Liberal media bias? Pfffft
- Thread starter fabknight
- Start date
We need universal conservative bias in the media. It would turn this pussified, bleeding heart country around.
So let me understand this. A bunch of 20 somethings at face old, Google or insert your social media company here, leans hard left and is biased. Who knew?
Truth is, if you get your news from Facebook chances are your an idiot liberal anyway.
Truth is, if you get your news from Facebook chances are your an idiot liberal anyway.
The article was more about the manipulation of data relative to trending news steering clicks away from conservative leaning websites unless the articles were printed in more liberal leaning news organizations.
I dont spend much time/energy looking at that Trending list. It's usually info about some lame celebrity and whatever boring stuff they're doing.
.
.
Lolz. Nothing sez you've a wonderful argument quite like: you're a racist/anti Semite.
Zuck's a giant POS. Concerned about blocking free expression... Unless that free expression is in favor of Trump
http://gizmodo.com/facebook-employees-asked-mark-zuckerberg-if-they-should-1771012990
his week, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared to publicly denounce the political positions of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign during the keynote speech of the company’s annual F8 developer conference.
“I hear fearful voices calling for building walls and distancing people they label as ‘others,’” Zuckerberg said, never referring to Trump by name. “I hear them calling for blocking free expression, for slowing immigration, for reducing trade, and in some cases, even for cutting access to the internet.”
http://gizmodo.com/facebook-employees-asked-mark-zuckerberg-if-they-should-1771012990
his week, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared to publicly denounce the political positions of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign during the keynote speech of the company’s annual F8 developer conference.
“I hear fearful voices calling for building walls and distancing people they label as ‘others,’” Zuckerberg said, never referring to Trump by name. “I hear them calling for blocking free expression, for slowing immigration, for reducing trade, and in some cases, even for cutting access to the internet.”
Zuck will go kiss Chinese Community Party assess until he's blue in the face yet actively suppresses US conservative news sources.
Just like so many "open minded" liberals who love to tell people how goddamn intellectual they are, up until you say something they disagree with.
Just like so many "open minded" liberals who love to tell people how goddamn intellectual they are, up until you say something they disagree with.
Liberals have very much become the ultimate censors. They throw the "R" word on everything to the point it's meaningless. Statistics and facts be damned if it doesn't fit their agenda.
Which is no longer about "individual civil liberties" but "special interest group rights." And here's the proof ...
Many are predicting 2016 will be the first election where Gary Johnson (Libertarian) takes more votes away from Clinton (Democratic) than Trump (Republican). Most liberals are starting to realize their own party is not for freedom and civil rights. But special interest and rights.
I predicted this back in 2008 on the President's "lobbyist" and "Gitmo" promises, let alone don't get me started on what would become the ACA (based on his own mistakes in his own, Illinois voting record on healthcare that were insightful). Bigger government, more lobbyists, more special interest, more control, AP tapped, reporters in jail (and it was the liberals in '06 too) ... proven.
Which is no longer about "individual civil liberties" but "special interest group rights." And here's the proof ...
Many are predicting 2016 will be the first election where Gary Johnson (Libertarian) takes more votes away from Clinton (Democratic) than Trump (Republican). Most liberals are starting to realize their own party is not for freedom and civil rights. But special interest and rights.
I predicted this back in 2008 on the President's "lobbyist" and "Gitmo" promises, let alone don't get me started on what would become the ACA (based on his own mistakes in his own, Illinois voting record on healthcare that were insightful). Bigger government, more lobbyists, more special interest, more control, AP tapped, reporters in jail (and it was the liberals in '06 too) ... proven.
Last edited:
Allegedly CNN is already courting Megan as her contract at Fox News is nearing its end. While some will be shocked, because they don't know Fox News -- gasp -- actually has some moderates and liberals, it wouldn't surprise me.
But damn if she doesn't hit the nail on the head when it comes to the left-wing media bias ...
From: https://www.yahoo.com/tv/megyn-kelly-teases-donald-trump-interview-amiable-exchange-151248545.html
If I could read into that, it says to me that she's tired of anyone being labeled for merely being associated with Fox News (still didn't learn from NPR and Juan Williams), and makes one heck of a great, objective argument in how MSNBC commentators never get the same level of slant.
