NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Tell the OP. He's the one who thinks there's only liberal bias in the media.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Another absolutely perfect example of the BIASED MSM!!!!
- Thread starter healthmyths
- Start date
Tell the OP. He's the one who thinks there's only liberal bias in the media.
They are illegal immigrants, the truth.Is undocumented a poor description, or just not one that fits your own bias?I took the below screen shot for several reasons.
1) 39,000 results stating "Trump anti-immigrant".
2) Can someone explain how MSNBC/TIME can call themselves "objective" professional journalists just
reporting the news when they use the "anti-immigrant"?
For example from the Time article: Poll Shows Limits Of Donald Trump's Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric
"Donald Trump has characterized many undocumented immigrants as criminals or as people who take jobs away from struggling Americans."
Why didn't Time use the term "illegal"? instead Time used "undocumented"?
Because they are biased reporting.
And the VAST majority of Americans that voted for Trump are totally aware this MSM bias and consequently
Trump can SAY anything anymore and the biased MSM blows it 180 degrees from the truth and so
WE DON"T BELIEVE THE MSM!
EVEN Gallup in reporting this bias the fact... why didn't they lead by saying 68% of Americans distrust the media?
Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.
Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low
View attachment 100765
I don't try to convince hardcore partisan ideologues on either end of the spectrum of things they don't want to believe.I can't think of any.One of the most insidious - and destructive - results of the bias is that it is self-sustaining.I took the below screen shot for several reasons.
1) 39,000 results stating "Trump anti-immigrant".
2) Can someone explain how MSNBC/TIME can call themselves "objective" professional journalists just
reporting the news when they use the "anti-immigrant"?
For example from the Time article: Poll Shows Limits Of Donald Trump's Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric
"Donald Trump has characterized many undocumented immigrants as criminals or as people who take jobs away from struggling Americans."
Why didn't Time use the term "illegal"? instead Time used "undocumented"?
Because they are biased reporting.
And the VAST majority of Americans that voted for Trump are totally aware this MSM bias and consequently
Trump can SAY anything anymore and the biased MSM blows it 180 degrees from the truth and so
WE DON"T BELIEVE THE MSM!
EVEN Gallup in reporting this bias the fact... why didn't they lead by saying 68% of Americans distrust the media?
Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.
Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low
View attachment 100765
You can probably expect responses using a technique I call "isolation".
What they will do is completely ignore the fact that this story is just a drop in the ocean of examples of media bias. They'll single this one story out, isolate it, mock it, minimize it, deny it -- which is their attempt to minimize the whole "biased media" meme down to an inconsequential pebble.
Watch.
.
I'd like the OP to tell us what objective sources of news we should be following.
Do we all remember when the left, here, there, and everywhere, denied the fact that the MSM was biased. In fact, both they and the MSM denied it, claimed we were overly sensitive, etc.
People ask-------->why is the country so divided. Hellllloooooo! When you have the media leaning so far one way for so long, once new media comes online as it has, it must lean as far right as possible to prove it is not MSM. Therefore, what you have is the left listening to fabrications their guys create, and the right following suit in the opposite direction.
To the people on the left--------------> I am sure you realize that YOUR guys, the MSM; has now gotten caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar with the WIKI releases. What this means is----------->none of these sources for any reason are now credible. Doesn't mean they aren't ever telling the truth, but rather, they have an ax to grind so can be ignored. It is kinda like those e-mails that proved climate people were cooking the books. You can't get passed their duplicity with regular people. Doesn't mean they are now not telling the truth, but they can't be trusted any longer for accuracy, since they to have an ax to grind.
This is what happens when those we look to are caught being crooked. Do not blame the right for this at all! Even you people could see how ridiculous it was, and instead of demanding accuracy, you went along because it was in your favor. Well, good luck now convincing anybody but like minded individuals with MSM, or lefty links, of anything that does not think like you! Anything you bring to the forefront with their links as proof can now be pushed aside, and that is sad. Again, you helped do it to yourselves, so don't expect us to feel sorry for you.
In other words, they know they can stir the shit and then report on the stirred-up shit.
A behavior like that will only build on itself, and that's what we've seen.
.
Tell us what unbiased media you use to get your news.
Nor could I have, back when I was in it for nearly 20 years.
Why would you ask such a meaningless question?
.
Tell the OP. He's the one who thinks there's only liberal bias in the media.
But go ahead, knock yerself out.
.
