The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, among other rights, grants freedom of the press. It specifically states: "... Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press ..." As with the rest of the Constitution, a brilliant political principle without question. With its brilliance though, it does not regulate the quality of the free press and throughout our history we have seen both outstanding journalism and pitiful examples of a free press. In the second decade of the 21st century, there are two strong political ideologies (left & right) controlling the political dialogue in this country. During the 2012 Presidential Election, spin from the left and right are presented as mainstream information and what was formerly mainstream, balanced & unbiased information sources have changed or evolved their format to the point that unbiased reporting is unavailable. In the 2016 Presidential Election, there was no effort at all to cover up the biased reporting of the mainstream media. Today'snews sources are targeting specific messages to gain specific ideological audiences, thereby presenting bias. This bias is most times unidentifiable, not completely truthfully nor presented with perspective and context that the reader/viewer/listener requires and expects. Shockingly, sometimes this bias is purposely (NBC) camouflaged (NY Times - 4th paragraph down) from the reader/viewer/listener. In our polarized society, these strong messages on both sides overpower the ability of people with limited time to evaluate issues to find a center, compromise, reasonable or mainstream position. Especially when each side is also saying they offer the center, compromise, reasonable and mainstream position, whether they do or not. There are media watchdog organizations out there, but they also represent an ideological left and right. Much of this website is dedicated to shedding light on the bias in current American journalism. While we long for that great post-WWII journalistic era, where we were served by responsible, professional and largely unbiased journalism, unfortunately, we are no longer so served. That makes it difficult for American citizens to find the truth among the hype, agenda peddling and biased reporting. If you look at the bottom of this page and all pages on this website, you will find major (and some not so major) news organizations listed based on their political leanings, Left or Right. You will immediately notice there are none listed in the center. While there may be the occasional article in any of these news sources which could be a center, balanced and truthful report, by and large the reporting from that news source is defined by its L-R political leanings. The Gray Area is attempting to help its readers by so identifying the biases of the news source from which a report originates to help you identify the spin within the news piece you are reading or watching. We will include an article in the center if we believe it represents the center, a thoughtful, balanced and honest perspective. That way, presented with facts and recognizing the source, you can make up your own mind. In this 'media' section, we comment on the egregiousness of some reporting so that you may see the best and worst of what we must today use as our sources of information.

Media Mess Up Another Political Story Due To Anti-Trump Bias

from The Gray Area:

Politics is always a confusing flow of competing data about the status of any and all negotiations between parties in Washington. With Donald Trump in the White House, we have become accustomed to leaks and hyped rumors that have made this fact of politics more frustrating and hard to follow. Last night and today, anxiously waiting for something to hype that reflects negatively on Donald Trump, the media set off another firestorm of headlines about the meeting between President Trump and Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. These reports turned out to be completely wrong, though presented with glee by the reporters. But accuracy and responsible journalism don't matter, only presenting the negative messaging is important.

Pelosi and Schumer Say They Have Deal With Trump to Replace DACA

Did Chuck Schumer And Nancy Pelosi Roll President Donald Trump On DACA?

In doing so, the media has demonstrated its continued failure to get the facts right, interpret what is said and accurately separate fact from political spin.

Here is the President's tweet today about the Wall.

Here is how the President clearly stated the discussions to this point:

The discussions and 'framework' for an agreement is certaily complex and details are to be determined. But one media outlet took the time to get it right. Here is how The Wall Street Journal more accurately reported the discussion:

Trump, Democrats Haggle on Contours of a ‘Dreamers’ Deal.

'Schumer, Pelosi agree to pair ‘Dreamer’ protections with border-security measures but not funding for a wall.'

President Donald Trump said Thursday that he and congressional leaders were “fairly close” to an agreement to give legal status to undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, saying the protections would be paired with “massive border security” but not funding for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. “We’re working on a plan, subject to getting massive border controls,” he said at the White House before departing on a trip to Florida. “The wall will come later.” The president’s comments followed a White House dinner Wednesday with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who said afterward that they had reached the outlines of an agreement. Democrats strongly oppose the wall but aren’t generally against additional border security measures.

Speaking to reporters and in a series of Twitter posts on Thursday, the GOP president repeated his desire to aid young illegal immigrants who are currently protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which last week he moved to end. “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. “They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security.” Later, after landing in Florida to view hurricane damage, Mr. Trump said the wall funding doesn’t have to be part of this agreement, but that Democrats can’t “obstruct” the project later on. “If there’s not a wall, we’re doing nothing,” he said.

Democrats have said they made it clear that they will continue to oppose the wall. Further complicating the situation, House Speaker Paul Ryan signaled that he wasn’t bound by the events of the last day and said a package addressing the DACA population should include immigration enforcement measures as well as border security. Neither Mr. Trump nor the Democrats mentioned that. Mr. Trump also said in Florida that “we’re not looking at citizenship” for the young undocumented immigrants. But Mrs. Pelosi said their discussion with Mr. Trump involved taking action on the Dream Act, which provides a path to citizenship for this group.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.), chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of conservative lawmakers, suggested the most problematic part of a deal could be providing the young immigrants a path to citizenship. “It’s a problem for the majority of the Republican conference on citizenship,” he said Thursday.

That dispute, in the end, may wind up more difficult to resolve than the question of wall funding.

More From The Wall Street Journal:

365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )
Leave a Reply