Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Still not true, and your claim was the foundation of your entire argument. That makes your entire argument invalid.
1. I didn't start an argument, nor was it an argument. It was an observation, not as accurately put as it should have been, but an observation nonetheless.
2. Whether you share my observation or opinion, doesn't make my observation any less viable. It is something that not only has been noticed by others, but it also appears that there was a book written about it, that there is a liberal bias when reporting stories.
3. Lastly, I will agree that I should not have used the word "NEVER", but should have used another term to reflect a majority of instances, which is a more accurate assessment.
In retrospect, my titling should have been worded better, to reflect the observation that showed a certain bias to reporting the (D) or (R), but I DO find it interesting however, that you feel a need to attack me, versus the AP article which was the basis for my assessment.
Jake Tapper (who I generally find to be fair) was talking about the Russian terror attacks yesterday, and as part of the story, did a recap of terror in the US for the last 20 years. When he mentioned the Olympic Park Bomber, he identified Eric Rudolph as "anti-abortion," "anti-gay marriage." But for every other event, he gave no information about the bombers. He didn't indentify the 911 bombers as Muslim or the Boston bombers as Obama supporting Muslims. If you pay attention, those little biases slip into the news all the time.
And I agree with the premise. I've noticed that it happens all the time. If there is a story about an elected official doing something bad, and no party affliation is mentioned, I almost always Google it. And the person is always a Democrat.
This has been going on for a while now in the mainstream media. The LA Times and New York Times especially will almost always point out a person's political association—even if it's not relevant to the story—if it helps put the (R) in a negative light with the reader.
Here's a perfect example how they do this. Read this story-
The headline alone gives away the NYT's obvious anti-gun agenda but read further and you'll notice this tidbit completely unrelated to the story-
Mr. Hendrix, a veteran of the Iraq war who last year served as the spokesman for a Republican candidate for Congress from Tennessee, Scottie Mayfield, did not return calls seeking an interview.
As you read this sad story ask yourself: why does the NYT consider it pertinent to include non-essential information such as the fact that Mr. Hendrix once worked as a spokesperson for a local politician? What does this have to do with the story at hand?
Such details never go unmentioned in the mainstream media, who are well aware that by constantly including such details in stories like this one they help condition an audience into believing that "gun nuts" are all white male republican veterans living in the south, ready to pop off at any second and kill a poor confused old man. The implication being, if we don't stop these "gun nuts" YOU could be their next victim.
Since most of NYT's readers are liberals, readers don't realize that it's with these interjected details that the NYT subtly manipulates them into believing what they believe.
I am not referring to the deed, but the fact that he was referred to as a NH State Rep, but neglected the (D), where as if it had been a Republican, the (R) would have been the leading character in the article.
I think you're imagining things.
I saw several stories covering this incident. Everyone identified the guy as a Democrat. I guess they thought it was ironic or something- you know, like when they catch a GOPer cavorting in a men's room somewhere.
You expect certain kinds of behavior from members of each party. A rep callously mowing down a family of ducks MUST be a Republican... Oh wait! He's a Democrat? Wow, put it on page one!
That Fox link you provided is the only coverage I saw that omitted the fact the culprit was a Dem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