- Sep 19, 2011
- 28,549
- 10,095
- 900
- Thread starter
- #44
I don't try to convince hardcore partisan ideologues on either end of the spectrum of things they don't want to believe.I can't think of any.One of the most insidious - and destructive - results of the bias is that it is self-sustaining.Do we all remember when the left, here, there, and everywhere, denied the fact that the MSM was biased. In fact, both they and the MSM denied it, claimed we were overly sensitive, etc.
People ask-------->why is the country so divided. Hellllloooooo! When you have the media leaning so far one way for so long, once new media comes online as it has, it must lean as far right as possible to prove it is not MSM. Therefore, what you have is the left listening to fabrications their guys create, and the right following suit in the opposite direction.
To the people on the left--------------> I am sure you realize that YOUR guys, the MSM; has now gotten caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar with the WIKI releases. What this means is----------->none of these sources for any reason are now credible. Doesn't mean they aren't ever telling the truth, but rather, they have an ax to grind so can be ignored. It is kinda like those e-mails that proved climate people were cooking the books. You can't get passed their duplicity with regular people. Doesn't mean they are now not telling the truth, but they can't be trusted any longer for accuracy, since they to have an ax to grind.
This is what happens when those we look to are caught being crooked. Do not blame the right for this at all! Even you people could see how ridiculous it was, and instead of demanding accuracy, you went along because it was in your favor. Well, good luck now convincing anybody but like minded individuals with MSM, or lefty links, of anything that does not think like you! Anything you bring to the forefront with their links as proof can now be pushed aside, and that is sad. Again, you helped do it to yourselves, so don't expect us to feel sorry for you.
In other words, they know they can stir the shit and then report on the stirred-up shit.
A behavior like that will only build on itself, and that's what we've seen.
.
Tell us what unbiased media you use to get your news.
Nor could I have, back when I was in it for nearly 20 years.
Why would you ask such a meaningless question?
.
Tell the OP. He's the one who thinks there's only liberal bias in the media.
But go ahead, knock yerself out.
.
See you are a black and white guy. No 50 shades of gray for you.
Now me... I'm a principled guy. If a black guy is shot by a white guy then I don't immediately take the black guy's side NOR the white guy.
I let the FACTS as found by the legal process determine it.
It just so happens though the vast majority of MSM is biased and they won't admit it!
They think they are objective, impersonal professional... but take it from a professional journalist Michael Goodwin.
Read his assessment of the state of the current "professional journalist"!
Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Michael Goodwin has been a fixture on the New York media scene for the last 30 years wrote the below:
"A recent article by its media reporter, Jim Gutenberg [New York Times], whom I know and like, began this way:
'If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?' Rutenberg wondered in a front-page article earlier this month.
When it comes to covering Trump, it’s only fair to be unfair, according to The Atlantic.
“All things considered, the press has responded defensibly to the unusual challenges of covering a brazen, habitual liar,”
Conor Friedersdorf wrote in a recent column titled, “The Exaggerated Claims of Media Bias Against Donald Trump.”
NO bias here of course!
But read this article and get really pissed that "objective" news people are definitely biasing their material with THEIR opinion!
ttp://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/
That's why these seasoned, principled journalists are clearly stating "Journalism is collapsing before our eyes"!
But maybe YOU like millions don't understand the difference between a "journalist"/reporter" and a "commentator".
See you lump Hannity/Rush into the "journalists" category. THEY ARE NOT! They are opinionated and BIASED but they are "commentators"... not
the people that read/report the news. Those are supposed to be unbiased. Objective.
NOW do you understand the difference.... Rush ...biased...commentator... while David Muir, Pelley... these are suppose to be unbiased...reporters.
This is the difference.
Is undocumented a poor description, or just not one that fits your own bias?I took the below screen shot for several reasons.
1) 39,000 results stating "Trump anti-immigrant".
2) Can someone explain how MSNBC/TIME can call themselves "objective" professional journalists just
reporting the news when they use the "anti-immigrant"?
For example from the Time article: Poll Shows Limits Of Donald Trump's Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric
"Donald Trump has characterized many undocumented immigrants as criminals or as people who take jobs away from struggling Americans."
Why didn't Time use the term "illegal"? instead Time used "undocumented"?
Because they are biased reporting.
And the VAST majority of Americans that voted for Trump are totally aware this MSM bias and consequently
Trump can SAY anything anymore and the biased MSM blows it 180 degrees from the truth and so
WE DON"T BELIEVE THE MSM!
EVEN Gallup in reporting this bias the fact... why didn't they lead by saying 68% of Americans distrust the media?
Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.
Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low
View attachment 100765
I guess you call the corner drug dealer an undocumented pharmacist. Illegal is illegal, regressive try to soften the terms so it doesn't sound so bad in their propaganda.
I'm talking about undocumented.So, you're not,talking about illegals....I mean unenforced.You mean illegal?Is undocumented a poor description, or just not one that fits your own bias?I took the below screen shot for several reasons.
1) 39,000 results stating "Trump anti-immigrant".
2) Can someone explain how MSNBC/TIME can call themselves "objective" professional journalists just
reporting the news when they use the "anti-immigrant"?
For example from the Time article: Poll Shows Limits Of Donald Trump's Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric
"Donald Trump has characterized many undocumented immigrants as criminals or as people who take jobs away from struggling Americans."
Why didn't Time use the term "illegal"? instead Time used "undocumented"?
Because they are biased reporting.
And the VAST majority of Americans that voted for Trump are totally aware this MSM bias and consequently
Trump can SAY anything anymore and the biased MSM blows it 180 degrees from the truth and so
WE DON"T BELIEVE THE MSM!
EVEN Gallup in reporting this bias the fact... why didn't they lead by saying 68% of Americans distrust the media?
Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.
Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low
View attachment 100765
Actually you're talking about an invented term with no foundation in law.
I'd like the OP to tell us what objective sources of news we should be following.
Journalism is very simple, they report the who, what, when and where, then leave it to the consumer to determine the why. When they try to tell us why, they leave the realm of journalism and enter one of the commentator. That's not their job.
- Sep 19, 2011
- 28,549
- 10,095
- 900
- Thread starter
- #48
From my journalism courses it was the 5 "Ws"... who, what, when, where, and WHY.... and the WHY was NOT something for interpretation.I'd like the OP to tell us what objective sources of news we should be following.
Journalism is very simple, they report the who, what, when and where, then leave it to the consumer to determine the why. When they try to tell us why, they leave the realm of journalism and enter one of the commentator. That's not their job.
For example:
There was a fire(what) on 12/7/16 (when) in a Texas(where) caused by a candle(why) left burning by a man (who).
Now today's hacks would do the 5 "Ws" but add that the reason the man left the candle burning was he was a racist.
bullwinkle
Gold Member
- Mar 4, 2013
- 5,446
- 761
- 245
<<I let the FACTS as found by the legal process determine it.I don't try to convince hardcore partisan ideologues on either end of the spectrum of things they don't want to believe.I can't think of any.One of the most insidious - and destructive - results of the bias is that it is self-sustaining.
In other words, they know they can stir the shit and then report on the stirred-up shit.
A behavior like that will only build on itself, and that's what we've seen.
.
Tell us what unbiased media you use to get your news.
Nor could I have, back when I was in it for nearly 20 years.
Why would you ask such a meaningless question?
.
Tell the OP. He's the one who thinks there's only liberal bias in the media.
But go ahead, knock yerself out.
.
See you are a black and white guy. No 50 shades of gray for you.
Now me... I'm a principled guy. If a black guy is shot by a white guy then I don't immediately take the black guy's side NOR the white guy.
I let the FACTS as found by the legal process determine it.
It just so happens though the vast majority of MSM is biased and they won't admit it!
They think they are objective, impersonal professional... but take it from a professional journalist Michael Goodwin.
Read his assessment of the state of the current "professional journalist"!
Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Michael Goodwin has been a fixture on the New York media scene for the last 30 years wrote the below:
"A recent article by its media reporter, Jim Gutenberg [New York Times], whom I know and like, began this way:
'If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?' Rutenberg wondered in a front-page article earlier this month.
When it comes to covering Trump, it’s only fair to be unfair, according to The Atlantic.
“All things considered, the press has responded defensibly to the unusual challenges of covering a brazen, habitual liar,”
Conor Friedersdorf wrote in a recent column titled, “The Exaggerated Claims of Media Bias Against Donald Trump.”
NO bias here of course!
But read this article and get really pissed that "objective" news people are definitely biasing their material with THEIR opinion!
ttp://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/
That's why these seasoned, principled journalists are clearly stating "Journalism is collapsing before our eyes"!
But maybe YOU like millions don't understand the difference between a "journalist"/reporter" and a "commentator".
See you lump Hannity/Rush into the "journalists" category. THEY ARE NOT! They are opinionated and BIASED but they are "commentators"... not
the people that read/report the news. Those are supposed to be unbiased. Objective.
