For a long time I thought the notion that the media are biased was overblown, but recently I'm beginning to wonder. This morning I was listening to a program on NPR about how both parties are having difficulty reaching Black voters, particularly men. At one point the commentator said something along the lines of, "for example a Republican congressman recently said that Jim Crow afforded some benefits for Blacks." I vaguely recalled the statement, but didn't think he said anything that stupid, so I looked it up. What he said was that under Jim Crow Black families were stronger, then LBJ came along with the Great Society and things went south. It seems clear that he was trying to say that the Great Society legislation contained disincentives for marriage, but did a very poor job of making his point. I can see saying that he mangled his message, or that you disagree with the premise, but I don't see how you come to the conclusion that he was saying Jim Crow provided benefits for Blacks.

Now for the other side. I don't listen or view Fox or any other right wing outfit, but occasionally something shows up in one of my news feeds that gives me pause. Today it was "Biden absently wanders off during D Day celebration and has to be rescued by the Italian Prime Minister. So I found a video, which was making the same point even though the footage showed that Biden wasn't 'wandering' anywhere; to my eye he was clearly turning to speak with someone who was off to the side. The PM's action was more like, "Hey, we haven't got time for that, we need to go the other direction now."

I'm now wondering if I have to go to source documentation for everything, as I can't trust the spin both sides are putting on things.

I once read that the difference between MSNBC and Fox News is that MSNBC passes the facts through a Progressive filter before it dispenses them and Fox News just makes stuff up. Perhaps that explains why Fox News chose to write a check for $787,000,000 to settle the Dominion Voting Systems defamation case and why Fox News chose to terminate Tucker Carlson before it had to write another one.

Hannity puts Fox News at risk with reporting like this:

SEAN HANNITY: During a parachute demonstration, Biden got dazed and confused. How shocking. And started to just, you know, wander off like that as other G7 leaders looked on in agony.


Fox's Howie Kurtz Rips Fox 'Misleading' Coverage Of Biden


https://www.mediaite.com/news/foxs-howie-kurtz-criticizes-misleading-coverage-of-biden-cheapfake-video-including-fox-news/

*If it wasn't for the immunity congresspersons and senators have for statements made in official proceedings, most of the tRumpists in government would be sued back to the Stone Age for the slander they spew for the benefit of their meatheaded America hating base.

Trump is polling higher among black males more than any other Republican candidate in recent history. NPR liberals have no idea why.

As far as Biden's mental state goes, what is there to spin when there is a preponderance of video evidence?

bearister said:

---

I once read that the difference between MSNBC and Fox News is that MSNBC passes the facts through a Progressive filter before it dispenses them and Fox News just makes stuff up.

---

The FBI just admitted in court that Hunter Biden's laptop is real.

Here are 20 minutes of Joe Biden, U.S. intelligence officials, and the American media claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation."

The FBI has had possession of Hunter's laptop since… pic.twitter.com/5lzQaXitwq

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) June 5, 2024

Here's 20 minutes of Joe Biden, U.S. intelligence officials, and the American media colluding with each other by claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation."

Big C said:

---

It was different when TV news consisted of NBC, ABC and CBS. It seemed like they were all competing to see who could be the most centrist, although I suppose that could be problematic, as well.

I'd like to see a news outlet come out and try and be right smack dab down the middle, yet willing to sometimes criticize both sides. But then, nowadays, who would watch that?

---

TV "mainstream" news ratings are at historical lows. Since no one is watching, can they still be considered, "mainstream"?

It is NOT appropriate for FoxNews etc to lie, then blame "the media" for the division in America. Their hope is to destroy trust in ALL media. Studies show that in times of confusion, people fall back upon fears and biases - and that's exactly what FoxNews is pushing for.

Biden freezes before Obama grabs his arm and leads him off stage. Yikes! 😳 pic.twitter.com/nCgAGitoQ6

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 16, 2024

Biden "freezes". Seems like an accurate description to me.

Call me a Pollyanna, but I am going to continue to get my news from media outlets that don't write checks for a whisker under $800,000,000 because they lie.
Until one of my outlets starts writing checks like that for lying, I'm going to consider the "both sides are bad" argument pure false equivalence bullsh@it made solely to try to get along with people that I have no f@ucking interest in getting along with.

The sad thing is that even on BI, where we were supposedly bright enough to attend Cal and be among the best of the best, the examples that Ludwig gave have been repeated here with no attempt to critically examine them. Even if you dispute it with some people here, they just repeat it again a few days later. It's harming our society like it's being sprayed with acid. I try not to take anything I'm reading these days as THE TRUTH. The media has been failing miserably for the last decade or two, maybe longer.

Obviously, it's a lie to say Biden has been clinically diagnosed to be suffering from dementia when he refused to take a cognitive exam prior to taking office!

