DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Liberal Media Bias

https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/

Generally I've got to the point where there is nothing worth discussing on this board because there are almost no posters who actually wish to engage in a conversation. Threads and conversations get hi-jacked and people invent their own "gotcha" moments and one liners.

However I read this the other day and wanted to share - where is goes from there I won't pretend to guess.

This is an outstanding article. It not only (correctly in my opinion) points out a glaring problem with some/most of the media - and of the people who go to those same sources nearly exclusively.

To me it also reinforces how Trump identified and tapped into a group of disenfranchised and unhappy voters who felt that no-one was looking out for them or talking about issues that were important to them . . . . and in my personal opinion, Trump is no more interested in looking out for those peoples interests now he's in office than any other politician, but that's a different conversation.

It also reinforces or touches on how and why - even though the left wing (and right wing media) is caught up in it's own clique and focuses almost exclusively on "news" that panders to their clique .... why Trump is absolutely dead wrong to be labeling everything as fake news and having a war on he Press.

I know there is a lot of noise and issues that could be discussed out of the Trump WH ... and many, in my view, deserve and demand discussion - but this article sort of explains why real issues that raise red flags just get completely ignored and tuned out by one segment while the other segment is fixated on them....

As examples - sure I have overall negative/skeptical perspective of what Trump says/does - but how is it that no-one is actually 'discussing' things like:

- Trump stating he wants to ignore due process and just take away peoples guns
- Kushner's security clearance issues ... and then Kushner advising on a blockade against Qatar based on *potentially or probably* family interests and counter to advise within the rest of the administration and the Secretary of State.
- The Turnover of the staff within key positions of the WH.
- Heck - we just had Nunes call a comedian who does political satire a Danger in America .... and no one is worried about that and it doesn't even get a mention? ... can anyone say McCarthyism ?

Well I guess the article explains it to some extent. But does that mean none of it matters? I'm struggling to get my head around it.

I was one of those "disenfranchised voters" that Trump sold campaign promises to. He renaged on those promises and dicked me over. Hence, I will be voting Dem in 2020.

I dont need the media to tell me how to think.

The facts and his actions are enough for me.

Don't play the party game. Vote for someone because of who they are, not because of who they aren't.

I am pretty sure all of this is being discussed

Its not a party game. Trump bailed on me, and the Dems want things I want, so I will vote for them.

This is part of a point I'm trying to make in the "we're being manipulated" thread. As long as Americans are busy shouting down each other defending their dogmas and promoting agendas nothing get accomplished. We've stopped talking to each other, have stopped discussing important issues because it has become more important to seem to be right than to actually be right. To take it a step further, right/left no longer matters. There are issues at hand far greater than political squabbles. Issues that affect us all regardless of political affiliation. Erosion of rights, diminishing middle-class, eroding public education and the sky rocketing costs of higher education, corporate, government, and financial malfeasance, and so on and so forth. We need to start putting our petty differences aside and start talking, start seeing the other points of views, and start searching for answers. All this other stuff is global slight of hand in the grand scheme of things.

I've posted versions of before, and I'm sure I'll post it again. I'm independent and proud of it.

In Nov 2016, I voted for members of 4 parties because I thought those candidates best represented me. It has been that way since the beginning. When I look at issues, I typically start with whatever someone posted (here or Facebook) and my typical starting point for news when I look for it is CNN.

Regardless of where I read it, I do my best to read between the lines and understand what the issues are and remove political or party components. If it triggers the desire to understand more, I'll seek out other thoughts on it - whether by reading threads on here or via other websites, or both. I probably end up on Fox as much as I am on CNN, for example.

I honestly think everyone should do it. I think most people would quickly realize that they're fighting over 20% of the article...the part that isn't fact based, but rather conjecture, opinion, or spin. I also think understanding the opposing point of view is a good thing.

When my father (very very conservative) visited in September, he went off on something on Fox. After he cooled down a bit, I let him know how most of my very liberal friends would have reacted to the same thing. His answer was a surpised to me, but a very good one - "I never thought of that." This happened a few times - the great thing is that he never dismissed them. He didn't necessarily agree with them, but just acknowledging that there are other viewpoints that are also valid is a very tood thing.

