@vkate Just wow. I provided more sources and real world examples and I still lose?Sad. This website has gone downhill fast.
@theantifeminist The philosophy of QallOut, as I understand it, is to have meaningful conversations and debate each other as human beings. You provide many, many sources that demonstrate a liberal bias. I agree with you that there is a liberal bias in US media. However, like I said, this resolution was not a conservative vs. liberal debate. The PRO adequately demonstrated that corporate bias is the primary bias at least 51% of the time. Let's assume that every single US media outlet is inherently has a liberal leaning. This resolution, as I understand it, doesn't care. This resolution cares if there is *more* bias toward corporate interests. I liked your case and I think it's important to talk about how the press has demonized the president from the get-go. But it isn't abundantly clear that corporations can keep existing if they prioritize any agenda *most* of the time over their own desire to make money.
@vkate My case also provided MANY examples of sacrafice for corporate bias in favor of a liberal one. You don't seem to have listened to what I said or read what I posted. Again, sad. Not sure why you're a judge if you can't pay attention to what's said.I proved my case with more sources and examples than my opponent, you choosing to ignore the crux of my argument is your fault, not my own.
Here are a few of my sources. Only the ones I referenced in the debate.https://www.allsides.com/bias/bias-ratings?field_news_source_type_tid=2&field_news_bias_nid=4&field_featured_bias_rating_value=All&title=http://jonathanstray.com/papers/Media%20Bias%20in%20Presidential%20Elections.pdf https://www.thenation.com/article/what-liberal-media/ http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/academics/communications/research/vol4no2/05DanielQuackenbushEJFall13.pdf
For the second time on QallOut, I lost extensive remarks because the page auto-refreshes after the video ends. I think pro clearly won with compelling academic evidence. Con should not have spent valuable time cussing at pro while dismissing his important arguments about NBC imitating Fox, conservatives dominating in some mediums like talk radio, and a logical explanation of market economics.
@josephemcgowan that's super annoying, sorry for that.. we're on it, promise!
@josephemcgowan I had the same problem. Glad to see they're fixing it.
This debate is no contest. @dembateme13 dominates it from beginning to end. He presents a well-reasoned case and backs it up with compelling citations. He logically turns many of Con's more forceful positions. He maintains his composure when being called "full of shit" and continues with his case. @theantifemanist starts out decently enough, though he doesn't have a structured case so much as a long series of anecdotal claims. Some of them ring true, some of them are pure conjecture. Many of them are wildly off topic. What the heck does Camping World or Starbucks have to do with the US media?Calling your opponent full of shit is bad form. Especially when they are earnest and citing reputable sources and studies. Telling people to go read a book is not an argument. Pro is able to respond to every point con tries to make and shows time and time again how any such biases are in service to the bottom line of making money.
The media is made up of individuals, like every other corporations or non profit, & it’s these individuals who do the news, who are the media. Research has shown that these individuals donate to liberal candidates more than 94% of the time5 Major pieces of evidence to ‘prove’ the media is immensely left wing http://www.dailywire.com/news/18054/5-statistics-show-media-bias-real-aaron-bandler
@nellyj_misesian I'm done with Qallout after this. The voting is a joke and even if you're right, unless you rally voters to come and vote, you'll likely still lose if you're not a liberal shill. This site has gone downhill real fast.
@theantifeminist Your problem is not liberal shills but your terrible debating skill. I understand that you may not have been feeling well, but if you want to win against excelent debaters like your opponent, you need to make a pointed and rational case and to back it up with a bit more than a rant.This is a debate competition, not a contest of who is more convinced of their own ideology.Any good debater could beat you with such weakly structured and supported arguments. But instead of taking the criticism seriously and considering you might have fault in your loss, you lash out and blame anyone and everyone but yourself. That is a display of immaturity and mental weakness.If you think you are right, you have to do the work to prove you are right and to do it in a persuasive way. You were not persuasive, you were not polite, you were not effective.Your opponent was focused on winning the argument and did everything needed to do so. As a result, he demolished you here. But if you are willing to learn, you could improve your presentation and increase your persuasiveness to better represent what you feel is the truth. That would serve your cause more than complaining and moaning about how unfair everyone is to you.
