How biased is the media really?

[Sengoku Americas]

If you trusts CGTN then you lose the privilege to call Western media biased.

If a dog barks, it's a dog.

If people needed privilege to say western media is biased, they don't need much of it!

You should remember that all media is biased, both that which you watch and those you don't. CGTN pushes forward a narrative desired by the Chinese state, while Western media typically advocates for the interests of Western capital and/or Western governments.

[The Black Forrest]

You unironically believe this?

Spoken like someone who trusts BBC or CNN

Ok? Point out where they have issues.

CGTN is rather censored and has failed a few fact checks.

SCMP seems to be ok on the fact check side.

[The Black Forrest]

If you trusts CGTN then you lose the privilege to call Western media biased.

If a dog barks, it's a dog.

If people needed privilege to say western media is biased, they don't need much of it!

Bias is a word way to over used and at times used badly. Some people fling it around as if it’s some stamp of spreading lies and failing on fact checks.

About the only sources which are clean in the so called West are Reuters and the AP.

Even then; you should alway verify.

[All China]

If you trusts CGTN then you lose the privilege to call Western media biased.

To be fair, they also trust SCMP so I guess that makes it even?

SCMP at least tries to be fair when it covers things.

If you install browser app that replaces "Xi Jinping" with "Joe Biden" you'd think CNN is just Fox News with a different color scheme.

[The Black Forrest]

To be fair, they also trust SCMP so I guess that makes it even?

SCMP at least tries to be fair when it covers things.

If you install browser app that replaces "Xi Jinping" with "Joe Biden" you'd think CNN is just Fox News with a different color scheme.

Again. CNN hasn’t had issues on the fact check side. Fox has a few times.

[All China]

If a dog barks, it's a dog.

If people needed privilege to say western media is biased, they don't need much of it!

Bias is a word way to over used and at times used badly. Some people fling it around as if it’s some stamp of spreading lies and failing on fact checks.

About the only sources which are clean in the so called West are Reuters and the AP.

Even then; you should alway verify.

Always verify, that's true.

There is a difference though between pushing an agenda and disagreeing with an opinion. When you have political commentators in western media constantly pushing their views and claiming they're doing "reporting", it's what gives the media a bad name.

Real reporters just tell you the news. They say what is happening, not how you should feel about it or how good or bad it is.

I can't say how many times American media acted like Trump was conducting a violent coup when he was just sitting on a toilet writing tweets. Exaggeration hurts credibility.

[East Blepia]

Media these days only look for clickbait titles to get higher amounts of viewer engagements, of course when I say Media I mean the mainstream Media, news networks like NPR are still holding strong and they are my main source of information.

NPR is less profit oriented, but they are just as biased as other mainstream media sources.

[All China]

SCMP at least tries to be fair when it covers things.

If you install browser app that replaces "Xi Jinping" with "Joe Biden" you'd think CNN is just Fox News with a different color scheme.

Again. CNN hasn’t had issues on the fact check side. Fox has a few times.

The Big Three CNN, Fox, and MSNBC all have issues with reporting and presentation.

If I admit anything, I will say the local affiliates have a better time. NBC is better than MSNBC. Local Fox networks do better than Fox News. CNN in different countries is better than the CNN.

[Deacarsia]

The media are incredibly biased, without exception.

[The Black Forrest]

Bias is a word way to over used and at times used badly. Some people fling it around as if it’s some stamp of spreading lies and failing on fact checks.

About the only sources which are clean in the so called West are Reuters and the AP.

Even then; you should alway verify.

Always verify, that's true.

There is a difference though between pushing an agenda and disagreeing with an opinion. When you have political commentators in western media constantly pushing their views and claiming they're doing "reporting", it's what gives the media a bad name.

Real reporters just tell you the news. They say what is happening, not how you should feel about it or how good or bad it is.

I can't say how many times American media acted like Trump was conducting a violent coup when he was just sitting on a toilet writing tweets. Exaggeration hurts credibility.

Thinking there is an agenda being pushed has to be proven. In the case of CGNP we know they are heavily censored and have failed a few fact checks.

What agenda does CNN or BBC have?

[Galloism]

Been noting a lot this year especially. You have to go to like bbc to get coverage on the riots that are still going on here in the US, because basically everyone except Newsweek and BBC stopped talking about them.

[The Black Forrest]

Again. CNN hasn’t had issues on the fact check side. Fox has a few times.

