Seems like a problem springing from the press’s bias towards neutrality, or how sometimes a politician is objectively wrong but the press treats them with kid gloves for fear of being accused of unfairness.
They can’t print Trump’s entire 3 minute rant, and they’re scared to characterize it as meandering or incoherent, even if that’s the best description. So, they print a single line from his rant and provide their own context.
Towards the appearance of neutrality, you mean. When person A says “2+2=4” and person B says “2+2=5”, “neutrality” is not reporting some kind of false compromise at 4 1/2, but instead factually reporting that person A is correct and person B is wrong!
Stop oppressing me with your woke math and shit! It’s my deeply held belief that two plus two equals five!
I feel like the media would roll this out in the most bad-faith and then evolve it in the most malignant way possible:
- Both candidates discuss 2+2
- Person B passionately argues values on 2+2
- Is person A too ingrained in the establishment to consider new ideas on 2+2?
- Person B campaign staff says person B will likely “soften tone on 2+2” after they win election
- Person B supporters wear “5” to latest rally
- Experts weigh in on the true meaning of 4 1/2
- Person B says “4 is low-energy just like person A”
- Should a 4-believer really be president just because person B is a rapist and a felon?
- Person B won the election and it’s all your fault
They write completely content-less headlines and articles that are so “neutral” they look like they were written by an extraterrestrial attorney.
Guy A shoots guy B with a gun and they write it up as “spectators allege that the bullet that happened to strike B may likely have originated from the barrel of a gun that A has been said to have held in or around the same period where B happened to be struck”.
I took journalism in high school and the instruction at the time was not to use the fucking passive voice…but that’s all the motherfuckers use…even when covering extremely high stakes shit.
You’re confusing neutrality with objectivity.
Edit: Neutral (adjective): not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.
Are you a big enough baby to downvote because you don’t like what words mean? Neutrality and correctness are two different things. Objectivity does factor in what the facts are, neutrality doesn’t.
Perpetuating lies just because one side claims them is neither neutral nor objective!
Agreed. Their motivation is money, and there’s more money in keeping the election a neck & neck horse race, even if one of the horses is rabid, lame, and in every way unfit to run. They’ll downplay his blaring faults, and magnify any tiny fault they can find in his competition, just to keep the race “fair” - for ad revenue.
Too true, also what we call civility politics. I wouldn’t be surprised if corporate backers prefer it that way.
They did the same with Biden until the horrible debate. It’s not a political bias but a bias towards rich politicians.
