I find that much of what Fox, MSNBC and CNN report probably does happen- although sure, it might be like the telephone game and we don't get the full picture. But I'm willing to guess they have enough sources to confirm certain incidents. Here's where most of the bias kicks in: 1.What they choose as their headline stories; 2. Their commentary about said incidents. EX: CNN reports "arguments at the White House regarding the Secretary of State's role..." Most likely, the arguments did happen. However, are you going to spin these arguments as "oh, the White House is dysfunctional," or "oh, this is normal - in the business or political world." And are you going to put this as a headline (CNN) or as a link toward the bottom of your home page (Fox). You see, I don't doubt these things happen. The question is, are there any we can agree on? I think an incident such as the one above is clearly open to interpretation. But, let's say, President Trump spends his morning tweeting about MSNBC's hosts - and referencing someone's "face lift"- rather than taking care of way more important matters? I would hope that as rational, sane adults, we could all agree that this is beneath the dignity of the President. At the same time, if and when President Trump does something positive (e.g. gets one of his Supreme Court nominations through), we on one side can't brush it off with "Yes, but that doesn't matter, he's still a dick." Yes, he achieved something , and props to him. The fact that he is a complete ass does not take away from the achievement.
Reading that comment section is depressing. How can one conjure up so much hate for kids who had their homes bombed and family.members murdered? How did it come to this? How have refugees harmed Americans?
I didn't read many commenters hating on the kids. I read a bunch about CNN using Elmo as a propaganda tool. But, yeah, there will always be some crazy commenters in every comment section.
I miss the days where trying to say nice things about refugees isn't propganda but rather scaring people and saying they are evil is considered propaganda. That's what people thought of propaganda before. It was synomous with fear rhetoric. Today fear rhetoric is "telling it like it is". For some reason that language garners more trust and admiration than showing empathy. I thinks a large part of this stems from the adolecent gaming culture. What motive would CNN have in the refugee game?
Not sure, but it is important to note that Ted Turner famously gave something like a billion dollars to the UN. I don't think CNN though has some massive agenda for globalism or whatever though. I think in this era they are strictly focused on ratings, and having a broad audience who goes to them as a place where they can get involved in the national political conversation and have a somewhat educated opinion. Yes its left leaning, or center left, but its a fact that the coverage they gave Trump on the campaign trail in covering every single rally, etc. actually came out to free campaign ad air time. They also put one of Trump's top confidants (Lewindowski) on the panel night after night to defend him, and give perspective from a Trump-fan perspective... which mattered. From a business perspective, CNN has dramatically benefited from Trump as most other news outlets have as well except for maybe FoxNews who has finally dropped out of the #1 spot for a few months oddly enough. They are benefiting from people essentially hate-watching what Trump does. So I think the case of CNN and agenda is more complicated, and more simple than it seems at the same time. Extreme left??... I think its more than that. Its watched by millions and millions of Americans so its not fair to label anyone who watches CNN as "extreme left", but yes... everything they do is driven by ratings IMO.
The extreme left eats up being empathic towards children who had their homes blown up... How draconian.
I think that's always important to keep in mind, CNN panders to the left similar to how FoxNews panders to the right and MSNBC panders to the extreme left similar to how Breitbart panders to the extreme right. IMO that's the key to media consumption, know their bias going in and don't take anything at face value.
No, you are putting words in my mouth. I meant the extreme left likes stories about globalism. I don't quite think it is common for the typical liberal to endorse globalism at this point but I am sure CNN has many viewers that do.
Wow... to even think that a president's spokesperson would have to defend the POTUS by saying "the president has never encouraged violence". And what's worse, to have the spokesperson be wrong... White House: Trump has never encouraged violence http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/340116-white-house-trump-has-never-encouraged-violence
Has globalism become some catch all phrase now? Help anyone outside of your country and one is a globalist?
I am all for helping people out as long our country doesn't become infested with refugee no-go zones like countries in Europe have. Once that happens, there is no going back. I am pretty sure our country is a leader in bringing in refugees. I would like that to continue. Opening the borders is not something I support.
Geographically, I don't see how what happened in Europe is possible in the US. Seems that's just a bunch of fear baiting for America's more fearful demographic.
So again with the projection of of uniquely European issues due to geography to an American problem for political points.
