PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jim Logajan on January 02, 2020, 09:07:54 PM
-
Just saw the news that one of the top Iranian generals was executed on Trump's order:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/iraq-least-3-katyusha-rockets-232725596.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/iraq-least-3-katyusha-rockets-232725596.html)
-
Note that the AP article doesn't really discuss Soleimani's role in death/destruction in the region. It's all about had [President] Trump is causing things to be bad.
-
The big question is "what happens now", and are we ready for it?
-
The big question is "what happens now", and are we ready for it?
Message sent. My button is bigger than your button, and I'll push it.
-
Maybe we should load another cargo plane up with cash and fly it to them in the middle of the night. Maybe that will appease them.
-
Maybe we should load another cargo plane up with cash and fly it to them in the middle of the night. Maybe that will appease them.
Or invite some more terrorists to visit the White House so they can feel loved and appreciated, like bathhouse barry.
-
Or invite some more terrorists to visit the White House so they can feel loved and appreciated, like bathhouse barry.
How dare Trump strike back and kill some of the dims friends..................
-
Everything I’m seeing on this is mixed. It was brilliant, it was justified, it was awful. The pictures coming out with the ring on the hand could be faked. Teheran vows crushing revenge on US. Iraq is mad too as they see it usurping their domain.
However. Like with 9/11, the raw, violent core of the mullahs is exposed once again ... they operate within controlled, suppressed states but the world is getting news of them once again now.
A quote comes to mind ... “If you don’t visit a bad neighborhood, it will visit you.” Goes both ways though, I think.
-
Oh, gag. “If this was the right decision, it was the wrong Commander in Chief.”
http://www.michellesmirror.com/2020/01/welcome-to-second-american-century.html#.Xg9Kl4qIahA
-
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
-
How dare Trump strike back and kill some of the dims friends..................
Never forget mad maxine when she said,"I'm worried that if North Korea fires a nuclear missel at America, Donald Trump will use it as an excuse to start a war."
Stupid doesn't even begin to describe these morons.
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/pelosi-trump-should-have-asked-permission-to-kill-iranian-general/
-
Note that the AP article doesn't really discuss Soleimani's role in death/destruction in the region. It's all about had [President] Trump is causing things to be bad.
AP, like Reuters and the others, is a LEFITST BIASED, anti Trump source. I won't call them a "news" source any longer.
-
The big question is "what happens now", and are we ready for it?
So instead of retaliating for their attack on our Embassy in Iraq, we should not do anything? We just slapped their hands, it could have been a lot worse, and they know next time it will be.
Appeasement doesn't work. Obama tried that and instead they used his bribe to further their Nuke program.
-
So instead of retaliating for their attack on our Embassy in Iraq, we should not do anything? We just slapped their hands, it could have been a lot worse, and they know next time it will be.
Appeasement doesn't work. Obama tried that and instead they used his bribe to further their Nuke program.
We have the BHO "shadow government" telling the Iranians to wait out till Trump is out of office and things will return to normal (appeasement).
-
We have the BHO "shadow government" telling the Iranians to wait out till Trump is out of office and things will return to normal (appeasement).
In the real world that is known as treason.
-
So instead of retaliating for their attack on our Embassy in Iraq, we should not do anything?
I'm not sure how you meant that? Were you implying that you thought I was against the strike? If so, you misunderstood me.
It was a simple two part question.
"what happens now, and are we ready for it?"
Personally, I hope what happens next is that Iran tries to retaliate, and we ARE ready for it. I hope we thwart their response, AND we smite them yet again, only harder. Much harder. And if they continue to fight back, we eliminate them as a threat.
-
I'm not sure how you meant that? Were you implying that you thought I was against the strike? If so, you misunderstood me.
It was a simple two part question.
"what happens now, and are we ready for it?"
Personally, I hope what happens next is that Iran tries to retaliate, and we ARE ready for it. I hope we thwart their response, AND we smite them yet again, only harder. Much harder. And if they continue to fight back, we eliminate them as a threat.
Yes, my mistake. Thanks for clarifying.
I am sure every intelligence agency, and military assets are watching their every move. I just hope they don't take their eye off of our other enemies. I know they won't, just saying.
Iran sponsors terrorism around the world. To me our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan are specifically due to their proximity to Iran.
-
IIRC, the US military satellites were tracking virtually every Iranian mullah during the Iran hostage fiasco, by the shale of their beards.
It is inconceivable that their leadership is not even more closely tracked right now. My hope is that the President takes out every hostile leader in their ranks with targeted strikes, while helping non-mentally deficient, raging homosexual, muslim, leader, come to power.
The people will rise up and rejoice when those fucking boy raping, women torturing, fucking assholes go in the ground and the region will enjoy greater stability.
