I went out into the troubling world of the internet in search of biased articles. I dug through numerous election-related headings until I finally stumbled upon this ironic gem:
I was expecting offerings of biased media articles that I could look into, and I did get that. But I quickly realized that the site itself was an ever better example of bias. Let’s check it out!
I’m gonna skip over the first example he provides because I don’t have a strong feeling either way. SO, I’m reading the second example about Hillary and John McCain. I actually agree that there is some bias in Salon’s approach to these two articles. Then I get to the author’s closing remarks on the topic:
“By contrast, Hillary lacks the mental fortitude to tell the truth most of the time, not even after she’s had seizures, coughing fits, and dramatic collapses on camera!”
Now I’m not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but that sure seems like quite the biased opinion of her. The hypocrisy of someone pointing out bias while clearly glazing his statements with bias made me laugh, so I kept reading.
In his third example, he brings up the incongruent coverage and response to sexualized art of Hillary and Trump. I guess he makes a fair point, I see what he’s saying. But then at the end he punctuates his thoughts with this:
“Imagine the furore if a statue, mural or other representation of Hillary Clinton had lacked breasts or shown her vagina circumcised/mutilated. ‘They’re condoning violence against women!’ would be the stock-standard answer from liberals and their even more deranged SJW cousins.”
Again, I’m not particularly a fan of liberal rhetoric/propaganda, but clearly this author is injecting his own biased opinions into the analysis process.
Skipping example four that I don’t really see a ton of actual reaction to, I move on to his final example.
Cosmopolitan hates it when men objectify women, but encourages women to do it to men. I get what he’s saying, the two articles next to each other make Cosmopolitan looks terrible, so his point is fair. But then he starts off with this:
“Cosmopolitan has established itself as a dual enabler of both ditzy female airheads and SJW political freaks.”
Since his analysis starts off with that, I don’t really think you can even continue with any serious intent of finding truth. He obviously has an intense bias, and you’d expect him to start ripping on the things he does.
The issues the author brings up are legitimate, but how he does it makes him completely unreliable.