Social Question

seawulf575's avatar

Does the coverage of the Keith Ellison case show bias in the media?

Asked by seawulf575 (5737points) 3 weeks ago

While discussing the Kavanaugh case recently, I mentioned the Keith Ellison case. Several of the jellies (4 I think) say they had never heard of it. A sitting representative physically assaulting his girlfriend in front of her son with video evidence and they had never heard of it. Does this show how biased the liberal media is to suppress such a story, especially given the width and breadth of their coverage of Kavanaugh?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

116 Answers

notnotnotnot's avatar

Yes. Because Ellison has also been nominated for a lifelong position on the supreme court, and there are currently hearings on this nomination.

Are you serious? Who the hell hasn’t heard of Ellison and these accusations? They’re going to bring him down, just like all of these guys that have been brought down by people revealing that they are a piece of shit. We need to investigate these allegations just like Kavanaugh.

* And yes, there is bias in the media – most of which doesn’t work the way you think it does.

ragingloli's avatar

1. Being a wife beater is not the same as being a child rapist.
2. He is not running for judge on the supreme court, where he is going to ruin the lives of everyone else.
If anything, it shows your bias. Again.

seawulf575's avatar

@notnotnotnot as I stated, at least 4 of the jellies I was chatting with had never heard of the Ellison case until I brought it up. I can give you names if you like, but it isn’t really necessary. I was absolutely astounded, as you seem to be, that someone could not have heard about it. And the jellies who hadn’t heard of it seemed to be up on most current events. That is why I am asking this.
But to put it into perspective, compare the Ellison case to the Roy Moore case. That was all you heard about for months right up until he lost his bid for election to congress. That wasn’t a lifelong position, but it certainly was front and center at most news outlets. But with Ellison, you have a sitting congressman that is behaving badly and it is mostly crickets for coverage.

seawulf575's avatar

@ragingloli let me address your statements:
1. Kavanaugh is not being accused of rape, nor does the accusers story bear out that moniker. You are either highly uniformed or making hysterical jumps in reasoning. Might want to get that under control. Also, hundreds of women die every year from spousal abuse or battery by a significant other. While you are correct that wife beating is not the same as being a child rapist, your values are showing big time. You are downplaying the battery of women and are grossly inflating the accusations against Kavanaugh.
2. This answer seems to imply that a crime by political figures should be addressed only by what impact you see they might have. Huh. That seems to show your bias. Ellison is already in a position to impact everyone. But hey, don’t let that stop you…I know the liberal ideology has to override everything else. How about this: Both are accused of violent crimes against women and both are big public figures. My take is that there ought to be just as much outrage against both. We aren’t seeing that in the media. As I pointed out to @notnotnotnot, the Roy Moore case was splashed on every news outlet around for months and he wasn’t nominated to a SCOTUS position…he was running for Congress…a position like what Ellison already holds. Yet the coverage for Ellison is very weak at best. Does that make any difference to you? Probably not…still the liberal ideology holds sway. Sorry for you.

notsoblond's avatar

Forgive me for being busy irl and not knowing about every physical and sexual assault done by every important man in this country. If I had time to sit on my ass and scour the news all day I might be more aware.

Kavanaugh’s possible position outweighs Ellison’s importance. The little time I have to read or watch news is dominated with the Kavanaugh story.

There, I outed myself. I didn’t know about Ellison. I need to get back to real life now. Please keep me updated about all the abusers. There’s millions of them.

mazingerz88's avatar

What about the lack of coverage of trump’s accusers and the cases filed against him? Why not ask about that along with the supposed media bias on Ellison’s?

This is about the SC the media and most of the people are focusing on right now.

( attention which Republicans would rather not have but this is the Supreme Court we are talking about. Not just important. Critical. )

What would be the purpose of covering and magnifying Ellison’s case at these exact moments?

Ellison would get his just desserts. Just like how the Dems dealt with Franken.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The flaw in the assertion of media bias lies in the assumption that the 3 individuals are equally “newsworthy”. Both Kavanaugh and Moore were already at celebrity status and on the front pages of national publications prior to the allegations of scandal. Ellison is an obscure Congressman from Minnesota, though it’s a good bet that everyone in Minnesota was well aware and amply informed of his alleged transgressions, the crossover to national headlines is understandably slower. It isn’t as though the right wing mouthpieces like FOX or the New York Post dilligently exposed the Ellison scandal while the MSM ignored it.

seawulf575's avatar

In my view, whenever we have a high profile individual, especially one of our legislators or judges involved with abuse of women (or men), it should be newsworthy. It should be highlighted for the whole world to see. My question isn’t about if Kavanaugh’s accusers should be heard or not, it is about whether we should hold these people accountable.
As for the deflections of whether the stories are equally newsworthy, that doesn’t wash. Ellison’s accuser went public a whole month before Kavanaugh’s. Yet so many didn’t hear about it. Also, the arguments about newsworthiness require the belief that news agencies can only deal with one big story at a time. Addressing these two particular stories one after the other would be a natural flow of news…yet it doesn’t happen. There was no problem addressing Hurricane Florence and the Kavanaugh story in the same newscast.
This question isn’t a Dem/Repub debate. It isn’t a support for Kavanaugh or an attack against Ellison. It is about the media in this country not reporting accurately and completely. It is about “news” being used as propaganda.

mazingerz88's avatar

What about the conservative media like Fox?

Are they covering and exposing guys at the level you deem it necessary for the liberal media
to do?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

US news is getting bad at being extremely propaganda, and pushing that for ratings and support for what political banner they fly.

Sad the States have come to this.
Not saying the rest of the world does it as well,but nothing compared to the US.

seawulf575's avatar

@mazingerz88 I am in wholehearted agreement that there is bias in conservative outlets. This is a major thing. Bias in the media defeats their real benefit to our country. They become propaganda outlets. But no one ever seems to be willing to admit to the liberal bias.

mazingerz88's avatar

Bias in the liberal media is exposing the evils of trump and his deplorable supporters. Bias in the conservative media is portraying evil as good.

