Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 91

Thread: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    167
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 158 Times in 73 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post


    Sure, all of them are covering this latest fiasco but, honestly, how could they not??....
    Both those statements are yours. You can't simultaneously claim they are "silent" on the matter AND admit that they are all covering it.

    Whatever, time for bed where I am...



    Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
    I owned the earlier comment you conveniently misconstrued in your response to the post because I saw the possibility it might have been confusing to someone.
    But not this one. You know exactly what I meant. The statements are consistent, congruent and 100% correct.
    Last edited by 724Seney; August 19th, 2021 at 08:04 PM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    516
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked 299 Times in 173 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    I don't like to comment on american politics much typically, but since we're a NATO member and had troops there too, I'll say this was the biggest fuck up in NATO history. I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe taliban have met any resistance really, so the people there have clearly sent a message this is what they want.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,591
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked 543 Times in 369 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    I have not experienced NPR protecting Biden. I think what happens is that some networks have stars that are not reporting, but generating opinions. It would not make sense for NPR to run a story by one of these opinion people. However, it is a common for some people to think NPR and PBS to be liberal, and perhaps they are, but I have always figured I was smart enough to tell when a slant is being made.

    That said, I do not listen to Fox News for anything. I stopped several years ago when I noticed that my father in law watched it for hours and he stayed pissed off. I also stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh decades ago. It occured to me one day that it was easier to complain than actually become engaged and do something. He should have run for office if he was so sure of what to do.

    The New York Times has a special $1 per week online subscription. I enjoy reading the opinion sections and differeing perspectives. It allows me to see more than one side to an issue.

    Now back to the topic...LOL!!

  4. #24
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,744
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 807 Times in 432 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    It baffles me that you can see the bias of Fox and Rush, but not NPR, PBS or the NYT. I see it in everything, and it's not anything new. Both sides had their more specialist publications. Mother Jones or National Review. The other outlets were supposed to be unbiased. Many if not most still claim to be, although it's clear they aren't.

    Opinions are fine. People can evaluate them. Hiding opinions in news is not fine. Manipulating or omitting facts is not fine. It subtly shifts your thinking. Call it propaganda or information operations, it has a long history and is well studied. Intent is irrelevant, and it's the effects I'm concerned with.

    They use adjectives to characterize the "news" piece, inserting connotation to influence the reader. "The chaotic withdrawal", for example, characterizes and implies many things that may or may not be true. It's not the same as saying "the sweet candy", where the adjective is used to provide an additional fact.
    Be your own tenth man.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    Seattleite (August 20th, 2021), SlowMovingTarget (August 30th, 2021)

  6. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    167
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 158 Times in 73 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    It baffles me that you can see the bias of Fox and Rush, but not NPR, PBS or the NYT. I see it in everything, and it's not anything new. Both sides had their more specialist publications. Mother Jones or National Review. The other outlets were supposed to be unbiased. Many if not most still claim to be, although it's clear they aren't.

    Opinions are fine. People can evaluate them. Hiding opinions in news is not fine. Manipulating or omitting facts is not fine. It subtly shifts your thinking. Call it propaganda or information operations, it has a long history and is well studied. Intent is irrelevant, and it's the effects I'm concerned with.

    They use adjectives to characterize the "news" piece, inserting connotation to influence the reader. "The chaotic withdrawal", for example, characterizes and implies many things that may or may not be true. It's not the same as saying "the sweet candy", where the adjective is used to provide an additional fact.
    Agree. I wish there was someplace I could go and just get the "news." No opinion, no editorial, just the news.
    That said, no list of media outlets which contain a huge amount of bias is complete without CNN. IMO, they are the worst of the most commonly viewed and/or read outlets.

  7. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,591
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked 543 Times in 369 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    It baffles me that you can see the bias of Fox and Rush, but not NPR, PBS or the NYT. I see it in everything, and it's not anything new. Both sides had their more specialist publications. Mother Jones or National Review. The other outlets were supposed to be unbiased. Many if not most still claim to be, although it's clear they aren't.

    Opinions are fine. People can evaluate them. Hiding opinions in news is not fine. Manipulating or omitting facts is not fine. It subtly shifts your thinking. Call it propaganda or information operations, it has a long history and is well studied. Intent is irrelevant, and it's the effects I'm concerned with.

    They use adjectives to characterize the "news" piece, inserting connotation to influence the reader. "The chaotic withdrawal", for example, characterizes and implies many things that may or may not be true. It's not the same as saying "the sweet candy", where the adjective is used to provide an additional fact.
    The bias or nonsense on fox comes from Hanity and Carlson, I actually like Bret and Chris . I see no equal on PBS or NPR, but itís a different format

  8. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,591
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked 543 Times in 369 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    Quote Originally Posted by 724Seney View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    It baffles me that you can see the bias of Fox and Rush, but not NPR, PBS or the NYT. I see it in everything, and it's not anything new. Both sides had their more specialist publications. Mother Jones or National Review. The other outlets were supposed to be unbiased. Many if not most still claim to be, although it's clear they aren't.

    Opinions are fine. People can evaluate them. Hiding opinions in news is not fine. Manipulating or omitting facts is not fine. It subtly shifts your thinking. Call it propaganda or information operations, it has a long history and is well studied. Intent is irrelevant, and it's the effects I'm concerned with.

    They use adjectives to characterize the "news" piece, inserting connotation to influence the reader. "The chaotic withdrawal", for example, characterizes and implies many things that may or may not be true. It's not the same as saying "the sweet candy", where the adjective is used to provide an additional fact.
    Agree. I wish there was someplace I could go and just get the "news." No opinion, no editorial, just the news.
    That said, no list of media outlets which contain a huge amount of bias is complete without CNN. IMO, they are the worst of the most commonly viewed and/or read outlets.
    Therein lies the problem. People want predigested news from one source for a few minutes a day. It takes longer to read and listen more broadly

  9. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,081
    Thanks
    1,140
    Thanked 1,183 Times in 693 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    Quote Originally Posted by 724Seney View Post
    ... , . I wish there was someplace I could go and just get the "news.".
    AP newswire, Reuters are both rather flat, straight news.

    There is no such thing as no bias at all.

    Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

  10. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,591
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked 543 Times in 369 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    We have to guard against confirmation bias.

  11. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    167
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 158 Times in 73 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 724Seney View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    It baffles me that you can see the bias of Fox and Rush, but not NPR, PBS or the NYT. I see it in everything, and it's not anything new. Both sides had their more specialist publications. Mother Jones or National Review. The other outlets were supposed to be unbiased. Many if not most still claim to be, although it's clear they aren't.

    Opinions are fine. People can evaluate them. Hiding opinions in news is not fine. Manipulating or omitting facts is not fine. It subtly shifts your thinking. Call it propaganda or information operations, it has a long history and is well studied. Intent is irrelevant, and it's the effects I'm concerned with.

    They use adjectives to characterize the "news" piece, inserting connotation to influence the reader. "The chaotic withdrawal", for example, characterizes and implies many things that may or may not be true. It's not the same as saying "the sweet candy", where the adjective is used to provide an additional fact.
    Agree. I wish there was someplace I could go and just get the "news." No opinion, no editorial, just the news.
    That said, no list of media outlets which contain a huge amount of bias is complete without CNN. IMO, they are the worst of the most commonly viewed and/or read outlets.
    Therein lies the problem. People want predigested news from one source for a few minutes a day. It takes longer to read and listen more broadly
    Speak for yourself.
    That's not what I want....... nor what I said.

  12. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,591
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked 543 Times in 369 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    Quote Originally Posted by 724Seney View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 724Seney View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    It baffles me that you can see the bias of Fox and Rush, but not NPR, PBS or the NYT. I see it in everything, and it's not anything new. Both sides had their more specialist publications. Mother Jones or National Review. The other outlets were supposed to be unbiased. Many if not most still claim to be, although it's clear they aren't.

    Opinions are fine. People can evaluate them. Hiding opinions in news is not fine. Manipulating or omitting facts is not fine. It subtly shifts your thinking. Call it propaganda or information operations, it has a long history and is well studied. Intent is irrelevant, and it's the effects I'm concerned with.

    They use adjectives to characterize the "news" piece, inserting connotation to influence the reader. "The chaotic withdrawal", for example, characterizes and implies many things that may or may not be true. It's not the same as saying "the sweet candy", where the adjective is used to provide an additional fact.
    Agree. I wish there was someplace I could go and just get the "news." No opinion, no editorial, just the news.
    That said, no list of media outlets which contain a huge amount of bias is complete without CNN. IMO, they are the worst of the most commonly viewed and/or read outlets.
    Therein lies the problem. People want predigested news from one source for a few minutes a day. It takes longer to read and listen more broadly
    Speak for yourself.
    That's not what I want....... nor what I said.
    What do you want? What do you do now? How much effort should you need to provide to get what you want? Would you prefer just the facts and who do you trust?

  13. #32
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,744
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 807 Times in 432 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    It baffles me that you can see the bias of Fox and Rush, but not NPR, PBS or the NYT. I see it in everything, and it's not anything new. Both sides had their more specialist publications. Mother Jones or National Review. The other outlets were supposed to be unbiased. Many if not most still claim to be, although it's clear they aren't.

    Opinions are fine. People can evaluate them. Hiding opinions in news is not fine. Manipulating or omitting facts is not fine. It subtly shifts your thinking. Call it propaganda or information operations, it has a long history and is well studied. Intent is irrelevant, and it's the effects I'm concerned with.

    They use adjectives to characterize the "news" piece, inserting connotation to influence the reader. "The chaotic withdrawal", for example, characterizes and implies many things that may or may not be true. It's not the same as saying "the sweet candy", where the adjective is used to provide an additional fact.
    The bias or nonsense on fox comes from Hanity and Carlson, I actually like Bret and Chris . I see no equal on PBS or NPR, but itís a different format
    Never liked Hannity. He just listened to Rush's show, wrote down some talking points and had his show. I've seen a few Carlson clips. He generally makes sense (from the conservative perspective), but I can't stand his voice. I'm ok with Bret, although I don't watch Fox; but I never could stand Chris (Wallace, I assume you mean).

    The bias or nonsense is not reserved for the conservatives. The liberals have their nut jobs too. Maddow, Mika, Olberman, O'Donnell...

    PBS and NPR are much more traditional in their bias. It's not drastic, but they both lean left. They sneak it in like the anchormen of yesterday, and you're right that there's no real Fox (or MSNBC) opinion analogue for PBS or NPR. They would get their funding cancelled.

    I prefer the partisans though. At least they're transparent. Hannity, Maddow, whoever... Pat Buchanan (a regular on the PBS Sunday shows, for those of us old enough to remember) was completely honest with his political philosophy. It was refreshing. There's no way I would vote for him, and there was no way he was ever going to win an election; but he was completely transparent about his beliefs.
    Be your own tenth man.

  14. #33
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,744
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 807 Times in 432 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 724Seney View Post
    ... , . I wish there was someplace I could go and just get the "news.".
    AP newswire, Reuters are both rather flat, straight news.

    There is no such thing as no bias at all.

    Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
    Agreed. I like Reuters (and Bloomberg, actually) better than AP.
    Be your own tenth man.

  15. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,591
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked 543 Times in 369 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    There are many ways to learn, but primarily sources are for me the best. If I want to know what someone thinks, I listen to what they say. News organizations that provide direct sources are appreciated.

    Saying everyone is biased is unnecessary, but to suggest the air ways are filled with liars and have an agenda is dangerous. Surely people who want can learn how to listen and think without disparaging professional journalists. They do often risk their lives.

  16. #35
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,744
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 807 Times in 432 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    Quote Originally Posted by 724Seney View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    It baffles me that you can see the bias of Fox and Rush, but not NPR, PBS or the NYT. I see it in everything, and it's not anything new. Both sides had their more specialist publications. Mother Jones or National Review. The other outlets were supposed to be unbiased. Many if not most still claim to be, although it's clear they aren't.

    Opinions are fine. People can evaluate them. Hiding opinions in news is not fine. Manipulating or omitting facts is not fine. It subtly shifts your thinking. Call it propaganda or information operations, it has a long history and is well studied. Intent is irrelevant, and it's the effects I'm concerned with.

    They use adjectives to characterize the "news" piece, inserting connotation to influence the reader. "The chaotic withdrawal", for example, characterizes and implies many things that may or may not be true. It's not the same as saying "the sweet candy", where the adjective is used to provide an additional fact.
    Agree. I wish there was someplace I could go and just get the "news." No opinion, no editorial, just the news.
    That said, no list of media outlets which contain a huge amount of bias is complete without CNN. IMO, they are the worst of the most commonly viewed and/or read outlets.
    The Washington Examiner isn't bad. It leans right about as much as NPR leans left. As for "mainstream" media, I browse the headlines to see what each side's narrative is for the day or week, and I rarely read or watch/listen to anything further anymore. There's a wealth of information out there, from qualified and credible people, on about any subject. You can get whatever info you want. Frankly, there are a lot of more interesting subjects than each side's narrative on a particular day.
    Be your own tenth man.

  17. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,591
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked 543 Times in 369 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    I see it differently. Instead of dreaming where you think someone is leaning, just listen or read. Then you can decide.

    Itís not fake news, or political leaning when you quote. What I noticed with Trumpians is that that didnít believe he actually said what he said and he would deny he said what he said. Letís say you really want to know what he said about John McCain ( and forget whether you like McCain or not). Does anyone here think they could find out? Did only liberal sources carry the information? Have you checked your sources?

    So, this is the problem with painting journalists and new organizations with a broad brush.

  18. #37
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,744
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 807 Times in 432 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    We're already to the "Trumpians", while complaining about broad brushes...

    so much for discussion.
    Be your own tenth man.

  19. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,591
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked 543 Times in 369 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    Poor anaolgy.

  20. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    496
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 209 Times in 165 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    #36: vague and weak post.

    Chuck, you insist journalists aren't, or a least shouldn't be called out as, biased.

    "I have to tell you, you know, itís part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obamaís speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. " (Emphasis added)

    Your comment please.

  21. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,081
    Thanks
    1,140
    Thanked 1,183 Times in 693 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

    Quote Originally Posted by kazoolaw View Post
    Chuck, you insist journalists aren't, or a least shouldn't be called out as, biased.
    That wasn't what he said.


    Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •