Mainstream media biased?

[Big Eye]

How? By posting here?

HAHAHAHAHA

No , I just use places like this for self expression and to clarify ideas for myself. If someone points out a clear mistake in my thinking then I have to adjust my concepts. I don’t take anything in these places personally...it’s just a testing ground...but many of my ideas are distilled to a point where they sit comfortably with me, they have been tested over the years. Doesn’t mean I don’t get things wrong though lol.

 

[craig]

In the age of Trump, media bias comes into the spotlight

Mainstream media have joined ‘The Resistance’ and don’t appear to be troubled by it.

thehill.com

Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows

The media have drifted to the far left on the political spectrum. Yet again, a major study of media bias shows just how far from the center they are.

www.investors.com

When conservatives move so far right even moderates look like liberals to them. Even traditional conservatives look liberal to them.

 

[Big Eye]

When conservatives move so far right even moderates look like liberals to them. Even traditional conservatives look liberal to them.

What far right attributes are you talking about?

 

[craig]

What far right attributes are you talking about?

I am commenting on the links you posted saying all the media is now liberal. It is not. Some conservatives have moved so far right they think it is all liberal according to there new perspective. Actually the medea runs pretty much the same gamot that it always has. These new conservative were mostly radicalized by talk radio which moved them further to the right.

 

[Jay59]

Who leaves money on the floor to attack trump?

Everyone but Fox.

No one

It isn't that bad. The Times and Post are mere shadows of what they once were, but they still have value when the content is free. CNN is a total loss, so i give you that one.

I am commenting on the links you posted saying all the media is now liberal. It is not. Some conservatives have moved so far right they think it is all liberal according to there new perspective. Actually the medea runs pretty much the same gamot that it always has. These new conservative were mostly radicalized by talk radio which moved them further to the right.

If I was a high school debate coach, I would tell you this line would not work. Not only is it counter-intuitive, it's easily disproven. That said, it would be more accurate to say the media has become an advocate of the so-called liberal ideology and hostile to any contrary voice. I say so-called, because liberals in the Locke, Hume, Mills vein are political conservatives today.

 

[craig]

Everyone but Fox.


It isn't that bad. The Times and Post are mere shadows of what they once were, but they still have value when the content is free. CNN is a total loss, so i give you that one.


If I was a high school debate coach, I would tell you this line would not work. Not only is it counter-intuitive, it's easily disproven. That said, it would be more accurate to say the media has become an advocate of the so-called liberal ideology and hostile to any contrary voice. I say so-called, because liberals in the Locke, Hume, Mills vein are political conservatives today.

Yesterday's progressives become today's conservatives. Just as today's progressive ideas inevitably become tomorrow's conservative ideas.

 

[Jay59]

Yesterday's progressives become today's conservatives. Just as today's progressive ideas inevitably become tomorrow's conservative ideas.

Trite and fundamentally false.

Mills' ideas were set in the context of a monarchy, which is a form of strong central authority. History of the last century shows how easy it is to slide from strong central authority to repressive dictatorship. It is no coincidence that the worst tyrants of the last century--Stalin, Hitler, Mao--began as socialists.

The great achievement of the American revolution was the system of divided powers, set out in written document. I am always astounded when someone wants to know where in the Constitution the government is empowered to do something. They do not understand that the Constitution is intended to limit the power of the state. That is the basis of modern conservatism--limited government. Progressives always look for more things that the government can do.

 

[craig]

Trite and fundamentally false.

Mills' ideas were set in the context of a monarchy, which is a form of strong central authority. History of the last century shows how easy it is to slide from strong central authority to repressive dictatorship. It is no coincidence that the worst tyrants of the last century--Stalin, Hitler, Mao--began as socialists.

The great achievement of the American revolution was the system of divided powers, set out in written document. I am always astounded when someone wants to know where in the Constitution the government is empowered to do something. They do not understand that the Constitution is intended to limit the power of the state. That is the basis of modern conservatism--limited government. Progressives always look for more things that the government can do.

Not so. The history of legislative reforms in both England and America were driven by the progressives and fought by the conservatives. The next generation of conservative would protect those reforms. Look at the English corn laws and the reform bills. There are many recent examples in the US including women's rights, the voting rights act and civil rights, even social security and medicare.

You are confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is not communism lite. Stalin, Hitler, and Mao were not socialists. Stalin was a communist which is definitely not socialism. Hitler was a fascist who came to power campaigning against the communists (national socialism is not socialism). Moa was a collectivist but adopted some communist attributes from early ties with Russia. (Mostly because we sided with Chiang Kai-shek.) There is no tie between socialism and totalitarianism. I don't know of any socialist country that became a dictatorship.

As for the constitution go read the general welfare clause again. The US is a socialist country. Mills and his economic philosophy is a whole different argument.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I would argue that there are now many more media companies now and only so many viewers. Similar to what happened to broadcast television.

