Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You don't know what was in his head. You're making an assumption. You're free to assume in opeds. Do it there.
|
The word "inflated," which signals bias to you and no one else, appears in a short clause at the end of the story we've been discussing. At the top of the page, the second paragraph of that same story is:
The White House has been struggling to square a widespread sense that the crown prince directed the killing with a desire for Saudi support for its foreign policy priorities and the need to manage close relationships between bin Salman, the Trump administration and members of Trump's family.
Here are those same CNN reporters you seem as irredeemably biased against Trump stating as fact what the White House is thinking. As you point out, they don't know what the White House is thinking. But for some reason, your media-bias-sensing tool only works one way. When CNN tells you what the White House is thinking, and it repeats the White House line, you don't see media bias. But when CNN uses the word inflated to describe the fact that the President has been using false numbers, that's bias. You want a media that parrots the White House line, even when they're lying.
Why do you think it's biased to assume Trump is lying, but not biased to assume that he is recklessly ignorant and too stupid to know better?
eta: At other times on this board, Cynical Sebby has said, more or less, that politicians all lie. Is Cynical Sebby biased, or are reporters under some special obligation to assume good faith that mere mortals like Cynical Sebby are not?
