• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An example of media bias in action

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
None of these three versions of the story is fake. If you read them all, they report the same facts. But if you only read the headline or perhaps the first line you would think the story was different. After all "passes for now", "sides with" and "tosses" mean different things to most people. And that is how, quite often, bias manifests.

LA Times: Supreme Court passes, for now, on a new wedding cake dispute
The Supreme Court announced Monday it would not decide, for now, whether a Christian couple from Oregon had a constitutional right to defy that state’s civil rights law and refuse to make a wedding cake for the marriage of two women.

CNN: Supreme Court sides with Oregon bakery that refused to make cake for same-sex wedding
The Supreme Court on Monday wiped away a ruling that went against a bakery in Oregon that refused to make a cake to celebrate the wedding for a same-sex couple.

Fox: Supreme Court tosses ruling against bakers who refused cake for gay couple
The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a ruling against two Oregon bakers who refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
As an example of how this story should be reported - which is that SCOTUS punted the case for now but it's probably coming back:

Justices send cake sequel back to state court - SCOTUSblog

Justices send cake sequel back to state court
Just over a year ago, the justices issued a narrow ruling in the case of Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker and devout Christian who refused to create a custom cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding festivities. The Supreme Court’s decision for Phillips rested primarily on the rationale that the Colorado administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly, because it was too hostile to his religious faith. Today the court declined to take up a question that it left open in Phillips’ case: Can sincerely held religious beliefs trump neutral laws that apply to everyone? Instead, the justices sent the case of an Oregon couple who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding celebration back to the state court for another look in light of Phillips’ case.
...
After considering the Kleins’ case at 10 consecutive conferences, the justices today sent the case back to the Oregon Court of Appeals, for that court to reconsider it in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Phillips’ case. The court’s order was a terse one that did not indicate exactly how Phillips’ case might affect the ruling in the Kleins’ case or why it had taken so long for the justices to act on the Kleins’ case. The order may have allowed the justices to avoid tackling this contentious issue for now, but they may not be able to dodge the question forever: Earlier this month, the Washington Supreme Court reaffirmed its ruling against a florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. The U.S. Supreme Court had sent that case back to the state court last year in the wake of its ruling in Phillips’ case; lawyers for the florist have already announced that they intend to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Here's another anti-Iran biased source....
Iran accuses US of LYING about ‘suspicious’ attack on oil tankers
It offers this "history", but without mentioning the several US attacks upon their once democratic government, waging an unprovoked proxy war against Iran (killing a million), or shooting down a civilian Iranian airliner (killing hundreds).

Damn Brits....urging us into war.
US and Iran - a troubled history
  • Before the 1979 Iranian revolution, Iran was one of America's biggest allies in the Middle East and was led by the US-backed Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.
  • However, since the seismic revolt, Iran has been led by murderous Islamic fundamentalists and tensions with Washington have remained ever since.
  • On November 4, 1979, the Iranian regime took 52 US diplomats hostage in response to President Carter’s administration allowing Iran’s deposed former leader into America.
  • The hostage crisis lasted for 444 days and also included a failed rescue mission which cost the lives of eight US soldiers.
  • In April 1980, the US ended diplomatic relations with Iran – a break which lasted for more than 30 years.
  • In April 1983, Washington blamed the Iranian-funded terror group Hezbollah for carrying out a bombing attack on the American embassy in Beirut, Lebanon.
  • The assault, carried out amid a brutal civil war in Lebanon, killed 17 Americans.
  • In November of that year, two truck bombs in Beruit killed 241 US peace keepers. The US again blamed Hezbollah for the incident.
  • The Clinton White House, in 1995, placed a total embargo on Iran meaning US companies could not trade with the country.
  • And in 2002, George W Bush included the Islamic Republic in his famous “Axis of evil” speech along with North Korea and Iraq.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Did you mean to post this in this thread or the other thread?
I checked.
Yes, it belongs here as an example of media bias.
In this case, The Sun omits some history in order to increase
anti-Iran hostilities, & to sanitize history for Ameristanian benefit.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I checked.
Yes, it belongs here as an example of media bias.
In this case, The Sun omits some history in order to increase
anti-Iran hostilities, & to sanitize history for Ameristanian benefit.

Well, there's always the other side to the story: If Iran does something it will ‘bravely’ announce it, military chief says in response to accusations of oil tanker incidents

“If the Islamic Republic of Iran has any will to block the export of oil from the Persian Gulf it will fully realize that will and declare that openly,” Major General Bagheri told a ceremony at Imam Hussein University in Tehran.

The top military commander went on to say if there would be a need Iran will enter war with the enemies including the United States “openly”.

“In case of need we will openly confront the enemies including America in the region.”

In that case the armed forces will fight “in a very large area”, he added.

Bagheri said today Iran is facing “unprincipled”, “untruthful” and “deceitful” enemies like the United States which on the one hand is pressuring on Iran and on the other is speaking about negotiations.

The top general said powerful Iran will see no need to act “secretly or deceitfully”, adding a country behaves like this which is militarily powerless.

“Today, with the grace of God the Islamic Iran is at height of its power.”
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
That's how bias is so often expressed, ie,
they tell the preferred side of the story.

But even if they hear the other side of the story, it still ends up getting all twisted around and distorted. People are already programmed to believe that Iran is some evil enemy, so whatever they say is heard through that filter.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
But even if they hear the other side of the story, it still ends up getting all twisted around and distorted. People are already programmed to believe that Iran is some evil enemy, so whatever they say is heard through that filter.
Aye, & the media will reinforce that.
 
Top