CNN Bias Again?

[fskimospy]

The spirit of those articles is that it is reported that CNN did not cover the story, there is no self ownage. Do you really think CNN wants to report a story that the wall is effective? It seems like you are the one that is busted or self owned.

Look at who else didn't read the story, haha.

The spirit of the articles is that KUSI is accusing CNN of spiking their interview for political reasons. None of them offer any evidence that it actually happened. What one of his articles DOES provide, however, is the fact that decisions of that sort are made routinely and for non-biased reasons, directly refuting his argument.

He totally owned himself and look, he just made you embarrass yourself too. How fun!

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, from what I understand illegal immigration is way up recently.

I think it's the influx of the Black Plague, drug lords, rapists, baby eating coyotes and wolves, and all manner of other pestilence and plague that have wildly increased with knowledge that no wall protects us from such things.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Look at who else didn't read the story, haha.

The spirit of the articles is that KUSI is accusing CNN of spiking their interview for political reasons. None of them offer any evidence that it actually happened. What one of his articles DOES provide, however, is the fact that decisions of that sort are made routinely and for non-biased reasons, directly refuting his argument.

He totally owned himself and look, he just made you embarrass yourself too. How fun!

You fucking imbecile. IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE IT IS BEING SUGGESTED THAT THIS STORY WAS ABANDONED DUE TO BIAS. No one is saying that new sources aren't allowed to add/remove stories at will. But IN THIS INSTANCE IT WAS DUE TO BIAS. If you cannot understand that, I am sorry for you. You try so hard to be a cheerleader.

 

[realibrad]

From your own link:

Illegal immigration is way, way down.

That is by year, and what I provided you was by month. The question was what has changed in the last 23 months, and what I provided was an accurate answer.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bonus points for Jim Acosta showing that physical barriers do indeed work.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/jim-acosta-shows-walls-work-at-border-gop-politicians-tease

So lame. What Acosta pointed out is that the current situation does not even resemble a national emergency nor does it justify additional Wall construction.

 

[fskimospy]

You fucking imbecile. IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE IT IS BEING SUGGESTED THAT THIS STORY WAS ABANDONED DUE TO BIAS. No one is saying that new sources aren't allowed to add/remove stories at will. But IN THIS INSTANCE IT WAS DUE TO BIAS. If you cannot understand that, I am sorry for you.

And there is exactly zero evidence that this occurred. What is established by your links however is that this sort of thing is common. If it is common, that is evidence against it being done for biased reasons. In all, the sum total of the evidence you provided is net against your claim.

You should really try reading your own links sometime, haha. Don't get mad at me for pointing it out! You really need to stop getting so emotionally invested in everything. Take a deep breath and calm down.

 

[fskimospy]

That is by year, and what I provided you was by month. The question was what has changed in the last 23 months, and what I provided was an accurate answer.

No, the accurate answer would be that illegal immigration remains at historic lows as shown by your own link.

 

[realibrad]

No, the accurate answer would be that illegal immigration remains at historic lows as shown by your own link.

Low for year, up for monthly.

Why should immigration be measured in years, and not months, days, weeks, decades?

 

[SlowSpyder]

And there is exactly zero evidence that this occurred. What is established by your links however is that this sort of thing is common. If it is common, that is evidence against it being done for biased reasons. In all, the sum total of the evidence you provided is net against your claim.

You should really try reading your own links sometime, haha. Don't get mad at me for pointing it out! You really need to stop getting so emotionally invested in everything. Take a deep breath and calm down.

The news station that has no dog in the fight made the claim. CNN used a generic "we remove stories all the time" reply. CNN has a demonstrated history of anti-Trumpism. The dots are not hard to connect here. Neither you or I have any inside information, we were not there first hand to witness this. Yet out of all the stories that they do regularly abandon or change, no one made a claim like this until this station with this story that happened to turn pro-Trump. CNN has also been actively running stories about the wall and border.... just not this one. Whatever you say bud, like I said, keep your head in the sand.

 

[fskimospy]

Low for year, up for monthly.

Why should immigration be measured in years, and not months, days, weeks, decades?

