Comparing how news media headlines and reports on the same story

[Roitrn]

There is allot of discussion on news media bias. I thought I would start a topic dedicated to this. I find the best way to gather information of any topic is to read various sources of different political leanings. 

To start the conversation, I'll submitt this news story. 

A headline from Fox News and one from MDNSBC. Note the different headlines and contents. 

https://www.MSN.com/en-gb/news/world/doctor-struck-by-car-while-biking-before-driver-got-out-and-stabbed-him-to-death-police-say/ar-AA175gIR?li=BBoPWjQ

https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspect-accused-stabbing-california-doctor-death-spoke-white-privilege-during-attack-witness-says

[Roitrn]

toomuchbaloney said:

"A forum polluted with Trump hysteria" 

"Like the people on here"

I keep trying to discuss the bias claim of that article with you but the replies are increasingly unresponsive.  

Tell me what about the article "attempted" to associate Trump as a white supremacist.  It reported the dinner.  It reported known facts.  Was there some speculative language that I missed? Let's talk about the article and the bias that you see. 

Can I say without it deflecting to Trump? Is it possible? I am not arguing if Trump is anything or not anything. 

I already said that the article failed to associate Trump as a white supremist because they provided no evidence that he knew this person was coming to the dinner party or that he even knew who this person was. Trump said he was expecting Ye only and didn't know who Fuentes is. They provided no evidence to the contrary.  The idea was to spin the story, not provide evidence. No past Tweets, nothing. The title with both words Trump and White Supremist is bias and intended to imply something that was not followed up by evidence. If they had past Tweets with Trump mentioning this person or other evidence they would have added it.  I then compared it to Biden giving a eulogy to a former KKK member in the second example I provided. I also said this failed to associate Biden as a racist because he gave this eulogy to a former KKK member. Yes. It's a fact this person had dinner with Trump. 

You do not agree. I know this. So I think the discussion is over. 

You have several times gone off topic in regards to this topic. It seems to happen most with Trump. And angry parents. I have read back a little bit through out the topics and the mention of Trump, often by yourself, off topic, results in long posts about how you think he is a liar and a charlatan and the Republican party..... Then you created an actual topic of angry parents. So observationally, you have strong feelings of distain for Trump and in my opinion the Republican party in general. The mere mention of Trump seems to illicit a flurry of emotion on this thread. Hysteria. An uncontrollable or exaggerated emotional excitement. 

Hysteria? Likely. A pre-occupation with a focus on a selection of ideas you seems to care about? Yes. IMO. 

[Roitrn]

toomuchbaloney said:

No it didn't try to associate Trump with anything.  It reported on Trump's dinner with a white supremacist.  

I would suggest that it's not my comments that reflect some type of hysteria.  I'm simply pointing out that the article doesn't do what you claim it does.  You, after all, are the person who cited the article and brought it into the conversation. 

In your opinion. Which is noted. Several times.

I disagree. I do not think we will come to an agreement. 

I think the story was bias, you do not. 

[Roitrn]

nursej22 said:

Oh, I see now. You are the victim here and everyone else missed the point and is refusing to discuss your opinion about media bias. 

Actually, I looked back and can't even find the article about the former president and him dining with an antisemite and a white supremacist. 

Look again. It was this 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/25/us/politics/trump-nick-fuentes-dinner.html

Did I say I was a victim? Or I'm sad or upset that people cannot disassociate their strong feelings about Trump to objectively discus a media story involving him? Or express their disagreement with out insulting other people's intelligence/credentials etc? This has less reflection on me and my apparently feelings of "victimhood" and more to do with a social media method to accuse someone of being a victim to shut down their argument. Often when there is no evidence or facts to be brought to the discussion. 

 

Annoynomous people posting on a internet forum does not have the capacity to make me a victim. Does it for you? 

[toomuchbaloney]

Roitrn said:

Can I say without it deflecting to Trump? Is it possible? I am not arguing if Trump is anything or not anything. 

I already said that the article failed to associate Trump as a white supremist because they provided no evidence that he knew this person was coming to the dinner party or that he even knew who this person was. Trump said he was expecting Ye only and didn't know who Fuentes is. They provided no evidence to the contrary.  No past Tweets, nothing. The title with both words Trump and White Supremist is bias and intended to imply something that was not followed up by evidence. I then compared it to Biden giving a eulogy to a former KKK member in the second example I provided. I also said this failed to associate Biden as a racist because he gave this eulogy to a former KKK member. Yes. It's a fact this person had dinner with Trump. 

You do not agree. I know this. So I think the discussion is over. 

You have several times gone off topic in regards to this topic. It seems to happen most with Trump. And angry parents. I have read back a little bit through out the topics and the mention of Trump, often by yourself, off topic, results in long posts about how you think he is a liar and a charlatan and the Republican party..... Then you created an actual topic of angry parents. 

Hysteria? Maybe. A pre-occupation with a focus on a selection of ideas you seems to care about? Yes. IMO. 

