I remember watching old black and white shows on TV calling it the department of war.  Those shows were from the mid forties I think, I think they were mostly shown in movie theaters at the time.  Lots of those little white flashes from the films like they had on old movie films long ago.  Most of those were kind of documentaries to promote our military that I saw and they had the old bombers and fighter planes in them like in WW11.  I think they were on PBS or something back in the sixties.  My father liked watching those with us kids, naming the planes and tanks and artillery since he knew them from being in the war at the time.

So, it never even dawned on me even though I actually saw old military propaganda that it was renamed till this was mentioned now.  I haven't heard of it for many years, Funny how you kind of put things out of your mind after not hearing it for sixty years. 

I have no problem changing that name back.  I do not agree they need to change the name of the gulf of Mexico though, Even though technically Mexico is a part of America.  It is probably more of a relevant name, but not necessary to change in my mind.  Rapid change is what liberals and progressives promote, not really what conservatives want.

(09-05-2025, 05:59 PM)IdeomotorPrisoner Wrote: This website is awesome.

https://ground.news/

It's called Ground News, and you can take any story and check its bias and then compare it to other sources bias.

Like take a random story about a Trump EO, such as the following: 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...r-pentagon

It will give you other versions of the same story. 

https://ground.news/article/trump-to-sig...war_bb7255

But my favorite feature is the AI-generated bullet point example summary of the typical wording used by Left and Right sources in their articles.  

 Left bullet point wording: 

Right bullet point wording: 

Bias Comparison:
 

After the AI blurb it links all articles, who published them first, and which outlets republished those versions.

Which looks like this:

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...ternet.jpg]

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...ternet.jpg]

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...ternet.jpg]

Love this site, which I could very well be the last person to find, but it's new enough and cool enough to me to share.

I've been using Ground News for ages.

Which gives you the 3 different pictures, right, left, and centre.

(09-05-2025, 05:59 PM)IdeomotorPrisoner Wrote: This website is awesome.

https://ground.news/

It's called Ground News, and you can take any story and check its bias and then compare it to other sources bias.

Like take a random story about a Trump EO, such as the following: 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...r-pentagon

It will give you other versions of the same story. 

https://ground.news/article/trump-to-sig...war_bb7255

But my favorite feature is the AI-generated bullet point example summary of the typical wording used by Left and Right sources in their articles.  

 Left bullet point wording: 

Right bullet point wording: 

Bias Comparison:
 

You can do this with GPT-5 directly. For your example article:

Quote:>> present three summaries of this article, with left, center, and right biases and framing:
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/05/department-war-defense-trump-executive-order-pentagon

Left-leaning summary

Trump signed an executive order to rebrand the Department of Defense as the “Department of War,” making that name a secondary title and instructing executive-branch agencies to use it in communications.
The move is largely symbolic but described by critics as alarmist and designed to bypass Congress — an executive workaround rather than a lawful statutory renaming.
The order accompanies a broader hawkish posture (new deployments, aggressive rhetoric from the defense secretary) and critics warn it normalizes militarism, weakens norms that prioritize defense and oversight, and risks escalation abroad and erosion of civilian constraints on force.
Legal experts and some lawmakers say only Congress can permanently change the department’s statutory name; several Republicans have introduced bills attempting to ratify the change, while opponents argue the administration is politicizing the military for domestic spectacle.

Center (neutral) summary

President Trump signed an executive order designating “Department of War” as a secondary title for the Department of Defense and authorizing officials to use related titles (e.g., “Secretary of War”) in executive-branch communications.
The administration says the change restores historical terminology and projects strength; the order instructs the defense secretary to recommend steps for any permanent legislative renaming.
Practically the order is symbolic: congressional approval would still be required to change the department’s statutory name. The decision coincides with recent, more forceful military actions and deployments, prompting debate about tone and policy direction.
Lawmakers on both sides have reacted: some GOP members are pushing bills to formalize the change; critics and legal scholars note limits of executive authority and raise concerns about messaging and civilian‑military norms.

