Here's a genuine question, I'd like your opinions on.
OK, we talk about how social media & MSM can get away with zero liability because they claim to be 'neutral'. For example, I remember how the media wouldn't show Reagan movies because it would be seen as bias.
Well, let me turn it around. If it is 'bias' if they give too much coverage, is it also 'bias' to NOT give coverage? Look at each candidate.
How much did they cover the good about Biden, and how much did they mention his dementia, Hunter's hard drive, Kamala's "heels up" years?
Compare that ratio to their coverage of the good about Trump vs every lie and bad news about Trump? For example, they blocked all of the Hunter hard drive by calling it 'hacked data'. But they gave no such protection for talking about Trump's fake tax returns (or the 20 year old tax return that was clearly hacked/stolen).
At what point can we review that and call them out for their bias. And more importantly, open them up to lawsuits since they clearly showed bias?