I'm not the one painting an entire side as anything that suits someone 's propagandist needs at the moment. If I think the news sucks I can't dismiss it by declaring it fake. Accusations are not facts because I want them to be. Sondland' testimony like Taylor's show there was a push by Trump to pressure a country to investigate the guy Trump knows can beat him in the upcoming election. You've made allegations of corruption for far less than that. Now it's different because?
It's not "propagandist" to state the quantifiable facts.
I've cited many sources over the years that lay out the incredbile bias of the news media, that prior to Obama's campaign in 2008, news reporters for 50 years up till then had
self-identified as consistently 80% "liberal" or "very liberal".
And it's been reported even in the partisan liberal media that reporters largely abandoned objectivity and felt a need to take sides against Republicans and with Obama and other Democrats since then. I've cited case after case of reporters being fired for their activism, where rather than report the news, they have been rabid activists for the idological causes thay were supposed to be objectively covering. I listed half a dozen examples of biased fired reporters in the Occupy Wall Street topic alone.
And
now... well... multiple reporters have become unapologetic about it being their holy mission to "stop Trump". They don't even pretend otherwise anymore. The pretense of objectivity they fronted for decades is gone now.
CNN has become a golden monument, the holy altar, of liberal bias. CNN is a joke, whose news coverage could only appear "objective" to the already initiated.
Anderson Cooper in the most recent Democrat primary debate asked Joseph Biden a question about Hunter Biden's corrupt business associations in Ukraine and China, and laughably called the accusations "obviously false". He might as well have been wearing an BIDEN 2020 campaign button when he asked the question.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/sco...sed-your-son-noOther liberal-biased moderators, that arguably turned an election, include Candy Crowley and Martha Raddatz.
And the liberal media even plays favorites and kicks down Democrat primary candidates, in favor of the ones they want to win, as with Tulsi Gabbard in the last few debates. CNN clearly favors Elizabeth Warren across multiple debates, and consistently gives her more debate-time.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...sed/1884548001/And internet social media also has aa liberal bias:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tulsi-g...fter-dem-debateJournalists donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign at a ratio of 96%:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-...hillary-clintonA
Harvard study showed that CNN and NBC coverage of Donald Trump is 93% negative. And far more skewed across the entire media, as compared to the media's coverage of President Obama.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2017/0...ive_410848.htmlThose are just a few examples, there are
many more:
https://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101In the 2008 election, 93% of Washington-based journalists supported Obama, a higher ratio of support than ultra-liberal population regions like Boston and San Francisco. Gee, I wonder how that might affect election coverage!
https://ricochet.com/88333/archives/poli...lterman-part-2/Plus many more examples. Liberal media bias is not even disputed by most liberals.
And it is backed up by quite possibly an even greater bias by teachers and college professors. Which I've also cited and linked. Bill O'Reilly cited on his program a few years ago that at Harvard's political science department, his alma mater, there were 25 liberal professors and not a single conservative on staff.
