

 

[charlespig]

The days of any news organizations even striving to be somewhat non biased are long gone. That's the problem there is literally nowhere to go to get unbiased news today.

So you are saying the chart that TheGunner shared is bogus? I'm just going by what he shares.

But speaking of nowhere to go to get unbiased news today, maybe the problem is that news are ALWAYS biased? For someone to report a news, there is always a point of view. If a cop shoots an unarmed man, do you report it from the cop's view, or from the victim's view? When Purdue beats IU, do news report it as "Purdue beat IU" or "IU lost to Purdue"? It's inevitable.

To me, news is always biased. The difference is, somewhere along the line, media companies realize what makes money and drives viewership or readership is sensationalizing stories, and really pushes for it.. Makes your reader or viewer emotional. Make them angry. When they are driven by their emotions, they will spend more time on it, talk about it more, share it, all of which help them sell more subscription.

We always take pride that this is a free country with a market-based economy, right? So if the market rewards sensationalized news, media corporation chasing the money will provide exactly that, giving their viewers what they want to hear. Capitalism rules.

 

[Boilermaker03]

So you are saying the chart that TheGunner shared is bogus? I'm just going by what he shares.

But speaking of nowhere to go to get unbiased news today, maybe the problem is that news are ALWAYS biased? For someone to report a news, there is always a point of view. If a cop shoots an unarmed man, do you report it from the cop's view, or from the victim's view? When Purdue beats IU, do news report it as "Purdue beat IU" or "IU lost to Purdue"? It's inevitable.

To me, news is always biased. The difference is, somewhere along the line, media companies realize what makes money and drives viewership or readership is sensationalizing stories, and really pushes for it.. Makes your reader or viewer emotional. Make them angry. When they are driven by their emotions, they will spend more time on it, talk about it more, share it, all of which help them sell more subscription.

We always take pride that this is a free country with a market-based economy, right? So if the market rewards sensationalized news, media corporation chasing the money will provide exactly that, giving their viewers what they want to hear. Capitalism rules.

No, there doesn't have to be. We are used to the news giving their view point, but back in the day they never did that. They reported the facts and that was pretty much it. You leave it up to the viewer to determine the view point.

As far as your examples, the way you make those unbiased is by saying. An officer shot so in so during an altercation today and list out the details of the event. Purdue 77 IU 68. No bias there either. You list the score, people can see who won.

It's very possible to have unbiased reporting. We just can't get it anywhere.

 

[TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong]

Many were concerned Bernie couldn't win the general election. They are cheerleading Bernies agenda now. It wasn't Bernie's agenda they disagreed with, it was fear of Bernie losing in general election.

Uh, no they aren't. The mainstream media takes every chance it can to shit on Medicare for All.

 

[BoilerBF]

Uh, no they aren't. The mainstream media takes every chance it can to shit on Medicare for All.

'Bernie Sanders has real influence': Vermont's longtime outsider has become a trusted voice in the Biden White House

At first glance, they seem like an odd couple -- Sen. Bernie Sanders, the progressive and quintessential outsider, and President Joe Biden, moderate politician and political insider.

www.cnn.com

 

[TheGunner]

Thanks for the adfontesmedia link. Sorry I am still not following. If we agree that the media bias chart is reasonably accurate, shouldn't we all just stick to AP / Reuters / UPI, and ditched all the FOX / NYP / MSNBC / The Week?

Or are you trying to say we shouldn't even trust AP / Reuters b/c they are part of MSM?

My point was NBC and mainstream media is biased contrary to what Chuck Todd tries to sell. I am pretty sure my point was made and you continue to try to change the topic. Do you want to argue that point or spin the topic to my point you can’t “trust” MSM?

Does the AP or Reuters have a network of TV stations? Does their company have a Sunday morning talk show called “Meet The Press”? No, but left leaning NBC does. And Chuck Todd is out there saying they aren’t spinning the news…which is about like saying Bill O’Reilly had a “no spin zone”

and in the end, you can trust who you want, I really don’t care.

 

[charlespig]

As far as your examples, the way you make those unbiased is by saying. An officer shot so in so during an altercation today and list out the details of the event. Purdue 77 IU 68. No bias there either. You list the score, people can see who won.

It isn't that simple. How do you "list out the details" can have all sorts of bias. There can be bias by headline, bias through selection and omission, bias through placement, bias by photos, captions, and camera angles, bias through use of names and titles, bias by choice of words and etc. The bias may not be intentional, but it might be inevitable, because at the end of the day, an editor still has to report from an angle.

Library Guides: Savvy Info Consumers: Detecting Bias in the News

Resources for detecting bias in the news.

guides.lib.uw.edu

Yes, if all you have is Purdue 78 IU 77, then that is neutral. But there still needs to be a news story, and you can still get which point of view the reporter is on based on the story. You can see whether they say "Purdue wins on a thrilling buzzer-beater", or "IU loses a heartbreaker to Purdue." You can also see whether they describe the last sequence as "the mad scramble results in a fortunate bounce to Sasha at the corner, who calmly and coolly hit the game-winner, to the delight of the roaring home crowd", or "Indiana put up a hard-fought battle, but their effort ends up with the ball bouncing to an open Sasha, and the RS senior hits the GW shot over the outstretched arms of TJD."

If I am an IU fan, reading the second version will give me more comfort, knowing that my team has played its ass off and just having some bad breaks. I wouldn't feel that way if I'm reading the first version, which feels more like my hated rival celebrating and rubbing it in my face.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Uh, no they aren't. The mainstream media takes every chance it can to shit on Medicare for All.

Because it's shit! Medicare for all would be a disaster!

 

[Boilermaker03]

It isn't that simple. How do you "list out the details" can have all sorts of bias. There can be bias by headline, bias through selection and omission, bias through placement, bias by photos, captions, and camera angles, bias through use of names and titles, bias by choice of words and etc. The bias may not be intentional, but it might be inevitable, because at the end of the day, an editor still has to report from an angle.

Library Guides: Savvy Info Consumers: Detecting Bias in the News

Resources for detecting bias in the news.

guides.lib.uw.edu

Yes, if all you have is Purdue 78 IU 77, then that is neutral. But there still needs to be a news story, and you can still get which point of view the reporter is on based on the story. You can see whether they say "Purdue wins on a thrilling buzzer-beater", or "IU loses a heartbreaker to Purdue." You can also see whether they describe the last sequence as "the mad scramble results in a fortunate bounce to Sasha at the corner, who calmly and coolly hit the game-winner, to the delight of the roaring home crowd", or "Indiana put up a hard-fought battle, but their effort ends up with the ball bouncing to an open Sasha, and the RS senior hits the GW shot over the outstretched arms of TJD."

If I am an IU fan, reading the second version will give me more comfort, knowing that my team has played its ass off and just having some bad breaks. I wouldn't feel that way if I'm reading the first version, which feels more like my hated rival celebrating and rubbing it in my face.

You can have a news story without bias. The Purdue IU example, you list stats and other details. It wouldn't be exciting, but it's not that hard to have an unbiased reporting. Same with a police shooting. If you stick to factual details and leave out all speculation, you're going to be very close to an unbiased reporting.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Chuck Todd, and all the Dems on this forum for that matter, should take a look at this. This is perfect proof of how the MSM is biased left, AND how they lie to push "the right is racist" narrative.

All you have to do is watch the first minute.

 

[TheGunner]

Chuck Todd, and all the Dems on this forum for that matter, should take a look at this. This is perfect proof of how the MSM is biased left, AND how they lie to push "the right is racist" narrative.

All you have to do is watch the first minute.

View embedded media

Washington Post, the definition of a “slight” lean left. That’s who Chuck Todd compares NBC to (and his own MSNBC, that’s an average left bias).

 

[TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong]

Because it's shit! Medicare for all would be a disaster!

Our current healthcare system is a disaster.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Our current healthcare system is a disaster.

I don't disagree, but we keep taking it the wrong direction.

 

[TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong]

I don't disagree, but we keep taking it the wrong direction.

And single-payer healthcare would be the best, most efficient, and most humane way to fix those problems. Obamacare was trash and everything is only getting worse.

 

[Boilermaker03]

And single-payer healthcare would be the best, most efficient, and most humane way to fix those problems. Obamacare was trash and everything is only getting worse.

No it wouldn't. Every single country with single payer have major issues that we don't have. Long waits for surgeries, long waits for emergency services, shortage on doctors, etc. Many of those countries have a black market for care as well because of those issues. On top of that, almost ALL medical innovation comes from the US. Now, granted, the largest amount of funding for research comes from the NIH, but almost all of the innovation has been improvements for the young and not the elderly because of Medicare. If we go to single payer, medical advancements would slow significantly.

Medicare for All Means Innovation for None - Reason Foundation

Public health care has little incentive to introduce new technologies and prolong life.

reason.org

What we need to do is start to remove government from healthcare. That is the only way we will get affordability back as well as having great care. Having affordability back would get us close to universality.

 

[ecouch]

Fair enough: Fox opinion hosts lean far right. Chris Wallace down the middle. Everyone else leans right.
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC all left to far left outlets


That's 5 left, 1 right among the top 6 networks.

WAPO, NYT, LA Times, Chicago.....Boston...

 

[TheGunner]

Fair enough: Fox opinion hosts lean far right. Chris Wallace down the middle. Everyone else leans right.

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC all left to far left outlets


That's 5 left, 1 right among the top 6 networks.

Most people separate Fox News outside of MSM, and rightly so. But the reality is the all of the “traditional MSM” TV stations lean left, contrary to what every Democrat will admit to.

Count the number of conservative press outlets in the WH press pool. It’s 3-1 or 4-1 left to right….and people wonder why Biden gets zero “tough” questions. A majority of the WH press pool is part of the Democrat campaign team, less Peter Doocy.