3 ms·
My perspective is that they're basically the same, The NY Times (and CNN and Fox and many others) are just a lot more subtle about it than Breitbart. But fundam
by jsmith0295 10y ago
My perspective is that they're basically the same, The NY Times (and CNN and Fox and many others) are just a lot more subtle about it than Breitbart. But fundamentally it's the same thing. There's a pre-established narrative, and they find a way to make everything fit it. If there's something that contradicts it directly they don't even report on it.
- dhimes 10y agoI see it differently. I was around when Bill Clinton was under siege. The "Left Wing" papers (WaPo, for example, was my local) turned on him just like the right wing outlets did. Some sites don't do this. When it became clear that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was misguided, the propaganda sites did not jump on board. When Rumsfeld finally admitted we weren't going to find weapons of mass destruction the right-biased sites changed the narrative and started trying to make other stories dominate the news cycle. It happens on the left as well (watch some of the MSNBC shows). That's the difference. It shows up in the willingness to criticize your own team.
- matwood 10y agoI agree. Sensationalizing news stories has been going on since news was a thing. Each organization picks what they think is important and then makes it as exciting to their readers as they can. My wife is a news junkie. She actually watches CSPAN along with all of the news channels. Sometimes I catch the same story from a few different places, and it is clear they ALL apply their own bias. For a current example, Fox tries to pluck out emails from the leak that show some wrong doing and MSNBC has a story about a leaked email sharing a risotto secret.