> Additionally, Trump, according to the indictment, did not cooperate when asked to hand over the documents, while Hillary did. I’m not going to belabor this point, as it’s not a big piece of the indictment, but it is a glaring difference.
That is probably the main difference between an indictment and not. Just because it occupies a small part of the text, it's not relevant??
> It’s also important to note that Biden both revoked Trump’s access to national security briefings and pulled his clearance shortly after taking office, which was wholly unprecedented.
Hmm, what else might have happened around this time that was "wholly unprecedented"?
Well, I post both liberal and conservative pieces. I've learned how to judge if something is biased since I lose subscribers since mine are from both sides of the aisle.
So far, in the 2 hours since I posted this, it's my most read piece.
You know how many subscribers I've lost out of 8,000?
5
So apparently no one else thinks it's biased and I've gotten quite a few emails and texts saying I did an excellent job staying objective and neutral: https://imgur.com/a/rmWSfw6
Consider that getting many views and avoiding losing subscribers or viewers are probably very much inline with the motivations of (insert your favorite highly biased political pundit). Particularly when dealing with small subsets of the population, popularity is a very unreliable North Star to guide you towards neutrality. Consider for a moment that, like nearly all audiences, your audience too holds biases. In that case, it’s very possible that more of certain types of bias, not less, would produce a more loyal and engaged audience I.e. more views less unsubscribes.
I am not familiar with your work, your biases, or your success in achieving neutrality. Based on the comment I am responding to, you may be well served by investigating a phenomenon called “audience capture” which a lot of excellent journalists have written about at length. Audience capture is a very hard pitfall to avoid entirely, especially when you are in a position where you financially rely on audience engagement and size.
If your goal is to avoid bias, a very noble goal, what you describe in this comment in all likelihood will sooner or later cause you to lean into more bias rather than less.
Yeah, no, this is not unbiased. First, it does not note that numerous investigations by the government, including under Trump, concluded that Clinton did nothing worth charging.
Second, some of the anti Clinton evidence is based on unnamed sources, which is speculative at best. It is not comparable to a public indictment of Trump with the evidence that has been released so far. It is possible that the evidence will turn out to be wrong or fabricated but the best we can say for trump at the moment is that it's too early to say for sure. If the evidence is true then he is way more culpable.
The article throws in a Slick Willie reference to try to further tilt the needle towards Clinton but mentions none of the myriad legal troubles of Trump.
This article is trying its darndest to come to a predetermined conclusion.
4 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 17.4 ms ] thread> Additionally, Trump, according to the indictment, did not cooperate when asked to hand over the documents, while Hillary did. I’m not going to belabor this point, as it’s not a big piece of the indictment, but it is a glaring difference.
That is probably the main difference between an indictment and not. Just because it occupies a small part of the text, it's not relevant??
> It’s also important to note that Biden both revoked Trump’s access to national security briefings and pulled his clearance shortly after taking office, which was wholly unprecedented.
Hmm, what else might have happened around this time that was "wholly unprecedented"?
There's plenty of other bullshit in this piece.
So far, in the 2 hours since I posted this, it's my most read piece.
You know how many subscribers I've lost out of 8,000?
5
So apparently no one else thinks it's biased and I've gotten quite a few emails and texts saying I did an excellent job staying objective and neutral: https://imgur.com/a/rmWSfw6
I think you need to check your own biases.
I am not familiar with your work, your biases, or your success in achieving neutrality. Based on the comment I am responding to, you may be well served by investigating a phenomenon called “audience capture” which a lot of excellent journalists have written about at length. Audience capture is a very hard pitfall to avoid entirely, especially when you are in a position where you financially rely on audience engagement and size.
If your goal is to avoid bias, a very noble goal, what you describe in this comment in all likelihood will sooner or later cause you to lean into more bias rather than less.
Second, some of the anti Clinton evidence is based on unnamed sources, which is speculative at best. It is not comparable to a public indictment of Trump with the evidence that has been released so far. It is possible that the evidence will turn out to be wrong or fabricated but the best we can say for trump at the moment is that it's too early to say for sure. If the evidence is true then he is way more culpable.
The article throws in a Slick Willie reference to try to further tilt the needle towards Clinton but mentions none of the myriad legal troubles of Trump.
This article is trying its darndest to come to a predetermined conclusion.