What does the media mean by this? I'm being serious btw

>this poltardian babby falseflagging
Time to start replying to your own posts, lad.

Most people on here probably started visting Veeky Forums after sage became invisible. I reckon most don't even know what it does.

(You)
kys

>guy asks an interesting lingo-political question
>gets sent back to /pol/
You're just as bad as /pol/, actually you're worse since you're mentally deranged antifas.

Not a native speaker, but it seems like

>the far-right puts her very much out there, on the fringe. Not a viable option for anyone who considers himself moderate. Nutjob territory (?).

>the hard-left shows conviction and principled stance. Even if you disagree with the policy, you cannot question the moral superiority of the man.

Is this plausible?

No

Explain then, you lazy fuck.

I think you're correct, at least in that, that is how the media will percieve them or choose to present them

There's nothing ot explain, there is no difference between hard and far. If you're sensing a bias, it's your own.

I would interpret "far left" as referring to something like Rojava, the Zapatistas, etc. i.e. actual revolutionaries, rather than those working within a democratic framework. So "far left" movements like that exist with some success in some parts of the world, but there isn't really a corresponding far right that's significantly different from European populist parties. So there needs to be a new term to describe Melenchon, but "far right" will do the job for describing Le Pen. If you get what I mean?

It could just be political, trying to discredit Le Pen, but I really think this kind of criticism of media 'bias' verges on conspiracy theory.

To be fair economically speaking LePen could hardly be considered "far-right." I don't even think France has a far-right capitalist candidate (for good measure).

It means that they are more favorable to people on the left.

>It could just be political, trying to discredit Le Pen, but I really think this kind of criticism of media 'bias' verges on conspiracy theory.

Can't agree with this, Chomsky has built a career on criticizing media coverage, use of words, emphasis on or omission of facts, pro-US-and-its-allies bias, etc, and if he's a "conspiracy theorist", then I can't say there's anything wrong with conspiracy theorizing per se; it's more a matter of degree, like when someone gets to Alex Jones territory.

As far as "far" versus "hard", they mean roughly the same thing, but "far" implies a location, here on the political spectrum, while "hard" implies an unwillingness to compromise, in the context of politics perhaps foolishly. Can't really say either displays a bias in favor of one or the other, but it does paint them as outsiders to the political norm.

The political spectrum in 2017 is outdated and useless. It is simply used to put a negative label on others now, and to get your "side" to think a certain way.

...

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that most media bias is subconscious or at least not deliberate. Obviously some media outlets are nakedly partisan, but among the so-called neutral ones (e.g. state broadcasters) I genuinely don't believe they have board meetings about how they're going to skew reporting against the far right. More likely individual reporters neglecting to apply thorough standards of rigour and fairness or letting their own views cloud their judgement. Talking about "reporting" rather than "commentary", for those relatively few outlets that still do the former without conflating it completly with the latter.

"far-right" in the West means that you want your country to maintain its white majority, and/or you want to limit immigration.