Clear Cut Example of Media Bias

[srelick]

So I posted this yesterday on a thread and got very little reaction other than a like or two. I think this is a really good example of media bias and I want to hear what some others have to say about it...

"The thing with media bias is that it's not usually about whether or not the information is true or false. For example, Fox and other right-wing outlets do not generally report false info. From time to time, they do, but in fairness, so does CNN and basically every other outlet. The bias comes in the stories that they choose to report on and how they choose to frame them.

As an example...

After the November election, Alabama Senator-elect Tommy Tuberville incorrectly identified the three branches of government as the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency. The three branches, of course, are actually the Legislative Branch (the House and the Senate), the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. CNN went after him for what their host called "an alarming lack of knowledge about how they government works." They then went on to highlight his past as a football coach, seeming to imply that he lacks qualifications to be in Congress. The producers at CNN felt that this was newsworthy when it happened which is why they chose to spend airtime discussing it and chose to publish articles about it. Now in a vacuum, none of this seems biased. All of it is true and fair criticism.

Except that Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) did the exact same thing, referring to the three branches or chambers of government as the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. She was a newly-elected member of Congress at the time, and shortly after the midterms, she made that mistake.

When AOC did it, CNN gave it no coverage. They devoted no airtime to it and published no articles highlighting it. They decided it wasn't newsworthy.

The only thing that changed was which party the people belong to.

If CNN was unbiased, I would be able to go back and find articles and TV segments where they attacked AOC for this and highlighted the “alarming lack of knowledge” of a newly-elected Congresswoman ready to be sworn in soon. CNN would have highlighted that she was a waitress and implied that she lacks qualifications to be in Congress, just as they did with Tuberville’s past as a football coach.

Instead, they chose to ignore the story. Nothing they reported was false. They just simply decided to report on the mistake when a Republican did it but ignore it when a Democrat did it.

And that is media bias by CNN.

It's important to keep an open mind and understand that every outlet will inevitably have some biases. That's why it's important to read news from many sources from across the political spectrum to get the full picture."

 

[srelick]

As a quick side note too, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made the same mistake as well and also received no coverage from CNN.

 

[MamboDervish]

So I posted this yesterday on a thread and got very little reaction other than a like or two. I think this is a really good example of media bias and I want to hear what some others have to say about it...

"The thing with media bias is that it's not usually about whether or not the information is true or false. For example, Fox and other right-wing outlets do not generally report false info. From time to time, they do, but in fairness, so does CNN and basically every other outlet. The bias comes in the stories that they choose to report on and how they choose to frame them.

As an example...

After the November election, Alabama Senator-elect Tommy Tuberville incorrectly identified the three branches of government as the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency. The three branches, of course, are actually the Legislative Branch (the House and the Senate), the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. CNN went after him for what their host called "an alarming lack of knowledge about how they government works." They then went on to highlight his past as a football coach, seeming to imply that he lacks qualifications to be in Congress. The producers at CNN felt that this was newsworthy when it happened which is why they chose to spend airtime discussing it and chose to publish articles about it. Now in a vacuum, none of this seems biased. All of it is true and fair criticism.

Except that Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) did the exact same thing, referring to the three branches or chambers of government as the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. She was a newly-elected member of Congress at the time, and shortly after the midterms, she made that mistake.

When AOC did it, CNN gave it no coverage. They devoted no airtime to it and published no articles highlighting it. They decided it wasn't newsworthy.

The only thing that changed was which party the people belong to.

If CNN was unbiased, I would be able to go back and find articles and TV segments where they attacked AOC for this and highlighted the “alarming lack of knowledge” of a newly-elected Congresswoman ready to be sworn in soon. CNN would have highlighted that she was a waitress and implied that she lacks qualifications to be in Congress, just as they did with Tuberville’s past as a football coach.

Instead, they chose to ignore the story. Nothing they reported was false. They just simply decided to report on the mistake when a Republican did it but ignore it when a Democrat did it.

And that is media bias by CNN.

It's important to keep an open mind and understand that every outlet will inevitably have some biases. That's why it's important to read news from many sources from across the political spectrum to get the full picture."

While it certainly is true that the media's message cannot help but be slanted, this example is a false equivalence. Did you listen to the context of both quotes?

Tuberville is actually attempting to describe the three branches of government, and getting them wrong.
AOC misspoke, but she wasn't trying to describe the three branches of government. What she was talking about was the party's targets for elected officials that are up for grabs. The Judiciary Branch would not be included in that context.

 

[Redress]

work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress — rather, all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate and the House.

Our government wasn't set up for one group to have all three branches of government — wasn't set up that way. You know, the House, the Senate, and the executive.

Do you notice a difference? Chambers and branches are not the same thing. AOC was referring to elective chambers. Tuberville, well, it is unclear, but he looks most likely to be referring to the branches of government(it is what he said). It should also be noted that in the same interview he got WW2 wrong(it was not fighting against socialism, but fascism). He also said he was doing fundraising out of his governmental office, which is a federal crime.

