The Media Bias

[Kung Wu]

What is happening in the video is very much . . . a stretch.

Thanks for the info, that definitely sheds some light on the other side's story.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

What is happening in the video is very much in dispute.

It was presented as Reuters staff arbitrarily cutting off filming during a fairly boring but positive interaction between Trump and the black minister, presumably because it was just that - a positive image that should not be filmed because it undermines a media narrative focused on his incredibly low approval ratings within that demographic (although it wasn't a live broadcast so the outrage is a little weird - not like anything especially noteworthy was happening to the point that networks (biased or not) would purchase the footage and air it).

It now has been confirmed that no Reuters staff were involved, and parties present claim the cameraman was being told to cut filming by the CBS pool manager because Trump staffers were herding the media pool out of the congregation hall to the motorcade (I believe even the Trump campaign has not disputed this explanation).

So, yea, it shows a clip of a guy being told by someone with authority over him to stop filming, and him arguing back that he's going to continue filming. What third-party media outlet (if any, they may be freelancers) they work for is unknown, the reason filming is halted is very much disputed, and the original parties attributed to the story were false.

I don't think that is credible since the context provided to the audience was so off-base. I guess you could try to make the argument that literally every unedited video is credible because it shows, well, what it shows...but that is definitely a stretch.

This is an amazing summary by @Play Angry and a perfect example of why we have such strong polarization in politics. What seems to be a non-event gets turned into yet another "look how dishonest the other side is" by people who themselves are being dishonest with the known facts. Low information folks eat this stuff up and never realize that this wasn't a conspiracy by the "other side", it was just a big nothing. R's do this to D's. D's do this to R's. In the end, we get stuck with so much garbage floating around that everyone hates everyone and there is little chance of having honest and fair-minded debates on the actual issues.

[WstateU]

Nope, absolutely none here... :)

Matt Lauer Fields Storm of Criticism Over Clinton-Trump Forum

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/matt-lauer-fields-storm-of-criticism-over-clinton-trump-forum/ar-AAiDWCR?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

[ShockingButTrue]

So in "fair disclosure" - couldn't help it, it's a political season - when reporting of Trump's vile racism is reported, have the media shown the footage that was cut? Has it been shown at all?

[SHOCKvalue]

nm

[Kung Wu]

Just this one question:


Where are the daily, sometimes hourly, death counts that the media hung around the neck of President Bush every chance they had?

I know you posted that 5 years ago, but it's so appropriate today ...

" A total of 4,491 U.S. service members were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2014." [Wikipedia]

There have been 500+ homicides in Chicago this year alone. Why isn't CNN showing a running total of Chicago homicides on a daily basis?

[Dave Stalwart]

I know you posted that 5 years ago, but it's so appropriate today ...

" A total of 4,491 U.S. service members were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2014." [Wikipedia]

There have been 500+ homicides in Chicago this year alone. Why isn't CNN showing a running total of Chicago homicides on a daily basis?

Are you suggesting that the death toll in Chicago alone is actually comparable if not higher than the entire Iraq situation since 2003? :)

[im4wsu]

Are you suggesting that the death toll in Chicago alone is actually comparable if not higher than the entire Iraq situation since 2003? :)

2003	601
2004	453
2005	451
2006	471
2007	448
2008	513
2009	459
2010	436
2011	435
2012	516
2013	441
2014	432
2015	488
Total	6144

[Aargh]

I know you posted that 5 years ago, but it's so appropriate today ...

" A total of 4,491 U.S. service members were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2014." [Wikipedia]

There have been 500+ homicides in Chicago this year alone. Why isn't CNN showing a running total of Chicago homicides on a daily basis?

If CNN was showing that it would be so prejudicial for gun control that people would be complaining that the media was biased in order to put restrictions on the Second Amendment.

There's another rather huge difference. Our government isn't spending (borrowing) $1 trillion a year for the killings in Chicago. We did pay to have our troops killed in Iraq.

I'm a Nam-era vet. It seems that since Nam we haven't learned a damn thing about fighting wars that can't be won, or if there's something that seems to be a win, there's no exit strategy that could possibly work.

Yeah, start a war where there's no possible exit strategy. Keep that war going during your term in office. Then rag on the next guy when he has to figure out how to end the death counts on our side.

The most logical conclusion from overthrowing Saddam Hussein was to create a civil war in the Mid-East. Mission Accomplished. Maybe we would have been better served by putting our resources into controlling violence in Chicago rather than creating a Civil War in the Middle East?

[jdshock]

I know you posted that 5 years ago, but it's so appropriate today ...

" A total of 4,491 U.S. service members were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2014." [Wikipedia]

There have been 500+ homicides in Chicago this year alone. Why isn't CNN showing a running total of Chicago homicides on a daily basis?

The media wasn't giving a running tally of Chicago deaths during the Bush presidency either, so how is it a bias?

They aren't showing it because it's not really the job of the federal government, unless you propose more social services or a federal police force... But I don't think you're doing that.

[SB Shock]

If CNN was showing that it would be so prejudicial for gun control that people would be complaining that the media was biased in order to put restrictions on the Second Amendment.

Chicago and Illinois have the strictest gun control laws in the U.S. - some would say they have no 2nd amendment rights. The killing in Chicago is not by legal gun owners, but criminals who can not lawfully own or possess a gun. Chicago is the poster child how anti-2nd amendment movement doesn't work.

What you probably haven't heard because it doesn't fit the media narrative they want to tell:

In the KC area a couple days a go, 2 guys attacked a women in Walmart as she was putting her child in a car seat (I guess to steal her vehicle). 2 people tried to help her, one attacker shot one of the Good Samaritan, the other Good Samaritan was armed and he shot and killed one attacker. The other attacker ran and was quickly caught by responding police.

[jdshock]

some would say they have no 2nd amendment rights

No one should say that. That's obviously inaccurate.

[SB Shock]

No one should say that. That's obviously inaccurate.

lol - that why their legislature had proposed House Resolution 855 that proclaimed the 2nd amendment was not a individual right. It was tabled I assume because of town hall meeting like this. Illinois is at the fore-front of trying to find ways to bypass the 2nd amendment.

[jdshock]

lol - that why their legislature had proposed House Resolution 855 that proclaimed the 2nd amendment was not a individual right. It was tabled I assume because of town hall meeting like this. Illinois is at the fore-front of trying to find ways to bypass the 2nd amendment.

I mean, yeah... Actually, by definition, that is why. They do have 2nd Amendment rights and that's why they attempted to pass that law. If they had "no" 2nd Amendment rights, it wouldn't have been necessary... So, to answer your sarcasm: yes.

[SB Shock]

I mean, yeah... Actually, by definition, that is why. They do have 2nd Amendment rights and that's why they attempted to pass that law. If they had "no" 2nd Amendment rights, it wouldn't have been necessary... So, to answer your sarcasm: yes.

I guess you don't understand "freedom" - to own a weapon, you have to have a FOID (firearms registration) card in Illinois (permission from the government to own weapon and ammo). When you have to beg the government for a right to do something, that is not freedom. Only reason reason they don't have total ban on weapons is every time they to try to over restrict, the defenders of the 2nd amendment have challenged them to the supreme court. But we all know that ends when Hillary get elected on appoints anti-2nd amendment justice to the supreme court. Illinois will move from one of the most restrictive ant-2nd amendment states to THE MOST restrictive state that will likely have gun confiscation.