U.S. Has Killed al-Baghadi *also killed ISIS spokesperson today* (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Why did they not say that there was zero collusion between the trump campaign and the Russians. Also true, but irrelevant to the article.
    Because the Mueller report did not find that there was no collusion -- because collusion is not a legal term. They had insufficient evidence to charge Trump with conspiracy. The idea that the report cleared him of "collusion" is fiction. Claiming there was "zero collusion" is completely unsupported.
     
    Yes. 12 mostly long, complex sentences.

    That shows potential editorial bias, depending on if the 40 min Q&A hit on the subject of the impeachment inquiry, since those two points were in the same sentence. If not, it is a bit gratuitous, yet 100% accurate to state. It may imply that this was a distraction about his own issues. That may or may not be fair. And they didn't connect the dots. They let the reader connect that dot, or not.

    I wanted to make a point I feel like a few of you are comingling... that is, bias doesn't mean untrue. And truth isn't always the whole picture.

    I conceded that point above on the bias=lies. Funny that you make it out as ok because the sentences were long and complex. I really hope that is not the standard we use to look at the bias of an article.

    Moreover, do you not think it is unethical for writers to subtly influence the average reader? So much as to make really smart people like you accept it as normal?

    I think fox and msnbc are much more genuine than the likes of those that try and pass themselves off as neutral.
     
    Last edited:
    Because the Mueller report did not find that there was no collusion -- because collusion is not a legal term. They had insufficient evidence to charge Trump with conspiracy. The idea that the report cleared him of "collusion" is fiction. Claiming there was "zero collusion" is completely unsupported.

    Ok. Why didn’t they say that the unemployment rate is low? The point is there was no reason to insert that into the story.
     
    Ok. Why didn’t they say that the unemployment rate is low? The point is there was no reason to insert that into the story.
    There is a loose connection, in that some people feel this was a wag the dog moment to distract from the actual impeachment news which is getting more and more traction. It does sound forced, and I don't believe that the wag the dog implication is true, so it sounds stilted to me.
     
    There is a loose connection, in that some people feel this was a wag the dog moment to distract from the actual impeachment news which is getting more and more traction. It does sound forced, and I don't believe that the wag the dog implication is true, so it sounds stilted to me.

    I appreciate the admission. The wag the dog theory is only being touted by the extreme left. (Even though this was posted as an unbiased article) The problem for some of us, is that most info provided by the media is very similar to the above. This is why conservatives feel the media is in the pockets of the dnc.
     

    Granted, this is the written article, but please point me to the clear bias?

    As a follow up, you insinuated that you posted this just to highlight that bias doesn’t equal lies. So are you conceding that a source that many of you have claimed to be a neutral agency, is also run with a leftward tilt just like CNN?
     
    That’s not the point. Why did they not say that there was zero collusion between the trump campaign and the Russians. Also true, but irrelevant to the article.

    Wouldn't the reason for the impeachment process imply that the matter is not truly settled?
    Did the Mueller report concluded there was no collusion?
    Is the impeachment process currently happening and a news worthy event?
     
    I conceded that point above on the bias=lies. Funny that you make it out as ok because the sentences were long and complex. I really hope that is not the standard we use to look at the bias of an article.

    Moreover, do you not think it is unethical for writers to subtly influence the average reader? So much as to make really smart people like you accept it as normal?

    I think fox and msnbc are much more genuine than the likes of those that try and pass themselves off as neutral.
    It was simply a point that while they were 12 sentences, it was actually longer than that would suggest.

    Then eventually wove the story into the larger narrative going on. I don't have an issue with that. Could they have done with out it? Sure.
     
    As a follow up, you insinuated that you posted this just to highlight that bias doesn’t equal lies. So are you conceding that a source that many of you have claimed to be a neutral agency, is also run with a leftward tilt just like CNN?
    Not just to highlight.. that was just a bonus. When I dig into this more with Beach Friends, you'll see. Just not there yet.

    NPR is not perfectly neutral, but they're pretty darn close. We've all said, they have a slight left slant. Not as far as CNN or MSNBC. They are definitely very factual. Their news reports are often just the facts, like AP and Reuters. Their pod casts can be a bit more left, but I find them fair, pretty balanced, calm, and not hyperventilating like what many complain about other news organizations.

    So, "just like CNN" is loaded and inaccurate. NPR is far better.

