I think that the noun “media” is the plural form of “medium”. Don’t you feel that the expression “a biased media” is strange?
Is the noun countable? Can you say, for example, “one media”, “two media(s)”, etc.?
The word media comes from the Latin plural of medium. The traditional view is that it should therefore be treated as a plural noun in all its senses in English and be used with a plural rather than a singular verb: the media have not followed the reports (rather than ‘has’). In practice, in the sense ‘television, radio, and the press collectively’, it behaves as a collective noun (like staff or clergy, for example), which means that it is now acceptable in standard English for it to take either a singular or a plural verb. The word is also increasingly used in the plural form medias, as if it had a conventional singular form media, …
“The media” refers to journalists reporting the news. It could be written news, television, or internet. It is always singular. It has nothing to do with the word “medium” when used in reference to news.
It is not countable.
In the excerpt, the writer is referring to all “the media” as being biased. For example you could say "the biased church, the biased Americans. Remember “media” is always used in the singular form. I don’t know why.
It appears that Mr. Trump was referencing a popular Swedish singer who had technical problems during a musical competition. Trump is a well-known lover of “America the Beautiful” so it should be no surprise that he would take interest in another countries musical performances.
For anyone of refined musical sensibilities, a technical glitch during a good or favorite song could easily feel like a terrorist attack.
As an adjective, the word ‘media’ essentially means news: media outlets (news outlets), media coverage (news coverage), media reports (news reports), media accounts (news accounts), media content (news content).
‘The media’ refers to print, televised and digital news sources collectively, which comprises individuals in a particular area of work, namely journalism.
Terms like ‘the government,’ ‘the media,’ ‘the market,’ ‘the public’ are singular nouns which refer collectively to groups or institutions which always comprise individual people — humans.
However, when using generalizations to describe these collective groups, native speakers tend to use the indefinite article in much the same way as describing an individual person:
a tyrannical leader, a tyrannical government;
an apathetic voter, an apathetic public;
a nervous investor, a nervous market;
a biased reporter, a biased media.
Yutaka, see if you can come up with more examples of descriptions which can apply to an individual as well as a group or institution.
I treat other people’s kids with respect it doesn’t mean i invite them into my house, feed and clothe them, give them my hard earned money and let them sponge off me while they contribute nothing. People that say they don’t do this are people that have never lived around these immigrants. It’s alright having your opinion from a newspaper from your comfortable white suburbia and your university education. And they try to convince themselves that they do know because some brown people go to their college. That isn’t the reality. I’ve lived in London. The reality is whites are a minority regardless of what the official stats say. If whites were displacing Tibetans in Tibet what would liberals have to say about it? Well, just look what they say about white colonialisation for your answer.
Basic respect for people has absolutely nothing to do with letting parasites into your country.
The liberal goal is to have everybody be equally worthless and degenerate though. They don’t want their people to be strong because if they did they wouldn’t be liberals.
There is nothing wrong with the FACT that we are all different. I’m European. I’m not the same as a Zulu, or a Chinaman, or an Arab, or a Jew. And that’s fine.
We are all different and we all belong in different places. I don’t belong in China. They don’t belong here. There is nothing wrong with that. It’s only western countries that white westerners try to claim should be open to anyone and everyone to go to. I’ve never seen a liberal protest against North Korea or Israel’s immigration policies. I wonder why.
Math proves we are all cousins. 64 generations ago the number of your direct ancestors were more than 18 billions of billions that makes a lot more than all times all humans all together. This count is for one family only.
Like most liberals, i bet you’re not making room for immigrants in your own home, taking them in, spending your money on them. No, would be too close to home wouldn’t it?
Your buzzwords only strike fear into people who can’t think for themselves.
And i’m not a ‘white nationalist’, i believe everyone has a right to a home of their own without being forced to accept all comers. Except if whites want to go en masse to America, or NZ, or Australia, and then that’s bad. Them coming to Europe is fine though, right? We have to accept it.
But, still, you can’t refute my points, which is why you have resorted to your nonsense throw-away comment.
Oh, now that’s funny, DrewPeacock. You and people like you make unique use of the word ‘cuckold’ and have even successfully managed to turn the word ‘liberal’ into a buzzword.
Refute your points? What points are those? Let’s see, you’ve convinced yourself that European Jewish people are not European; you’ve clearly expressed a fear of being labeled a racist and you badly want to be perceived as someone who just wants to put his own country first; meanwhile you project your view of immigrants — worthless, degenerate, sponging parasites who contribute nothing to society — onto “liberals” as some make-believe “goal” of theirs to make everyone worthless, degenerate, sponging parasites who contribute nothing to society.
Those aren’t “points.” Those are attitudes held by white nationalists and their ilk. You set an unrealistic standard that “liberals” should make room for immigrants in their own homes when the truth is that immigrants want to work and live in their own homes, not to mention the fact that government and society doesn’t quite work that way.
I personally know Syrian immigrants in my own hometown. They are better off than I am. They own their own business. And they certainly don’t want or need to move into my house. And one of the women even wears a scarf on her head. Oh no! They are by all outward appearance Muslim and I am an atheist and yet we still manage to have friendly conversations, respect each other and get along. In fact, religion never comes up as a subject. Imagine that!
Oh, and white nationalist is not a “buzzword” to strike fear into people. It’s a real thing.
You are apparently unaware that you spout hatred and white nationalist rhetoric daily, whether you consider yourself a white nationalist or not, and yet what you do is project “self-hatred” onto others. You’re a real piece of work.
Some people like you have actually managed to reform themselves, so there’s still hope for you yet!
Meanwhile, here: read up about some of your colleagues:
p.s. I tried looking up extremist files for liberal atheists who get along with Muslims and Syrians, but apparently no such literature exists.