The self-fulfilling media bias trap

Lots of people talk about certain stories being only on right-wing "biased" sources, but take little time to think about why this is basically by design. Let's use Scarlett Yan as an example. She is the Hong Kong whistleblower that came forward a year or so ago with info on the Wuhan Lab origin.

She came forward and wanted to talk to ALL media. However, one side had an agenda to bury the Wuhan Lab idea so she left to ONLY tell her story where they would listen and publish it. This wound up being what the MSM calls the "right-wing media". This allowed all of those on the left to claim "biased sources".

"I won't listen if you just post and source from right-wing sources". Sound familiar?

While there might be a conservative slant on the stories from those sources, they aren't simply censoring or burying stories altogether which is happening in the MSM. This leads time and again to the self-fulfilling bias trap which is EXACTLY what they want to happen. This is a big way in which the narrative is controlled.

This same tactic took place with the Hunter laptop, every single election whistleblower, etc. They all wanted to tell their story to ALL media, but to control fallout, the MSM simply refused to carry those stories. Once they only popped up on only the "right-biased" sources, then the MSM could go full attack and cover the story from the "biased source" angle -- that THEY created. Every one of those stories has turned out to be true and should have been covered by ALL sources and should have been monumental stories...

...but those that refuse to critically think just say:

"Show me something from a non right-biased source and I might read it". Sound familiar?

Extrapolate that thought to a story neither side wants to cover, and you get where conspiracy sites come from.

a reply to: Halfswede

That is a great explanation. Thank You

originally posted by: lordcomac
Extrapolate that thought to a story neither side wants to cover, and you get where conspiracy sites come from.

Very true. That is the next layer of control for those that get past gate 1.

a reply to: Halfswede

"Show me something from a non right-biased source and I might read it"

That deflection alone is part of the bias strategy 😎✅

a reply to: Halfswede


See the irony?

Do you think rightwingers will read something from a site like rawstory? Nope... its....

...but those that refuse to critically think just say:

"Show me something from a non lefty -biased source and I might read it". Sound familiar?

"fake news" does that ring a bell? If it's not Qanon or Alex Jones it's "fake news" and the MSM spewing lefty commie propaganda. Right?

a reply to: Halfswede
Funny how they say that when their own source is biased lacking the reflection that qualifies scrutinization from all consumers of information.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Halfswede


See the irony?

Do you think rightwingers will read something from a site like rawstory? Nope... its....

...but those that refuse to critically think just say:

"Show me something from a non lefty -biased source and I might read it". Sound familiar?

"fake news" does that ring a bell?

That's not at all what's happening and the point was (maybe intentionally) missed. One side is refusing to even cover a story until it is obvious that only one side is covering it. Then they claim it's biased garbage. That is much different than having some slant in something that was covered .

Name a big story that the "right biased" news simply refused to cover. I'll wait.

a reply to: Halfswede

Name a big story that the "right biased" news simply refused to cover. I'll wait.

Fox didn't cover the jan6 capitol insurrection worth a damn.



slate.com...


www.vox.com...

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Halfswede

Name a big story that the "right biased" news simply refused to cover. I'll wait.

Fox didn't cover the jan6 capitol insurrection worth a damn.



slate.com...


www.vox.com...

Sure they did, even went to great lengths to condemn the Attacks, lol, by definition it was not an “insurrection” and just using that term is a perfect example of Fake News !

originally posted by: Halfswede
Lots of people talk about certain stories being only on right-wing "biased" sources, but take little time to think about why this is basically by design. Let's use Scarlett Yan as an example. She is the Hong Kong whistleblower that came forward a year or so ago with info on the Wuhan Lab origin.

She came forward and wanted to talk to ALL media. However, one side had an agenda to bury the Wuhan Lab idea so she left to ONLY tell her story where they would listen and publish it. This wound up being what the MSM calls the "right-wing media". This allowed all of those on the left to claim "biased sources".

"I won't listen if you just post and source from right-wing sources". Sound familiar?