To which I would reply, then how did Fox attract so many viewers?

 

[OpportunityCost]

More money is made thru what you call the MSM than fox news will ever make.


If nbc thought they could make a dime more than abc by swinging right they would do it.


The idea that a for profit company does not seek out profit is hilarious

You must find MSNBC and CNN hilarious then.

 

[craig]

To which I would reply, then how did Fox attract so many viewers?

They can't listen to talk radio all the time.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Trump is the antithesis of ....

everything positive, good, and decent.

If the there was a Nobel prize for worst elected leader of a first world representative democracy, Trump would have won each year since 2017.

 

[Jay59]

Not so. The history of legislative reforms in both England and America were driven by the progressives and fought by the conservatives.

In England the conservatives were royalists. That role is currently filled by progressives, who back the central government. The liberals of the day promoted personal rights and personal responsibility, which is the basis of modern conservativism.

The next generation of conservative would protect those reforms. Look at the English corn laws and the reform bills. There are many recent examples in the US including women's rights, the voting rights act and civil rights, even social security and medicare.

I am not sure where you are going with this. Woman's suffrage in both UK and USA was not tied to one party. Civil rights had to be backed by Republicans, because there were not enough Democrats to pass it.

You are confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is not communism lite. Stalin, Hitler, and Mao were not socialists.

You are blowing your credibility.

Stalin was a communist which is definitely not socialism. Hitler was a fascist who came to power campaigning against the communists (national socialism is not socialism).

You can at least argue that fascists were not socialist, though they ran on a socialist platform. The socialist in the name is not ironic.

Simply put Lenin was a socialist. Mao was a socialist. Franco, Mussolini, Hitler all at least started as socialist.

Moa was a collectivist but adopted some communist attributes from early ties with Russia. (Mostly because we sided with Chiang Kai-shek.) There is no tie between socialism and totalitarianism.

Perhaps not. Not all highly socialist countries became totalitarian, eg Sweden. However an alarming number of totalitarians came to power on a socialist platform.

I don't know of any socialist country that became a dictatorship.

This is only because you define things backward to avoid it.

As for the constitution go read the general welfare clause again. The US is a socialist country. Mills and his economic philosophy is a whole different argument.

I do not disagree that USA is a somewhat socialist country. However, the economy is geared more toward entrepreneurship than socialism.

 

[craig]

In England the conservatives were royalists. That role is currently filled by progressives, who back the central government. The liberals of the day promoted personal rights and personal responsibility, which is the basis of modern conservativism.


I am not sure where you are going with this. Woman's suffrage in both UK and USA was not tied to one party. Civil rights had to be backed by Republicans, because there were not enough Democrats to pass it.


You are blowing your credibility.


You can at least argue that fascists were not socialist, though they ran on a socialist platform. The socialist in the name is not ironic.

Simply put Lenin was a socialist. Mao was a socialist. Franco, Mussolini, Hitler all at least started as socialist.


Perhaps not. Not all highly socialist countries became totalitarian, eg Sweden. However an alarming number of totalitarians came to power on a socialist platform.


This is only because you define things backward to avoid it.


I do not disagree that USA is a somewhat socialist country. However, the economy is geared more toward entrepreneurship than socialism.
[/QUOTE
Did you step through a mirror.

John Stuart Mill was a moderate socialist and not the founder of American conservatives today.
Moderates and liberals from both parties passed civil rights laws, women's rights and the other things I listed. The conservative mostly opposed them. The blue dog democrats who were democrats and later republicans vehemently opposed civil rights.
Democratic socialism of today is nothing like the socialism described by Marx.
Do I need to go on.

 

[craig]

In England the conservatives were royalists. That role is currently filled by progressives, who back the central government. The liberals of the day promoted personal rights and personal responsibility, which is the basis of modern conservativism.

...

I do not disagree that USA is a somewhat socialist country. However, the economy is geared more toward entrepreneurship than socialism.

Did you step through a mirror. Do you get your info from the "Conservapedia"?

John Stuart Mill was a moderate socialist and not the founder of American conservatives today.
Moderates and liberals from both parties passed civil rights laws, women's rights and the other things I listed. The conservative mostly opposed them. The blue dog democrats who were democrats and later republicans vehemently opposed civil rights. (And that's why the grey states are now red. Lincoln's republican party is now the democratic party.)
Democratic socialism of today is nothing like the socialism described by Marx.
Do I need to go on.

 

[OpportunityCost]

They can't listen to talk radio all the time.

Your claim is there are only so many viewers. Don't deflect, don't evade, don't make shit claims you have no intention of backing.

 

[post]

Your claim is there are only so many viewers. Don't deflect, don't evade, don't make shit claims you have no intention of backing.

Meadows to judge: Trump didn’t promise more declassification

The judge is asking whether Trump's tweets undercut the government’s decision to withhold portions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report.

www.politico.com

Disclaimer: politico.com is not my "pet blog".

