• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    849 days ago

    Seems like a problem springing from the press’s bias towards neutrality, or how sometimes a politician is objectively wrong but the press treats them with kid gloves for fear of being accused of unfairness.

    They can’t print Trump’s entire 3 minute rant, and they’re scared to characterize it as meandering or incoherent, even if that’s the best description. So, they print a single line from his rant and provide their own context.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      779 days ago

      Towards the appearance of neutrality, you mean. When person A says “2+2=4” and person B says “2+2=5”, “neutrality” is not reporting some kind of false compromise at 4 1/2, but instead factually reporting that person A is correct and person B is wrong!

      • Diplomjodler
        link
        fedilink
        34
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        Stop oppressing me with your woke math and shit! It’s my deeply held belief that two plus two equals five!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        239 days ago

        I feel like the media would roll this out in the most bad-faith and then evolve it in the most malignant way possible:

        • Both candidates discuss 2+2
        • Person B passionately argues values on 2+2
        • Is person A too ingrained in the establishment to consider new ideas on 2+2?
        • Person B campaign staff says person B will likely “soften tone on 2+2” after they win election
        • Person B supporters wear “5” to latest rally
        • Experts weigh in on the true meaning of 4 1/2
        • Person B says “4 is low-energy just like person A”
        • Should a 4-believer really be president just because person B is a rapist and a felon?
        • Person B won the election and it’s all your fault
        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          9
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          They write completely content-less headlines and articles that are so “neutral” they look like they were written by an extraterrestrial attorney.

          Guy A shoots guy B with a gun and they write it up as “spectators allege that the bullet that happened to strike B may likely have originated from the barrel of a gun that A has been said to have held in or around the same period where B happened to be struck”.

          I took journalism in high school and the instruction at the time was not to use the fucking passive voice…but that’s all the motherfuckers use…even when covering extremely high stakes shit.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        28 days ago

        2+2 is actually 5 I’ve read it in a book with a bunch of numbers as a title. its basic knowledge, just like: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -19
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        You’re confusing neutrality with objectivity.

        Edit: Neutral (adjective): not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.

        Are you a big enough baby to downvote because you don’t like what words mean? Neutrality and correctness are two different things. Objectivity does factor in what the facts are, neutrality doesn’t.

          • Ech
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -29 days ago

            It is absolutely neutral. You’re mixing up neutrality with equivalence. Just because a neutral party reports on something that’s clearly incorrect doesn’t mean they are sponsoring or supporting it over something else, nor is it saying they are equally valid claims.

            The purpose of neutral reporting is to have a record of what happened, not to judge it right or wrong. Unfortunately, sometimes (a lot of the time, nowadays) noteworthy events involve unpleasant and/or malicious actors, but we can’t just shun them from history because their purposes are ignoble.

    • OhStopYellingAtMe
      link
      fedilink
      21
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Agreed. Their motivation is money, and there’s more money in keeping the election a neck & neck horse race, even if one of the horses is rabid, lame, and in every way unfit to run. They’ll downplay his blaring faults, and magnify any tiny fault they can find in his competition, just to keep the race “fair” - for ad revenue.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        29 days ago

        They also don’t like to get sued, and Orange Julius has a habit of suing anybody who offends him.

    • Fern
      link
      fedilink
      59 days ago

      Too true, also what we call civility politics. I wouldn’t be surprised if corporate backers prefer it that way.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        29 days ago

        I’m relieved to learn this is a term. I see so many appeals to civility and decorum, and it turns into giving the Supreme Court away.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -139 days ago

      They did the same with Biden until the horrible debate. It’s not a political bias but a bias towards rich politicians.

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        139 days ago

        I want to know what media you were watching that didn’t highten every biden stutter when that man has had a stutter his entire life