Think the media isn't biased?

[jerryskids 7,083]

How about Canada having a law that requires the news to report the truth... guess how many stations aren't allowed to broadcast there?

 

Fox news, and Fox radio. The same Fox news that has defended its "right" to lie to its viewers in court. Of course, everyone else is the real problem, right?

 

False according to Snopes, which I presume is your bastion of internet fact checking:

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/foxcanada.asp

 

[RLLD 4,275]

To be safe I think one simply must use a variety of sources for information, and still question the motivations of those reporting that information.

[Sho Nuff 720]

To be safe I think one simply must use a variety of sources for information, and still question the motivations of those reporting that information.

Bingo...my first go this usually BBC. Cover the US better than we do.

[RLLD 4,275]

Bingo...my first go this usually BBC. Cover the US better than we do.

And I like to mix in radio and print, along with tv too....and even then, it's pretty hard to come to a firm conclusion

[rholio 339]

False according to Snopes, which I presume is your bastion of internet fact checking:

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/foxcanada.asp

 

We know. I'm curious why you would presume anything, though. Do tell...

[shorepatrol 1,871]

No?

 

 

But I really can't tolerate the political pundits broadcasting these "stories". Guys like Crowder immediately loose credibility with their in-your-face, angry style, as their emotion make me think they aren't rational. At least have the decency to parade some hot chick co-host to distract me while you go on your tirade.

Crowder is spot the fock on fock your safe space. Grow up snowflake

[RLLD 4,275]

Crowder is spot the fock on fock your safe space. Grow up snowflake

Crowder is far more capable of a coherent thought than almost any CNN, Fox or other main outlet news source, but he does sometimes drift on certain topics.

[jerryskids 7,083]

We know. I'm curious why you would presume anything, though. Do tell...

 

Who is "we," and what do you know? Apparently the answer is not that Canada has made Fox News/Radio illegal, which was the purpose of your post. Remember that? That's the post you are trying to deflect from, which you apparently read from some ctrl-left site.

 

Focus rholio, focus.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,596]

I have a more simplified belief. Everyone is biased.

 

A wise man once said "I think, therefore I am.". Well, if you think, then you'll think particular things. Those things create biases. Thusly, if you am, then you're biased.

 

Talk show hosts, writers, your neighbor, message board posters, your pets, all biased. And anytime biased people form a collective, that collective will assume a bias.

 

In short, yes the media is biased. And so are you. So stop complaining that they are the same as you.

I'm not considered the fourth branch of government put in place to balance out the government. Free speech is limited on me as I can vote and but don't have the same rights as those in the media to hide. I'm not saying the media is a branch of government. But without a fair and objective media, the powers that be can go unchecked. Which they are.

[mobb_deep 920]

Yeah...that one conservative cable show is the issue in a sea of liberal garbage....yep thats it.

 

Terrible take.

Sounds like conservatives should start more news and media companies then. If it's this huge reawakening of the movement, surely you guys should have some more fake news sites than just Fox and Breitbart.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Crowder is spot the fock on fock your safe space. Grow up snowflake

Jesus, get some new cliches. I don't follow the news, mainstream or not, but have seen enough Crowder videos here to know he is a nimrod. Not surprising that he has developed a following among internet tough guys.

[rholio 339]

Who is "we," and what do you know? Apparently the answer is not that Canada has made Fox News/Radio illegal, which was the purpose of your post. Remember that? That's the post you are trying to deflect from, which you apparently read from some ctrl-left site.

 

Focus rholio, focus.

We is anyone reading the thread, dumbfock. Something you failed to do, kind of like answering the question. I read it on the internet, multiple times, and it was false. It's been covered. You were too stupid to read the thread before throwing out your reply, and felt the need to add a stupid focking comment about presuming Snopes is my go to site. Again, why do you presume anything, dumbfock?

[Reality 3,121]

We is anyone reading the thread, dumbfock. Something you failed to do, kind of like answering the question. I read it on the internet, multiple times, and it was false. It's been covered. You were too stupid to read the thread before throwing out your reply, and felt the need to add a stupid focking comment about presuming Snopes is my go to site. Again, why do you presume anything, dumbfock?

:lol:

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Sounds like conservatives should start more news and media companies then.

We pretty much own talk radio because it's more thought based and not some video garbage pumped into your subconscious.

 

The liberals are the masters of fake news though as the examples of this thread have shown. Deliberately misleading/editing or implying things to keep stirring the race issues. That's the moronic thought process of liberals. You guys think the effect of that race baiting causes the audience to differentiate between conservatives and liberals. Nope......the whites are all lumped in together; safety pins and all.

[mobb_deep 920]

We pretty much own talk radio because it's more thought based and not some video garbage pumped into your subconscious.

 

The liberals are the masters of fake news though as the examples of this thread have shown. Deliberately misleading/editing or implying things to keep stirring the race issues. That's the moronic thought process of liberals. You guys think the effect of that race baiting causes the audience to differentiate between conservatives and liberals. Nope......the whites are all lumped in together; safety pins and all.

 

I'm not a liberal. Never once been a registered democrat. I don't subscribe to one ideology or another, because life is all a gray area, when you step away from either side of the fringes. The only reason I lean even slightly left is the whole Jesus thing with the repubs. I voted for Clinton, because Trump is a focking moron. Put her against Kasich/Rubio or any of the other candidates, sans Cruz/Carson/Jesus, and I wouldn't have voted for her.

[cbfalcon 827]

I'm not considered the fourth branch of government put in place to balance out the government. Free speech is limited on me as I can vote and but don't have the same rights as those in the media to hide. I'm not saying the media is a branch of government. But without a fair and objective media, the powers that be can go unchecked. Which they are.

 

Lets assume I agree.

 

Should we form a watchdog committee to decide what media outlets are biased?.....And who ensures that committee has no bias? Another committee?.....But what if that committee is biased?

 

There is no answer, I'm just pointing out the obvious. Love you.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,596]

 

Lets assume I agree.

 

Should we form a watchdog committee to decide what media outlets are biased?.....And who ensures that committee has no bias? Another committee?.....But what if that committee is biased?

 

There is no answer, I'm just pointing out the obvious. Love you.

 

 

I' am not in favor of the fairness doctrine or any governmental committee to oversee who's biased and who is not. We can determine that on our own and call the ones out, that are. As it is, the MSM's popularity is not much better than congress's. They spent decades going virtually unchecked. They don't have that luxury anymore.

 

You must "love" me. You responded to a post of mine that I barely understand.

[giraldi02 476]

The problem is that the news used to be broad based and directed towards people of all political leanings. The news had to be "unbiased" then because options were limited.

 

Now there's specific niche news networks that cater to liberals, moderates, fiscal conservatives, alt-right, etc. The inherent problem is that each and every one of these groups are labeling the others as "fake news".

 

Additionally, rather than civil and rational discussion, news networks are changing their dynamic and appearance to resemble that of sports talk shows. There is no reason whatsoever ANY network needs seven people of like-mindedness to discuss a focking debate. All it ends up being is a watered down version of Pardon the Interruption where each of these people are trying to be louder than their counterparts.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

We need to get back to News Channels just reporting the News and not putting a spin on it. Just broadcast it and keep the emotion out of it.

[giraldi02 476]

We need to get back to News Channels just reporting the News and not putting a spin on it. Just broadcast it and keep the emotion out of it.

 

Profit margins will never allow us to go back to this. There's too much advertising money invested in hot takes.

 

People want infighting and controversy.

"News" companies want clicks and dollars.

[cbfalcon 827]

 

 

I' am not in favor of the fairness doctrine or any governmental committee to oversee who's biased and who is not. We can determine that on our own and call the ones out, that are. As it is, the MSM's popularity is not much better than congress's. They spent decades going virtually unchecked. They don't have that luxury anymore.

 

You must "love" me. You responded to a post of mine that I barely understand.

 

I think i did that trick where I read your every 4th word, and guessed at what you were probably trying to say. And looking back, I give myself approximately a 60% shot of being 50% accurate in what I was probably responding to.

[rholio 339]

Profit margins will never allow us to go back to this. There's too much advertising money invested in hot takes.

 

People want infighting and controversy.

"News" companies want clicks and dollars.

It'd be nice to see one of them try. Fox saw a niche and jumped on it. Someone else could do the same.

[Baker Boy 1,710]

Profit margins will never allow us to go back to this. There's too much advertising money invested in hot takes.

