I think the media is too left leaning to the point people discredit/ignore the media. I think the media agenda actually hurts the democratic party. More specifically, I want a neutral media, that reports news. I don't think any news outlet is that way. I want media I can rely on for actual information. We don't have that.
My point initially was to discredit Thriller's idea that somehow the media would grasp anything negative Biden did and run with it for weeks. That is clearly not the case as the Reade accusation has shown, which is why I brought it up, and to point at the actual media bias. It is annoying that the large majority of media outlets was to go against Kavanaugh but it seems the opposite with Biden, when to me, both accusers are just as credible. The media and Dems were quick to lash out stating that Kavanaugh had no business being on the court. And that was when he shoved his junk in a girls face as a college student while drunk, not groped and kissed her as Reade has alleged. I just don't understand the double standard. Which led me to my statements that I'm just frustrated with our parties generally. Not to argue with anyone, just to point out how sad our two parties are right now.
With Trump, all I saw was Stormy Daniels coverage everywhere. TV, Facebook, etc. Same with Kavanaugh. It was simply unavoidable. Yet with Biden, we see it, read it, but it is largely in the background. I'd think if there was an official complaint to a government agency by an accuser against Kavanaugh, the press and Congress would be demanding it. Yet it stays in the background with Biden/Reade. Just odd really.
Normally we could just vote based on the information we have, but when the options are Trump or Biden, there really isn't a choice.
Lately, I’ve been going back and revisiting some interviews Jon Stewart gave to Fox News back at the peak of his insight (which, I’d say was probably somewhere in the period of the early aughts). In my opinion, most of his critique of the media is pretty spot-on; and maybe you’d enjoy hearing some of what he had to say, since you seem to be heading toward some of the same questions.
Stewart would say that of course any kind of media coverage is informed by the producers’ ideological background. This is philosophically obvious (even a simple
thought is informed by the significance and value of certain concepts over others). But the difference with Fox News was (and still is) that not only was their content informed by an ideological background, but they were an ACTIVIST organization deliberately pushing that ideology.
MSNBC seems to have noticed the financial success of the Fox-mode and turned themselves into a similar organization. And then there’s been the rise of Brietbart, OAN, and a few other fringe types since then. But for the most part, according to Stewart, the media is filled with a bias toward sensationalism, conflict generation, and laziness—
not Fox-style activism. I tend to agree. It seems like this distinction may be useful to you.
Personally, I don’t find it very challenging to get straight reportage, even if I have to read about the same story from two or three different outlets before I get the basic picture in enough detail. And, it’s usually pretty easy to distinguish the reporting from the analysis, and to discard the latter (if I want to). But it would be nice if this were even easier to do. For sure.
There’s also a handful of outlets that, for the most part, are doing excellent work. It’s good media. The critiques I see of them usually seem to ring of someone expecting to be spoon fed; we all should read around anyway.
More generally, I’d disagree that the media is particularly left-leaning.... But that statement probably says as much about me as it does the position of the media itself. And same goes for your complaint. Or maybe you just have a bad media diet and poor self-control, plugging in too often and into bad sources.
There is no purely neutral media. That’s a figment of some weird dream.