Now, none of that disproves your claim. The problem is you have not proved your claim, and as the one making the claim, it is on you to do so. The problem with trying to prove your claim is that it makes alot of assumptions that may not be true. To give a kinda example: during the Gulf War, media coverage was very focused on the Gulf War, and not much focused on other things. So comparing coverage of similar events, one that happened during the Gulf War, and one that happened well after it, you could get a misleading picture of bias. There are simply tons of factors involved in what gets coverage. Isolating out all factors but bias is impossible.

And lastly, CNN is but one media source for news. If you do not like how CNN covers news, don't use it. Or better yet, use a multitude of sources to get you a fuller picture. I routinely read, in no particular order, Politico, The Hill, CNN, FOX, ABC, 538, Politifact, and Yahoo.

 

[Ringo Stalin]

Facebook said it would block announcements of any events scheduled for Biden's inauguration day in the White House and Capitol areas, as well as in the area of government offices in state capitals.
The last pieces of colorful tinsel from freedom of speech are flying away from the regime in the United States.

 

[srelick]

While it certainly is true that the media's message cannot help but be slanted, this example is a false equivalence. Did you listen to the context of both quotes?

Yes, the context of both of them was the same. AOC was discussing the concept of unified control of government vs. divided government (she was trying to motivate her voters by stressing the importance of Democrats controlling the House, the Senate, and the Presidency), and Tuberville was also discussing the idea of unified control vs. divided government (Tuberville seems to think divided government is a good thing for America, not having one party control the House, Senate, and White House). Each of them was discussing the idea of unified control of government vs. divided government.

Tuberville is actually attempting to describe the three branches of government, and getting them wrong.

No, he wasn't. Nowhere in his response does he attempt to describe the three branches of government. Here is the transcript of the question asked and Tuberville's response:

Interviewer: You mentioned the majorities and they are going to be razor thin. I mean, right now it looks like one or two seats in the Senate for Republicans, maybe 14 or 15 seats for Democrats in the House. And that’s as close as it’s been in a long, long time. Do you think the Democrats are going to have to work with Republicans and Republicans are going to have to work with Democrats? You see that being possibly a more productive situation?

Tuberville: Yeah and that’s how our government was set up. You know, our government wasn’t set up for one group to have all three of branches of government. It wasn’t set up that way, our three branches, the House, the Senate and executive.

You know, we’re up there to help the people of the country. I don’t care if you’re Republican or Democrat. And there’s so much division that I see right now on the Democrat side, not the Republican side. You’ve got groups that are far left and you got groups that are not as far left and you got your staunch Democrats that are closer to the middle. So I think the big problem they’re going have is getting their people on the straight and narrow.

Nowhere in his response does he attempt to describe the three branches of government. He was discussing the exact same concept AOC was discussing: unified control of government vs. divided government. The two, of course, have completely different opinions on which is best (and I'm sure Tuberville wouldn't mind unified control provided that is party was the one in control) but that's neither here nor there.

AOC misspoke

It seems you are being much more charitable to AOC than to Tuberville. Why is it misspeaking when she does it, but ignorance when Tuberville does it? Maybe Tuberville misspoke too.

but she wasn't trying to describe the three branches of government.

Neither was Tuberville.

What she was talking about was the party's targets for elected officials that are up for grabs.

So was Tuberville. A direct quote from the transcript:

INTERVIEWER: You mentioned the majorities and they are going to be razor thin. I mean, right now it looks like one or two seats in the Senate for Republicans, maybe 14 or 15 seats for Democrats in the House. And that’s as close as it’s been in a long, long time.

The interviewer and Tuberville were discussing the majorities of elected officials in each chamber of Congress in the aftermath of Biden's election victory as well as the party's targets for elected officials that were up for grabs in the Georgia Senate runoffs.

The question where Tuberville made the gaffe was a follow up from this previous question:

INTERVIEWER: You gonna go campaign in Georgia, help them out?

Tuberville promised that he would be doing so and then went on in his next answer to explain why he feels divided government is a good thing for the country. AOC had a completely different viewpoint, stressing to her viewers the importance that Democrats gain the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. The context is the exact same.

 

[srelick]

The Judiciary Branch would not be included in that context.

It would not be included in the context of Tuberville's discussion either. He and the interviewer were discussing the Congress and the majorities in each chamber.

The bottom line is that Tuberville made a gaffe in saying that the three branches of government were the House, the Senate, and the Executive. These are not the three branches of government. He should be called out for it. So should any other politician, Democrat or Republican, who makes a similar gaffe. There needs to be consistency, and there should be no double standard on this.

 

[MamboDervish]

It would not be included in the context of Tuberville's discussion either. He and the interviewer were discussing the Congress and the majorities in each chamber.

The bottom line is that Tuberville made a gaffe in saying that the three branches of government were the House, the Senate, and the Executive. These are not the three branches of government. He should be called out for it. So should any other politician, Democrat or Republican, who makes a similar gaffe. There needs to be consistency, and there should be no double standard on this.

I'll revisit the comparison later in the day when I have time, but after reading the transcript yesterday of Chuck Schumer's faux pas, I'm of the impression that his quote would have served as a better example. It is also my understanding that the timeframe of his quote was when he was already Senate Minority Leader. Much less forgivable, IMO.

In either event, I have no resource to determine exactly how much media coverage any of these silly errors actually garnered. I'd be relying on which entries are bumped up the Google search engine's list - and doesn't that depend on what a person's news source is?

 

[Peter King]

So I posted this yesterday on a thread and got very little reaction other than a like or two. I think this is a really good example of media bias and I want to hear what some others have to say about it...

"The thing with media bias is that it's not usually about whether or not the information is true or false. For example, Fox and other right-wing outlets do not generally report false info. From time to time, they do, but in fairness, so does CNN and basically every other outlet. The bias comes in the stories that they choose to report on and how they choose to frame them.

As an example...

After the November election, Alabama Senator-elect Tommy Tuberville incorrectly identified the three branches of government as the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency. The three branches, of course, are actually the Legislative Branch (the House and the Senate), the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. CNN went after him for what their host called "an alarming lack of knowledge about how they government works." They then went on to highlight his past as a football coach, seeming to imply that he lacks qualifications to be in Congress. The producers at CNN felt that this was newsworthy when it happened which is why they chose to spend airtime discussing it and chose to publish articles about it. Now in a vacuum, none of this seems biased. All of it is true and fair criticism.

Except that Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) did the exact same thing, referring to the three branches or chambers of government as the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. She was a newly-elected member of Congress at the time, and shortly after the midterms, she made that mistake.

When AOC did it, CNN gave it no coverage. They devoted no airtime to it and published no articles highlighting it. They decided it wasn't newsworthy.

The only thing that changed was which party the people belong to.

If CNN was unbiased, I would be able to go back and find articles and TV segments where they attacked AOC for this and highlighted the “alarming lack of knowledge” of a newly-elected Congresswoman ready to be sworn in soon. CNN would have highlighted that she was a waitress and implied that she lacks qualifications to be in Congress, just as they did with Tuberville’s past as a football coach.

Instead, they chose to ignore the story. Nothing they reported was false. They just simply decided to report on the mistake when a Republican did it but ignore it when a Democrat did it.

And that is media bias by CNN.

It's important to keep an open mind and understand that every outlet will inevitably have some biases. That's why it's important to read news from many sources from across the political spectrum to get the full picture."

I think it is logical for a 65/66 year old man to be held to a bit higher standard than a 28/29 year old woman. Maybe not totally fair but a bit understandable up to a point. A man more than twice her age is expected to hold a bit more life experience than AOC. Also, Tommy went for a place in the senate, a position that is higher in standing than a congresswoman/congressman.

 

[srelick]

I'll revisit the comparison later in the day when I have time, but after reading the transcript yesterday of Chuck Schumer's faux pas, I'm of the impression that his quote would have served as a better example.

I did include it in a follow up so that everyone could see that there is more than one precedent for this. I felt the AOC example was better because the situation is so remarkably similar--same gaffe, same context, same political situation (both just been elected as outsiders to their first term in Congress), same time of year (both about two weeks after the election), and because the AOC example is more recent. If I had only included the Chuck Schumer example, I'm sure someone else would be on here arguing that it's too long ago and it's irrelevant.

But either of them, in my opinion, illustrates the point.

It is also my understanding that the timeframe of his quote was when he was already Senate Minority Leader. Much less forgivable, IMO.

Agreed. It is perhaps even more ridiculous for someone who is literally a Leader of the Senate to make the mistake. It is, as you said, less forgivable.

However, I think it is completely fair for journalists to attack any member of Congress for doing this. They are elected to run our government and represent their constituents, so it's reasonable that they should understand the government.

Part of the reason I think the AOC example is better is because of their nearly identical political situations. Both had backgrounds that many would argue make them unqualified to serve in the Congress (AOC as a waitress and Tuberville as a football coach), and each had just been elected to serve in Congress for their first term.

It could be argued Schumer's mistake was even more of a gaffe because of his high-ranking position as Senate Minority Leader. However, I wanted this comparison to be as apples-to-apples as possible, and I think the AOC vs. Tuberville situation is about as apples-to-apples as it gets.

In either event, I have no resource to determine exactly how much media coverage any of these silly errors actually garnered.

