Why is the media so biased towards the left?

1. 100

   DrMark1961posted 23 months ago

   I just read a report from a somewhat "independent" news source that told of the plans of the incoming president of Brazil, a socialist. The report states that he is going to start "tax reform" as soon as he enters office. It does not say that he will start tax hikes, which is what he plans on doing, but the page goes on to explain that he will increase taxes on consumer spending and seize assets that anyone manages to save. He has already stated that anyone that inherits from their parents is a parasite (he did this in a podcast) and plans on introducing a 100% tax on inheritance so that any money or other goods will go to the state.
   
   https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ … 022-11-25/
   
   So if you call tax hikes reform, is that accurate? Why do the media do this? They were willing to call out Trump when he passed tax cuts that benefited many of the rich, but when Biden proposes "student loan reform" to benefit people gaining over $100,000 the media says nothing.
   
   I see Joe Biden giving a press conference and he cannot string together a complete answer to a question and most of the media says he is doing fine. I see a senator elect fumble his answers and CNN says he answered the question. Why? I remember a time when the media was hard on everyone, liberal or conservative, but now it seems divided so that they only criticize the right and give the left a pass. 40,000 IRS agents? No comment from the MSM. Why?

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Journalism at one time was a true career. Journalists were known for digging to find facts, and uncover ideas that needed to be uncovered. Note now, they do little research and could care very little about facts. They are clearly biased toward the political party of their choice. Ans will cover any and all to protect their chosen political party.
      
      In my view, we have very few true journalists left.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         gmwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

         Most people have reverted to adolescence which is sad. It used to be that journalists were PROFESSIONAL & OBJECTIVE.  Now they are unprofessional, puerile, & subjective in scope.

         replyreport
         1. 100

            DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

            From what I have seen I have to agree, but I have to wonder why? Was there a change in the way journalism schools taught their cirriculum, or did those professors just start telling their students that it was okay to be biased as long as you agreed with them?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               CHRIS57posted 23 months agoin reply to this

               This matter is always depending on your viewpoint, left or right or whatever.
               
               When i talked to people living through the Soviet times in Warshaw treaty states, i many times heard this statement:
               
               "You from the west never learned how to read between the lines"
               
               In other words, do your own maths, do your own assertions.
               I have the impression that this ability to think on your own is highly at stake in our current world of internet media.
               
               To assess if news content is true or false you can even call up an app to identify how frequently a piece of news is published in left or right leaning media. Where is the use of your own brain?

               replyreport
               1. 100

                  DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  I do not have as issue with using my own brain, but I do worry about those people who accept what used to be a trusted media source without using critical thinking.
                  
                  In the US it is CNN and Fox, two entertainment companies that also present biased news. Fox would not talk about tax cuts for the rich and CNN would not talk about tax hikes, like Reuters they would just call them a reform.
                  
                  Here in Brazil it is getting just as bad. The largest news Channel, Globo, used to criticize both sides of a political issue 20 years ago. The current president cut all of their government funding in an attempt to control government waste so now they are for  opposition. That is not journalism.

                  replyreport
            2. 60

               Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

               It has nothing to do with universities or colleges that teach journalism. It is everything to do with the outlets that hire people to promote a certain image.  I believe there are true investigative journalists out there but they are generally not to be found at certain media outlets as they are simply hiring personalities.  These outlets already have their look and their format and they just plug people in to fill that need.  I suppose those are the people who are willing to compromise their integrity for a paycheck

               replyreport
               1. 100

                  DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  That is unfortunate, both when they are biased to the left and the right. It used to be easy to find an independent source but now no matter where I look I see bias.

                  replyreport
         2. 85

            Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

            So Agree...

            replyreport
         3. 85

            Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

            So true. Journalists of old would do anything for a great story, they put all the effort they could into getting a "scoop".  Now they put all their efforts into burying facts. Go figure.

            replyreport
   2. 80

      Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      So if you call tax hikes reform, is that accurate? Why do the media do this? They were willing to call out Trump when he passed tax cuts that benefited many of the rich, but when Biden proposes "student loan reform" to benefit people gaining over $100,000 the media says nothing
      ----
      Why is it always the rich that receive benefits from tax cut, corporate bailouts and etc. I don't see why middle and working class people can't receive benefits without the Rightwinger virtually having a cow?
      