There’s good and evil biases. I really think the conservative media bias is simply evil.

The WH would hire all of FOX news pundits and hosts if it can. If that’s not evil and not a mockery of democracy in this day and age I don’t know what is.

stanleybmanly's avatar

No the fundamental flaw with the news isn’t about bias. The news might well be propaganda. With outlets like FOX or MSNBC, the propaganda is not even barely disguised. But the real problem is the corporate decision that the news must generate a profit like any other business. Once that decision is put in place, such factors as ratings and sensationalism will determine what we are told. Now in view of this, certainly the hurricanes will be covered, but if the choice is between charges against Kavanaugh or Ellison?

flutherother's avatar

It doesn’t show bias in the media. The Ellison case was not reported as prominently as the Kavanaugh story because the implications of the Kavanaugh case, unlike Ellison, will have a huge impact on American public life for decades to come.

seawulf575's avatar

@mazingerz88 and most conservatives would agree with you except they would see the liberal bias as evil. Imagine for a moment…what if the media wasn’t biased? What if it actually reported news fairly and honestly, instead of blasting opinion out and slanting stories? Then you wouldn’t have to worry about which news you are getting…liberal or conservative. It would all be the same and we, the public, would get the truth.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly I truly believe you are right, at least partially. News has become profit grabbing and bogus entertainment instead of the Fourth Estate to help keep our government honest. And at this point, Kavanaugh is indeed one of the stories of the day. But as I mentioned in the original question, there were people that hadn’t even heard of the Ellison issue. This should have been big news the month before Kavanaugh, but wasn’t. So how can a case of a sitting congressman and deputy DNC Chairman not be aired and discussed with the same rigor as Kavanaugh or even Moore or Weinstein or any of them? The only answer is that the MSM is biased and is covering it up.

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother Yet the Ellison case is a huge deal, or should be. The Roy Moore case was covered 24/7 until he lost his bid for congress. That was not an election that would have impacted American public life for decades to come. AND, Ellison happened a whole month before the Kavanaugh accusations. Yet it was not covered.

mazingerz88's avatar

In a perfect world media in the US would be bias free delivering more news, less opinion, zero propaganda.

But even determining who or what started excessive over the top punditry which led to big money for news corp. would be useless.

Best way to counter the effect of media bias and propaganda is to have better rational brains for watchers.

Conservative media bias and liberal media bias right now are not the same thing.

Conservative media supporting trump and his evil minions is not normal. If it’s the other way around and liberal media keeps propping trump up, won’t hesitate to label liberal media as evil.

seawulf575's avatar

@mazingerz88 trying to determine which bias is worse is equally useless. Liberals are going to say conservative bias is worse because it supports Trump and it views his “minions” as evil. Conservatives view liberal bias as worse because it refuses to look at the wrongdoing of Dems. There is truth in both those views, but trying to decide which is worse is really a matter of opinion, not a verifiable fact.

Demosthenes's avatar

Yes, I do think the media is ignoring the Ellison story. It is understandable why Kavanaugh is bigger news, but then there’s no reason why the Ellison story shouldn’t have been at least as big as Al Franken. Yet there’s almost nothing about it. You can’t pick and choose with ”#metoo” stories you want to hear. You either listen to all the women or none of them (before making a judgment).

stanleybmanly's avatar

Ellison’s turn in the spotlight is coming. Franken’s fall occurred after Moore primarily because Moore was on the celebrity A list. As with Kavanaugh, Moore was center stage in everyone’s news cycle, when the revelations erupted. Of course the news is going to fixate on him, because. HE is the news that sell the papers. Sure there’s bias. But the bias isn’t left/right. I could pinch women on the behind for weeks, and I guarantee you no liberal or conservative news outlet will issue the glaring headline “stanley B manly implicated in massive butt pinching scandal.”

Brian1946's avatar

@stanleybmanly

“stanley B manly implicated in massive butt pinching scandal.”

LMAO!

I also like to pinch massive butts. ;-)

stanleybmanly's avatar

We should both be investigated. But if we aren’t, the only logical explanation is media bias.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

A bet a call to Fox and they would be all over it.^^^^

Brian1946's avatar

Now that I’ve laffed my ass off, this chair isn’t nearly ass comfortable ass it used to be.

MrGrimm888's avatar

The timing of this accusation, is ridiculous. Regardless of whether it is true. IMO, these cases do extreme damage to the issue of sexual assault. This stinks of crying wolf, and/or false/manufactured evidence…

I will lend the “victim,” validity but sadly, the timing is just terrible… The Moore crap, shows Trumpers don’t give a FUCK about ethics anyways.

With all due respect to any assault victims, waiting until their assailant’s are a SCOTUS nominee, is TOO late, to go after your predator…..

Conservatives/Trumpers, won’t give a shit. They have proven that they have ZERO problems with backing awful candidates, if it furthers their agenda. They have proven that their ethics, are as thin as their skin. They cry about being called on their behavior, while displaying their bigotry like a Peacock’s tail. Cowards. Bigots. Trumpers…

Then you have the Dems, who cannot compete with the worst people in our country. Well that’s just great…..

MrGrimm888's avatar

After further thoughts. No.

I mean, if it’s true, what media wouldn’t cover it?

