Clear media bias

[Syne]

And? You're the only one who brought up morality.

When you were called on two of your links having already been covered by CNN and the rest not politically motivated, you had to introduce the red herring of morality. At best, it's a tu quoque fallacy that doesn't even address the central claim.

That's all this was about is morality. You tried to sidestep it by lying that when conservatives threaten and attack it is less wrong. I exposed that bullshit. Your side is just as guilty as anything liberal radicals do. That's the point. Also I posted 3 stories about Trumpers doing bad things that weren't reported by the mainstream media. You only posted two. I win.

Now, I'm done arguing against your petty-minded bitchy crap. My point stands.

No one said anything was less wrong. So you've only exposed your own straw man, no doubt motivated by your own bias. The point is that politically motivated threats/attacks are legally, and even in terms of national newsworthiness, more consequential. The media is not an arbiter of morality; it's in the business of getting views...and often, to spread their own.

"Doing bad things" is not, itself, a measure of newsworthiness...see the regular Chicago gang violence. Threatening/attacking the people who directly represent many other people is newsworthy...at least if it suits the media's bias. Do you even remember the details of the Sutherland Springs shooting, that killed more than Parkland? There's a reason for that.

And when they do cover left-wing violence, they justify and omit details:
Washington Post Justifies Violence Against Trump Supporters
How The American Left Made Political Violence The New Normal

Left-wing and Democrat-aligned news media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, and The Washington Post neglected to note the presence of communist black racial nationalist paraphernalia displayed by counter-demonstrators; instead, often describing counter-demonstrators as “anti-racist.”
- https://www.dailywire.com/news/19685/wat...t-kraychik

Here are 6 Moments Where the Media has Wrongly Blamed Conservatives (and the Tea Party) for Violence

Even CNN's Cuomo has literally said that "all punches are not equal morally". There's your silly media moral arbiter for you.

[Magical Realist]

If CNN is media biased towards the left, then by those same standards Fox News is a downright propaganda machine for the right:

https://www.kstatecollegian.com/2017/03/...a-machine/

"On Feb. 18 at a rally in Melbourne, Florida, Trump falsely stated that crime was rising in Sweden because their country was accepting a large number of refugees. After drawing questions and criticism from the Swedish government, Trump tweeted the following day, “My statement as to what’s happening in Sweden was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants & Sweden.”

Fox’s response to this? To double-down on the false claims they and President Trump made. On Feb. 23, Bill O’Reilly, host of “The O’Reilly Factor,” had a special guest, Nils Bildt, who was introduced on-screen as a “Swedish defense and national security adviser.”

“There is a problem with crime, (and) there is a problem with areas or hotspots of crime (in Sweden),” Bildt said while on “The O’Reilly Factor.” Bildt said the reason no one has heard about this is because “if you don’t agree with the liberal … common agenda, then you are viewed as an outsider or not even taken seriously.”

The problem with all of this: the Swedish Armed Forces does not even know who this man is. Dagens Nyheter, a Swedish newspaper, said that Nils Bildt, formerly Nils Tolling, emigrated from Sweden in 1994 and had actually been convicted of a felony in 2014 “for assaulting a law enforcement person and for obstruction of justice, after threatening an official.”

So, we have a “news” organization, one of few that happens to be fervently loved by President Trump, bringing on a convicted felon to impersonate a foreign dignitary. All in order to further push a false narrative so that Trump seems correct. This recent scandal is just one of many examples of why Fox “News” is not news. Rather, they are a propaganda machine.

This isn’t just liberals attacking Fox because they are conservative. We agree that every viewpoint should be heard, and there are reliable, well-known, conservative-leaning news organizations that often do fantastic journalistic work. But, Fox is different from these legitimate news organizations.

The definition of propaganda is “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.” Fox “News” perfectly embodies all of this, and we’ll explain why.

Propaganda machine

Fox separates itself by the means in which they tell stories — using fear and spreading patently false lies — and the degree to which they push an extreme right agenda. Going so far as to label people “un-American” and “bad Americans” for holding opposing beliefs.

The first aspect of propaganda is spreading “information … of a biased or misleading nature.” A great example of this with Fox is how the issue of climate change is discussed. According to an article from The International Journal of Press/Politics, Fox “News” takes a dismissive tone toward climate change and frequently interviews a larger number of climate-change skeptics. This makes the viewers more inclined to believe that climate change is not man-made and not as urgent of an issue, compared to viewers of CNN, MSNBC, etc.

