At the core of your message is what about this guy
Since apparently you didn't even read what I wrote, here is a quote from my original post along with several other comments I have made since:
All of it is true and fair criticism.
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.
CNN decided to frame the story to portray Tuberville as ignorant and uninformed (which is not at all unfair)
I am not defending Tuberville's idiotic comments. The man is clearly in over his head. He deserved every word of criticism that he was given. None of it was unfair or unwarranted.
My point was that AOC also deserved this type of criticism for her gaffe. There should not be a different standard when a Democrat does it.
its a common right wing trope
Give me a break
suggesting to the viewer that the message should be tempered by some other message that was made or ignored.
That's not what I'm suggesting. What I am suggesting is that if CNN were truly an unbiased actor, they would have been critical of AOC's gaffe when she made it in 2018. I am not suggesting that in November of 2020 when Tuberville made his gaffe they should have then watered it down by pointing out that AOC did it. They should have simply reported on AOC's mistake in November 2018 when she made the mistake. If it wasn't newsworthy then, it's not newsworthy now. There was undoubtedly more going on in the world in November 2020 than there was in November 2018. A deadly global pandemic, the aftermath of a presidential election where the loser will not accept the results and is fighting them in court, racial tensions peaking. Yet they were able to find a way to squeeze in some coverage of Tuberville's gaffe. Why couldn't they do that in November 2018?
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.
If a Democrat does X, it's not newsworthy.
If a Republican does X, it is newsworthy.
That doesn't seem like a double standard?
If in your world the only news fit to print shows both sides (sides defined by your political desires or wishes)
I don't think that every time they criticize a Republican, they should follow it up with a corresponding criticism of a Democrat, or vice versa. I'm not in any way, shape, or form implying or suggesting that. What I am arguing is that if a gaffe by a Republican is worthy of airtime and worthy of criticism, then so is the same gaffe by a Democrat. It's not that they need to reported together. CNN should have discussed AOC's in November 2018 and then discussed this one in November 2020, or they should have ignored both of them. That's the only fair standard.
It seems clear that what CNN considers newsworthy depends partially on which party the news benefits and which party the news makes look bad. If it wasn't worthy of airtime when AOC did it, then it's not worthy of airtime now. It seems like a clear double standard to say otherwise.
What they choose to give us is a subjective decision.
That's what makes it so susceptible to bias. That is why we need to really critically think about what we read and see in the news and have a balanced diet of news.
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.
They would not need to portray it as anything other than what it was--which was a sitting President riling up agitators at a rally who then went and stormed the U.S. Capitol in what was essentially an attempted coup.
Of course no other speech is needed. Furthermore, no such a speech exists because no president has ever done that before.
If a Democratic President or high-ranking official did the same thing, I would expect to see the exact same amount of coverage and the exact same criticism. An outlet should not be easier or harder on a politician just because of the party that they belong to. If they are, that would be a bias.