When the Media ‘reports’ events with a description that is clearly different that what has happened then why are they surprised that we no longer find them credible? The original was written in English…
And the narrative was shot down. Just report the news already.
When it bleeds it leads, well except…
The most trusted name in news?
Don’t trust the mainstream media to give you both sides of the story. You have to go to both sides and make up your own mind. A video analysis.
So there are persons on both sides of the aisle that are upset by being placed in such debt both for themselves and their children and who feel that they could better spend their own money to stimulate the economy rather than rely on the state or federal government to do so yet CNN’s Susan Roesgen tries to spin it to fit their own agenda by having their “reporter” argue that state governments are receiving money back and implying that these protests were driven from above as opposed to arising from below (as anyone who has followed the lead up to these protests would know). Watch CNN’s bias in action…
Here is much more video from the same event to give a much more accurate feel for what happened:
Mainstream media had better get their act together and report news or they will soon be out of business. Yes, newspapers, that means you.
Susan Roesgen called to account for her selective “reporting” on the spot (content warning):
So CNN is criticizing Joe the Plumber for his visit to Israel to speak to average citizens there (since all of the media attention is on Gaza) while again CNN’s own “experience” in reporting the “news” is again highlighted…
Would someone please just report the facts in an even-handed way? Doesn’t CNN have the resources necessary to determine facts and verify sources? Is that too much to ask?
UPDATE: Further debunking of this video.
“There has been a tremendous amount of punditry and debate about whether or not there was mainstream media and popular culture bias during the presidential election and whether or not that led to an overt polarization of the electorate in 2008 and now it is possible to quantitatively illustrate that not only did both of the above take place, but they likely did so at a disservice to the voters,” said Chris Wilson, CEO of Wilson Research Strategies.
“This wasn’t just an election in which supporters of the two major party candidates divided on ideological lines or separate goals for the direction of the nation,” said Wilson. “It was also an election where the electorate was literally divided by separate realities of the world around them.”
“As the data from these surveys show, the information believed to be true by, respectively, McCain and Obama voters directly correlates not just to the candidate each voter was likely to support, but also the sources from which the voter received his or her political information,” Wilson commented.