I'm not discussing its coverage from all news sources, just CNN. I felt that comparing the coverage of the two gaffes from the same outlet was the most apples-to-apples way of doing it. I can easily find a CNN clip from TV discussing the Tuberville incident and yet I can find nothing from CNN on the AOC or Schumer slip-up. I remembered the AOC gaffe but did not remember hearing anything about it other than from decidedly right-wing outlets. If CNN did give coverage to the AOC gaffe (which it certainly could have), by all means, please link the article or clip. However, I don't think it exists. And if it does, I would almost guarantee it is entirely different in tone from the Tuberville coverage. If I am wrong, please send a link and I will be happy to change my mind.

I wanted to make the comparison as apples-to-apples as I possibly could. Same gaffe, same context, same individual political situation (outsiders with questionable credentials elected to Congress), same time of year (in the aftermath of their November election), same news outlet. The only relevant difference was their political parties. That seems to be the deciding factor in whether or not CNN chooses to cover it.

The AOC and Chuck Schumer gaffes did receive coverage. Just not from CNN. Right-wing outlets like the Blaze and Daily Wire certainly criticized her for it (and then were silent on the Tuberville mistake), but I just wanted to compare the coverage that each event got from the same outlet. Any type of comparison with media coverage has to be limited to a given number of outlets, since the media as a whole is practically endless.

 

[Vadinho]

Others have corrected the main thrust of this top post so I will only point out one simple truth about comparing a House member to a Senator. A House member is one of 435 with far less power then a Senator who is one of 50 and has extraordinary power relative to a House member. Therefore, the words and thoughts of any single Senator are far more important than a junior House member.

 

[srelick]

I'd be relying on which entries are bumped up the Google search engine's list

I don't see any reason that if CNN gave coverage to the AOC gaffe that it wouldn't still be available. The internet was alive and well in November 2018 when AOC made her slip-up, and I don't see why these articles or coverage--if they exist--would not still be available for us to look at.

Is Google hiding the CNN coverage so that no one can find it? I guess I can't prove that wrong, but it seems much, much, much more likely that CNN simply didn't report on it.

and doesn't that depend on what a person's news source is?

I'm not comparing every single news source in the world. Just one. I wanted to keep it as apples-to-apples as possible. Same gaffe, same individual political situation, same time of year, same outlet, different political parties. It does seem that the Tuberville incident received substantially more coverage from most major outlets, but that's a discussion for another post. There isn't an easy, objective way of quantifying it, so that's why I wanted to limit it to one outlet so that the comparison was simple and easy. If CNN is truly non-biased, as they claim to be, they should give similar coverage (in quantity and tone) to the two gaffes. They did not.

Again, I'm not saying there was no coverage of AOC or Schumer. Just not from CNN. I wanted to show this to demonstrate how bias works. Everyone has become obsessed with this idea of "fake news" and lying being the problem, but the overwhelming majority of media bias does not come in the form of fake news or made-up information. It is simply what stories they choose to cover and how they choose to frame the situation.

Two newly elected members of Congress who ran as outsiders with no government experience make the same gaffe. The only relevant difference was their political parties. CNN decided one was newsworthy and one was not. CNN decided to frame the story to portray Tuberville as ignorant and uninformed (which is not at all unfair), highlighting his past as a football coach, but chose not to do the same for AOC, who previously worked as a waitress.

Just looking for consistency.

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the interest

 

[phoenix2020]

Reading the transcripts of both statements, I think each made a gaffe, and it was a similar gaffe. I do not think being a senator makes one gaffe more egregious; IMO all members of Congress are supposed to reflect our best & brightest (quite often not the case) and should all be held to a high standard on matters such as these.

And yes the Fox/CNN mainstream media (they're both a part of it) does tend to have some reporting bias... Fox's avoidance of Tuberville's gaffe and CNN's avoidance of AOC's being. good examples if that's the case. This is why only people who routinely and equally pay attention to multiple media outlets across the spectrum will have the most well-rounded view of things.

 

[srelick]

I think it is logical for a 65/66 year old man to be held to a bit higher standard than a 28/29 year old woman.

I couldn't disagree more. Their age should make no difference (nor should their sex).

1. The reason that this is appalling is because they are in charge of one branch of our government. They should understand how it works. If AOC is too young to understand how the government works, she should not be serving in it. Both are serving in our government, and both should be expected to speak intelligently about it, regardless of age. As I said, if someone is too young to know the terminology about how the government works (which is stuff you learn in elementary school), then they are too young to serve in government.

2. Why should a 28/29 year old woman not have a 5th grade understanding of the federal government and the terminology about the branch she was just elected to?

A man more than twice her age is expected to hold a bit more life experience than AOC.

This is not a question of life experience, though. We are not discussing wisdom or life experience. We are discussing basic knowledge and terminology about how the government works. There is no reason any 28/29 year old should not know this (especially one about to be sworn into Congress). There is also no reason a 65/66 year old man should not know this either.

Also, Tommy went for a place in the senate, a position that is higher in standing than a congresswoman/congressman.

This a difference of degree and not of kind. The fact that the Senate is described as the "upper chamber" is not relevant here. If that was truly an important distinction that CNN was considering, then they would have simply given more coverage to the Tuberville case and less (but still some) coverage to the AOC case. They did not do that. They covered one and ignored the other.

Again, its a difference of degree and not of kind. Both are members of Congress, and both should be able to speak intelligently about our government. The fact that one belong to the Senate and one the House seems like a huge stretch to justify and rationalize this categorical difference in coverage.

You seem to be implying that members of the House of Representatives should not be expected to know about our government. I think it's pretty reasonable to criticize elected members of Congress for gaffes like this.

Even if this was relevant to my original point, how do you explain the Schumer gaffe? He was the Senate Minority Leader at the time and made the same mistake. Certainly, being Senate Minority Leader is a higher position (and deserves to be held to a higher standard) than a junior Senator-elect for the minority party. Shouldn't Schumer have gotten coverage (and much more than Tuberville)?

 

[MrWonka]

So I posted this yesterday on a thread and got very little reaction other than a like or two. I think this is a really good example of media bias and I want to hear what some others have to say about it...

"The thing with media bias is that it's not usually about whether or not the information is true or false. For example, Fox and other right-wing outlets do not generally report false info. From time to time, they do, but in fairness, so does CNN and basically every other outlet. The bias comes in the stories that they choose to report on and how they choose to frame them.

As an example...

After the November election, Alabama Senator-elect Tommy Tuberville incorrectly identified the three branches of government as the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency. The three branches, of course, are actually the Legislative Branch (the House and the Senate), the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. CNN went after him for what their host called "an alarming lack of knowledge about how they government works." They then went on to highlight his past as a football coach, seeming to imply that he lacks qualifications to be in Congress. The producers at CNN felt that this was newsworthy when it happened which is why they chose to spend airtime discussing it and chose to publish articles about it. Now in a vacuum, none of this seems biased. All of it is true and fair criticism.

Except that Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) did the exact same thing, referring to the three branches or chambers of government as the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. She was a newly-elected member of Congress at the time, and shortly after the midterms, she made that mistake.

When AOC did it, CNN gave it no coverage."

Citation needed. I can say with absolute confidence that if AOC made such a statement it is almost certainly a typo or a misunderstanding in what she was saying.

 

[srelick]

Reading the transcripts of both statements, I think each made a gaffe, and it was a similar gaffe. I do not think being a senator makes one gaffe more egregious; IMO all members of Congress are supposed to reflect our best & brightest (quite often not the case) and should all be held to a high standard on matters such as these.

And yes the Fox/CNN mainstream media (they're both a part of it) does tend to have some reporting bias... Fox's avoidance of Tuberville's gaffe and CNN's avoidance of AOC's being. good examples if that's the case. This is why only people who routinely and equally pay attention to multiple media outlets across the spectrum will have the most well-rounded view of things.

I could not agree more with what you said. Especially

Reading the transcripts of both statements, I think each made a gaffe, and it was a similar gaffe.

I think any honest assessment of the transcripts of both statements would demonstrate they are extremely similar gaffes.

I do not think being a senator makes one gaffe more egregious; IMO all members of Congress are supposed to reflect our best & brightest (quite often not the case) and should all be held to a high standard on matters such as these.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I think those arguing that the fact one was a Senator and one a member of the House somehow means it's a totally different situation are really stretching for a justification/rationalization for this. All member of Congress, regardless of age, party, or chamber, should understand how the federal government works.


I wanted to point this out to exemplify why it's important to have a well-rounded media diet and to consume news from different sources. Right-wing outlets ignored the Tuberville gaffe. Left-wing outlets ignored the AOC and Schumer gaffes. Reading both sides of the spectrum as well as more centrist outlets should give someone a more complete picture of what's going on in the world.

 

[MamboDervish]

I don't see any reason that if CNN gave coverage to the AOC gaffe that it wouldn't still be available. The internet was alive and well in November 2018 when AOC made her slip-up, and I don't see why these articles or coverage--if they exist--would not still be available for us to look at.

Is Google hiding the CNN coverage so that no one can find it? I guess I can't prove that wrong, but it seems much, much, much more likely that CNN simply didn't report on it.


I'm not comparing every single news source in the world. Just one. I wanted to keep it as apples-to-apples as possible. Same gaffe, same individual political situation, same time of year, same outlet, different political parties. It does seem that the Tuberville incident received substantially more coverage from most major outlets, but that's a discussion for another post. There isn't an easy, objective way of quantifying it, so that's why I wanted to limit it to one outlet so that the comparison was simple and easy. If CNN is truly non-biased, as they claim to be, they should give similar coverage (in quantity and tone) to the two gaffes. They did not.

Again, I'm not saying there was no coverage of AOC or Schumer. Just not from CNN. I wanted to show this to demonstrate how bias works. Everyone has become obsessed with this idea of "fake news" and lying being the problem, but the overwhelming majority of media bias does not come in the form of fake news or made-up information. It is simply what stories they choose to cover and how they choose to frame the situation.

Two newly elected members of Congress who ran as outsiders with no government experience make the same gaffe. The only relevant difference was their political parties. CNN decided one was newsworthy and one was not. CNN decided to frame the story to portray Tuberville as ignorant and uninformed (which is not at all unfair), highlighting his past as a football coach, but chose not to do the same for AOC, who previously worked as a waitress.

Just looking for consistency.

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the interest

Hmm. Well . . . . . I guess you've made your point. Still . . . . it strikes me as less than apples and apples. Perhaps we're looking at different videos. Here's the clip of AOC I was reacting to.



She's very clearly referring to "working our butts off" attempting to take back what she misdescribed as "3 chambers", when clearly she's not referring to anything other than elected positions. Her quote is entirely in the context of political efforts to win congressional seats, and win the White House, and has nothing whatever to do with the Judiciary. Granted, it is a faux pas, and perhaps I'm cutting her more slack than I should. None of us is born knowing these things. We have to learn them all, and learning is certainly a function of how long we've been on this planet. In that respect, she's not even half the age of Tuberville. She was only 29 when she made the comment. I think at well over twice her age, I'm inclined to cut him much less slack than the kid. Hell, he's almost as old as I am. He should've known better.

But hey - it is what it is, and our observations are largely academic. You've certainly made your point, and I appreciate the efforts you took to defend your position. Thanks for the thoughtful response.



Post Script.
I just read up the thread and saw that someone else made the point about the age difference. Well .... it cuts both ways. While it's true that elected officials should have some baseline knowledge about the government they serve in, can anyone make a claim that it is somehow better to be older and still not have such basic knowledge? I don't think so.

 

[srelick]

Others have corrected the main thrust of this top post

Please refer to the transcripts that I posted above.

I will only point out one simple truth about comparing a House member to a Senator. A House member is one of 435 with far less power then a Senator who is one of 50 and has extraordinary power relative to a House member. Therefore, the words and thoughts of any single Senator are far more important than a junior House member.

1. This is a difference of degree and not of kind used to justify a categorical difference in coverage. Members of the House have political authority in our federal government. Even if it is slightly less (both chambers must pass bills), they are not powerless. Therefore, if this is truly CNN's rationale behind what they deem newsworthy, then they should simply give the member of the Senate slightly more coverage than the member of the House. But they didn't. They ignored one and covered the other.
2. Being a member of the United States House of Representatives is a tremendous honor and a distinction which only 435 Americans--out of more than 300 million--can claim. You make it sound as if being in the House is no big deal. You make it sound like it's only a slight step up from student council (I'm exaggerating, don't be mad). The House of Representatives can literally stop legislation from becoming law. That's a tremendous amount of power for just 435 people. These should be the best and brightest.
3. I personally think this is nothing more than rationalization to try and justify the disparity in coverage. Do you really believe that if the situation were reversed and it was a Democratic Senator (like Chuck Schumer) and a Republican member of the House that CNN would have covered the Senator and ignored the member of the House? I wouldn't bet on it. Do you think if this situation were reversed and it were Fox News covering a Democratic Senator's gaffe and ignoring a Republican House member's gaffe, that you would be defending it like this? Again, I wouldn't bet on it.
4. How do you explain away the Schumer gaffe? He was the Senate Minority Leader at the time. A more prestigious position than a junior Senator for the minority party.

I truly do not think this is an important distinction to be made (and even if it is, refer to #4). Both are incredibly powerful people compared to any of us, and each of them was elected to represent us. They should be held to a high standard, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask members of Congress, regardless of age, party, or chamber, to understand the basic terminology about the federal government.

a Senator who is one of 50

No, they aren't. There are 100 Senators. Each Senator is one of 100.

 

[phoenix2020]

I wanted to point this out to exemplify why it's important to have a well-rounded media diet and to consume news from different sources. Right-wing outlets ignored the Tuberville gaffe. Left-wing outlets ignored the AOC and Schumer gaffes. Reading both sides of the spectrum as well as more centrist outlets should give someone a more complete picture of what's going on in the world.

I agree with the general thesis of your post and do not agree with some of the rationalizations that there is a difference. I do wonder if it is at least partly in reaction to the OP which in this charged political climate tends to read as another rote bashing of the "lefty media" e.g. not taking Fox or Newsmax to task for showing the same bias. I do see in your subsequent posts a acknowledgement / reflection of this reality but had I not seen it, I wonder if I might have reacted somewhat differently...

 

[Lutherf]

So I posted this yesterday on a thread and got very little reaction other than a like or two. I think this is a really good example of media bias and I want to hear what some others have to say about it...

"The thing with media bias is that it's not usually about whether or not the information is true or false. For example, Fox and other right-wing outlets do not generally report false info. From time to time, they do, but in fairness, so does CNN and basically every other outlet. The bias comes in the stories that they choose to report on and how they choose to frame them.

As an example...

After the November election, Alabama Senator-elect Tommy Tuberville incorrectly identified the three branches of government as the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency. The three branches, of course, are actually the Legislative Branch (the House and the Senate), the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. CNN went after him for what their host called "an alarming lack of knowledge about how they government works." They then went on to highlight his past as a football coach, seeming to imply that he lacks qualifications to be in Congress. The producers at CNN felt that this was newsworthy when it happened which is why they chose to spend airtime discussing it and chose to publish articles about it. Now in a vacuum, none of this seems biased. All of it is true and fair criticism.

Except that Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) did the exact same thing, referring to the three branches or chambers of government as the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. She was a newly-elected member of Congress at the time, and shortly after the midterms, she made that mistake.

When AOC did it, CNN gave it no coverage. They devoted no airtime to it and published no articles highlighting it. They decided it wasn't newsworthy.

The only thing that changed was which party the people belong to.

If CNN was unbiased, I would be able to go back and find articles and TV segments where they attacked AOC for this and highlighted the “alarming lack of knowledge” of a newly-elected Congresswoman ready to be sworn in soon. CNN would have highlighted that she was a waitress and implied that she lacks qualifications to be in Congress, just as they did with Tuberville’s past as a football coach.

Instead, they chose to ignore the story. Nothing they reported was false. They just simply decided to report on the mistake when a Republican did it but ignore it when a Democrat did it.

And that is media bias by CNN.

It's important to keep an open mind and understand that every outlet will inevitably have some biases. That's why it's important to read news from many sources from across the political spectrum to get the full picture."

The media in this nation, broadcast, cable and social, are merely platforms for political propaganda. Even Hollywood indulges themselves in the propaganda process.

To be fair, it's always been that way to some extent but these days, with the impact of social media on the other formats, it's become a LOT more pronounced.

 

[Vadinho]

Please refer to the transcripts that I posted above.




1. This is a difference of degree and not of kind used to justify a categorical difference in coverage. Members of the House have political authority in our federal government. Even if it is slightly less (both chambers must pass bills), they are not powerless. Therefore, if this is truly CNN's rationale behind what they deem newsworthy, then they should simply give the member of the Senate slightly more coverage than the member of the House. But they didn't. They ignored one and covered the other.
2. Being a member of the United States House of Representatives is a tremendous honor and a distinction which only 435 Americans--out of more than 300 million--can claim. You make it sound as if being in the House is no big deal. You make it sound like it's only a slight step up from student council (I'm exaggerating, don't be mad). The House of Representatives can literally stop legislation from becoming law. That's a tremendous amount of power for just 435 people. These should be the best and brightest.
3. I personally think this is nothing more than rationalization to try and justify the disparity in coverage. Do you really believe that if the situation were reversed and it was a Democratic Senator (like Chuck Schumer) and a Republican member of the House that CNN would have covered the Senator and ignored the member of the House? I wouldn't bet on it. Do you think if this situation were reversed and it were Fox News covering a Democratic Senator's gaffe and ignoring a Republican House member's gaffe, that you would be defending it like this? Again, I wouldn't bet on it.
4. How do you explain away the Schumer gaffe? He was the Senate Minority Leader at the time. A more prestigious position than a junior Senator for the minority party.

I truly do not think this is an important distinction to be made (and even if it is, refer to #4). Both are incredibly powerful people compared to any of us, and each of them was elected to represent us. They should be held to a high standard, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask members of Congress, regardless of age, party, or chamber, to understand the basic terminology about the federal government.



No, they aren't. There are 100 Senators. Each Senator is one of 100.

At the core of your message is what about this guy, its a common right wing trope suggesting to the viewer that the message should be tempered by some other message that was made or ignored. It is akin to a mother hearing from a son that she is not treating him fairly because his little brother did X and she did nothing. The news is chosen by journalists for us to consume, in that you are correct. What they choose to give us is a subjective decision. If in your world the only news fit to print shows both sides (sides defined by your political desires or wishes) then the news would be similar to a conversation between parents and children. So lets say everyone operated as you wished. How would the news portray Donalds speech last week on the 6th? To me no other speech is needed to grasp what he said. To you one must find a left wing speech anywhere in the archives to balance what Trump said. is that news to you or do you want to keep pushing that rope uphill?

 

[srelick]

She's very clearly referring to "working our butts off" attempting to take back what she misdescribed as "3 chambers", when clearly she's not referring to anything other than elected positions. Her quote is entirely in the context of political efforts to win congressional seats, and win the White House, and has nothing whatever to do with the Judiciary.

This is exactly what Tuberville and the interviewer were discussing, too. As shown in the transcripts above, Tuberville was asked about the upcoming Georgia runoff elections that would determine control of the Senate and if he would be going there to campaign for the two Republican candidates. He explained that he would and then went on in his next answer to emphasize how important it is that one party does not control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. He is clearly not referring to anything other than elected positions either. Yet his mistake was his mistake, and he should own it and be called out for it. So should a Democrat when he or she makes that mistake.

