Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You are still insisting on framing the evidentiary standard. How many times must I say it’s subtle digs and slants buried in multiple stories? Do you expect me to take a day’s worth of articles and pull out all the instances of this?
|
For context, what you said was,
Quote:
|
Where isn't the Left batshit? Read MSNBC for a few minutes at any hour of the day. Read CNN's coverage of Trump. Read WaPo's coverage of Trump. They've elevated this buffoon to an extinction level event.
|
I made the mistake of taking you literally ("where isn't"? "a few minutes at any hour of the day") and just asked you to back it up. Of course you didn't really mean it, but you won't concede that now and just shift ground. Asked wtf you are talking about, you've moved from "when aren't they batshit" to "subtle digs and slants buried in stories," a claim that is almost tautologically impossible to refute. You can't see them because they're buried! Yahtzee!
But let's go back to the "subtle dig" we actually looked at, which shows how screwed up your views are. In a story about Trump's statements about Saudi Arabia, in nearly the last paragraph, in repeating (and quoting) Trump's totally spurious claim about Saudi defense spending, the reporters parenthetically noted that his claims were "inflated." They could have, but did not, point out that Trump has been telling increasingly larger lies about the benefits of Saudi spending for months now, and that this has been widely reported but that he just keeps telling mistruths about it.
You see this brief glimpse of actual reporting on the state of the world outside the President's statements as biased, not because CNN gave so much more space to the President's lies than to reality, because that part of the story is not favorable to Trump. That's, isn't it? In your view, reporting on facts that don't help Trump shows a bias in favor of Trump. You don't need to know a single thing about the reporters involved. You can get confused and repeatedly refer to them as a single person, because their actual identity (just like that actual benefits to the US economy from Saudi arms sales) is irrelevant. Once CNN breaks from stenographer to tell the reader the facts, that's bias to you.
That's fucked up.