@sigfried That's some mighty fine passive aggressive "feedback" you're providing me. I was not shocked to see you call yourself a "progressive liberal" because without seeing your bio that's exactly what you come off ass. Self-important and condescending. "If you think you are right, you have to do the work to prove you are right and to do it in a persuasive way."I did that. I provided more factual evidence, studies and real world examples than my opponent. Not to mention I provided about 4x as many sources for my argument as he did.You agree with him, it's not shock to me you were convinced. It's not my job to break through a thick case of cognitive dissonance. I knew if I didn't ask for votes I wouldn't win on this site, it's a liberal shill-hole. I was/am empirically and objectively correct. I don't disagree that I could have been a little more polite, but I don't exactly pull punches when I'm debating and his arguments were incredibly ignorant and "full of shit" as I said in the debate.By the way, I haven't moaned about anyone being unfair to me. But hey, your feedback wouldn't be true "liberal progressive" feedback without condescension, exaggerations, and logical fallacies.
@theantifeminist Sorry to hear you feel this way. Community votes counts as 1 vote but we do recognize that might not be fair hence we are bringing at least one Judge before decision is made. Our judges have debating experience and get incentivized and rewarded based on their thoughtful and impartial feedback. Sources are important to support argument and the case of a debater but just sources will not win a debate; logical reasoning will.Over the last few months we had people calling QallOut "white-supremacist site" and others calling it "leftist and liberal outlet". And we also have an increasing number of people who just come here to discuss their views and truly listen to some different perspectives rather than dismiss their counterparts just by calling them "liberals"/"conservatives" with no real arguments. We're happy and proud to have them here.If by downhill you mean that we grew a community of extremely strong debaters, I guess you are absolutely right. Competitive debating is not for everyone so fair enough if it's not for you.We wish you all the best and fast recovery!
@theantifeminist Yes, you have complaind about a lack of fairness. You said the site was stacked against you, that there is no way you could win because everyone was biased. You expressed incredulity that the judge could vote against you. You are whining like a spoiled teenager.You opened this reply of yours with pejoratives and have thrown lots more around as well. I am both classicly liberal in my political philosophy and progressive in the spirit of Teddy Rosevelt. I believe that tyranny does not only come from government, that individuals can also deprive one another of rights and liberties and that it is the duty of the state to help ensure that does not happen. Why on earth did you think Camping World or Starbucks have anything to do with the media's liberal bias? You trot those out like they are examples but they have nothing to do with the resolution.To make this case, you need to show that liberal bias is more pervasive than corporate bias. That is not an easy thing. 99.X% of the media is for profit. If they don't make money they cease to exist. That is a strong motivation for the vast majority of the media outlets. Even if 80% of them are liberally biased (and your opponent offers sweeping evidence saying that it is about 50/50) then you still would lose because even more of them hold a for-profit bias.To win this case, you need to challenge Pros contention that corporate bias represents the profit motive for a company. That ground gives him a monstrous logical advantage in the resolution. You simply accepted it, you agreed with it, and that was your first big step to losing this round. You really needed to challenge that point and define a corporate agenda as something other than the profit/loss of the company. You also need to challenge his definition of media which is limited to the news business. Google, Reddit and many of your other examples are not news organizations what so ever. That makes them completely irrelevant as examples in the debate so long as you accept Pro's definitions, which you explicitly did in the beginning of the round.You made claims that companies were hurting themselves, but you offered no hard evidence for that, just anecdotal claims of specific instances. Pro explained to you that liberal and conservative bias is catering to liberal and conservative audiences. Logically that means that profit is the primary motive and politics is a means to an end. You don't counter this very rational argument, you just say he's full of shit.When you attack Fox news as liberal, you undermine your own credibility. No person who identifies themselves with the let likes or regularly watches fox news unless they monitor it for the joy of being outraged by what is said there. In the American divide, it is a conservative news source. That it doesn't measure up to your personal view of conservatism is irrelevant. If you could provide a citation that most conservatives don't see it as conservative, or see it as explicitly liberal, then you would have a real argument. But your personal nay-saying means nothing to a general audience.And you make many false claims, You say that the "Somali church shooter" wasn't covered in the mainstream press. How is it I first read about that story in the Washington Post? A decidedly liberal newspaper? And by the way, he is from the Sudan, not Somalia. Another fact you got wrong. He was also a congregant from the church where the shooting took place. He was a Christian who was known in the community. It was a story that didn't fit will in the Us vs Them narrative that the media and the viewing public is so fond of. He was not a Muslim, he did not have extreme views that anyone could find. The victims were not only white people. Nearly every major US news outlet ran a story on it, both conservative and liberal and in between. There were profiles of the gunman, profiles of the usher who stopped him, profiles of the victims, the church, the town etc...So what you claimed was not objectively true, it was objectively false, and this is just one of your many claims. It takes only a moment's research to demonstrate that.
