So you hate the first amendment. Any others you have problems with? I think your argument is exactly the same as Hitler's. Well done, you are in good company.
Defunding PBS, NPR and BBC in favor of Fox News
- Thread starter MarcusA
- Start date
So you hate the first amendment. Any others you have problems with? I think your argument is exactly the same as Hitler's. Well done, you are in good company.
Right, they supported Hillary, all those nightly demogogues didn't campaign for Trump, didn't appear on the podium with Trump, didn't offer him all kinds of free time on their shows, and I don't know what I am talking about?
Plus that's just ignorance, every government (by the very definition of "government" to begin with, including the US government) has always allocated public spending on various causes, this includes public donations to "private donors".
For example, I'm a MENSA-level intellect who is also probably in the top percentiles in terms of linguistic ability. Since people of my intellect and values naturally contribute more than individuals of lesser intelligence, ambitions, and virtues; those whom by the virtue of their own debasedness would voluntarily live as slaves and slavish even if they were granted some mythical, childish, or nonsensical "freedom" which they are too inept and virtue-less to properly apprecite.
So it would be in the natural right and interest of a virtuous state to subsidize the interests of men and women like me, at the expense of the lesser individuals - such as those with lower intelligence, reasoning abilities, and first and foremost, virtues, He he he
Don't be jealous that you and others lost the genetic lottery. lol
Of course both Fox and MSNBC are heavy bias, that is why they were created, they are the same thing, vehicles designed to appeal to a targeted audience
Did you decide to hide this massive intellect when you came here to post. Our system of law and our Constitution have thoroughly rejected your 'Aryan race' bullshit. You belong in Nazi Germany, circa 1936, hunting Jews. In my experience, guys who need to brag about their IQ are hiding feelings of inadequacy. One thing that's certain is that you failed sixth grade Constitutional Law.
Yawn.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello MarcusA,
Before I respond to your post I am compelled to comment about what was missing from it. Most friendly posters that I end up respecting have the courtesy to acknowledge my PIP. Since you have not even commented on it, that leaves me wondering. Perhaps you are a bot. I don't know. Your response totally blows off my entire previous post with one word, and zero explanation. That's not overly respectful, nor friendly. We shall see how things work out. I am not one to engage in one-sided conversations. Especially ones where there is little to no recognition of anything I have said.
That site is ranked by industry professionals at the Columbia Journalism Review as 'armchair amateur,' and 'unscientific' by the Poynter Institute.
It ranks Fox as heavily right biased, as you noted:
"RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits, however, straight news reporting is generally reliable, therefore we rate them Mixed for factual reporting."
The armchair amateur site you linked rates PBS Newshour as only slightly center-left biased:
"LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.
Overall, we rate PBS NewsHour slightly Left-Center Biased based on story selection that slightly favors the left and Very High for factual reporting due to in-depth, well sourced information and a clean fact check record."
With that in mind (if it means anything, coming from an amateur with zero credentials,) the OP makes zero sense.
Again, it would be absurd to remove public funding from a source that does not have to engage in sensationalism to earn advertising dollars for funding and to steer it towards a source that does, and it heavily biased. That would only be done if there is an agenda to try to control the thinking of the public.
As noted above, I am looking for a mutually respectful two-way conversation here. I have commented on your thoughts. If your way is to blow off my considered comments in one word and then blast me with stuff you simply want to throw out there with zero intent of having an actual two-way conversation, then I am going to consider that to be disrespectful; and cut it off with you. Are you a real person who can engage in a two-way conversation?
Before I respond to your post I am compelled to comment about what was missing from it. Most friendly posters that I end up respecting have the courtesy to acknowledge my PIP. Since you have not even commented on it, that leaves me wondering. Perhaps you are a bot. I don't know. Your response totally blows off my entire previous post with one word, and zero explanation. That's not overly respectful, nor friendly. We shall see how things work out. I am not one to engage in one-sided conversations. Especially ones where there is little to no recognition of anything I have said.
That site is ranked by industry professionals at the Columbia Journalism Review as 'armchair amateur,' and 'unscientific' by the Poynter Institute.
It ranks Fox as heavily right biased, as you noted:
"RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits, however, straight news reporting is generally reliable, therefore we rate them Mixed for factual reporting."