 

People want infighting and controversy.

"News" companies want clicks and dollars.

 

I disagree. One of the top News shows is The O'Reilly Factor and they draw under 3 million viewers or less than 1% of the population. Eliminate the children and you still have a huge untapped market.

 

 

The OReilly Factor, which anchors Fox News Channels primetime lineup at 8 p.m., is the No. 1 program in cable news for the 14th consecutive year, averaging 2.8 million viewers in 2015, up 5 percent year-over year.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tv-ratings-bill-oreilly-finish-850467

[BunnysBastatrds 2,596]

 

I think i did that trick where I read your every 4th word, and guessed at what you were probably trying to say. And looking back, I give myself approximately a 60% shot of being 50% accurate in what I was probably responding to.

You hit that 2 iron well my friend.

[giraldi02 476]

I disagree. One of the top News shows is The O'Reilly Factor and they draw under 3 million viewers or less than 1% of the population. Eliminate the children and you still have a huge untapped market.

 

 

The OReilly Factor, which anchors Fox News Channels primetime lineup at 8 p.m., is the No. 1 program in cable news for the 14th consecutive year, averaging 2.8 million viewers in 2015, up 5 percent year-over year.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tv-ratings-bill-oreilly-finish-850467

 

In what way, shape, or form is Bill O'Reilly "news"?

 

You citing his ratings proves my point. People want controversy. Bill is the shining example of Skip Bayless meets politics.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

By the way, I salute Fox's bias. They saw a spot in the market in which demand was outpacing supply, and they jumped on it. .....Sure, it would be nice if these corporations felt a responsibility beyond their bottom line, but sex sells. If the other networks are selling sex and you refuse to do the same, you won't stay in business very long.

 

Now most people don't actually care enough to do what's necessary to have a more informed opinion. They just want to bust their nut. But if anyone does actually aspire to be better informed, the only solution is to view both biased sides version equally. Or in truth, maybe the solution is to view the biased side you don't agree with's version about 75% of the time.

 

I vehemently disagree.

 

This is the problem with the polarization of facts.

 

If I say the sky is blue and then some conservative moron on Fox says (or some petulant man-child tweets) "NO, IT'S PINK!" then we should not be viewing these as completely legitimate (or equally illegitimate) sides of the same coin. One is simply true and the other is simply false.

 

But now everything is just your OPINION so the other side can say the focking sky is pink and then we apparently have some focking real dispute as to the color of the sky. It's focking absurd.

[RLLD 4,275]

 

I vehemently disagree.

 

This is the problem with the polarization of facts.

 

If I say the sky is blue and then some conservative moron on Fox says (or some petulant man-child tweets) "NO, IT'S PINK!" then we should not be viewing these as completely legitimate (or equally illegitimate) sides of the same coin. One is simply true and the other is simply false.

 

But now everything is just your OPINION so the other side can say the focking sky is pink and then we apparently have some focking real dispute as to the color of the sky. It's focking absurd.

 

I think it might be a slippery slope. If person A is of the opinion that they are female, when the truth is that they are male, for some reason we have to pretend they are female and celebrate this; why then cannot some moron decide the sky is pink as well, even though it clearly is not?

[cbfalcon 827]

 

I vehemently disagree.

 

This is the problem with the polarization of facts.

 

If I say the sky is blue and then some conservative moron on Fox says (or some petulant man-child tweets) "NO, IT'S PINK!" then we should not be viewing these as completely legitimate (or equally illegitimate) sides of the same coin. One is simply true and the other is simply false.

 

But now everything is just your OPINION so the other side can say the focking sky is pink and then we apparently have some focking real dispute as to the color of the sky. It's focking absurd.

 

Hey, we have to be pragmatic and work with what we have. The only way the media changes it's ways is if the audience demands it with their money. And I just can't imagine a future in which people don't run towards things that release endorphins. Even those of us that truly want to open our minds have a hard time turning down the good feelings that come from being around like minded people.

 

As for your point; Very few things are truly black and white. Historically, I would argue that if something actually does qualify, we figure it out and the strong majority jumps to the same side. Therefore, I feel like its wasted energy worrying too much about those things......

