• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mainstream media biased?

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.
Which flies in the face of your claim, so you just want to walk away from that yet, or did you want to try to back it?
 
What far right attributes are you talking about?
Isolationism, ignoring science, doing nothing for working people except creating divisions between black, brown and white, refusal to even consider things like raising the minimum wage, hating government health insurance, present in every developed country, suggestions that dissent means disloyalty, America first BS, etc.
 
Which flies in the face of your claim, so you just want to walk away from that yet, or did you want to try to back it?
I don't know what you are after? The population of people that can consume media is fixed. Each of those people can consume none, some, or lots of media. I originally used the term viewer to mean one consumption of media not one media consumer. Do you see the distinction? All of the media consumed is what is distributed across all the media providers. I think the term of art is "viewer" but I am not an expert at tabulating media consumption.

Fox has the most viewers of the big three. But is small compared to the other media providers combined.
 
Last edited:
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.
Let's be crystal clear. ABC NBC and cbs together make far more than fox
 
I don't know what you are after? The population of people that can consume media is fixed. Each of those people can consume none, some, or lots of media. I originally used the term viewer to mean one consumption of media not one media consumer. Do you see the distinction? All of the media consumed is what is distributed across all the media providers. I think the term of art is "viewer" but I am not an expert at tabulating media consumption.

Fox has the most viewers of the big three. But is small compared to the other media providers combined.

Fox was the newcomer and isn't pushing the news narrative the other companies are which demonstrates the other media outlets aren't following the money.

It helps if your premise isn't fatally flawed.
 
Back in 2017, after Trump's first 100 days, Harvard released a study on media coverage of the President. It was ugly.

Figure-6-NEW-web.png
Could this perhaps be explained by the fact that any reasonable person considers Trump a massive failure (and clown)? Most coverage of nuclear war is probably "negative" too -- that does not mean it's biased and unfair.
 
Fox was the newcomer and isn't pushing the news narrative the other companies are which demonstrates the other media outlets aren't following the money.

It helps if your premise isn't fatally flawed.
They together make far more money than fox
 
"Together"

Imagine how much more they could be making if they weren't acting as DNC water carriers and just reporting the news.
You think if ABC can beat nbc in the ratings by leaning right they wont do it?


That is freaking hilarious
 
Yet, they aren't and they could.
No they could not. Fox has a niche audience like msnbc.

That is just dumb dude

That is like saying Walmart charges more th as n Amazon because it feels good. Lol
 
Let's be crystal clear. ABC NBC and cbs together make far more than fox
:ROFLMAO:

Could this perhaps be explained by the fact that any reasonable person considers Trump a massive failure (and clown)? Most coverage of nuclear war is probably "negative" too -- that does not mean it's biased and unfair.
Not even vaguely possible, since any reasonable person considers Trump a success. It only requires the ability to think objectively and set aside any preconceptions, plus real facts instead of the alt-facts used by these media sources.
 
:ROFLMAO:


Not even vaguely possible, since any reasonable person considers Trump a success. It only requires the ability to think objectively and set aside any preconceptions, plus real facts instead of the alt-facts used by these media sources.
I accept your concession
 
No they could not. Fox has a niche audience like msnbc.

That is just dumb dude

That is like saying Walmart charges more th as n Amazon because it feels good. Lol

False, its selling a viewpoint, there are more viewers available that their demand is not met. Fox's "niche" market is higher than any other cable channel and most times than the other 2 cable networks combined, this is because Fox has no competition. There is demand, there is not enough supply.

Your premise ignores basic supply and demand for political idiocy.
 
False, its selling a viewpoint, there are more viewers available that their demand is not met. Fox's "niche" market is higher than any other cable channel and most times than the other 2 cable networks combined, this is because Fox has no competition. There is demand, there is not enough supply.

Your premise ignores basic supply and demand for political idiocy.
You suggest a for profit company ignores profit. It is the dumbest thing ever. Why do you hate democracy in the marketplace ?


If the MSM leans left....that is what the people want
 
... any reasonable person considers Trump a success.

Wow, I would not make that claim about any politician ever. You really like to take your idiocy hardcore I guess? Good for you, own it.
 
Fox was the newcomer and isn't pushing the news narrative the other companies are which demonstrates the other media outlets aren't following the money.

It helps if your premise isn't fatally flawed.
OK I think I see what you mean. Fox found a niche (ideological conservatives) that wasn't being served by other media providers. They filled that need and so were successful. Of course other media providers can compete for those viewers. Breitbart, etc.
 
OK I think I see what you mean. Fox found a niche (ideological conservatives) that wasn't being served by other media providers. They filled that need and so were successful. Of course other media providers can compete for those viewers. Breitbart, etc.
Exactly. They are all chasing dollars in the end
 
You suggest a for profit company ignores profit. It is the dumbest thing ever. Why do you hate democracy in the marketplace ?


If the MSM leans left....that is what the people want
I'm suggesting people aren't buying what they are selling.
 
I accept your concession
It's not a concession. It's a statement that you said something known to be false.

You suggest a for profit company ignores profit.
Suggest nothing. It's a flat statement.

It is the dumbest thing ever.
Taking the financial hit just to make a political point. You might be right.

Why do you hate democracy in the marketplace?
Why do you?

If the MSM leans left....that is what the people want
That's not what the ratings and the ad revenue say.

Wow, I would not make that claim about any politician ever. You really like to take your idiocy hardcore I guess? Good for you, own it.
Name a reasonable, verifiable standard, then judge how the Trump administration has done by that standard. He has done well. This is not rocket science.

Are you claiming only deplorables are reasonable?
Don't be silly. Any person able to ignore Trump's personality and look at the administration's accomplishments will reach this conclusion.

Is Post a Biden or DNC operative?
I would not cast it in those terms. More of an apologist and propaganda outlet.

He is absolutely claiming that.
Unless you are claiming ever rational and unbiased person is deplorable, this is :poop:
 
Do YOU believe the Mainstream Media is and has been fair, objective and unbiased in their reporting on current political and social issues?

My problem with this question is that more often than not, those on the right lump opinion pieces in with actual news and have a real problem discerning between the two.

The reason for that is that most conservative "news" outlets are really opinion sites being treated as if they were news. Look at OAN and FOX and the myriad of home-grown "news sites" that are just places for people to spout their feelings and opinions with almost no ability to back it with facts. Some news sites on the left DO sometimes blur the lines some...but generally speaking, you can tell the difference between an opinion piece and news reporting.

So, if you view news in the lens where opinion and fact are the same thing...then you will see bias from everyone who doesn't share your views. You can report that the president lied or made a bad claim when you support that news with the facts. But if you view news as the same as opinion, then you won't see the facts for what they are...instead you see bias because it goes against your belief that president didn't lie or make a bad claim...so therefore anyone who provides facts to say the president lied/made a bad claim is simply biased against the president.

It's like a few years ago when Republicans were complaining about the bad press they were getting and the response from the social media industry was simply, well, stop doing stupid and bad things and you will only get press for the good things you do. Very simple.
 
It's not a concession. It's a statement that you said something known to be false.


Suggest nothing. It's a flat statement.


Taking the financial hit just to make a political point. You might be right.


Why do you?


That's not what the ratings and the ad revenue say.


Name a reasonable, verifiable standard, then judge how the Trump administration has done by that standard. He has done well. This is not rocket science.


Don't be silly. Any person able to ignore Trump's personality and look at the administration's accomplishments will reach this conclusion.


I would not cast it in those terms. More of an apologist and propaganda outlet.


Unless you are claiming ever rational and unbiased person is deplorable, this is :poop:
Dismissed as laughably ridiculous
 
Back
Top Bottom