CNN Bias Again?

[BonzaiDuck]

Perhaps the assertion that CNN reports "more anti-Trump" news stories -- exhibiting a "bias" from a Trumpie perspective -- derives from the simple fact that there are more instances of facts leading to a negative conclusion about Trump, and Trumpies need "alternative facts" to build an argument which exclude all the other facts of no use to such arguments.

In other words, "bias" as a word used by Trumpies to criticize CNN is really just a code-word for "shoot the messenger" because they don't like facts.

 

[HomerJS]

Perhaps the assertion that CNN reports "more anti-Trump" news stories -- exhibiting a "bias" from a Trumpie perspective -- derives from the simple fact that there are more instances of facts leading to a negative conclusion about Trump, and Trumpies need "alternative facts" to build an argument which exclude all the other facts of no use to such arguments.

That leads to networks like CNN giving him childish praise like

"Trump acted Presidential"

That's like praising a 5 year old for not making poopy in his pants.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Perhaps the assertion that CNN reports "more anti-Trump" news stories -- exhibiting a "bias" from a Trumpie perspective -- derives from the simple fact that there are more instances of facts leading to a negative conclusion about Trump, and Trumpies need "alternative facts" to build an argument which exclude all the other facts of no use to such arguments.

OR, perhaps slow is simply a troll, if not a particularly challenging one.

 

[Jhhnn]

Any news agency who doesn't exhibit bias against a president who averaged 15 demonstrable lies per day for a whole year isn't doing their job.

That's a complete no-brainer. Slow thinks they should act like they were born yesterday, that every day is a fresh start from a clean slate. Forget the past. Forget that Trump continuously throws down the gauntlet by labeling the media as fake news & the enemy of the people. Don't believe your own lying eyes. Believe in the MAGA.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Any news agency who doesn't exhibit bias against a president who averaged 15 demonstrable lies per day for a whole year isn't doing their job.

That's a complete no-brainer. Slow thinks they should act like they were born yesterday, that every day is a fresh start from a clean slate. Forget the past. Forget that Trump continuously throws down the gauntlet by labeling the media as fake news & the enemy of the people. Don't believe your own lying eyes. Believe in the MAGA.

I do not disagree in the sentiment, but you cannot call it "bias." One either cherry-picks the facts and only reports those that make Trump look good, or one reports as many facts as possible to show that inferences made from part are consistent with inferences made from all. Then, the Trumpies will reject near-mathematical logic in the inferences, and call the results a "bias."

Statistically, a bias derives from an incorrect tallying of sample data, an inaccurate extrapolation to conclusions about a sampled population based on provably wrong methods or some similarly explainable cause. If the larger number of facts prove something through inference, you cannot call that a "bias."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So when I block a user, not only do their posts not appear, but neither do their threads.

Well then since there is no valid case the OP makes on pretty much anything, done!

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I was in a sandwich shop the other day, and witnessed a Trumpie interpretation of facts as they see them. I had joked of sending Trump a Xmas card made from a Monopoly-game "Go Directly to Jail" card.

The Trumpie said "At least he's better than that N****r Obama!"

That's the "fact" as they see it.

 

[Jhhnn]

I do not disagree in the sentiment, but you cannot call it "bias." One either cherry-picks the facts and only reports those that make Trump look good, or one reports as many facts as possible to show that inferences made from part are consistent with inferences made from all. Then, the Trumpies will reject near-mathematical logic in the inferences, and call the results a "bias."

Statistically, a bias derives from an incorrect tallying of sample data, an inaccurate extrapolation to conclusions about a sampled population based on provably wrong methods or some similarly explainable cause. If the larger number of facts prove something through inference, you cannot call that a "bias."

Meh. Call it what you want. It's like the cops dealing with a known scumbag grifter having a list of priors as long as your arm. They have trouble remaining completely neutral, rightfully so.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Meh. Call it what you want. It's like the cops dealing with a known scumbag grifter having a list of priors as long as your arm. They have trouble remaining completely neutral, rightfully so.

I don't think neutrality is equivalent to a lack of bias.

