I personally would say no and I’m sure I could find some instances online where I could back up my claim.
There has to be a bias, even if they TRY to be fair. We have to look at who’s funding the networks. And how much news people make.
That happens to be my opinion.
I know everyone’s bias, so I try to keep it in mind, and often look for acknowledgment of said bias.
Define “fairly.”
I have seen some examples of what The Young Turks consider unfair treatment. For example, the media taking turns crapping on Bernie even though he’s in second place. The mainstream story seems to be “when will Bernie fail?” rather than “can Bernie succeed?” (although to be fair I do not have examples handy). Also Cenk Uygur getting raked over the coals again and again over past statements and controversies that he has addressed many times over. The mainstream media isn’t interested in his policy positions, they’re interested in how he denied the Armenian Genocide when he was in college (and they forget the number of times that he has addressed that issue). I am sure there are plenty of examples involving AOC as well. But I am not a firebrand progressive (I’m not even American) so I haven’t been following this with conflict with a ton of interest beyond knowing it exists and sometimes being compelled to note that the Liberal circular firing squad is strong.
You know how Rudy Giuliani was known as noun, verb, 9/11?
Bernie can be known as rigged, establishment, noun.
For what it’s worth (which is to say nothing :)), this is not at all my impression based on any of the news outlets I pay attention to.
Hillary Clinton certainly got “raked over the coals” by various mainstream media outlets for “past statements” and things “[s]he ha[d] addressed many times over.” The crime bill of the nineties and the comment about superpredators; the vote to authorize war in Iraq; the list goes on. The media harps on politicians’ pasts irrespective of the politician’s political leanings. I suspect some confirmation bias here.
Gotta add that I also believe that you are minimizing the issues people have with Uyger. People who say truly nasty things don’t get to decide when they’ve “addressed” the issue so that it’s no longer fair for others to bring it up. I can assure you that the Armenian holocaust is still very much alive in the memories of many, many people, and most of these folks are not willing to say “Oh, well, it’s okay” to someone who spent a lot of time and energy trumpeting his certainty that it never took place.
Similarly, his many, many misogynistic comments over the years (lasting long after college btw) are of a type that would make me very, very reluctant to vote for the guy (and I’m male). I’m glad he has recanted in both instances, and I hope his contrition is genuine. But as I said in a thread about Tulsi Gabbard, I’d prefer to support a candidate who didn’t have to backtrack from thoroughly repulsive positions.
All of which is to say that it is more than legitimate, in my opinion, to bring these things up “again and again,” regardless of how “many times over” he has addressed it. That’s not a sign of bias. If a news outlet ISN’T bringing those things up, I’d think they were biased in the guy’s favor.
If people can’t look past someone’s past, why would someone choose to change? Man… With the shit I’ve said and admitted to on Straight Dope, I know people are capable of changing. We’re all learning.
In fact, I think this is progressives biggest problems. A lot of people have this purity test for veiws held in the past.
Anyway, I’d vote for Uyger… But I can’t STAND him as a host of The Young Turks. He’s too… “juvenile” in his attitude. But I just think I agree with him more often than not.
Indeed.
Some of these progressives set the bar so high for everyone else yet they fall well short themselves. I’m not a fan of cancel culture but it’s a boomerang effect.
It’s the problem for Cenk because without excusing him, he was in a shock jock phase through the 2000s. He was political first and foremost but TYT used to divert into more pop-culture type segments too. Someone like Howard Stern dominated the airwaves with the same brash, lewd commentary. Times have changed however with everything becoming politicised to the nth degree. TYT wants to be taken seriously as a media organisation so have dropped the fluff but the old stuff is still on tape and available to view … and my God it’s utterly cringe.
I agree with everything you said.
Cenk still gets wound up and acts embarrassingly. Some of their shows have good information and good takes on politics in my opinion, but I can’t share them on social media because Cenk is pretending to cry like an infant mocking opponents reactions to something not going their way, then stops and says; “sad day for you.” It’s silly. Stop with the stupid voices!
You DO? That’s impressive.
What’s mine?
Everyone has bias I thought.
That’s not to say everyone has the stereotypical goal to only vote on issues tailored to them. I thought ‘biases’ could even change, but that one always has them. Perhaps I’m mistaken??
I suspect what you intended to write was something like “I know that everyone’s biased.” Which, in my book at least, is true: everyone has some kind of perspective that isn’t based on the reality of a particular situation.
What you actually wrote was something different. “I know everyone’s bias” means “I know what your bias is, and what YOUR bias is, and what your bias is…” Which is probably not what you meant to say, but that’s how it came out. That’s almost certainly what kaylasdad is riffing on.
Regarding your point earlier about people choosing to change–I agree with you that people do make major changes in their lives and in their thinking. I agree that ideally we would all take those changes into account when we evaluate a person. I know I had some ideas back when I was younger that I don’t believe in any longer, and I’d frankly be worried about anybody who said they still had excatly the same set of beliefs at, say, age 65 as they did at age 15. People do change, and they can move past their older discarded ideas and actions. That’s the notion of redemption in religion, and the notion of rehabilitation in the criminal justice system.
But, “I’ve changed–now accept me for the new person I am” isn’t quite that simple. Sometimes you hurt too many people along the way and they’re just not in a forgiving mood. Sometimes what you did or thought originally is so egregious that people’s minds close. Sometimes the apology, the “I no longer think that way” comes across as glib, artificial, insincere. That’s perhaps especially true of politicians, who as a group tend to come across as glib, artificial, and insincere.
All of which is to say that if you are Cenk Uygur, or Hillary Clinton, or whoever, it’s a good idea to sound like you mean it when you say your misogynist comments are truly in the rearview mirror, or that you truly regret your vote on the Iraq war, or whatever, because people aren’t obligated to buy the changes you’re selling. That’s all!
One might suggest that there shouldn’t be a storyline at all.
Here’s a guy. Here’s what he thinks.
I used this process to find an expert to tell me what sorts of things a candidate should be measured by, I then used this process to find experts in those areas. Here’s their feedback.
End of story.
Thanks for clarifying the gag. I didn’t even realize that I made that error.
As a person who has been hurt by someone I’m currently trying to forgive, even though it was years ago, I see your point. Good reply!
Oh, Sage Rat, you silly. :rolleyes: