Proof of biased media

Discussion of principles relating to God's Law, Agency, Freedom, Liberty, the US constitution, and the Proper Role of Government.
gardener4life
captain of 100
Posts: 724
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:46 am

Proof of biased media

Postby gardener4life » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:27 am

So biased media has been talked about a lot this year. It's no secret. But today I thought I would call attention to one really good example for the 18th, 19th of OCtober this year.

How many of you knew this happened today? -->
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/18/ma ... imore.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us.html

I'll be honest...I didn't. I only caught it by accident looking up some research on youtube. There was no sign of it on CNN, BBC, and a few other news outlets; and while it did show on a fox news site I had to be looking around to find it. What was also interesting is that all of those other sites and then some for news did have prominently displayed articles attacking Trump even while our country on the same day was attacked by extremists and under fire. And did NOT cover those real dangers at all. This isn't going to be a surprise for a lot of people to see attacking our own government news...but to ignore completely that we were attacked criminally by something motivated by another force or power and then not show it while doing that is a new low that's unbelievable.

We probably won't see justice in this life for many things but it seems that this is a type of criminal negligence, at the very least if not more though I am not an expert. This seems on the level of 'malpractice' so bad that how can people not have outcry against such behavior. And it wasn't about it being Trump, it was about it being our government, and our people under fire.

Sponsored Links

Advertisements

Medical Cost Sharing - It's not insurance it's better!

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:08 am
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby inho » Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:36 am

gardener4life wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:27 am
How many of you knew this happened today? -->
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/18/ma ... imore.html
I saw it on a web page of a newspaper of my country. The same news story mentions that there have been 285 mass shootings in the USA this year. No wonder that the media doesn't make huge headlines of all of them, otherwise that would be all you would read in the news.

User avatar
captainfearnot
captain of 100
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:20 am

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby captainfearnot » Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:42 am

gardener4life wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:27 am

I'll be honest...I didn't. I only caught it by accident looking up some research on youtube. There was no sign of it on CNN, BBC, and a few other news outlets; and while it did show on a fox news site I had to be looking around to find it.
Not sure what you mean? When I type "Radee Prince" into Google, the top results are from CNN, CBS, the Baltimore Sun, and ABC. All stories about the manhunt.

gardener4life
captain of 100
Posts: 724
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby gardener4life » Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:09 am

That's fine but if you didn't know the term Radee Prince you wouldn't know to type that in. You would have to hear that term somewhere first. The point is there's no coverage on those sites all day that I mentioned that's visible, but they have plenty of time to waste attacking their own government. FAKE NEWS

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:08 am
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby inho » Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:38 am

gardener4life wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:09 am
That's fine but if you didn't know the term Radee Prince you wouldn't know to type that in. You would have to hear that term somewhere first. The point is there's no coverage on those sites all day that I mentioned that's visible, but they have plenty of time to waste attacking their own government. FAKE NEWS
Since BBC is British, it is understandable that this is not in their front page. However, it is the biggest headline if you check their US news: http://www.bbc.com/news/world/us_and_canada
Same with CNN, biggest headline if you look regional news from US: http://edition.cnn.com/regions

User avatar
David13
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3308
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:43 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby David13 » Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:49 am

inho wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:36 am
gardener4life wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:27 am
How many of you knew this happened today? -->
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/18/ma ... imore.html
I saw it on a web page of a newspaper of my country. The same news story mentions that there have been 285 mass shootings in the USA this year. No wonder that the media doesn't make huge headlines of all of them, otherwise that would be all you would read in the news.
285 "mass shootings"? What does that supposed statistic include? Two people get shot trying to rob a bank, or do a home invasion, or try to car jack someone, or try to rape someone, and it's a "mass shooting"?
Right there is your proof of 'fake news'.

The media has not been "news" for at least 40 years or so that I know of. It is a propaganda machine to skew opinions to whatever political bent the media wants.
dc

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:08 am
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby inho » Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:01 am

David13 wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:49 am
285 "mass shootings"? What does that supposed statistic include? Two people get shot trying to rob a bank, or do a home invasion, or try to car jack someone, or try to rape someone, and it's a "mass shooting"?
The article said that shootings where there were four or more victims were counted. In my country there have been none such shootings this year.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:08 am
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby inho » Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:45 am

inho wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:01 am
David13 wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:49 am
285 "mass shootings"? What does that supposed statistic include? Two people get shot trying to rob a bank, or do a home invasion, or try to car jack someone, or try to rape someone, and it's a "mass shooting"?
The article said that shootings where there were four or more victims were counted. In my country there have been none such shootings this year.
The definition for a mass shooting comes likely from Gun Violence Archives, and other media agencies have used it too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/one-m ... e-america/
http://www.abc15.com/news/data/mass-sho ... ed-in-2017

User avatar
captainfearnot
captain of 100
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:20 am

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby captainfearnot » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:24 am

gardener4life wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:09 am
That's fine but if you didn't know the term Radee Prince you wouldn't know to type that in. You would have to hear that term somewhere first. The point is there's no coverage on those sites all day that I mentioned that's visible, but they have plenty of time to waste attacking their own government. FAKE NEWS
Ok I see what you're saying. It wasn't considered the 24-hour cable news channel equivalent of front page news, and to you it should have been.

