Jump to content


The Republican Utopia


Recommended Posts


1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

Every time Trump is faces with an obvious right/wrong situation, he always picks wrong. Why the hell was Libby even on his radar?

 

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

At first I thought it was an attempt to pander to conservative Bush-Cheney diehards, which would be weird, because he already spent so much time criticizing W.

 

But then the motive became clear... of course it's got to be about Trump.

 

 

Link to comment

Lovely.

Guessing there aren't many people old enough who post here but I have wondered if there was a cloud of fear when the country was going through this with Nixon. But from what I know of it he didn't stoop nearly to Trump's level of tearing the country down. Going after the FBI publicly is a way bigger deal than many people seem to think it is. And the RNC going along with him is despicable.

Edited by Moiraine
  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Lovely.

Guessing there aren't many people old enough who post here but I have wondered if there was a cloud of fear when the country was going through this with Nixon. But from what I know of it he didn't stoop nearly to Trump's level of tearing the country down. Going after the FBI publicly is a way bigger deal than many people seem to think it is. And the RNC going along with him is despicable.

 

I was born in 67 so I was very young when this was happening. 

 

The thing is, there wasn’t the social media and 24 hour news cycle there is now. 

 

However, back then we had already gone through a decade of social upheaval that forever changed the country.

 

I really wish wish I was more politically conscious during that era. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I was born in 67 so I was very young when this was happening. 

 

The thing is, there wasn’t the social media and 24 hour news cycle there is now. 

 

However, back then we had already gone through a decade of social upheaval that forever changed the country.

 

I really wish wish I was more politically conscious during that era. 

 

 

One important thing about having no social media is the president couldn't contact the public directly. He had to be at least somewhat civil with the media to get his message out. Now we have a conspiracy theorist as president and he can control the narrative for as many people as he can dupe.

Edited by Moiraine
  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

On 4/11/2018 at 11:05 AM, RedDenver said:

You haven't shown any evidence to support your 90% claim; therefore, it's not at all a reasonable estimate. And you've ignored the reason I say that self-identifying is irrelevant: both right and left (and sideways, up, down, etc.) can call themselves "moderate". It's ridiculous to say one of those groups claiming "moderate" is more or less relevant than another.

 

Yes, the article shows that geography is the main component of media bias, which shows that the bias is urban and coastal. That does come with some liberal bias but nothing that suggests 90%. The distinction is urban bias in the media. For example, you'd consider me progressive (or liberal if you prefer), but I'm opposed to a lot of the media bias in favor of corporations and Wall Street, which is more of an urban vs rural issue. And the media isn't entirely liberal biased, for example, I'm opposed to the pro-war stance of much of the media, which is decidedly NOT liberal.

 

The media undoubtedly has a strong liberal bias. Even liberals in the media acknowledge that. The ombudsmen of the NYT and other liberal newspapers have even taken their own publications to task for not even appearing to be objective. 

 

There is no accurate way to measure the percentage of those in the media who are liberal. Asking them isn’t effective, because most people self-identify as moderate. That’s especially true for journalists, who want to appear to be fair-minded, even when they aren’t. So we’re left estimating how many are liberal and how many are conservative. I’ve posted a ton of links showing a heavily slanted liberal bias. My estimate is that 90% or so of those in the media are liberals. If you think I’m wrong, then prove it by listing all of the conservative media figures. Let’s see how many you can come up with.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

The media undoubtedly has a strong liberal bias. Even liberals in the media acknowledge that. The ombudsmen of the NYT and other liberal newspapers have even taken their own publications to task for not even appearing to be objective. 

 

There is no accurate way to measure the percentage of those in the media who are liberal. Asking them isn’t effective, because most people self-identify as moderate. That’s especially true for journalists, who want to appear to be fair-minded, even when they aren’t. So we’re left estimating how many are liberal and how many are conservative. I’ve posted a ton of links showing a heavily slanted liberal bias. My estimate is that 90% or so of those in the media are liberals. If you think I’m wrong, then prove it by listing all of the conservative media figures. Let’s see how many you can come up with.

Conservative media corp Sinclair is buying up local TV stations and now has nearly 200 stations in nearly 100 markets. All by itself, Sinclair has about as many conservative outlets than all the other non-conservative TV, online, and print media I can think of combined. And that's before counting up the number of conservative/right-wing radio shows and their market reach. So it's definitely not slanted 90% liberal.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

There is no accurate way to measure the percentage of those in the media who are liberal.

 

My estimate is that 90% or so of those in the media are liberals.

 

If you think I’m wrong, then prove it by listing all of the conservative media figures. 

 

 

The number of things wrong with this is hilarious and would take way too much time to dissect entirely.

 

But let's just go with this:

 

No. YOU f'ing prove it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You keep throwing out this worthless hot take bulls#!t garbage, baseless claim - you prove it. 

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Conservative media corp Sinclair is buying up local TV stations and now has nearly 200 stations in nearly 100 markets. All by itself, Sinclair has about as many conservative outlets than all the other non-conservative TV, online, and print media I can think of combined. And that's before counting up the number of conservative/right-wing radio shows and their market reach. So it's definitely not slanted 90% liberal.

 

What’s Sinclair’s combined viewership/number of listeners? Do they direct their journalists to espouse particular views?

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

The number of things wrong with this is hilarious and would take way too much time to dissect entirely.

 

But let's just go with this:

 

No. YOU f'ing prove it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You keep throwing out this worthless hot take bulls#!t garbage, baseless claim - you prove it. 

 

My number is an estimate based on the limited amount of empirical data. You say it’s wrong. Prove it. 

 

 

Link to comment

9 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

What’s Sinclair’s combined viewership/number of listeners? Do they direct their journalists to espouse particular views?

 

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/how-americas-largest-local-tv-owner-turned-its-news-anc-1824233490

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stations_owned_or_operated_by_Sinclair_Broadcast_Group

Edited by commando
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

What’s Sinclair’s combined viewership/number of listeners? Do they direct their journalists to espouse particular views?

Sinclair currently has 39% of all US viewers in their viewership and with the pending Tribune Media purchase that will increase to 72% of all viewers.

 

Yes, they in fact force the local broadcasters to read a scripted message. Their enforced messaging is a giant reason why people are so opposed to them.

 

8 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

My number is an estimate based on the limited amount of empirical data. You say it’s wrong. Prove it. 

That's not how this works. YOU made a claim, so YOU have to prove or otherwise defend your claim.

Edited by RedDenver
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

The number of things wrong with this is hilarious and would take way too much time to dissect entirely.

 

But let's just go with this:

 

No. YOU f'ing prove it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You keep throwing out this worthless hot take bulls#!t garbage, baseless claim - you prove it. 

Lol what a lame post. But seeing who posted it, I wasn't surprised. 

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Sinclair currently has 39% of all US viewers in their viewership and with the pending Tribune Media purchase that will increase to 72% of all viewers.

 

Yes, they in fact force the local broadcasters to read a scripted message. Their enforced messaging is a giant reason why people are so opposed to them.

 

That's not how this works. YOU made a claim, so YOU have to prove or otherwise defend your claim.

 

I have. I’ve posted multiple links from a variety of sources. Then I explained how I reached that conclusion.

 

Sinclair, even post-merger, will only even be available to 72% of Americans. But how many of them actual watch the news programs they offer? How many Americans get their news from the liberal left on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, BBC, NPR, CNN, etc.? Or from similarly left-wing publications?

 

 

Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...