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 so your belief is that because the media isn’t covering Ellison, there is no bias?

stanleybmanly's avatar

But he is being covered, and it will probably do him in. The coverage is neither as heavy nor intense as that on Kavanaugh, and that makes perfect sense from a marketing perspective.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly face it…any coverage of Ellison is cursory. If you see anything about it at all on the MSM it is only so they can say they cover it. I grant it is a month old, but it was never covered anywhere near as heavy or intense as any conservative scandal. Roy Moore was 24/7 coverage and he was running for office…wasn’t actually in congress. And Ellison had a whole month of coverage time before any accusations were made against Kavanaugh. AND he has two accusers. I’m sorry, but there really is no excuse. It is a good story and would make for great news. But it isn’t and never has been.

stanleybmanly's avatar

So are you predicting that Ellison’s transgressions will be ignored and allowed to fade by the msm. You don’t believe that coverage at least from the right MUST intensify? Was Al Franken spared by the MSM? Is Bill Cosby getting a pass? My bet is that Ellison will be in the spotlight and the heat will be intense. Following your own logic on bias, do you suppose that FOX will let him off the hook? Kavanaugh/Ford mightb confine Ellison from the front pages or top of the news hour, but some investigative journalist from a reputable rag like the Atlantic or Rolling Stone will emerge with an in depth analysis of the Ellison story, and the story will ignite.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And again I emphasize that the Ellison coverage may seem cursory as Kavanaugh sucks up all the oxygen. But you can bet your socks that the story is not on the back pages of the press and news broadcasts in his district. THAT is where I would prefer the attention, and that is the one place where the story is unlikely to be subsumed in the daily foolishness from Trump. Believe me, you will
hear more about Ellison. Depend on it.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@seawulf575 would you be this up in arms if Ellison was a Rep/con?
More than just bias it’s sensationalism for ratings and he isn’t worth the effort right now, but don’t worry after the Kavanaugh/Ford issue gets resolved at least Fox will get their hooks in Ellison and never let go.

Would you have even have asked this question if Ellison was a Rep/con?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Your statement tells me that you believe the media is biased. You ask “You don’t believe that coverage at least from the right MUST intensify?” That is exactly the point of this question. If the media wasn’t biased, you wouldn’t be trying to separate from right or left. And you continue to drone on about how Kavanaugh is sucking up all the air time. What about the month before Kavanaugh was accused? Why wasn’t Ellison being covered just as hard? Remember all the publicity around Weinstein? Remember Roy Moore? Yet Ellison was a blip. So little coverage that no less than 4 jellies had never heard of it. I’m willing to bet if you asked them about Weinstein or Moore, they could tell you all the dirt on those. And those aren’t both conservatives. Stormy Daniels got much more coverage and she claimed to have had consensual sex with Trump. Ellison has been accused of beating not one, but two women. You know the coverage has been small because they don’t want to air his dirty laundry because he is a Dem leader.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Ellison’s actions, if true, are horrendous. If all things were reversed…the media bias was conservative instead of liberal, and Ellison were a Repub/conservative, I would say the same thing. You should know by now that I am an equal opportunity voice. I’m not even suggesting that Ellison should resign or anything like that. Unless he were found to have actually done the things of which he is accused, then he should. He should be jailed for assault. But that isn’t my goal. AND, I fully support him having a fair trial before convicting him. If you notice, that too is one of my signatures…I respect the law. But on this question my target is the media. The point is that the media bias is blatant and damaging to our country. It is propaganda designed to mold public opinion. And as you can see by the jellies on here, it works.

mazingerz88's avatar

I think the OP would be satisfied if people simply admit liberal media is as biased if not more compared to conservative media.

I don’t think biases with the intent to counter evil is evil in itself.

flutherother's avatar

I think being biased against evil is probably OK.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And let’s not neglect the utility in labeling resistance to knucklehead ideas as bias.

mazingerz88's avatar

There is a fight over the soul of America right now and one can long for rules and individual sense of fairness but the odds are you will lose the fight. That’s the reality right now.

When trumpers started cheering and licking trump’s butt every time he fed them his own crap, it turned into a cultist orgy of political deviants. trump and his lickers are sustaining, feeding each other’s dark sides.

seawulf575's avatar

@mazingerz88 and @flutherother I guess it depends on whose definition of evil. As I mentioned earlier, evil is in the eye of the beholder. By your rationale, it should be okay to put out propaganda against liberalism, if you are a conservative. You still don’t see that ALL propaganda is evil. It is the tactic of dictators. It is what Goebbels did for Hitler. It is what Stalin used it to justify killing millions. Communist China used it to gain power and still uses it today. In fact, pick an evil dictator and you will see one of his tools is propaganda. Generally in the form of control of the media.

mazingerz88's avatar

Yup evil is what we think it is. We can only do our best to fight it at ANY cost.

I see trump as employing the tactics of evil hitler in order to push his own vain evil agendas.

If conservatives don’t see trump as evil and what a pretentious and pathetic strongman wannabe he is…I would call that kind of ignorance and stupidity evil as well.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And the first thing you want to do to gain control or elimination of the media is to accuse it of rampant bias.

notsoblond's avatar

I’m with @Mazinger. If you are blind to Trump’s evilness you are an idiot.

seawulf575's avatar

You are all hopeless. You are sheep. Willing to believe whatever the propaganda tells you instead of questioning it.

mazingerz88's avatar

No. If Heaven and Hell both deploy propaganda we would know which propaganda is coming from where.

trump seems to be talking to Fox pundits almost every night if not every night. IF that is true, this insanity is just beyond.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Martin Niemöller

History lesson: If you see something, say something.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@seawulf575 You I think are trying to say the propaganda as you see it,leans way more left than right?
Hence why leave Ellison out, and go full bore on Kavanaugh ?
Both should without a doubt answer for their crimes.
But for the news propaganda machines it is what is sensationalism and gets the views,thus making them the most money.
I would like to believe you that you would be just as up in arms if Ellison was a Rep/con, but I do have my doubts.

notsoblond's avatar

@seawulf575 I made my judgement by listening and reading Trump’s words and actions. He’s an idiot. If you support him then you are an idiot as well.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@notsoblondanymore While @seawulf575 ‘s ideas are very right, I doubt he supports Trump.
Trump is very much an idiot, while @seawulf575 is a grumpy right winger he isn’t a stupid right winger.

janbb's avatar

Just saw an article about the Ellison accusations in the Huffington Post.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 I think there are more news outlets that lean left than right, that is true. I don’t go for propaganda from either side, though. And if news outlets were broadcasting Kavanaugh for the ratings, I get that. But as I said, Ellison happened a whole month before Kavanaugh, yet the coverage was weak at best. At least from the liberal propagandists. So if it was just ratings, why wouldn’t they go full tilt against Ellison when it first came out? Why wasn’t it big news? There is a far better case against Ellison than there is against Kavanaugh as well. The only answer to that is that the leftist media didn’t want to cover it for some reason. It would have been a great ratings grabber and it was newsworthy, but they passed. The only obvious answer is that they were protecting him. Is that really what we should expect from our news media?