I won't argue that there isn't political bias in the news media. Fox News is obviously conservative and MSNBC is obviously liberal. But those channels are just filling a market demand. A lot of people want to watch news that validates their political views so that's what the news media delivers. The news outlets are profit seeking companies and they are most heavily biased toward making money for their shareholders. And that means putting the stories on the front page that will sell the most papers—or rather, the modern day equivalent as relates to cable channels and internet websites.

Trump is a media anti-hero and stories about him generate the most outrage and attract the most eyeballs. So that's what they give us. For the vast majority of the viewing public, news is entertainment, and so it's packaged that way. For the minority who actually want to be informed about meaningful current events, they still provide that, it's just buried under the fluff.

It's sort of like how Topps started out as a bubble gum company. Then they started including a baseball card in the package as a promotion to sell more gum. But the cards were more popular than the gum ever was and before long they found themselves in the baseball card business. News outlets today are in the entertainment business because that's what sells, not so much actual news.

User avatar
David13
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3308
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:43 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby David13 » Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:14 pm

inho wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:45 am
inho wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:01 am
David13 wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:49 am
285 "mass shootings"? What does that supposed statistic include? Two people get shot trying to rob a bank, or do a home invasion, or try to car jack someone, or try to rape someone, and it's a "mass shooting"?
The article said that shootings where there were four or more victims were counted. In my country there have been none such shootings this year.
The definition for a mass shooting comes likely from Gun Violence Archives, and other media agencies have used it too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/one-m ... e-america/
http://www.abc15.com/news/data/mass-sho ... ed-in-2017


Gun Violence Archive? Do you realize what a nonsense word group that is?

I didn't clink on the link. For one thing, do you realize the difference between facts, and conclusions?

When you cite news agencies, you are citing conclusions.

I conclude from your post that you don't know what facts are. Guns don't do violence. You can put a gun on your table (well, you can't, as you are British, or in the UK) and it will never do anything. It's an inanimate object. I can do nothing on it's own.

I understand that's not well known in Britain. But what value do you think I would place on a website when their very name is nothing but nonsense.

Do you Brits talk about "car violence" when a car runs over someone? You see it isn't the car that does the violence and it isn't the gun.

So skip the nonsense with me, okay?

Now, if you want to talk conclusions, can we conclude that Brits are far more mannerly (by their standards) and far less likely to own a gun, or to get a gun and shoot someone, or defend themselves when someone attacks them?

I think you would agree. In fact that's why Americans had to win WWII for the Brits, wasn't it?

But let me give you someone with the REAL facts about killings in the US.
dc

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:08 am
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby inho » Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:11 pm

David13 wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:14 pm
For one thing, do you realize the difference between facts, and conclusions?
David13,
I do not understand what your problem is. Are you denying the fact that there have been 285 mass shootings in the USA this year? You might have an unfavorable opinion about Gun Violence Archive, but are you really saying that the number is incorrect? Have I done anything else but presented that fact?

What's that talk about Britain? I'm not British.

User avatar
David13
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3308
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:43 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby David13 » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:15 pm

inho wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:11 pm
David13 wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:14 pm
For one thing, do you realize the difference between facts, and conclusions?
David13,
I do not understand what your problem is. Are you denying the fact that there have been 285 mass shootings in the USA this year? You might have an unfavorable opinion about Gun Violence Archive, but are you really saying that the number is incorrect? Have I done anything else but presented that fact?

What's that talk about Britain? I'm not British.
Well, just for one, you cited all UK sources. Second, you state "my country" as if it's not USA.
Third, yes, I do deny that number. Just because someone with an obvious bias says something does not make it fact.
dc

Did you watch the video? It gives the true facts.

User avatar
Joel
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3728
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:48 am

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby Joel » Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:40 pm

This is a "YUGE" deal and not a lot press coverage is happening
Joel wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:07 am
Trump: Obama-era uranium deal is 'real Russia story'

President Trump said Thursday that an Obama-era uranium deal with Moscow is "the real Russia story," and again dismissed allegations that his campaign colluded with Russia as "a hoax."

Sitting beside Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló at the White House, Trump said that the media should be focusing on the uranium deal, as opposed to ongoing investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible coordination between his campaign and Moscow.