Eve - good for you!
Bad - Some of these things are posted here, but discussion is rare unless you count discussion among people with the same opnion.
Cal - You are right ... and in addition to individuals often only going to one source for news and opinion - it's also because there is too much apathy. We've got the government we deserve! . . . Everyone is so switched on to their phones and tablets - they are switched off from what's going on all around them: It (sort of) reminds me of a sketch by Robin Williams and talking about about Microsoft/Gates ...."Right now it's Information Technology. Soon it will be Total Information Technology: TIT. And while you're sucking on the TIT, I have you by the motherboard!"
clwb - Agree, everyone should but most don't.

There have been multiple plans for retraining, education, etc from previous admins.



Why do people rob? Instead of ending the argument at "kill/injure those who come in to try and kill us!" why not shift the argument to an idea of "how can we prevent individuals from making terrible choices?"



Yes. It's amazing to see a criminal get treated like in the wild wild west! This type of story is what I want to read every single day.



More froth from the fountain of victim blaming.

We called that parenting when I was your age, what is the guy behind the counter supposed to do when there's a gun pointed at him?

Not the time to be 'counseling' is it?

Sorry, I don't mean the dude behind the counter is supposed to react any differently.



I agree, and I'd go even further what children to go awry like this? Too often I hear "it's all cause of the parents!" in education, yet I hate the easy scapegoat of "parents!".

What's causing individuals to allow things like this to happen? What are some of the roots?

Perfect timing.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-bi...ampfoot_mostpop

[img]https://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/20...b2-9c8e992d421e[/img]

Perfect reason why I read: The Hill, Axios, Politico, The Economist, Foreign Press, Wall Street Journal, and The Intercept.

A few years ago, 40 told me that bbc was super liberal.

And we have posters who post brietbart articles.

And I got roasted because I posted from Reuters.

A few weeks back someone tried to argue that Breitbart was a legitimate news source and not a racist fever dream. I asked why Breitbart had a "Black Crime" section, and why they ran a long missive from a pedophile about how white supremacists are smart and funny. The conversation ended.

I’m surprised nobody tried to counter.

But we all know another breitbart article is coming. It’s a matter of time on the boards.

They trot Hilary Clinton out there again I will vote for Trump again. They gave me two abortions for candidates and then are all butthurt and surprised when the one who won is horrible.

Ask and you shall receive! (I'm in a good mood today.)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/06/24/public-sides-with-trump-on-fake-news-media-bias/

Polls: Public Sides with Trump on ‘Fake News’ Media Bias

The general public agrees with Republicans and President Donald Trump that the establishment press are biased against Republicans and the Trump administration, according to recent national polls.
According to recent YouGov polling, 70% of Americans “agree that news organizations report stories in a light that’s partial to who owns them.” In addition, while 52% of Democrats agree with this sentiment, a whopping 85% of Republicans do. When YouGov then asked “whether or not one would trust a news source if its track record proved objectivity,” 83% of Democrats said they would compared to 58% Republicans.

“The percentage point difference in the two surveys reveals that the general public sides more with Republicans than it does with Democrats on the topic of media bias,” YouGov noted.

Angered by the legacy media’s “Witch Hunt,” Trump has repeatedly blasted the “very fake” news media for making up stories about him and his administration.

He recently tweeted that the “Fake News Media” has “never been so wrong” or “dirty.” He accused the establishment media of using “phony sources to meet their agenda of hate. Sad!”

(Trump tweet)

CNN has been one of–if not the most–the most egregious “fake news” offenders. On June 7, CNN had to issue an embarrassing correction after its reporters published a “fake news” story, based on anonymous sources, that claimed former FBI director James Comey would dispute Trump’s claim that Comey had told him on three occasions that Trump was not under FBI investigation.

And on Friday evening, after Breitbart’s Matt Boyle published his investigative piece, CNN actually retracted its whole “fake news” story that alleged some of Trump’s advisers like Anthony Scaramucci were under Congressional investigation because of their ties to a Russian investment fund. The network even disabled links to the story after Boyle thoroughly pointed out the story’s falsities.

“On June 22, 2017, CNN.com published a story connecting Anthony Scaramucci with investigations into the Russian Direct Investment Fund,” CNN said in a Friday evening editor’s note. “That story did not meet CNN’s editorial standards and has been retracted. Links to the story have been disabled. CNN apologizes to Mr. Scaramucci.”

(CNN tweet about a retracted story)

CNN didn't delete this story until Breitbart caught them lying

CNN deletes, retracts story linking Trump and Russia https://t.co/jjHX1FA24h

— Google "CNN,175,Sue" (@NolteNC) June 24, 2017

“Given that the general population sides more closely with Republican sentiment towards media bias in the above polls, it seems that news organizations have a tough few months of ahead of them if they want more members of the public to accept reporting at face value,” YouGov’s study concluded.

