Daily Heil banned from Wikipedia

[Kosh]

At what point does bias become generally accepted?

Conservatives like to blame media bias on virtually every information outlet. Only Fox and Breightbart are a source of truth for these people in the states. Oh, and cousin billy bobs facebook page.

You would think the real truth would yield a more homogenous grouping where the majority of news outlets agree with each other? Oh wait. They do.

[GUBU]

Edited to add, BBC is a perfect example, thanks Bella!  BBC is centrist, and reports very accurately without opinion spin unless it is labeled as such.  But the right (world over, not just America, I should know better) labels it as leftist.  It's just cuckoo.

Actually Auntie has become increasingly right wing in its reportage over the last ten or so years, due to massively increased political pressure from firstly the hard-right Nu-Labor government, and then after that from the even harder right Tory/Orange Tory coalition government. The news desk is so reduced in independence that it reports approvingly on the economically destructive and wrongheaded austerity measures in place for the last seven years, where even a centrist news organisation would report, rightly, that the most stupid thing to do in a recession is to cut the money supply.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

People really think the DNC runs the news???


ROFL.  Omg, we are soooo fucked.

Fringers make all kinds of claims.

[Amarok]

Wow so much bullshit Belle where to even begin but three really stand out

1) The Leave side were given plenty of chances for interviews etc . They refused because the complained that it would be a hatchet job. Typical right wing  tactic if the media ignores you cry censorship. If you get plenty of coverage cry media bias.

2) I watch the BBC rapes in Europe got plenty of coverage and so did terror attacks (almost to much). Of course your ilk won't be happy until every five minutes the BBC reports "scream vile brown hoards are burning London" So why am I surprised.

3) Yup the said so called and have justified that Statement six ways from Sunday

[Aroura]

How about 'Daily Shitbag That Can Only Be Called "News" By Someone With Low Standards And A Generous Disposition'?

Boru

Very creative.

So tell me, where do you get your news from?

I'm still waiting for links to the blatant leftist propaganda.  I have all day.

I'm just going to admit that I don't have many links for you, however some of their coverage of President Trump and Brexit that I have seen has been quite biased, they appear to give a lot more airtime to those who supported the remain campaign. They call ISIS the 'so-called Islamic State' (you can easily find that one on your own) and have given "refugees" positive coverage while ignoring the rape attacks in Europe and the fact that the "child" "refugees" who entered the UK last year clearly weren't children.

Here's some "refugee" propaganda
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38918317

Child refugee? Don't think so.

---

---

I'll be sure to keep my eye out for anymore and have bookmarked the thread, just for you.

Could you tell me in what way this article is propaganda?  I don't see it as such giving it a once over. 

It appears they did give more coverage to the remain campaign than the leave one.  I see that the BBC does not have any coverage of the one rape in Germany, or the Sweidsh attack, though I see the Swedish attack has very little news, as the police were holding the case info tight.  With the vast majority of refugees committing no crimes, do you think they should report more heavily on those that do?  That would be fair and accurate, then?
Do you Think ISIS accurately represents the entirety of Muslims, or do they just claim to?

I took some time to read about the refugee/children issue, and it seems a lot more complicated than "some were not children".  Many are older teens (which can look adult) and it's impossible to verify their claimed ages without a birth certificate.  It seems the Red Cross has some standards for dealing with people not sure if technically children or not, and it does err on the side of assuming they are minors if there is no evidence otherwise.

So the BBC did not report the controversy. The only news I can find that seriously question it is the Daily Mail (Irony, considering this thread?) and some other tabloid types.  Do you think mainstream news should report on what are widely accepted conspiracy theories?
The Telegraph does report on the supposed controversy from both sides. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/...ve-in-bri/

In any case, I acknowlege there are a handful of slightly leftist things here, but I can find some equally slightly right leaning behaviors fromt he BBC too (based on the links I provided earlier), so it seems it is mostly centrist with the occasional slight bent either way a bit, but not a far left (or right, as others have claimed) propaganda machine.

---

I made a simple diagram to illustrate my point.



The further to the right your political bent is, the more to the left the center (or even neutral reporting) seems, because, well, it IS far to the left of you, but it isn't far to the left in an objective sense.  Same principal applies to those on the far left seeing CNN and BBC as far right.
And since America and the UK both seem to be suffering extreme polarization, more and more people find themselves on one end or the other, in some attempt to keep balance, I guess.