"That's your story. That's your real Russia story. The real story is uranium," Trump told reporters. "Not a story where they talk about collusion and there was none. It was a hoax. Your real Russia story is uranium and how they got all of that uranium — the vast percentage of what we have. That, to me, is one of the big stories of the decade. Not just now. The decade."

The comments came hours after Trump tweeted Thursday morning that the so-called "Fake Media" did not want to cover news about the 2010 uranium sale, which gave Moscow control of more than 20 percent of the U.S. uranium supply.

"The problem is mainstream media does not want to cover that story because that affects people they protect," Trump claimed. "So they don’t like covering that story. But the big story is uranium and how Russia got 20 percent of our uranium and, frankly, it’s a disgrace and it’s a disgrace that the fake news won’t cover. It’s so sad.”
The Hill reported Wednesday that the FBI uncovered evidence that Russian nuclear officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering before the Obama administration approved the deal.

It wasn't the first time Trump has mentioned the uranium sale, however. He frequently referenced the deal during his presidential campaign as an attack on his Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton, who served as secretary of State when the sale took place.

Trump has also pointed to Russian donations made to the Clinton Global Initiative to suggest that Clinton approved the deal in exchange for contributions.

The State Department had a presence on the panel that approved the deal, though a spokesman for Clinton said the former top diplomat was not involved in the review process.

The question of whether members of Trump's campaign coordinated with Russia to help disrupt and influence the 2016 presidential election is being scrutinized by a special counsel and two congressional committees.

Trump has repeatedly denied that he or anyone else on his campaign had any improper contact with Russian operatives, and has called the investigations a "witch hunt."
Last edited by Joel on Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Before the photoshop job :)

User avatar
David13
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3308
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:43 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby David13 » Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:44 pm

Not a lot of press coverage? Well, just who's side do you think the "press" is on?
dc

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:08 am
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby inho » Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:35 am

David13 wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:15 pm
Second, you state "my country" as if it's not USA.
It is not USA.
David13 wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:15 pm
Third, yes, I do deny that number. Just because someone with an obvious bias says something does not make it fact.
Now I wonder if you know the difference between facts and conclusions.

User avatar
David13
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3308
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:43 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby David13 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:17 am

inho wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:35 am
David13 wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:15 pm
Second, you state "my country" as if it's not USA.
It is not USA.
David13 wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:15 pm
Third, yes, I do deny that number. Just because someone with an obvious bias says something does not make it fact.
Now I wonder if you know the difference between facts and conclusions.
I do know. That's how I was able to mention it to you.
I guess that sort of a leftist's trick, what one is guilty of, deny, deny, deny, and accuse the other guy of it.

The fact is you said "my country" which implies not the USA (which was true) and thus I appropriately concluded that it was not the USA.

Then the fact was you cited UK sources, which implies your sources were where you are, in the UK. I then appropriately concluded that you were in the UK, even if that is not "your country". Thus I concluded you were touting the information you received to compare the USA with some other country, or "the world" as is commonly, falsely done.

Then I presented to you a video which breaks down those so called "statistics" upon which those of "the world" like to pretend shows a high rate of criminal violence in the USA where guns are used. Which in fact shows a rather inconvenience truth to the politically correct, that being that it's only certain areas of the USA that have a high rate of crime, and crime with guns.

Do you know what beating around the bush means? I means leaving out part of the story, part of the information. Such as saying "my country" but not saying what country that is.

Do you know what being coy means? About the same thing in this circumstance.
dc

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:08 am
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby inho » Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:29 am

David13 wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:17 am
I do know. That's how I was able to mention it to you.
I guess that sort of a leftist's trick, what one is guilty of, deny, deny, deny, and accuse the other guy of it.

The fact is you said "my country" which implies not the USA (which was true) and thus I appropriately concluded that it was not the USA.

Then the fact was you cited UK sources, which implies your sources were where you are, in the UK. I then appropriately concluded that you were in the UK, even if that is not "your country". Thus I concluded you were touting the information you received to compare the USA with some other country, or "the world" as is commonly, falsely done.

Then I presented to you a video which breaks down those so called "statistics" upon which those of "the world" like to pretend shows a high rate of criminal violence in the USA where guns are used. Which in fact shows a rather inconvenience truth to the politically correct, that being that it's only certain areas of the USA that have a high rate of crime, and crime with guns.

Do you know what beating around the bush means? I means leaving out part of the story, part of the information. Such as saying "my country" but not saying what country that is.

Do you know what being coy means? About the same thing in this circumstance.
dc

Whatever.

