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

[BobE]

 

[Lazybones]

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.

I get that. But you didn’t use a good example to make your point. You are actually making our point for us. Folks like you, (left leaning) think that disguised bias is ok, yet clambering about conservatives and media literacy.

It is so normal for you guys, that you didn’t even realize it. That is our point. The entire media whether .com or not can’t help themselves. (Yourselves).

I’m not slinging mud, I am trying to highlight the issue that many of us have with the media. You yourself tout NPR as being barley to the left. It only took 12 sentences to point out that isn’t the case.

 

[wardorican]

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.

I'm simply using examples across the internet to discuss bias. And what is an isn't equivalent.

It's not a whataboutism.. I mean, you two have basically said everything that Tucker is saying.. down to that stupid tweet from whoever that was, to the WaPo headline changearoo.

I guess this is a better discussion for the media bias thread, but since y'all brought it up..

 

[wardorican]

President Trump says ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead after U.S.-led raid in Syria

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi forged the extremist group known as ISIS; President Donald Trump cast his death as a major step toward elimination of ISIS.

www.usatoday.com

This one is better. But they still dare to make comments about Trump puling out of northern Syria and abandoning the Kurds in some areas.. liberal bias. Stop reading!

Actually, it's a pretty good article.

 

[Beach Friends]

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.

This reminds me of the conversation I had earlier where people could not detect that the NY Times article on Tulsi was a smear.

When you reach that point there is really nothing left to do but recognize that there is nothing you can say that will help them view it the way you do. I think the bias is extremely easy to see, others, with a different worldview, don't see it. Each of us thinks it is because of the other's bias.

 

[Lazybones]

I'm simply using examples across the internet to discuss bias. And what is an isn't equivalent.

It's not a whataboutism.. I mean, you two have basically said everything that Tucker is saying.. down to that stupid tweet from whoever that was, to the WaPo headline changearoo.

I guess this is a better discussion for the media bias thread, but since y'all brought it up..

I am talking about the article that you chose to say that npr is not biased. I have made the point numerous times that Fox is 100% biased to the right. I have also highlighted that EVERY other major news organization to various degrees are biased to the left.

When you jump out and say no no no, look at this article, and within 12 sentences, your point is refuted, you cry foul because of something said on fox?

 

[wardorican]

It was between 10-10:30 not local. Why would I need to compare the way they talked about Obama? I heard the speech the president gave, I heard their reaction and it sounded like any talking head on msnbc.

Ok, let's get back to this.

I'm guessing you were listening to 1A, since fresh air was doing a story about Prince.

https://the1a.org/audio/#/shows/201...-next-in-the-fight-against-isis/119192/@00:00

I'm listening to it now.

 

[Lazybones]

President Trump says ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead after U.S.-led raid in Syria

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi forged the extremist group known as ISIS; President Donald Trump cast his death as a major step toward elimination of ISIS.

www.usatoday.com

This one is better. But they still dare to make comments about Trump puling out of northern Syria and abandoning the Kurds in some areas.. liberal bias. Stop reading!

Actually, it's a pretty good article.

Pretty good article. I’m not sure what your point is. Would you like me to find usatoday articles that are not as well written?

 

[wardorican]

This reminds me of the conversation I had earlier where people could not detect that the NY Times article on Tulsi was a smear.

When you reach that point there is really nothing left to do but recognize that there is nothing you can say that will help them view it the way you do. I think the bias is extremely easy to see, others, with a different worldview, don't see it. Each of us thinks it is because of the other's bias.

To be fair, you mentioned the NY times article, but you also brought up CNN and posted the video, then everyone talked about the video. I don't think there was ever a discussion about the NY times article. Not even sure what article they posted. I also believe the argument was that one comment/article doesn't speak for an entire paper/orginization.

 

[wardorican]

Pretty good article. I’m not sure what your point is. Would you like me to find usatoday articles that are not as well written?

Beach Friends took offense to the idea that NPR would dare insinuate that the US pulling out of Syria could lead to a potential problem. So, is the same outrage here at USAToday? or was that just true?

Again, I've given you the point about the impeachment. It wasn't necessary to the story. But it doesn't slant the entire article from NPR. It doesn't show strong bias.

 

[Lazybones]

To be fair, you mentioned the NY times article, but you also brought up CNN and posted the video, then everyone talked about the video. I don't think there was ever a discussion about the NY times article. Not even sure what article they posted. I also believe the argument was that one comment/article doesn't speak for an entire paper/orginization.

I disagree. When you are a major network and you air edited footage and sell it off as genuine, it tells me you are not a straight shooter as a network. They may make every attempt to hide their racism (just making the point) they just can’t do it.

 

[Lazybones]

Beach Friends took offense to the idea that NPR would dare insinuate that the US pulling out of Syria could lead to a potential problem. So, is the same outrage here at USAToday? or was that just true?

Again, I've given you the point about the impeachment. It wasn't necessary to the story. But it doesn't slant the entire article from NPR. It doesn't show strong bias.

I would I say that it was a little lefty, as it jumped out to me, but in fairness it went on to describe how both of the leaders assisted in this mission. The part that was biased was how pulling out the troops allowed the Turks to roll over the Kurds. I chuckled and decided no real reason to highlight that jab. Overall it was a good article.


If we were talking about USA today and you used this article, your point would have had more teeth. But we were talking about NPR and that article made your argument as good as the falcons offense.

 

[Beach Friends]

To be fair, you mentioned the NY times article, but you also brought up CNN and posted the video, then everyone talked about the video. I don't think there was ever a discussion about the NY times article.

You are incorrect. The discussion of the Ny Times article is there, you must have just missed it.

 

[wardorican]

Listening to the UNBIASED (lol) NPR today, I was surprised they didn’t lavish the president with praise as they did Obama. Instead they admonished him for taking control of the oil and spiking the ball.

Now that I've listened to it, and I hear the bit about oil fields... they didn't admonish him at all. The analyst mentioned how the Syria policy has been confusing. Withdraw to 0, keep a few hundred, withdraw to 0, then keep a few hundred to protect oil. He made a joke about how Exon isn't running into Syria to be in a war zone. The host even goes on to say that protecting the oil, so non ISIS actors in Syria could use it to maintain operations against ISIS was a very reasonable action.

I think a lot of the "liberal complaining" that they brought up was shot down for the most part. I think that's a good thing. They even flat out said, there is a point where you have to put down politics and just celebrate that this is good for the USA. This is a win for the fight against terror.

The guy even said how the president has implemented a successful plan that has dismantled ISIS and brought down an ISIS leader. Mentioned how both policies Obama and Trump have used have been mostly special forces and working well.

News shouldn't cheer lead events, they should discuss them. I think the 1A 12 min discussion is pretty solid. What is your complaint?

 

[wardorican]

I would I say that it was a little lefty, as it jumped out to me, but in fairness it went on to describe how both of the leaders assisted in this mission. The part that was biased was how pulling out the troops allowed the Turks to roll over the Kurds. I chuckled and decided no real reason to highlight that jab. Overall it was a good article.


If we were talking about USA today and you used this article, your point would have had more teeth. But we were talking about NPR and that article made your argument as good as the falcons offense.

Well, my real initial point was how you said NPR didn't heap praise on Trump like they did with Obama. I asked you how much praise did they heap on Obama, and you said you didn't have to link anything or listen to it to know.

So, I'm working with what I have.

The article was a poor choice, since your argument against NPR was due to the 1A early morning discussion, which I finally found. I can't do as much at work.

 

[Lazybones]

You are incorrect. The discussion of the Ny Times article is there, you must have just missed it.

He doesn’t normally have off days this bad. I will not argue with him after tonight for a while. My man is going to be bringing heat after this. 15 sources, pie charts, bar graphs and at least 4 different spreadsheets to say Mayor Pete is likable.

Ward, I say this with 100% jovial camaraderie.

 

[Lazybones]

Well, my real initial point was how you said NPR didn't heap praise on Trump like they did with Obama. I asked you how much praise did they heap on Obama, and you said you didn't have to link anything or listen to it to know.

So, I'm working with what I have.

The article was a poor choice, since your argument against NPR was due to the 1A early morning discussion, which I finally found. I can't do as much at work.

No problem. I’m sure you will here the young lady as I described. And I know you are a pretty good researcher. Look up the same show that aired about the Obama speech and post it. I will happily listen to it and compare and contrast the two.

 

[wardorican]

You are incorrect. The discussion of the Ny Times article is there, you must have just missed it.

Which thread? It's not in the Tulsi one. Was it in the media bias one? I'll look

 

[wardorican]

No problem. I’m sure you will here the young lady as I described. And I know you are a pretty good researcher. Look up the same show that aired about the Obama speech and post it. I will happily listen to it and compare and contrast the two.

What young lady?

On NPR from when Osama was killed? Well, what show?

Otherwise, there wasn't a woman on 1A. At least not on the 12 minutes they posted today.