A conservative (short) history of media bias with a solid conclusion:

Today, then, we are back to where we were in the past. Citizens have numerous options for news and information, and numerous alternatives that challenge, balance, and correct the partisan biases of the mainstream media. More importantly, this new media world means that in a democracy ruled by the people, the responsibility for sorting out truth from partisan spin lies where it should, with the free citizens who have the civic duty to seek out and evaluate information before voting for a party or policy. Media bias is no longer an excuse for neglecting that responsibility.

 Ohmsen wrote:
 

I recommend that all of you born with FASD and sporting an IQ of 85 or less to read the above article.  

Remember the media is a blob.  And it is out to getcha.  

 sirdroseph wrote:
 
The video has nothing to do with so-called media bias.  But it is a great, thought provoking interview and I thank you for posting it SirD.

Peterson's response to so-called Media bias might be to focus on the bias on the individuals.

Minor quibble.     Marxist-inspired/influenced leftists come in all shapes and sizes.   Towards the end, the old-style Communists were increasingly conservative and free market friendly.   It is the Neo-Marxist ones and others who simply feed off feelings of envy that do the most damage.

This could have been filed under Identity Politics.    Or .......   Identity politics underpinned by vacuous virtue signalling.  

This kind of in-depth journalism is similar to what is called investigative journalism elsewhere.   There is all kinds of great investigative/in-depth journalism in various elite media throughout the world.  NPR, PBS, NYT, WP, G&M, CBC, Radio-Canada, The Atlantic are just some media outlets that come to mind that are capable of this kind of journalism.

 sirdroseph wrote:
 
In my simple way of understanding brilliance, this is brilliant.

 islander wrote:

Nobody knew!

 sirdroseph wrote:
 

So yeah, I'm not going to sit through 25 minutes of whatever may be there. This may have some merit, but I'm not talking about just this video. I've seen many comments/posts/breathless news anchors talking mostly about the 'give me a break' comment, but also about how "he's tired", and several other re-hashed bits from the campaign. All mostly from people who 4 years ago were shouting "you have to give him a chance, you'll see".  I'm not a Biden champion here (or anywhere else), but I am a Trump detractor. I did 'give him a chance' for a couple months, but he proved most people right and gave us 4 years of exactly what was expected. Now that  things have flipped, pretty much everyone's positions have flipped as well.  Gosh, look how fast the republicans found their old stance against deficits! Look how fast the Dems decided that the majority does have powers too.  It's all pretty predictable, and honestly a bit entertaining.  I'm still making plans for my future that don't rely on either party. 

 islander wrote: 
Talk to me if you actually watch and listen to the whole thing.

 sirdroseph wrote:
 

I'm really enjoying the "can we calm down with the Biden love" comments from the same crowd that LITERALLY said Trump was the second coming of GOD.

mind  boggling bottling?

unbelievable?

well not really it seems like ssdd

what am i talking about?

nothing new, just reflecting on standards and credibility

carry on

 kcar wrote:
 

everybody has an opinion on what qualifies as evidence

i expect baba looey will feel the wrath of the 7th ring  of hell for whistle blowing

what else is new

i'm with this guy  

in the immortal words of carl sagan. if we don't know, let's look

I lost track of Greenwald since he stopped writing for The Guardian. Apparently he's appeared frequently on Tucker Carlson's show. Talk about strange bedfellows. 

Greenwald's draft piece that The Intercept refused to publish can be found here. 

The New York Times reviews here some of the claims about Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and the Chinese company CEFC ("There is no evidence that the former vice president was involved in or profited from a joint venture pursued by his son and brother.")


WaPo's take on the split between Greenwald and The Intercept:



Glenn Greenwald resigns from the Intercept following dispute over Biden story

While the crusading journalist claimed censorship, his former editors accused him of trying to publish unsupported innuendo



Iconoclastic journalist Glenn Greenwald resigned from The Intercept on Thursday afternoon, signaling an abrupt and acrimonious end to his time at the publication he co-founded in 2014 with journalists Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras.

...

In a lengthy note published on Substack, Greenwald said the publication refused to publish the piece, “in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom,” unless he removed “all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.”

The Intercept strongly countered those claims, with Editor in Chief Betsy Reed telling The Washington Post in an email that “it is absolutely not true that Glenn Greenwald was asked to remove all sections critical of Joe Biden from his article. He was asked to support his claims and innuendo about corrupt actions by Joe Biden with evidence.”

The Intercept, which is published by nonprofit First Look Media, called it “a preposterous charge that The Intercept’s editors and reporters, with the lone noble exception of Glenn Greenwald, have betrayed our mission to engage in fearless investigative journalism because we have been seduced by the lure of a Joe Biden presidency.”

“A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Joe Biden will suffice to refute those claims,” the statement continued.

Greenwald said that when the editors refused to let him publish the article elsewhere, he proposed that they “air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would,” he wrote. “But modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it. So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose.”

He made numerous other claims in his lengthy departure note, which the Intercept said it would address in time. “For now, it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair,” the statement reads. “While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle a political campaign’s — the Trump campaign’s — dubious claims and launder them as journalism.”

Greenwald has emerged in recent years as a harsh critic of the mainstream media, and has become a regular guest on the Fox News Channel, especially on Tucker Carlson’s nightly show. In particular, Greenwald accused media companies of boarding the “Russiagate train” by hyping up stories about collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russian government actors.

Greenwald said he would publish the Biden piece on his own Substack online platform later on Thursday, and would plan to continue publishing on the channel. He also said he had been “exploring the possibility of creating a new media outlet” for months.

...

The Intercept said it had no doubt that Greenwald would “launch a new media venture where he will face no collaboration with editors — such is the era of Substack and Patreon.”

 R_P wrote: 
Gatekeepers are also what is wrong with HMO's.  The least qualified individual is making life and death decisions about who gets to advance to more specialized care and treatments.