I can’t help it that the attack vectors used by the media to push agendas are themselves vague and non-specific. It’s not like any given piece of news that gets

I can’t help it that the attack vectors used by the media to push agendas are themselves vague and non-specific. It’s not like any given piece of news that gets published is outright false. On the small scale, the bias is in the framing of stories. Flaky evidence in stories that serve the agenda are glossed over. In stories that go against the agenda, nits get picked and then used to attack the main idea even if the nits are really inconsequential. On the large scale there is editorializing. Spotlighting certain types of stories. And forgetting and quickly moving past others. I have some specific examples in mind, but it would be completely pointless for me to list them or argue about them like you seem to want to. I’ve already argued each one to death as it came to light and have heard all sides of the arguments. That is a complete misdirection from my point of view. This is “systematic bias” in the media in much the same way that there is “systematic racism” in the world. It’s hard to pinpoint specific instances of it, but we know that it’s there because you see it in the aggregate statistics. And in fact, a common tactic used by people who deny systemic racism is to try to move the discussion away from the big picture and nitpick localized specifics to death.