 

But lets talk about your sky analogy to make a point. Someone that has only seen the sky at sunrise or sunset may believe it to be pink. Someone nocturnal may have only seen it black....Someone in Detroit may have only seen a pollution effected hazy gray... And even someone standing beside you that paints pictures for a living may call it azure.

 

I'm not trying to be a smartasss as much as I'm making a point. Don't assume anyone that disagrees with you is a liar...Instead of saying "No, it's blue", maybe flip to the other station and listen to their point of view. Obviously you are unlikely to walk away admitting you were wrong about the sky's color, but maybe you'll at least realize they aren't necessarily liars either. And if both sides thought like this, maybe it creates a foundation for some middle ground.

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

We need a state run media, then there will only be a single source of truth.

 

Problem solved.

[Baker Boy 1,710]

In what way, shape, or form is Bill O'Reilly "news"?

You citing his ratings proves my point. People want controversy. Bill is the shining example of Skip Bayless meets politics.

 

Check out the rating of the shows you consider news and do the math. See, there is a huge untapped market out there.

[David Puddy 3]

We need a state run media

 

 

No we don't.

[giraldi02 476]

Check out the rating of the shows you consider news and do the math. See, there is a huge untapped market out there.

 

I don't consider 90-95% of material on cable to be "news". It's primarily propaganda. Whether it's CNN, Fox, NPR, whatever.

 

Everything has a slant or an opinion. It's never: Let's present the entirety of this situation and let people make a determination.

 

The media criticizes people like Gary Johnson for not knowing a city like Aleppo, yet they spend a minuscule fraction of their time actually talking about news "over there". The American mindset is ignorance is bliss.

 

North Korea is testing their ICBM's. How much time has the media spent on this? How many people have begun to publicly ask Trump about what his response would be diplomatically to curb NK's behavior? To me it's far more frightening than Russia's involvement in obtaining less-than-secure emails and documents.

 

But let's all focus on Meryl Streep because she's the know-all for the middle-class. She doesn't like Trump so she gets the spotlight while flooding hits California causing millions in damage and loss of life will be brushed off.

 

A situation I always go back to is when the F5 tornado hit Joplin, MO in May, 2011. My brother's house was one of the only houses on his street to not get destroyed. He called me driving home telling me about the tornado and how he needed to get home. I turned on the news all night. Instead, it was a Mel Gibson documentary on MSNBC, and Bill O'Reilly re-runs on Fox. CNN was running commentary on Charlie Sheen. Not one focking piece of info on it. Not even on the Weather Channel. 158 died in that. Over $1 billion in damage. And our national news organizations couldn't be bothered with it. People want to complain about the middle America "ruining the election"? Well, guess what....more than a few of them can't stand the national news and rightfully so.

 

The media's downward spiral arguably was the story of 2016 to me. It started with Bernie supporters' outcries. Now it's become noticeably apparent that they're shills. They always have been, but now it's more prevalent. And I couldn't be happier. Screw the mainstream media. My wish for 2017 and beyond is that they all go belly up and the people working for them have to get real jobs. Bunch of hacks.

[Baker Boy 1,710]

I don't consider 90-95% of material on cable to be "news". It's primarily propaganda. Whether it's CNN, Fox, NPR, whatever.

Everything has a slant or an opinion. It's never: Let's present the entirety of this situation and let people make a determination.

 

The media criticizes people like Gary Johnson for not knowing a city like Aleppo, yet they spend a minuscule fraction of their time actually talking about news "over there". The American mindset is ignorance is bliss.

 

North Korea is testing their ICBM's. How much time has the media spent on this? How many people have begun to publicly ask Trump about what his response would be diplomatically to curb NK's behavior? To me it's far more frightening than Russia's involvement in obtaining less-than-secure emails and documents.

 

But let's all focus on Meryl Streep because she's the know-all for the middle-class. She doesn't like Trump so she gets the spotlight while flooding hits California causing millions in damage and loss of life will be brushed off.

 

A situation I always go back to is when the F5 tornado hit Joplin, MO in May, 2011. My brother's house was one of the only houses on his street to not get destroyed. He called me driving home telling me about the tornado and how he needed to get home. I turned on the news all night. Instead, it was a Mel Gibson documentary on MSNBC, and Bill O'Reilly re-runs on Fox. CNN was running commentary on Charlie Sheen. Not one focking piece of info on it. Not even on the Weather Channel. 158 died in that. Over $1 billion in damage. And our national news organizations couldn't be bothered with it. People want to complain about the middle America "ruining the election"? Well, guess what....more than a few of them can't stand the national news and rightfully so.

 

The media's downward spiral arguably was the story of 2016 to me. It started with Bernie supporters' outcries. Now it's become noticeably apparent that they're shills. They always have been, but now it's more prevalent. And I couldn't be happier. Screw the mainstream media. My wish for 2017 and beyond is that they all go belly up and the people working for them have to get real jobs. Bunch of hacks.

Sorry I am addressing this post and my premise still stands

 

 

Profit margins will never allow us to go back to this. There's too much advertising money invested in hot takes.

 

People want infighting and controversy.

"News" companies want clicks and dollars.

Check out the rating of the MSM Nightly News and add them all together and you are still only reaching 10% of the market.

 

There is a huge untapped market out there and it is the market advertisers want.

[giraldi02 476]

Check out the rating of the MSM Nightly News and add them all together and you are still only reaching 10% of the market.

 

There is a huge untapped market out there and it is the market advertisers want.

 

There's a reason though. Demographics. Who watches the nightly news anymore? Old people and those not connected to social media. And those people are getting phased out of society at a rapid rate.

 

News is instantaneous nowadays. The nightly news tonight is going to cover the Jeff Sessions Confirmation hearing ad nauseum. And it's already ancient history by today's standards. I can fire up a half dozen websites and get live time play-by-play of the entire thing. I can stream it at work. Twitter has live analysis as it happens.

 

Sure, there's untapped markets for cable news. Unfortunately cable AND news are not as symbiotic of a pairing as they used to be even just 10 years ago. Zero TV households continue to rise. Millennials don't watch the news nor do they watch much TV.

 

Cable news will soon, if not already, be just like newspapers. An old relic reminiscent of a time period where we were clueless about the things going on around us.

 

Let's just hope it goes away quickly, painfully, and takes a whole lot of unnecessary hacks with it.

[penultimatestraw 473]

We need a state run media, then there will only be a single source of truth.

 

Problem solved.

Funded by increasing taxes

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

We need a state run media,

 

It appears that's CNN and MSNBC until the 20th. Obummer still using those tards to smear Trump on the way out.

 

You stay classy Obama. Your sons (when they're not killing each other) would be proud.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

 

Hey, we have to be pragmatic and work with what we have. The only way the media changes it's ways is if the audience demands it with their money. And I just can't imagine a future in which people don't run towards things that release endorphins. Even those of us that truly want to open our minds have a hard time turning down the good feelings that come from being around like minded people.

 

As for your point; Very few things are truly black and white. Historically, I would argue that if something actually does qualify, we figure it out and the strong majority jumps to the same side. Therefore, I feel like its wasted energy worrying too much about those things......

 

But lets talk about your sky analogy to make a point. Someone that has only seen the sky at sunrise or sunset may believe it to be pink. Someone nocturnal may have only seen it black....Someone in Detroit may have only seen a pollution effected hazy gray... And even someone standing beside you that paints pictures for a living may call it azure.

 

I'm not trying to be a smartasss as much as I'm making a point. Don't assume anyone that disagrees with you is a liar...Instead of saying "No, it's blue", maybe flip to the other station and listen to their point of view. Obviously you are unlikely to walk away admitting you were wrong about the sky's color, but maybe you'll at least realize they aren't necessarily liars either. And if both sides thought like this, maybe it creates a foundation for some middle ground.

I don't buy this concept that there are no objective truths in the world. To me it seems dangerously close to nihilism.

 

Obviously some things (many things, most things) are a matter of opinion and, as you point out, perspective. But there are some things that are simply true or false - e.g. the Earth is not flat. If we lose site of that we become unmoored

[IGotWorms 4,063]

You stay classy Obama. Your sons (when they're not killing each other) would be proud.

Irony!!!

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

It appears that's CNN and MSNBC until the 20th. Obummer still using those tards to smear Trump on the way out.

 

You stay classy Obama. Your sons (when they're not killing each other) would be proud.

what the hell are you even talking about