      The Right sucks as the bogeyman, a position in American politics that is well earned.
      
      There is nothing Biden's stumbles through in his speeches and comments that compare with the nefarious acts of Trump and Republicans. I'll take the former over the latter any day.

      replyreport
      1. 100

         DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

         I know that you prefer Bidens tax inflation to Trumps tax cuts.You have made that clear. What is not clear is why the media is so biased.
         
         They certainly called out Trump for his tax cuts for the rich but do not call out a socialist or Democrat for making tax hikes. I am old enough to remember when news staions covered a liar like Nixon with the same ferocity that they covered a liar like Bill Clinton. (I think if Bill was the president of the US at this time and he said "I did not have sex with that woman" all the journalists on CNN and MSNBC would tell us that he was honest about all of it and should just be left alone to molest the other interns.)

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            Mr. Trump’s tax cuts helped billionaires pay less than the working class for first time history.  Something to be proud of? No, not where I'm from.

            replyreport
            1. 100

               DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

               Did you read somewhere that I said I was proud of his tax cuts? Or do you think that because his tax cuts benefited the rich there is some justification to tax more, like state sales tax that hurt the poor much more than they do the rich?

               replyreport
            2. 81

               GA Andersonposted 23 months agoin reply to this

               Your reasoning seems to refer to the tax rate percentage of the working class. (one of those 'Buffet and his secratary' perspectives) But when I looked, Google threw out all kinds of contradicting numbers. (facts?)
               
               It says that the top 50% of earners pay 97% of all fed. income tax revenue. It also said that the average tax rate for the bottom 50% was 3.5%, versus  the top 1%'s average rate of 25.6%
               
               I'm not vouching for these numbers, they are from  Google's top listing and seemed credible for use as starting points. They're from the Taxfoundation.org
               
               What was the driver of your statement?
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rest … s-the-most
                  
                  It would appear the Trump tax cuts benefited all.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     GA Andersonposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                     I saw such numbers previously. If they are impartially developed it does spike the claim of tax breaks for the rich.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
            3. 85

               Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

               I realize the left media has not truly covered the actual facts in regard to the true benefit many Americans received due to Trump's tax cuts.
               https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/584 … cans-most/
               https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rest … s-the-most
               
               "Income data published by the IRS clearly show that on average all income brackets benefited substantially from the Republicans’ tax reform law, with the biggest beneficiaries being working and middle-income filers, not the top 1 percent, as so many Democrats have argued.
               
               A careful analysis of the IRS tax data, one that includes the effects of tax credits and other reforms to the tax code, shows that filers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $15,000 to $50,000 enjoyed an average tax cut of 16 percent to 26 percent in 2018, the first year Republicans’ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act went into effect and the most recent year for which data is available.
               
               Filers who earned $50,000 to $100,000 received a tax break of about 15 percent to 17 percent, and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 in adjusted gross income saw their personal income taxes cut by around 11 percent to 13 percent.
               
               By comparison, no income group with an AGI of at least $500,000 received an average tax cut exceeding 9 percent, and the average tax cut for brackets starting at $1 million was less than 6 percent. (For more detailed data, see my table published here.)
               
               That means most middle-income and working-class earners enjoyed a tax cut that was at least double the size of tax cuts received by households earning $1 million or more.
               
               What’s more, IRS data shows earners in higher income brackets contributed a bigger slice of the total income tax revenue pie following the passage of the tax reform law than they had in the previous year.
               
               In fact, every income bracket with filers earning $200,000 or more increased its tax burden in 2018 compared to 2017, and every income bracket with a top limit lower than $200,000 paid a smaller proportion of the total personal tax revenue collected.
               
               That means that Republicans’ tax reform law resulted in the tax code becoming slightly more progressive — the exact opposite of what Democrats have claimed over the past four years.
               
