Here, since you were unwilling or unable to cite an example, I did some more probing using Grok to find the closest “match” to the incident described in this thread, with races reversed. Not exactly the same, as the victim died, but pretty close. I specifically asked for cases that garnered widespread media attention. It lends credence to the idea that activism around “systemic racism” can amplify news stories involving black victims even when it’s unclear to what extent if any race was a factor. The Nia Wilson stabbing (July 22, 2018, at a BART station in Oakland, California) stands out as the closest analogous case to the Muslim Brunson incident you mentioned—where a white man (John Cowell, then 27) carried out an apparently random, unprovoked knife attack on a young Black woman (Nia Wilson, 18), fatally stabbing her in the neck while also injuring her sister. Authorities never established a clear motive, found no evidence linking Cowell to hate groups or explicit racial intent, and his family publicly stated he had long struggled with severe mental illness (including schizophrenia and other issues leading to erratic behavior). Prosecutors and police emphasized that race did not appear to be a factor based on available evidence. Despite the lack of proven racial motivation, the case received significant national and international media coverage, far more than the Brunson attempted murder (which stayed mostly local to NYC outlets). Outlets like CNN, The New York Times, The Guardian, NBC, and others ran multiple stories, with headlines questioning “why” the attack happened and debating whether it should be viewed through a racial lens. Activists, Wilson’s family, and community leaders framed it as part of broader anti-Black violence and racism in America, even without direct proof of hate. Protests occurred at the station, celebrities (e.g., via #SayHerName) amplified it, and discussions highlighted “Black bodies under attack” in the Trump era. Coverage often contrasted the “no motive” narrative with calls for hate crime consideration, and Cowell’s mental illness was presented as an explanation but not always as fully excusing the act—some critics argued it downplayed potential racial elements or systemic issues. This contrasts with the Brunson case (a Black homeless man with possible mental health issues attempting to murder a young white woman in NYC), which received limited national pickup despite similar randomness, lack of clear motive beyond possible mental instability/homelessness, and urban setting. The Wilson story became a bigger issue partly because it fit into ongoing national conversations about racial violence against Black people, Black women specifically, and how “random” attacks are interpreted when the perpetrator is white and victim Black. Media scrutiny focused heavily on those dynamics, even absent confirmed racial motive. Other cases with unclear/random motivation and mental illness (e.g., some non-hate interracial stabbings) tend to stay more local unless they tie into larger narratives. But when they involve a white perpetrator and Black victim without obvious hate evidence, they can still escalate in coverage due to activism and framing around systemic racism—unlike the reverse, where similar randomness often remains regional or gets less emphasis on race. This highlights how media amplification can depend on the broader context and victim-perpetrator dynamics rather than just the facts alone. If this doesn’t match what you’re thinking of or you have more specifics, feel free to clarify!
I probably could , but you aren't worth my time and effort You display poor logical thinking You've made the claim . It it's incumbent on you to prove it . You should meditate on this , also research the burden of proof fallacy to avoid looking like a moron The aliens built the pyramids, can you disprove it ?
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof I do agree that MSM leans left on a number of issues relative to the general population, and there’s plenty of evidence for it. “Almost all liberal” is vague (what qualifies as “liberal” is somewhat subjective — it means different things to different people) and difficult to prove/disprove.
Lol , Nor can you disprove the aliens didn't build the pyramid or that Donald Trump didn't rape and murder underage girls . Therefore they are both true
You can just watch and listen to MSM for your proof? It’s hardly the same thing as the pyramids. Just watch Sonny Hosten and whoopi or watch CNN or MSNBC or ABC or CBS or read the washington post or the new york times or listen to NPR. Also, if you still needed more proof, watch the grammy’s or the Oscars. Gtfoh with your pyramid bullshit.
A blanket statement like “MSM is almost all liberal” is undermined by the fact that the most successful cable news outlet (Fox News) in terms of audience capture is well to the right and has no qualms whatsoever promoting news stories in which black people are doing bad things.
So you see the difference then. Look at the platforms on the left vs the ones on the right. MSM is largely left and pushes lefty narratives. So does all of hollywood and mainstream pop/rock and all other popular music outside of country. Oh and let’s not forget ESPN.
Yes, I see a difference between Fox News and most other media outlets. But I don’t think it’s accurate to say media, even mainstream media, is almost all liberal. I think it’s true of newspapers — but relatively few people get their news from newspapers primarily.
The whole "left vs right media" framing misses the point. Those labels are relative to wherever you're standing. Fox looks right-wing to most people, but if you're far-right it might seem pretty mainstream or even liberal. It's all perspective. What actually matters is whether outlets are reporting facts accurately. That's something you can check. Did they quote someone correctly? Are their statistics real? Is the context honest? Sites like PolitiFact and others try to track this stuff, though they're not perfect either. Here's what people often miss: there's a big difference between news reporting and opinion shows. Fox's actual news division used to have a decent reputation for accuracy. But the opinion shows that fill most of their schedule? That's a different story. The Dominion lawsuit showed hosts pushing election fraud claims they didn't even believe themselves. Fox paid $787 million to settle that case. So here's the real distinction we should be making. Whether Fox is "right-wing" depends on who you ask. Whether specific things said on Fox are true can actually be verified. We waste time arguing about the first question when the second one matters more. And this goes for everyone. MSNBC leans left and also says inaccurate things sometimes. CNN makes editorial choices that reflect their perspective even when the facts check out. No outlet is completely neutral. The question isn't finding sources with zero bias (they don't exist). It's being able to tell the difference between normal editorial perspective, verifiable facts, and outright BS. Those are three different things and we should treat them differently.
"almost all liberal" is a personal perspective and reflects where the person's political viewpoint is.
First.... your posts here about media bias come off as very whiny, and kind of pathetic. Second... you are confusing MSM with corporate media vs independent media vs public media. The term "main-stream" makes no sense in 2026 when the majority of people get their news from amateur "influencers" on social media. Right now the too tight t-shirt pizza review guy from Barstool probably has more reach, and influence than Lester Holt. Joe Rogan who is famous for hosting a show where people put scorpions up their butts, and yelling at MMA fights is seen as the most important media personality, and a person who Donald Trump himself claimed just the other day put him over the top in the election in 2024. Like most things you are just looking for a reason to be a victim, whine, b****, and moan... while also displaying unbridled ignorance. .... Also... liberals despise what they call "the corporate media" and are very vocal about it. Virtually everything in that "leans left" column is despised by most liberals even though occasionally they speak the truth about the right... even though when they do they usually sane wash Trump/MAGA, and curry favor behind closed doors. I mean the Washington Post's owner literally just gave a 35 million dollar + straight up bribe to Melania for crying out loud. I don't know how anyone can look at that list and think objectively that any media outlets sans the ones of the far left give two sh$ts about liberals in America, and helping Democrats win elections. It overlooks the time we are in to overestimate their influence, and defies logic that the guy who pays a 35 million dollar bribe to the first lady is actually a flaming liberal.
I can see why Trump whines about the media bias (simply working the refs like in sports) but I for the life of me don't understand why Trump supporters would think it was wise to go on a Trump b****fest about it since it'll be so easy to knock that down, and make them look foolish.
