• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clear Cut Example of Media Bias

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.
 
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?
I have never said or suggested that. Please see my above comments.


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?

No. After Trump's speech, he deserved to be criticized for what he said. If a Democratic president in the future does the exact same thing (which none ever has and I doubt any ever would), then he or she deserves the exact same condemnation. There should be no double standard depending on which political party the President belongs to. That was what my original post was about.
 
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?

Now you lost me. Until this post I thought you were trying to make a balanced point about right media being biased and left media being biased. However your entire post, rather than presenting this broad argument, seems to be focused almost entirely on "Democrats bad, CNN bad" which sounds awfully partisan and, frankly, no different from the dozen other "MSM is lefty!" cries posted both here and in FoxNews.com article comments daily.

After all, you seem to take offense to AOC not being called out on this when she was roundly called out for it on multiple media outlets including the one with the greatest aggregate viewership. Would you not agree that if a gaffe committed by a Democrat is called out, a gaffe committed by a Republican should also be called out equally? Then, how do you feel about OANN's coverage of Tuberville?

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.

I think the bar is a lot higher for Democratic Presidents. They draw outrage from the media for wearing tan suits.
 
Last edited:
The issue isn't worth my time. Bias, hypocrisy, good Lord man, find something that matters.
 
Now you lost me. Until this post I thought you were trying to make a balanced point about right media being biased and left media being biased.

Yes, that is my overall point. However, I was only discussing this one instance of bias that I noticed by CNN. I simply presented what I felt was a straight forward example of bias by CNN, and several people have challenged me on it, defending CNN and claiming that this is not an example of bias. I replied by explaining why I feel it is a really straight forward example. The quote that you cited above where I said how if a Democrat does X, it's not newsworthy, but if a Republican does X, then it is newsworthy was meant to apply to CNN's standards of newsworthiness.

My post was meant to apply to no other outlet than CNN, not the "Mainstream Media" (whatever that may mean. I was actually considering asking about that term in a new thread because I think the term makes no sense to begin with).


I would be happy to post similar examples from Fox or Daily Wire or any right-wing outlet like that. (You mentioned Newmax earlier, but I personally think Newsmax is beyond biased, and I don't really see any point in highlighting some simple example of bias in something that to me seems like borderline fake news. If you don't see bias in Newsmax just by reading it, I don't think I will ever convince you of that. The same could probably be said of extremely left-wing outlets, but I don't know of any off the top of my head.)


However your entire post, rather than presenting this broad argument, seems to be focused almost entirely on "Democrats bad, CNN bad" which sounds awfully partisan and, frankly, no different from the dozen other "MSM is lefty!" cries posted both here and in FoxNews.com article comments daily.

I never meant to highlight that Democrats are bad. (I mean, they are, but so are Republicans.) I simply wanted to explain that the left and right both have their biased outlets, and bias does not mean fake news or lying. It is simply through the stories outlets choose to cover and how they choose to frame them. I will provide a similar example in the near future of a right-wing bias from another outlet to further illustrate the point.

I hope this helps clarify.
 
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."

Yep, that is how the vast majority of media bias occurs - by simple omission. Careful selection (presentation?) of ‘newsworthy’ events can lead to the viewer getting a very different impression of ‘reality’.

Getting the “full picture” is also difficult because most events are not covered by any (left, right or somewhere in between) ‘news’ media. For example: how many unarmed white folks getting shot or beaten by police ever ‘make the news’? If one only (or mainly) sees news reports of unarmed black folks getting shot or beaten by police then it is going to be assumed to be more prevalent than it actually is.
 
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."
So they lie through omission not commission. They are typically leaving out important parts of stories.
 
Chambers and branches are not the same thing.
There are not three chambers of government. There are two chambers of Congress, and there are three branches of government. There are not three chambers of government any more than there are the three branches of government are the House, Senate, and Presidency. Tuberville deserved to be called out for his gaffe, and so did AOC.


AOC was referring to elective chambers.

There are not three chambers. There are two chambers of Congress plus the presidency.

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).
No, he was referring to the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, just as AOC was. As I discussed earlier in the thread...

Tuberville was asked about the upcoming Georgia Senate runoffs that would determine control of the Senate and would decide whether or not Democrats would have unified control of government. He said he would be campaigning for the Republican candidates and then went on to stress all the benefits of divided government.

He incorrectly called the House, the Senate, and Executive the three branches of government. He deserved to be called out. So did AOC. People elected to serve in government should be able to intelligently discuss the basic concepts about government.


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.
None of that is relevant. He deserved to be called out for each of those stupid comments too, and AOC did not, because she did not give an idiotic and inaccurate description of history, nor did she say she would raise money out of her office. I never suggested they deserved equal criticism over that because Tuberville made the idiotic comment about WWII and AOC did not. They should not just criticize Democrats just to "keep it balanced."



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.
I never claimed this was "proof" of anything. I simply think it is an instance that exemplifies how outlets can be biased in more subtle ways than just reporting false information. They show biases (on the left and right) through story selection and framing. It could certainly be viewed as evidence of a left-wing bias at CNN, but that's not really my main point.



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.
I certainly agree that surrounding events can influence how much coverage something can get. However, I think that there was a lot more going on in November 2020 than in November 2018. November 2020 was arguably the craziest time in recent history, with a global pandemic ravaging the nation, a president refusing to accept the results of an election loss and litigating in court, racial tensions causing chaos, the economy in ruins, civil unrest over the results of the election with tens of millions saying they don't believe the results of the election. They managed to find time to cover this gaffe though. I don't see why they couldn't have squeezed it in in November 2018 when much less was going on.


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.

I think it's best to get a wide variety of sources, including extremely left and right ones sometimes. It's also important to remember that they all have biases, and these biases can be subtle. I, like you, try to read many sources to get the fullest picture possible.

