Media Bias

The last guy did it so... nothing to see here folks. Move along.

The last guy did it so... nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Once precedent has been established, nothing we can do. We just have to trust Trump/Kushner to make decisions for our best interests.

/sarcasm in case yall mufuckas don't know me well enough by now.

But that's not the question...Can we trust the media to frame information in a way that is fair and not basis?

If back channels are a normal way to do diplomacy with sensitive issues such as the Syrian War and Isis, then it makes sense.

You cant have the LA Times write an article 8 years ago saying its ok to set up a back channel with Iran...done by flying an Obama surrogate into Tehran....before he took the office. And then write another article condemning the Trump administration in doing the samething. Cleary dishonest reporting.

Im not saying either is right...Im just pointing to the fact of media bias in similar situations.

I really think their would be much less political hate between everyone if everything was really reported on more of a baseline, even approach.

But that's not the question...Can we trust the media to frame information in a way that is fair and not basis?

If back channels are a normal way to do diplomacy with sensitive issues such as the Syrian War and Isis, then it makes sense.

You cant have the LA Times write an article 8 years ago saying its ok to set up a back channel with Iran...done by flying an Obama surrogate into Tehran....before he took the office. And then write another article condemning the Trump administration in doing the samething. Cleary dishonest reporting.

Im not saying either is right...Im just pointing to the fact of media bias in similar situations.

I really think their would be much less political hate between everyone if everything was really reported on more of a baseline, even approach.
Sorry the article you link says nothing about it being done before Obama took office,Obama and Trump were two different circumstance's. Trump has gotten caught he needs to do the right thing and resign.
Chico you will never trust the media unless they tell you what you want to hear,if they don't it's "fake News".

Sorry the article you link says nothing about it being done before Obama took office,Obama and Trump were two different circumstance's. Trump has gotten caught he needs to do the right thing and resign.
Chico you will never trust the media unless they tell you what you want to hear,if they don't it's "fake News".

WSJ said it...I haven't looked for that article. But I posted the LA Times one because the bias of the double standard was a good one. Obama does it, its smart diplomacy; Trump does it, its not.

I def don't trust any media because its become more tabloid and the speed of reporting matters more than factual reporting. Who can get it out first, facts be damn.

Now its become bias in the presentation of stories, where there is a clear over-hanging narrative which links everything. The most mainstream media is doing everything to smear the President. Its clear. This is new actually...we should be able to recognize it.



sidenote....You do know the Hillary Clinton campaign colluded with multiple elements in the liberal media against Bernie Sanders? You need to look at wikileaks...its interesting.

WSJ said it...I haven't looked for that article. But I posted the LA Times one because the bias of the double standard was a good one. Obama does it, its smart diplomacy; Trump does it, its not.



Not for me it isn't. They should both be held to the same standard. Backdoor communications to circumvent the official processes should only be used in the most extreme of cases. I will acknowledge it's easier to focus on the present form of abuse, considering Obama did it 8 years or so. It doesn't excuse it by any stretch but if you're saying we should let it slide this time because Obama did it I disagree. It's not just the back channel comms to be concerned about, it's what they're discussing using the back channel comms. If either were using it for illegal purposes they should be held accountable. But we both know that ain't gonna happen.


I def don't trust any media because its become more tabloid and the speed of reporting matters more than factual reporting. Who can get it out first, facts be damn.


This is true. Who can break news first is definitely more important than being accurate. They can always just print a retraction later that 1/10 of the people will read compared to the actual story.


Now its become bias in the presentation of stories, where there is a clear over-hanging narrative which links everything. The most mainstream media is doing everything to smear the President. Its clear. This is new actually...we should be able to recognize it.


I prefer to believe it's all about clicks. The death of print media has left these companies scared and they're turning to more and more alternative tactics to raise profits again. Like blurring the lines between shitty opinion articles and trying to present them like its' news. It's one of my main beefs with MSNBC.


sidenote....You do know the Hillary Clinton campaign colluded with multiple elements in the liberal media against Bernie Sanders? You need to look at wikileaks...its interesting.

Yes, I'm aware of this and that's why I didn't vote for her. The American people (including me) wanted Bernie and the DNC didn't want him. Yes I know his free college plans were unrealistic, but they never would've passed anyway (remember that whole checks/balances thing?). I believe progress would have been made though. Instead here we are with Trump trying to bring back coal jobs (news alert, the coal industry is dead because it was abandoned in favor of cheaper energy) and deregulating anything and everything Obama did. But don't worry, all you middle aged people will be dead by the time global warming starts to cause serious consequences. As long as you've got your retirement fund who cares though, right?

AP Explains: Kushner and the back story of back channels (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ap-explains-kushner-and-the-back-story-of-back-channels/ar-BBBJJrw?li=BBnb7Kz)

This article was written by the AP, and republished by MSN. So if you're going to call it fake news, please back it up by explaining why it's fake news. It does a good job (at least for me) of explaining back channels and it even discusses Obama's back channels with Iran which were used to set up the early stages of the nuclear deal he did with them. Of interesting note was the quote by Richard Moss (a professor at the US Naval War College), that back channels can be an effective tool, but that they work best when they supplement traditional diplomacy rather than supplant it. So for me, my issue isn't that back channels exist. It's that Trump's son-in-law (a guy hired because his father-in-law became commander in chief) was the one setting it up and also that it was recommended (by either him or the Russians, not sure which) that they use Russia's personal channels back to Moscow. I don't think either of those things are appropriate, especially given Kushner's previous business deals with Russia.

Whether you like "back channels" or not really isn't the issue. I personally don't have a problem with them when dealing with sensitive foreign policy issues.

I guess my point is this, aside from Russia story: What if a story came out today that Trump sent a white house official to Tehran to set up a back channel early in his Presidency? How would that story play in the press today?

Whether you like "back channels" or not really isn't the issue. I personally don't have a problem with them when dealing with sensitive foreign policy issues.

I guess my point is this, aside from Russia story: What if a story came out today that Trump sent a white house official to Tehran to set up a back channel early in his Presidency? How would that story play in the press today?

I don't have a problem with them, the issue at hand is what the back channel is being used for. Same goes for Tehran too. If he was using it for good reasons I wouldn't care, if he was using it to make shady backhand business deals that don't benefit the public I would absolutely care.

Whether you like "back channels" or not really isn't the issue. I personally don't have a problem with them when dealing with sensitive foreign policy issues.

I guess my point is this, aside from Russia story: What if a story came out today that Trump sent a white house official to Tehran to set up a back channel early in his Presidency? How would that story play in the press today?

There is a difference when you do it and you are the President and when you do it and are still a "private citizen".