Let's put it out there that the Congressman in question is Byron Donalds, Republican, Florida. And what he actually said was this:

Quote:

---

"You see, during Jim Crow, the Black family was together. During Jim Crow, more Black people were not just conservative Black people have always been conservative-minded but more Black people voted conservatively,"

---

One can intelligently conclude that NPR took nothing out of context. That what Donalds said could be read and interpreted as meaning Blacks were "better off" under Jim Crow laws - because the Black family was "together". I'm struggling to understand why you think that's such a giant leap for the NPR commentator to interpret his words like that.

Moreover, if anyone would conclude that Jim Crow benefited Black Americans in any respect is of the sort that thinks slavery was some sort of Southern public skills building program.

Remember Charlottesville when Trump called neo-Nazis very fine people?

I only saw the full clip for the first time today

It’s a must watch — he literally CONDEMNS the Neo Nazis and white nationalists https://t.co/62G0UC5DPL

— Shaun Maguire (@shaunmmaguire) June 16, 2024

I gave up on "the media" right around 2019-2020 during the middle of the Russia collusion hoax hearings and before the pandemic started. Yes, I'm a late bloomer but everything else makes more sense since then including the stolen election, the J6 Fed-surrection, current lawfare and election interference.

LudwigsFountain said:

---

For a long time I thought the notion that the media are biased was overblown, but recently I'm beginning to wonder. This morning I was listening to a program on NPR about how both parties are having difficulty reaching Black voters, particularly men. At one point the commentator said something along the lines of, "for example a Republican congressman recently said that Jim Crow afforded some benefits for Blacks." I vaguely recalled the statement, but didn't think he said anything that stupid, so I looked it up. What he said was that under Jim Crow Black families were stronger, then LBJ came along with the Great Society and things went south. It seems clear that he was trying to say that the Great Society legislation contained disincentives for marriage, but did a very poor job of making his point. I can see saying that he mangled his message, or that you disagree with the premise, but I don't see how you come to the conclusion that he was saying Jim Crow provided benefits for Blacks.

Now for the other side. I don't listen or view Fox or any other right wing outfit, but occasionally something shows up in one of my news feeds that gives me pause. Today it was "Biden absently wanders off during D Day celebration and has to be rescued by the Italian Prime Minister. So I found a video, which was making the same point even though the footage showed that Biden wasn't 'wandering' anywhere; to my eye he was clearly turning to speak with someone who was off to the side. The PM's action was more like, "Hey, we haven't got time for that, we need to go the other direction now."

I'm now wondering if I have to go to source documentation for everything, as I can't trust the spin both sides are putting on things.

---

You are comparing a lie with word choice to describe a bad argument. The Republican Congressman basically said blacks were better off under Jim Crow than now. After that, your beef is with the NPR reporter?

bear2034 said:

---

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

- George Orwell 1984

---

It's ironic that you can't recognize that this quote applies to The Party of alternate facts.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

- George Orwell 1984

---

It's ironic that you can't recognize that this quote applies to The Party of alternate facts.

---

Just another "No puppet, no puppet. You're the puppet," appropriation of an accurate criticism. It is the oldest trick in the book for those without original thought. You could write a think tank caliber White Paper shredding an argument made by a tRumpist, and they would respond to it with two sentences and conclude that they "owned" you in the discussion. Trolls gonna troll.

The sales of Orwell's 1984 increased 9500% after tRump was elected and led to hundreds of essays comparing and contrasting tRump World to Orwell's dystopian vision.

Welcome to dystopia George Orwell experts on Donald Trump | US politics | The Guardian


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/25/george-orwell-donald-trump-kellyanne-conway-1984

Orwell's '1984' has become a conservative rallying cry - The Washington Post


https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/orwell-1984-conservatives/2021/01/11/e80ce30e-5446-11eb-a931-5b162d0d033d_story.html




I would love to be provided links to some of the learned essays comparing and contrasting the Biden Administration to Orwell's 1984.

bearister said:

---

I once read that the difference between MSNBC and Fox News is that MSNBC passes the facts through a Progressive filter before it dispenses them and Fox News just makes stuff up. Perhaps that explains why Fox News chose to write a check for $787,000,000 to settle the Dominion Voting Systems defamation case and why Fox News chose to terminate Tucker Carlson before it had to write another one.

---

MUST WATCH:🚨 Watch this crucial 20-minute video featuring prominent Democrats, computer science professors, and election security experts discussing the vulnerabilities in America's election system.

They warn that the system is online, easily hackable, and often operates on… pic.twitter.com/u8CqlDe68r

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) June 15, 2024

Democrats were the original election deniers and they also knew our election system was vulnerable including voting machines. They said it themselves prior to the 2020 election.

dajo9 said:

---

You are comparing a lie with word choice to describe a bad argument. The Republican Congressman basically said blacks were better off under Jim Crow than now. After that, your beef is with the NPR reporter?

---

LBJ's Great Society was destructive to Black families in America.

Joe Biden's '94 Crime Bill & the War on Drugs were also destructive to Black families.

We need economic policy to help ALL AMERICANS thrive & only 1 candidate in '24 has that policy prescription: President Trump. pic.twitter.com/8i1hqudQ0Q

— Byron Donalds (@ByronDonalds) June 6, 2024

Donalds said black families were "intact" and not "better off".

