Spot Journalistic Bias and Manipulation (was Media Bias)

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 466 comments
  • 44,313 views
Liquid
I am reluctant to share a tweet endorsed by an extremely extremely far-left account that hates e v e r y thing about NATO and "the West", it goes so far around the world it pretty much meets Russia on the other side, but it's hard to not notice things like this.

Click to expand...

www.bbc.co.uk

Israeli air strike on Gaza school kills at least 16 people

The school, located in the Nuseirat refugee camp, was sheltering displaced people, Palestinian officials say.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
If the article has been updated by the BBC from first publication, that's one thing.
If the snapshot has been doctored for the tweet, I apologise for sharing it.
 
Not apologizing for the specific situation, but when much of the media landscape reports information with more of a sense of immediacy, rather than providing a concrete historical record, it's fair to shield information if there's information gaps. The secondary situation is rarely possible in the immediate moment, especially in restricted places. "Friendly fire" or accidents do occur, and that makes for a totally different headline, so it's understandable and even responsible to not lay immediate blame, even if you want to, or it's almost 99% certain who is at fault. Thus, an article which appears 30 minutes (or a day or two) after its occurrence versus one that is several days old can have a vastly different approach to a headline, and is not an entirely fair comparison...it happens all the time. In the past, a physical media outlet or over-the-air broadcaster had to issue a retraction or just make a new story out of a news event. Who said social media is fair, anyhow?

Yep, bias about a lack of bias causing more bias.
 
Last edited:
Screenshot-20240708-185616-Samsung-Internet.jpg

Screenshot-20240708-185750-Samsung-Internet.jpg
 
Same Story:

Reuters: Zuckerberg says Biden administration pressured Meta to censor COVID-19 content
CNN: Mark Zuckerberg says Meta was ‘pressured’ by Biden administration to censor Covid-related content in 2021
USA Today: White House pressured Facebook to remove misinformation during pandemic, Meta CEO claims
Fox News: Andy McCarthy on Zuckerberg letter: the 'deceit' is 'astonishing'.

Reuters and CNN are technically more correct than USA Today. Zuck did not say misinformation, he said they pressured him to remove content, including satire. The reason the government cited for that removal? It's misinformation.

Fox, of course, is astonished and outraged over the evil deceitfulness. But this story broke back then, and the white house was upfront saying that they were working with social media companies (and collaboration is what Zuck is describing) to identify misinformation and remove it. When the administration thought something was misinformation and facebook didn't think so, the admin apparently "pressured" (not sure what the means) them to remove it anyway.

USA Today's headline is probably the closest to something that gives the right impression. The Biden admin considered it misinformation and suggested facebook remove it. Calling it "content" censorship gives some incorrect impressions about what exactly was told to facebook, and what exactly the "content" represented.
 
Last edited:
Same story:

CNN: "Harris explains in exclusive CNN interview why she's shifted her position on key issues since her first run for president"
Fox: "Harris defends policy flip-flops in preview of first interview since ascending ticket"

The fox headline indicates rapid switches, i.e. pandering. CNN suggests a shift informed by experience, which indicates wisdom. "Since ascending ticket" gives the impression that the shift has occurred in the last month, whereas CNN gives the impression of 4 years. This is compounded by the "first interview" dig, which suggests that a month is too long for an interview. But you don't get to have "since ascending" both ways. It's either the first interview, or it's a policy flip flop. But it's not a policy flip flop since july.

Basically CNN paints a picture of a maturing flexible professional, and Fox paints a picture of a two-faced opportunist out of the same set of facts. After clicking on the article, it becomes clear that the reference point is indeed 4 years ago, and is informed by experience as Vice President. I'd say Fox is out of line. Especially because the time reference in the fox headline is intentionally conflating two different time periods.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back