Oops. There's failure point. You're using an article about a really narrow set of facts with limited implications to try and support a profound generalization that is totally out of proportion to what's described in the article. That is a completely out-of-control leap to be making.
And as others have pointed out "the media ignores..." is a subjective reaction, not something established by the articles, and those votes have been covered by mainstream outlets.
And the articles don't show any fraud, and they don't show anything that would change the outcome in Georgia, and they don't show anything that warrants systemic skepticism of the election writ large.
>Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not saying this one instance proves the whole election is fraud.
You're not saying it, you're just implying it by speaking in a way that leaves open-ended implications that you aren't qualifying with concrete statements. You're putting an isolated example into a broader category, "things like this", to suggest it's not the only one, and to invite people to believe there are more.
If you really do agree with everyone that the scope, scale and significance of the facts presented in the article are extremely narrow, are isolated, and that there aren't similar examples, and are choosing to ignore that most important fact to emphasize a less important fact than I'm not so much interested in your point as I am in why you would choose to emphasize facts in that way.
And nothing about the articles suggest anything one way or the other about media bias. The articles could presuambly be used to argue somethingorother about the scale of human error in vote counting in Georgia. That would be valid. But they don't have anything to do with any conclusions you are trying to advance about what the media is or isn't "being honest" (again an extremely vague, unprovable claim that you aren't quantifying).
I can’t help it that the attack vectors used by the media to push agendas are themselves vague and non-specific. It’s not like any given piece of news that gets published is outright false.
On the small scale, the bias is in the framing of stories. Flaky evidence in stories that serve the agenda are glossed over. In stories that go against the agenda, nits get picked and then used to attack the main idea even if the nits are really inconsequential.
On the large scale there is editorializing. Spotlighting certain types of stories. And forgetting and quickly moving past others.
I have some specific examples in mind, but it would be completely pointless for me to list them or argue about them like you seem to want to. I’ve already argued each one to death as it came to light and have heard all sides of the arguments. That is a complete misdirection from my point of view.
This is “systematic bias” in the media in much the same way that there is “systematic racism” in the world. It’s hard to pinpoint specific instances of it, but we know that it’s there because you see it in the aggregate statistics. And in fact, a common tactic used by people who deny systemic racism is to try to move the discussion away from the big picture and nitpick localized specifics to death.
Oops. There's failure point. You're using an article about a really narrow set of facts with limited implications to try and support a profound generalization that is totally out of proportion to what's described in the article. That is a completely out-of-control leap to be making.
And as others have pointed out "the media ignores..." is a subjective reaction, not something established by the articles, and those votes have been covered by mainstream outlets.
And the articles don't show any fraud, and they don't show anything that would change the outcome in Georgia, and they don't show anything that warrants systemic skepticism of the election writ large.