The Republican Utopia

[Ric Flair]

19 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

You have to admit though, Trump says and tweets some pretty outrageous things.  And more often than not he's factually challenged.

 

We are in absolute agreement. Letting him have a Twitter account is like letting your uncle drive home after drinking about a case of beer. Take away the damn keys already. 

[Ric Flair]

19 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You're jumping to the assumption that 90% of the media is in the tank for the Dems, but a quick scan of political talk radio shows that there's a TON of right-wing media. And right-wing Sinclair buying up local news stations is pushing more and more right-wing media.

 

What we have is a "cheerleading for political parties masking as news" issue. If whatever news you're watching criticizes either party without looking at the issues of both parties, then you need to turn the channel. But even more importantly, if the media you're following can't acknowledge the facts, then you're in even worse shape as you're consuming propaganda. (Fox News and Breitbart are dangerously popular considering how much propaganda they're pushing.)

 

The numbers are still ridiculously out of whack. Sure Republicans have a single TV network, several good websites, and a variety of talk radio options. But the mainstream media is still overwhelmingly liberal.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I can pretty easily list the relative handful of conservative outlets. Some of them are completely in the tank for Trump. Many are among his most outspoken critics. 

 

The rest are almost all left-leaning. They are reflexively anti-Trump, with more than 90% of their articles and columns criticizing somehting he said or tweeted. They were similarly reflexively pro-Obama, with nothing but praise and rarely a criticism of anything he said or did. 

 

When 90% of the media is automatically and reflexively in the tank for the Democrats and against the Republicans, you have a liberal media bias problem.

 

 

When trump does stupid things or absolutely makes things up or attacks law enforcement or his kids do corrupt things...an outlet reporting that isn’t “in the tank” for the democrats. 

Edited April 8, 2018 by BigRedBuster

[Enhance]

3 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I can pretty easily list the relative handful of conservative outlets. Some of them are completely in the tank for Trump. Many are among his most outspoken critics. 

 

The rest are almost all left-leaning. They are reflexively anti-Trump, with more than 90% of their articles and columns criticizing somehting he said or tweeted. They were similarly reflexively pro-Obama, with nothing but praise and rarely a criticism of anything he said or did. 

 

When 90% of the media is automatically and reflexively in the tank for the Democrats and against the Republicans, you have a liberal media bias problem.

I disagree with this part. That's basically saying 9/10 journalists are biased against Trump and Republicans. 1) There is no way to prove this and 2) I've worked in different roles in the news business my whole career; anecdotally, that percentage is simply untrue and impossible. Most people's perception of 'bias' in the news media is grossly over-exaggerated.

 

Trump says a lot of things that are either misleading or wrong. He, deservedly, gets called out for it. He's made it a part of himself so much as a sunrise is part of the world. It's who he is and it's largely his fault that it gets talked about so much - he keeps doing it and at an incredibly large scale.

[Danny Bateman]

4 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

The numbers are still ridiculously out of whack. Sure Republicans have a single TV network, several good websites, and a variety of talk radio options. But the mainstream media is still overwhelmingly liberal.

 

I don't know many conservatives that seek out liberal sources of information. There aren't a ton of people in rural Nebraska tuning in to MSNBC or reading HuffPo for their info.

 

People self-sort when it comes to media. Most people I know try to consume a variety of sources, and that's what I'd tell anybody who asked how to get news.

 

But again, I think your initial assertion is wrong. There may be a slight bias in favor of liberalism in the U.S. media as whole. But they certainly aren't automatically, reflexively in the tank for libs. I think you're discounting the extent to which Trump is a polarizing figure on his own, and the amount he just says and does really dumb sh#t. Media outlets have to report on that stuff, even his idiotic tweets.

Plus, there's often an overcompensation by the media in trying to combat a perceived liberal bias that winds up making liberals look bad. See: Hillary Clinton's emails.

Edited April 8, 2018 by Clifford Franklin

[Danny Bateman]

I have no other reason for posting this, other than to demonstrate what an empty suit and ideological flimflam man this young conservative "intellectual" is. This is one of the people conservatives expect to be at the forefront and take up their mantle someday.

 

Somewhere along the way politics became more about trying to humiliate the other team and make punchy-sounding arguments than lead the country. It's a shame.

 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Clifford Franklin

[funhusker]

1 hour ago, Clifford Franklin said:

I have no other reason for posting this, other than to demonstrate what an empty suit and ideological flimflam man this young conservative "intellectual" is. This is one of the people conservatives expect to be at the forefront and take up their mantle someday.

 

Somewhere along the way politics became more about trying to humiliate the other team and make punchy-sounding arguments than lead the country. It's a shame.

 

 

 

There in lies the rub....Ingraham wasn't castigated because of her opinion.  She was pushed back against because she took a personal attack at a person that happened to hold a differing opinion.  Something that might get a person banned from a site such as HuskerBoard because it's just plain rude and immature....

 

edit: if this person really wants to look at each "rude and immature" take and label it as "rude and immature" I guess I'd be okay with it.  And that would go for 'both sides'..

Edited April 8, 2018 by funhusker

[Ric Flair]

On 4/7/2018 at 4:38 PM, Enhance said:

I won't begrudge you your views on how certain aspects of the media covered both presidents, however, I think we need to be very careful when using phrases like 'the media.' 'The media' is a diverse bunch ranging from national talk shows, local news shows, newspapers, bloggers, etc.

 

Fox News and CNN are deplorable in my opinion, with Fox News being the worst of the two. They're both unreliable and far too coveting of themselves. More Americans should start actually reading again, and from a variety of sources, rather than paying attention to what shows up in their Facebook feeds and on TV.

