Media Bias

[Cunt]

They do seem to take a side, climb atop the still-cooling bodies, and crow about their political position.

Classy as always, media bia$ is pretty predictable around these horrors.

[JimC]

While the rest of the US was learning about the latest mass shooting, Fox News was busy talking about whatever else it could think of. OK, a supermarket getting attacked and ten people being slaughtered by a shithead with a military-style rifle is a fairly common occurrence in the US these days but it's still news, despite Fox News being reluctant to acknowledge it.

'Fox News did not cover Boulder presser during primetime after 7th mass shooting in 7 days in the US'

As CNN and MSNBC covered the first press briefing about a deadly shooting that unfolded at a Boulder, Colorado grocery store on Monday, Fox News opted not to air anything about the massacre, instead focusing on President Biden's trouble walking up a set of stairs and complaining about the so-called "farce" of social distancing.

Ten people were killed on Monday afternoon when a gunman opened fire at King Soopers grocery store, according to authorities. Hundreds of police officers in the greater Denver area responded to the incident. SWAT officers, who escorted customers out of the premises, were also called to the scene. One of the first police officers to arrive on the scene, Eric Talley, 51, was killed, according to Police Chief Maris Herold.

As CNN and MSNBC aired the Boulder police's press conferences following the fatal incident, Fox News' programming left the shooting almost entirely unreported. As first reported by CNN's Oliver Darcy, during the press conference, Fox News anchor Sean Hannity played footage of Biden stumbling up the stairs of Air Force one last week. And even after it had been announced that ten people had lost their lives in the shooting, anchor Fox's Laura Ingraham nevertheless held an interview about the "farce" of social distancing.

As more details of the shooting were revealed, Tucker Carlson ran trite stories like "THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR GIRLS' SPORTS" and "MIAMI VICE: DRUNK PARTYGOERS TRASH RESTAURANTS."

We can't have people thinking that there may be something wrong with the US gun situation. The NRA and the Republican party wouldn't like it...

[JimC]

They do seem to take a side, climb atop the still-cooling bodies, and crow about their political position.

Classy as always, media bia$ is pretty predictable around these horrors.

You mean that parts of the media might suggest that there are serious problems with US gun laws, and that people will keep dying until changes occur...

Oh, the gall of them!

[pErvinalia]

How is reporting news "[crowing] about their political position"?

[Cunt]

How is reporting news "[crowing] about their political position"?

I'm not fond of the way the opinions seems to twist to suggest that anyone in favour of personal rights is somehow in favour of mass shootings.

It seems like misrepresenting the HUGE number of armed Americans who don't kill anyone.

Both sides of the media play their political roles around horrors like this. It doesn't matter which side is doing it, it disgusts me that they take such an opportunity to play to their ad-revenue.

[JimC]

How is reporting news "[crowing] about their political position"?

I'm not fond of the way the opinions seems to twist to suggest that anyone in favour of personal rights is somehow in favour of mass shootings.

It seems like misrepresenting the HUGE number of armed Americans who don't kill anyone.

Both sides of the media play their political roles around horrors like this. It doesn't matter which side is doing it, it disgusts me that they take such an opportunity to play to their ad-revenue.

That is a massive distortion of a fairly standard arguments for better gun control. They would be saying that insisting on unrestricted personal rights (in terms of gun ownership) is a factor that leads to a higher probability of mass shootings by disturbed individuals (an argument clearly backed up by the vastly higher rate of gun violence in the US). That is a world way from claiming that people wanting unrestricted personal rights are somehow in favour of mass shootings.

And given the reality of the US gun lobby, most gun control advocates realise that the best they could help for is better background checks of prospective gun owners, and some restrictions on the sale of high capacity semi-automatic rifles, at the most. Scarcely "they're going to take my guns" hysteria of the red-neck right...

[Cunt]

There was a second one (in the last couple days) when I wasn't looking. I thought this was more media-sawing about the sex-addict attacks, when a quick browse said this was a different one. I don't trust any of the details of this new one that I have, aside from Boulder being the location.

But what I complained about stands. The media (hate whichever side you like) pretends these are tragic, or significant, in order to sell ad space.

If it pays them, they shut up and get paid. If it pays them, they repeat the story with whatever slant they want.

I wish they could be sued by the victims, who should be the only ones profiting from ad-revenue around these tragedies. Of course, dead people can't sue, which protects the hell out of anyone profiting from their loss.

My disgust with the media is their bia$ in favour of whatever pays. Bias to the left (or right) means predictable news coverage. I know you don't like it any better.

And this thread is about media bias. Why not condemn BOTH sides with me on this, or at least any media company that takes a fucking DIME off this story, without handing it straight to the victims.

[JimC]

I would agree that sensational news such as news of mass shootings sells, and TV stations and the like are going to be all over it. Sometimes, their determination to interview relatives etc. is ghoulish and insensitive.