Another 2010 study researched Fox viewers and found they were more likely to believe falsehoods like the economy was getting worse, most Republicans were opposed to TARP and even the continued lie that former President Barack Obama was not born in the U.S.

Now, let’s turn to the definition of propaganda as a means to “promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.” Again, Fox “News” wholly embodies this. In a 2016 study published by Stanford, titled “Bias in Cable News: Persuasion and Polarization,” Gregory J. Martin and Ali Yurukoglu estimated that “Fox News'” ideology has been moving further to the right in most recent years, and this is well documented.

After the 2012 election, a political scientist from Columbia University said “one of the reasons Mitt Romney was so unable to pivot back to the center was due to the drumbeat at Fox … even after the primary season, when Fox became a big supporter for Romney, the rift between official editorial position and the political feelings of Fox viewers and hosts was clear.”

Fox as a whole is one of the largest and most effective architects of Republican talking points. The leaders of the party don’t create the talking points, they just repeat them. We’ve seen this occur over the years as Fox fueled the Tea Party movement, leaders of which adopted talking points made on shows like “The Sean Hannity Show” and “The O’Reilly Factor.” But, it can be seen even more clearly now with President Trump, who has directly quoted Fox statements in his tweets and repeatedly states he gets his information from Fox.

Again, there are many conservative news organizations that do great journalistic work — The National Review, The Wall Street Journal and Real Clear Politics, just to name a few — but Fox has proven they cannot be taken as a legitimate news organization, as 59 percent of statements made on the network are varying degrees of falsity."

[Syne]

Now, I'm done arguing against your petty-minded bitchy crap. My point stands.

So you were just lying here.  

If CNN is media biased towards the left, then by those same standards Fox News is a downright propaganda machine for the right:

https://www.kstatecollegian.com/2017/03/...a-machine/

"On Feb. 18 at a rally in Melbourne, Florida, Trump falsely stated that crime was rising in Sweden because their country was accepting a large number of refugees. After drawing questions and criticism from the Swedish government, Trump tweeted the following day, “My statement as to what’s happening in Sweden was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants & Sweden.”

Fox’s response to this? To double-down on the false claims they and President Trump made. On Feb. 23, Bill O’Reilly, host of “The O’Reilly Factor,” had a special guest, Nils Bildt, who was introduced on-screen as a “Swedish defense and national security adviser.”

“There is a problem with crime, (and) there is a problem with areas or hotspots of crime (in Sweden),” Bildt said while on “The O’Reilly Factor.” Bildt said the reason no one has heard about this is because “if you don’t agree with the liberal … common agenda, then you are viewed as an outsider or not even taken seriously.”

The problem with all of this: the Swedish Armed Forces does not even know who this man is. Dagens Nyheter, a Swedish newspaper, said that Nils Bildt, formerly Nils Tolling, emigrated from Sweden in 1994 and had actually been convicted of a felony in 2014 “for assaulting a law enforcement person and for obstruction of justice, after threatening an official.”

So, we have a “news” organization, one of few that happens to be fervently loved by President Trump, bringing on a convicted felon to impersonate a foreign dignitary. All in order to further push a false narrative so that Trump seems correct. This recent scandal is just one of many examples of why Fox “News” is not news. Rather, they are a propaganda machine.

This isn’t just liberals attacking Fox because they are conservative. We agree that every viewpoint should be heard, and there are reliable, well-known, conservative-leaning news organizations that often do fantastic journalistic work. But, Fox is different from these legitimate news organizations.

The definition of propaganda is “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.” Fox “News” perfectly embodies all of this, and we’ll explain why.

Propaganda machine

Fox separates itself by the means in which they tell stories — using fear and spreading patently false lies — and the degree to which they push an extreme right agenda. Going so far as to label people “un-American” and “bad Americans” for holding opposing beliefs.

The first aspect of propaganda is spreading “information … of a biased or misleading nature.” A great example of this with Fox is how the issue of climate change is discussed. According to an article from The International Journal of Press/Politics, Fox “News” takes a dismissive tone toward climate change and frequently interviews a larger number of climate-change skeptics. This makes the viewers more inclined to believe that climate change is not man-made and not as urgent of an issue, compared to viewers of CNN, MSNBC, etc.

Another 2010 study researched Fox viewers and found they were more likely to believe falsehoods like the economy was getting worse, most Republicans were opposed to TARP and even the continued lie that former President Barack Obama was not born in the U.S.

Now, let’s turn to the definition of propaganda as a means to “promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.” Again, Fox “News” wholly embodies this. In a 2016 study published by Stanford, titled “Bias in Cable News: Persuasion and Polarization,” Gregory J. Martin and Ali Yurukoglu estimated that “Fox News'” ideology has been moving further to the right in most recent years, and this is well documented.

After the 2012 election, a political scientist from Columbia University said “one of the reasons Mitt Romney was so unable to pivot back to the center was due to the drumbeat at Fox … even after the primary season, when Fox became a big supporter for Romney, the rift between official editorial position and the political feelings of Fox viewers and hosts was clear.”

Fox as a whole is one of the largest and most effective architects of Republican talking points. The leaders of the party don’t create the talking points, they just repeat them. We’ve seen this occur over the years as Fox fueled the Tea Party movement, leaders of which adopted talking points made on shows like “The Sean Hannity Show” and “The O’Reilly Factor.” But, it can be seen even more clearly now with President Trump, who has directly quoted Fox statements in his tweets and repeatedly states he gets his information from Fox.

Again, there are many conservative news organizations that do great journalistic work — The National Review, The Wall Street Journal and Real Clear Politics, just to name a few — but Fox has proven they cannot be taken as a legitimate news organization, as 59 percent of statements made on the network are varying degrees of falsity."

First, you need to learn the difference between editorial (opinion) and news. O'Reilly's show was obviously the former. And:

The Fox News host Bill O’Reilly distanced himself on Monday from a guest his show falsely identified last week as a “Swedish defense and national security adviser,” saying he should not have been invited to appear in a segment on immigrants and crime in Sweden.

The guest, Nils Bildt, appeared on The O’Reilly Factor last Thursday to support claims made by Mr. O’Reilly that immigration had led to an uptick in violent crime in Sweden.- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/world...viser.html

Second, this is one story...that Fox did correct: O’Reilly Issues Correction Over Guest Who Was Identified as Swedish National Security Adviser
Third, according to National Review, a source your citation claims is one of the "conservative news organizations that do great journalistic work":

President Donald Trump was more right than wrong about Sweden. Fox News was slightly misleading.
...
He didn’t cite a terror attack, though his words were characteristically imprecise. Two days later, as if to underscore that Trump had a point, riots erupted in a suburb of Stockholm.
...
In fact, Sweden has been taking large numbers of refugees and immigrants for decades. They’ve accepted Balkans, Iraqis, Somalis, and many others. The Washington Post notwithstanding, there is a connection between immigration and criminality and other problems. As the Swedish economist Tino Sanandaji has noted, the employment rate for native Swedes is about 82 percent, but it’s only 58 percent for immigrants, and lower still for non-Western immigrants. Among native Swedes, the crime rate is equivalent to Iceland’s. But in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods, lawbreaking is comparable to the much higher overall rate in the U.S.
- https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/02/s...mmigrants/

So left-leaning media tried to obscure the facts of what was said with the genetic fallacy of who said it.

[Magical Realist]

"Last weekend at a Florida campaign rally, the president of the United States made vague claims intimating that Sweden has an immigrant violence problem. Research we have conducted shows that this is not true. In fact, criticism of Sweden is based on common misconceptions and mishandled information.

The president’s comments were originally inspired by a Fox News report on a video propaganda piece released by Ami Horowitz, which alleges that Sweden faces a spate of Muslim immigrant violence and that Swedish authorities are covering this up. The video misuses quotes from Swedish police to suggest that official crime statistics in Sweden are being purposely withheld. After President Trump’s comments, several right-wing media outlets doubled down on these claims. This is a feedback loop based on what are now called “alternative facts.”

Official crime statistics from Sweden actually show that the crime rate has remained steady since 2005. What’s more, the Swedish police do not collect information on the ethnicity, religion, or race of perpetrators or victims of crime, which means there’s no evidence for claims that Muslim immigrants are committing crimes in record numbers. Nor is there any evidence to support the claim that Swedish authorities are manipulating the statistics, as the producer of the video alleges.

Actually, compared to the U.S., the government of Sweden is a model in making data accessible and actions transparent. Its official statistics are some of the most complete and readily accessible in the world. Since 1766, Swedish law on freedom of the press has included a principle of public access (Offentlighetsprincipen), which grants public access to all government documents upon request unless they fall under secrecy restrictions. This law is the oldest piece of freedom of information legislation in the world.


By contrast, the Trump administration has been actively working to remove much of the U.S. government’s publicly available information, from climate data to budgeting information and data gathered by the USDA, the EPA, and the CDC.