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie wise words. So why do you protect media outlets that don’t say something when they see it?

seawulf575's avatar

@notsoblondanymore your answer is typical liberal dodge. the question wasn’t about what your views of President Trump are, it was about media bias. Funny that your answer had absolutely nothing to do with that. Thanks for contributing, I guess.

seawulf575's avatar

@janbb Great! And how often have you seen those? It has been going on for a whole month. AND…what was the tone of the article? Was it just reporting on the story as it should be or was there deflection and justification thrown in? Remember, with Kavanaugh all we have is an accusation without a stitch of evidence, no witnesses confirming the account, and a whole lot of people denying it, yet it is huge news in the liberal outlets. I’d be willing to bet you saw more than one article on Huffington Post about it. Meanwhile, Ellison has two accusers that claim to have evidence including video recordings and there is not a whole lot being written about it in the liberal outlets. THAT is what I’m talking about.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 I don’t know if grumpy is a fair description. I prefer cantankerous.

notsoblond's avatar

@seawulf You accused us of drinking koolaide. I told you I don’t need the media to make a decision about Trump. I base my reasoning on his actions and words.

“You are all hopeless. You are sheep. Willing to believe whatever the propaganda tells you instead of questioning it.”

^Your words. I responded to them. You can fuck off now.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@seawulf575 Explain the difference between Grumpy and cantankerous,PLEASE.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 Once again, I believe the flaw in your conclusions is generated from the individuals chosen for comparison. The ranking of Kavanaugh and Moore with Ellison is not exactly a celebrity match. And to bolster that proposition, I will once again offer up the rapid dispatch of Al Franken or Bill Cosby to illustrate my point. The difference in coverage that sets Ellison apart from the other 4 is that he, unlike the others was without celebrity status and not already center stage when his scandal broke. Ellison is rapidly on his way to that status and coverage of him will quickly mount, and when he is page one news, I will offer his arrival on that page as proof of the supposition.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Probably not much difference except in connotations in my mind. Grumpy tends to be more sullen and down where as cantankerous is more difficult to get along with. At least in my mind.

seawulf575's avatar

@notsoblondanymore once again you are missing the point of this question however you are batting 1.000 for attacks on Trump and personal shots at me. Carry on Blondie.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly you are continuing to try putting the importance of Kavanaugh as the reason for the media bias. Let’s put it back to an apples-to-apples comparison if you like since you can’t seem to comprehend that Ellison has had next to no coverage even in the month before the Kavanaugh accusations came out. Take three cases: Roy Moore…running for a senate seat…not in power, Al Franken…a sitting Senator, and Keith Ellison who is a sitting representative, the deputy chair of the DNC and is running for Minnesota Attorney General. Which of these got the most press? Roy Moore. He was 24/7 from the time of his first accuser until he lost his bid for election. He was also a Conservative. Who got the next most coverage? Al Franken. Why? Because his case came out while all the hubbub was going on about Moore. The right asked the question…and continued to push it…why all the focus on Moore when you have Franken doing similar things and has an accuser and nothing was happening to him. The media, if you remember, tried playing off his indiscretions as jokes. You, yourself parrotted those sentiments. In the end, more and more women came forward against him and he finally had to resign. Then we come to Ellison. He is a Democratic up-and-comer. He is a sitting representative. He is the Deputy chair of the DNC and at one time was in the running to be the chair. He was what they wanted as the face of the DNC. He also has two exes that have come out and described in detail, with text messages, witnesses, and video how he physically and verbally abused them long term. The media coverage was miniscule to the point that 4 of our jellies hadn’t heard a word about it in a month until I mentioned it. Then they only heard about it because they went looking for the story. Did you hear about it as much as you heard about Moore? No. Did you hear about it even as much as you heard about Franken? No. You have to go looking for the story. Why? Is physical and emotional abuse of women not important if the perpetrator is a Dem? Do we ignore it like we did with all the accusations against Bill Clinton? Apparently that is exactly what the liberal media wants to do. So now you can compare 3 cases that don’t include Kavanaugh. And there is no other explanation for the lack of coverage other than media bias. Want another angle? Okay…let’s look at the accusations leveled at all these individuals. Not from the heinous aspect of the accusation, but from the details and proof. Moore had 30+ year old accusations for which there was no physical proof, nor eyewitness accounts. In fact there was testimony that some of the stories weren’t true. Then we have Franken. Franken had a photograph of him acting badly that supports the story of his accuser. Then we have Ellison. There are two accusers that have similar stories. There are witnesses. There is video evidence. One of these accusations is only a year old. Then we come to Kavanaugh. There are two accusers. One from 35 years ago and the other from 30+ years ago. Neither one has a really good story. Both claim they can’t really specify where they were (whose house for example) nor can they even give a date or even a year. None of the people that have been identified as witnesses can confirm anything. One of the accusers even said she wasn’t sure that Kavanaugh was even present. So we have two liberals and two conservatives being accused of bad behavior. In the conservative cases, the evidence is weak, unsubstantiated and decades old. In the liberal cases the cases are recent with solid evidence and even corroborating witnesses. So which should be more viable as actual news? The accusations against the liberals. Which gets the most air time on liberal news outlets? Why the conservative cases, of course. Sorry boss, there is a significant bias in the liberal news media. There is also bias on the right, but the left really works it hard as propaganda.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Moore was at the top of the headlines continuously months before the accusations of him chasing teenagers. He was hot button news and controversial as a Senatorial candidate after being thrown off the Federal bench for defying the Federal ruling outlawing the display of the Ten Commandments in Federal courtrooms. There was a furor in the Senate over the legitimacy of Moore’s candidacy, and plans were afoot to hold hearings on his legitimacy in the event of his election. It was in THIS atmosphere that the teenage skirt chasing charges arose that finally destroyed his political ambitions.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It isn’t left wing bias that garners conservatives more negative coverage. Face it. The left has NOTHING to compare with either Moore or Trump. The left has no need to “work” any propaganda. The plain TRUTH around Moore or Trump is so sensationally bizarre, that no embroidery is required.

