Couple recent funny ones:
Very laughable efforts by the reactionary media. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!
We chucked basic journalistic procedures out the window because the story conformed to our preconceived narratives. Nothing is actually checking out and we may well have been had. Oops!
If a rape activist actually lied about being raped, that would easily be the most counter productive thing she could ever have possibly done, ever.
Even funnier, the Bush twins were 23-years old when that article was published.
Also Obama’s daughters haven’t actually done anything reprehensible. They were seemingly attacked just for existing.
Well, they were existing while being the daughters of a Democrat. That pretty much makes them horrible human beings by default.
As for the second “bias,” that was a four-day old article versus one that was a few hours old when the screenshot was grabbed. Today, there are about 1,650,000 results for the other story (searching for the actual story, not just the dude’s name). So yeah. Bias?
There seems to be a bit of “poster bias” in that OP.
Well that, and (pssst)
It’s one of those laughable things - idiot rags on the President’s children, gets outted, and suddenly it’s all the fault of the media, the transgressions of the other side are being ignored by the Evil Liberal Media - anything but anything rather than discuss the actual issue. Just introduce side issues and attack! Never defend!
But they are so transparently not equivalent. Nobody aide attacks the President’s family! Compare with, nobody aide goes to jail, nothing really to do with politics. Media bias! Now, 1,999,900 of those two million hits on the President’s side may be reactionaries screaming about the aide getting the sack, but hey, just assume it is media bias to the liberal side. Geez, put an ounce of analytic thought into it. Be aware that in fact this thread just contributes to the count, especially if each individual post ends up as a search engine hit. It just shows a level of interest.
Here’s some more sophisticated examples of bias: Number of times “Benghazi” is used per news site:
About 103,000 results
About 73,600 results
About 51,300 results
About 20,600 results
Wall St. Journal
About 17,600 results
About 16,500 results
About 11,600 results
About 11,000 results
About 6,580 results
About 5,080 results
About 3,990 results
That’s actually surprising that HuffPo would be topping the list. I’d expect FoxNews since they’re always frothing about it.
Well HuffPo is frothing about the frothing. Plus I think they tend to have more opinion piece people so there are probably a lot of them writing about that. I suspect the Fox New Business guys aren’t writing a lot of articles about Benghazi on an average day.
Also: commenters. It’s pretty common to see the conspiracy types bombing the comments sections about Benghazi. Also Benghazi has become a shorthand joke for conservative media made up controversy, so a lot of liberals will make jokes about it.
As of 2013 half of them say they are independent (lol, sure…). But of the ones with enough balls to go with a party? 4 to 1 in favor of democrats. So yeah, bias.
The politics of individual journalists are not as influential as the politics of their corporate owners.
That whole thing is a disaster. The reporter already knew exactly what story she wanted to write, then searched for an event to serve as the centerpiece.
Are you shittin’ me? The Founding Fathers called it the goddern White House for a reason!