It doesn't have to be measured in any particular time period, it should be examined holistically. From that the answer is clear - illegal immigration is at historic lows.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It doesn't have to be measured in any particular time period, it should be examined holistically. From that the answer is clear - illegal immigration is at historic lows.

So by your logic, if gun violence is lower compared to decades past (as it is), even if on the upswing in the last few years, you would be against further gun control?

 

[fskimospy]

The news station that has no dog in the fight made the claim. CNN used a generic "we remove stories all the time" reply. CNN has a demonstrated history of anti-Trumpism. The dots are not hard to connect here. Neither you or I have any inside information, we were not there first hand to witness this. Yet out of all the stories that they do regularly abandon or change, no one made a claim like this until this station with this story that happened to turn pro-Trump. CNN has also been actively running stories about the wall and border.... just not this one. Whatever you say bud, like I said, keep your head in the sand.

If KUSI has evidence to support their claim they are welcome to show it. So far they have not. What we do know however is that this sort of thing is commonplace, indicating against any accusation of bias.

Your own links contain only two things:

1) an accusation of bias without factual support
2) statements from a news organization other than the accused that this action is commonplace and not indicative of bias.

 

[fskimospy]

So by your logic, if gun violence is lower compared to decades past (as it is), even if on the upswing in the last few years, you would be against further gun control?

This is nonsensical. I'm against the wall because the government's own studies show it to be ineffective and a waste of money. Gun control on the other hand is empirically validated to be effective.

I like doing effective things and not doing ineffective things. Conservatives like you reason emotionally instead of logically though so to you the relative effectiveness is pointless. You're just looking for something that makes you feel good.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

If KUSI has evidence to support their claim they are welcome to show it. So far they have not. What we do know however is that this sort of thing is commonplace, indicating against any accusation of bias.

Your own links contain only two things:

1) an accusation of bias without factual support
2) statements from a news organization other than the accused that this action is commonplace and not indicative of bias.

You're leaving out 3. That KUSI's story took a political stance.

 

[SlowSpyder]

This is nonsensical. I'm against the wall because the government's own studies show it to be ineffective and a waste of money. Gun control on the other hand is empirically validated to be effective.

I like doing effective things and not doing ineffective things. Conservatives like you reason emotionally instead of logically though so to you the relative effectiveness is pointless. You're just looking for something that makes you feel good.

You must be looking at different information than I am. Government studies show that barriers DO help. On the other hand, cities with the strictest gun control typically have the most crime. You're not making any sense again.

 

[Vic]

Poor Slow is upset because the Fake News Media criticized Dear Leader.

 

[Vic]

I don't know how anything can be biased because everything has a rose colored tint.

I would argue the other way around, that everyone is biased and there is no such thing as unbiased. Therefore, when people complain that something is biased, what they're really saying is that it doesn't conform to their bias. Case in point: I've never Slow complain about Fox News' bias.

 

[Jhhnn]

Low for year, up for monthly.

Why should immigration be measured in years, and not months, days, weeks, decades?

That's ridiculous obfuscation. A monthly uptick is in no way demonstration of a trend. A longer timeline, like a year, is a lot more indicative of the facts. Even longer timelines indicate that illegal immigration peaked in 2008 & declined to a relatively stable number of such people in this country.

There is no invasion, no national emergency.

 

[fskimospy]

You must be looking at different information than I am. Government studies show that barriers DO help.

The Congressional Research Service disagrees:

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33659.html

While the San Diego fence, combined with an increase in agents and other resources in the USBP’s San Diego sector, has proven effective in reducing the number of apprehensions made in that sector, there is considerable evidence that the flow of illegal immigration has adapted to this enforcement posture and has shifted to the more remote areas of the Arizona desert. Nationally, the USBP made 1.2 million apprehensions in 1992 and again in 2004, suggesting that the increased enforcement in San Diego sector has had little impact on overall apprehensions.

Here's some non-government empirical research on it:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w25267

At a construction cost of approximately $7 per person in the United States, we estimate that the border wall expansion harmed Mexican workers and high-skill U.S. workers, but benefited U.S. low-skill workers, who achieved gains equivalent to an increase in per capita income of $0.36. In contrast, a counterfactual policy which instead reduced trade costs between the United States and Mexico by 25% would have resulted in both greater declines in Mexico to United States migration and substantial welfare gains for all workers.