I appreciate the reply. Thank you for your interest :)
 
After all, you seem to take offense to AOC not being called out on this when she was roundly called out for it on multiple media outlets including the one with the greatest aggregate viewership. Would you not agree that if a gaffe committed by a Democrat is called out, a gaffe committed by a Republican should also be called out equally? Then, how do you feel about OANN's coverage of Tuberville?

Of course OANN should call out Tuberville, but OANN is complete trash that is essentially just fake news. They are infinitely more biased than CNN, and I don't think it is fair to compare those two outlets.

I didn't mean for this to come off as an "MSM" complaint post. I simply wanted to point out an example of bias in media that isn't lying or fake news. A better analogy would be comparing Fox's coverage (since that is more analogous to CNN) of the same event where I imagine (though I haven't looked this up) they probably reported on AOC's gaffe but ignored Tuberville's. That is bias, just as is CNN's, and it deserves scrutiny.
 
Of course OANN should call out Tuberville, but OANN is complete trash that is essentially just fake news. They are infinitely more biased than CNN, and I don't think it is fair to compare those two outlets.

I didn't mean for this to come off as an "MSM" complaint post. I simply wanted to point out an example of bias in media that isn't lying or fake news. A better analogy would be comparing Fox's coverage (since that is more analogous to CNN) of the same event where I imagine (though I haven't looked this up) they probably reported on AOC's gaffe but ignored Tuberville's. That is bias, just as is CNN's, and it deserves scrutiny.

OK thank you. I can get behind all that... (y)
 
Media bias?

I just saw a liberal journalist say the the light reflecting off the flags surrounding the pool at the Lincoln Memorial made him think that it looks like Biden extending his arms trying to embrace America.

Lol


This is they type of idiocy we will see for at least the next six months.
 
OK thank you. I can get behind all that... (y)

And as for one last comment on it, there are of course too many outlets out there for me to discuss how each of them covered the two gaffes. I wanted to just focus on one outlet, and in this instance I chose CNN and showed how they exemplified a clear left-wing bias. I could have practically written a research paper if I had discussed how every single outlet covered it. Limiting it to one outlet made it a simpler point to exemplify the phenomena I'm talking about. I could probably find examples of nearly every single outlet doing the same thing, but I can't do it in one post. It was one event and focused on how one outlet covered it. That's the most apples-to-apples way I could possibly do it. You asked about why I'm not calling out other outlets for demonstrating bias in this instance, but like I said, I can't discuss them all. I was only discussing CNN's coverage. I'll save my criticism for other outlets (left or right) for other posts.
 
And as for one last comment on it, there are of course too many outlets out there for me to discuss how each of them covered the two gaffes. I wanted to just focus on one outlet, and in this instance I chose CNN and showed how they exemplified a clear left-wing bias. I could have practically written a research paper if I had discussed how every single outlet covered it. Limiting it to one outlet made it a simpler point to exemplify the phenomena I'm talking about. I could probably find examples of nearly every single outlet doing the same thing, but I can't do it in one post. It was one event and focused on how one outlet covered it. That's the most apples-to-apples way I could possibly do it. You asked about why I'm not calling out other outlets for demonstrating bias in this instance, but like I said, I can't discuss them all. I was only discussing CNN's coverage. I'll save my criticism for other outlets (left or right) for other posts.
Fox is right wing biased....but I am only discussing that media outlet
 
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.

"... It doesn't apply to private organizations, like Twitter and Facebook, so those companies can ban speech the First Amendment would otherwise protect. "

Clear. These are private organizations... And so their leaders are forced to come to Congress and they are taught how to behave there?
I know hypocrisy is the birthmark of American capitalism, but still, try to use makeup to cover it up. It looks disgusting.
 
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."

With all due respect, CNN is acknowledged as being biased.

Many people (including me) have not watched that channel for four years and will continue to ignore its existence.

With Mr. Biden occupying the White House, CNN will really become boring, for it has already admitted that it will NOT be examining his administration.

In order to keep viewers, you know whom it WILL be examining. No doubt the "journalists" there are already salivating over how they are going to exploit former President Trump's legal problems in order to maintain high ratings from the Trump haters.
 
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."

funny you should mention: Donald Trump staged an insurrection and the biggest news channel in America - Fox - barely covered.

MSM got a lotta explainin to do.
 
With all due respect, CNN is acknowledged as being biased.

Many people (including me) have not watched that channel for four years and will continue to ignore its existence.


With Mr. Biden occupying the White House, CNN will really become boring, for it has already admitted that it will NOT be examining his administration.

In order to keep viewers, you know whom it WILL be examining. No doubt the "journalists" there are already salivating over how they are going to exploit former President Trump's legal problems in order to maintain high ratings from the Trump haters.

“I don’t watch this thing I am now criticizing in a very specific way.”
 
Fox is right wing biased....but I am only discussing that media outlet

I'm the one who made the original post, and as I explained, I was highlighting how two similar events were covered by the same outlet.

I plan on creating additional threads on media bias from other outlets, including Fox. If you want to start a thread discussing Fox News bias, please do so. I don't think it's productive to discuss how every single outlet covers two different events, however, because there are simply too many outlets to talk about them all.

Hope this clarifies.
 
the biggest news channel in America - Fox -
The most-watched news in America, based on viewership, are ABC News, NBC News, and CBS News. They are commonly referred to as the "Big 3" because many years ago, they were pretty much the only three news channels around.


funny you should mention: Donald Trump staged an insurrection and the biggest news channel in America - Fox - barely covered.

Here are 10 examples of them covering it:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fz2aHU4A2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I2kJivBFfU


I don't think this is as good an example of media bias as you probably think. Plenty of things to criticize Fox for. This does not seem like one of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom