said by N O Y B 
:It does not matter, except that it demonstrates the media bias which the media denies.
Media bias is not so much about which stories are reported but how they are reported and the inferences made and those omitted, so as to taint the readers view in the direction desired by the media.
I recently pointed this out to some co-workers in a local news paper article about a scandal where the politicians political party affiliation was not mentioned until near the end of the article. But when it is the other party which the media is opposed to most of the time, the political affiliation is usually in the first paragraph or even part of the headline. They just have to have that bashing effect.
It is sort of like asking a question with the desired answer embeded.
For example, ‘so and so did not talk to you about such and such did they?’
Exactly. The media in general seems to think this "selective fact reporting" bias is okay. Our local paper, the Orlando Sentinel, is particularly bad (way worse than Karl could ever dream to be even in his most biased moments which are rare). They report on the merits, morals, and virtues of building red light cameras every week at least once, yet fail to mention the numerous studies disproving their "safety" despite many comments and emails and letters to the editor notifying them. Every story mentioning a murder does not include a physical description of the suspect unless they are white. They spam the front page with stories about how a light rail train will save Orlando's economy while omitting the fact that many similar projects in the USA fail and the train is likely to be a huge revenue loss (they already spent 300,000 consulting for a name and logo for this train that has yet to see approval from the legislature). I'm not picking on the left-wing biased news agencies either, the Union Tribune in San Diego was pretty bad with "fact omission" bias with a very right-wing political slant to nearly every article.
·
·
