gfm7175
Mega MAGA
he was talking about people like you.
"people like me"??
he was talking about people like you.
Oh, so you like the government funded ones??I like the non-profit news sources.
PBS Newshour, BBC, DW
Yes they are. They are trying to sell you liberal propaganda, using the money that they stole from your pockets.They're not trying to sell you anything. It's done as a public service.
They also steal money from taxpayer pockets to present that crap.Hello cawacko,
OK, so what they are doing is soliciting funding to cover the expense of presenting the news. Seems reasonable enough. Production has to get paid for one way or another. This way, you're not getting news that's partial to any advertisers. What you see is a lot of trusts and philanthropists supporting public news.
FOX is not controlled by the NRA nor "Big Pharma".If you tune in to Fox you're getting the NRA news. Gee. I wonder if you are going to see sensationalist stories about the use of guns? You're getting the Big Pharma news. I wonder if you are going to see lots of stories about illness?
You're acting like Fox News is unique. You think it's any different than CNN or MSNBC other than the politics of the latter is closer to what you support?
The NBC, CBS & ABC Nightly News shows are all about ratings. It's the nature of the beast.
A lot of what's out there today is about confirmation bias. We listen to those who give us what we want to hear.
I think it's called: 'Trying too hard.'
The news is the news. They are there to make a buck (at least the commercial for-profit news) and sensation sells, so guess what? They present sensationalized news. Isn't it amazing how much mileage they get out of an event? You know really, there isn't that much sensational news 24-7. The trick is to over-dramatize it, pump it up, buff it off, rearrange it, augment it, present it just so. Like a boquet of flowers. Actually, it's a very slick and bizarre art form. Ever evolving. Addictive for some, revolting to others, regardless of being conservative or liberal.
There is no 'deep state' controlling the news. If it seems like most of the news is to the left, that means you are to the right.
If you have to swallow some pretty tall tales to make your politics work, you might want to take a fresh look at your politics.
You might be trying too hard.
It's pretty hard to believe that only one network has the real news, and all the rest are part of some conspiracy to misinform people.
It's a lot easier to believe that one network found a niche group and figured out how to tell them what they want to hear. Especially if victimhood and boogiemen are involved.
You're acting like Fox News is unique. You think it's any different than CNN or MSNBC other than the politics of the latter is closer to what you support?
The NBC, CBS & ABC Nightly News shows are all about ratings. It's the nature of the beast.
A lot of what's out there today is about confirmation bias. We listen to those who give us what we want to hear.
So Fox is just as bad as the fake news sources. I agree.
LOL, what?
Major problem is cable news and the reality that most people would rather have someone tell them the news rather than actually reading the news themselves.
With the profit motive involved, infotainment is the way most get their news, it is easily tainted and framed, a melodrama, good guys/bad guys, aimed to attain the targeted audience, MSNBC and FOX are prime examples
Personally, got to read, and be aware of the bias everything contains, but there are legitimate sources out there, the Hill and WSJ lean slightly right, Politico and the WP/NYT lean to the left, but none of those sources are in the array of Brietfart, RAW, Blaze, Daily Kos, Huffington, etc., or anyone you would hear on any cable channel or radio
Hello cawacko,
I responded to your post where you said:
Perhaps I read too much into your statement when I responded:
Perhaps you do think Fox is especially unbiased, while the others are strongly biased?
I think all the commercial ones are reporting the same news but they paint a pretty different picture because of what material they select to present, and the opinion spin they put on it. None contain many outright mistakes in their actual reporting, but that reporting comprises such a small part of their programming there isn't much for them to get wrong.
That's why I use so many different sources myself, and I primarily avoid the for-profit news. Any story that smells like spin I like to double-check with numerous sources.
The thing is, most Trump fans listen only to Fox and don't read newspapers, or research stories online. They are getting a LOT of spin, but it confirms their bias, so they consider it fact.
So, for instance, when Fox says there was no pressure, and they can show clips of Zelenski saying 'no pressure,' they run with that. And then they show Republicans referring to those same clips. What they don't show in the same context is all the evidence brought by all the non-partisan professional diplomats and Civil Service workers that explained why Zelenski may have felt obligated to say the words (without meaning) because politically, he cannot risk angering Trump. Now, there's mountains of evidence that lots of pressure was applied, but Fox skips right over that and focuses on two words, and they're done. People who want to believe there was no pressure have all they need. They are not going to doubt it, not going to wonder why Zelenski would do that. He's a politician. Politicians sometimes have to say things they don't really mean. Ukraine knew there was pressure. They're not dumb.
Jordan was a perfect example of this. He got to those two words and he was good. Had all he needed. He had a story and a clip and he stuck to it. What he had was a simplification of the overall story. Obviously you can't give the details of something in two words. In this case the simple version and the in-depth version are exactly opposite.
The look on Zelenski's face when he said 'no pressure' gave him away. Any unbiased person who really wants the truth can understand why he said that. He had to say that, even though he knew better. And it was a nebulous term. He was never going to be held to task for saying 'no pressure.' He's looking out for his country. He cannot afford to anger Trump. He's playing the game well. Trump could make life very difficult for him. He already showed that.
Trump fans get something they can cling to. The only thing that's missing from their clutches is the truth.
I distinctly got the impression the Republican House members were grandstanding for the camera. They kept spouting these sound bytes the whole time, trying to distinguish themselves as defenders of Trump.
Major problem is cable news and the reality that most people would rather have someone tell them the news rather than actually reading the news themselves.
With the profit motive involved, infotainment is the way most get their news, it is easily tainted and framed, a melodrama, good guys/bad guys, aimed to attain the targeted audience, MSNBC and FOX are prime examples
Personally, got to read, and be aware of the bias everything contains, but there are legitimate sources out there, the Hill and WSJ lean slightly right, Politico and the WP/NYT lean to the left, but none of those sources are in the array of Brietfart, RAW, Blaze, Daily Kos, Huffington, etc., or anyone you would hear on any cable channel or radio
They're trying to sell you themselves. They have to raise money like everyone. They just replace commercials with fund drives.
so BBC and DW has fund drives?![]()
This Harvard study will give you a glimpse into which news out lets are more balances and which are not.
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/
The NYT and the WaPo didn't score very well.
The NYT had less than half the number of positive stories and the WaPo had about half the positive stories as the WSJ. The WSJ was 70% negative and only 30% positive stories on Trump so its not like they were balanced either. Fox Was the most balanced. You are probably are doing what many Libs do. (Not saying you are a Lib.) You are probably lumping News and Opinion together. That should not be done.They didn't score that bad, right next to the WSJ, and the study is largely the amount of Trump coverage, and given that Trump courts the media, it is not suprising, he wants the attention, no prior President went to the ends Trump does to be part of the media agenda, most sought to avoid it, and a lot of what Trump turns negative because of his habit of being less than honest so frequently
What those sources are good at is the amount of news they report on a daily basis and the lack of melodrama in reporting them
I think you and I are having two different conversations. I have no idea who Zelenski is or what their relevance is to what I wrote about media sources.
Hello archives,
No wonder you are so well informed. Bravo.
I don't know what DW is tbh. BBC sells its programming to raise money. I do listen to PBS and yes they have fund drives.
There is not way to be well informed by relying on TV (and radio) for the news.
I don't know what DW is tbh. BBC sells its programming to raise money. I do listen to PBS and yes they have fund drives.
Go figure.
If you don't like the news pretend it's all fake.