There really was a media bubble

ANYTHING to avoid having to be like:

Originally posted by Alternate Universe Mature Surtur
whoops my bad. i did shitty math based on incomplete data.

never give up!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that's nice. whatever you need to do to avoid the point.

no he asserted that based on a poll that he misunderstood. therefore he was flat wrong. tryhard much harder.

I honestly give up.

judging by your flattering post history in my honor, i doubt that very much.

from the sourced article:

We’ll add another – the parties of today are much different than those in the 1970s. Additionally, with everyone’s information readily available through a quick online search, it’s no surprise journalists would be more willing to stay in the “independent” lane rather than risk being called bias based on their political affiliation.

^ That's exactly what I thought. Which is why I said it was a copout

I think it would have better saying that they preferred not to say since their actually is an independent party.

I'm not a political guy in the sense that I embrace an ideology. To this day I'm an independent thinker, an independent voter, I'm a registered independent... there are certain fundamental things that this country was founded upon that I respect and don't want changed. That separates me from the secularists who want a complete overhaul of how the country is run.

-bill oreilly

Originally posted by Robtard
It also shits all over your '95% are Left' and "majority of our media leans left." claims, which is just golden as you've destroyed your own claims.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

What does your personal life have to do with this Adam?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
-bill oreilly

Bill Clinton.

Nevermind....

Originally posted by socool8520
I think you should be fairly neutral to be a reporter. It's clear when you see the biases of reporting from either side. It's a pain to watch and you can't take either side seriously because all they do is try to make the other side look bad instead of calling it like it is.

Forced neutrality is just as bad as bias.

Balanced coverage does not equal objectivity or fairness.

Hence why Vox and the Washington Post are >>>>CNN

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
No. You don't have to be neutral, you just have to be factual, honest, and choosing your coverage based on the importance of a story, not whether you still have to meet a quota of news from either side.

Forced neutrality is just as bad as bias.

Balanced coverage does not equal objectivity or fairness.

Hence why Vox and the Washington Post are >>>>CNN