My takeaway is that they’re trying to teach students how to identify bad sources/reporting or outright fake news, not litigate specific news reports.
Using 2016 as an example doesn’t invalidate that goal or imply bias.
The story reads like the journalist is completely unaware of their implicit left wing bias and makes little effort to fix it - to them, this example is an obvious example to use but it will alienate readers on the other side (like the OP), yet they used it anyway.
Was the story of Russians electing Trump coherent and without holes?
It has real evidence. I can hunt down more if you like.
The senate council that had those findings was GOP lead. The GOP lies a lot, but usually for their own benefit.
Do you assume I somehow care? This and then Obama's 8 years of drone bombing of weddings in Pakistan, hospitals in Afghanistan, prolongation & expansion of mass surveillance all over the world just shows how "trustworthy" your government is (or in fact, any monopoly of violence).
> The GOP lies a lot, but usually for their own benefit.
For whose benefit is DNC lying?
I dislike both political parties, and wish we would pass ranked choice voting ASAP so we can break out of this two party system already.
Both parties are corrupt. However, only one has recently tried to overthrow our entire governmental system.
Edits for clarity, and to add that if someone takes an attack on their party as a personal attack, there are larger issues there (not that I am claiming you are, but it seems something worth mentioning in a discussion like this).
> wish we would pass ranked choice voting
Do you believe that parties that in a joint effort "fortified" debates in 2000 to make sure no 3rd party could receive air time and wider audience, would commit political suicide introducing a mechanism that'd shake their positions?
> Both parties are corrupt. However, only one has recently tried to overthrow our entire political system.
I'm an outsider, is it the one that "fortified" the election [1]? I mean, Trump is an egotistical narcissist who didn't drain any swamps and probably didn't fulfill a single promise. But all those things "Trump has dementia", "he attacks the media", "writes too many executive orders like a dictator"... Weren't they just projections? Whose "press conferences" are even more disgraceful and staged than Putin's "pryamaya liniya" ("direct line")? Whose administration admits they're responsible for the censorship policies of social platforms? Who's flirting with oligarchs (not to be confused with entrepreneurs) and who lifted sanctions on Putin's pipeline while banning the building of a local one? The people from Bush administration, on whose side were they?
[1]: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
But I was referring to the one that incited a riot that rushed the Capitol.
However, neither will change until forced. The best way to accomplish that that I can see is for someone either independent or in a splinter group in one of the main parties to run on ranked choice. Until then, the best we can do is vote for whoever is best (or less bad :/ ) for each job, regardless of their party.
As entertaining as it is, mudslinging between parties doesn't accomplish much. There's so much garbage both have done, we'd just all get covered with plenty of mud left to spare.
If you make big claims and then don't back them up, it's hard for me to see it as "censorship" vs "hype avoidance."
"Hype avoidance" is a nice euphemism though. I'll be sure to be wary of anyone using it going forward.
It actually does:
> Republicans' trust has not recovered since then, while Democrats' has risen sharply. In fact, Democrats' trust over the past four years has been among the highest Gallup has measured for any party in the past two decades. This year, the result is a record 63-percentage-point gap in trust among the political party groups.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrus...
Will you elaborate on how you feel the quote you included implies bias?
Then you have other other polls from Gallup, like this one showing that six in 10 in US see partisan bias in news media. From the report:
> Americans Believe News Media Favors Democrats
Gallup asked those who perceive political bias in the news media to say which party the news media favors. Almost two-thirds (64%) of those who believe the media favors a political party say it is the Democratic Party. Only about a third as many (22%) believe the media favors Republicans.
> This is not new. Americans who perceive media bias have always said the direction of that bias leaned in favor of the Democrats, although the percentage holding that view has varied. The gap was smaller in 2003 and 1995, but was more similar to today's attitudes in 2000.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/207794/six-partisan-bias-news-m...