NOW do you understand the difference.... Rush ...biased...commentator... while David Muir, Pelley... these are suppose to be unbiased...reporters.
This is the difference.
It just so happens though the vast majority of MSM is biased and they won't admit it!>>
So let me get this straight.... YOU are the standard I and others should set as a goal of achievement if we want to be objective unbiased readers of 'real' news? You took a journalism class which sets you above us children of lesser gods as you scold us for being too dull-witted to recognize bias... and then you link the NYPost? Guffaw!
I was in the business for nearly 20 years.But maybe YOU like millions don't understand the difference between a "journalist"/reporter" and a "commentator". See you lump Hannity/Rush into the "journalists" category. THEY ARE NOT! They are opinionated and BIASED but they are "commentators"... not the people that read/report the news. Those are supposed to be unbiased. Objective. NOW do you understand the difference.... Rush ...biased...commentator... while David Muir, Pelley... these are suppose to be unbiased...reporters.
This is the difference.
You may have misunderstood my post.
.
- Sep 19, 2011
- 28,549
- 10,095
- 900
- Thread starter
- #51
I was in the business for nearly 20 years.But maybe YOU like millions don't understand the difference between a "journalist"/reporter" and a "commentator". See you lump Hannity/Rush into the "journalists" category. THEY ARE NOT! They are opinionated and BIASED but they are "commentators"... not the people that read/report the news. Those are supposed to be unbiased. Objective. NOW do you understand the difference.... Rush ...biased...commentator... while David Muir, Pelley... these are suppose to be unbiased...reporters.
This is the difference.
You may have misunderstood my post.
.
You may have been a linotype setter too as they were in the business.
Not sure what this is about, but I do know that I know far more about the industry than you.I was in the business for nearly 20 years.But maybe YOU like millions don't understand the difference between a "journalist"/reporter" and a "commentator". See you lump Hannity/Rush into the "journalists" category. THEY ARE NOT! They are opinionated and BIASED but they are "commentators"... not the people that read/report the news. Those are supposed to be unbiased. Objective. NOW do you understand the difference.... Rush ...biased...commentator... while David Muir, Pelley... these are suppose to be unbiased...reporters.
This is the difference.
You may have misunderstood my post.
.
You may have been a linotype setter too as they were in the business.
.
WaitingFor2020
Gold Member
- Banned
- #53
I took the below screen shot for several reasons.
1) 39,000 results stating "Trump anti-immigrant".
2) Can someone explain how MSNBC/TIME can call themselves "objective" professional journalists just
reporting the news when they use the "anti-immigrant"?
For example from the Time article: Poll Shows Limits Of Donald Trump's Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric
"Donald Trump has characterized many undocumented immigrants as criminals or as people who take jobs away from struggling Americans."
Why didn't Time use the term "illegal"? instead Time used "undocumented"?
Because they are biased reporting.
And the VAST majority of Americans that voted for Trump are totally aware this MSM bias and consequently
Trump can SAY anything anymore and the biased MSM blows it 180 degrees from the truth and so
WE DON"T BELIEVE THE MSM!
EVEN Gallup in reporting this bias the fact... why didn't they lead by saying 68% of Americans distrust the media?
Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.
Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low
View attachment 100765
You just need to learn how to use Google. If you use quotation marks that limits your search. Which sounds about right for your ability to comprehend, anyway.
Here, for starters:
About 3,560,000 results (0.56 seconds)
Search Results
Donald Trump's anti-immigration stance threatens the heart of ...
www.theverge.com/.../donald-trump-immigration-silicon-valley-innovation-h1b-visas
Nov 11, 2016 - President-elect Donald Trump is causing a stir in Silicon Valley. After riding the path to the White House in part thanks to his anti-immigration ...
Immigration | Donald J Trump for President
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration
Establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American ... Donald J. Trump's 10 Point Plan to Put America First.
Europe's anti-immigrant leaders are taking Trump's show on the road ...
Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis...trumps.../7a527bc0-a686-11e6-ba46-53db57f0e351...
Nov 9, 2016 - If Europe's mainstream leaders cooperate with an anti-immigrant, anti-trade President Trump, they will have little choice but to cooperate with ...
Donald Trump on Immigration - OnTheIssues.org
www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Immigration.htm
Donald Trump on Immigration; Presidential candidates. ... OpEd: businesses & Republicans condemn anti-Mexico terms. Trump released a statement restating ...
Donald Trump's anti-immigrant stance is making Indian tech ... - Quartz
qz.com/.../donald-trumps-anti-immigrant-stance-is-making-indian-tech-companies-rel...
6 days ago - From the early days of his campaign, Trump's anti-immigrantstance has included plans to cut down on work visas, known as H-1B, that allow ...
owebo
Gold Member
Wow....over 3 million fake news stories....impressive....I took the below screen shot for several reasons.
1) 39,000 results stating "Trump anti-immigrant".
2) Can someone explain how MSNBC/TIME can call themselves "objective" professional journalists just
reporting the news when they use the "anti-immigrant"?
For example from the Time article: Poll Shows Limits Of Donald Trump's Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric
"Donald Trump has characterized many undocumented immigrants as criminals or as people who take jobs away from struggling Americans."
Why didn't Time use the term "illegal"? instead Time used "undocumented"?
Because they are biased reporting.
And the VAST majority of Americans that voted for Trump are totally aware this MSM bias and consequently
Trump can SAY anything anymore and the biased MSM blows it 180 degrees from the truth and so
WE DON"T BELIEVE THE MSM!
EVEN Gallup in reporting this bias the fact... why didn't they lead by saying 68% of Americans distrust the media?
Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.
Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low
View attachment 100765
You just need to learn how to use Google. If you use quotation marks that limits your search. Which sounds about right for your ability to comprehend, anyway.
Here, for starters:
About 3,560,000 results (0.56 seconds)
Search Results
Donald Trump's anti-immigration stance threatens the heart of ...
www.theverge.com/.../donald-trump-immigration-silicon-valley-innovation-h1b-visas
Nov 11, 2016 - President-elect Donald Trump is causing a stir in Silicon Valley. After riding the path to the White House in part thanks to his anti-immigration ...
Immigration | Donald J Trump for President
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration
Establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American ... Donald J. Trump's 10 Point Plan to Put America First.
Europe's anti-immigrant leaders are taking Trump's show on the road ...
Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis...trumps.../7a527bc0-a686-11e6-ba46-53db57f0e351...
Nov 9, 2016 - If Europe's mainstream leaders cooperate with an anti-immigrant, anti-trade President Trump, they will have little choice but to cooperate with ...
Donald Trump on Immigration - OnTheIssues.org
www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Immigration.htm
Donald Trump on Immigration; Presidential candidates. ... OpEd: businesses & Republicans condemn anti-Mexico terms. Trump released a statement restating ...
Donald Trump's anti-immigrant stance is making Indian tech ... - Quartz
qz.com/.../donald-trumps-anti-immigrant-stance-is-making-indian-tech-companies-rel...
6 days ago - From the early days of his campaign, Trump's anti-immigrantstance has included plans to cut down on work visas, known as H-1B, that allow ...
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
I'd like the OP to tell us what objective sources of news we should be following.
Journalism is very simple, they report the who, what, when and where, then leave it to the consumer to determine the why. When they try to tell us why, they leave the realm of journalism and enter one of the commentator. That's not their job.
Advocacy journalism is part of journalism. Look it up.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
From my journalism courses it was the 5 "Ws"... who, what, when, where, and WHY.... and the WHY was NOT something for interpretation.I'd like the OP to tell us what objective sources of news we should be following.
Journalism is very simple, they report the who, what, when and where, then leave it to the consumer to determine the why. When they try to tell us why, they leave the realm of journalism and enter one of the commentator. That's not their job.
For example:
There was a fire(what) on 12/7/16 (when) in a Texas(where) caused by a candle(why) left burning by a man (who).
Now today's hacks would do the 5 "Ws" but add that the reason the man left the candle burning was he was a racist.
You've yet to tell us what objective sources in the media you get your news from.
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,719
- 1,830
Why didnt they say whatever term you think they should isn't proof of anything but your paranoia.
Don't you just hate it when the MSM isn't politically correct?
I'd like the OP to tell us what objective sources of news we should be following.
Journalism is very simple, they report the who, what, when and where, then leave it to the consumer to determine the why. When they try to tell us why, they leave the realm of journalism and enter one of the commentator. That's not their job.
Advocacy journalism is part of journalism. Look it up.
Not when it's portrayed as just news the way most are doing it today. An individual has an ethical obligation to make the advocacy clear up front, not pretend they're being objective.
----------------------I took the below screen shot for several reasons.
1) 39,000 results stating "Trump anti-immigrant".
2) Can someone explain how MSNBC/TIME can call themselves "objective" professional journalists just
reporting the news when they use the "anti-immigrant"?
For example from the Time article: Poll Shows Limits Of Donald Trump's Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric
"Donald Trump has characterized many undocumented immigrants as criminals or as people who take jobs away from struggling Americans."
Why didn't Time use the term "illegal"? instead Time used "undocumented"?
Because they are biased reporting.
And the VAST majority of Americans that voted for Trump are totally aware this MSM bias and consequently
Trump can SAY anything anymore and the biased MSM blows it 180 degrees from the truth and so
WE DON"T BELIEVE THE MSM!
EVEN Gallup in reporting this bias the fact... why didn't they lead by saying 68% of Americans distrust the media?
Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.
Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low
View attachment 100765
You can probably expect responses using a technique I call "isolation".I took the below screen shot for several reasons.
1) 39,000 results stating "Trump anti-immigrant".
2) Can someone explain how MSNBC/TIME can call themselves "objective" professional journalists just
reporting the news when they use the "anti-immigrant"?
For example from the Time article: Poll Shows Limits Of Donald Trump's Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric
"Donald Trump has characterized many undocumented immigrants as criminals or as people who take jobs away from struggling Americans."
Why didn't Time use the term "illegal"? instead Time used "undocumented"?
Because they are biased reporting.
And the VAST majority of Americans that voted for Trump are totally aware this MSM bias and consequently
Trump can SAY anything anymore and the biased MSM blows it 180 degrees from the truth and so
WE DON"T BELIEVE THE MSM!
EVEN Gallup in reporting this bias the fact... why didn't they lead by saying 68% of Americans distrust the media?
Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.
Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low
View attachment 100765
What they will do is completely ignore the fact that this story is just a drop in the ocean of examples of media bias. They'll single this one story out, isolate it, mock it, minimize it, deny it -- which is their attempt to minimize the whole "biased media" meme down to an inconsequential pebble.
Watch.
.
I'd like the OP to tell us what objective sources of news we should be following.
Do we all remember when the left, here, there, and everywhere, denied the fact that the MSM was biased. In fact, both they and the MSM denied it, claimed we were overly sensitive, etc.
People ask-------->why is the country so divided. Hellllloooooo! When you have the media leaning so far one way for so long, once new media comes online as it has, it must lean as far right as possible to prove it is not MSM. Therefore, what you have is the left listening to fabrications their guys create, and the right following suit in the opposite direction.
To the people on the left--------------> I am sure you realize that YOUR guys, the MSM; has now gotten caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar with the WIKI releases. What this means is----------->none of these sources for any reason are now credible. Doesn't mean they aren't ever telling the truth, but rather, they have an ax to grind so can be ignored. It is kinda like those e-mails that proved climate people were cooking the books. You can't get passed their duplicity with regular people. Doesn't mean they are now not telling the truth, but they can't be trusted any longer for accuracy, since they to have an ax to grind.
This is what happens when those we look to are caught being crooked. Do not blame the right for this at all! Even you people could see how ridiculous it was, and instead of demanding accuracy, you went along because it was in your favor. Well, good luck now convincing anybody but like minded individuals with MSM, or lefty links, of anything that does not think like you! Anything you bring to the forefront with their links as proof can now be pushed aside, and that is sad. Again, you helped do it to yourselves, so don't expect us to feel sorry for you.
I want to know what UNBIASED news sources all you sanctimonious conservatives are using that you feel give you the standing to criticize where liberals get their news.
Can you do that for me? Or admit that you all just patronize rightwing biased media, which makes you just the other side of the same coin.
Can you?
Unlike you I guess I don't just get NEWS from one source. But more importantly I then do a little more research based on the EXPERIENCE
that the MSM has presented BIASED NEWS.
Fortunately for me I had several courses in college in journalism and one of them was called "Backgrounding the News" meaning looking a little deeper
then just the headlines.
See that's the problem with many people and possibly you. You take the "headlines" Trump anti-immigrant" and make it sound like the rule.
Thus you form an opinion. Unlike me with my experiences I doubt the headlines and dig deeper and for instance TRUMP is married to a LEGAL immigrant".
My personal experience is my "legal" immigrant daughter-in-law both of whom followed the laws of America and became citizens.
So I and millions like me find the MSM bias when they declare Trump Anti-immigrant as that makes ME also "anti-immigrant" which is so far from the
truth!
You're just a loser who happened to guess right on Trump:
Tell us what independent corroboration did you did before posting this shit?
The CLINTON Body-Count
Similar threads
- Replies
- 104
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 468
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 81
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 32
- Views
- 285
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 8
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8158
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 474
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-