Thank you for the kind reply. It rarely happens.
I’d also point back to what I wrote in the original article, “I listen to MSNBC and CNN and NPR … for the most part. I read the New York Times and The Washington Post. Do they have their own biases? Certainly. But I find these media companies tend to focus more on facts than opinion.”
You will need to refer me to the outlets that put facts above narrative or panel discussions, as I’ve seen very few of those, and no, I don’t consider Fox News a reliable or one that passes that criteria.
When you give only the facts behind the news, then you let the viewer or reader decide what it means but when you explain to the masses what that means, you usually insert your own bias into it, shape the panel to repeat that bias, and focus on the elements that correspond to your preconceptions. Keep in mind that I’m not targetting you specifically. This is a flaw in the human condition — one that we should work to negate (as much as possible).
The problem with your list is not that they are all lean to the left but that most right-leaning publications are usually extremely flawed — sometimes more than the left-leaning publication. It’s a sad reality of the media.
However, I’d also argue for every 1 thing Obama may have done that upset me, Trump does 30 things. Does that make sense?
It’s quite logical. I may assume much but most left-leaning individuals really don’t like what Trump in particular and Republicans, in general, try to do with healthcare. Given this fact, you will not have cared about what Obama did or did not do with that particular policy. Your focus was on the benefits and if you indeed for what Obama did with healthcare then you might consider whatever Trump is doing as a travesty.
On the opposing side, a conservative will look at this entirely different, see what Obama has done as a travesty and look for Trump to fix it. Here is another problem: the media that leans to the left had the tendency to ignore many of the questionable things that Obama has done and considering that the right-leaning media made everything to be a crime against humanity, very few could take them seriously.
My point here was less about what he covered and more contrasting his coverage of the same story through a very different lens — one that focused on anti-Clinton, conspiracy theory, etc.
I’m sorry but CNN does pretty much the same with the anti-Trump narrative. They don’t give credit where credit is due and tend to take everything and blow it out of proportion. In this aspect, both are pretty much the same.
By the way, as conspiracy theories go, the entire coverage of the Russian interference fall into that category. Not that it cannot be true but that the amount of time they covered hearsay, anonymous sources, and speculations, without much factual data to accompany it, lends to make it a conspiracy theory.
Again, both are guilty in this. It’s not only what they say but how they say it, how much time they dedicate to it, and their arguments.
I think you have a valid point there. However, this article was less about CNN and MSNBC as it was about FoxNews and Tucker Carlson.
My point was mainly about the media and journalism in general and not Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or any other outlet in particular. I think people can ask more from the people who find and broadcast the news.
That being said, I can’t think of many things Trump & his Admin have done that would merit being covered as a positive … again, through my lens.
That’s because he is focused more on cultural issues, than policies. More on saying random things on Twitter, than actually addressing anything of substance. In many ways, this approach can push the media to become more accountable and make people search for alternatives. Not necessarily those that agree with Trump.
I’m not sure I saw any coverage on CNN or any other network that treated Kimmel like an expert on healthcare.
I saw it in the video you cited in your article. I actually found his argumentations too emotional based and choosing only the evidence that agrees with his position, rather than actually opens up a real debate and give all the information to the public. Seeing as he doesn’t have a debate focused show then that wasn’t his focus.
That being said, I do think Kimmel is an American like all of us and entitled to his opinion and interpretation of the various health care proposals being floated around in Congress.
That’s where I differ from many of both the left and the right. I think there should be a requirement of responsibility from those that shape our viewpoint. He has more power than your average person speaking with his (or her) coworker. The show influences people and there should be a question of whether or not he is trying to use his platform for something it was not intended.
Not from those that have power, as that will be taking his First Amendment right and the idea behind free speech but the people should enough skepticism to actually criticize him when they see he is misleading people.
I’d be willing to be he read the entire proposal AND be willing to be many Congresspeople did not — including POTUS.
Perhaps he did. My issue is when you tell the people what is true and what is false, you should have also give a platform for people to challenge you on the facts and statistics you cited. Not mandatory but when you don’t, the claim should be taken with a pile of salt.
I do agree that POTUS doesn’t actually seem to have the facts of the bill and most likely only read “the relevant parts.”
Again, I really do appreciate your comments and for you taking the time to respond. I hope my comments back continue the dialogue.
Thank you. As I’ve mentioned at the beginning, it’s refreshing to actually discuss the issue, rather than having a shouting match.