-
...
The people will rise up and rejoice when those fucking boy raping, women torturing, fucking assholes go in the ground and the region will enjoy greater stability.
It will take far far more than that to create stability in that region.
-
AP, like Reuters and the others, is a LEFITST BIASED, anti Trump source. I won't call them a "news" source any longer.
Not necessarily arguing, but can you cite some examples of how Reuters is "leftist" or "Anti-Trump"?
-
Not necessarily arguing, but can you cite some examples of how Reuters is "leftist" or "Anti-Trump"?
I have seen many instances of both Reuters and AP being left biased. You can Google or Duck Duck Go as well as I. Let us know your findings.
-
I have seen many instances of both Reuters and AP being left biased. You can Google or Duck Duck Go as well as I. Let us know your findings.
So, no support for your claim. Got it.
-
Like a boss.
https://twitter.com/thejcoop/status/1213103456304672774
-
Not necessarily arguing, but can you cite some examples of how Reuters is "leftist" or "Anti-Trump"?
Apparently Reuters hasa "value-neutral approach" which includes not using the word “terrorist” in its stories.
Um, while perhaps "terrorist" is thrown around pretty freely, to not dare use the word is a bit over the top, yes?
-
Not necessarily arguing, but can you cite some examples of how Reuters is "leftist" or "Anti-Trump"?
I personally never noticed a Reuters bias, but I never really paid them particular attention. According to several sites I checked, Reuters is one of the least biased sites. Of course, that opinion is coming from biased sites.
But your request for examples is awfully difficult to fulfill. How would you even attempt to do that? Would you count pro-left vs pro-right articles? Would you just look for "fake news" taking one side or the other. Would you count the times they DON"T print something that is negative about "their" side or positive about the "other" side? Even a biased site can occasionally print an honest article.
They may put two articles side by side to look fair:
They might display an article about a politician on their side convicted of littering and a politician on the other side killing their homosexual lover. Both are true, right?
-
It will take far far more than that to create stability in that region.
It HAS to start somewhere.
Just because it looks hard is no reason to refuse to try.
-
I personally never noticed a Reuters bias, but I never really paid them particular attention. According to several sites I checked, Reuters is one of the least biased sites. Of course, that opinion is coming from biased sites.
But your request for examples is awfully difficult to fulfill. How would you even attempt to do that? Would you count pro-left vs pro-right articles? Would you just look for "fake news" taking one side or the other. Would you count the times they DON"T print something that is negative about "their" side or positive about the "other" side? Even a biased site can occasionally print an honest article.
They may put two articles side by side to look fair:
They might display an article about a politician on their side convicted of littering and a politician on the other side killing their homosexual lover. Both are true, right?
I would expect, that if one were to make the claim that a news source (or whatever) is biased "left" or "right", they would be able to supply examples which demonstrate such a consistent bias in their reporting. I can't prove a null, nor should the onus be on me to prove what someone else is claiming. I just asked for examples.
I generally view Reuters as neutral, simply because the news they report doesn't usually have much, if any, opinion infused into it. They generally just write the facts with little fluff as to the implications of whatever event may have on future endeavors.
-
Apparently Reuters hasa "value-neutral approach" which includes not using the word “terrorist” in its stories.
Um, while perhaps "terrorist" is thrown around pretty freely, to not dare use the word is a bit over the top, yes?
Sure, I can see where that might be over the top. However, I'm not sure how one would classify non-use of that word with being left- or right-biased. I mean, one could call American troops terrorists depending on which side of the battle you're on.
-
So, no support for your claim. Got it.
I see evidence of it all the time, but I do not save the articles to some file as it is so blatantly obvious, only a Leftist would not acknowledge it. If you want to prove me wrong, go ahead and do your own research. Reuters and AP are part of the mainstream media who is obviously leftist biased. Sorry, you can't support your thinly veiled claim they are not.
Just for you.
https://www.aim.org/media-monitor/reuters-anti-american-bias/
-
Sure, I can see where that might be over the top. However, I'm not sure how one would classify non-use of that word with being left- or right-biased. I mean, one could call American troops terrorists depending on which side of the battle you're on.
My oh really don’t care about the answer.
It is a lazy liberal trick to demand proof and shut shut down dissent.
-
With respect to bias detection in allegedly neutral news stories, I use a couple screening rules:
(1) The story includes old news or claims to provide context. The selection of context allows bias to be inserted. If the context is removed and the news story still conveys the new facts, bias has been attempted.
(2) The story uses emotive or judgmental adjectives or adverbs. These can almost always be removed without affecting the delivery of the facts in the news story. Their existence shows an attempt at bias.
