Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The only times I am reluctant to see racism at work are the subjective instances in which facts suggest otherwise.
|
That is one way to put it. Another way to put it is that everything is subjective, and you see the facts suggesting "otherwise" much more than everyone else here. I think you've staked out a principled position that you are disinclined to attribute things to racism absent pretty strong confirmation. I'm not trying to argue with you about it right now, just to point out that your willingness to attribute political bias to members of the media stands in marked contrast.
Quote:
|
And this conversation was not about a single article. This conversation was about general media bias. I said in almost any space of time, one can find proof of bias. You focused on one story, the biased portion of which was subtle.
|
I focused on one article, which I picked so that we would have something specific to talk about.
Quote:
|
You claim it proves lack of bias as it is not unquestionably anti-Trump.
|
No, I don't believe I said that.
Quote:
|
I told you that it’s these subtle little drips which together form a broad bias. You’ve stalled on that.
|
This seems to be hard for you to understand, so let me try again.
Nothing in that article shows any anti-Trump bias.
The one thing you have identified as a sign that the authors are biased is that in the course of relating Trump's gross mischaracterizations about the value of trade with Saudi Arabia, they used the verb "inflated," which you say implies a malign intent for which there is no proof.
As a matter of usage, that's wrong. If you inflate a number, you make it larger. That is what Trump did. The word does not necessarily indicate bad intent.
It's also wrong in the context of this article, where the authors started by doing the opposite of what you complain about -- they accepted and reported as fact the White House's characterization of its own good intent in addressing the Saudi situation. So while you complain that they are biased for impugning the Trump's motives, they actually do the opposite.
You also ignore the broader context, which is that Trump has been telling mistruths about these facts for months now. Ordinarily, when someone tells mistruths in public again and again, is called on it, and keeps at it, we presume that they mean to deceive. You say Trump is too stupid to notice that he is wrong, a view you would surely call biased if expressed by a CNN reporter. Since ABC News is reporting today, per my earlier post, that Jared Kushner intentionally urged the administration of overstate the value of the Saudi arms sales, we can dispense with the notion that Trump just accidentally kept repeating massive falsities without meaning it.
If that one story is indicative -- and on that point, maybe it is, maybe it isn't -- then your claims of bias are frivolous. Separately, I asked you to find me a single example of the bias you attributed to CNN, and you couldn't do it.