But damn if she doesn't hit the nail on the head when it comes to the left-wing media bias ...
From: https://www.yahoo.com/tv/megyn-kelly-teases-donald-trump-interview-amiable-exchange-151248545.html
'Kelly also defended Fox News from attacks by Bill Maher, who has a habit of bashing the network, when Time asked if she ever gets nervous about the network’s reputation.
“No. Nor do I think a criticism from a man who refers to women as the c-word should wind up in a Time piece,” Kelly said. “You know, would you ask that question of Savannah Guthrie, you know, when she was doing the 9 a.m. over on MSNBC? We’re not MSNBC. But nobody ever asks that when the commentators are left leaning.”
She continued: “We get that at Fox because the right-leaning commentators are a problem for certain reporters, and they feel the need to ask straight news journalists whether they want to be associated with that. In my view, that is your bias talking. That says nothing about Fox or me.”'
“No. Nor do I think a criticism from a man who refers to women as the c-word should wind up in a Time piece,” Kelly said. “You know, would you ask that question of Savannah Guthrie, you know, when she was doing the 9 a.m. over on MSNBC? We’re not MSNBC. But nobody ever asks that when the commentators are left leaning.”
She continued: “We get that at Fox because the right-leaning commentators are a problem for certain reporters, and they feel the need to ask straight news journalists whether they want to be associated with that. In my view, that is your bias talking. That says nothing about Fox or me.”'
If I could read into that, it says to me that she's tired of anyone being labeled for merely being associated with Fox News (still didn't learn from NPR and Juan Williams), and makes one heck of a great, objective argument in how MSNBC commentators never get the same level of slant.
I've been extremely critical of Fox News (don't get me started), but it is very telling how little MSNBC gets tagged in comparison.
E.g., Maddow utterly lost me forever when she "justified" the current administration throwing a reporter in jail, by citing W. did the same, forgetting it wasn't W., but the panel investigating Libby (of the W. administration).
Although I have long said the silent majority of Republicans hate how Fox News represents them. Trump's biggest bump was when his spat began with Ailes-Megan, which suggests this might be the case.
As I said before, it will be interesting to see how many Democratic voters fear their own party enough on civil liberties that they are willing to go Libertarian.
Tongue-in-cheek, right? Conservatives would be just as bad, if not worse. Besides, we've already had such in many decades past, and it wasn't good.
But the number of registered Democratic voters in the media is scary, now over 10 to 1 versus Republican ... utterly unhealthy.
I think the author of 'Clinton Cash' summed it up well, stating it wasn't Stephanopoulos per se, but his own peers unable to be objective and honest with themselves, before even saying anything.
I.e., the author clearly admitted he has bias, but it's increasingly impossible to get those with conflicts-of-interests in the media on the left to admit theirs, because nearly all of their own peers don't hold them accountable because they all agree with the bias.
E.g., every 1 journalist that points out a fellow colleague has a conflict-of-interest, there are now 10 who say they do not, out of political alignment. No longer "peer enforced" but more like "peer pressure" on a political slant.
The result is, like in the case of Stephanopoulos interviewing him, is not just the conflict-of-interest that he denied and failing to recuse himself, letting someone else conduct the interview. It's that he didn't just backtrack once, but again, and again, and again, until he cannot any more because it looks really bad ... and even after all that, someone finally exposes he has at least mid-7 figures of direct, fiscal incentive to not cross the Clintons, and discredit the author.
Again, the author has his bias. But Stephanopoulos' was just as large, monetarily-wise (beyond loyalty too) ... but he's supposed to be an objective journalist, knowing when to recuse himself. And since he didn't, his credibility has been utterly shot to pieces as a result, and -- ironically -- he now knows it better than anyone, after-the-fact, too late.
So it's hardly good for the journalist himself/herself either.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Hoops Bracketology Thread - Regularly Updated NET/KPI/BPI/SOR/KPom + Rooting Interests 🏀- Latest: FormerlyKnightInAtlanta
-
-