-
With respect to bias detection in allegedly neutral news stories, I use a couple screening rules:
(1) The story includes old news or claims to provide context. The selection of context allows bias to be inserted. If the context is removed and the news story still conveys the new facts, bias has been attempted.
(2) The story uses emotive or judgmental adjectives or adverbs. These can almost always be removed without affecting the delivery of the facts in the news story. Their existence shows an attempt at bias.
Often, especially with the constant Trump bashing, and claims of whatever is illegal and impeachable, I look at the sources. Typically, they are unnamed, and the claims are total speculation, and hearsay. When the source is anonymous, it has little to no credibility.
-
I see evidence of it all the time, but I do not save the articles to some file as it is so blatantly obvious, only a Leftist would not acknowledge it. If you want to prove me wrong, go ahead and do your own research. Reuters and AP are part of the mainstream media who is obviously leftist biased. Sorry, you can't support your thinly veiled claim they are not.
Just for you.
https://www.aim.org/media-monitor/reuters-anti-american-bias/
While I appreciate the sort-of evidence . . . it's a story from 2003 (16.5 years ago) which doesn't have links to the original source story or anything else. Have some more recent examples? I mean, if we're going back into the early 2000's, we can probably get some examples of where CNN wasn't left-wing, lol.
-
wrt to bias (a 1 Nov 2019 article):
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-extremists/racially-and-ethnically-motivated-terrorism-rose-alarmingly-in-2018-u-s-state-department-idUSKBN1XB4QY
Note the refererence to white supremacist and not specifically calling out other racially motivated terror organizations.
Note the drop in about mass shootings and gun control (which was apropos of nothing in the article). And note the lack of recognition of our constitutional rights.
-
wrt to bias (a 1 Nov 2019 article):
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-extremists/racially-and-ethnically-motivated-terrorism-rose-alarmingly-in-2018-u-s-state-department-idUSKBN1XB4QY
Note the refererence to white supremacist and not specifically calling out other racially motivated terror organizations.
Note the drop in about mass shootings and gun control (which was apropos of nothing in the article). And note the lack of recognition of our constitutional rights.
I can agree that the drop-in about mass shootings was barely-tangential to the headline topic. I would, however, disagree that specifically mentioning white supremacist groups while not naming other terror organizations isn't really left-wing biased. Is highlighting white supremacist groups a left/right issue? The specific reference to the white supremacy seems to stem from the selected Trump quotation in the article "must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy".
Why would the article detail any recognition of US Constitutional rights when it was about the rise of ethnic/racial terrorism world wide, and shouldn't have inserted the mass shootings/gun control statement to begin with? It would seem even less apropos to go into a diatribe about US gun rights.
I appreciate the link and your opinion on it. I guess my tolerance for what constitutes left/right bias is a bit less stringent. I certainly can detect 'bias' in the article, even anti-American bias if you want to call it such. I mostly noticed that the article started off talking about the rise in terrorism incidents worldwide and in the US, then spent the rest of the article quoting the US State Dept. I don't think that anti-American bias is synonymous with left-wing though.
-
While I appreciate the sort-of evidence . . . it's a story from 2003 (16.5 years ago) which doesn't have links to the original source story or anything else. Have some more recent examples? I mean, if we're going back into the early 2000's, we can probably get some examples of where CNN wasn't left-wing, lol.
You can find many examples. Maybe you just don't want to. It is up to you to counter my claim, or it stands.
-
With respect to bias detection in allegedly neutral news stories, I use a couple screening rules:
(1) The story includes old news or claims to provide context. The selection of context allows bias to be inserted. If the context is removed and the news story still conveys the new facts, bias has been attempted.
(2) The story uses emotive or judgmental adjectives or adverbs. These can almost always be removed without affecting the delivery of the facts in the news story. Their existence shows an attempt at bias.
OR as is almost aLways the case, Reuters conveniently leaves out stuff.
-
You can find many examples. Maybe you just don't want to. It is up to you to counter my claim, or it stands.
ok, fine. One financial and one political (Trump impeachment). From today.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-barkin/fed-officials-kick-off-2020-with-optimistic-view-of-u-s-economy-idUSKBN1Z21N4 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-barkin/fed-officials-kick-off-2020-with-optimistic-view-of-u-s-economy-idUSKBN1Z21N4)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/u-s-senate-in-stalemate-over-how-to-proceed-with-trump-impeachment-trial-idUSKBN1Z21W3 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/u-s-senate-in-stalemate-over-how-to-proceed-with-trump-impeachment-trial-idUSKBN1Z21W3)
Seems pretty neutral to me, I'm not picking up on much of anything right or left.
