Regarding bias in the MSM

[pecksniff]

It's not symmetrical. CNN -- even MSNBC -- is not LW the way Fox is RW. WaPo is not the liberal equivalent of The Washington Times. Both-sidesism does not apply. What we have is, on the one side usually serious, honest, responsible journalism, and on the other (RW) side not so much.

 

[The_Trouvere]

It's not symmetrical. CNN -- even MSNBC -- is not LW the way Fox is RW. WaPo is not the liberal equivalent of The Washington Times. Both-sidesism does not apply. What we have is, on the one side usually serious, honest, responsible journalism, and on the other (RW) side not so much.

Years ago I read an essay in The New York Times that said that most liberals do not want to be told anything bad about homosexuals or blacks.

We saw that in the death of Matthew Shepard. In October 12, 1998 he was killed by two men he picked up in a bar. That was national news for months. It was Matthew Shepard this and Matthew Shepard that. A movie was made of him. He was interred in the Washington Cathedral.

It was only years later that I learned that in 1999 two adult male homosexuals raped and tortured to death a thirteen year old boy. That was barely mentioned in the local news.

https://www.wnd.com/2002/09/15294/

The first most of us learned of the February 26, 2012 encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was a story on the six o'clock news that juxtaposed a sullen malevolent picture of Zimmerman with a smiling, innocent looking picture of Martin that had been taken many years earlier. We were invited to believe that a brutal racist murdered an innocent black boy "just to watch him die."

The mainstream media had access to photographs taken of Zimmerman immediately after his encounter with Martin. They clearly showed that Martin had attacked Zimmerman from behind, threw him on the ground, and began to punch him in the face.

The mainstream media also had access to photographs of a much older Martin, in which he was giving a gang signal, or an obscene gesture.

The mainstream media deliberately tried to provoke hostility toward Zimmerman, and sympathy for Martin.

 

[pecksniff]

Years ago I read an essay in The New York Times that said that most liberals do not want to be told anything bad about homosexuals or blacks.

We saw that in the death of Matthew Shepard. In October 12, 1998 he was killed by two men he picked up in a bar. That was national news for months. It was Matthew Shepard this and Matthew Shepard that. A movie was made of him. He was interred in the Washington Cathedral.

It was only years later that I learned that in 1999 two adult male homosexuals raped and tortured to death a thirteen year old boy. That was barely mentioned in the local news.

I'm sure you can understand why a hate crime would be more honestly newsworthy than a sex crime, however horrible.

 

[The_Trouvere]

I'm sure you can understand why a hate crime would be more honestly newsworthy than a sex crime, however horrible.

I do not understand the relevance of that. If a white man kills a black man, that is national news. If a black man kills a white man, and this happens much more frequently, it is frequently not reported in the local news. if it is, the race of the black criminal is rarely mentioned.

 

[pecksniff]

Journalists are an educated bunch -- practically all at least have college degrees -- so to the extent that the educated are more likely to be liberal, there is a possible source of bias there. And every journalist wants a chance to play Jack-the-Giant-Killer by exposing malfeasance in high places -- of course, the target of that could as easily be a labor leader as a politician or general or business executive.

OTOH, journalists -- and editors --are not their own masters. Ultimately, they answer to MBAs in suits who sit on interlocking directorates. That is bound to have some effect on published content, and not any effect that tends left.

 

[CornusKousa]

It's not symmetrical. CNN -- even MSNBC -- is not LW the way Fox is RW. WaPo is not the liberal equivalent of The Washington Times. Both-sidesism does not apply. What we have is, on the one side usually serious, honest, responsible journalism, and on the other (RW) side not so much.

WaPo isn't liberal... neither are the (D)eez or any of their supportive media outlets.

And yes they are leftist, that's why they shill for them.

 

[pecksniff]

WaPo isn't liberal... neither are the (D)eez or any of their supportive media outlets.

And yes they are leftist, that's why they shill for them.

I am using the word "liberal" the way most Americans use it, and, no, they're not leftist, either. If you want the LW American press, look at The Nation and Mother Jones and Pacifica Network News -- stuff most Americans have never heard of or from.

 

[CornusKousa]

I'm sure you can understand why a hate crime would be more honestly newsworthy than a sex crime, however horrible.

No... what is a "hate crime" ???

I am using the word "liberal" the way most Americans use it,

Your willful ignorance is legendary at this point.

and, no, they're not leftist, either.

Yes, they are.

If you want the LW American press, look at The Nation and Mother Jones and Pacifica Network News -- stuff most Americans have never heard of or from.

"Not left enough for pecks' personal liking!!" doesn't make them not left.

Just like the (D)'eez.... their support for the pursuit of equity does, objective reality isn't subject to your fee fees.

 

[RobDownSouth]

oh look...................................

<BoBo Mode>
"nuh uh! Nuh Uh! NUH UH!"
</BoBo Mode>

 

[CornusKousa]

<BoBo Mode>
"nuh uh! Nuh Uh! NUH UH!"
</BoBo Mode>

You engage in ascription because you can't argue against what I actually said

 

[pecksniff]

No... what is a "hate crime" ???

Hate crime:

A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime)[1] is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of their membership (or perceived membership) of a certain social group or racial demographic.

Examples of such groups can include, and are almost exclusively limited to ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation.[2][3][4] Non-criminal actions that are motivated by these reasons are often called "bias incidents".

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the social groups listed above, or by bias against their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, homicide, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse (which includes slurs) or insults, mate crime or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[5]

Your willful ignorance is legendary at this point.