               The IRS data further shows that the tax reform law — which included a variety of business tax cuts, including a large reduction in the corporate income tax rate — spurred economic mobility.
               
               Every income bracket with a top level lower than $25,000 experienced a reduction in its number of filers, and every income bracket above $25,000 increased in size, with the biggest gains occurring in the brackets with a floor of at least $100,000.
               
               The fact is, Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law did exactly what was promised: It lowered taxes for all income groups, provided the greatest benefits for middle-income households, and spurred economic growth that helped reduce poverty and improve prosperity.'

               replyreport
         2. 80

            Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

            There is plenty of right wing oriented media outlets that is making a point of Biden's "socialism". With Rightwingers stacking the courts here, I would be surprised if he is actually able to carry through on this program.
            
            Conservatives also complain about higher education bias. It may well be that young people on a journey of discovery don't take to well to reactionaries and their attitudes.
            
            I seem to remember Bill getting castigated over all of this intern stuff, he received no mercy from the press and was consequently impeached

            replyreport
            1. 100

               DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

               Yes, that is the point. Bill Clinton was castigated over the intern stuff. In todays clima, where the media is so biased, I find that unlikely.
               
               Yes, there is a bias in higher education. That is okay for most people since youth are usually liberal until they grow up and realize that the left stands for government interference and excessive taxation. The problem that most conservatives complain about is those professors and university officials that do not allow someone to have an opposing view. If a student wants to be conservative it will probably affect his social life; being conservative should not affect their academic life too but too often it does.
               
               The courts have nothing to do with my original question.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  "The problem that most conservatives complain about is those professors and university officials that do not allow someone to have an opposing view. "
                  
                  I'll use President Biden's words on this, pure malarkey.  In my own experience, college professors love nothing more than a spirited debate. I think these ideas promoted lately that those in the field of Education are somehow trying to indoctrinate everyone is bizarre. Educators are as widely diverse as the general population.

                  replyreport
                  1. 100

                     DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                     I saw a news story this morning about a conservative college professor here that told two of her students that she would no longer be their advisor since they had voted for the Socialist for president. (We had elections here in October and the socialist won.)
                     
                     That does happen all the time. It is certainly not malarkey. This time it was reported because the professor was a conservative. Do you have any idea on how often it is not reported? University administrations are certainly NOT as diverse as the general population, and if you speak your voice you are going to get cancelled.

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                        University administrations are certainly NOT as diverse as the general population,
                        -------
                        That is generally true because well educated people more often lean left in their views.

                        replyreport
                        1. 100

                           DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                           Point taken. I do not know how someone like Faye has not noticed this. The Dems have not alienated that portion of the population as most of them follow woke theory.

                           replyreport
               2. 80

                  Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  I don't necessarily see that the Right is being picked on by the press beyond what they brought upon themselves. There has been incredible leniency toward the right, frustrating,  when you think of the magnitude of what Trump and his henchmen attempted on January 6, 2021.
                  
                  I grew up and realized that in the larger scheme of have and have nots,  capitalists and corporatists will do anything to keep their power and wealth with everyone else under foot. I have become more cynical and ever more convinced of this with age, not less. I was far more regimented and convinced of the correctness of society when I was younger, naive and believed based on hope without questioning or delving into what is actually underlying.
                  
                  A college age Rightwinger will always come off as a geek in progressive circles, they get nervous and want to shoot people because no one would be caught dead wanting to take them out for a date. HA.....

                  replyreport
                  1. 100

                     DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                     College age leftists come off as baby terrorists spoiled by their parents money when they mix with more conservative students. Some of them are willing to take a Molotov cocktail and destroy a police car or set fire to a public building. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing . Neither does saying that some conservative student that shoots someone is doing so because he cannot get a date. Get real, you are really reaching here.
                     
                     Concerning your first issue, you did not notice that the media gave the Portland and Seattle rioters a free pass?

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                        Well, Doc, I continue to be amazed with the capacity conservatives have for spinning bullshyte into caviar.
                        
