For the 40,000th time in eight years - Yes.
Always was.
They don’t talk about his rapiness enough either.
Or his pedophilia.
Ugh, when your warts have warts...
Seems like a problem springing from the press's bias towards neutrality, or how sometimes a politician is objectively wrong but the press treats them with kid gloves for fear of being accused of unfairness.
They can't print Trump's entire 3 minute rant, and they're scared to characterize it as meandering or incoherent, even if that's the best description. So, they print a single line from his rant and provide their own context.
Towards the appearance of neutrality, you mean. When person A says "2+2=4" and person B says "2+2=5", "neutrality" is not reporting some kind of false compromise at 4 1/2, but instead factually reporting that person A is correct and person B is wrong!
Stop oppressing me with your woke math and shit! It's my deeply held belief that two plus two equals five!
2+2=5 is my heritage!
We jest about bad math being called heritage, but remember that, sadly, 3/5 = 1 was unironically a huge part of their heritage.
You're very good at conservative math.
I feel like the media would roll this out in the most bad-faith and then evolve it in the most malignant way possible:
- Both candidates discuss 2+2
- Person B passionately argues values on 2+2
- Is person A too ingrained in the establishment to consider new ideas on 2+2?
- Person B campaign staff says person B will likely "soften tone on 2+2" after they win election
- Person B supporters wear "5" to latest rally
- Experts weigh in on the true meaning of 4 1/2
- Person B says "4 is low-energy just like person A"
- Should a 4-believer really be president just because person B is a rapist and a felon?
- Person B won the election and it's all your fault
They write completely content-less headlines and articles that are so "neutral" they look like they were written by an extraterrestrial attorney.
Guy A shoots guy B with a gun and they write it up as "spectators allege that the bullet that happened to strike B may likely have originated from the barrel of a gun that A has been said to have held in or around the same period where B happened to be struck".
I took journalism in high school and the instruction at the time was not to use the fucking passive voice...but that's all the motherfuckers use...even when covering extremely high stakes shit.
Didn't you know? According to Republicans, "Reality has a liberal bias."
2+2 is actually 5 I've read it in a book with a bunch of numbers as a title. its basic knowledge, just like: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength
You're confusing neutrality with objectivity.
Edit: Neutral (adjective): not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.
Are you a big enough baby to downvote because you don't like what words mean? Neutrality and correctness are two different things. Objectivity does factor in what the facts are, neutrality doesn't.
It is absolutely neutral. You're mixing up neutrality with equivalence. Just because a neutral party reports on something that's clearly incorrect doesn't mean they are sponsoring or supporting it over something else, nor is it saying they are equally valid claims.
The purpose of neutral reporting is to have a record of what happened, not to judge it right or wrong. Unfortunately, sometimes (a lot of the time, nowadays) noteworthy events involve unpleasant and/or malicious actors, but we can't just shun them from history because their purposes are ignoble.
Agreed. Their motivation is money, and there’s more money in keeping the election a neck & neck horse race, even if one of the horses is rabid, lame, and in every way unfit to run. They’ll downplay his blaring faults, and magnify any tiny fault they can find in his competition, just to keep the race “fair” - for ad revenue.
I want to know what media you were watching that didn't highten every biden stutter when that man has had a stutter his entire life
No, they’re begging the devil himself to come tear shit up again because if it bleeds, it leads. They’re professionally negligent, venal narcissists who will say anything for money.
Plus, they work for oligarchs who want Trump to win because they want to reinstate feudalism.
that term is hilarious, surprised never seen it before, because this situation started long ago
The article talks about how the term has only really started to take off in a big way in the last week or so. (Though the term itself is a fair amount older)
It's absolute malpractice to interpret his incoherent ramblings and turn it into something you writer thinks he might have meant. This guy's lies and lies.. and later on he can say "I never said that" and he would be right.
The correct reporting on his childcare response would have been: when trump was asked about what specific policies he would further to improve childcare in the US, he rambled incoherently for 4 minutes, about all the money they where going to bring in from other countries via an import tax. The only thing touching on the question was "childcare you have to have it in this country".
More like sucking on his tiny mushroom cock nonstop. See, the media LOVES Trump. For most of them, it’s not because of ideology. It’s because he’s a headline buffet. There will always be more, it will always be more salacious, there is no bottom. Which is great for selling ads attached to what they write, film, and so on.
Biden? Boring. Harris? Booring. But Trump? Trump will always be a lalapalooza of insanity. And to the current celebrity media, that’s all that counts.
Sad thing is they’re gonna get us all killed with that shit.
Of course.
Of course. The media has done nothing but carry water for Trump for nearly a decade now.
Columbia Journalism Review - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Columbia Journalism Review:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/trump_incoherent_media_sanewashing.php
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
Yes it is
save