LudwigsFountain said:

---

In the context of the discussion to which I was listening, which was about the difficulty the parties were having in connecting with Blacks, I think a more honest statement would have been, "Black congressman mangles message about Great Society legislation harming Blacks, giving his opponents political fodder." That would have emphasized the point about the difficulty he was having in communicating without putting words in his mouth.

---

Since Byron Donalds is a potential VP pick, the media will continue to put words in his mouth and then if he does become VP, they will do worse. The one thing the media hates more than a conservative is a black conservative.

LudwigsFountain said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Let's put it out there that the Congressman in question is Byron Donalds, Republican, Florida. And what he actually said was this:

Quote:

---

"You see, during Jim Crow, the Black family was together. During Jim Crow, more Black people were not just conservative Black people have always been conservative-minded but more Black people voted conservatively,"

---

One can intelligently conclude that NPR took nothing out of context. That what Donalds said could be read and interpreted as meaning Blacks were "better off" under Jim Crow laws - because the Black family was "together". I'm struggling to understand why you think that's such a giant leap for the NPR commentator to interpret his words like that.

Moreover, if anyone would conclude that Jim Crow benefited Black Americans in any respect is of the sort that thinks slavery was some sort of Southern public skills building program.

---

I think it's a leap because of the sentences that followed your quote, which you omitted, He went on he to at least implicitly blame the Great Society legislation for causing a breakdown in Black families. He communicated poorly, Should have said something like, "Even though we were suffering under Jim Crow, our families were together; then The Great Society Law was passed, with perverse incentives that led to the deterioration of stable families among less well off Blacks. Same thing happened to poor whites."

In the context of the discussion to which I was listening, which was about the difficulty the parties were having in connecting with Blacks, I think a more honest statement would have been, "Black congressman mangles message about Great Society legislation harming Blacks, giving his opponents political fodder." That would have emphasized the point about the difficulty he was having in communicating without putting words in his mouth.

---

Ok, now you're going off on your opinion as to what the headline should be. Here's what Donalds said when questioned about what he said:

Quote:

---

"I never said that. They are lying. ... What I said was that you had more Black families under Jim Crow and it was the Democrat policies under H.E.W., under the welfare state, that did help to destroy the Black family,"

---

So....if I put 2 and 2 together I can conclude - "more black families" = better off. One can safely conclude that, yes? More black families is a good thing and would be considered "better off" right? So I once again ask where the dishonesty is in what NPR said or even that it was misleading?

My question would be - why shouldn't media companies tell it like it is? The fact that Donalds thinks the Great Society impoverished blacks tells us all we need to know. Nevermind these Jim Crow (pejorative term for African American) laws were enacted to disenfranchise Blacks to stop any gains made by Blacks during reconstruction. But I guess Donalds has a different version of history. He is, after all, from Florida.

I would also offer that within the context of Donalds entire remarks - he doubled down on what he said and did not offer any differentiation or clarification on what he meant. The NPR headline was accurate.

bear2034 said:

---

Look at the way they all acknowledge someone has to save him… pic.twitter.com/K5ooqp7Al3

— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) June 13, 2024

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

- George Orwell 1984

---

Biden was waving to fans (off camera). The others wanted him in a photo op and pulled him in.

See. When you can use your brain, things start to make sense.

LudwigsFountain said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Let's put it out there that the Congressman in question is Byron Donalds, Republican, Florida. And what he actually said was this:

Quote:

---

"You see, during Jim Crow, the Black family was together. During Jim Crow, more Black people were not just conservative Black people have always been conservative-minded but more Black people voted conservatively,"

---

One can intelligently conclude that NPR took nothing out of context. That what Donalds said could be read and interpreted as meaning Blacks were "better off" under Jim Crow laws - because the Black family was "together". I'm struggling to understand why you think that's such a giant leap for the NPR commentator to interpret his words like that.

Moreover, if anyone would conclude that Jim Crow benefited Black Americans in any respect is of the sort that thinks slavery was some sort of Southern public skills building program.

---

I think it's a leap because of the sentences that followed your quote, which you omitted, He went on he to at least implicitly blame the Great Society legislation for causing a breakdown in Black families. He communicated poorly, Should have said something like, "Even though we were suffering under Jim Crow, our families were together; then The Great Society Law was passed, with perverse incentives that led to the deterioration of stable families among less well off Blacks. Same thing happened to poor whites."

In the context of the discussion to which I was listening, which was about the difficulty the parties were having in connecting with Blacks, I think a more honest statement would have been, "Black congressman mangles message about Great Society legislation harming Blacks, giving his opponents political fodder." That would have emphasized the point about the difficulty he was having in communicating without putting words in his mouth.

---

I've heard and seen too many instances of republicans talking about the positives of Jim Crow and slavery lately. Just maybe they are racist pieces of $h1t. Don't excuse it saying they were misunderstood or can't properly put a cogent sentence together. If they are unable to communicate in a clear and concise manner maybe they shouldn't be in government.