That's your hyper sensitive belief about the article.  You BELIEVE that the article is "attempting to associate" Trump with white supremacy but the article merely reported on the dinner AND Trump's excuse of ignorance. The article doesn't NEED to attempt to associate Trump with white supremacy... it just needs to report upon Trump's willingness to associate with white supremacists.  

You suggested that describing Fuentes as a white supremacist is inflammatory but it's just facts. 

You keep projecting to Biden as if that is related to your criticism of the bias of an artucle about Trump. Are you arguing racism or bias in the article? 

Now you are taking about angry parents again.  I keep trying to get you to settle on one article and discover that some of the bias is your own.  Maybe you just can't appreciate how your own bias is influencing your interpretation of the article about Fuentes because so far, the article doesn't really do what you claim it does in terms of bias. 

Roitrn said:

In your opinion. Which is noted. Several times.

I disagree. I do not thinkb we will come to an agreement. 

Correct.  You've made claims that you cannot support using the actual words or language of the article.

[Roitrn]

toomuchbaloney said:

That's your hyper sensitive belief about the article.  You BELIEVE that the article is "attempting to associate" Trump with white supremacy but the article merely reported on the dinner AND Trump's excuse of ignorance. The article doesn't NEED to attempt to associate Trump with white supremacy... it just needs to report upon Trump's willingness to associate with white supremacists.  

You suggested that describing Fuentes as a white supremacist is inflammatory but it's just facts. 

You keep projecting to Biden as if that is related to your criticism of the bias of an artucle about Trump. Are you arguing racism or bias in the article? 

Now you are taking about angry parents again.  I keep trying to get you to settle on one article and discover that some of the bias is your own.  Maybe you just can't appreciate how your own bias is influencing your interpretation of the article about Fuentes because so far, the article doesn't really do what you claim it does in terms of bias. 

Correct.  You've made claims that you cannot support using the actual words or language of the article.

In your opinion. And it is noted. It is also noted that you made claims regarding what I said and when I asked you to provide a quote, you told me you were not going to "play that game". I can reconize my own bias. 

Deflection to Biden giving a eulogy to a known former KKK member? 

If Trump having dinner with a person where there was no evidence provided in the story that he knew was coming or he even knew who he was, suggest his affinity to associate himself with white supremacist. However using the same logic. Biden gave a eulogy to a well known former KKK member. 

Neither concept proves that either are racist. 

Simply put, Trump had dinner with a white supremist and his black anttisemetic friend, Biden gave a eulogy to a former KKK member. Both facts. A less bias report would go on to explain both situations. 

You don't agree and it is noted. 

 

 

[toomuchbaloney]

Roitrn said:

In your opinion. And it is noted. It is also noted that you made claims regarding what I said and when I asked you to provide a quote, you told me you were not going to "play that game". I can reconize my own bias. 

Deflection to Biden giving a eulogy to a known former KKK member? 

If Trump having dinner with a person where there was no evidence provided in the story that he knew was coming or he even knew who he was, suggest his affinity to associate himself with white supremacist. However using the same logic. Biden gave a eulogy to a well known former KKK member. 

Neither concept proves that either are racist. 

Simply put, Trump had dinner with a white supremist and his black anttisemetic friend, Biden gave a eulogy to a former KKK member. Both facts. A less bias report would go on to explain both situations. 

You don't agree and it is noted. 

 

 

Again... you are saying that the article about Trump was trying to prove that Trump is a racist... it was not.  It was simply reporting on Trump's dinner with the infamous white supremacist. It reported that Trump ate a meal with him and was impressed by Fuentes. 

You have yet to point out the actual bias in the Trump story.  

Correct, I don't agree with your interpretation of the article and you've not been able to actually support your interpretation with actual words from the article... only your opinion of the words that you read.  If you could quote the actual words we could discuss the biased language in the article.  Instead you provide nothing for us to discuss beyond your opinion of the article and a deflection to Biden rather than a discussion of the biased language in the article. The title or headline of the link you provided certainly isn't biased so it must be language in the body.  It doesn't work for you to assign your interpretation of the intent of the article but not actually quote the actual words that you believe conveys that intent.  

 

[Roitrn]

toomuchbaloney said:

Again... you are saying that the article about Trump was trying to prove that Trump is a racist... it was not.  It was simply reporting on Trump's dinner with the infamous white supremacist. It reported that Trump ate a meal with him and was impressed by Fuentes. 

You have yet to point out the actual bias in the Trump story.  

Correct, I don't agree with your interpretation of the article and you've not been able to actually support your interpretation with actual words from the article... only your opinion of the words that you read.  If you could quote the actual words we could discuss the biased language in the article.  Instead you provide nothing for us to discuss beyond your opinion of the article and a deflection to Biden rather than a discussion of the biased language in the article. The title or headline of the link you provided certainly isn't biased so it must be language in the body.  It doesn't work for you to assign your interpretation of the intent of the article but not actually quote the actual words that you believe conveys that intent.  

 

 

I already explained that there was no evidence provided that Trump knew who this person was or even if he was coming. There was no evidence provided in the article of this. It would have been less bias if they included some evidence that Trump did know who this person was and knew he was coming. 

Biden was a comparison, not a deflection. 

I am unable to quote an actual sentence as I have exceeded my free articles. 

I disagree with your interpretation. Your opinion is noted. 

This is a less bias report on the dinner. It is without sensationalized headlines. It includes statements from both Nick Fuentes and Ye. And it's hardly flattering of Trump. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/story-trumps-explosive-dinner-ye-nick-fuentes-rcna59010

[toomuchbaloney]

Roitrn said:

 

I already explained that there was no evidence provided that Trump knew who this person was or even if he was coming. There was no evidence provided in the article of this. It would have been less bias if they included some evidence that Trump did know who this person was and knew he was coming. 

Biden was a comparison, not a deflection. 

I am unable to quote an actual sentence as I have exceeded my free articles. 

I disagree with your interpretation. Your opinion is noted. 

This is a less bias report on the dinner. It is without sensationalized headlines. It includes statements from both Nick Fuentes and Ye. And it's hardly flattering of Trump. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/story-trumps-explosive-dinner-ye-nick-fuentes-rcna59010

You call that a less biased headline even though it includes the subjective descriptor of "explosive" and the other does not.  Once again you have not supported your claim or belief with evidence.  

Please explain how a headline that calls the dinner "explosive" is less sensationalized, as you've now claimed.  

[Roitrn]

toomuchbaloney said:

You call that a less biased headline even though it includes the subjective descriptor of "explosive" and the other does not.  Once again you have not supported your claim or belief with evidence.  

Please explain how a headline that calls the dinner "explosive" is less sensationalized, as you've now claimed.  

Yes. That was in the headline. Not in the content. The headline and the content of the story may or may not be bias. And I said less bias because provides statements by the people involved. All media has some bias. 

Media often use sensationalized wording in the  headline to grab attention. It can be well rounded within the contentvat the sametime. 

Once again your opinion is noted. 

[toomuchbaloney]

Roitrn said:

Yes. That was in the headline. Not in the content. 

Once again your opinion is noted. 

Yes, that's the headline that you said was less biased and using less sensationalism.  Headlines are a focus of this thread and of your comments.  

Both articles offer unflattering characterizations of Trump. One of the articles has a subjective word in the headline and it's the article you defined as less biased.  

Quote

Both his campaigns and his administration were often characterized by chaos and buffeted by the consequences of his impulses as they stumbled from crisis to crisis. And Trump has repeatedly put himself in the center of controversies over racism, from falsely accusing the first Black president of not being a natural-born citizen to announcing his 2016 presidential bid by portraying most Mexican migrants as rapists and drug runners.

Comparatively, NYT article that troubles you said this. 

Quote

Even taking at face value Mr. Trump's protestation that he knew nothing of Mr. Fuentes, the apparent ease with which Mr. Fuentes arrived at the home of a former president who is under multiple investigations — including one related to keeping classified documents at Mar-a-Lago long after he left office — underscores the undisciplined, uncontrolled nature of Mr. Trump's post-presidency just 10 days into his third campaign for the White House.

Maybe you could quote the language in the NYT article that makes it an example of biased reporting rather than just telling us your thoughts about the article as a whole. 

[toomuchbaloney]

Roitrn said:

Yes. That was in the headline. Not in the content. The headline and the content of the story may or may not be bias. And I said less bias because provides statements by the people involved. All media has some bias. 

Media often use sensationalized wording in the  headline to grab attention. It can be well rounded within the contentvat the sametime. 

Once again your opinion is noted. 

Well thank you for noting my opinion repeatedly... but I'd rather that you quoted the language from the content of the article that represents the bias.  You made this article a example but you haven't specified what in the article is an example of the bias that this thread is about.  

I've noted and accepted your opinion on your topic over and over...I asking you for examples from the article of the bias.  At this point I suspect that you simply cannot point to any specific passage or paragraph that represents the bias that you claimed. Otherwise you would have quoted it for discussion by now. 

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

Roitrn said:

Yes because media bias is a new thing! I just discovered it! If I wanted everyone to think I'm amazing I wouldn't be on a forum polluted with Trump hysteria. I'd probably find a place were most opinions are the same and no one challenges me. Like the people on here. 

I was trying to discuss media bias with a story that was UNFAVORABLE to Trump. Everyone immediately thought I was defending Trump and went way far left (pun intended) and totally missed the point. 

It's not bias if a story is true.  I just have the feeling that if you had a sense of pre-World War  II, you would have reported stories unfavorable to Hitler as "biased".  Could you look for a more worthy Republican who you believe is being treated unfairly?  Some who isn't morally bankrupt and treats almost everyone he or she knows unfairly?