-
ok, fine. One financial and one political (Trump impeachment). From today.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-barkin/fed-officials-kick-off-2020-with-optimistic-view-of-u-s-economy-idUSKBN1Z21N4 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-barkin/fed-officials-kick-off-2020-with-optimistic-view-of-u-s-economy-idUSKBN1Z21N4)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/u-s-senate-in-stalemate-over-how-to-proceed-with-trump-impeachment-trial-idUSKBN1Z21W3 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/u-s-senate-in-stalemate-over-how-to-proceed-with-trump-impeachment-trial-idUSKBN1Z21W3)
Seems pretty neutral to me, I'm not picking up on much of anything right or left.
Let's look at this paragraph:
The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives voted in December to impeach Trump for pressuring Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential rival in the 2020 presidential election.
The author is making a statement of fact, when in reality it should have read "The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives voted in December to impeach Trump for allegedly pressuring Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential rival in the 2020 presidential election".
Since the trial has yet to happen, the President does indeed have the presumption of innocence. The article leads the reader to believe the President is already guilty.
Then we have this thrown in at the end:
The two Senate leaders spoke after a U.S. air strike in Baghdad killed Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force and architect of its growing military influence in the Middle East. The attack was authorized by Trump, and Iran has promised harsh revenge.
Clinton ordered four days of bombing on Iraq in 1998 as he was facing an impeachment vote in the House. Those airstrikes delayed the vote, but did not prevent it.
Seems the author is attempting to infer that the latest air strike was done as a stunt by the President to delay the impeachment trial. However, anyone paying attention to the latest events in Iraq and Iran would see right through this.
Also, the last 2 paragraphs really have nothing to do with the basis of the article, and are thrown in to discredit Trump to the reader.
-
I guess my tolerance for what constitutes left/right bias is a bit less stringent.
No liberal I know is able to detect left bias in any of the media. (well, almost none; Azure has at least acknowledged that it exists, even if she doesn't acknowledge the extent of it).
-
No liberal I know is able to detect left bias in any of the media. (well, almost none; Azure has at least acknowledged that it exists, even if she doesn't acknowledge the extent of it).
Lol at no point have I denied or even implied that left-bias in media is nonexistent. I said I wanted examples that support Reuters as being left-biased in general. I could pull up articles from CNN or NBC outlets that are so left-biased that they’re unreadable to anyone with a modicum of interest in the facts.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Another air strike tonight.
-
Another air strike tonight.
Where? Got a link?
-
Where? Got a link?
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/breaking-trump-just-did-it-again-another-terrorist-convoy-carrying-high-value-targets-just-obliterated-in-iraq/
-
Let's look at this paragraph:
The author is making a statement of fact, when in reality it should have read "The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives voted in December to impeach Trump for allegedly pressuring Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential rival in the 2020 presidential election".
Since the trial has yet to happen, the President does indeed have the presumption of innocence. The article leads the reader to believe the President is already guilty.
No, it IS a statement of fact. They voted to impeach him for pressuring Ukraine on the Biden incident. That is what they impeached him for. Whether you want to argue if the impeachment was substantiated or not, given the evidence provided, is a different issue. It would actually be right-biased if they included the “allegedly” modified because it would alter the facts. He has been impeached by the House, whether truly guilty or not. When Pelosi finally decides to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, it won’t say he was impeached for “allegedly” pressuring Ukraine. The Senate then gets to hold a trial to confirm.
Then we have this thrown in at the end:
Seems the author is attempting to infer that the latest air strike was done as a stunt by the President to delay the impeachment trial. However, anyone paying attention to the latest events in Iraq and Iran would see right through this.
Also, the last 2 paragraphs really have nothing to do with the basis of the article, and are thrown in to discredit Trump to the reader.
There’s nothing that discredits Trump in the last two paragraphs nor does it say anything about a publicity stunt. You’re reading into something that isn’t there. Again, it’s a statement of fact that Clinton also had ordered military action during the impeachment proceedings which had little effect on the outcome. All that says is that the military action from Trump will likely cause little delay or disruption to the current impeachment proceedings. The link between the latest military engagement was made because the updated impeachment statements from the aforementioned Senators was given after/in response to the press release of the Iranian attack.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
No, it IS a statement of fact. They voted to impeach him for pressuring Ukraine on the Biden incident. That is what they impeached him for. Whether you want to argue if the impeachment was substantiated or not, given the evidence provided, is a different issue. It would actually be right-biased if they included the “allegedly” modified because it would alter the facts. He has been impeached by the House, whether truly guilty or not. When Pelosi finally decides to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, it won’t say he was impeached for “allegedly” pressuring Ukraine. The Senate then gets to hold a trial to confirm.
