I have a theory to help you feel better - you might actually agree with Trump less than you think you do.

Just to play devil's advocate (more literally than usually), there's a fair chance of unconscious bias here. If the shutdown were due to an "obviously good idea" from, say, Obama, being intentionally blocked by republicans I'd say a lot fewer democrats would be so critical of the president.

Of course, this doesn't decrease his hypocrisy, just your self-disgust.

I can believe that a plant based diet is healthy, but there’s no way that study proves “No exercise, all you can eat weight loss”.

There are a multitude of problems with it, starting with the tiny sample size and selection bias.

I was referring to the headline itself.
It seemed to be inferring that if only they had a wee bit more time... seeing as you were all about how things were being phrased.
That is how I took it at first but then was actually somewhat miffed they didn't fulfill my bias against them in the actual article.
I read into it what I was used to seeing on there.
I could have deleted it but I let it stand as an exercise in how the mind sees what it wants or is expecting to.
As for the decision on Acosta.
I saw that early this morning.
It was of course covered by Fox as well.

WTF are you talking about?
The CNN article was totally unbiased, simply explaining why some counties missed their deadlines for recounts by 2 minutes (inexperience and ignorance of the process) and so didn't have their recounts count, and why another (properly) invalidated it's own recount because their machines kept breaking and they couldn't verify their own results.
I also don't get what you're saying about their title. Not a bit. Where's the bias there? What?! No recount counts, they're doing them all over....by hand.

Where's the excusing law bending, like the Republican who unapologetically broke state law to allow email and fax voting, but Fox reported that type of voting isn't"normally allowed" not "is specifically forbidden by state law"? Notice any patterns yet?

I just don't see what you're talking about at all.

I've been clear, Fox doesn't have a monopoly on bias, but they are the clear master of the field and are also the most willing to make up their own facts, as they've been caught doing thousands of times.
If CNN has a bias rating of 4/10, Fox is closer to 9/10. If Fox has an honesty rating of 4/10, CNN is closer to 8-9/10. That's what I've been saying all along. They aren't equivalent.

Side note-A federal judge reinstated Acosta's press pass today.

Urp. I just threw up in my mouth a little...thanks a lot.

Ok....mea culpa. After decades of being the propaganda wing for the far right, I do automatically think anyone willing to defend them must be a fan. I'm not a CNN fan, but I often defend them.

I agree, they offer the "other" side's view, often drafting it themselves. What I can't agree on is them being a source of information beyond what the right's talking points will be. As I noted before, their viewers are astonishingly less informed than people who watch zero news.

I agree, there is slant in most news today, sometimes outright zealous bias, and that's a bad thing no matter who does it.

I am surprised Fox can still think ahead enough to back freedom of the press, especially their nemesis CNN, considering the short sightedness and hyper partisan nature of their hosts and writers....pleasantly surprised. I often hope I'm wrong in my assessments, which are invariably cynical.

Things I think we agree on......

Trump is a disaster.
Bias in media, especially news media, detracts from facts being clear and is a bad thing. (We disagree strongly which outlets display what levels of bias....even on which outlets can be properly called news).


I would rather share a foxhole with someone who will disagree with me civilly than someone who either agrees with me constantly or can't be civil, it makes for better conversation, the main entertainment in foxholes, so yes.

Or perhaps that they stopped her to accuse her of a crime, confront, and challenge her. None of your definitions include this "in error or being rude" inference you want to draw from it, that's your bias twisting definitions to suit your faux outrage.

I accosted my wife at the door with surprise plans to go out to dinner. I would use that sentence. I'm 48....not sure what generation you're from.

What nonsense are you spouting now...no one said she shouldn't have been accosted, you just take umbrage with the term for some reason, so decry the report as biased fake news or something.
Using the proper word to describe events is nothing like Fox making shit up. I don't have a clue what you mean.

Too late, I'm bald. That excuses me from having to watch any more Faux news. ;-)

Derp. That would be a Trump, not an Accosta.

Have fun with your persecution complex. I find you ridiculous and incapable of honest evaluation. Bye now.

