Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Fact checking Trump, not Clinton, exposes media bias

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883

    Fact checking Trump, not Clinton, exposes media bias

    August 12, 2016, 10:40 am

    Fact checking Trump, not Clinton, exposes media bias

    By Joe Concha

    A new big thing in some parts of cable news these days involves on-the-spot fact-checking of one presidential candidate through the use of what's called lower-thirds, or chyrons (the big words serving as headlines that perpetually populate a certain portion of the bottom of the screen).

    CNN started doing fact-checking-on-the-fly back in June with Donald Trump to the standing ovation of most in the media outside the network. And at first glance, it could be a novel approach if executed correctly (we'll explore the "if" part shortly).

    Imitation is the best form of flattery, so since CNN started instantaneous fact-checking, MSNBC has followed suit, although to a lesser extent.

    Example: Take Trump's inelegant comment that "Obama is the founder of ISIS."

    CNN chyron when reporting on said comment:

    Trump calls Obama the founder of ISIS (he's not)

    Team Trump and surrogates — as they often need to after the fact — explain its true meaning this way (paraphrasing): If the president hadn't pulled all troops from Iraq and had a coherent strategy in regards to Syria, a power vacuum wouldn't have been created that has since been filled by ISIS.

    Did ISIS exist before the troop withdrawal? Yes, albeit in a much smaller, contained form.

    Did it expand and explode into what it is today while U.S. troops were there? No.

    Just look at Obama's comments published in a January 2014 issue of the New Yorker on the organization as being a "JV team" when compared to al Qaeda. Since 2014, it has expanded to 28 countries.

    Is Obama and his former secretary of State founders of ISIS? Of course not.

    Were they both complicit via policy decisions in its huge expansion in the region and beyond? Yes.

    So when CNN writes on screen that Obama is not the founder of ISIS, the chyron is correct. But to end the story there in not exploring the actual issue (massive ISIS expansion) is either disingenuous, lazy, biased or all of the above.

    Another question: Have fact-checking chyrons been applied when Trump's opponent in Hillary Clinton has said something not accurate?

    Nope. Not even once.

    Some would argue that Trump deserves it because of controversial rhetoric or falsehoods around X, Y, Z. Sorry, that's weak sauce. Because when looking at honesty/trustworthy numbers, it's Clinton who — in the eyes of the public — has more issues in that department.

    A CNN poll in late July shows 68 percent of Americans don't trust Clinton, while 30 percent do. Trump's number is 13 points higher at 43 percent.

    So if the argument is that Clinton doesn't need to be fact-checked, good luck winning that one at your local debate club.

    Example: On July 31 in an interview with Fox's Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Clinton said this about her answers to FBI Director Comey in regards to explanation around her State Department emails and the use of a private server in her home that ultimately led to a long investigation by the department:

    "Director Comey said that my answers were truthful and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails," she explained.

    The Washington Post fact checker, Glenn Kessler, gave that statement four “Pinocchios,” which happens to be its worst rating for truthfulness.

    But on CNN, the fact-checking chyrons now used so often with Trump were absent when replaying the comments by Clinton to Wallace in the following days (when the story actually got attention).

    The worst kind of bias is the bias of omission.

    You want a textbook example?

    Just look at what CNN is doing with its use of fact-checking chyrons.

    For one candidate, it's open-season.

    For another, nothing to see here.

    Trust in media is at an all-time low.

    One reason?

    When even the fact-checking process needs to be fact-checked...

    Concha is a media reporter for The Hill.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ses-media-bias
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Nice article exposing the STUPID, SICK, MENTALLY ILL CORRUPT MEDIA.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,815
    Rumor disproving Snopes has problems too...they are biased.
    Snopes Gets Busted Trying to Cover Obama’s Lies

    Rumor-disproving website Snopes has proven itself especially unreliable on all matters political, and it did so again this week when it tried to “bust” the myth that President Obama had paid Iran $400 million in exchange for American citizens being held in Iranian jails.

    As you may recall, back in January, the Obama administration managed to win the release of the men. Within days, nearly half a billion dollars was transferred to Iran.

    Both Snopes and the Obama administration insist that the payment was part of the Iran nuclear deal and completely unconnected to the release of the men.

    ““[T]he money transfer was the result of a settlement of a long-standing claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in The Hague around the same time that the prisoners were released,” the Snopes article reads. “The Tribunal was created specifically to deal with diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States.”

    The article largely sources a statement from State Department spokesman Jack Kirby.

    “The negotiations over the (arms deal) settlement … were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home,” Kirby said in the statement. “Not only were the two negotiations separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side.”

    Here’s the problem: Snopes completely ignores several major factors, including that Iran’s own government insisted that the payment was a ransom for the men.

    “Iranian press reports have quoted senior Iranian defense officials describing the cash as a ransom payment. The Iranian foreign ministry didn’t respond to a request for comment,” The Wall Street Journal said (via the Federalist Papers Project).

    And then there’s Iran’s Fars News Agency, which quoted the leader of Iran’s Basij Militia, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi, openly saying that it was a ransom payment.

    “The annulment of sanctions against Iran’s Bank Sepah and reclaiming of $1.7 billion of Iran’s frozen assets after 36 years showed that the U.S. doesn’t understand anything but the language of force. This money was returned for the freedom of the U.S. spy,” he said, referring to released U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati.

    Snopes’ report includes none of that, merely taking the word of the administration as if it were more or less gospel.

    Then again, this isn’t the first time the “mythbusting” website has been busted for its liberal agenda. Back in June, it claimed that a mass shooting stopped by a man concealed-carrying outside a nightclub wasn’t really a mass shooting, because “accounts of the altercation don’t indicate the gunman intended to kill multiple victims (or anyone at all).”

    The man was firing at random people after a disagreement. Apparently, that doesn’t mean he intended to kill them. Who knew?

    Snopes also tried to “bust” the myth that there were no American flags on stage during the first day of the Democratic National Convention by showing a still frame of a flag present during the Pledge of Allegiance. Pretty damning stuff, until you realize that the still frame was from the second day, after the DNC had realized how bad the lack of flags looked. (The flag was also taken down right after the pledge, so there was that, too.)

    However, it takes a certain lack of credibility to “bust” a myth by listening only to professional politicians — or their spokesmen — and taking their word for it. Can you imagine if other reporters did this?

    “A ‘third-rate burglary?’ Well, looks like Nixon didn’t have anything to do with it after all! Who knew? Burger King for lunch, Woodward?”

    Fine moments in reporting, brought to you by the ethos of Snopes.

    http://conservativetribune.com/snope...d-obamas-lies/

Similar Threads

  1. Media bias could wind up helping Donald Trump
    By Judy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-13-2016, 12:49 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-09-2016, 10:51 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-23-2016, 08:21 AM
  4. Fact Check: Media claims that Trump is anti-immigrant
    By lorrie in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2016, 04:09 PM
  5. Bill Clinton: Donald Trump is 'fact-free'
    By Judy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-30-2015, 02:38 AM

Posting Permissions

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