I appreciate you providing sources and a level headed post.. but I don't understand how anyone can claim the media is not reporting on something, and then link directly to media about that thing.
> but I don't understand how anyone can claim the media is not reporting on something, and then link directly to media about that thing
Well let's look at once recent example that I mentioned.
[0] CNN completely discredited the Hunter Biden story when it was released. They called it 'Russian Disinformation' and in their articles repeatedly used charged language such as "dubious" to refer to the information presented.
This was done on an ongoing basis by the majority of news organizations at the time. EDIT - [3] And supported by social media giants (Famously Twitter, but Google/Youtube did the same thing)
Fast forward past the election and the narrative has changed rather sharply. [1] They no longer call the story Russian Disinformation, and instead publish that the FBI is actively investigating Hunter Biden.
[2] As I mentioned, the same thing happened after 2001. The largest news institutions eagerly promoted that the US was under extreme threat. CNN in 2002 was publishing quotes like "we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” and "Saddam is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”
Then when it became clear that there was no WMD's to be found they started giving room to the opposing narrative such as: Joe Wilson “I think it’s safe to say that the US government should have or did know that [the Niger documents were] fake before Dr. ElBaradei mentioned it in his report at the UN yesterday.”
Just to be clear, I'm not saying 'everything is a lie and the election was stolen and Trump is telling the truth'
What I am saying is that the sources of information have proven themselves to be incredibly untrustworthy to the point where many people automatically believe the inverse of what they claim.
The media consistently uses "incorrectly", "baseless" and other such qualifiers when talking about the fraud allegations which they have NO DAMNED BUSINESS doing as a supposed neutral reporter of news. CNN cut away from one of the president's conferences on the matter, I guess because he was lying too much or something. Even Fox News turned off a feed of his press secretary, if I'm not mistaken.
I think it's perfectly fine for them to add commentary by pundits. If they believe the president to be lying, they have to do their best to give a competing narrative. But they can't be sticking their narrative into the objective part of the story. Trump said this. Election Official XYZ said this was incorrect because of that. That's it. If they claim something is objectively incorrect they'd better have a very solid basis for it.
I don't know if left-of-center people just don't notice it anymore, but anyone right-of-center feels like they're reading Pravda all the time these days.