No sir. There is a world of difference between slight bias in reports about the nationalistic leader who continues to attack all actual news reporters like a 2 year old and direct his terroristic followers to attack them as enemies of the people and a deeper level of bias against all non right wingers paired with outright campaigning for the same anti free press candidates.

Wait...you still defend Fox as having reporting but claim you don't need someone to bend facts? Bending facts like using proper English to describe a scene? But reporting on the birther movement for years as true, and the ridiculous waste of money named the Benghazi investigation, continued denial of climate science, etc. does bother you? Fox doesn't bend fact, they omit it. They don't get credit for using 5% (yes, that's exaggerated) truth to sell their lies.

I watched Chris Wallace interview Conway just yesterday (for as long as I could stand it, which admittedly was only a few minutes), his questions were ok, but delivered with a slow underhand pitch and with no follow-up or contradiction of her ridiculous rambling factless replies. That's not good reporting, it's being the setup for spreading their agenda/propaganda.

You think CNN goes to far by using words like "accost" to describe 3 policemen tackling a topless woman in tights, and while you claim to have looked up the definition , you still claim the word is somehow loaded and not proper. Please explain.

When the police were going after the fleeing armed supporters of Mr Bundie under Obama I think you likely called them violent thugs who attacked that poor innocent man unnecessarily....Fox did. That man was armed and an anti American terrorist, but right wing so Fox called him a strong patriotic American standing up for American values that the unAmerican Kenyan thug in the Whitehouse wanted to murder.
There is no equivalence. Fox is (disgusting unAmerican) entertainment, not news. There is no right wing news outlet, they are all propaganda outlets and little more today.
The Ministry of Truth doesn't need fact, you will believe any nonsense they tell you to, even when it contradicts what they had you believe yesterday. They have you believing any non Trump biased news is fake news reported with hyper liberal bias, even in other countries, but Fox has good reporting and less bias.
*facepalm

Edit: True, Trump didn't say all Mexicans are rapists like some others have claimed, he said all Mexican/central American immigrants are rapists....like I claimed.

They used "accost" because 3 large men tackled a topless woman in tights (so clearly unarmed unless she had a snuke), hard....it's a proper and correct description using the correct terminology. Your inference that they were implying something improper by the police is likely your bias coloring what they said.

Lol. Censor you!? I think perhaps you might look up that word too, because I don't think it means what you think it does. I certainly don't have either that power or desire. I wish only to dissuade you from being an unwitting dupe of an Orwellian movement against fact and truth.

There is no equivalent stupidity or bias on the left, not by half...not by 1/10.
Again, please name reporters that speak at Democratic rallies....from any non right wing network since limiting you to CNN yielded no answer. If the left is just as bad as the right in this regard, that should be incredibly easy to do.

It seems having it pointed out that there is no equivalence is intolerable and like an attack in your eyes, but it's simply fact.

I know, facts are for liberals. The truth isn't the truth. What you see and hear isn't really what's happening....also known as blackwhite/duckspeak.

There is no other main stream network besides Fox who's viewers are actually less informed than people who watch no news at all, and OAN and Info Wars likely perform the same job for minor networks. CNN isn't perfect, but it's viewers actually gain information and become more informed rather than loose it, becoming more ignorant. They are not equivalent.

What "facts"? Your opinion? That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Edit: Facts that Trump said aren't facts? That's the best indicator today that they are factual.
I'll take the dozens of convictions and guilty pleas based on those facts as proof enough they are true and well vetted. People don't agree to years in prison based on nonsense that's been proven false....especially not people with money like these people have.

As the exalted leaders #1 choice for (mis)information that becomes policy and platform for the right, and part of the right wing triad ministry of truth, you simply can't leave Jones out of any media discussion, particularly one where someone paints the BBC as having an (anti?)American political bias, and not just a bias for reality.

Yes, it's all fine and dandy. Any investigation of an investigation by the subject being investigated (or their proxies) is patently ridiculous and a clear political ploy to satiate your need for corroboration of what you want to believe, fact based or not. They knew they couldn't write the investigation's findings, nor could they accept the truth being made public, the only option left is to discredit the investigation, something they've been trying since before it began. I find it incredibly sad that so many are so thoroughly indoctrinated that you buy that obvious, self serving ploy to discredit the entire FBI and intelligence community in favor of a consummate narcissist and convicted fraud's self serving and baseless stated opinion about himself.
I guess you believe mob bosses who claimed they were framed and are just legitimate businessmen too, tapes and other evidence of them planning crimes and committing them are nothing in the face of their denials, right?

Yes...yes he did say that about central American immigrants....are you just parsing the fact that he didn't specifically say EACH AND EVERY ONE IS A RAPIST, while not acknowledging what he did say...."They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."? Strictly read, he's saying they're all rapists, but some are good people anyway....just like some Neo Nazis are good people in his opinion. You're attempts at rectifying oldthink (rewriting history) only work with people who have no memories. I watched him say it and I can remember yesterday without big brother telling me what to remember.

I can't dive into your paranoia to decipher what you're feeling. If you can't hear "accosted" and gather they likely arrested her aggressively and instead read that as some hidden agenda to.....well, you didn't articulate what the motive would be...., perhaps reading comprehension isn't a strong suit.

ac·cost. /əˈkôst,əˈkäst/ verb
past tense: accosted; past participle: accosted
approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.

I disagree with your characterizations. Considering the constant vitriolic, dangerous, demonizing, now blatant terroristic threats from Trump directed at all non right wing propaganda outlets that won't spread his propaganda and stroke his ego, amplified through his right wing minitrue and interpreted by his base that he's trained to hear his dog whistling, and in the face of the same, they display a mature, composed, restrained, unbiased, and inhumanly patient character, including the three you listed.
Yes, they are mature and reasonable adults under constant attack from a serial con man/cult leader and constant threats against their lives, not one Fox host, Jones host, or OAN host is 1/4 as mature, honest, or unbiased as the worst you can mention from CNN.....and no, CNN is not my preferred news source, but they are infinitely better than anything the evil trinity of right wing propaganda produces, including the totally dishonest smear campaign against all news organizations that you are part of now, willingly or not.

That's what the ministry of truth does. They get you to repeat their lies until you believe them enough to be the enemy of anyone still believing fact and reality. It clearly worked.

Btw, still waiting on the names of CNN reporters who have gone on the campaign to stump for the left, like Fox hosts did on the right. You insanely claim CNN is more biased than Fox, you should be able to name at least 4 off hand then.

Great post..
But you have got to be kidding saying the BBC
is non bias.

"There is plenty of scum to go around on both sides."

Ahh the classic false equivalency that Trump supporters often resort to.

First of all, every child should be taught at a young age that just because other children may act like little shits, that doesn't mean they can. The amount of functional adult Trump supporters who use "the Democrats are bad too!" as an excuse for Trump's behavior is just astounding. It's really just a pathetic diversionary tactic used to avoid discussing the issues at hand.

Second, your claim that Democrats are just as cruel is simply not true. Blaming Democrats for the very thing Trump is guilty of is a common smear tactic employed by extremist right wing propaganda.

Take Trump's zero tolerance policy which separated minors from their families for example. Right wing propaganda outlets like OAN love showing pictures of children housed alone in Obama era detention facilities and cry foul at the liberal media at the lack of coverage. The reality is that Obama faced a huge surge of thousand of unaccompanied minors from south america in 2014 who were detained. So yes, thousands of children were detained, but they were NOT separated from the families in the first place.

And while some families were separated during Obama's tenure, Obama's policies tried to limit this as much as possible. It is a far cry from what Trump's zero tolerance policy accomplished. The "liberal" media did not report this under Obama OR Bush simply because it was not an issue. If you believed that there was unfair media coverage for Trump on this issue, then you were lied to and manipulated. Its part of what we discussed earlier how Trump uses lies to discredit the media and further erode our democracy.

The point is that right wing propaganda and Trump himself routinely uses lies and deception to paint himself as the target of a "liberal media bias" that they themselves manufactured. And his gullible supporters like yourself love believing in his victim complex. If you don't believe me, then just refer to non partisan international sources like the BBC and you'll soon discover that Trump is just as shitty from an impartial view as the "biased liberal media" portrays him.

