The most telling for me is generally the photos picked by a news outlet. On CNN for example, photos of Harris (and Biden) are almost always picked to show them in a favorable light. They'll be shot standing at a podium with an American flag behind them and a big, natural looking smile on their face. Photos of Trump are from off angles with an angry look on his face, often taken mid speech where a face will look more contorted than when smiling.
Are news outlets 100% biased mouthpieces pieces? Of course not. But they have a strong bias towards one party or the other and they don't try very hard to hide it.
Let's look at some recent CNN photos of each of them!
https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/gettyimages...
https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/20240921-po...
https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/2024-09-26t...
https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/gettyimages...
https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/20240721-02...
(sources)
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/27/politics/cnn-poll-harris-trum...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/27/politics/harris-southern-bord...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/media/abc-presidential-debate...
First, part of my claim is that you absolutely can find examples where CNN puts Harris or Biden in a bad light. To properly debunk me you would need an analysis of how frequently they show either party candidate in a good vs. bad light.
Second, and more importantly, you're trying to debunk what I clearly stated as my experience of viewing CNN. I didn't claim it to be a universal truth, only a pattern I have noticed when I have taken the time to browse CNN's site.
Debunking is useful when someone is proposing an argument as a scientific, or logically based, argument. Its pretty useless when the statement is only based on personal, anecdotal experience.
To which my response is "those who don't do, teach" and to point you to in-fact, do your ant observational studies anyway (i.e. watch CSPAN) because it really, really is the only way to stop seeing quite as many shadows on the wall and see a tiny glimpse of how politics actually works.
Seriously, most of the folks making real discovery today in some animal studies field is doing it from long periods of observational studies in the field. Books from academics are so full of lies due to publish or perish, academic careerism, widespread, systemic, structural, and at the highest levels academic fraud/dishonesty, and more.
Watch CSPAN, or you will be lied to. Sorry not sorry that it's boring as shit. That's the reality of politics, it's mostly boring.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13868889/cnn-attack...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/14/politics/fact-check-harris-ca...
But please, keep lying about how CNN doesn’t criticize Harris/biden! It fits into the destabilizing narrative that “the media” is “corrupt” or “bought and paid for”.
Also, if you want unbiased media, CSPAN is that. No bias except from how the camera is physically pointed into congress. You won’t watch it because it’s too boring and despite all the hatred your profess to have against biased news, the idea of news not as entertainment is alien to you.