There’s nothing that discredits Trump in the last two paragraphs nor does it say anything about a publicity stunt. You’re reading into something that isn’t there. Again, it’s a statement of fact that Clinton also had ordered military action during the impeachment proceedings which had little effect on the outcome. All that says is that the military action from Trump will likely cause little delay or disruption to the current impeachment proceedings. The link between the latest military engagement was made because the updated impeachment statements from the aforementioned Senators was given after/in response to the press release of the Iranian attack.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Of course you don't want to see the obvious. You asked for an example of bias and I showed it to you. This is journalism 101.
By leaving out descriptive words changes the context of the article and leads the reader to believe something that frankly is misleading.
The writer of the article worded it purposely, and the editor approved it. Had it remained factual (as news should be) the editor would have insisted on making a few changes.
As far as the last two paragraphs? Not related to the story line, and worded in a way to sway opinion.
But you don't see it. No matter how it's presented to you, you will still refuse to see the bias in the article.
-
Liberals LOVE their lies. It makes them feel whole and virtuous.
It is also a crock of shit, served warm to blind, shallow liberals the world over.
-
Of course you don't want to see the obvious. You asked for an example of bias and I showed it to you. This is journalism 101.
By leaving out descriptive words changes the context of the article and leads the reader to believe something that frankly is misleading.
The writer of the article worded it purposely, and the editor approved it. Had it remained factual (as news should be) the editor would have insisted on making a few changes.
As far as the last two paragraphs? Not related to the story line, and worded in a way to sway opinion.
But you don't see it. No matter how it's presented to you, you will still refuse to see the bias in the article.
At least Azure, who no longer participates here anymore, admitted that even her beloved PBS, and NPR were slightly leftist biased. Slightly. LOL!
-
At least Azure, who no longer participates here anymore, admitted that even her beloved PBS, and NPR were slightly leftist biased. Slightly. LOL!
And CNN's slogan is still "The Most Trusted Name in News"........ ::)
-
At least Azure, who no longer participates here anymore, admitted that even her beloved PBS, and NPR were slightly leftist biased. Slightly. LOL!
Remember this one: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-trump/trump-says-family-separations-deter-illegal-immigration-idUSKCN1MO00C
In June, Trump abandoned his policy of separating immigrant children from their parents on the U.S.-Mexico border after images of youngsters in cages sparked outrage at home and abroad.
Horrifying! Um, well, except those "images" were from the Obama Administration (slight omission by Rueters).
Then they threw this in for measure:
Trump also claimed, without providing evidence, that immigrants were “grabbing children and they’re using children to come in to our country in many cases.”
Yes, the Border Patrol has ample evidence of this happening.
Bias? Well, obviously not!
-
Remember this one: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-trump/trump-says-family-separations-deter-illegal-immigration-idUSKCN1MO00C
Horrifying! Um, well, except those "images" were from the Obama Administration (slight omission by Rueters).
Then they threw this in for measure:
Yes, the Border Patrol has ample evidence of this happening.
Bias? Well, obviously not!
You are wasting your time.
sooner aviation has insulated himself from what is obvious to people who aren't transparently blind to anything that challenges their opinions.
-
I can agree that the drop-in about mass shootings was barely-tangential to the headline topic. I would, however, disagree that specifically mentioning white supremacist groups while not naming other terror organizations isn't really left-wing biased. Is highlighting white supremacist groups a left/right issue? The specific reference to the white supremacy seems to stem from the selected Trump quotation in the article "must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy".
Why would the article detail any recognition of US Constitutional rights when it was about the rise of ethnic/racial terrorism world wide, and shouldn't have inserted the mass shootings/gun control statement to begin with? It would seem even less apropos to go into a diatribe about US gun rights.
I appreciate the link and your opinion on it. I guess my tolerance for what constitutes left/right bias is a bit less stringent. I certainly can detect 'bias' in the article, even anti-American bias if you want to call it such. I mostly noticed that the article started off talking about the rise in terrorism incidents worldwide and in the US, then spent the rest of the article quoting the US State Dept. I don't think that anti-American bias is synonymous with left-wing though.
(https://scontent.ftpf1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/80876245_2531756450434480_1425689800924463104_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ohc=Us4v7VuqncYAQnOjoddpAeY_4GFLsHr9tJOxkqRryeHHvDgIlddceHH_w&_nc_ht=scontent.ftpf1-2.fna&oh=c83c8998e42111aad9101020deebd85a&oe=5E998556)
-
Of course you don't want to see the obvious. You asked for an example of bias and I showed it to you. This is journalism 101.
By leaving out descriptive words changes the context of the article and leads the reader to believe something that frankly is misleading.
The writer of the article worded it purposely, and the editor approved it. Had it remained factual (as news should be) the editor would have insisted on making a few changes.
As far as the last two paragraphs? Not related to the story line, and worded in a way to sway opinion.
But you don't see it. No matter how it's presented to you, you will still refuse to see the bias in the article.
The only thing you showed is that the article wasn't written to depict what you want it to. Just because you want to throw in the word "allegedly" to modify it to suit your stance on the whole impeachment doesn't mean that it's factually correct. The article wan't misleading at all: Trump was impeached in the House for pressuring Ukraine on Joe Biden. That is a fact. No need for INCLUDING descriptive words that change the context. I can understand how the last two paragraphs aren't absolutely necessary, but how does it sway opinion? You state that it paints Trump in a negative light, but I'm not sure that it made known any opinion on Trump at all, aside from the fact that there exists a similar set of circumstances with Trump as there was during Clinton's impeachment proceedings. It didn't appear to make any attempt at swaying opinion that I see. I feel like you're assuming any comparison of Trump and Clinton means that Trump has been slighted in some way. You presented what you think is left-bias, and I disagree with you. It's not about how you are presenting it, I just flat disagree with your assumption.
It also doesn't mean that Reuters doesn't have other examples that may have left-wing bias (or right-wing bias). I just don't think the two examples I pulled from yesterday's headlines have strong examples of either type of bias. I would also think that there would have to be a certain percentage of articles which show a given bias to label an entire news organization as "right-bias" or "left-bias". I'm just not seeing enough evidence to label Reuters as such, so far.
-
So what's your point in the big picture Sooner? You come here and instead of discussing issues, you choose to focus on the perceived Conservative leanings here? You do realize the vast majority of Media, including Entertainment and Social Media is Far Left Progressive, Democrat biased, right? Do you not recognize that?
What's your objective? To prove all of our positions invalid because we are all just Right Wing Nutjobs? Can you actually discuss the content of the issues at any point?
-
The only thing you showed is that the article wasn't written to depict what you want it to. Just because you want to throw in the word "allegedly" to modify it to suit your stance on the whole impeachment doesn't mean that it's factually correct. The article wan't misleading at all: Trump was impeached in the House for pressuring Ukraine on Joe Biden. That is a fact. No need for INCLUDING descriptive words that change the context. I can understand how the last two paragraphs aren't absolutely necessary, but how does it sway opinion? You state that it paints Trump in a negative light, but I'm not sure that it made known any opinion on Trump at all, aside from the fact that there exists a similar set of circumstances with Trump as there was during Clinton's impeachment proceedings. It didn't appear to make any attempt at swaying opinion that I see. I feel like you're assuming any comparison of Trump and Clinton means that Trump has been slighted in some way. You presented what you think is left-bias, and I disagree with you. It's not about how you are presenting it, I just flat disagree with your assumption.
It also doesn't mean that Reuters doesn't have other examples that may have left-wing bias (or right-wing bias). I just don't think the two examples I pulled from yesterday's headlines have strong examples of either type of bias. I would also think that there would have to be a certain percentage of articles which show a given bias to label an entire news organization as "right-bias" or "left-bias". I'm just not seeing enough evidence to label Reuters as such, so far.
Without addressing the idiocy of your first paragraph, even if I did you would use a circular “logic” that satisfies your narrative, no matter what I or anyone else writes here on the subject of journalistic bias, you will not accept it. This is why TDS is very real, and you are proving that with each and every inane diatribe you post.
-
So what's your point in the big picture Sooner? You come here and instead of discussing issues, you choose to focus on the perceived Conservative leanings here? You do realize the vast majority of Media, including Entertainment and Social Media is Far Left Progressive, Democrat biased, right? Do you not recognize that?
What's your objective? To prove all of our positions invalid because we are all just Right Wing Nutjobs? Can you actually discuss the content of the issues at any point?
My objective was to be open-minded and dig further to see why some of you thought Reuters was left-biased, as if they were untrustworthy and akin to CNN/NBC/etc. when I hadn't seen much evidence to support such a claim. I am fully aware that several of the most vocal on this forum are heavily Conservative/Republican, which I don't have a problem with in the least. I just didn't see evidence that Reuters was left- or right-leaning in any significant amount, so I asked for examples of such. I also didn't make mention of whether your (or anyone else's) positions were invalid.
In return, I got told to find support for someone else's argument via google. Then, a vague article from damn near 2 decades ago with no references in the article. Finally, I supplied the first two headlines I came across on Reuters which didn't seem to show much, if any, bias toward one political philosophy or another only to be told that the exclusion of one word that they would have preferred means that the whole article is left-wing liberal slanted. So, in my efforts to uncover some knowledge about Reuters being liberal-biased, I still remain unconvinced. Finally, I absolutely agree that the majority of media outlets are liberal-biased, no question. I just didn't lump Reuters into that category (regardless of which parent company owns which media company).