    I'd also say this. Is pointing out that Trump is being investigated over the Ukraine situation, for possible Impeachment articles, a Liberal bias point or an Ethics bias point?
     
    not to derail the thread but am I the only one who finds "Firing Line" on PBS a pretty much straight in the middle show?
     
    Not just to highlight.. that was just a bonus. When I dig into this more with Beach Friends, you'll see. Just not there yet.

    NPR is not perfectly neutral, but they're pretty darn close. We've all said, they have a slight left slant. Not as far as CNN or MSNBC. They are definitely very factual. Their news reports are often just the facts, like AP and Reuters. Their pod casts can be a bit more left, but I find them fair, pretty balanced, calm, and not hyperventilating like what many complain about other news organizations.

    So, "just like CNN" is loaded and inaccurate. NPR is far better.

    I'd also say this. Is pointing out that Trump is being investigated over the Ukraine situation, for possible Impeachment articles, a Liberal bias point or an Ethics bias point?

    From the article you posted, I don’t see that as any different than what I see at cnn.com. I’m not sure I understand the last question. I would say a liberal bias.

    But If the question is, “is it ethical for someone to add their biases to reporting of facts?” I would also agree with that assessment.
     
    That is actually the precise point where I saw the article turn. It felt like the first part, while accurate, was setting up the second - Trump says dude is dead. Trump said, Trump said.

    And then - a gratuitous statement about impeachment, some lines about how ISIS is no big deal at the time of the killing, but will be again because...Trump

    In some ways it is subtle, but it is unmistakable.

    First, I want to point out that I believe you are reading this with your own bias glasses on. Let's ignore the impeachment part, because I've already stated that. And I'll give you two that one to a point.

    Trump said, trump said, trump said. You seem to have an issue with that.

    Well, Journalists report what they have heard or can confirm. If they weren't able to confirm the attack, and Trump's announcement is the first time it is told, then that's how we know about it. But, instead of treating it like objective truth, they state the factually accurate way to state it. Trump told the press what happened. Some things can or can't be verified, but they were told by the President of the USA. There is nothing derogatory there. It's factual. Your bias is taking umbrage.

    Then there is this, which is what I assume you are referencing when you say:

    "some lines about how ISIS is no big deal at the time of the killing, but will be again because...Trump"

    Experts have cautioned that the killing of a leader of a terrorist organization does not represent the defeat of the group or its violent ideology. Military officials say the Islamic State has sleeper cells around the world that could regenerate, while others associated with the group operate in the shadows along mountainous and desert areas in parts of Syria and Iraq.

    Baghdadi had been reported killed several times before, including in announcements by Iraq and Russia. He was believed to have been hiding in the desert near the Syria-Iraq border.

    His last apparent video appearance was in April, a month after U.S.-backed forces declared the end of the ISIS "caliphate" and the defeat of the last remaining territory the group held in the Syrian city of Baghouz.

    Baghdadi's actual powers of command and control had been greatly diminished since the U.S. and coalition forces routed ISIS from its hold on large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria, though he had remained symbolically powerful.

    At the Kurdish-run al-Hol camp in northeastern Syria a few months ago, some of the Iraqi and Syrian wives of ISIS fighters told NPR that they were waiting for Baghdadi to reappear and were confident he would revive the caliphate.

    So, again? Why do you take that as a negative? Has ISIS not been mostly defeated? Hasn't Trump himself claimed that the group is decimated? Yet, the article points that out, and that Baghdadi is still heavily influencial, and that the wives of ISIS fighters told NPR that they were waiting for his return to revive the caliphate. i.e. he could influence a violent come back. Well.. now he can't, cause he's dead. I think you have to really be searching for outrage to find bias on that point.

    Later, there is this point.

    U.S. forces declared an end to ISIS' self-declared caliphate in March. But experts fear the group's resurgence now that Trump has announced a pullout of U.S. forces from Syria, with dozens of ISIS fighters escaping from Kurdish custody in the last month.

    Which is factually accurate as well. There was a lot of concern, from the Military even, that this could happen. Is that a liberal bias? Or just a reasonable concern of leaving a power vacuum in that region of Syria?

    I don't see how putting together a comprehensive overview of the killing, what it means, and how it fits into the larger story, can be viewed with the umbrage you seem to have about it.
     
    From the article you posted, I don’t see that as any different than what I see at cnn.com. I’m not sure I understand the last question. I would say a liberal bias.

    But If the question is, “is it ethical for someone to add their biases to reporting of facts?” I would also agree with that assessment.

    I've stated a few times that covering politics is difficult to be just factual, because so much about it is relating to intentions, what people "think" someone means, predicting future outcomes, etc.

    So, no I don't see an ethical issue at all, so long as it is rooted in fact, or a clear opinion piece. Bias by omission or addition isn't an issue, so long as it isn't gratuitous.

    Well, we can find some other examples from other publications to see what is problematic.
     
    First, I want to point out that I believe you are reading this with your own bias glasses on. Let's ignore the impeachment part, because I've already stated that. And I'll give you two that one to a point.

    Trump said, trump said, trump said. You seem to have an issue with that.

    Well, Journalists report what they have heard or can confirm. If they weren't able to confirm the attack, and Trump's announcement is the first time it is told, then that's how we know about it. But, instead of treating it like objective truth, they state the factually accurate way to state it. Trump told the press what happened. Some things can or can't be verified, but they were told by the President of the USA. There is nothing derogatory there. It's factual. Your bias is taking umbrage.

    Then there is this, which is what I assume you are referencing when you say:

    "some lines about how ISIS is no big deal at the time of the killing, but will be again because...Trump"



    So, again? Why do you take that as a negative? Has ISIS not been mostly defeated? Hasn't Trump himself claimed that the group is decimated? Yet, the article points that out, and that Baghdadi is still heavily influencial, and that the wives of ISIS fighters told NPR that they were waiting for his return to revive the caliphate. i.e. he could influence a violent come back. Well.. now he can't, cause he's dead. I think you have to really be searching for outrage to find bias on that point.

    Later, there is this point.



    Which is factually accurate as well. There was a lot of concern, from the Military even, that this could happen. Is that a liberal bias? Or just a reasonable concern of leaving a power vacuum in that region of Syria?

    I don't see how putting together a comprehensive overview of the killing, what it means, and how it fits into the larger story, can be viewed with the umbrage you seem to have about it.

    Ward you are trying hard, but if you can’t see the biases in the article you posted, I’m not sure you will ever see it. Maybe you just picked a bad article to make your point. I hate for this to be your sharpiegate (I’m joking with you don’t get upset)

    And be honest, you didn’t even realize the comment about the impeachment would be seen as biased and thought this article was a good example of unbiased coverage. It’s ok to admit it.
     
    Last edited:
    Here's the point you guys have been making. But, loaded with its own bias, and looking at easy examples of lazy talking heads.



    So, clearly they all hate Trump more than they love America. That is the only rational explanation.
     
    Here's the point you guys have been making. But, loaded with its own bias, and looking at easy examples of lazy talking heads.



    So, clearly they all hate Trump more than they love America. That is the only rational explanation.

    Slow down big boy. You went from trying to defend NPR to now playing whataboutism with tucker Carlson. This really surprises me with you.

    Please see the edited part of my above post.
     
    Ward you are trying hard, but if you can’t see the biases in the article you posted, I’m not sure you will ever see it. Maybe you just picked a bad article to make your point. I hate for this to be your sharpiegate (I’m joking with you don’t get upset)

    And be honest, you didn’t even realize the comment about the impeachment would be seen as biased and thought this article was a good example of unbiased coverage. It’s ok to admit it.

    Bias isn't a digital thing. It's not a 1 or 0. it's analog. And my point is that a not all bias is equal. And not all bias is a lie. I'm talking in 2D and 3D, and it feels like you guys are stuck on 1D.
     

    Here's more liberal bias...

    Separately, a senior U.S. defense official described the SDF as a “key player” in the operation but noted the SDF and Kurds did not fly in with U.S. forces. The official said 11 children who were in the al-Baghdadi compound were “physically turned over to a trusted individual in the area.”

    Mazloum also talked about the aftermath of President Trump's recent decision to pull troops from northeastern Syria -- a move critics say left Kurds who'd faithfully helped the U.S. contain ISIS vulnerable to a Turkish invasion.

    “After the Americans pulled out, the Turks invaded, and we had no choice but to do a deal with the Syrian government and Russians. They were able to protect us. So, the Syrians moved to the border in place of the Americans.”

    .....

    Mazloum also opened up about the future in Syria, saying it wasn’t too late for the U.S. to come back and protect the Kurds. “Our relationship with President Trump depends on him fulfilling his promise of protecting us.”

    Darn, even Fox is against Trump's decision to pull out of Northern Syria. They even insinuate that he left the Kurds out to dry, and they were instrumental into getting the intel about Al-baghdadi.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom