Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No. As I told you, it’s little digs, little phrasing’s and shadings, in numerous stories that betray the bias.
|
Please try to keep up with which silly thing you previously said that you are backtracking from. This was a response to where you said, and I quote, "Read CNN's coverage of Trump. They've elevated this buffoon to an extinction level event." I asked you to show me a single story from the prior day. You didn't. You posted unresponsive links.
You seem to think I am arguing that CNN isn't biased. I repeatedly have said the opposite.
(Also, saying that CNN is elevating a buffoon is less about bias and more about whether Trump is just a buffoon. I would have thought that by now we could all see the mistake in failing to take him seriously, but I guess not.)
Quote:
|
You have to understand, when you attempt to box someone in, their refusal, for good reason, to be so boxed does not allow you to declare victory. It’s quite obvious you craft very difficult and arbitrary demands for evidence you know no one will take the effort to provide solely so you may later declare, “Cazart! You could not provide me with what I demanded and are therefore wrong!” It’s your signature move, actually.
|
Yes, it was exceedingly arbitrary and unfair for me to ask you for a single example of something that you say happens all the time. Maybe it would have been less of a chore for you if I had given you the url for CNN, so you didn't have to go and Google it or ask Siri how it's spelled.
I went and found an article the hard way -- I typed cnn.com into my browser's addressed bar and then picked the first story about Trump. Arbitrary! If the sweeping statements you are making about the media require too much work to prove, it's because they are fatuous. Complaining that I make you do too much work to back up silly things you have said is like the begging sympathy as an orphan because you have shot your parents.
