I barerly read newspapers, so I don't really know what they say tbh.
I note however, that in selecting a newspaper article to try to demonstrate media bias against womens' rights etc, Powerspurs selected above an article from the notoriously most right wing mainstream newspaper in the UK, which complained about the alleged maltreatment that a woman had suffered. Far from being biased in any way at all against womens' rights, it appeared to present the item in a neutral and reasonable way.
If this is the example of a bias against womens' rights and 'pc issues', then it would suggest that - at the very least - no such bias exists.
Furthermore, whilst I can't identify particular newspapers, we have seen earlier in this discussion, examples of newspapers reporting on items such as the saatchi case and the proudman case, where vehemently pro feminist tweeters and bloggers have been quoted within published articles, without even the most rudimentary analysis or criticism.
In fact, such stories tend only to exist because of the publication by mass media of online tweets etc, and making them the subject of articles, which create the news items. It's news, made by the news, and the stories in this subject area are consistently identifying allegations of mistreatment etc of women. What we dont see in the news, are the far more frequent success stories. It's manufactured news.
Another example was the passport faisco last yar that hit the headlines after womens rights group complained that the new passport desin did not include enough historical figures who were women. The fact that this ridiculous issie was even brought to the public attention was absurd, and it's the news makers who are again responsible.
I highlighted earlier an example of apparent BBC bias, and they strike me as a regular culprit on all aspects of this that I've identified in this post.
Although not a broadcaster, a regular offender of utter garbabge pro pc stories / articles is Linkedin, which regularly highlights in its global recommended reading section, faricially pro pc articles. I saw one only yesterday that alinkedin focused on. The heading of the article accused employers of subsconsicously favouring white candidates. In fact, the data in the article itself, indicated that black people are not as good as maths or english as asian or white people. I have no idea whether this data was inaccurate, or if it was accurate what the causes were. But, the text of the article - as well as the heading - contrived to invalidly portray the data as indicating that recruiters were sublimally racist. The data did no such thing, but this didnt stop the author claiming it or Linkedin publishing it and recommending it to a global audience. This is a typical example, of journalism that not only makes invalid accusations of racism/sexism, but also perpetuates stereotyping itself, and undermines genuine cases of discriminatio, trivialsises the whole issue, and patronises those who it claims to argue in favour of.
This is a regular problem, and part of the problem is, that feminism and the like, has actually become its own industry, which advertises itself by making its own 'news stories". That's a very dangerous situarion. It actually perpetuates discriminatatiin, adversarialism and a divide in socoety, rather than preventing it, which it claims is its purpose for being.