You are here ascribing "ignorance" as to the meaning of "liberal" to practically every American but yourself.

Stop and think. Maybe it's you.

 

[BidudeinWi]

It's not symmetrical. CNN -- even MSNBC -- is not LW the way Fox is RW. WaPo is not the liberal equivalent of The Washington Times. Both-sidesism does not apply. What we have is, on the one side usually serious, honest, responsible journalism, and on the other (RW) side not so much.

Pure projection! Go FY, pot stirer!

 

[CornusKousa]

Hate crime:

Ahh... funny how many of those only go in one direction.

You are here ascribing "ignorance" as to the meaning of "liberal" to practically every American but yourself.

No.

Plenty of Americans understand liberalism has a meaning and it's not a synonym for 'democrat control freaks'.

Your cries that "War is peace, ignorance is strength and liberalism is whatever psychotic authoritarianism the bootheel of the (D)'eez demand!!!" notwithstanding.

Stop and think. Maybe it's you.

No, even the deepest of (D) pop culture icons Bill Maher is backing me up at this point.

Even most of the folks who are on the left no longer use the term, preferring the term "progressive"....because their open distain and hatred for liberty of any sort makes them calling themselves "liberals" just fucking silly and they aren't so stupid as to not understand that.

The only people who think (D)'eez are liberals are woefully ignorant of who the (D)eez are and or what the term liberalism means.

 

[pecksniff]

Ahh... funny how many of those only go in one direction.

How could it go in another direction?

 

[pecksniff]

It's not symmetrical. CNN -- even MSNBC -- is not LW the way Fox is RW. WaPo is not the liberal equivalent of The Washington Times. Both-sidesism does not apply. What we have is, on the one side usually serious, honest, responsible journalism, and on the other (RW) side not so much.

I notice nobody has actually contradicted any of this.

 

[pecksniff]

Journalists are an educated bunch -- practically all at least have college degrees -- so to the extent that the educated are more likely to be liberal, there is a possible source of bias there. And every journalist wants a chance to play Jack-the-Giant-Killer by exposing malfeasance in high places -- of course, the target of that could as easily be a labor leader as a politician or general or business executive.

OTOH, journalists -- and editors --are not their own masters. Ultimately, they answer to MBAs in suits who sit on interlocking directorates. That is bound to have some effect on published content, and not any effect that tends left.

Nor any of this.

 

[YDB95]

We saw that in the death of Matthew Shepard. In October 12, 1998 he was killed by two men he picked up in a bar. That was national news for months. It was Matthew Shepard this and Matthew Shepard that. A movie was made of him. He was interred in the Washington Cathedral.

It was only years later that I learned that in 1999 two adult male homosexuals raped and tortured to death a thirteen year old boy. That was barely mentioned in the local news.

I don't expect this to get through to you, but I'll say it anyway for the benefit of others who might read it.

What happened to Matthew Shepard was emblematic of what GLBT people were at risk for every time they were open and honest about who they were. Even something as minor as referring to one's romantic partner without either lying about hir gender or avoiding mention of it could land them in a world of hurt. And it's hard to believe now when it hasn't really been that long and a lot of progress has been made, but it was quite a bit worse in 1998.

Now, those two guys who raped and murdered that boy deserve to rot in prison (and if I'm not mistaken, that IS what happened), but...well, I'll put it this way. From your commentary here, I feel safe in assuming you're straight. Have you ever in your life had to think twice about saying so, or even saying or doing anything that would reveal indirectly that you are? I'm straight and the answer is no. Not a single time, never. GLBT people did not have that privilege in 1998 (and still don't, fully, although progress has been made). That is why Matthew Shepard struck a chord with so many people. We (straight people) do not walk into every interaction with another person knowing we just might be running afoul of psychotic gay men who want to torture and murder us, where as gay men especially have to be on their guard. What happened to Matthew Shepard could happen to any gay man who let the wrong word slip at the wrong time.

 

[pecksniff]

. . . where as gay men especially have to be on their guard.

OTOH, the worst risk a lesbian usually has to run is encountering some man who thinks he can fuck her straight. (As James Bond did to Pussy Galore in the book version -- it's an old trope.)

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Matthew Shepard was not a hate crime. That's mythology.

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Matt-Mu...=1637681589&sprefix=matthew+sh,aps,186&sr=8-3

 

[ShyBiGuy954]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/30f7183c25cf949c30849adf3056ce43/9b303744c310e251-99/s540x810/2508d7322bc88b99871953f8b6d2779e3e473db4.jpg

 

[CornusKousa]

How could it go in another direction?

All those things are totally circumstantial based on the race/gender/sexual orientation/religious backgrounds of the victim and perp.

 

[CornusKousa]

I notice nobody has actually contradicted any of this.

Nor any of this.

You need to learn to read.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

LW media is a bit triggered over Tucker’s exclusive interview with Kyle Rittenhouse. Must be hurting at being scooped again.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Bug's Revisionist Horseshit

Matthew Shepard was not a hate crime. That's mythology.

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Matt-Mu...=1637681589&sprefix=matthew+sh,aps,186&sr=8-3

From your book's Amazon reviews, I present the top-rated review:
https://i.imgur.com/8CViWbo.png

 

[Rightguide]

It's not symmetrical. CNN -- even MSNBC -- is not LW the way Fox is RW. WaPo is not the liberal equivalent of The Washington Times. Both-sidesism does not apply. What we have is, on the one side usually serious, honest, responsible journalism, and on the other (RW) side not so much.

You are delusional. You're dumb enough to be a fact checker at MSNBC.