Both sides are not the same, no matter what lies Trump and Fox News et al. tries to tell you. And there are plenty of respectable media sources which are not CNN which also exposes Trump for the lying scum that he is.

Please name the CNN hosts/reporters who have actively campaigned for Democrats, speaking at their political rallies.

You want to conflate centrist (not far left) bias with rabid far right wing propaganda.
Again, you see two children, one covered in mud, one slightly dirty and you say "see, they're both dirty, equally". It's incredibly dishonest.

"How can you not call CNN fake news when the majority of their programming is all about Trump in a negative light?"

This is because in reality, Trump is a piece of shit. Accurate reporting does not have to make something seem balanced when in reality it is not. This is why the majority of news media, not just CNN, report Trump in a negative light. There is nothing good to report about cancer.

This is why most international news media in the western world, who are not affected by domestic US partisan bias, report Trump in a negative light. Read the BBC if you want. Trump is just as shitty in Britain as he is in America.

There are two possibilities: one is that there is some sudden massive coordinated conspiracy by the once respectable and honest media to lie about Trump. Or two, the media is just exposing a life long immoral compulsive liar in the Oval office for the piece of shit that he is.

Just because you don't like hearing negative things about Trump doesn't mean that those things are fake. Don't be gullible and let Trump's lies fool you into believing that anything negative against him is a part of some agenda. That is the first step any communist or fascist dictator uses to blind their people to the truth.

Ok, I, and almost all non right wingers disagree. CNN and Faux are no where near the same level. CNN may have some bias against the man who actively encouraged right wing terrorists to attack them as enemies of America and continues to do so....that's perfectly reasonable and professional.
What they don't do is make up stories out of thin air like Faux, edit video to create false impressions that are diametrically opposed to reality, hire mostly frauds who have been caught falsifying reports, repeat obvious lies because their preferred candidate/politician said them, or go on the campaign trail with candidates not to report, but to speak on their behalf. Your conflation of the two is either disingenuous, outrageously ignorant, or insane, you choose.

I watch more than enough Faux to know what they are, pure propaganda. You can deny it all you like, that only makes you look ignorant or dishonest. I'm certain I watch more Faux than you watch CNN, yet you've made similar (but less honest) claims about them, you must not watch it enough to know of what of you speak, you just take a convicted frauds word that they're liars as gospel and never investigate it seems.

You don't know me, sir, or you wouldn't make such a spurious claim. I gather information from multiple opposing sources. How could I debunk the lies from Faux and OAN if I don't watch them spout those lies?

Then how about what Trump himself did?...turnabout is fair play, so in this instance two wrongs might make things more right, at least more balanced. The left playing fairly, honorably, and attempting to avoid even the appearance of impropriety got us Trump, who has no such qualms. I hope Democrats don't sit on their high horse and complain that Trump doesn't play fair while he destroys our democracy and union....it's well past time to start tossing the steaming shit back at them.

Trump raped his pre-teen daughters on film and bragged about it, that's why he won't show us their long form medical and financial records.....that's far truer than his birther claims.
Also, his kids are all illegals, born to non citizens as anchor babies, (all his baby mommas are immigrants/invaders) when he tries to remove birthright citizenship they should be deported immediately. ;-)

No, none of those people are good at reporting news, not one can separate their rabid hyper biased opinions from fact, although Smith is doing better lately......but slightly better than god awful isn't good.
Fox is a joke, period. They don't have reporters, they have hosts. They're an opinion/entertainment/propaganda network, not a news network. It's really sad that you watch them but don't understand that basic fact, and you defend them as offering good reporting while also admitting they aren't even news...WTF, man?

The thing there is the news media is not being unprofessional, Trump is, but you're listening to him as if he wasn't an impudent infant and believing the nonsense that reporting on his constant vitriolic foibles is unprofessional. It's simply not.

Trump is the leader of the nation, not CNN, not his advisors, not Hannity. He is not being led to the right, he's dragging centrists far right or attacking them if they refuse to go along.
How about maybe he tries to lead towards civility and professionalism instead of impetuously attack any detractors like a spoiled brat, blaming them for his own actions?