                        This is where I stand on your last question
                        
                        https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor … denounced/
                        
                        Riots are not new, but looking at the magnitude and cause cannot help but to affect my point of view. Riots and protests are as old as the Republic itself. But in all of those riots, January 6th was the first where the heart and machinery of the democratic process in America were attacked. It got greater press attention and its participants were subject to greater condemnation because they deserved it.
                        
                        The fact that established middle aged whites were behaving like the "college age leftists" made them all the more culpable.

                        replyreport
                        1. 100

                           DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                           I got a nice laugh out of your comment, but from my perspective that is what the woke culture is doing! Oh well, I guess it is all about perspective.
                           
                           Are you saying middle age white guys have less of a right to protest than college age leftists? That makes about as much sense as Biden saying "vote for my party or you do not believe in democracy".

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                              I am glad for your sense of humor and you may well be right about "perspective".
                              
                              Everyone has the right to peaceful protest. In your comment about college age leftists, the emphasis on "college" would lead one to think about their youth, immaturity and relative inexperience. I would have expected more than "Animal House" behavior by established and older members of the community, regardless of color.
                              
                              It is not about Party more than it is about a solemn promise from both sides not to assualt the referee. That arrangement was broken on January 6, 2021, in a way that has never occurred before.
                              
                              The attackers on Jaunuary 6th were predominantly white people.

                              replyreport
2. 91

   Nathanvilleposted 23 months ago

   We haven’t got to that situation in Britain yet, thank goodness, and I hope we don’t; and reassuringly we’re not likely to.
   
   There is a distinct difference between the British media broadcasted on TV & Radio in Britain and the Press (British newspapers published in paper form and published on-line).  The difference being that the Media on TV is heavily ‘Regulated’ to better ensure ‘balanced, unbiased, and neutral’ reporting; while the British newspapers still enjoy under British Law ‘Freedom of the Press’.
   
   As regards British newspapers, they generally fall into two categories; those that still follow the principle of true ‘journalism’, and who do pride themselves in ‘fact checking’ as referenced by Sharlee above, and those who don’t.
   
   In the category of British newspapers that “do little research and care very little about the facts” there are:-
   
   •    The Mail - who are renowned for relishing in fake news.
   
   •    The Sun – a right-wing newspaper whose target audience is the lower working class, and who rely heavily on political propaganda.
   
   •    The Mirror - a left-wing newspaper whose target audience is the lower working class, and who rely heavily on political propaganda.
   
   
   Of the ‘Quality Press’ in Britain, who pride themselves in fact-checking, and true journalism, are:-
   
   •    The Guardian – a left-wing newspaper whose target audience is the middle-class.
   
   •    The Independent – who prides itself on being politically independent, and whose target audience is the middle-class.
   
   •    The Financial Times – a right-wing newspaper whose target audience is the middle-class.
   
   •    The Telegraph (nicknamed the Tory Graph by left-wingers) – a right-wing newspaper whose target audience is the middle-class.

   replyreport
3. 92

   peeplesposted 23 months ago

   I think this has just as much to do with the people listening as it does with those journalists. Everyone hears (interprets) what they want. This country is so divided and against each other at this point we are are all looking for someone on the other side to hate, complain about, or disagree with. I find it best to listen and then research on my own.
   
   P.S. $125K was the max income for student loan forgiveness. I am not sure that is comparable to giving tax breaks to rich people. 125k is almost poor in some places, especially where I live where housing (rent for a 2 bedroom) is 35K a year alone. See how this perception thing weighs in to the topic?

   replyreport
   1. 100

      DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      It does not have to do with interpretation. I wish it was that way, but that has not been the case in many years. The media is biased, either hard left (like CNN and MSNBC) or hard right (like Fox).
      
      Taking the money away from the working class to excuse people who make over a $100,000 a year is not acceptable. If he was just excusing people who got out of college and were earning minimum wage salaries it would be a lot harder for anyone to disagree with this. It was not set up to help those who work though.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         peeplesposted 23 months agoin reply to this

         You sort of just proved my point. I never said that media wasn't biased. I'm saying the listeners are just as biased. They could state facts and those on the opposite side would still not like it or believe it.
         