I cited BBC, since it was mentioned in the OP. I cited Telegraph, since it happened to use the definition I had mentioned. Those were the only British sources. I said "my country" just to make the point that this shooting is in news outside of US. What the country, is irrelevant. You read way too much into my comments and somehow you were assuming the worst of me. It's fine, I don't really care.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:08 am
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby inho » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:27 am

David13, this will probably tick you off, since the data in this article, too, comes from Gun Violence Archives:
The Guardian: 1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days: America's gun crisis – in one chart

User avatar
David13
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3308
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:43 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby David13 » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:08 pm

inho wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:27 am
David13, this will probably tick you off, since the data in this article, too, comes from Gun Violence Archives:
The Guardian: 1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days: America's gun crisis – in one chart

It isn't a question of anger at all.

It's a question of what this is talking about. You can see there are no details on any of these so called statistics.

First how many are suicide, or murder suicide?

2nd, how many were in the commission of other crimes?

How many were drug and or alcohol related, either in under the influence, or regarding the sale and distribution?

Further what are the ethnic and regional implications?

Is it all "American", or a very specific sub set of America,

I don't know if you have ever heard anything about separating the chafe from the wheat, but when you do that, what are you left with? Well, I can tell you, what you are left with is that "America" in the usual Christian or Jewish working, family oriented America, it is one of the lowest rates in the world. But when you get into the inner city "culture" it's a jungle.

So focus on the problem and don't generalize. Don't try to blame this on an inanimate object. Put the blame where the blame belongs.
dc

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:08 am
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby inho » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:40 pm

David13 wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:08 pm
It's a question of what this is talking about. You can see there are no details on any of these so called statistics.
Gun Violence Archive has actually some additional data on the incidents. However, I admit that it is very limited. For example, the November 5 incident has information of the location, list of the victims and this:

Incident Characteristics
  • Shot - Wounded/Injured
  • Shot - Dead (murder, accidental, suicide)
  • Institution/Group/Business
  • Child Involved Incident
  • Child killed (not child shooter)
  • Child injured (not child shooter)
  • Defensive Use
  • Defensive Use - Crime occurs, victim shoots subject/suspect/perpetrator
  • Defensive Use - Good Samaritan/Third Party
  • Mass Murder (4+ deceased victims excluding the subject/suspect/perpetrator , one location)
  • Mass Shooting (4+ victims injured or killed excluding the subject/suspect/perpetrator, one location)
  • Possession of gun by felon or prohibited person
  • Assault weapon (AR-15, AK-47, and ALL variants defined by law enforcement)
Notes
gunman dead - Shooter: Devin Patrick Kelley, 26 not included in victim totals NUMBERS SUBJECT TO CHANGE Good Sam engaged shooter, wounding him

Guns Involved
2 guns involved.
  • Type: 223 Rem [AR-15]
  • Stolen: Unknown
  • Type: Rifle
  • Stolen: Unknown

User avatar
David13
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3308
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:43 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Proof of biased media

Postby David13 » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:49 pm

inho wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:40 pm
David13 wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:08 pm
It's a question of what this is talking about. You can see there are no details on any of these so called statistics.
Gun Violence Archive has actually some additional data on the incidents. However, I admit that it is very limited. For example, the November 5 incident has information of the location, list of the victims and this:

Incident Characteristics
  • Shot - Wounded/Injured
  • Shot - Dead (murder, accidental, suicide)
  • Institution/Group/Business
  • Child Involved Incident
  • Child killed (not child shooter)
  • Child injured (not child shooter)
  • Defensive Use
  • Defensive Use - Crime occurs, victim shoots subject/suspect/perpetrator
  • Defensive Use - Good Samaritan/Third Party
  • Mass Murder (4+ deceased victims excluding the subject/suspect/perpetrator , one location)
  • Mass Shooting (4+ victims injured or killed excluding the subject/suspect/perpetrator, one location)
  • Possession of gun by felon or prohibited person
  • Assault weapon (AR-15, AK-47, and ALL variants defined by law enforcement)
Notes
gunman dead - Shooter: Devin Patrick Kelley, 26 not included in victim totals NUMBERS SUBJECT TO CHANGE Good Sam engaged shooter, wounding him

Guns Involved
2 guns involved.
  • Type: 223 Rem [AR-15]
  • Stolen: Unknown
  • Type: Rifle
  • Stolen: Unknown


Just more leftist nonsense. Pure agenda, nothing factual at all.

There is no such thing as "gun violence", any more than there such a thing as "car violence" or truck violence when the Islamic terrorists run over people with a truck.

You just seem to have some agenda in mind. Why don't you just be honest and state your leftist agenda. Rather than trying to come up with "statistics" that are slanted to someone else's agenda?

dc


Return to “Principles of Liberty”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jamescm and 34 guests