Bernie v. the media vs. the DNC: a bit of a stumper

[Revoltingest]

I am sure you do. I see those "bias" as simple honesty.

Aye, that's the major origin of bias, ie, people believing that their personal perspective is accurate, honest & truthful.
And they have less respect for contrary opinions.

'Mr Trump, are you f'ing nuts?', seems like a reasonable question.

It would seem reasonable to an echo chamber of fervent anti-Trump types.
But it would also be extremely biased.

But the fact that nobody ask him such an honest question so many of us want an answer to is unequivocal bias.

Honesty & bias are not mutually exclusive.
They're often found holding hands.

If I had my way, the media wouldn't get too friendly with anyone.

They need to avoid having negative feelings to.

Every question should be designed to get to the heart of the issues, and expose insanity wherever it is found. But nobody would ever go on that show. So I am stuck listening to NPR, who simply tries not to step on any toes and still gets slammed for bias.

I listen to them in preference for other radio stations for news.
But they are biased nonetheless.
(They're Democrats, you know.)

 

[Underhill]

Aye, that's the major origin of bias, ie, people believing that their personal perspective is accurate, honest & truthful.
And they have less respect for contrary opinions.

Yeah, sure.

It would seem reasonable to an echo chamber of fervent anti-Trump types.
But it would also be extremely biased.

Except that what is going on in the republican camp is unprecedented. Questioning is not bias. To not question is hiding your head in the sand.

Honesty & bias are not mutually exclusive.
They're often found holding hands.

Maybe so. But where do you draw the line? Let's not go after the scandal because it would benefit the other side? Let's not talk about the crazy history of a presidential candidate because it will be perceived as bias?

What strikes me is that every time the questions come out about republicans, it is bias. Every time they slander and attempt to destroy democrats, it's investigative.

Clinton lies about a BJ and goes down in history as slippery, while Reagan's administration had more indictments than any other two presidents and is heralded as a hero. But the media is biased against republicans.

They need to avoid having negative feelings to.

Feelings yes, but where do you get the impression that anything we are talking about is related to feelings and not reality? Right now, the republican party is in shambles, while the democrats are running a reasonable campaign. That isn't bias. It's reality. The democrats are just now starting to go after each other and it is about as tame as a slap fight next to the MMA fight that is going on in the republican camp.

I listen to them in preference for other radio stations for news.
But they are biased nonetheless.
(They're Democrats, you know.)

Is that any surprise? The company I work for is 99% republican because we work for the coal industry. Why on earth might people at NPR be democrats when republicans have targeted the organization for defunding ever since the network embarrassed Nixon?

 

[Revoltingest]

Except that what is going on in the republican camp is unprecedented. Questioning is not bias. To not question is hiding your head in the sand.

I agree that it's crazy over there.
But this itself inspires increased bias, ie, the more bizarre a party's behavior, the harder it is to be neutral & objective.

Maybe so. But where do you draw the line? Let's not go after the scandal because it would benefit the other side? Let's not talk about the crazy history of a presidential candidate because it will be perceived as bias?

I don't draw a line at all.
They should address what is important, but they should admit that we all have biases, & strive to overcome them.
It ain't easy.
Note that I still listen to NPR instead of the other sources.
So while they do something wrong, they also do something right.

What strikes me is that every time the questions come out about republicans, it is bias.
Every time they slander and attempt to destroy democrats, it's investigative.

You wouldn't be suggesting hypocrisy on the right too, would you?
Oh, the horror!
Anyway, I'll sometimes (rarely) watch Fox News.....not for news, but to keep abreast of their theatrics.

Clinton lies about a BJ and goes down in history as slippery, while Reagan's administration had more indictments than any other two presidents and is heralded as a hero. But the media is biased against republicans.

I've faulted both Reagan & Clinton.
The latter, not for a hummer, but for his committing & suborning perjury.
And for selling pardons, & for various constitutional subversions.

Feelings yes, but where do you get the impression that anything we are talking about is related to feelings and not reality? Right now, the republican party is in shambles, while the democrats are running a reasonable campaign. That isn't bias. It's reality. The democrats are just now starting to go after each other and it is about as tame as a slap fight next to the MMA fight that is going on in the republican camp.

There's just way too much unfettered bad blood between all people in this process.
But I expect news types to be better behaved than the pols.

Is that any surprise? The company I work for is 99% republican because we work for the coal industry. Why on earth might people at NPR be democrats when republicans have targeted the organization for defunding ever since the network embarrassed Nixon?

I think something else is going on with Democrats predominating in news.
No theories about this yet.

 

[Underhill]

My point is neutral and objective cannot eliminate covering the news. For the last 10 years (at least) republicans have been sliding down this slope. Simply covering the slide is called bias by those who don't like to see their party in a bad light.

Culturally NPR is biased in their programming. I mean how many national radio programs had a gay host 10 years ago? But the news they cover is about as free from bias as we get in this country.

 

[Revoltingest]

My point is neutral and objective cannot eliminate covering the news. For the last 10 years (at least) republicans have been sliding down this slope. Simply covering the slide is called bias by those who don't like to see their party in a bad light.

The problem isn't so much what is covered, but how.
But even in selecting what to cover, there will be bias.
Btw, what you call a "slide", is a perspective I don't share.

Culturally NPR is biased in their programming. I mean how many national radio programs had a gay host 10 years ago? But the news they cover is about as free from bias as we get in this country.

I agree they're better than many.
But they could do a better job, eg, verifying quotes they proffer.
(They misquote Pub pols regularly.)

 

[Underhill]

Btw, what you call a "slide", is a perspective I don't share.

I saw the slide as a good thing initially. The tea party was a sign of discontent, a feeling I can relate to. But where that discontent has taken the party... it isn't positive.

I look at the left and see the opposite. The same discontent was manifest in the Wall Street protestors. Bernie isn't perfect, but he is at least trying to address some real problems and doing so in a generally positive manner.

 

[Revoltingest]

I saw the slide as a good thing initially. The tea party was a sign of discontent, a feeling I can relate to. But where that discontent has taken the party... it isn't positive.
I look at the left and see the opposite. The same discontent was manifest in the Wall Street protestors. Bernie isn't perfect, but he is at least trying to address some real problems and doing so in a generally positive manner.

We can agree that he's better than Hillary....woo hoo!