I'm surprised anyone would say that this is not a fair comparison of almost identical gaffes.

Granted, it is a faux pas, and perhaps I'm cutting her more slack than I should.

I definitely think you are. Just ask yourself, Would I be defending a Republican in the House if he or she made this same mistake and CNN called them out for it? You're absolutely entitled to like or dislike either of these politicians, but I think we all should be intellectually honest with ourselves and each other and hold every politician--regardless of party or age--to the same standard (which should, in my opinion, be a very high one, given that they literally make the rules that all of us have to follow).

I'm inclined to cut him much less slack than the kid

AOC is not a kid. She's not a 6th grade on student council. She is a 31-year-old member of the United States Congress that helps make the laws that 300 million of us are required to follow. I think you're being way, way, way too charitable to her.

None of us is born knowing these things. We have to learn them all, and learning is certainly a function of how long we've been on this planet.

This is information that kids learn in elementary school. I think it's silly to make excuses for a member of the United States Congress not knowing this. As I said before, if you're too young to know about how the government works (and btw, I don't believe 28 is too young to be expected to have an elementary understanding of the federal government), then you simply should not be in Congress. It's serious business governing 300 million people, and she shouldn't get a handicap for her young age. Every member of Congress should be held to the same standard. If she can't figure out how the government works until she is older, then she should wait until she is older to serve in government. End of story.

These people are both grown ups. There is literally zero excuse for either of them to not know, especially given that they want to serve in the government. I just find it absurd for people on here to be defending a member of Congress not knowing this.

Even if you really wanted to stick to this age argument, it is still a difference of degree and not of kind. Even if this age argument held any water (which in my opinion, it doesn't), they should have simply covered it less or covered it with a more forgiving tone. They didn't though. They covered one and ignored the other.

Hell, he's almost as old as I am. He should've known better.

Well, AOC is older than I am, and she undoubtedly should have known better. That is my only point. There should be no excuses made for either of them.

 

[srelick]

While it's true that elected officials should have some baseline knowledge about the government they serve in

That's exactly it. They should know the basics of the government they serve it. If you're too young to understand our government, then you're too young to serve in it. Period.

(I am not, to be clear, arguing 28 is too young to serve in Congress. I am arguing 28 is too old to still not understand our government)

can anyone make a claim that it is somehow better to be older and still not have such basic knowledge? I don't think so.

Well, you could. You could argue that since most people learn this at a very young age (in elementary school and certainly by junior high), the older man is further removed from this age group and should be less likely to remember this. (If you pay any attention to politics, which people running for office should, you shouldn't need to remember this from 5th grade.)

Now, I would never make such an argument, because it's completely absurd. Everyone adult American should know how our government works, and every single member of Congress should absolutely understand the basics of it. Suggesting anything else, as far as I'm concerned, is ludicrous.

But hey - it is what it is, and our observations are largely academic. You've certainly made your point, and I appreciate the efforts you took to defend your position. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Agreed! I definitely enjoyed hearing yours and others' thoughts on this. I appreciate the time, and I hope to hear more from you in the future

 

[srelick]

I agree with the general thesis of your post and do not agree with some of the rationalizations that there is a difference.

I am glad to hear I'm not the only one who finds some of these rationalizations to be a huge stretch. Several others on this forum have also pointed out that many of the defenses on here are rather silly, so it's definitely reassuring to know that many (probably most) people do understand and agree with my original point. It seems like people who are centrist/independent or on the right will identify this as a double standard, and those who aren't inclined to see it that way will choose to deny it.

I do wonder if it is at least partly in reaction to the OP which in this charged political climate tends to read as another rote bashing of the "lefty media" e.g. not taking Fox or Newsmax to task for showing the same bias. I do see in your subsequent posts a acknowledgement / reflection of this reality but had I not seen it, I wonder if I might have reacted somewhat differently...

That's a really great point you make. Perhaps I should have tried to clarify some of this in my original post.

Unfortunately, it seems like every criticism of either side you make today has to be prefaced with "both sides do it." Otherwise, half of the people will claim it's fake and deny it. Fox and Newmax are of course biased too, and I have absolutely no problem pointing that out. I'm not sure why some people are so defensive of their preferred news outlets.

In the future, I'll be sure to try to clarify myself in my original post.

Thanks for the feedback!

 

[upsideguy]

Facebook said it would block announcements of any events scheduled for Biden's inauguration day in the White House and Capitol areas, as well as in the area of government offices in state capitals.
The last pieces of colorful tinsel from freedom of speech are flying away from the regime in the United States.

Here is a terrific article on the 1st amendment. Why not brush up on you knowledge of the subject and then try to explain why your post has anything to do with free speech.

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the rights you think it does | CNN Politics

Let's look at some common First Amendment arguments, illuminated and debunked by constitutional experts.

www.cnn.com