The armchair amateur site you linked rates PBS Newshour as only slightly center-left biased:
"LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.
Overall, we rate PBS NewsHour slightly Left-Center Biased based on story selection that slightly favors the left and Very High for factual reporting due to in-depth, well sourced information and a clean fact check record."
With that in mind (if it means anything, coming from an amateur with zero credentials,) the OP makes zero sense.
Again, it would be absurd to remove public funding from a source that does not have to engage in sensationalism to earn advertising dollars for funding and to steer it towards a source that does, and it heavily biased. That would only be done if there is an agenda to try to control the thinking of the public.
As noted above, I am looking for a mutually respectful two-way conversation here. I have commented on your thoughts. If your way is to blow off my considered comments in one word and then blast me with stuff you simply want to throw out there with zero intent of having an actual two-way conversation, then I am going to consider that to be disrespectful; and cut it off with you. Are you a real person who can engage in a two-way conversation?
I'll meet you halfway. Defund public media, and let the market decide things.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello MarcusA,
OK, anybody who goes on the internet and tries to make their own intelligence a matter of discussion - is asking for it!
The 'it' being criticism of their own intelligence.
Naturally, to do this thing, and to do it with less than impeccable grammar, is like bending over and asking for it.
Additionally, an individual of supposed exceptional intelligence should be able to argue a position based on the merits of the concept, rather than personally attacking others.
FYI: You're about that close (holding thumb and forefinger less than 1 mm apart) to being placed on Permanent Ignore unless you can quickly redeem yourself and suddenly turn into a respectful poster. Life is too short to waste time talking to people who cannot engage in basic civil discourse...
OK, anybody who goes on the internet and tries to make their own intelligence a matter of discussion - is asking for it!
The 'it' being criticism of their own intelligence.
Naturally, to do this thing, and to do it with less than impeccable grammar, is like bending over and asking for it.
Additionally, an individual of supposed exceptional intelligence should be able to argue a position based on the merits of the concept, rather than personally attacking others.
FYI: You're about that close (holding thumb and forefinger less than 1 mm apart) to being placed on Permanent Ignore unless you can quickly redeem yourself and suddenly turn into a respectful poster. Life is too short to waste time talking to people who cannot engage in basic civil discourse...
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Okay Goebbels.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Who is "funding" the public media?
I posted it .No tax dollars. Just typical righty lies that work for each other. The thread is bogus.
I could care less about race; Hitler was a fool as is anyone trying to run on a racist platform.
Did you decide to hide this massive intellect when you came here to post. Our system of law and our Constitution have thoroughly rejected your 'Aryan race' bullshit. You belong in Nazi Germany, circa 1936, hunting Jews. In my experience, guys who need to brag about their IQ are hiding feelings of inadequacy. One thing that's certain is that you failed sixth grade Constitutional Law.
Yawn.
For example; Muslims/Arabs could be useful allies in the war against the left; as could black people, Mexican and women of high talent and caliber.
At this point, the Constitution is an outdated piece of toilet paper and needs to be destroyed so that the left cannot use it to further their insidious agendas; we need a new right-wing Constitution in which only those on the side of the right and on the side of God can participate in politics at all; and no rights extended to inferiors such as atheists; if an atheist should be allowed to exist at all (which is debatable, since a world with no atheism would be one with no rape, no murder, no pedophilia, no degeneracy), only as a second-class citizen at most unless they convert to the National religion and national political platform.
If anything, Hitler should have put atheists in Auschwitz instead of Jews; atheists are nothing more than a blight upon our existence, and naturally detested by every major world religion; since no one, not a Christian, Jew, Molsem, or anyone else can justify raping and molesting children as just a "lifestyle" preference except for the diseased and sub-human atheist, much like their patron Saint the perverse and cruel Marquis de Sade, for example.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Go away troll.
#DNFTT
NPR and BBC both receive funds from their respective governments. In the case of PBS, they receive some government funds and some private funds.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
I don't know about NPR and BBC but PBS has always been funded by rich socialites and others.
Partially. They still receive some funding from local governments and from the feds.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Can you give me source for that?
Also I loved watching William Buckley on PBS. He was one of those rare brilliant conservatives. Sorry to see them go.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
dammit people. can we just focus on the chinese takeover?