On the other hand, cities with the strictest gun control typically have the most crime. You're not making any sense again.

I've provided you with large quantities of peer reviewed research that shows gun control is effective. You have ignored it. This is what I mean about you reasoning emotionally and not logically.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I would argue the other way around, that everyone is biased and there is no such thing as unbiased. Therefore, when people complain that something is biased, what they're really saying is that it doesn't conform to their bias. Case in point: I've never Slow complain about Fox News' bias.

You're wrong then. Just today in fact I said that I used to go to Fox to see what anti-Obama FUD they were peddling at the time. Now today, CNN does the same thing with Trump. Fox is clearly right leaning. CNN is clearly left. Not sure why this is so hard to admit for people.

And while I agree it is impossible to be truly free of any bias, that is different than purposely and consciously coloring a story the way one wants, as CNN does when it comes to anti-Trump news.

 

[nOOky]

You fucking imbecile. IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE IT IS BEING SUGGESTED THAT THIS STORY WAS ABANDONED DUE TO BIAS. No one is saying that new sources aren't allowed to add/remove stories at will. But IN THIS INSTANCE IT WAS DUE TO BIAS. If you cannot understand that, I am sorry for you. You try so hard to be a cheerleader.

I'm sure CNN did not run the story exactly because they are biased. Everyone knows they are biased, similar to how biased FOX news is the other way. I'm not sure why this is surprising though, maybe it provides a gotcha moment for the right. You do know that CNN, FOX, MSNBC etc. are all for profit enterprises that run whatever they want to run for ratings and to make money? They are not true news outlets anymore, they are Trumped up National Enquirer television stations.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I'm sure CNN did not run the story exactly because they are biased. Everyone knows they are biased, similar to how biased FOX news is the other way. I'm not sure why this is surprising though, maybe it provides a gotcha moment for the right. You do know that CNN, FOX, MSNBC etc. are all for profit enterprises that run whatever they want to run for ratings and to make money? They are not true news outlets anymore, they are Trumped up National Enquirer television stations.

I agree with you 100%. I think news sources today are little more than tabloids that pander to their audience (left or right) for clicks and views to make money. And as you said, in this case I think CNN was purposely using bias to abandon this story and it doesn't jibe with what their leftist audience wants and doesn't spread the anti-Trump message CNN wants. Not hard for you to admit, not hard for me to admit, but hard for some partisan agenda driven posters to admit.

 

[HomerJS]

You must be looking at different information than I am. Government studies show that barriers DO help. On the other hand, cities with the strictest gun control typically have the most crime. You're not making any sense again.

Walls work eh? Ever heard of El Chapo?

BTW - Why did this all of a sudden become a crisis on Jan 3 2019? Careful don't strain that little brain of yours.

Republicans were quite content not funding the wall for 2 years.

Trump had a deal that included 25B for his stupid wall 6 months ago. He reneged.

Why don't you just cash some of those Mexican checks and start digging.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I don't get why the wall is such a big deal. Prominent Democrats have called for physical barriers in the past

In the other thread they were saying a barrier is different than a wall.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Walls work eh? Ever heard of El Chapo?

BTW - Why did this all of a sudden become a crisis on Jan 3 2019? Careful don't strain that little brain of yours. Republicans were quite content not funding the wall for 2 years. Go home.

The average illegal immigrant does not have the resources of El Chapo. A physical barrier is not the be all end all answer, but it will stop a lot of the low hanging fruit from entering illegally.

It is at crisis level now because politicians have been talking tough for years if not decades but doing little to nothing about the actual problem. Now Trump wants to do the same thing H. Clinton, B. Obama, C. Schumur, and N. Pelosi called for in the past.

Now your turn. Why is a physical barrier, a wall, the exact same things prominent Democrats called for in the past a crisis today worth shutting the government down over? The funding being asked for accounts for some .01% of our budget. Suddenly today the Democrats just can't spend a little money on something they've stated we need before?