But sometimes Sweden’s crime statistics are so thorough as to be misleading

Sweden’s information landscape, though a model for other countries to emulate, is not without drawbacks when the data is misunderstood or misrepresented. For example, because Sweden reports crime and abuse so thoroughly, people often assume that the state is not in great shape. Because the Swedish government reports high numbers of rape and police brutality, some rightwing observers, such as UKIP’s Nigel Farage, have used this as evidence that Sweden is the “rape capital” of Europe. This is misleading.

In Sweden, the legal definition of sexual assault is much broader than it is in the U.S. and even other European countries. While the rate of rape has remained steady in Sweden over the past decade, changes to the legal definition of sexual assault in 2005 and 2013 resulted in increases in reported sexual assault — because more acts now fall within the legal definition and are therefore officially counted. Thus, the standard of accountability has increased.

What’s more, in Sweden, people are supported when reporting such violations. Women pay lower social costs for going public with a rape allegation — and are very unlikely to be shamed, retaliated against, or put on a parallel trial, as often happens in the U.S.

These two processes are mutually reinforcing. When a victim of a crime like a rape or police brutality report allegations to the Swedish government, these allegations are collected, tracked, investigated, and ultimately adjudicated in a court of law. Swedish citizens know this. It encourages them to come forward with information. The principle of public access means that nearly every allegation of a crime or of government misconduct is recorded and made publicly available. Citizens in Sweden can use this information to hold their government accountable.


Paradoxically, Sweden’s openness makes it appear more troubled than it is

Though rare in Sweden, group violence does sometimes result in injuries and property damage. One of these rare events happened just a few days after Trump’s comments. However, because of the principle of public access, outside observers can assess information about this case using official records from the Swedish government and compare that information to the accounts generated by local and international media and other observers and witnesses.

Without accurate information and unfettered access to government information, such a comparison is much harder for American citizens.

In the U.S., some U.S., state, and local government agencies under-report certain abuses, like police shootings. Sometimes that underreporting is even intentional. U.S. government agencies are therefore less accountable to their citizens when information is withheld or obscured. If citizens believe this, then they might be less likely to report crimes to the government.

For U.S. activists who wish to advocate for increased governmental transparency, accessibility, and ultimately accountability, Sweden represents an even higher standard to aim for."------
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monk...c8231c004e

[Syne]

Ah, I see you've moved on to your next red herring.

That National Review quote didn't even mention rape...instead talking about crime in general. But they did agree that: "Getting accurate statistics on rape in Sweden is difficult. On one hand, the government, in obedience to feminist diktats, has broadened the definition of rape very considerably to include many things that most Americans would not consider rape."

[Magical Realist]

Ah, I see you've moved on to your next red herring.

That National Review quote didn't even mention rape...instead talking about crime in general. But they did agree that: "Getting accurate statistics on rape in Sweden is difficult. On one hand, the government, in obedience to feminist diktats, has broadened the definition of rape very considerably to include many things that most Americans would not consider rape."

LOL! Dumbass...The National Review article you quoted from is titled "What's up with rape in Sweden?"

[Syne]

Ah, I see you've moved on to your next red herring.

That National Review quote didn't even mention rape...instead talking about crime in general. But they did agree that: "Getting accurate statistics on rape in Sweden is difficult. On one hand, the government, in obedience to feminist diktats, has broadened the definition of rape very considerably to include many things that most Americans would not consider rape."

LOL! Dumbass...The National Review article you quoted from is titled "What's up with rape in Sweden?"

And? Maybe you should try actually reading what I wrote. See where I'm only talking about the quote I used?
No? Reading comprehension failed you there? Oh well.

Still waiting for you to get around to why this isn't a red herring.

[Magical Realist]

You're a complete idiot. Don't waste my time anymore..

[Syne]

You're the one here wasting time with all the red herrings...as if the crime rate in Sweden has anything to do with media bias against either political side in the US.

[Syne]

If it ain't editorial bias, it's misleading click-bait.

Editors’ Note: September 14, 2018

An earlier version of this article and headline created an unfair impression about who was responsible for the purchase in question. While Nikki R. Haley is the current ambassador to the United Nations, the decision on leasing the ambassador’s residence and purchasing the curtains was made during the Obama administration, according to current and former officials. The article should not have focused on Ms. Haley, nor should a picture of her have been used. The article and headline have now been edited to reflect those concerns, and the picture has been removed.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/us/po...tains.html


New York Times Walks Back Article Over ‘Unfair Impression’ of UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
The newspaper said that their report "should not have focused" on the former governor of South Carolina.
- https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/09/14/n...kki-haley/