seawulf575's avatar

And yet they ignore Ellison who is accused, with a fair amount of evidence, of beating women. There is more evidence against him doing that than there was ever surrounding Trump and Russia. Sorry buddy, trying to say Moore or Trump make it easy to make propaganda doesn’t address Ellison and really doesn’t address Kavanaugh. It is all liberal bias.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I was wrong about Moore being thrown off the Federal bench. He was removed from his position as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court by the state’s judicial commission.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Do you actually believe that the reason Kavanaugh is all over the news while Ellison remains relatively obscure is the work of liberal bias?

seawulf575's avatar

No, I believe the fact that Kavanaugh is all over the news while Ellison remained relatively obscure for a whole month before Kavanaugh is the work of liberal bias. I believe that given very similar circumstances in other cases, the MSM has shown this same liberal bias. I believe that the MSM frequently gives the left a pass on bad behavior while they go full tilt against conservatives for lame accusations. I believe that the outrage portrayed by the #MeToo leadership is selective and the media helps perpetrate that view. I believe that those trying to defend the media are already lost.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And I’m more inclined to view so called mainstream bias as a foil to pass off the behavior of wack job conservatives as somehow normal. The premise is that these aren’t really fringe wackos doing crazy shit. It’s just the biased media portraying them as loopy. This alternate version of reality through self deception does not serve the conservative cause. It isn’t that folks like Moore or Trump are unduly persecuted by the msm for their conservative views. The media concentrates on these people because they are so dependably at odds with what passes for the spectrum of normal behavior. To put it bluntly, the real reason that Moore and Trump are dogged by the media while Ellison is ignored is simply because Moore and Trump in effect achieved their celebrity status through off the chart obtuse sensationalism. Of course the media is going to focus on them. They are the bright and shiny objects. That’s where the money is! I still say that Ellison’s turn is coming. But you can’t blame the press for what amounts to a spectacular never ending conservative clown show that sucks up ever more media attention.

seawulf575's avatar

So covering smear jobs is okay, but reporting on Dems acting badly isn’t. What, isn’t beating your significant other loopy enough for you? Guess it’s okay to beat your wife if you are a liberal, but you can’t even have talked to a woman in your entire life if you are a conservative? I’m really trying to understand why you think reporting on bad behavior is wrong, regardless of political ideology. Or if you like to word it differently, why is it only okay to report on bad behavior of conservatives? Think about this…you are supporting a whole party that is given a pass in the media. They are what you are saying is what you want to run your country. But you don’t ever want to hear how bad they really are. It offends you. It bothers you to even hear about it. You only want the media to report on those horrid “other guys”. That is how you are portraying yourself and I’d like to think you are above that, but I might be wrong.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575 In your opinion it’s a “smear job”.
So truth and others opinions are wrong by your definition.
Trump’s opinion is all that counts, so your hero can’t be wrong except lying 5 times a day !

stanleybmanly's avatar

That isn’t it at all. What I’m saying is that if you and I both beat our wives, it is unlikely that either of us will be featured on a national telecast. Those 4 jellies you keep referring to are unlikely to know about it, and though one of us is liberal and the other conservative, whichever of us gets covered first will not depend on our political affiliation. I am saying (once more) that Ellison is the wrong choice to stack up against Moore as a comparable celebrity. Moore couldn’t fart in public without some reporter hopping on the “news” and the fact that he’s a conservative has nothing to do with it. Moore is dogged and hounded because he’s a crazy conservative and prone to do something off the wall and spectacularly inappropriate.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie please use your head. Let’s say that someone was brutally murdered. There was no physical evidence, but someone says they saw you. But the only details they could give were sketchy. They couldn’t really be sure where it happened, they thought it might have been you but couldn’t be sure, they mentioned other people that were there that all said they didn’t see anything like what they were describing. Think you would be convicted? Think the DA would even bring that case to trial? And let’s say you were at home alone at the time it was supposed to have happened. Does that make you guilty because you didn’t have a solid alibi with witnesses and all that? And let’s say you had a bunch of people swear up and down that you are a good guy and that you are a pacifist and couldn’t conceive of you brutally murdering someone. What do you think…would you think it was a smear job? Or would you think they had a point? Think you would be convicted on the case presented? Do you think it would be right for others to demand punishment for you based on that evidence?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly so the Deputy DNC chair, the face of the party, beating his wife isn’t newsworthy. Got it. I can see how that isn’t important. I can see why every Who in Whoville gets publicity for supposed sexual indiscretions, but this guy isn’t worth the time to report on. Yeah…that makes perfect sense. Do you really believe the crap you are shoveling?

stanleybmanly's avatar

It isn’t over for Ellison, and it is particularly dishonest to claim that it is. The New York Times, Washington Post, Atlantic, New Yorker, etc. have all published comprehensive articles on this story and only await release of the facts garnered from the official probe expected to be released early in October. And it’s quite a stretch to declare the deputy chair as “the face of the Democratic Party” I’m sorry that Pelosi or Hillary won’t play fair and tweet out stupid shit or conveniently beat their husbands. You cant hold it against liberals that you’re forced to dig deep into the
bench to find a villain

stanleybmanly's avatar

And again, of course we want and there will be
reporting on Democrats acting badly, but conservatives have a dependable knack for adding that dash of crazy to season their misdeeds.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Both sides can be vile and horrible, BUT conservatives have crazy down to a fine art .

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575

I’m so sorry your ox got gored. NOT

It is your esteemed opinion that because Kavanaugh is Trump’s choice for SCOTUS AND is Ultra-conservative ‘s
QED: He is therefore above the law and should not be reviewed ?

