Media Bias

[Sean Hayden]

Of course I didn't. I don't think it's very likely that I'll get usable information from a discredited source. It takes work I'd rather not do. If you have another source with more credibility I might take a look at it.

I joined this conversation to point out what I see as a discrepancy between your supposed dislike of bias, and your reliance on a source largely discredited for its extreme bias. The ACORN example alone is enough to ruin a person's career. The other example alluded to was his use of edited videos to pressure a criminal investigation into voter fraud, an investigation which uncovered only that his editing had made the allegations seem more real than they were.

[Cunt]

Of course I didn't. I don't think it's very likely that I'll get usable information from a discredited source. It takes work I'd rather not do. If you have another source with more credibility I might take a look at it.

I joined this conversation to point out what I see as a discrepancy between your supposed dislike of bias, and your reliance on a source largely discredited for its extreme bias. The ACORN example alone is enough to ruin a person's career.

It didn't even ruin the story. Did you see the coverage it got?

100,000 is NOTHING compared to what CNN paid. Do you dismiss their effluvia proportionally according to what they paid out?

The other example alluded to was his use of edited videos to pressure a criminal investigation into voter fraud, an investigation which uncovered only that his editing had made the allegations seem more real than they were.

I was talking about his release of the audio morning meetings Zucker led, and what they discussed stuffing down a gullible publics throat.

I guess though, even though ACORN was a clearly effective story aside from that settlement, you can just ignore everything he said, but still listen to your other sketchy sources.

Sketchy only seems to matter when it is on the right...what was the title of this thread again?

[Sean Hayden]

--excerpts from an investigation into ACORN conducted by the California Department of Justice after the scandal.

Giles and O’Keefe lied to engender compassion, but then edited
their statements from the released videos. Would it have been best had each ACORN employee
simply refused to deal with the couple and shown them the door when their story came out? Of
course.

ACORN was not the criminal enterprise described by O’Keefe in his “Chaos for Glory”
statement – it did not receive billions in federal funds and did not control elections. ACORN is,
however, disorganized and its operations were far from transparent, leaving it vulnerable to
allegations of illegal activity and misuse of funds. Many of the ACORN employees lacked
appropriate training and ACORN did not comply with its own internal policies and procedures.
Unfortunately for ACORN, ACORN itself had undermined public confidence in the organization
before O’Keefe and Giles walked into the first ACORN office.

Of course it's worse. They portrayed Vera as being willing to help with human trafficking, which of course he wasn't.

Immediately after the couple left, Vera telephoned his cousin, Detective Alejandro Hernandez, at
the National City Police Department. He left a voicemail message for Detective Hernandez
stating that some “crazy people” were in his office providing information.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110612181 ... report.pdf

The ACORN story has been discredited.

[Cunt]

ACORN is,
however, disorganized and its operations were far from transparent, leaving it vulnerable to
allegations of illegal activity and misuse of funds. Many of the ACORN employees lacked
appropriate training and ACORN did not comply with its own internal policies and procedures.
Unfortunately for ACORN, ACORN itself had undermined public confidence in the organization
before O’Keefe and Giles walked into the first ACORN office.

So they got it done. Why do you suppose the investigative journalists of the regular news media didn't expose it, if it was so obvious that a fresh grad and a slutty outfit can expose it?

9/16/09 "Jon Stewart to media on ACORN: 'Where the hell were you?'"–How can the national news media ignore the many allegations of corruption at ACORN, which gets millions of dollars in federal funding, and allow a couple of independents with $3,000 and a bad wardrobe scoop them on the undercover story of the year?

Where the hell were they? Probably dealing with conflicting priorities. Epstein, Nygard, Weinstein, NXXXIVM, and whatever else drives their choices.

[Sean Hayden]

They got what done? They misrepresented the organization. It's an example of engineering bias.

You dislike bias and are very sensitive to its harms.

[Cunt]

The outfit was corrupt, or they couldn't have used that corruption to make that big news splash.

If it had been investigated by better people, it would have been exposed better. You didn't do it. I didn't do it. James decided to.

You know why he didn't expose the Weinsein case? I say it's because that one was HARD.

He nailed this 'low-hanging fruit' because it was allowed to go on so blatantly. And this is the worst example you can find of his flaws?

That's a lot of investigating of PV, rather than listening in to Zucker telling his morning meeting how to play their parts.

I see what he did in this case, see that he paid for it, and already knew he had a rightie bias.

Did you hear what Zucker said? Do you know what news sources he directs?

[Sean Hayden]

Again, I'm speaking to your dislike of bias. I think it should cause you to reconsider going to Veritas for information, and I attempted to show you how they're not only biased, but extremely so.

As for minimizing the harm he's done, I think it just adds to your difficulties. Clearly his behavior is bad. How many pointless investigations have your lies caused? Have you ever lead half the country to believe someone was helping human traffickers when they weren't?

You're sensitive to bias, you tell me how harmful his deceit in pursuit of creating it has been.

[pErvinalia]

I don't like bias... so I prefer a declared bias

Many sense.

[Cunt]

Again, I'm speaking to your dislike of bias. I think it should cause you to reconsider going to Veritas for information, and I attempted to show you how they're not only biased, but extremely so.

I agree with you about his bias. What is significant though, is that he makes it pretty plain.

CNN presents itself as unbiased news. It is on in every airport, hotel waiting room, and such. They are so far left they peddled the anti-Trump propaganda nonstop, even to the point of exposing themselves to HUGE legal liability.

While pretending they aren't biased.

See the diffrence?

If you are only willing to listen to people that hide their bias, you will probably find among them, people who have a bias but are deceptive about it.

Obviously that isn't your preference, is it?

[pErvinalia]

The answer isn't to then lap up biased media. What can you hope to learn in an impartial sense from a biased source?

[Cunt]

The answer isn't to then lap up biased media. What can you hope to learn in an impartial sense from a biased source?

I think Shapiro is biased and honest.

Ditto for Crowder (though he is more comic and misleading)

What I find especially dishonest, is the messaging coming out of the communications office, which has all the proper phrasings, inclusive language, and carefully shrouded bias.

Do you really think the actors reading the news are unbiased? They are ALL biased. Denying it is kind of a red flag.

[pErvinalia]

You didn't answer the question. What can you hope to learn in an impartial sense from a biased source?

[Cunt]

You didn't answer the question. What can you hope to learn in an impartial sense from a biased source?

Considering all sources are biased?

It looks hopeless. The best is when people biased in very different ways, cover the same event. The different descriptions can be a kind of paralax.

Like the difference in coverage of incidents like Kyle Rittenhouse, or Nick Sandman. Or any of a dozen others.

If you want to trust that some of those actors are unbiased though, go to it! I bet Anderson Cooper is unbiased. Enjoyable too! Aristocratic chin.

[Seabass]

[CNN] are so far left

Ronald Reagan was to the left of Trump. Doesn't make him far left...

[Cunt]

[CNN] are so far left

Ronald Reagan was to the left of Trump. Doesn't make him far left...

You're right.

They are 'far-Democrat'.

Hermit straightened me out in another thread. I still talk sloppy though. I guess its the leftie in me.