media bias

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmelosi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
Feelings don’t matter. Doing the right thing is the right thing to do. Love your neighbor as yourself. And feeling good is a side effect of that, not the primary reason to do anything good/right.

Ed
Click to expand...
👍 Do you read a lot of Archbishop Fulton Sheen?
 
It’s not only how they report it, but the subjects they choose to highlight. There isn’t a day that goes by that NPR doesn’t cover gay, transgender, abortion, or global warming issues in a positive light.

Their standard by-line is “according to the nonpartisan [insert biased source] institute.” They used the “nonpartisan” Gutmacher Institute to support their assdertion that abortion does not hurt women.

Two minutes ago, they put up a story, “Being Black and Muslim in the age of Trump.” Really? Talk about a loaded headline.
 
The media is proving we no longer have a peaceful transfer of power in the US
 
qui_est_ce said:
It’s not only how they report it, but the subjects they choose to highlight. There isn’t a day that goes by that NPR doesn’t cover gay, transgender, abortion, or global warming issues in a positive light.
Click to expand...
You lump a lot of things together in that list - as if they were all equally bad. They are not. So let’s break apart that list and consider them separately.

There are a lot of gay and transgender stories in the news lately. It would be irresponsible for a news organization to ignore them. Of the stories I have heard, they do present both sides of the arguments on any controversial issue.

As for abortion, they do not offer moral judgements one way or the other. And they have had people interviewed who present a case against liberalizing abortion.

As for global warming, that represents a wide range of subjects, from the scientific theories to the political policies that supposedly address those theories. As for the theories themselves (not the policies) NPR presents the scientific consensus most of the time, and occasionally features dissenters from the theory. As for the policies, they definitely feature both sides in those debates.
Their standard by-line is “according to the nonpartisan [insert biased source] institute.” They used the “nonpartisan” Gutmacher Institute to support their assdertion that abortion does not hurt women.
Click to expand...
I have never heard NPR report that abortion does not hurt women, and I listen to NPR a lot.
Two minutes ago, they put up a story, “Being Black and Muslim in the age of Trump.” Really? Talk about a loaded headline.
Click to expand...
How is it loaded? If they have a story to tell about Muslims and how they feel in the current political climate, this headline describes the story as well as any and does not imply anything more than it should. Is your problem that you wish they would not tell that story at all? Or that they can tell the story, but should describe it very differently in the headline?
 
qui_est_ce said:
It’s not only how they report it, but the subjects they choose to highlight. There isn’t a day that goes by that NPR doesn’t cover gay, transgender, abortion, or global warming issues in a positive light.

Their standard by-line is “according to the nonpartisan [insert biased source] institute.” They used the “nonpartisan” Gutmacher Institute to support their assdertion that abortion does not hurt women.

Two minutes ago, they put up a story, “Being Black and Muslim in the age of Trump.” Really? Talk about a loaded headline.
Click to expand...
Of course. As far as NPR, they must read their lines in a clear, pleasant sounding voice. That way, the peasants are more inclined to believe they are different.

The Guttmacher Institute is a pro-abortion, pro-contraceptive advocacy group that claims their “… data are more comprehensive than state and federal government sources.” I wonder who funds them.

Ed
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You lump a lot of things together in that list - as if they were all equally bad. They are not. So let’s break apart that list and consider them separately.

There are a lot of gay and transgender stories in the news lately. It would be irresponsible for a news organization to ignore them. Of the stories I have heard, they do present both sides of the arguments on any controversial issue.

As for abortion, they do not offer moral judgements one way or the other. And they have had people interviewed who present a case against liberalizing abortion.

As for global warming, that represents a wide range of subjects, from the scientific theories to the political policies that supposedly address those theories. As for the theories themselves (not the policies) NPR presents the scientific consensus most of the time, and occasionally features dissenters from the theory. As for the policies, they definitely feature both sides in those debates.

I have never heard NPR report that abortion does not hurt women, and I listen to NPR a lot.

How is it loaded? If they have a story to tell about Muslims and how they feel in the current political climate, this headline describes the story as well as any and does not imply anything more than it should. Is your problem that you wish they would not tell that story at all? Or that they can tell the story, but should describe it very differently in the headline?
Click to expand...
Back to the title of the thread…how about if they report the story fairly and not make it seem like it a slam against the Muslim religion?
 
dmelosi said:
I guess first so that we are on the same page, what do you think the travel restriction is about?
Click to expand...
If your point is that the travel ban is not a Muslim ban, I agree with you. We are on the same page on that. However that does not prevent people affected by the ban from experiencing it as treatment due to their religion. If you are referring to the WHYY story of the title cited earlier, that report was reporting what various Muslims felt about the political climate. Since this thread is about media bias, I will try to restrict my comments to the question of media bias and not try to answer some larger question.

The WHYY story that I read seemed to me to be reporting on people’s experiences, leaving it up to the listener to draw their own conclusions. So in what way was this particular reporting biased (now that we are on the same page)?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If your point is that the travel ban is not a Muslim ban, I agree with you. We are on the same page on that. However that does not prevent people affected by the ban from experiencing it as treatment due to their religion. If you are referring to the WHYY story of the title cited earlier, that report was reporting what various Muslims felt about the political climate. Since this thread is about media bias, I will try to restrict my comments to the question of media bias and not try to answer some larger question.

The WHYY story that I read seemed to me to be reporting on people’s experiences, leaving it up to the listener to draw their own conclusions. So in what way was this particular reporting biased (now that we are on the same page)?
Click to expand...
Which why story cited earlier?
 
qui_est_ce said:
It’s not only how they report it, but the subjects they choose to highlight. There isn’t a day that goes by that NPR doesn’t cover gay, transgender, abortion, or global warming issues in a positive light.

Their standard by-line is “according to the nonpartisan [insert biased source] institute.” They used the “nonpartisan” Gutmacher Institute to support their assdertion that abortion does not hurt women.

Two minutes ago, they put up a story, “Being Black and Muslim in the age of Trump.” Really? Talk about a loaded headline.
Click to expand...
I said this (sort of) earlier in the thread-------C-Span is as close as one would get in non-partisan (albeit strictly political) news-----they do not editorialize and cover meetings and rallies of all sides. Even in the call-in segments they try mightily for giving all sides a chance at speaking. Maybe you should try them for non-partisanship and non-bias of either side,. 👍👍
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You lump a lot of things together in that list - as if they were all equally bad. They are not. So let’s break apart that list and consider them separately.

There are a lot of gay and transgender stories in the news lately. It would be irresponsible for a news organization to ignore them. Of the stories I have heard, they do present both sides of the arguments on any controversial issue.

As for abortion, they do not offer moral judgements one way or the other. And they have had people interviewed who present a case against liberalizing abortion.

As for global warming, that represents a wide range of subjects, from the scientific theories to the political policies that supposedly address those theories. As for the theories themselves (not the policies) NPR presents the scientific consensus most of the time, and occasionally features dissenters from the theory. As for the policies, they definitely feature both sides in those debates.

I have never heard NPR report that abortion does not hurt women, and I listen to NPR a lot.

How is it loaded? If they have a story to tell about Muslims and how they feel in the current political climate, this headline describes the story as well as any and does not imply anything more than it should. Is your problem that you wish they would not tell that story at all? Or that they can tell the story, but should describe it very differently in the headline?
Click to expand...
I can tell you this, LBN-----when the O’Keefe undercover videos story broke, the media totally ignored the fact that the videos proved that the PP facilities engaged in body parts trading. That issue was completely swept under the rug and instead it became a “technicality” in that what the subjects said in the videotape was legal or not. All the networks (except for Fox News) said that what the subjects said was “legal” regarding body parts and that O’Keefe lied or manipulated the context of what was said to make it look like what they were espousing was illegal. O’Keefe was totally intentionally discredited as a partisan liar and a defamer, the networks totally casting aside any “worrisome” issue the videos highlighted and exposed. With all due respect, LBN, that is “blanket-blank” that the networks were “fair and balanced” in their coverage of abortion. :mad:😦
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You lump a lot of things together in that list - as if they were all equally bad. They are not. So let’s break apart that list and consider them separately.

There are a lot of gay and transgender stories in the news lately. It would be irresponsible for a news organization to ignore them. Of the stories I have heard, they do present both sides of the arguments on any controversial issue.
Click to expand...
And some are manufactured. A couple of months ago, I gave in and listened to NPR on a Saturday morning because I generally like Steve Inskeep. The story was about people having problems with their vocal cords. It sounded interesting because my nephew has trouble with his voice and has taken lessons on how to speak without damaging his vocal cords. Turns out the story was about a man transitioning to a woman. The man in question had to learn how to regulate his voice to sound like a woman. OF COURSE, WHY WAS I SURPRISED? :rolleyes:
LBN:
As for abortion, they do not offer moral judgements one way or the other. And they have had people interviewed who present a case against liberalizing abortion.
Click to expand...
Right, they just present a lot of articles stating abortion is not harmful.

When they do cite data that goes against their liberal agenda, they follow up with the “nonpartisan [institute]” by-line qualification.
lbn:
As for global warming, that represents a wide range of subjects, from the scientific theories to the political policies that supposedly address those theories. As for the theories themselves (not the policies) NPR presents the scientific consensus most of the time, and occasionally features dissenters from the theory. As for the policies, they definitely feature both sides in those debates.
Click to expand...
I have noticed that a lot of the dissenters they quote have drawls.
LBN:
I have never heard NPR report that abortion does not hurt women, and I listen to NPR a lot.
Click to expand...
npr.org/2011/01/27/133237875/study-abortions-dont-cause-mental-health-issues
Blum, a former president of the Guttmacher Institute, would like to say goodbye to the political buzz words.
Click to expand...
“There is no post-abortion trauma, post-abortion syndrome, or anything of the like,” he said.
Click to expand...
I think I stopped listening to NPR daily after that report.
LBN:
How is it loaded? If they have a story to tell about Muslims and how they feel in the current political climate, this headline describes the story as well as any and does not imply anything more than it should. Is your problem that you wish they would not tell that story at all? Or that they can tell the story, but should describe it very differently in the headline?
Click to expand...
“Under Trump.” :ehh:

When did you stop beating your wife?

Oh, I left off evolution as part of their agenda.

npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/09/504890630/say-what-monkey-mouths-and-throats-are-equipped-for-speech
Say, What? Monkey Mouths And Throats Are Equipped For Speech
Click to expand...
Maybe I just lost interest in the topics they feel are important.

I listen to EWTN News Nightly and Morning Glory now. Much more interesting topics from a non political pov.
 
This research proves nothing. Previous research showed four words could be imitated after training but no suggestion that talking, as humans do, was possible.

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top