---

I hate that when I added a new post it tacked it onto my old one. :p

[Aegon]

Unrelated question; Do you think most american media generally leans left or do you think it generally leans right?

I would say most is quite neutral, CNN, NYT, etc.   That is, they simply report the news without any political spin or opininon (unless it is CLEARLY LABELED AS OP ED).  To demonstrate, they simply reported the news about the emails scandal, and about what Trump himself was saying or doing, without putting much if any spin on it.

There is some left, like Huffpo, and some right, like Fox and Breitbart.  I can name half a dozen Right leaning news shows or organizations off the top of my head, so the notion that most media that isn't right leaning is left leaning is just one of those crazy things that right leaning news has been saying for decades.  And, well, I guess their ploy worked.  People now trust mainstream news less than they trust the most dishonest man, quantifiably, who has ever been POTUS.  Most Right leaning Americans now think that anything that ISN'T right must therefore be left; they have caught themselves in false dichotomy.

The truth is Obama was a very centrist or right leaning president on most things.  If he had run in 1980, he would have had to run as a republican.  There is no mainstream left party in America (greens, progressives, etc are not mainstream), and certainly no mainstream hard left news, even Huffpo is within the "normal" range of left, not extreme left.   There IS mainstream hard right news though, quite a lot of it, so if you are asking for a real answer, I would say that if I grouped ALL the big news together and put it on a scale, I would say overall it leans quite hard to the right.

I live in Oregon. I know extreme left people.  My guess is you have no clue who they are or what they represent, if you think the news represents the left.  The right has just tipped sooooo far right that anything short of being crammed into that little corner they have carved out feels unprotected and scary to them.  If Ronald R were alive today, they would laugh him off as a socialist pig.  Most even think Mitt Romney and John McCain are too centrist.  They view centrists as full on left wingers.  

Also, I know I'm just talking to myself here, everything will be like....whooosh.

Edited to add, BBC is a perfect example, thanks Bella!  BBC is centrist, and reports very accurately without opinion spin unless it is labeled as such.  But the right (world over, not just America, I should know better) labels it as leftist.  It's just cuckoo.

I would not call CNN of the election season neutral. They were very much pro-Clinton, and were not subtle in trying to control the opinions of their viewers. Examples:









Donna Brazile out at CNN after WikiLeaks reveals she leaked more debate questions to Clinton

I also noticed that they would always get experienced, qualified Hillary campaign staffers on their show while only getting younger, inexperienced volunteers for Bernie's campaign, when Bernie obviously had some experienced staffers as well in what I believe was an effort to perpetuate the myth that only dumb, idealistic teenagers supported him. 

I think CNN is actually much less biased now, but during Hillary's campaign they certainly were not.

[Aroura]

Absolutely. All of the news organizations vary one way or the other a little, changing with time. I'm talking overall. CNN is not a left wing news site, though they may show bias concerning certain stories, that bias is not constant, nor is it persistently left. Aside from Huffpo and perhaps NPR, I cannot think of any large news that is clearly constantly left bias. The right has labeled things like Snopes as left wing though, so it's hard to keep perspective.

[CanOfMountainDew]

Unrelated question; Do you think most american media generally leans left or do you think it generally leans right?

Even from an outsiders perspective American media is VERY leftist leaning. I've stopped watching american series' altogether but I really couldn't care much about it. The only thing that really breaks my balls is to see even the movies being injected with liberal ideas like feminism which just ruins a good movie for me.

Yep, I agree, and I'm a damn liberal lol.

[Faith No More]

Yep, I agree, and I'm a damn liberal lol.

Lol, and I'm the queen of England.

[Faith No More]

I'm going to guess that stories like this are a big part of the reason for dismissing The Fail...

A former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist criticized his colleague's data archiving methods.

This is a pretty normal scientific argument, the kind that happens in fields from climate science to psychology to linguistics.

A Daily Mail reporter wrote an article suggesting that the criticism was in fact a bombshell showing the NOAA had "duped" world leaders.

The article had some serious factual errors.

A climate science doubting congressman cited it as evidence of a conspiracy to hide data at the NOAA.

http://www.businessinsider.com/noaa-clim...ked-2017-2

My id is telling me that we should string assholes like this up in the street.