House Majority Whip shot at congressional baseball field

[Dill]

(06-15-2017, 02:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I didn't presume anything.  I stated what biased news sources will say, and if the situation were reversed, so would what each one says.  If people start to realize that whatever side they find themselves is no betterthan the other when it comes to this thing, then they will believe it's different when they do it, and they will continue.  I mean look at the contortions made earlier in this thread to blame Trump supporters for this.  Really?

All news sources are to some degree "biased." We don't have any unbiased sources to appeal to, so I value and credit sources according to how well they adhere to journalistic standards, including accuracy, non-partisanship, and logical consistency.

Some US news sources clearly do see themselves as taking a "side" in US politics. They respond to news events the way that campaign staff do when a candidate is running for office, looking to "put out competing narratives" and the like in an accusatory style. As I mentioned to another poster, one such news source is currently giving voice to those who would stoke anger over the recent shooting and then direct that anger against the other side. 

But all US news sources do not and would not do this. They are not merely the "reverse" of openly partisan news sources, even if what they report is bad news for your side.

So I am saying two things here: 1) that if we go by journalistic standards, some news sources are certainly better than others. And 2) because some are better than others, it is inaccurate to say all are equally partisan organs simply reversing charges depending upon which side a shooter appears to take.

This makes me unwilling to say that one side is no better than the other.