Spot Journalistic Bias and Manipulation (was Media Bias)

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 476 comments
  • 47,364 views
I am reluctant to share a tweet endorsed by an extremely extremely far-left account that hates e v e r y thing about NATO and "the West", it goes so far around the world it pretty much meets Russia on the other side, but it's hard to not notice things like this.


 
If the article has been updated by the BBC from first publication, that's one thing.
If the snapshot has been doctored for the tweet, I apologise for sharing it.
 
Not apologizing for the specific situation, but when much of the media landscape reports information with more of a sense of immediacy, rather than providing a concrete historical record, it's fair to shield information if there's information gaps. The secondary situation is rarely possible in the immediate moment, especially in restricted places. "Friendly fire" or accidents do occur, and that makes for a totally different headline, so it's understandable and even responsible to not lay immediate blame, even if you want to, or it's almost 99% certain who is at fault. Thus, an article which appears 30 minutes (or a day or two) after its occurrence versus one that is several days old can have a vastly different approach to a headline, and is not an entirely fair comparison...it happens all the time. In the past, a physical media outlet or over-the-air broadcaster had to issue a retraction or just make a new story out of a news event. Who said social media is fair, anyhow?

Yep, bias about a lack of bias causing more bias.
 
Last edited:
Screenshot-20240708-185616-Samsung-Internet.jpg

Screenshot-20240708-185750-Samsung-Internet.jpg
 
Same Story:

Reuters: Zuckerberg says Biden administration pressured Meta to censor COVID-19 content
CNN: Mark Zuckerberg says Meta was ‘pressured’ by Biden administration to censor Covid-related content in 2021
USA Today: White House pressured Facebook to remove misinformation during pandemic, Meta CEO claims
Fox News: Andy McCarthy on Zuckerberg letter: the 'deceit' is 'astonishing'.

Reuters and CNN are technically more correct than USA Today. Zuck did not say misinformation, he said they pressured him to remove content, including satire. The reason the government cited for that removal? It's misinformation.

Fox, of course, is astonished and outraged over the evil deceitfulness. But this story broke back then, and the white house was upfront saying that they were working with social media companies (and collaboration is what Zuck is describing) to identify misinformation and remove it. When the administration thought something was misinformation and facebook didn't think so, the admin apparently "pressured" (not sure what the means) them to remove it anyway.

USA Today's headline is probably the closest to something that gives the right impression. The Biden admin considered it misinformation and suggested facebook remove it. Calling it "content" censorship gives some incorrect impressions about what exactly was told to facebook, and what exactly the "content" represented.
 
Last edited:
Same story:

CNN: "Harris explains in exclusive CNN interview why she's shifted her position on key issues since her first run for president"
Fox: "Harris defends policy flip-flops in preview of first interview since ascending ticket"

The fox headline indicates rapid switches, i.e. pandering. CNN suggests a shift informed by experience, which indicates wisdom. "Since ascending ticket" gives the impression that the shift has occurred in the last month, whereas CNN gives the impression of 4 years. This is compounded by the "first interview" dig, which suggests that a month is too long for an interview. But you don't get to have "since ascending" both ways. It's either the first interview, or it's a policy flip flop. But it's not a policy flip flop since july.

Basically CNN paints a picture of a maturing flexible professional, and Fox paints a picture of a two-faced opportunist out of the same set of facts. After clicking on the article, it becomes clear that the reference point is indeed 4 years ago, and is informed by experience as Vice President. I'd say Fox is out of line. Especially because the time reference in the fox headline is intentionally conflating two different time periods.
 
Last edited:
Politicians accepting freebies - good thing or bad thing?

20240919_155013.jpg


Seeing as both Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer are or have been leaders of the Labour party, the Express seems to think it's your politican leaning that matters rather than a principle.
 
Torygraph headline for paywalled article: Labour gives free Ozempic anti-obesity drug to unemployed people.