 

'The media' is operated by humans whom are fallible and make mistakes, but there are a lot of great journalists and publications out there that far too often get blamed for others' mistakes and then get lumped into 'media' bashing.

 

“The media” can very easily be identified by their biases. Fox News is the lone conservative cable news outlet. CNN and MSNBC are decidedly liberal. So are ABC, NBC, PBS, and CBS. National Review, The Weekly Standard, and the editorial page of the WSJ are conservative. But the NYT and virtually every other urban newspaper is decidedly liberal. So are innumerable other papers, magazines, etc. 

 

Talk radio is generally right-leaning, as Rush and others developed as alternative news sources for conservatives who realized how biased the main stream news is. Left-wing talk radio has never had much of a market, precisely because left-wing folks have had their choice of news programs and other news sources to choose from.

 

On balance, the left-wing bias of the media is impossible to argue.

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, funhusker said:

There in lies the rub....Ingraham wasn't castigated because of her opinion.  She was pushed back against because she took a personal attack at a person that happened to hold a differing opinion.  Something that might get a person banned from a site such as HuskerBoard because it's just plain rude and immature....

 

edit: if this person really wants to look at each "rude and immature" take and label it as "rude and immature" I guess I'd be okay with it.  And that would go for 'both sides'..

 

Ingraham shouldn’t have made it personal. But Hogg has gone after a ton of people personally, in the nastiest terms possible. So he’s in a poor position to claim he’s been wronged somehow. 

[funhusker]

20 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Ingraham shouldn’t have made it personal. But Hogg has gone after a ton of people personally, in the nastiest terms possible. So he’s in a poor position to claim he’s been wronged somehow. 

One of them is paid and has to account to its sponsors, the other doesn't.  

 

 

edit: this may be a small peak to where the majority of American consumers actually fall on the 2nd Amendment.  And as far as a capitalist society goes, that's mostly what matters.

Edited April 8, 2018 by funhusker

[Ric Flair]

4 minutes ago, funhusker said:

One of them is paid and has to account to its sponsors, the other doesn't.  

 

 

edit: this may be a small peak to where the majority of American consumers actually fall on the 2nd Amendment.  And as far as a capitalist society goes, that's mostly what matters.

 

Hogg is about 14 minutes into his 15 minutes of fame. I think Fox will stand behind Ingraham. Her fans will continue being her fans. She’ll continue to be successful. 

[Enhance]

13 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

On balance, the left-wing bias of the media is impossible to argue.

That is a far cry from the decidedly bold and inaccurate claim that "90%" of all media is liberal.

 

I'm inclined to believe the general 'news media,' if we pigeon-hole them as one group, may lean liberal. However, a large reason for the oft-claimed 'liberal bias' in the news media right now is largely due to President Trump being a narcissistic liar and a fair portion of his supporter base being oblivious/ignorant/nonplussed by his direct contradiction of fact and reality. His "fake news" rallying cry has led a large portion of American voters (conservative in particular) to develop an irrational distrust of all things "news." A healthy skepticism and critical eyes towards journalism is a good thing, I may add.

 

On balance, the left-wing bias of the media is nowhere near as offensive as some would have you believe.

[funhusker]

Just now, Ric Flair said:

 

Hogg is about 14 minutes into his 15 minutes of fame. I think Fox will stand behind Ingraham. Her fans will continue being her fans. She’ll continue to be successful. 

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

We'll find out in 7 months.  But I agree with you on Ingraham, FoxNews will double down on her.  Especially if there is a "blue wave".

 

[Ric Flair]

Just now, Enhance said:

That is a far cry from the decidedly bold and inaccurate claim that "90%" of all media is liberal.

 

I'm inclined to believe the general 'news media,' if we pigeon-hole them as one group, may lean liberal. However, a large reason for the oft-claimed 'liberal bias' in the news media right now is largely due to President Trump being a narcissistic liar and a fair portion of his supporter base being oblivious/ignorant/nonplussed by his direct contradiction of fact and reality. His "fake news" rallying cry has led a large portion of American voters (conservative in particular) to develop an irrational distrust of all things "news." A healthy skepticism and critical eyes towards journalism is a good thing, I may add.

 

On balance, the left-wing bias of the media is nowhere near as offensive as some would have you believe.

 

You’re conflating whether we’re counting news outlets or journalists. For example, the NYT is one news outlet, but it employes hundreds of reporters, columnists, etc. 

 

Trump is a bit of a special case in terms of coverage, as many traditional conservative sites also loathe him. But I think my 90% figure is about right. I can name a handful of conservative news figures, because they are so clearly the exceptions. The overwhelming majority of news people, opinion columnists, etc. are liberals.

 

Here’s an interesting piece on that phenomenon. https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/

[Enhance]

33 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

You’re conflating whether we’re counting news outlets or journalists. For example, the NYT is one news outlet, but it employes hundreds of reporters, columnists, etc. 

 

Trump is a bit of a special case in terms of coverage, as many traditional conservative sites also loathe him. But I think my 90% figure is about right. I can name a handful of conservative news figures, because they are so clearly the exceptions. The overwhelming majority of news people, opinion columnists, etc. are liberals.

 

Here’s an interesting piece on that phenomenon. https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/

I don't mean to be condescending, but truly think about you're saying. You're suggesting (without any proof) that journalism is the only professional industry where 90% of the power is liberally biased.

 

That would suggest it's the most unified industry in the world. Forgive my bluntness - it's completely absurd. There's almost nothing in this world where 90% of the people can agree on it.

 

It doesn't matter if we're speaking outlet to outlet or journalist to journalist - there's physically no possible way that 90% of 'news media' (whether that's 90% of all journalists or 90% of outlets) is liberal leaning. There's no honest or factual basis for that claim at all.