- Nov 15, 2006
- 43,920
- 14,014
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Is there a reason they are not supposed to have bias?
2) A provocative headline: "Top GOP strategist: Republican tax bill is ‘build on a foundation of lies'."
The Hill‘s "top GOP strategist" referred to in the tweet below, however, is Steve Schmidt, an MSNBC political analyst who has spend the better part of five years ripping into Republicans and conservatives while giving the network's panels the appearance of balance.
I do resent publications that deliberately mislead readers by through the careful use of ambiguous wording. Anyway, The Hill is known to be somewhat Left of Center, so there's nothing too shocking about the report that it has misled readers a number of times. Still, The Hill is bearable if you want to catch up on Washington developments from the perspective of old-fashioned, run of the mill, non-Antifa type liberals and you are aware of its slant. By contrast, the Huffington Post, Rolling Stone, and the like shouldn't even be considered news media.
I’m dealing with the topic, not deflection from it
"National Park gift shop sold wine from Trump winery," the Twitter headline reads, while the actual story headline read, "National park store sold Trump wine, says feds not involved."
I don't think I've ever seen a liberal poster link to The Hill.
You're forgetting, the terms liberal and conservative have been drastically redefined over the last 2 years.
We're living in the age where people like McCain and Kasich are labelled as "RINOs", and anyone left of Dennis Prager and Rush Limbaugh on the spectrum is considered to have "liberal bias".