But sensational or not, news of mass shootings is important news. There can be nothing wrong with straight forward reporting of such events. What I suspect that you are really complaining about is that all such cases will usually also have some form of political commentary. Personally, I see nothing wrong with such events being reasonable occasions for advocates of more effective gun control making their pitch. If not then, when?

[L'Emmerdeur]

Yeah, fuck the mainstream media. Who needs 'em? The only reliable sources are elsewhere--you find them where you can, but many people are saying that 4chan is a great place to start. Now let's talk about the outrageous wishes of those who claim to suffer from gender dysphoria. Here's some ridiculous bullshit I'm regurgitating from an arsehat I like.

[Cunt]

I would agree that sensational news such as news of mass shootings sells, and TV stations and the like are going to be all over it. Sometimes, their determination to interview relatives etc. is ghoulish and insensitive.

But sensational or not, news of mass shootings is important news. There can be nothing wrong with straight forward reporting of such events. What I suspect that you are really complaining about is that all such cases will usually also have some form of political commentary. Personally, I see nothing wrong with such events being reasonable occasions for advocates of more effective gun control making their pitch. If not then, when?

Do you understand why the righties like Crowder ask 'how many shootings in Chicago this year so far?'

I have no reason to doubt the high number he quoted, and he is pitching his own bullshit, of course.

It makes media look like they are trying to 'inform' the people with emotions, rather than raw numbers of shooting victims (for example)

[pErvinalia]

There was a second one (in the last couple days) when I wasn't looking. I thought this was more media-sawing about the sex-addict attacks, when a quick browse said this was a different one. I don't trust any of the details of this new one that I have, aside from Boulder being the location.

But what I complained about stands. The media (hate whichever side you like) pretends these are tragic, or significant, in order to sell ad space.

If it pays them, they shut up and get paid. If it pays them, they repeat the story with whatever slant they want.

I wish they could be sued by the victims, who should be the only ones profiting from ad-revenue around these tragedies. Of course, dead people can't sue, which protects the hell out of anyone profiting from their loss.

My disgust with the media is their bia$ in favour of whatever pays. Bias to the left (or right) means predictable news coverage. I know you don't like it any better.

And this thread is about media bias. Why not condemn BOTH sides with me on this, or at least any media company that takes a fucking DIME off this story, without handing it straight to the victims.

Both sides you say? You totally ignored Fox News. Must be coincidental that you whine about bias from the alleged left, and ignore it from the right.

[Hermit]

Do you understand why the righties like Crowder ask 'how many shootings in Chicago this year so far?'

To score political points like 73 out of 118 state representatives of Illinois, of which Chicago is the largest city being Democrats, Chicago having a Democratic mayor, relatively strict gun laws and yet its homicide rates having been between 3.5 and 4.9 times higher than the national average this century?

[Brian Peacock]

How is reporting news "[crowing] about their political position"?

I'm not fond of the way the opinions seems to twist to suggest that anyone in favour of personal rights is somehow in favour of mass shootings.

It seems like misrepresenting the HUGE number of armed Americans who don't kill anyone.

Both sides of the media play their political roles around horrors like this. It doesn't matter which side is doing it, it disgusts me that they take such an opportunity to play to their ad-revenue.

That's a different point to the one pErvy commented on. Now, if everything carries a political point, including the reporting of events, then what's the political message we're to take from someone ignoring the views and opinions of others while asking them to take one of two 'sides'?

[Brian Peacock]

...

But what I complained about stands. The media (hate whichever side you like) pretends these are tragic, or significant, in order to sell ad space.

...

And this thread is about media bias. Why not condemn BOTH sides with me on this, or at least any media company that takes a fucking DIME off this story, without handing it straight to the victims.

You'll have to show how 10 people murdered in public isn't a tragic event for the victims, witnesses and the victims families, friends and colleagues, and how the media is only pretending that it is.

On the other point, shouldn't we criticise examples of bias wherever we find them, and what moral force or argument obliges us to qualify our criticisms of media bias by always balancing examples of bias from one 'side' with some reciprocal example of bias from the other 'side'?

[Cunt]

Do you understand why the righties like Crowder ask 'how many shootings in Chicago this year so far?'

To score political points like 73 out of 118 state representatives of Illinois, of which Chicago is the largest city being Democrats, Chicago having a Democratic mayor, relatively strict gun laws and yet its homicide rates having been between 3.5 and 4.9 times higher than the national average this century?

No, I think it's to (usually) sell ad-space.

The fucks.

But their stated purpose, is usually to show that people don't care about gun violence, except when the demographics fit their preferred narrative.

Chicago or mass shootings, which is more destructive of human life and thriving? Which is used to sell ad space on which networks?

As I said, I wish those networks had to pay the victims for the privilege of using their stories.