Don't deflect, don't evade, don't make shit claims you have no intention of backing...

When it was finally discovered that the predicate for the Trump investigation was itself suspect, authorizing someone to talk to leads regarding Mifsud, talking to Downer in Australia and other follow up questioning seems prudent. Unless of course you think the DoJ shouldn't be finding out how that mess started by interviewing the people directly in the middle of it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Meadows to judge: Trump didn’t promise more declassification

The judge is asking whether Trump's tweets undercut the government’s decision to withhold portions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report.

www.politico.com

Quoting your pet blog isn't backing anything its gaslighting with a 2nd opinion.

 

[craig]

Did you step through a mirror. Do you get your info from the "Conservapedia"?

John Stuart Mill was a moderate socialist and not the founder of American conservatives today.
Moderates and liberals from both parties passed civil rights laws, women's rights and the other things I listed. The conservative mostly opposed them. The blue dog democrats who were democrats and later republicans vehemently opposed civil rights. (And that's why the grey states are now red. Lincoln's republican party is now the democratic party.)
Democratic socialism of today is nothing like the socialism described by Marx.
Do I need to go on.

John Stuart Mill said

• "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."

 

[eohrnberger]

Back in 2017, after Trump's first 100 days, Harvard released a study on media coverage of the President. It was ugly.

News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days | Shorenstein Center

A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office. The report is based on an analysis of news reports in the print editions of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and...

shorensteincenter.org

As ugly as the media is biased, an that's pretty ugly.

The 'news' media, having given up reporting ON politics in favors of being political activists, their reporting having become little more than political propaganda.

 

[craig]

Your claim is there are only so many viewers. Don't deflect, don't evade, don't make shit claims you have no intention of backing.

So hot!!!
I was using "viewers" to mean consumers of media. Talk radio listeners are consumers of media. Talk radio - Rush Etc. have a very large audience. Most now also are Fox viewers.

 

[Nickyjo]

Back in 2017, after Trump's first 100 days, Harvard released a study on media coverage of the President. It was ugly.

News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days | Shorenstein Center

A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office. The report is based on an analysis of news reports in the print editions of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and...

shorensteincenter.org

Ugly president, ugly policies, ugly statements=ugly media coverage. Even FOX was 52% ugly.

 

[Nickyjo]

I don’t think it’s about getting the most viewers...it’s about driving a particular narrative . Viewers, at least in the U.K. ,are giving up on these propagandists in their droves.

And why, pray tell, are they driving a particular narrative? Who gives the marching orders for such evil liberal coverage? This old trope doesn’t cut it. Reality and people’s perception of it has a liberal bias. Most of our population wants the benefits of the New Deal and what’s followed, most support our alliances with similar countries, and by perhaps a smaller margin, don’t like foreign dictators. Yes, they can be played from time to time by those who blame our problems on immigrants, for example. But most Americans support the sort of legislative stuff MCConnell has been killing for the past years. He knows that, and that’s why he doesn’t let bills passed by the House even come up for a negative vote in the Senate.

 

[Jay59]

Did you step through a mirror. Do you get your info from the "Conservapedia"?

Starting with insults is almost always the sign of a weak position.

John Stuart Mill was a moderate socialist and not the founder of American conservatives today. Moderates and liberals from both parties passed civil rights laws, women's rights and the other things I listed. The conservative mostly opposed them. The blue dog democrats who were democrats and later republicans vehemently opposed civil rights.

Doing fine so far.

(And that's why the grey states are now red. Lincoln's republican party is now the democratic party.)

Then you throw some total on the table

Democratic socialism of today is nothing like the socialism described by Marx. Do I need to go on.

It depends on what you mean by Democratic socialism. If you mean the Democratic party, I agree. They are much to autocratic too be like Marx's socialists. Then again, Marx was hopelessly naive in his understanding of political motivations, so nothing resembling Marxism has ever succeeded without exigent circumstances. Worse, Marx was a much better sociologist than an economist, so things really get ****ed up if you go all out.

John Stuart Mill said "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."

The irony is that you are the conservative in this picture, defending central rule and denying individual freedom.

 

[Nickyjo]

Do you seriously expect the cult to abandon their propaganda outlets?


Not surprised. Media, at least in English, is dominantly globalist. Not just USA and UK, but also Canada and down under. Trump is the antithesis of globalism. It's one of the reasons Trump hatred is a cult.


It cannot be about money. Too many sources are leaving money on the floor to attack Trump.


I'll give you the newspeak, but not the pejorative.


Don't be dense. It means promoting fascism without using violence, aka propaganda.

What’s wrong with globalism? What does “America First” do for America? We trade by nature, create alliances to pursue common goals. What good comes or came from withdrawing from trade agreements, the Paris agreement, trashing NATO, supporting dictators because they praise our boy king?