I don't have an issue with Reuters. I'm not a regular reader but have always thought it was reasonable when I came across it.

I get that Breitbart is right-wing. The thing is that I can accept and acknowledge that (I'm not a regular reader there either and searched the above article just for you). Meanwhile we have leftists that think Huffington Post and CNN are unbiased sources. It's actually pretty funny.

Breitbart isn't "right-wing". It's a nativist fever dream populated by racist and anti-Semitic lunatics.

Honestly, I'm mildly surprised anyone would even admit to reading Breitbart.

Here they are just keeping tabs on "black crime":



Here's their neo-Nazi former senior editor who had to resign after he said pedophilia is OK, sporting an iron cross:



Like, seriously, who would admit to reading this stuff without feeling deep shame?



Wonderful website:

Like I wrote earlier, I'm not a regular reader there. I come across and read a lot of sources-- right-wing, left-wing, and everything in-between. I can't possibly follow every writer and backstory.

On the times I've landed on the site I've never seen anything of the sort and am not sure if those screens are real, photoshopped, or what the story/context might be.

I do know that it is the second most popular conservative/right-wing news site (behind FoxNews) and going by how reasonable most conservatives are, I kind of doubt that stuff is regular there. Maybe I'm mistaken, like I said-- I don't land there too often.

But anyway, back to ranting about Trump for the rest of the week for you.

The current head of the conservative movement is a racist game show host who got into politics by way of telling delusional lies for five years about how he hired non-existent investigators to Hawaii to prove Obama was born in Africa, and is currently lawyering up because he's so dumb that he forgot to sign an NDA with a porn star he tried to pay off.

Reasonable?



I only visit virulently racist websites on occasion.



This is ridiculous.

Breitbart has long been widely known as a fever swamp for racist morons. Like, for years. No one in their right mind could spend more than 5 minutes there without realizing this.

I don't think Fox news is by any means reasonable. Right now a Breitbart headline is that Kushner met with a narco. The narco is no other than Mexico's President. I think Breitbart and to a lesser extent Trump, have said so many ridiculous things that people go numb to it.

Quoting this for reference. I think the progression of this thread speaks for itself.

After it was pointed out that Breitbart is a delusional fever swamp populated by racist morons, you posted an article from it.

Where did you expect the conversation to go from there?

Here's some more reasonable Breitbart content:

I figured Swish would get a kick out of it (because he has a sense of humor) and you'd blow a gasket. However, it doesn't require posting a Breitbart article to accomplish that.

Something as simple as the line, "going by how reasonable most conservatives are" will do the trick. Cons take note.

And here's Breitbart's extremely reasonable senior editor:



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017...philia-comments

Of course I think it's hilarious that one would try to argue that the people who fall in line behind an elderly racist lunatic who screams at the television all day are "reasonable", especially when doing so in service of trying to defend a virulently racist website meant to sucker idiots.

I mean, your literal argument for defending a racist fever swamp was "the people who frequent it are reasonable".

Who wouldn't mock that?

I watched this happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Alison_Parker_and_Adam_Ward

Thanks for posting. I had actually forgotten all about that.

Per wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Alison_Parker_and_Adam_Ward#Shooting_and_motives


Sounds like a swell guy. What was your issue with that particular headline, PDF?

I have this thing about people using Fake News and False Facts.

How about an outrageous headline from the other side of the aisle: https://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/

If the link gets shortened, it says: Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American

Any thoughts on that? There's more where that came from btw.

You're sincerely asking what the issue is with an article tagged under "black crime" with the headline "Race murder"?

Salon has long been widely known as a fever swamp for racist morons. Like, for years. No one in their right mind could spend more than 5 minutes there without realizing this.

The guy who got tricked into sending a teenage white supremacist $8 is here to talk about misinformation.

Is ABC better for you? http://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-alleged-gunman-details-grievances-suicide-notes/story?id=33336339


Sounds like they were race murders to me.

Given your creepy history of being enamored with rapists and pedophiles, maybe stepping up to bat for a website whose senior editor had to resign because he said pedophilia is OK and leads to maturity is the wrong look.

I could be wrong, but I don't remember ABC having a section dedicated to "black crime".

It's truly bizarre - racists here used to at least try to hide it. Now we've reached full-blown "I don't see the issue with having a section devoted to "black crime".

You're saying the quiet part out loud.