Go read the entire home page of the Politico right now and ask yourself if each article:
1. Benefits or takes the liberal side / attack’s the conservative side
2. Focuses on the issues that matter to liberals
I’d say Politico averages about 9/10 articles that answer yes to both, at least.
The difference from Breitbart is that Politico “dresses up” much nicer. Their tone is calm, the headlines seem objective. Their style is one of authority and objectivity, their content is entirely left leaning and oftentimes shamelessly so. I’m not left or right really, but it’s painfully obvious if you read from across the spectrum.
That they seem not as biased (and probably why they rate as only somewhat left leaning in many of these charts) is probably helped by that. To me, that they present that way is a negative not a positive.
You've revealed only your bias: I never stated or even hinted at being pro-Trump, but you have assumed so. I merely was pointing out a fact: Politico is heavily biased for/by the left. That is all.
Fun fact: Bloomberg also tends to publish more liberal opinion than contrary, which makes sense given Mr Bloomberg himself is a Democrat/Democratic candidate.
Further: pointing out a random article from a different website as some sort of proof, is a real great example of moving the goalposts. I never said a thing about Trump - you brought him in. I also never said anything about media having to preset both sides. I merely had one point, a true one, and it stands.
No, you've pointed out your bias. I didn't imply you approved of Trump. You stated that Politico's articles were biased towards liberals. I posted an article - from another news source because I couldn't find one on Politico's home page at that time that I felt would meet this criteria - I assumed you would consider biased towards liberals. That doesn't mean I think you agree or disagree with any particular politician.
I posted that to see whether or not you found it biased - do you or do you not?
Your point does not stand. It's ludicrous both siderism to conclude that Politico is on the same level as Breitbart. It's dangerous.
> I'm guessing you do - because it points out that Trump is lying.
First, I can only assume what you meant by your statement was this, rephrased: You think I'd find any negative reporting on Trump to be "biased", even if its a proven lie.
Can you see how uncharitable of a statement this is? If you can't, that's unfortunate for you, if so (and you chose to write it anyway), you've lost my respect.
Politico is a consistently far left-leaning site. Yes, Breitbart is slightly further on the other side, but the point stands. That Politico dresses up nice just makes more need to point it out. Breitbart isn't dangerous either, it's a populist and nationalist site that generally aligns with the current president's policies pretty well, ie, 48% of voters choice in 2016.
1. Benefits or takes the liberal side / attack’s the conservative side
2. Focuses on the issues that matter to liberals
I’d say Politico averages about 9/10 articles that answer yes to both, at least.
The difference from Breitbart is that Politico “dresses up” much nicer. Their tone is calm, the headlines seem objective. Their style is one of authority and objectivity, their content is entirely left leaning and oftentimes shamelessly so. I’m not left or right really, but it’s painfully obvious if you read from across the spectrum.
That they seem not as biased (and probably why they rate as only somewhat left leaning in many of these charts) is probably helped by that. To me, that they present that way is a negative not a positive.