What we have in this field of media are two approaches: advocacy journalism and objective journalism. You can find the likely advocacy news outlets by tallying instances of censored facts. Sometimes, this can occur with a deceptive sleight of hand, for instance -- when FOX announced for several days in Jan 2004 that Ted Kennedy would appear in a delivery at the National Press Club. They then announced it on that day, presenting three minutes of his 40 minute delivery, followed by their own thirty-minute commentary on the three minutes. That's just anecdotal -- a single observation. There are many more in comparing FOX to CNN or the others.

Of course, some people have difficulty separating "Andrea Mitchell Reports" as news, from Rachel Maddow "comments" with news-fact. But the assumption that there's some symmetrical equivalence, that all opinions are "equal" -- those ideas underscore how those clutter-brains won the election with Russian help in the first place.

 

[realibrad]

I am not sure if a wall across the entire border is required, but maintaining and improving what we have, lengthening it where needed is a bare minimum. If it comes down to it being across the entire border, then that may be the case.

I do not know or claim to know if the money would be best spent on the wall or refined immigration policy. But, I think we need both.

What are you debating exactly if you agree that a wall would in fact be a deterrent and we both agree that a streamlined and refined immigration policy is needed?

Why is it a bare minimum? That is a statement that has to be based on some objective details. If its not, then don't pretend that its a minimum when it would really just be a guess as to what is good.

I think the debate is clearly that you feel the wall is needed. By the wall, you mean at a minimum of 1,000+ miles of wall. I asked if you thought the money could be better spent on other things, and you shifted to saying you do not have figures or reasons to take a position. How could you have taken a position without having the needed information that you seem to think you would need to take a position.

 

[Jhhnn]

We're at the Hurrah stage of the great Wall con-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick#Stages_of_the_con

 

[HomerJS]

I don't think neutrality is equivalent to a lack of bias.

What we have in this field of media are two approaches: advocacy journalism and objective journalism. You can find the likely advocacy news outlets by tallying instances of censored facts. Sometimes, this can occur with a deceptive sleight of hand, for instance -- when FOX announced for several days in Jan 2004 that Ted Kennedy would appear in a delivery at the National Press Club. They then announced it on that day, presenting three minutes of his 40 minute delivery, followed by their own thirty-minute commentary on the three minutes. That's just anecdotal -- a single observation. There are many more in comparing FOX to CNN or the others.

Of course, some people have difficulty separating "Andrea Mitchell Reports" as news, from Rachel Maddow "comments" with news-fact. But the assumption that there's some symmetrical equivalence, that all opinions are "equal" -- those ideas underscore how those clutter-brains won the election with Russian help in the first place.

Rachel Maddow is news/commentary. She does an excellent job relaying the "facts" of a story. She does her research and most important does not lie or present false facts for ratings.

Unlike her counterparts on Fox News

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Rachel Maddow is news/commentary. She does an excellent job relaying the "facts" of a story. She does her research and most important does not lie or present false facts for ratings.

Unlike her counterparts on Fox News

And -- she presents more than ample facts, documents, quotes to support her argument. We should adjourn to a Hannity broadcast to count his facts, documents and source-quotes.

But I believe there are criteria and some sort of enumeration method by which we can separate the advocacy media from the objective media. I just don't have it all in the palm of my hand.

 

[darkswordsman17]

OR, perhaps slow is simply a troll, if not a particularly challenging one.

Well I think you can say he's a challenged one.

 

[Jhhnn]

And -- she presents more than ample facts, documents, quotes to support her argument. We should adjourn to a Hannity broadcast to count his facts, documents and source-quotes.

But I believe there are criteria and some sort of enumeration method by which we can separate the advocacy media from the objective media. I just don't have it all in the palm of my hand.

In simply laying out the facts objective media becomes advocacy media as it relates to Trump & the GOP. We've seen that all along from the bigly-est inauguration crowd ever & the 3-5M illegal votes to the invasion of disease ridden Mexican dope dealing rapists & beyond.The post-truth realm they try to create has nothing to do with facts & truth whatsoever.