@sigfried award winning comment
@sigfried probably because you're a liberal :p
@debateme13 While I don’t approve of the exact verbiage @theantifeminist used, some of what he said is dead on. You can pull up all the studies you want but studies can be found to support whatever you want them to support. Please man seriously you have to see that there are for more liberal sources than Conservative. And these sources report things that are heavily slanted left. You can cite whatever you want to cite but I don’t even watch the news because besides Fox News every other new source is so inaccurate and slanted left. I got tired of every sneeze Trump had being reported on as the end of the world. C’mon man be honest. Name five liberal outlets then name 5 conservative media outlets. I bet for the conservative side you had to cross all sorts of mediums. You have to search for Conservative media sources.
@the_peoples_champ I literally just got up from a nap and I was/am sick as hell. I definitely could have spoken a little more cleanly, but the point I made was indisputable. My last two debates I have not asked outside sources for a *single* vote, just to see how this site would vote without me influencing it by outside people I could ask to vote. It's really depressing looking at the votes considering I KNOW I won this debate. Soundly.I see @qallout's account liked my comment about being done with this site. It's just more than frustrating debating people and then having to spend my time rallying votes because I KNOW this site has/will always vote against me. The majority of the votes I've gotten to win debates in the past were 100% reliant upon me garnering support and that's just sad. I don't want to debate on a platform where after my debate I have to find votes because I know regardless of my arguments I'll be downvoted. This place is going the way of reddit.@debateme13 Was kind, but intellectually dishonest and wouldn't concede basic points that I think anyone outside of the debate would concede. I don't know anyone who honestly thinks Hollywood, Main Stream Media and a MASSIVE amount of the largest corporations have a liberal agenda and bias that is so strong, when it isn't influencing their motives to make money, it's hindering their motives to make money."Liberalism" is at the core of their business model and to pretend that isn't true is to be dishonest. I've complained before that judges don't listen to the debates carefully enough before. One time I was judged against within a few minutes of the debate ending. If I were to judge something I could re-watch, I would certainly do so enough that I wouldn't state something that could obviously be debunked simply by watching the debate. Thanks for the kind words and backing up my points but it's a lost cause. Unless I were to go out and ask everyone I know to come here and vote, it wouldn't make a difference.
@the_peoples_champ See here's the thing. In order to come to the conclusion that the media is inherently liberal, conservatives are just looking at Cable news. Who says we have to get our news from cable?The myth of the "liberal media" is only derived by cherry picking sources. Yes Hollywood is liberal. Yes Cable News is liberal. No the entire media is not liberal. That doesn't even make economic sense. If half the country is conservative, then why would the entire media be liberal if that doesn't make them money? The answer is because it's a myth. There's just as much of a right-leaning media as there is a left leaning media. The conservative media is just in different places. I named 10 right leaning sources off the top of my head during the debate, but here's a list of 69 sources with right-of center viewpoints:https://www.allsides.com/bias/bias-ratings?field_news_source_type_tid=2&field_news_bias_nid=4&field_featured_bias_rating_value=All&title=That list doesn't even factor in a whole ton of other right-leaning sources like Rare, The Weekly Standard, The Daily Signal, or the countless conservative commentators on talk radio. In a capitalist society, the goal of any for-profit industry is to make a profit. If there's a market need, usually a business will pop up to fill that need. This is why there are tons of conservative news organizations.Look at the irony of Nelson and David posting articles from Daily Wire, The Daily Caller, Breitbart, and The Washington Examiner. Even while they try and act like there is no conservative media, they're literally posting articles from that conservative media.This is why independent analysis' have come to the conclusion that while some media sectors are are biased toward liberals, there are just as many that are biased toward conservatives. They're just in different places.
@debateme13 I agree, we no longer live in a time when media is just cable news and Hollywood. The consumption of information on social media is the highest compare to print, tv and other traditional media. The_donald is the biggest subreddit on reddit, brietbart is the biggest Facebook news page, etc.. and even if we were to look at TV, Fox is the biggest news network on tv in terms of ratings.
@theantifeminist, I know as I write this to you that @debateme13 will automatically just take my comment as a “conservative sticking up for a conservative” but I really do agree with you that there were things he fought you on, that are things understood by average people to be fact. [Liberalism and a Liberal Agenda” is at the core of their business model and to pretend that isn’t true is to be dishonest].@debateme13: you say, “In order to come to the conclusion that the media is inherently liberal, conservatives are just looking at Cable news”. I say if you do not feel that the media is inherently liberal then you are not looking at the sphere of influence the different media sources have. To name 10 right leaning media sources you almost have to get down to naming high school newspapers to name 10. I hit this in a different way, I looked up the top 10 Most Viewed News Sources by Pew Research.1. Yahoo News (left)2. CNN (left)3. MSNBC (left)4. AOL news (wasn’t on the link you provided)5. New York Times (left)6. Fox News (right)7. ABC News (left)8. The Huffington Post (left)9. Google News (wasn’t on the link you provided but)10. Washington Post (left)People’s first stop for news is not a podcast that is one day behind the issues. I know this because I listen to Glenn Beck and his podcast tapes in the morning before the days’ events have happened. I’d go so far as to say these are the largest 10 new sources also, and look at that slant.
on Facebook, Breitbart had the highest circulation of news and page views during the election compared to HuffPost NY Times and the rest of themOn YouTube, AlexJones is the most subscribed to news channel (that is not by a major cable news network On TV, Fox News Ratings are off the charts compared to its liberal peersAnd while fox, breitbart and Alex Jones are clearly conservative and CNN, HuffPost and the likes are clearly liberal , both groups with a clear political bias, the one thing that brings both groups in common is sensationalism, which ultimately brings in ratings (despite each taking a different political angle), but the ultimate goal is money, profits and more ratings. The politics angle they take is just means to an end, the end being profits. This is not to say that the media powerhouses do not inherently believe in their political bias , but the primary objective is profit , not political power ..
@yaz False. So much falsity it's hard to fathom you believe what you're saying.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5854-qAqkMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0c1Bph1jrQPart of my point about Fox ratings being higher is that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Google, Washington Post, etc are all doing things behind the scenes to serve a liberal agenda. This agenda is losing them viewers, subscribers and ad revenue but they continue to do it. Until this week the NFL did nothing to enforce the protests during the national anthem and continued to take the loses until they realized they were about to lose their business.I'd love to debate you on this topic if you want. I know I'm right, I have the sources and information to back it up and since this website is apparently filled with willfully ignorant people it couldn't hurt to bring more awareness to the reality everyone here seems to reject in favor of a false narrative given to them by the same people who are brainwashing them.If you were right and profit was their end game, they would appeal more to conservative audiences or cover stories like the refugee who shot up the church or the NYT would have published that story about Harvey Weinstein instead of pulling it. Stop lying to yourself. If you have to, sit down and really think about how wrong your statements are when you look at the facts.http://www.dailywire.com/news/18054/5-statistics-show-media-bias-real-aaron-bandlerhttps://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/study-google-search-results-liberal/2016/11/22/id/760200/http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2016/05/yes_facebook_is_biased_now_it_should_admit_it.html
@theantifeminist let's do it, same topic... also, you're the epitome of what it means to be bigotted . I might be wrong, you claim to "know you're right" and whine like a toddler every time you lose a QallOut tournament (but have no problem taking the win when you actually win...). You are inspiring us to come up with a new SL Badge (sore loser)... only for you.But that's fine, so we are debating the same topic then?
@yaz dammmmmmmmmmmm son. He just got called out on Qallout. I'm stoked to watch this debate now :D
I'm happy to judge this debate, or participate if need be.
@debateme13 to be honest, i still didn't fully watch your debate with him so don't know all the arguments made there.. happy to enter this one with my raw outlook on the topic.
@yaz I know I'm right because the evidence shows I'm right. I'm objectively correct.I'm not "bigoted" (you spelled that wrong btw) just because I disagree with someone who is wrong about something. I don't have to tolerate ignorance when it's sprinkled with a little bit of credibility. It shows what your bias is that you, the CEO, are willing to personally attack and insult me. Even going as far as to create a new "badge" to publicly shame me for daring to speak up when I have legitimate complaints.In the entirety of our friendship and working together I have never ONCE personally insulted you but I can think of at least a dozen times where you have called me named, attacked my character or insulted my intelligence. You base almost all your disagreements with me around ad hominems. I have never treated you or talked to you as demeaningly and disrespectfully as you talk down to me.I was willing to debate you until you decided to add insult to injury by ignorantly calling me bigoted because I dared to speak up for something I know, 100%, to be objectively true. So no, @yaz, I will not debate you. I will not debate someone who harasses me and makes it a point to publicly shame me simply for speaking up.I mentioned how I didn't even ask for a single vote. I KNEW I was going to lose and if you ask my gf she will tell you I was wanting this to be over, I hate having to debate and then go ask for votes because this website is so freaking predictable.How am I a sore loser if I wasn't even garnering votes for myself to win? I'm not disputing the fact that I lost in votes and against a judge who clearly didn't pay attention. I'm just saying that even though I lost the debate, doesn't mean I lost the argument. I factually won and no votes or judges can change empirical evidence.You should really examine how triggered you get to go as far as personally insulting and talking down to me while proclaiming you're going to shame me publicly as well.You really need to reevaluate how it is ever appropriate for a CEO to talk to a member of his website like that. Let alone a friend.
@debateme13 Sorry, I won't be debating someone who personally insults me to the level he did.
@theantifeminist Bro, I felt I was really respectful to you during the debate, but you repeatedly attacked me personally, calling me "stupid," "full of shit," and "intellectually dishonest".And now you're upset about Yaz calling you a sore loser? But regardless. This is supposed to be fun, and it's less fun when things get personal. I know you're a smart guy and I think we agree on a lot of issues, so I wish you the best in the future and I'll look forward to watching future debates of yours. I hope you stick around on the site because I do respect your opinion and I'm sure you have a lot of perspectives I can learn from in the future, even if we may have disagreed on some things during this round.
@debateme13 I am sorry if I came off as hostile. I usually refrain from anything resembling an ad hominem but some of the things you said were stupid, full of shit and intellectually dishonest. I don't pull punches when I debate and although I could have phrased it better, all of those statements are true. I don't think you are personally stupid, but you definitely said some stupid things.You do not know my relationship with Yaz. How we met, how well we have gotten to know each other and the personal talks and chats we have had since I came aboard. He made it personal, as he always does. This is not the first time he has called me names or insulted me on a personal level, this is just the final straw seeing as he is doing it in a public settings and seemingly going to even create a badge to shame me further. I found this website to be a lot of fun when I first joined but the more it's grown, the more it leaves a sore taste in my mouth.I'm still sick and trying to get rest so I'll just leave it at that. Don't strawman me, Bro.I enjoyed debating you and would do it again. This is not personal, at all. I listed my complaints and reasons I spoke up, mainly that I decided not to ask for a single vote knowing I would lose if I did that and that the judge clearly didn't pay attention to the debate. There are other complaints but I won't re-write them here.Again, nothing personal, it was a fun debate and you were polite and well-read. I would do it again if I wasn't feeling so poor right now.
@theantifeminist fair enough, feel better man!
@theantifeminist I called you 'bigoted', which is not an insult in my book or any other dictionary for that matter.. it's literally a description of your behavior.If a person thinks their facts and opinions are objectively true, when they're at the very least debatable (btw this exact topic has seen hundreds of debates in other outlets)... then this is literally the definition of bigotry. You think your perspective of what's objectively true to be irrefutable... that's bigotry. If i called you full of shit or stupid, that would be ad hominem, which is what you did and that's contributed to you losing the debate (as indicated not just by our Resident Judges, but other community members, too).I still think of you as a friend, and as friends do, it's my duty be honest with you and not bullshit you like some CEOs typically do with customers. If you want to receive the 'customer is always right treatment' bullshit treatment, go somewhere else... I am trying, together with our awesome team and community, to call out bad debaters and celebrate good debaters, regardless of their opinions. If QallOut is a liberal site as you claim it, why are you as a non-liberal/leftist given a platform to debat here? let alone have an RD badge? how did you win a previous championship supporting Trump's policies? (FYI, on Reddit, we're known as a white supremacist website for all the pepe the frog avatars we have on QallOut...)As for calling you a sore loser, this is again something i would tell my best friend when he or she is acting as a sore loser. and you are acting (again!) as a sore loser this time around, after this stunt you pulled off last tournament where we had to do your debate twice, and twice you lost:https://www.qallout.com/debate/2399-how-can-qallout-be-more-fair-to-participantsThere's a general consensus, since this last incident as well as this one, that your behavior is the exact definition of a sore loser. you don't lose graciously, you demand unwarranted rematches as assessed by the entire community on the left and on the right, not just me, you call the site leftists when u lose but you debate happily when you win.. it's literally the behavior of a sore loser.QallOut is not a standard commercial business and I'm not a standard CEO. This is a debate community, we call shit out as we see it without sugar coating stuff.. you're free to do the same, as you have been attacking QallOut and it's political bias and calling us out every single time you lose a debate.. and as your friend, QO community member and QO CEO, i'm just calling you out on your sore loser and bigoted behavior. no personal insults in what i'm saying, just a description of what i'm seeing and being candid with a friend about it.
@theantifeminist"@yaz I know I'm right because the evidence shows I'm right. I'm objectively correct."This statement, in and of itself, is why you sould NOT have an RD badge. that's not the behavior or to we want to have represented by our RDs.That said, i know if we remove your RD badge now you'll call this a leftist move or me lashing out (as you did last time)... so we'll keep your RD badge, but please note there are guidelines to keeping the badge which also include the number of debates you need to do to keep it (other RDs no longer have the RD badge).
@theantifeminist admitted above that liberalism is the core of their *business model.* The media clearly does have a corporate bias, catering to their markets, as even you admitted. I’m extremely conservative, I don’t see Fox as conservative, and yet I can see Danny as clearly winning this round based on the facts.
@josephemcgowan correct.. a political bias is being used as a strategy to ultimately serve a corporate objective. it's not so much about who's in power in the white house, as much as it is to make money.. and they choose to make money by feeding a certain political bias (and lots of misinformation on the left and the right) to the respective audiences that want to hear it.
@yaz Question for you based on your comment " If a person thinks their facts and opinions are objectively true, when they're at the very least debatable (btw this exact topic has seen hundreds of debates in other outlets)... then this is literally the definition of bigotry. )Q: If there was a debate as to whether or not lowering the tax rate causes deficits (for example - Reagan tax cuts)....then someone who argues that the deficits and debt went UP after the tax cuts is arguing a different proposition. Someone pushing the proposition that tax cuts caused REVENUES to go UP....proves that tax cuts didn't cause the deficits. What is necessary is to show that increased spending beyond the increased revenues is what caused the increased deficits. NOW - trying to insist that the tax cuts did NOT cause the deficits ...and showing the evidence of increased revenues that came in is an easily established fact. BUT - I have seen plenty of leftists who continue to insist that Reagan tax cuts caused the increased deficits. They refuse to consider the increased spending as the problem. To push and insist on the FACTS in evidence...is it 'bigoted' to continue to insist that the tax cuts did not cause deficits? Is it 'bigoted' to insist on facts in evidence? To me...insistence on the 'superiority' of OPINIONS can be bigoted. BUT - insistence on reliance of facts is NOT in any way being 'bigoted'.
Interesting topic....but I think the actual facts can be confused by a wide variety of other facts.Talk shows - predominantly conservative - but even Rush, with about 25 million listeners - has a possible impact on less than 8% of the population.Fox News - biggest cable news - much smaller overall audience.Mainstream Media (MSM) - they have much larger audiences...so their impact is much greater than talk radio or cable news. Even more significant is that the majority of people don't really get news from news sources, but from a wide variety of 'talk shows'. Lots of people got their 'news' from the Colbert Report....but they got leftist comedy. Lots of people get their 'news' from talk shows like Good Morning America or other morning talk shows. Lots of people listen to the late night comedy shows and here a slanted opinion...and that is the only way that they learn about events. (NOTE - here - I am not blaming media, but voters who are too lazy to try to get accurate information.)To look at the difference between corporate bias and liberal bias - one must look at what is covered and how it is covered....and what is NOT covered. ALSO - if something comes up - is it investigated like a 'junkyard dog' not letting go of a bone, or do they take talking points and not investigate in detail. US Media has a desire to be BOTH supportive of leftist causes AND make a good profit. They actually can do both. AND - plenty of leftist positions are supported with the knowledge that they can keep leftist viewers who only want to hear the left side ....and if they are too 'balanced' - they might gain a few viewers on the right, but they might lose more leftist viewers than are gained on the right.AND - for examples of leftist bias - consider how little was investigated on Hillary's many many possible crimes, vs. repeating the talking points put out. Illegal e-mail server. Classified documents on her server. Pay to Play. Collusion with Russia (aiding the sale of 20% of US uranium mining, etc.) The book Clinton Cash. If these actions (and plenty of others) were done by a conservative - the investigations would be massive and in depth. For Hillary - dismissive. Consider how little was done after the Benghazi debacle...and Susan Rice and Hillary's lies. Several years later, when Hillary's e-mails revealed that she was communicating with people about the REAL cause...while LYING about the cause on TV and Radio....never got much air time in the press. There is insufficient debate time to cover all the many different times that the main stream media has been complicit in covering up for leftist causes....while refusing to let go of 'possible offenses' by conservatives (even when there is zero evidence of a crime.)AND - finally - consider how John Stossel - ABC investigative reporter was 'pushed out' because he was too effective in attacking causes near and dear to ABC. AND - ditto for Sheryl Attkinson - another fantastic investigative reporter who has been pressured to shift her focus of investigations.@theantifeminist didn't comport himself well to make his position....but I think the full facts would suggest that the media will do what it takes to be in bed with both corporate interests AND leftist interests...but if there is a conflict, they will stick with the leftists interests until it is no longer possible to stay on that side. (For example - they covered up for Harvey Weinstein for about 13 years...burying a report that could have exposed him in 2004....but when it became inevitable in 2017....they have decided to cut their losses and cover it fully now.