For whatever reason, the go-to argument for several members here who don't toe the conservative line on every event/circumstance are automatically labeled full-fledged liberal Democrats/Socialists. I'm not sure I understand that sentiment since everyone falls somewhere different on the political scale, it isn't just "you're a conservative" or "you're a liberal". It's almost hostile at times.
-
Just FYI, when a person is indicted of a crime, it was common journalistic practice (and good form) to use “alleged” or “allegedly”.
Examples from Reuters itself:
Longtime U.S. Senate intel panel staffer indicted for allegedly lying to FBI
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-senate-intelligence-indictment-idUSKCN1J40C2 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-senate-intelligence-indictment-idUSKCN1J40C2)
Chinese national arrested for allegedly trespassing at Trump's Mar-a-Lago
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-maralago-china-idUSKBN1YN0KN (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-maralago-china-idUSKBN1YN0KN)
In general it isn’t relevant that the indictment (or impeachment) does not itself contain a qualifier like “alleged” - the story would in fact be misleading to not include that qualifier since the accusation has yet to be tried. Sometimes reporters simply screw up - other times the drop is deliberate.
A few decades back I actually read part of a book containing guidelines on best journalistic practices. I do not know what current texts on the subject say. As best I can tell by sampling, many online “reporters” probably have never seen such guidelines or have no editor to correct their errors.
Anyway, with respect to Reuters personnel, at least one managed to make the news himself:
Reuters staffer accused of aiding hackers maintains innocence - lawyer
https://www.reuters.com/article/thomson-reuters-matthew-keys-idINDEE92E0EV20130315 (https://www.reuters.com/article/thomson-reuters-matthew-keys-idINDEE92E0EV20130315)
Matthew Keys Sentenced to Two Years for Aiding Anonymous
https://www.wired.com/2016/04/journalist-matthew-keys-sentenced-two-years-aiding-anonymous/ (https://www.wired.com/2016/04/journalist-matthew-keys-sentenced-two-years-aiding-anonymous/)
-
My objective was to be open-minded and dig further to see why some of you thought Reuters was left-biased, as if they were untrustworthy and akin to CNN/NBC/etc. when I hadn't seen much evidence to support such a claim. I am fully aware that several of the most vocal on this forum are heavily Conservative/Republican, which I don't have a problem with in the least. I just didn't see evidence that Reuters was left- or right-leaning in any significant amount, so I asked for examples of such. I also didn't make mention of whether your (or anyone else's) positions were invalid.
In return, I got told to find support for someone else's argument via google. Then, a vague article from damn near 2 decades ago with no references in the article. Finally, I supplied the first two headlines I came across on Reuters which didn't seem to show much, if any, bias toward one political philosophy or another only to be told that the exclusion of one word that they would have preferred means that the whole article is left-wing liberal slanted. So, in my efforts to uncover some knowledge about Reuters being liberal-biased, I still remain unconvinced. Finally, I absolutely agree that the majority of media outlets are liberal-biased, no question. I just didn't lump Reuters into that category (regardless of which parent company owns which media company).
For whatever reason, the go-to argument for several members here who don't toe the conservative line on every event/circumstance are automatically labeled full-fledged liberal Democrats/Socialists. I'm not sure I understand that sentiment since everyone falls somewhere different on the political scale, it isn't just "you're a conservative" or "you're a liberal". It's almost hostile at times.
One thing I’ve noticed with many of your postings is the continuous virtue signaling.
-
========================================
-
Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, can anyone quote the USC sections delineated in the articles that Trump is in violation of?
If Joe Biden did corrupt things, wouldn't we want to know that?
By Treaty, isn't Trump required to investigate possible corruption by Biden?
-
Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, can anyone quote the USC sections delineated in the articles that Trump is in violation of?
If Joe Biden did corrupt things, wouldn't we want to know that?
By Treaty, isn't Trump required to investigate possible corruption by Biden?
The low information types can’t answer any of that. They don’t want to either, because the answer (truth) is painful.
Facts are hard for leftist to deal in.
-
The low information types can’t answer any of that. They don’t want to either, because the answer (truth) is painful.
Facts are hard for leftist to deal in.
Leftists base their opinions on emotion, not fact. The impeachment all rests on hatred (an emotion) pure and simple, hatred for Donald Trump and for all of us who voted for him. They have absolutely nothing else.
-
Every media outlet falls somewhere on the spectrum of left/right/center. And don’t post that stupid chart someone made showing where they fall. It’s biased!
