Today in Biased News Coverage

Let’s see how the old Baltimore Sun has been skewing its news coverage lately, shall we?

Director's DVD Commentary: The full article is only there to show my work. You needn't read the whole thing, although you can if you wish. 

The Sun used to be a relatively liberal newspaper until they were bought by the owner of the conservative media empire, Sinclair Broadcasting. Since then, they never miss an opportunity to skew their main news coverage (not just the op/ed page) to support Republican positions.

What they’re spending the most time on lately is the proposed amendment to alter the state constitution to allow a partisan gerrymander, one that the electorate has already approved in prior elections (but was invalidated for various technical reasons).

This is from several weeks ago:

The headline screams “41%...Opposed.” Wouldn’t another perfectly logical way to say that is “59% don’t oppose?” Shouldn’t the majority view carry the headline? Not anymore. What the paper wants you to think is what matters to them. Maybe they’re just reeeally into supporting the unheard minority.

Then cut to last week, when they found a new poll whose numbers they like better:

So it’s not that they want to highlight the minority; they want to highlight the Republican viewpoint.

They pulled the same trick with this NYC poll:

“Almost half of New Yorkers don’t support…” Wouldn’t the traditional headline read “Most New Yorkers support…” Of course it would, but the Sun ownership has a huge stake in keeping things status quo as far as the business environment goes. The last thing they want is to give up tax cuts to pay for social programs that make lives better. So here, people who just scan the headlines come away with the impression that (what they call) Socialism is unpopular.

Also note the tone of this headline:

The Dems are surging, so the outlook now “darkens.” Ooh, scary. They could have just as accurately said, “races toward Dems as… their chances look rosy.” But no. Dems bring darkness and gloom. They don’t actually say that, but the wording implies it. There’s intention behind how news media uses language. On the surface, words are words, but they can always be shaded. Like in one line from the article, “To seize control of the Senate, Democrats must…”

“Seize control.” They could have said “Assume control,” which is neutral, but they didn’t. Seizing sounds violent and chaotic… kinda like January 6^th, when MAGA idiots tried to “seize control” of Congress to prevent the legal transfer of power. They knew what they were doing.

This next article isn’t about the headline, but the way they employ euphemisms to describe things they really don’t want to examine. (This is an AP article, so it’s more representative of play-it-safe mainstream media than local political bias.)

This story appalls me, so it’s not just the language that’s drawn my concern. Putting weapons like these into the hands of sadistic, amped up, blockheads is one more step toward permanent martial law. Have you ever seen those videos of ICEholes shooting pepper spray into the faces of protesters? People are sitting down and holding signs, and these thugs reach around the signs and blast them in the face from a foot away. 

Do you trust THESE guys with portable torture devices that don’t leave marks? The likelihood of abuse is overwhelming. These gloves will be a primary method of crowd control and dispersal. These guys will be tagging people just for fun and then bragging and laughing about it back at HQ.

So, in the article, we find language like this: “The shocks had a profound impact…”

Translation: “They hurt like living hell.”

Victims were left with… “Fatigue, soreness and excessive apprehensiveness to being shocked again.”

To continue: “After experiencing the effects of the GLOVE… participants stated just seeing the GLOVE was enough to make them want to comply.”

Translation: The shocks were so painful they made the recipients spin around three times and then shit themselves. When prompted to respond with “Thank you, sir, may I have another, they emphatically declined.”

When discussing my childhood, I often say, “I received 2 spankings in my life. The reason I got two, because I did not want three.”

That’s what they want with these shock gloves: instant compliance. And that might be fine during hand-to-hand combat during a war, or breaking up a prison riot. But they plan on using these things on lawful American people, exercising their right to assemble. We are not supposed to be a country where the police torture civilians without verifiable cause. Holding signs and yelling does not qualify, nor does driving away from a confrontation.

When the film surfaces of ICE using these things capriciously, I’m going to come back to this post. It will happen. They won’t keep their new toys in the box for long; they’re itching to take them out and play.