Robert wrote:Bootstrap wrote:I really don't think "truth" and "bias" get redefined based on election results.
Several of the ones she positioned in the center were outed in the wikileaks as colluding with the DNC and Clinton.
Yes, but "some of the ones" is really just CNN, which is listed at the bottom, under "sensational/clickbait" with the note "better than not reading news at all". Hardly a ringing endorsement. CNN is not the New York Times. And let's not forget the of the scandals that have hit some of these other news outlets. Moderate doesn't mean good.
But I do think that news outlets that make the effort to do responsible reporting come to more similar conclusions from right to left, so the high-content sources don't get quite as extreme.
Robert wrote:It really surprises me that some can continue to trust those who were shown to be biased and manipulating their coverage. If Fox News was doing this with the RNC, they would have been hung out to dry, justifiably. I just can not understand why those who did these things are not being held accountable or to a higher standard.
You mean Fox News, the station founded by a Republican political consultant Roger Ailes, who then went immediately to work for the Trump campaign? I really do think CNN and MSNBC might as well be a wing of the Democratic party and Fox News might as well be a wing of the Republican party. And if you'd like, we could go into a long list of improprieties with Fox News ... I wouldn't trust CNN, MSNBC, or Fox in general.
But on the whole, she rated Fox as better than CNN, which is probably fair.
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?