The Big Three CNN, Fox, and MSNBC all have issues with reporting and presentation.

If I admit anything, I will say the local affiliates have a better time. NBC is better than MSNBC. Local Fox networks do better than Fox News. CNN in different countries is better than the CNN.

Fox has failed fact checks.
MSNBC has failed fact checks.
CNN has not failed fact checks.

-edit-
Correction on CNN. A subsequent check shows I must have clicked the wrong link as it showed failed fact checks.

Not liking what they say is not a failure of presenting factual stories.

[All China]

The Big Three CNN, Fox, and MSNBC all have issues with reporting and presentation.

If I admit anything, I will say the local affiliates have a better time. NBC is better than MSNBC. Local Fox networks do better than Fox News. CNN in different countries is better than the CNN.

Fox has failed fact checks.
MSNBC has failed fact checks.
CNN has not.

Not liking what they say is not a failure of presenting factual stories.

You're saying the entire history of CNN pushing for wars with other countries, using anonymous sources who nobody can verify, and having to correct their headlines on air multiple times,

and they never failed a fact check?

If you were saying this about Reuters or AP I might believe you're serious.

[Galloism]

The Big Three CNN, Fox, and MSNBC all have issues with reporting and presentation.

If I admit anything, I will say the local affiliates have a better time. NBC is better than MSNBC. Local Fox networks do better than Fox News. CNN in different countries is better than the CNN.

Fox has failed fact checks.
MSNBC has failed fact checks.
CNN has not.

Not liking what they say is not a failure of presenting factual stories.

Politifact says CNN has failed a fact check before.

[The Black Forrest]

Fox has failed fact checks.
MSNBC has failed fact checks.
CNN has not.

Not liking what they say is not a failure of presenting factual stories.

You're saying the entire history of CNN pushing for wars with other countries, using anonymous sources who nobody can verify, and having to correct their headlines on air multiple times,

and they never failed a fact check?

If you were saying this about Reuters or AP I might believe you're serious.

What wars has CNN pushed the US to commit?

Anonymous sources are that way for a reason. It’s easier to attack the person making a claim rather then defending the claim. I am sure you would find many US politicians excited at the idea of anonymous sources being outlawed. It would make retaliation so much easier.

The practice of retractions is a common practice. Mistakes happen. An honest news source prints the retraction explaining how they got it wrong. I remember Fox slipping a correction into their website without a retraction (it was during the Haditha affair. Fox reported Americans killed German soldiers as Malmandey. General Wesly Clark was being interviewed and he corrected them on air. A few months later; he had to do it again.). The website had a timeline of WW2 mentioned the Germans killed and they corrected it without acknowledging the mistake.

You will have to present numbers on these mistakes if there are many and you are implying it’s on purpose.

Again. Not liking what they say isn’t a failure of presenting a story. Anonymous sources are still valid as people are quick to find fault and thus claims are obviously lies. This is why people like to scream about them. They can’t attack them. It’s easier to attack a person rather then the claims being made by the person.

It’s one of the reasons we have on this site about attacking the statement and not the person who posted it.

As to fact checks; a couple sites which checks the media doesn’t have them with any “fibs” or “stretching the truth”. The other two have been knocked a couple times.

The media bias fact check site even listed failed fact checks for the two other agencies.

Now if you want to blast them; they do choose their words carefully for emotion. That falls under the bias thing. Still favoring one approach isn’t presenting a lie.

[The Black Forrest]

Fox has failed fact checks.
MSNBC has failed fact checks.
CNN has not.

Not liking what they say is not a failure of presenting factual stories.

You're saying the entire history of CNN pushing for wars with other countries, using anonymous sources who nobody can verify, and having to correct their headlines on air multiple times,

and they never failed a fact check?

If you were saying this about Reuters or AP I might believe you're serious.

What wars has CNN pushed the US to commit?

Anonymous sources are that way for a reason. It’s easier to attack the person making a claim rather then defending the claim. I am sure you would find many US politicians excited at the idea of anonymous sources being outlawed. It would make retaliation so much easier.

The practice of retractions is a common practice. Mistakes happen. An honest news source prints the retraction explaining how they got it wrong. I remember Fox slipping a correction into their website without a retraction (it was during the Haditha affair. Fox reported Americans killed German soldiers as Malmandey. General Wesly Clark was being interviewed and he corrected them on air. A few months later; he had to do it again.). The website had a timeline of WW2 mentioned the Germans killed and they corrected it without acknowledging the mistake.

You will have to present numbers on these mistakes if there are many and you are implying it’s on purpose.

Again. Not liking what they say isn’t a failure of presenting a story. Anonymous sources are still valid as people are quick to find fault and thus claims are obviously lies. This is why people like to scream about them. They can’t attack them. It’s easier to attack a person rather then the claims being made by the person.

It’s one of the reasons we have on this site about attacking the statement and not the person who posted it.

As to fact checks; a couple sites which checks the media doesn’t have them with any “fibs” or “stretching the truth”. The other two have been knocked a couple times.

The media bias fact check site even listed failed fact checks for the two other agencies.

Now if you want to blast them; they do choose their words carefully for emotion. That falls under the bias thing. Still favoring one approach isn’t presenting a lie.

-edit-

I have to print a retraction

I must have clicked a wrong link when I said they haven’t failed fact checks. They have on several stories lately.

So I withdraw the no failed comment.

[The Black Forrest]

Fox has failed fact checks.
MSNBC has failed fact checks.
CNN has not.

Not liking what they say is not a failure of presenting factual stories.

Politifact says CNN has failed a fact check before.

Heh. I saw that after I made the comment. I think I clicked the wrong link when I searched the media bias fact check site.

[Galloism]

Politifact says CNN has failed a fact check before.

Heh. I saw that after I made the comment. I think I clicked the wrong link when I searched the media bias fact check site.

Relevant:

[All China]

You're saying the entire history of CNN pushing for wars with other countries, using anonymous sources who nobody can verify, and having to correct their headlines on air multiple times,

and they never failed a fact check?

If you were saying this about Reuters or AP I might believe you're serious.

What wars has CNN pushed the US to commit?

Anonymous sources are that way for a reason. It’s easier to attack the person making a claim rather then defending the claim. I am sure you would find many US politicians excited at the idea of anonymous sources being outlawed. It would make retaliation so much easier.

The practice of retractions is a common practice. Mistakes happen. An honest news source prints the retraction explaining how they got it wrong. I remember Fox slipping a correction into their website without a retraction (it was during the Haditha affair. Fox reported Americans killed German soldiers as Malmandey. General Wesly Clark was being interviewed and he corrected them on air. A few months later; he had to do it again.). The website had a timeline of WW2 mentioned the Germans killed and they corrected it without acknowledging the mistake.

You will have to present numbers on these mistakes if there are many and you are implying it’s on purpose.

Again. Not liking what they say isn’t a failure of presenting a story. Anonymous sources are still valid as people are quick to find fault and thus claims are obviously lies. This is why people like to scream about them. They can’t attack them. It’s easier to attack a person rather then the claims being made by the person.

It’s one of the reasons we have on this site about attacking the statement and not the person who posted it.

As to fact checks; a couple sites which checks the media doesn’t have them with any “fibs” or “stretching the truth”. The other two have been knocked a couple times.

The media bias fact check site even listed failed fact checks for the two other agencies.

Now if you want to blast them; they do choose their words carefully for emotion. That falls under the bias thing. Still favoring one approach isn’t presenting a lie.

-edit-

I have to print a retraction

I must have clicked a wrong link when I said they haven’t failed fact checks. They have on several stories lately.

So I withdraw the no failed comment.

Media makes mistakes, that we can agree on.

CNN and western media just tend to make more mistakes. I'm not the guardian of the news. But when I read reporting from CNN or BBC, it sounds like pontification. If I read from SCMP, it sounds like if I were reading the event from a textbook. That's how I enjoy media. Unbiased, just the information.

Don't need to tell me xxx Biden is doing the best in history to defeat covid and Trump was a fascist. Just tell me where the vaccines are and what the budget will be.

[Sengoku Americas]

SCMP at least tries to be fair when it covers things.

If you install browser app that replaces "Xi Jinping" with "Joe Biden" you'd think CNN is just Fox News with a different color scheme.

Again. CNN hasn’t had issues on the fact check side. Fox has a few times.

CNN is pretty biased in their portrayal of issues though. See for example how "children in cages" quickly became "minors in detainment facilities", etc.

[Galloism]

Again. CNN hasn’t had issues on the fact check side. Fox has a few times.

CNN is pretty biased in their portrayal of issues though. See for example how "children in cages" quickly became "minors in detainment facilities", etc.

Personally I laughed at the “fiery but mostly peaceful” broadcast.

[Sengoku Americas]

What wars has CNN pushed the US to commit?