The GOP/conservatives are currently trying to vote without Kavanaugh being vetted.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly It is true that there have been stories on liberal outlets. But for a whole month, there was really nothing taking away the focus on Ellison. Did you see the same sort of reporting you did for any of the other high level woman abusers? Weinstein? Moore? Even Franken? No you did not. you really need to be asking why you did not. Isn’t it bad enough for women? Isn’t that what is supposed to be at the heart of all these accusations…the treatment of women? And now, the only investigation into Ellison is from the DNC itself. That’s a hoot. And no one is calling them out on it. Let me ask…what if the GOP had decided to do the investigation into Trump and the Russians. Would you believe it was a fair evaluation? I wouldn’t…no thinking person would. So why would you believe the DNC would be any better? Yet no one is even talking about that. Face it, buddy…the liberal media is biased in a huge way. Your mind is being played with.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie your grasp of reality is tenuous at the very best. This question is about the bias of the media suppressing stories. But even your lame deflection is wrong. Kavanaugh HAS been vetted. He has undergone 6 FBI investigations and has gone through Senate Confirmation hearings. You obviously missed all that in your scramble to find something wrong.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Would you be this up in arms if the guy was a Rep/con?
@stanleybmanly has been explaining it to you Ellison didn’t have the same celebrity status that Kavanaugh has, and the news is all about sensationalism these days.
And yeah it happened a month before the Kavanaugh thing.
How come your beloved Fox didn’t jump on this guy and shred him to bits?
The Kavanaugh thing is in the spot light now, and really should be this guy is going for a position for life, and in my opinion if he gets it will set gay, and women rights back decades.
Ellison should and have little doubt will have to face up for his crime,but I know it doesn’t seem fair Ellison should have been news long before Kavanaugh, but even if he was he would have been back page instantly when the news of Kavanaugh broke.
Now let’s answer your question is US news media bias YUP!
Is Fox new Bias YUP!
Is it wrong YUP!!

notsoblond's avatar

I answered your OP way above. I was on topic. I then responded to your rude personal attacks here: “You are all hopeless. You are sheep. Willing to believe whatever the propaganda tells you instead of questioning it.”

yawn

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 rather than playing a what-if game, let’s get real. Moore was a Rep/Con and I was against convicting him on the little amount of evidence presented. But his case was covered by both liberal and conservative outlets. And actually were covered pretty extensively in both. Go back and look at Fox news for that time frame and you will find many stories about it. You heard about it from both sides. But as with all things in the media today, you have to read both the liberal and conservative reports to get a semi full picture of what is really going on. But you could do that. But to not cover it? That would have been ridiculous. So in answer to your what-if, I would very much be against it if he were a Rep/Con and a conservative outlet was not covering it. But I think that is part of the difference between liberal and conservative outlets….the conservative outlets will cover stories even if they are about conservatives. They might slant them, but they will cover them and cover them well. The liberal outlets have show with Ellison that they are reluctant to do that.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

MIGHT SLANT THEM???
That is great.

seawulf575's avatar

Really?!? That is what you got out of my answer? Sad…

SQUEEKY2's avatar

No I get your pissed because left wing news outlets are not covering Ellison,and going full bore on Kavanaugh.
Ellison should have been front and centre on every network, but he wasn’t and because he wasn’t ,your pissed off.
A left winger no matter how high or low in the ranks once found to be guilty or accused of a crime should be all over the news outlets.Did I get that right?
Lets make this easy for that iron clad right wing mind set you have,EXAMPLE= Ellison a left winger, and YOU remember example only, are guilty of wife beating who do you think the news outlets are going to show ?
Both are accused of a horrible crime, who do you think the news outlets want the public to see?
I am not making an excuse for Ellison and if guilty want him to pay.
I did agree with you the news outlets are very biased, some right, some left.
Did my example show you it’s star power that gets the limelight.
But by all means continue to be pissed off.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575. Moore was already being covered, and heavily when the kid shoe dropped. Previous “scandals”, along with his controversial pursuit of a crucial Senate seat meant he was locked in to everyone’s news cycle. Ellison, despite his honorifics, just cannot drive the feeding frenzy centered on Moore or Kavanaugh.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@seawulf575 Are you pissed off because of bias in the news industry, or Ellison isn’t taking some the heat away from your hero’s Moore and Kavanaugh?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly no…Ellison WON’T drive the feeding frenzy….because he is a liberal darling. The liberal media bias will never put him through the conjecture or the hatred that they are putting Kavanaugh through. Face it…there is a much more solid case against Ellison. It is and always has been newsworthy. Yet it was covered so lightly that many never heard of it. Now we come to Kavanaugh. We have three accusations that wouldn’t hold up in a court of law. The accusations are so vague that they can’t even be sure Kavanaugh was ever really there, especially since none of them actually can tell you where “there” is or When it happened. But the news media is giving them full honors and treating them like they have actual proof or even credibility. Why the difference? Bias. Want more? How about the number of women that continue to make assault claims against Bill Clinton. Have the liberal outlets ever really dug into those? No. One of them is an accusation of rape and there is some evidence there. But you don’t hear a thing about any of that. Want more proof? Okay…go to CNN. Do a search for “Juanita Broaddrick” and another for “Alyssa Milano”. You won’t find anything from this year on Juanita. You will find 4 articles on Alyssa just from the last week. Why? Both were at the hearing today. Did you know that? Yep…both were there. Juanita went to make the Dems uncomfortable because they have entirely ignored her claims of sexual assault. Alyssa went because Feinstein invited her since she is an anti-Trumper. So why didn’t CNN cover Juanita at all? A person making a claim that a former president raped her isn’t big enough news? Having that person show up at a bogus hearing about sexual assault isn’t newsworthy? No. It is because they don’t want anyone talking about how Bill is a sexual predator. That could come back to Hillary as well. It is nothing but media bias that all you sheep are buying into.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Ellison is an example. I have used Ellison, Moore, Franken, and now Broaddrick, Milano and Clinton as examples. They all point to the same thing….a gross bias by most of the liberal media…which is most of the media. When the news agencies are fully supporting one political party, that is how we get dictators. And yes, I get pissed about it. I get particularly angry and saddened when I see sheep trying to defend it or ignore it. We deserve better than biased media…and that goes for either the right or the left.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@seawulf575 I absolutely disagree with your political views, BUT going to agree with you 1000% people do deserve better than a biased media that serves one side, be it left or right.

seawulf575's avatar

Thank you m’dear…that is the point of this question. I don’t expect you do share my political views. I don’t share your political views either. Does that make me right and you wrong? No…it means we have differing views. It is stuff we can discuss to see if there is a way to make things better. But one of the first things we need is for the media to stop being propaganda…stop trying to divide the people and just report the news.

