Tag Archives: Bias

Reports: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Still Healthiest Person On Earth, Ever

Image result for ruth bader ginsburg
RBG at Some Event

8/25/2019–USA, In a world where perhaps the healthiest person is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and if Trump uses sarcasm or sneezes he is certainly mentally ill and totally unfit for office, the media has again reported accurately and without clear bias on current political situations.

Mainstream news media suggests and absolutely verifies with completely reliable unnamed sources that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, supreme court justice, is still the world’s healthiest person, ever, and in immaculate health, without question. This accurate information is very important for the average American citizen and the abnormal.

Justice Ginsburg’s bill of good health is very beneficial and incredibly necessary information for America, especially all Democrats, and their partners in the mainstream news media–who are also all Democrats in reality, in relation to supreme court nominations and the upcoming 2020 Election.

MPR News Article appears to Explain away a Democrat’s offense as Non-Issue taken out of Context, Not so for Trump or Republicans

ST PAUL, MN–MPR News has pointed out that a video shared by Trump was edited and out of context, when a Democrat said something potentially offensive: “…some people did something,” while referring to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America.

Acknowledging the above text, and understanding that the MPR article appears to explain the offense away as “edited” and “out of context”, one question comes to mind: How often is an offensive quote from Trump or a Republican, said during a speech or quoted from a larger text, given the same treatment by MPR or mainstream media in general?

Excerpt from MPR article critical of taking words out of full quotes and context when related to a Democrat:

How come the media doesn’t explain why Trump’s offenses aren’t offensive in an article using full quote and the full context of his comments? There are no protests on that irony. Bias maybe?

You will not find Trump’s full speech or the exact context of his comments in this MPR News article, nor will you find an excuse for his offenses, nor will you find even that consideration.

Trump’s quote simply may be edited out of context, but that is not mentioned, we don’t know for certain… There is no “edited” in the headline of their article based on a singular Trump quote:

The way it seems, is if you are a Democrat, a liberal progressive, or left-leaning individual or entity, to the news media, you may be infallible and worth explaining or condoning or making an excuse for or getting a pass, or worthy of being treated fairly. Anything else and you don’t get it. Where is the objectivity in journalism today?

Male circumcision is genital mutilation: the sharp unconcerned gender disparity as written by news media language

circ-egypt

Frogtown, USA–I never really thought about the topic of circumcision much, especially in relation to change or making change within–I think my fate is sealed, was sealed before my brain could function enough to say perhaps “no, sounds painful”.

Maybe once in high school though I thought about it being a private matter.  The idea of male circumcision and what it meant.  I still don’t understand much about it, however many males in America are circumcised.  I think the act could be because of religion or because of hygiene, it could be.

You see, I won’t research that.  I don’t care if it is because of “religion” or “hygiene”, they why doesn’t matter.

The matter at hand is that male “genital mutilations” or “circumcisions” happen and there are limited media reports of them in comparison to female “genital mutilation” stories.  I find it odd that a prevalent practice performed on one gender (male) is considered normal while a similar practice performed on another gender (female) is considered a news worthy, and possible criminal charge.  And, as a self-identified male, I find this a bit unfair.  (But that doesn’t fit into the Narrative.) download

I do not believe female “genital mutilation” or “circumcisions” should make the news if, at the same time, a majority of male “genital mutilations” or “circumcisions” do not make the news in an equal capacity.

And yet, why is there little concern that “most adult men are circumcised“.  Does this not concern the media or the activists that wish to protect human rights.  Also, why is male “circumcision” not considered ubiquitously as male “genital mutilation”?

Recent news stories focused on female “genital mutilation” prompted me to delve back into the topic of “circumcision” in males, that, and the experience of having a baby boy.

As a parent I have to decided the fate of my child’s physical dimensions.  There is no cry from protesters or the pundits when it comes to this private and personal decision at the hospital, not view as damage or irreversible harm but rather as an “option” to think about before birth.

So, think about this, as from above most American males are “circumcised”, or have experience “genital mutilation”.  In recent years, however, male circumcisions in America are on the decline.  Why is this?  Perhaps because male circumcision is actually male “genital mutilation”, period, and the mainstream media doesn’t care.

They play with terminology when it works with their ideology, but cutting flesh from one person is the same as cutting from another, no matter race, creed, or gender.  images

In conclusion, the decision to “circumcise” or to “mutilate” not is a highly personal decision, and a final one.  Accordingly, I believe that not only do we need to reconsider how we change our bodies but how we change the bodies of the future.

Moreover, I believe we need to understand and keep meanings and definitions in relation to words and genders equal, especially within news media language and context; we observe male “circumcisions” or  “mutilations” as somehow not as equally alarming as female genital mutilation.  Perhaps the lack of concern shown to one gender over another by mainstream news is the actual shocking news story that everyone wants but no one wants to hear.

As a self-identified male, I haven’t heard of any bills being made to save our (fore)skins, pun intended, in relation to “circumcisions” or actual male “genital mutilation”.  Alike, I think all “genital mutilation”, in relation to all genders, is mutilation, destruction, and potentially a crime which disfigures the human body.  Reconsider this when the idea arises in local reports or national breaking news.  download.jpg

Language is the key to this matter.  You call something “circumcision” and then you call something “genital mutilation”, on the grounds of gender, and you assume a bias in the language you use to describe an action.  Which is which?

That is the crux of this biscuit, the matter at hand.  If we use the somewhat necessary innocuous and accepted language to describe an horrendous act, is that act then acceptable, and should that act be called something different depending on who it is done to?  Because that happens now, today, on the topic put forth above.

***

I am no advocate, activist, or professional on the topic “genital mutilation”.  I am merely stating concern over the potential bias within the media coverage of one agenda over another, one gender over another, through language and terminology.

These are my views.  I am open to free discussion and open dialogue on the topic of circumcision/genital mutilation, please comment as necessary.  Thank you for reading.  No hate please, I try to stay positive.

 

 

Contested: 2000 Presidential Election

 

al_gore_vice_president_of_the_united_states_official_portrait_1994

Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States. Wikipedia.

“On November 26, the state canvassing board certified Bush the winner of Florida’s electors by 537 votes. Gore formally contested the certified results.”

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

Things to Think on: “Untold History of United States”