Anonymous sources are that way for a reason. It’s easier to attack the person making a claim rather then defending the claim. I am sure you would find many US politicians excited at the idea of anonymous sources being outlawed. It would make retaliation so much easier.

The practice of retractions is a common practice. Mistakes happen. An honest news source prints the retraction explaining how they got it wrong. I remember Fox slipping a correction into their website without a retraction (it was during the Haditha affair. Fox reported Americans killed German soldiers as Malmandey. General Wesly Clark was being interviewed and he corrected them on air. A few months later; he had to do it again.). The website had a timeline of WW2 mentioned the Germans killed and they corrected it without acknowledging the mistake.

You will have to present numbers on these mistakes if there are many and you are implying it’s on purpose.

Again. Not liking what they say isn’t a failure of presenting a story. Anonymous sources are still valid as people are quick to find fault and thus claims are obviously lies. This is why people like to scream about them. They can’t attack them. It’s easier to attack a person rather then the claims being made by the person.

It’s one of the reasons we have on this site about attacking the statement and not the person who posted it.

As to fact checks; a couple sites which checks the media doesn’t have them with any “fibs” or “stretching the truth”. The other two have been knocked a couple times.

The media bias fact check site even listed failed fact checks for the two other agencies.

Now if you want to blast them; they do choose their words carefully for emotion. That falls under the bias thing. Still favoring one approach isn’t presenting a lie.

-edit-

I have to print a retraction

I must have clicked a wrong link when I said they haven’t failed fact checks. They have on several stories lately.

So I withdraw the no failed comment.

Media makes mistakes, that we can agree on.

CNN and western media just tend to make more mistakes. I'm not the guardian of the news. But when I read reporting from CNN or BBC, it sounds like pontification. If I read from SCMP, it sounds like if I were reading the event from a textbook. That's how I enjoy media. Unbiased, just the information.

Don't need to tell me xxx Biden is doing the best in history to defeat covid and Trump was a fascist. Just tell me where the vaccines are and what the budget will be.

BBC is still sensationalist, but far better than CNN.

[Sengoku Americas]

CNN is pretty biased in their portrayal of issues though. See for example how "children in cages" quickly became "minors in detainment facilities", etc.

Personally I laughed at the “fiery but mostly peaceful” broadcast.

You know well they don't care at all about those social issues. They're just doing everything they can for views and to spread the illusion they and politicians actually care about those issues.

[Drew Durrnil]

i don't think the weather channel is too biased

[Sengoku Americas]

You're saying the entire history of CNN pushing for wars with other countries, using anonymous sources who nobody can verify, and having to correct their headlines on air multiple times,

and they never failed a fact check?

If you were saying this about Reuters or AP I might believe you're serious.

What wars has CNN pushed the US to commit?

Anonymous sources are that way for a reason. It’s easier to attack the person making a claim rather then defending the claim. I am sure you would find many US politicians excited at the idea of anonymous sources being outlawed. It would make retaliation so much easier.

The practice of retractions is a common practice. Mistakes happen. An honest news source prints the retraction explaining how they got it wrong. I remember Fox slipping a correction into their website without a retraction (it was during the Haditha affair. Fox reported Americans killed German soldiers as Malmandey. General Wesly Clark was being interviewed and he corrected them on air. A few months later; he had to do it again.). The website had a timeline of WW2 mentioned the Germans killed and they corrected it without acknowledging the mistake.

You will have to present numbers on these mistakes if there are many and you are implying it’s on purpose.

Again. Not liking what they say isn’t a failure of presenting a story. Anonymous sources are still valid as people are quick to find fault and thus claims are obviously lies. This is why people like to scream about them. They can’t attack them. It’s easier to attack a person rather then the claims being made by the person.

It’s one of the reasons we have on this site about attacking the statement and not the person who posted it.

As to fact checks; a couple sites which checks the media doesn’t have them with any “fibs” or “stretching the truth”. The other two have been knocked a couple times.

The media bias fact check site even listed failed fact checks for the two other agencies.

Now if you want to blast them; they do choose their words carefully for emotion. That falls under the bias thing. Still favoring one approach isn’t presenting a lie.

-edit-

I have to print a retraction

I must have clicked a wrong link when I said they haven’t failed fact checks. They have on several stories lately.

So I withdraw the no failed comment.

CNN, like all other media, has an agenda to push. And their role in justifying Iraq War imperialism is well documented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cov ... e_Iraq_War