Right-leaning summary

President Trump issued an executive order restoring the historic name “Department of War” as a secondary title for the Department of Defense, arguing it better reflects U.S. military strength and tradition.
The order lets Pentagon leaders and the executive branch use titles like “Secretary of War” in official and ceremonial contexts and directs the defense secretary to propose actions to make the change permanent.
Supporters say it sends a clear deterrent signal to adversaries, boosts morale, and honors military heritage, while remaining within executive prerogative for symbolic naming.
Though permanent renaming requires Congress, several Republican lawmakers have already introduced legislation to codify the switch, and the administration frames the move as part of a broader policy of projecting strength and readiness.

>> compare the left and right biased summaries and highlight the differences

Here are the key differences between the left and right biased summaries, with contrasts grouped by theme.

Politics & motive

Left: Frames the order as designed to bypass Congress and politicize the military for domestic spectacle.
Right: Frames the order as restoring tradition and projecting strength, presented as a legitimate symbolic action.

Tone on symbolism vs. practicality

Left: Emphasizes the move is symbolic but warns it normalizes militarism and risks erosion of civilian constraints.
Right: Emphasizes symbolism as positive — boosting morale and deterrence, and treats it as within executive prerogative.

Legal/constitutional framing

Left: Stresses the order is an executive workaround and highlights critics saying only Congress can permanently rename the department.
Right: Acknowledges Congress is needed for permanent change but downplays legal limits, implying the action is a valid symbolic use of executive authority.

Domestic political reaction

Left: Notes critics and opponents warning about escalation and erosion of norms; portrays Republican bills as an attempt to ratify a problematic move.
Right: Presents GOP lawmakers’ bills as supportive efforts to codify a positive, strength‑focused change.

Foreign policy implications

Left: Warns the change accompanies a hawkish posture and could risk escalation abroad.
Right: Presents it as a deterrent signal to adversaries and part of projecting readiness.

Language and framing choices

Left: Uses charged phrases in the summary (e.g., “alarmist,” “politicizing the military,” “erosion of civilian constraints”).
Right: Uses affirming phrases (e.g., “honors military heritage,” “projects strength,” “boosts morale”).

Overall emphasis

Left: Cautionary — focuses on risks, erosion of norms, and illegitimate bypassing of Congress.
Right: Affirmative — focuses on tradition, deterrence, morale, and acceptable symbolism.

If you want, I can produce a side-by-side table comparing each specific sentence from the two summaries.

>> search for and tersely list news articles covering this issue, categorized by the three bias categories given

Left-leaning

The Guardian — "Trump rebrands the Pentagon as Department of War" (9/5/2025)
The New York Times — "Trump Signs Order Letting Pentagon Use Name ‘Department of War’" (9/5/2025)
The Washington Post — "Critics Warn Renaming Pentagon Normalizes Militarism" (9/5/2025)
MSNBC / NBC News — "Trump signs executive order rebranding Defense Department as Department of War" (9/5/2025)
HuffPost — "Experts Say EO Sidesteps Congress, Risks Erosion Of Civilian Oversight" (9/5–6/2025)

Centrist / mainstream

Reuters — "Trump signs order allowing Pentagon to use 'Department of War' as secondary title" (9/5/2025)
Associated Press — "Trump authorizes use of 'Department of War' in executive branch; formal change would require Congress" (9/5/2025)
BBC — "Trump rebrands Department of Defense as Department of War" (9/5/2025)
AP/USA TODAY — "What to know about Trump's Department of War order" (9/5/2025)
PBS NewsHour / NPR — "Explainer: legal limits and practical effects of the Department of War order" (9/5–6/2025)

Right-leaning

Fox News — "Pentagon to revert to historic ‘Department of War’ in latest military move" (9/4–5/2025)
The Wall Street Journal — "Trump Restores 'Department of War' as Symbol of Strength" (9/5/2025)
National Review — "Restoring the Department of War Is About Warrior Ethos" (9/5/2025)
Breitbart — "Trump Brings Back Department of War" (9/5/2025)
The Daily Caller — "GOP Lawmakers Move to Codify Department of War" (9/6/2025)

If you want links or a narrower list (e.g., only U.S. outlets or only explainers), which category should I expand?