         As for the interpretation, you really proved my point. NO ONE where I live makes minimum wage. Literally. Not figuratively. However 100,000 a year in the city I live in has the same spending value as $13 an hour where I moved from where minimum wage was common and housing costs were cheap.
         
         So blanketly implying that someone who makes $100K isn't living like minimum wage is ignoring facts for your own opinion and skewed version of reality. 6.1 million of the working age population is unemployed. 45 million people have student loan debt. YOUR bias is showing by ignoring the fact that this was in fact set up for those that work. You've been brainwashed by the same biased media you're complaining about. Is that irony? No I think that may be hypocritical.

         replyreport
         1. 100

            DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

            No one? What are you basing this on? Do you even have any idea what fast food workers are making where you live? As far as I know there is nowhere where some people do not make a low wage, but if you can prove otherwise I would like to hear it.
            
            No, I am not biased but I do not care for that program. I worked to put myself through college but remember well those people that took out loans so that they could go on spring break in Daytona while other of us worked. Maybe you think that NO ONE does that?
            
            What does being unemployed have to do with people that are earning over $100,000 a year. Are you just typing in numbers to try to divert attention from the real issue?
            
            My original question is still there. Since you are accepting what they tell you and do not believe that the media is biased it kind of proves a point.

            replyreport
            1. 92

               peeplesposted 23 months agoin reply to this

               Let me say, there is not a person on this planet who is not biased about something. However I have opinions I am willing to change based on facts.
               
               You say what do those numbers have to do with each other. You said "It was not set up to help those who work though.". Those numbers prove it is. Do the math. 45 million is more than 6 million, therefore this IS helping people who are working.
               
               Also, yes, I do know how much fast food workers make where I live. I am very involved in social issues where I live. NO ONE can afford to live in the Florida Keys on minimum wage. Not one place pays it. Mcdonalds starts at $16 an hour for kids. My son makes $17 an hour to do expo in a restaurant at 16 years old. Even servers don't get the normal $2.13 an hour. They love kids because they know they don't have bills yet and can pay them a lower wage because they don't have to pay to live here. However they still start them above minimum.
               
               I am also in real estate. Rent on a singlewide old trailer starts at $2500 a month here. How would people live in a place with rent that starts at $30K a year at minimum wage? It's basic math. Even the people paying to live on boats are paying minimum $1800 a month.
               
               But lets communicate about something you probably haven't considered. Do you have any idea how many foster children are forced into getting student loans? I was under 18 living in a children's group home when I was told I had to go enroll in college or get all my privileges taken. They took me, made me sign papers under those threats. Threatened to tell my caseworker I wasn't complying. Have you ever thought about the fact that you worked through college isn't what everyone else can do? This shows your bias based on YOUR life. And it shows mine based on my life.
               
               Again, this proves that we are interpreting the information given the way we want no matter who we are listening to. Have a great afternoon. I'm going to spend some time with my children. By the way, it's nice to see you still around after all these years. It's nice to see some of the older HP people even if we don't always agree.

               replyreport
               1. 100

                  DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I had not thought about the keys. (I thought you were in North Carolina.) I do not think that is representative of the situation in most places but there are probably pockets like that, for example San Francisco and Seattle.
                  
                  I also do not think the number of people that were forced to attend college like your situation are enough to justify the loan forgiveness. It is still a loan, which is something you pay back. Again, this is my bias but if I was in college at the moment I would probably be saying "why pay this back when the next government is probably going to forgive this loan?"
                  
                  I really miss the question section of Hubpages, which I remember you being an active part of. I have a Q and A column on Pethelpful to help those looking for veterinary advice but what I liked about the old section was that there were answers from a lot of different people, which gave us viewpoints that we do not normally hear. Even if we do not agree, it is nice to hear other experiences and viewpoints, which is why I enjoy lurking at this side of the forums.

                  replyreport
4. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 23 months ago

   It's not. It just doesn't confirm opinions some hold.

   replyreport
5. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 23 months ago

   "Starting in the late 1970s, political violence shifted rightward with the rise of white supremacist, anti-abortion, and militia groups." The Journal of Democracy October 2021

   replyreport