While there might be a conservative slant on the stories from those sources, they aren't simply censoring or burying stories altogether which is happening in the MSM. This leads time and again to the self-fulfilling bias trap which is EXACTLY what they want to happen. This is a big way in which the narrative is controlled.

This same tactic took place with the Hunter laptop, every single election whistleblower, etc. They all wanted to tell their story to ALL media, but to control fallout, the MSM simply refused to carry those stories. Once they only popped up on only the "right-biased" sources, then the MSM could go full attack and cover the story from the "biased source" angle -- that THEY created. Every one of those stories has turned out to be true and should have been covered by ALL sources and should have been monumental stories...

...but those that refuse to critically think just say:

"Show me something from a non right-biased source and I might read it". Sound familiar?

SO TRUE.

So NOW China Joe feels emboldened to raise the possibility of a "Wuhan lab leak" theory for the origin of COVID, according to a report in Bloomberg News

“I haven’t reached a conclusion, because our intelligence community is not certain yet whether or not this was a consequence of, from the marketplace, a bat interfacing with animals in the environment that caused this Covid-19, or whether it was an experiment gone awry,” he said Sunday at a news conference in Cornwall, England, following the completion of the Group of Seven summit. “It’s important to know the answer to that.”

The headline reads "Biden Raises Lab Leak Theory"

Firstly, Biden's inability to articulate his thoughts makes any "theory" that he'd "think up" (in other words talking points drilled into his failing mind from his handlers) rather difficult to comprehend.

"Bats interfacing with animals" ?? WTF ??

Second....assuming that word pasta attributed to Joe is what he truly said....does that sound like any kind of assertive, definitive "theory" to you?. Sounds like a politician "covering the bases", double speak to me.

People wonder what appeal Trump had: right or wrong he ASSERTED A POSITION. Period.

Biden's "Wuhan lab leak theory" is a "circle back" from the starting point of "I'm not sure".

HIS EXACT WORDS WERE

I haven't reached a conclusion

So you'll pardon me if I don't care what "theories" (handler's talking points) the MSM attributes to our dementia-afflicted POTUS

What a DISGRACE these politicians are.

a reply to: olaru12

not sure what you are talking about I read all sources.

noahcarl.medium.com...

People with left-wing/liberal views are more likely to block or unfriend their ideological counterparts than those with right-wing/conservative views

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Halfswede


See the irony?

Do you think rightwingers will read something from a site like rawstory? Nope... its....

...but those that refuse to critically think just say:

"Show me something from a non lefty -biased source and I might read it". Sound familiar?

"fake news" does that ring a bell? If it's not Qanon or Alex Jones it's "fake news" and the MSM spewing lefty commie propaganda. Right?

What they should've done is stationed a reporter in front of the smashed windows and doors and had the TV headline read:

Mostly Peaceful, Fiery Insurrection

That was the standard of narrative twisting that your side's propaganda outlets set when covering the 2020 riots. They didn't decline to cover the story. Instead they lied. They covered it but completely warped and spun the situation to reflect a reality that existed only in their minds and those of their misinformation consumer (i.e. you).

EDIT:
Oh whoops. I removed "fiery" from the above, for accuracy. The "insurrectionists" failed to burn anything. Nor were they armed by and large.

I can't handle the echo chambers of MSM, all of the fact checkers are funded by private entities which are owned by the same people who own the MSM corporations themselves.

You pretty much have to look into things yourself and follow your intuition because a talking head will only tell you the narrative they wish for you to follow.

If you expect unbiased truth via such biased sources you will never understand reality, just what they believe such should entail.

Also, having a president that spews "uhhh" more in one speech than the average person does in a week is troubling. I cannot fathom how anyone could defend such an unqualified individual running a country of over 300 million last I checked.

Edit: Then again the president is around 200 years old, I doubt I will even be functional at such an advanced age, props to him!

I think it's his diet of Whataburger's and vanilla ice cream?

a reply to: Halfswede
Andy Ngo? (sp?)

He's a good dude, with a story to tell.