(09-06-2025, 04:50 PM)IdeomotorPrisoner Wrote: Except for Cleopatra once. I think she caused a type of inherited PTSD that has kept repeats down since she played everyone.

By The Time of Catherine The Great society had learned to make up salacious gossip and mock any woman of authority.  So she became a horse lover.  And Hillary has penis envy. Pelosi is histrionic and deranged. Kamala whored her way to the top.  And it goes on.  Now we've gotta attack the next Karen Bass, Michelle Wu, and make shit up about Boston - because Trump's male whiteness cant abide an Asian woman critical of him.. let alone any woman critical of him. Really ANYONE critical of him, but left-leaning women especially. 

And it doesnt take a psyche major to put that "insufficient" or "insecure" puzzle together.   He likes his women as complicit as a FoxNews chippie. As vacuous an airhead as most of the women he chose for this current administration. His example of strong women is only made of those that worship at his insufficient idealistic shrine. He is a text book misogynist male needing obedience. And War and warriors are more of that overcompensating testosterone culture he loves so much. 

They gotta wave those figuarative dicks because the real ones aren't large enough to wave around. Which is why they attack opinionated women critical of them. 

Thats what my "left-leaning" bias says anyway

Oh dear.

Have you ever traveled outside your borders? Do you know any language besides English?

(09-06-2025, 10:52 PM)CriticalStinker Wrote: To be fair, I think we need to be skeptical of everyone who has an extra loud voice. Media, politicians, "the experts", all of them have insulated a nice cozy habitat for themselves.

That doesn't mean they're all always wrong, or evil, it's just human nature. Any of us in an industry know that you can have teeth out to competitors and still have their backs when you can relate to them more than a common enemy.

To be fair, MSM reach/footprint is still huge, and for many, its credibility isn't questioned as much as, say a politician's would be 

Social media is getting there but honestly its best at outing people like the baseball Karen recently.

Sure Trump is bombastic as hell, but the MSM took that and rode with it, and everything is presented under the context of a brash and bombastic NY businessman, which is fine in the social media 

Not so in MSM,

in April, much of the mainstream media, social media, and the DI peanut gallery insisted IMMEDIATE doom, despair, and economic calamity would happen because of the renegotiations of tariffs.

(09-07-2025, 09:48 PM)putnam6 Wrote: To be fair, MSM reach/footprint is still huge, and for many, its credibility isn't questioned as much as, say a politician's would be 

Social media is getting there but honestly its best at outing people like the baseball Karen recently.

Sure Trump is bombastic as hell, but the MSM took that and rode with it, and everything is presented under the context of a brash and bombastic NY businessman, which is fine in the social media 

Not so in MSM,

in April, much of the mainstream media, social media, and the DI peanut gallery insisted IMMEDIATE doom, despair, and economic calamity would happen because of the renegotiations of tariffs.

The MSM footprint will always be huge, but it won't always look the same.

In the acronym, there is an element that allows the landscape to change. It's whatever is mainstream. Obviously, legacy still has a place, some of their headlines are the flour for the bread makers on social media. Still agreed upon starting points. But I think a vast majority of people agree that a lot of the legacy roots have a blight of bias.

The media part of the landscape changed too, before social media. There was a time when news was boring, just a compilation of unseasoned facts. We could talk about what changed until we're blue in the face, but punditry is far more popular now. That part is true across the board, whether it be legacy or new age media. The element of trust used to be that there was a due diligence to the facts. Now, there are just different ideological camps where people afford their trust to agreeable groups. 

I think the same is true for politics and the rest. It's just sexier to sell entertainment. It's not unique to media, politics, or many other industries. It just is what it is at this point. I wouldn't necessarily point to one individual or moment to assign blame for the environment. I think everything is just a symptom of a host of other conditions.

(09-07-2025, 10:45 PM)CriticalStinker Wrote: The MSM footprint will always be huge, but it won't always look the same.

In the acronym, there is an element that allows the landscape to change. It's whatever is mainstream. Obviously, legacy still has a place, some of their headlines are the flour for the bread makers on social media. Still agreed upon starting points. But I think a vast majority of people agree that a lot of the legacy roots have a blight of bias.

The media part of the landscape changed too, before social media. There was a time when news was boring, just a compilation of unseasoned facts. We could talk about what changed until we're blue in the face, but punditry is far more popular now. That part is true across the board, whether it be legacy or new age media. The element of trust used to be that there was a due diligence to the facts. Now, there are just different ideological camps where people afford their trust to agreeable groups. 

I think the same is true for politics and the rest. It's just sexier to sell entertainment. It's not unique to media, politics, or many other industries. It just is what it is at this point. I wouldn't necessarily point to one individual or moment to assign blame for the environment. I think everything is just a symptom of a host of other conditions.

True or not, the thread is about the MSM, not the politicians, not social media. MSM bias, and on Ground News it's mostly newspapers or news magazines, so even more limited.

This has bupkis to do with social media, or politicians, it's discussing specifically professional legacy media bias... 


The fourth estate was supposed to be above the fray, impartial, the GP's vanguard and watchdogs... not entertainers nor should they be beholden to the bottom line...for example, for decades CBS News was completely independent from the CBS Network to maintain its integrity, especially 60 Minutes... now CBS edits interviews from political candidates to make them appear more competent...

Besides, didn't you have the '70s parents, the old faithful refrain...

just because everybody goes and jumps off a bridge, it doesn't mean you should too.

(09-07-2025, 11:09 PM)putnam6 Wrote: True or not, the thread is about the MSM, not the politicians, not social media. MSM bias, and on Ground News it's mostly newspapers or news magazines, so even more limited.

This has bupkis to do with social media, or politicians, it's discussing specifically professional legacy media bias... 


The fourth estate was supposed to be above the fray, impartial, the GP's vanguard and watchdogs... not entertainers nor should they be beholden to the bottom line...for example, for decades CBS News was completely independent from the CBS Network to maintain its integrity, especially 60 Minutes... now CBS edits interviews from political candidates to make them appear more competent...

Besides, didn't you have the '70s parents, the old faithful refrain...

just because everybody goes and jumps off a bridge, it doesn't mean you should too.

We’re in agreement. I despise the media landscape, I just think the term MSM has made patsies for an environment with more deeply rooted problems than the pundits who are the face of the industry.

For what it’s worth, I’ve had a Ground News membership for close to a year now. I think it’s a good format in today’s landscape. 

I was never trying to justify the media or the broader societal condition we’re in, on the contrary.

hey is there the opposite something that will give you news with the frame that exactly matches what you want to hear

i know some libs will say foxnews or magas will say cnn or something but those are both ick

oh wait i have found one it is called "cat /dev/null"

haha i made linux joke

(09-07-2025, 11:38 PM)CriticalStinker Wrote: We’re in agreement. I despise the media landscape, I just think the term MSM has made patsies for an environment with more deeply rooted problems than the pundits who are the face of the industry.

For what it’s worth, I’ve had a Ground News membership for close to a year now. I think it’s a good format in today’s landscape. 

I was never trying to justify the media or the broader societal condition we’re in, on the contrary.

Yeah Im just talking CS...

Cant sleep tonight... I napped too much today

We should be getting from our MSM news and entertainment muppets done properly for free, as you are paying for from Ground News...

Im a news junkie, always have been...so when you grow up with legendary columnists and reporters, you get used to butter and not the BS hand-spun margarine they try to spoon feed the GP as real factual news.

Back in the day, it was OK, The news leaned Democrat because none of us knew, because their reporters weren't obvious, they just did a basic report, probably would have gotten a reprimand from some of the methods used today.

Not saying end the infotainment but how about some hard 70s news.

LOL I bet I can get AI to do a proper factual 70s news broadcast using today's news even though that has Matrix undertones 

After all they have virtual reality googles for cows in the winter, and they watch springtime farm images during the winter, and thier production and general quality of life improve in their cow brains ... 

Maybe thats the formula some are fed the news, the only way they can digest it... if it's just infotainment and it mostly is... it doesn't make society more intelligent, knowledgeable, and/or tolerant, it makes us less so.

I do believe this is an American thing, but I also think places like Canada have already been permanently altered and programmed that this is what you get, so enjoy... 

Between news media and think tanks, we can't trust the reasoning behind our news or trends presentations