Actual health secretary's comment: let's hold a four year study with obesity experts (no doubt in conjunction with a full health and exercise programme as recommended by the drug's makers) to assess whether this is a cost effective solution to help people back into employment.

Rouse that rabble. I swear, the conservative press will leave no stone unturned when it comes to giving their dwindling readership a chance to condemn the undeserving poor.
 
Last edited:
Page title: Liam Payne: Cheryl says his death is 'indescribably painful'"
Headline: Liam Payne's death 'indescribably painful', says Cheryl

I wonder whether a news editor tweaked this headline to attract clicks from ghouls as it conveys a very different impression from the presumed original.

Screenshot_20241018-205908.png
 
Last edited:
The death of one famous person brings out more outpouring of grief than any injustice around the world.
 

Google posted this as a fact check on my google feed. This is an insane fact check. No, Harris did not call Donald Trump Hitler. She called him a Fascist, there is a difference. How on Earth is this considered mostly true but just needs context.

Facist is not the same as Hitler. I know newsweek is super biased, but google shouldn't be including their garbage in the fact check section.
 
I can totally see some people hard of hearing or with twisted minds (same things practically) thinking:

"trump is a fascist (like hitler)"

Interpreted into:

"Trump is like Hitler"

Which is actually not too far from the truth...
What's wrong with that?

People on the right are outdated and outraged because Trump is being called Hitler,
BUT anything he says or does similar to Hitler, they just are totally oblivious to it all...

And not do anything about it... Unbelievable.
GOP and MAGA is too busy calling the left = anti-fa as if it was a bad thing lol... Don't they realize it?
trump stupidity is transpiring onto the mAga Crowd.

Have anyone here Noticed that people on the right for many years now, ever since Trump is in the political scene:
People on the right seems to always equate and associated the left as being fascist AND anti-fa at the same time??

I firmly believe that in those people's mind, the two things (Anti-fa and fascism) are the same!?!
Or they somehow think it is different, and EQUALLY bad .

Trump is always pushing the narrative that :
The left is fascist, Communist, socialist and Marxist all at the same time and is very very bad ?
And the media is not even fact checking nor calling it out to his face... They simply let it slide, legitimizing his statements just by reporting it out..
I am tired of the media NOT doing it's job and sanewashing the right side..

Have you not seen or hear that ??
I don't understand how those people can be so idiot or uneducated or both...
They just accept trump statements as gospel...
 
Trump is always pushing the narrative that :
The left is fascist, Communist, socialist and Marxist all at the same time and is very very bad ?
And the media is not even fact checking nor calling it out to his face... They simply let it slide, legitimizing his statements just by reporting it out..
I am tired of the media NOT doing it's job and sanewashing the right side..

Agreed. I never see fact checks of even the most simple things - like that tariffs are paid for by the country of origin, they're not, they're paid domestically. I never see fact checks when Trump calls Kamala fascist, communist, marxist, and socialist and you're right that he claims all of those things. It's not even possible, it should be fact checked to death. But it doesn't happen.

But Kamala calls Trump fascist? Do we fact check that? Well no, then we'd have to say Trump is facist. Let's fact check the part where Trump says she calls him hitler. Then we can say that Trump is right... kinda.

That's insane. Kamala is right to call him fascist. Trump is wrong to say she called him Hitler. How is the fact check that Trump is mostly right on that exchange? Totally biased.
 
Last edited:
In the grand scheme of things this isn't very important, but it still triggered me.

Headlights are too bright! But US experts say they’re not bright enough

That headline definitely suggests that US "experts" think that headlights should be brighter. But literally nothing in that article even attempts to suggest that. Instead they say:

“We actually need more light on the road than what we have,” says Greg Bannon, director of automotive engineering at the American Automobile Association (AAA). Only a minority of US roadways have overhead street lighting, as one 2019 AAA report noted. As a result, in many areas, headlights are the sole method of illumination when driving at night.
 
Back