All you have to do is listen to or read a variety of sources. You’ll start to see a pattern of bias. It ALWAYS starts with a misleading or even entirely false headline or lead-in. That’s all most people will see. If they read further, the headline will slowly be proven quite wrong, and the last few sentences will seal the deal ... the headline was cleverly false and misleading.
Example from my local paper. Headline “Democrats Warn that GOP Will Cut Social Security.” Not happening, as you see further in the article, and actually entirely debunked in the last sentence. But Dems can “warn” anything they like and present it as fact, get people mad, get votes.
And right now we have WaPo whining about the Soleimani execution as “the right decision, but the wrong Commander in Chief.” What does that even mean?
Just start from the standpoint that all media are biased. Journalistic standards seem nonexistent now. In fact, when I majored in English, I eschewed the journalism track. The journalism majors wanted to “change the world,” and were quite willing to discuss advancing their careers with organizations that required them to advance a certain narrative. And that was in the early 90s. Journalism is filled with Social Justice Warriors. And to quote the title of a very good book on the subject, “Social Justice Warriors Always Lie.” The book has a sequel, “Social Justice Warriors Always Double Down.”
Sooner, your posts are starting to sound like you’re doubling down on denial, nevertheless with an earnest attempt to suss out bias. Right or left, bias is always there, and the more convolutedly you have to think to resolve something (the articles internally contradict the headlines, or even contradict themselves), the more biased it probably is.
-
sooner aviation has no interest in the facts, or the truth.
H is driven by his devotion to the agenda.
-
Why were the left silent when Obama launched missiles at terrorists and killed an American citizen without due process?
-
Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, can anyone quote the USC sections delineated in the articles that Trump is in violation of?
No, but there's a reason. There is no official standard for impeachment and the subsequent trial (if it happens). They are not bound by the laws of the US.
Because the Constitution empowers the House to impeach and the Senate to try the impeachment, their processes are called "sui juris", which means "of it's own kind". The rules and standards are literally whatever the body says they are. The House has decided that a standard of "abuse of power" and "obstruction of justice" are sufficient grounds to accuse him. It is now the job of the House to forward the accusation to the Senate for trial and for the Senate to decide what those charges really mean and what standard is needed to prove them. There is an inherent recognition that Senators are political beings and will exercise politics in their role, but a hope that they also exhibit a more even temperament than the House. That might be fantasy today.
Yes, that means that if one party has 1/2 majority in the House, a 2/3 majority in the Senate and a president of the opposite party, they could just vote to remove that president for any reason they deem fit. The only ones to hold them responsible for that is We The People, at the ballot box.
Don't look to laws to tell you the standard of the House or Senate here. They aren't bound by them.
Otherwise, Joe Biden committed corruption in Ukraine. It is appropriate that they investigate that.
-
Did Congress not cite USC in Clinton's impeachment?
Obstruction of justice because folks wouldn't answer the phony subpoenas and Schiff wouldn't take them to court because he knew he'd lose.
-
Did Congress not cite USC in Clinton's impeachment?
Obstruction of justice because folks wouldn't answer the phony subpoenas and Schiff wouldn't take them to court because he knew he'd lose.
They might have, but not because it's required. The House could impeach the president for eating a ham sandwich if they choose. Unlikely the Senate would agree with them.
The witnesses could have ignored the president and shown up to testify. Schiff could have also directed the House Sargent at Arms to arrest the witnesses and bring them to the House. He chose not to, so I don't see how the president prevented them from testifying.
-
Shifty Schiff not happy at all:
https://americantruthtoday.com/left-news/2020/01/05/sunday-morning-schiff-dem-impeachment-ringleader-blasts-trump-for-killing-terrorist/?utm_source=sprklst&utm_campaign=politicalhallmark-sunday-01_05-pm
-
Shifty Shiff not happy at all:
https://americantruthtoday.com/left-news/2020/01/05/sunday-morning-schiff-dem-impeachment-ringleader-blasts-trump-for-killing-terrorist/?utm_source=sprklst&utm_campaign=politicalhallmark-sunday-01_05-pm
https://thenationalsentinel.com/2020/01/05/mike-huckabee-on-soleimani-strike-schiff-would-have-held-a-press-conference-if-trump-informed-congress-first/
Mike Huckabee on Soleimani strike: ‘Adam Schiff would have held a press conference’ if Trump informed Congress first'
-
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7cd217a28004269bc4c83ff564de9ad2b36ebf56e054221071ebec79bbf475ac.jpg?w=800&h=466)
-
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5970906c4dcde8fb60a668508f7f8cf55464714a4c24b1a37746f508558aeffd.jpg?w=800&h=642)
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gv010320dAPR20200103084526.jpg)
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200106/ebcf30a545afb05b2dbe883f176d9e12.jpg)
-
Our Stukas will deal with them.