So we are actually going to be stuck with Hillary, unbelievable

I'll give you media bias! The CONSTANT media coverage of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin is an example. During this media hype, another event took place that only received a small fraction of coverage...I saw the clip one time...then had to look it up on the Net. In April 2012, a Houston nurse (black adult female) waited outside a hospital and killed a white female and stole her 3 month old baby son!

Why did the media bury this so quickly, but making sure the black kid getting shot was covered abundantly? Futurecurrents doesn't believe the media would be self serving for ratings...do you? Anyway, the media wasn't going to benefit as much covering the white woman's death, so they pretty much ignored it...or maybe they didn't want to take anything away from the social protest taking place. Where was the objectivity of the media in this case?

Do you or futurecurrents even remember this other event? If not, I rest my case!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/houston-woman-pleads-guilty-killing-mom-stealing-baby-article-1.1522834


One was an interesting story, one was not. Try again.

I will certainly admit that the media goes for what's popular. That's why they avoid talking about global warming. They would lose too many viewers if they brought it up.
 
Seriously? You didn't see a media BIAS in that story? Come on...don't be in denial! Your're smarter than that. The point...the media is BIASED and has been for a long time!!!!!
Both stories were covered, one more than the other. Why do you think that is? One is an unfortunate story about a homicide. The other is an unfortunate story about a homicide that was racially motivated and perpetrated by someone in ~quasi-authority. Both incidents are tragic, but one is a hot-button topic. So which one do you think would get more coverage?

And so, once again:

 
One was an interesting story, one was not. Try again.

I will certainly admit that the media goes for what's popular. That's why they avoid talking about global warming. They would lose too many viewers if they brought it up.
The "media goes for what's popular". And whats popular right now? Social reform, liberal ideas, and progressiveness, but isn't there another side to the world? Screw the media!
 
Both stories were covered, one more than the other. Why do you think that is? One is an unfortunate story about a homicide. The other is an unfortunate story about a homicide that was racially motivated and perpetrated by someone in ~quasi-authority. Both incidents are tragic, but one is a hot-button topic. So which one do you think would get more coverage?

And so, once again:
How do you know it was racially motivated? Maybe Zimmerman is paranoid about teenagers walking around suspiciously? How do you know the black lady didn't deliberately choose a white person to commit her crime?
 
The "media goes for what's popular". And whats popular right now? Social reform, liberal ideas, and progressiveness, but isn't there another side to the world? Screw the media!

Forcing preferences on people (whatever the agenda is) rather than dealing with truth .
 
It certainly had nothing to do with the government mandated sub-prime housing bubble that was pushed almost exclusively by the Democrat party.

I wouldn't expect you to know that because you are a Bernie supporter and according to Hillary, that makes you a lazy bum living in your parent's basement. Her words, not mine.
She never said "lazy" you doofy liar.
 
Because I have a functioning brain.
Maybe it's not functioning that well, because it decided to join the BANDWAGON...the left and the media wanted this to be racial...to reinforce their "agenda"! Every time a black is killed by a non black, it shouldn't be automatically labeled racially motivated.
 
Back
Top