Ah, those moving goal posts.
You have talked about "so-called liberal media bias" & "D
league" "crap from the right just doesn't get noticed"
"because it gets dismissed along with the alien abductees",
"The NYT could never get away with a smidgeon of the crap
that comes from the right" and all points in between.
I have simply asked for a couple of genuine egregious
examples of mainstream conservative media bias. You simply
have done everything to avoid providing something that
should be very easy to provide.
FWIW, these are your own words & they stand in stark
contrast with what you just posted. Please read it for
yourself & consider my comments at the end......
"You don't even know if they're biased unless you study other reports and compare them."
Earlier today you said....
"If the media on the right don't deny their bias, what
are we to make of the "fair and balanced" mantra, which
asserts a lack of bias?....If the media on the right don't
deny it, isn't Fox being not only hypocritical but
needling about it?"
Or this....
"How, then, should I process claims that all the bias is on the left? That ask for proof of bias on the right..... What boggles my mind is the assertion that the big media are biased lefties but the news that comes from other sources is accurate and reflects reality. How do I respond to that?"
or this....
Re Le Monde, the French ARE marxist. And that's relevant to the question of bias in US papers, how? You assert that the NYT has a marxist lens. If you mean that their articles sometimes seem to accept redistributionism as a value, yeah, they really should do something about that. So, what about "the problem the so-called liberal media has"?
And of course this real gem.....
All of your major newspapers are quite cosmopolitan in their POV. <font size=4>They are big city newspapers and big city people are cosmopolitan. "Cosmopolitan" comes across as "liberal" to social conservatives. Those newspapers may be moderate to conservative in their editorial positions.<font size=3> The Post, my hometown paper, certainly is. But they will still look liberal to social conservatives because of the cosmopolitan bent.....
....The other part of the perceived bias is more valid, I think. As has been pointed out the majority of reporters for those papers are politically liberal and they look at news with that eye. Unless the editors are rigorous about separating news from opinion, some of there stories will have a liberal bias.....
<font size=4>
....The rest of the liberal bias, IMO, is in the eye of the beholder. Absolutism is a part of the rightie psyche. Maybe it's the religion thing. I don't know. But absolutists seem to think that anything that doesn't agree with them is wrong. I don't have a clue what can be done about that.....<font size=3>
....If we are to compare the bias of these newspapers against the equivalent from the right, to what would we compare it. There aren't any major newspapers without this POV.....
<font size=4>
....The news voice of the right is Fox News, the internet news sites, and blogs.<font size=3> It's too hard to compare TV news channels because of the format so we can forget that. <font size=4>So that leaves us comparing the Post against worldnetdaily and its ilk and blogs.....<font size=3>
....So that's the problem with trying to do an objective comparison--no real basis for comparison. <font size=4>The other problem with my undertaking what you propose is that you have not indicated the remotest receptivity to the possibility that there is bias on your side, too. You continue to label your POV "reality" and your opinions, facts. I am not sufficiently masochistic to talk to walls.....
....That's because there's a double standard. "People" expect less from the D League so it doesn't get the same scrutiny or the same outrage..... The upstart is naturally pugilistic and audacious, thus we have a different expectations from what we would expect from the old pro. Plus a lot of the crap from the right just doesn't get noticed because, as you say, they don't have the reach, or because it gets dismissed along with the alien abductees. I only see it because I read this thread. The NYT could never get away with a smidgeon of the crap that comes from the right.<font size=3> That doesn't make the flaws of the major papers acceptable. It just means that the people who produce the news and the people who complain about it are both applying a double standard.....
I'll stop there. You see, well, you don't see, or you are
pretending real hard not to see you are biased. And you
perceive the right is biased without providing anything
more than your say so. To me it looks like you want to
maintain your POV without really having any evidence to
support it. And you do this in the face of plenty of
evidence that your POV simply does not hold water.
A new story is either biased or it isn't based on how it
is written & what is, or is not reported.
No one here regularly attempts to compare one media outlet
with another when they see & report on media bias. In
fact, we report on most news reports based solely on what
that individual report said. Any comparisons to other
reports are often to establish things like distortions,
lies & misrepresentations.
So Karen, I'll say it again. It should be really easy to
find a couple of egregious examples of mainstream media
bias. You are on record saying it exists. Please show me.
TIA |