MrGrimm888's avatar

So. What is the point of the question? Especially if you won’t be impartial? You are dead set in your opinions about what you perceive as left media, and yet you have NEVER gone after right wing media, EVER…..

Your declarations about “propaganda,” are comical.

Obviously, because you’re a Trump advocate. That makes you a hypocrite (,at best) and shows me your true colors. Really, just cementing my observations of Trumpers…

Thank you, as always, for proving my point.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 you are wrong once again. Here is a cut and paste from one of my responses in this same thread:
”@mazingerz88 I am in wholehearted agreement that there is bias in conservative outlets. This is a major thing. Bias in the media defeats their real benefit to our country. They become propaganda outlets. But no one ever seems to be willing to admit to the liberal bias.”

Oh! and here’s another from a response just two above your idiotic comment:

“We deserve better than biased media…and that goes for either the right or the left.”

and another from the response RIGHT BEFORE YOUR DIATRIBE:

“But one of the first things we need is for the media to stop being propaganda…stop trying to divide the people and just report the news.”

And your attack on me confirms that you are not willing to admit to a liberal bias. Thank you for making my point for me….moron. Maybe if you actually read what I wrote and considered it you wouldn’t look so frantic to support deceptive news outlets. Because as you can see, I am not.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 I can’t understand your insistence that Kavanaugh and Ellison are equivalent stories. THEY ARE NOT. And the discrepancy in coverage between the 2 is probably more than justified in regards to the significance of each of them. The characterization of the frenzy around Kavanaugh as mere “liberal hatred” is fatuous, and again you should discipline yourself in eliminating “hatred” from these discussions. Ellison isn’t ignored because he’s a “liberal darling”. He’s ignored because up against the Kavanaugh controversy nobody gives a shit whether Ellison beats his women. And that is probably just the way it should be.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly once again, you are making false equivalences. Ellison happened a whole month before Kavanaugh. I have pointed this out to you no less than 7 times in this thread alone that Ellison happen a whole month before Kavanaugh and was still not covered like any conservative has been, nor like any public figure for that matter. Now it is 8 times in this thread. Yet you persist in trying to use the idea that Kavanaugh is higher visibility. He wasn’t for a whole month! Get that through your thick skull! That whole month of no coverage shows the media bias. Unless what you are really saying is that if Ellison beats women nobody cares, regardless of what else in going on in the world. In that case, you are as biased as the news media and your blind support for them and lame attempts at deflection make perfect sense. Understood…Ellison is okay even though he beats women. Got it.

notsoblond's avatar

Mad props to you guys but you are wasting your breath with wulfie. You’d have better luck with someone younger. This guy isn’t going to listen.

seawulf575's avatar

@notsoblondanymore so you hate old people? got it. One of the young punks that thinks they know it all.

raum's avatar

I wouldn’t lump all older people in the same boat as wulfie.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575. We need to define some terms. What exactly do you mean when you say “Ellison happened a whole month before Kavanaugh”? Are you saying that the story broke about Ellison before Kavanaugh was announced as Trump’s nominee?

But never mind the timing. My point is the level of interest the 2 separate stories are likely to elicit from a world of bottom line journalism. I can guarantee you that if Ellison were the nominee for SCOTUS, there would be no liberal suppression of wife beating allegations.

seawulf575's avatar

@raum you might not lump us all together, but @notsoblondanymore did. Why don’t we let her anger and hatred bubble to the surface?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly you are amazing. You are still clinging to the entire Kavanaugh thing. You are pitiful Kavanaugh being announced as a nominee is meaningless compared to the DNC vice chairman beating his girlfriend and having his ex come out in support of the girlfriend. Get real. Your weak argument assumes only one story can be covered at a time. You are pitiful. Grow up. The liberal media is biased way to the left. They will not speak out against the darlings of the Dem party nor will they cover in any depth the investigations into these people. The right wing outlets at least report the stories, though they try to slant them to the right. Neither is right, but the left won’t even report on them to give people the right to make their own determinations about the story,. You are a sad example of the sort of sheep the left loves to have supporting them.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Your eagerness to dish out insults is growing tiresome. You make it difficult to resist treating you with the contempt you so assuredly deserve. Nevertheless, I once again offer you some advice that you will once again ignore. If your arguments held water, they should require no personal insults to bolster them.

I am “still clinging to the entire Kavanaugh thing” because the “thing” is the lynchpin in your supposed “proof” of liberal bias defining the MSM. My “weak” argument has nothing to do with any assumption that 2 stories cannot be covered simultaneously. On the contrary I told YOU that both stories were and are even now being covered. But if you believe that there is anything Ellison could do to a woman that would rise to the significance of Kavanaugh’s nomination for the Supreme Court, you are a fool. The proof of this is beyond dispute. Forget about the MSM. Do you think there is a chance in hell of even the most rabid right wing outlet devoting even a tenth of the effort to cover Ellison that must go to the Kavanaugh story? Mainstream bias or not, the truly big stories dictate in large part how much coverage they will receive. Now read the paragraph of yours directly above this one, and pick out the flaws in observation, reasoning and manners.

seawulf575's avatar

And your continued dodge of the facts miss everything I am saying. That avoidance is the whole lynchpin of your reality, apparently. Think about it. Kavanaugh was nominated in July. That’s when he was nominated. Ellison’s accusers went public in August. Now are you really trying to say that the requests for information and background data on Kavanaugh is more exciting and newsworthy than a top DNC figure beating women? Get real. The Kavanaugh sex allegations happened in September. So from August to September…about a whole month to the day in fact, there was really nothing about Kavanaugh that should have overshadowed Ellison. Nothing. And yet you are claiming that is exactly what happened. You are right of course…it did happen. Why? Because of liberal media bias. That is the only reason.
Once you can actually face reality and not keep making me go over and over this same ground because you can’t accept it, we can probably have a decent conversation. But then we won’t need to because you will have had to admit to liberal media bias covering up for Dems.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The reason we keep going over this is because you lack the breadth of understanding to appreciate that once Kavanaugh was announced as Trump’s choice, nothing short of those hurricanes was going to displace his candidacy from the top of the national news. The repercussions from Kavanaugh’s appointment or rejection outweigh any possible consequences of Ellison beating his wife, and in this age of extreme partisan contention, Ellison’s fate is relegated to the back pages of ALL media outlets outside the Congressman’s district.

seawulf575's avatar

Exactly! Ellison was relegated to the back pages of all LIBERAL media outlets. From the beginning. THANK YOU for admitting it. Let me ask….when the Hurricane Florence was happening, did you still see news on Kavanaugh? Yep. But how can that be? The news outlets are only capable of covering one story at a time, right? That is what you are implying. When you try saying that only Kavanaugh can be covered, you are setting up a false reality. The fact that when the confirmation investigations were going on there was a lot of dull stuff going on apparently escapes you. When you imply the news outlets couldn’t report on Ellison because they were reporting on Kavanaugh, you are setting up a false reality. Basically, you seem to live in a false reality. And if you are saying that the liberal outlets refused to cover Ellison to only cover Kavanaugh, you are proving my point that the liberal media is biased. Why is that so hard for you to admit? I suspect because if you start admitting it, much of your reality would come into question as to being valid. Can’t have that. The brainwashing is complete. Sorry boss.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

GEEZE Ellison not being front page on every news out let in your country sure has your tits in a wringer.
No matter what any of us say you still scream bias! from the top of your soap box, you did notice not a single person defended the dirt bag ,yeah probably not.
Ellison if guilty will face time and be removed or step down.
ALL US news media seems bias in one direction or the other, when you scoff and sneer saying stop watching MSNBC, or huffington post, what should we do go to, FOX ?
yeah there is no Bias there.
Kavanaugh,is a lying dirt bag with a life membership to your highest court,and the guy is just as clean as pig in shit.wait no evidence to support that, one news outlet shared a writing in his year book saying he got one woman, I know not proof enough.
BUT please continue to be pissed off keep the insults coming then claim any who oppose you do it in hate, while the spit is foaming in your mouth.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 You are a great exception to the rest of these jellies. You have indeed admitted there is a liberal bias. Have you seen @stanleybmanly do that? No. I don’t think he is physically or psychologically capable of doing so. And as I have mentioned all through this thread…it isn’t Ellison. He is an example and a fine one. It isn’t that Ellison is a dirtbag or that people are defending him. It is that the liberal media doesn’t report on him. It is the thought that if they are hiding that, they are probably hiding other things. It is the thought that if they are willing to cover that up their integrity is for shit. It is that it ought to wake people up and start demanding honest reporting. That is, after all, what the media is SUPPOSED to be about. You can look back in history. When they turn into propaganda machines, usually some dictator will appear shortly thereafter.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

THERE is Bias on both sides,you do except that right?
You don’t think Fox didn’t cover something from the right up? HA!
I don’t have much to do with American news because of the bias, right or left, like you I want to hear both sides without the news outlet telling me who they are cheering for.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . I did read your responses. Small concessions about bias existing in conservative media is NOT the same as what you pretend is going on with “liberal” media. You’ve never claimed vast conspiracies, and smear campaigns by the right. Trump himself is constantly crying about this, so I guess that’s why you cry about it.

Your insults mount. I suppose you are now just throwing a tantrum, like a little child…
Did you notice all the world leaders laughing at Trump the other day? Right to his face?
That’s how most of us respond to your comments. Especially when you act like you actually have morals, and care about things like spousal abuse.

I will not let you forget that in regards to the word “moron,” you should recall that’s what Trump’s aides refer to him as. So. I guess your a fan if mine too? No autographs for you sir…

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 you continue to amaze at how you dodge things. You just went on and on about Trump when the topic is media bias. Let’s review…the only jelly so far that has actually come out and admitted that liberal media is biased is @SQUEEKY2, our friend to the North. She gets it. Both the left and the right are biased. But here’s a clue…there are a heck of a lot more liberal outlets than conservative ones. And not a single one of you liberals can even admit there is liberal bias. As for insults, yep…I go there. I’m tired of only receiving so I have started giving as well. Get over it.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 You keep reading things that aren’t there into my posts. Very sound arguments can be made that there is bias eminating from the MSM. The reason I allow you to drag this thread out to the point where we are all comotose is simply because you should not be allowed to deceive yourself into believing that Ellison proves the point. Frankly, I have no idea who planted the notion in your head, but I strongly advise you
to take your own advice and THINK FOR YOURSELF.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly and as I have stated before, repeatedly, Ellison is just an example. But when you compare that example to many other cases such as Kavanaugh, Moore or even Weinstein and Cosby, the coverage is weak from the left. So a wise person would have to ask why. and there is only one reason that makes any sense….the liberal media doesn’t want their followers to really be focused on it. Kavanaugh and Moore are conservatives. Weinstein and Cosby are not politicians so there is less concern about showing them to be bad. But Ellison is a solid Dem/liberal. That is propaganda…the manipulation of information to drive a given response.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . You spend an inordinate amount of time crying about perceived insults. Just pointing out your hypocrisy. “Get over it.”

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@seawulf575 For such an informed right wing freak azoid , you still think I am a woman?
A middle age, overweight , white MALE truck driver.
You fling insults as much as Trump lies, you should know by now I am a man, maybe you do get most if not all your right wing info from right wing blogs.
Most US news media is Biased ,that’s why I like Canadian news outlets they try to get both sides of the story,and let the viewer make up their own mind.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 My apologies! I don’t think we were ever properly introduced. I still think you get it.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther