Any bias in the American media is right-wing, not left-wing

Politruk

Loves Spam
Joined
Oct 13, 2024
Posts
18,471
If you ever look into the complaints of RW watchdogs like Accuracy in Media, it always turns out that they're the liars, not the media.

Crankery[edit]​


On the other hand -- if you look into the complaints of LW watchdogs like Media Matters for America -- then it turns out there's actually something to it.

Media Matters for America is a liberal media watchdog, concerned with combating conservative media bias. They famously produced the documentary Outfoxed which demonstrates the bias in Fox News.[1]

Media Matters also tracks and debunks pseudoscience favored by conservatives, including creationism,[2] global warming denialism,[3] and bogus claims about abortion.[4]

According to Bill O'Reilly, former Fox News entertainer, Media Matters is a far-left wing hate group funded by George Soros' shadow party. Although Soros donated US$1 million to Media Matters in 2010, this is his only connection to the organization.[5]

Media Matters is far from unbiased itself, as could be expected from an organization founded by David "Anita Hill is a Perjuring Lesbian" Brock.[note 1] One of their studies purportedly demonstrating conservative bias in newspapers due to conservatives dominating op-ed pages was criticized for weighting columnists syndicated in local rags the same as ones syndicated in major newspapers.[6]

In March of 2014, Media Matters launched Mythopedia, a sort of quick and dirty refutation of claims.[7]
 
Why are you copypastaing rationalwiki as a thread?
 
I really wish the Democrats would start pushing back on the real right-wing bias the way the Republicans always do on the imaginary left-wing bias. Of course not everyone would take it seriously at first - that's what half a century of largely unanswered claims will get you - but you've got to start somewhere.
 
There is no good reason why not. It's copyleft content.
Probably review the forum rules sometime 👍

If you want to discuss a topic, or recommend something do it on your own words. Quit spamming the forum with someone else's content ...
 
Probably review the forum rules sometime 👍

If you want to discuss a topic, or recommend something do it on your own words. Quit spamming the forum with someone else's content ...
I don't see any rules on this forum.
 
I don't see any rules on this forum.
Your ability to understand forum rules, which you signed off on when your registered your account, isn't my issue

You should've at least read them after your last alt was banned
 
Your ability to understand forum rules, which you signed off on when your registered your account, isn't my issue

You should've at least read them after your last alt was banned
If there are rules, they should be at the top of the page.
 
And I'm still seeing ignorant assholes on this board talking about "liberal media"! :rolleyes:
 
Remember, all reporters and editors report ultimately to MBAs who sit on the boards of interlocking corporate directorates. Commies they ain't.
 
If you ever look into the complaints of RW watchdogs like Accuracy in Media, it always turns out that they're the liars, not the media.

Crankery[edit]​


On the other hand -- if you look into the complaints of LW watchdogs like Media Matters for America -- then it turns out there's actually something to it.

Media Matters for America is a liberal media watchdog, concerned with combating conservative media bias. They famously produced the documentary Outfoxed which demonstrates the bias in Fox News.[1]

Media Matters also tracks and debunks pseudoscience favored by conservatives, including creationism,[2] global warming denialism,[3] and bogus claims about abortion.[4]

According to Bill O'Reilly, former Fox News entertainer, Media Matters is a far-left wing hate group funded by George Soros' shadow party. Although Soros donated US$1 million to Media Matters in 2010, this is his only connection to the organization.[5]

Media Matters is far from unbiased itself, as could be expected from an organization founded by David "Anita Hill is a Perjuring Lesbian" Brock.[note 1] One of their studies purportedly demonstrating conservative bias in newspapers due to conservatives dominating op-ed pages was criticized for weighting columnists syndicated in local rags the same as ones syndicated in major newspapers.[6]

In March of 2014, Media Matters launched Mythopedia, a sort of quick and dirty refutation of claims.[7]
At "Rational Wiki" day is night, night is day.
 
It isn't even as credible as the non-credible Wiki.
1. You are an idiot if you think Wikipedia is not credible.

2. RationalWiki differs from Wikipedia in 1) making no effort to be a comprehensive encyclopedia and 2) having no neutrality policy -- RationalWiki is openly biased -- biased towards rationality, reason, and science. On those terms it is credible and reliable -- I post links to pages from RatWiki all the time here, and nobody has ever spotted a single error of fact or reasoning.
 
During Trump's first term, Harvard University, universally not considered a bastion of right wing champions, surveyed all the reporting done by the Main Stream Media (MSM) of the Trump presidency and found that 93% of their reporting were negative. Likewise, during the 2024 election campaign several polls showed that that more than 80% of the reporting by the MSM were negative towards Trump. (I forget the exact number) And in contrast more than 80% were positive to Kamala Harris' campaign. Ergo I find the premise of this thread to be inexplicable.
 
During Trump's first term, Harvard University, universally not considered a bastion of right wing champions, surveyed all the reporting done by the Main Stream Media (MSM) of the Trump presidency and found that 93% of their reporting were negative.
What else should it have been?! Trump's first term was a shitshow! That is the objective reality!
 
Same here in Australia. You have three types of media.

1: Openly far right.
2: Controlled by billionaires and so right wing.
3: Government owned and officially unbiased.

Ironically because of how right 1 and 2 are, 3 seems left wing to many people (who are told that its left wing by the right wing media).

It's like attractiveness. If you are 5 you can seem average if people around you are 3 - 8. But if you are in a room of people 7-10 then 5 seems really ugly.

The closest thing we have to any actual left wing media is FriendlyJodies, a youtuber with a reasonable amount of viewers. You can tell he was actually left wing because police started harassing him on the orders of the State right-wing government and even arresting him for harassment because he asked some tough questions of a corrupt politician.
 
Same here in Australia. You have three types of media.

1: Openly far right.
2: Controlled by billionaires and so right wing.
3: Government owned and officially unbiased.
We don't really have 3 here. We have public media -- PBS and NPR -- but they're not exactly "government owned."
 
What else should it have been?! Trump's first term was a shitshow! That is the objective reality!
if you truly believe this, can you give any example of how the Biden administration was superior to Trump's first term.
 
if you truly believe this, can you give any example of how the Biden administration was superior to Trump's first term.
When a politician tells lies it is not 'negative' to report that.
When he mocks the disabled, it is not 'negative' to report that.
When he boasts about sexual abuse, it is not 'negative' to report that.

News Is What Somebody Does Not Want You To Print. All the Rest Is Advertising.​

 
Back
Top