Maybe not your point, but definitely mine. News agencies have bypassed the consumers. There is no real way to vote with your dollars when it comes to the MSM.
You pay your cable bill? They get some.
You wipe your butt? They’re getting paid.
Their ability to garner more ad dollars is based on viewership, but those numbers have to change by the millions before much changes at all, and it would take nothing less than a public execution for their parent companies to start reconsidering their relationship.
I guess as a country we could just complain about it relentlessly and watch it become even more partisan. It’s certainly been working so far.
This is silly though. We saw a TON of advertisers in the past couple years play hardball with news agencies (cough cough NFL). For some it worked out and for some it didn’t, but millions of dollars ended up shuffling on the whims of the consumer.
Guess you better join me eh?
Our options to impact a biased news industry is govt intervention, or vote with your dollar.
If you’re trying to argue that not viewing has a minimal impact, I’m right there with you, but it seems a hellava lot better than staying the course and expecting change.
Neither of these things drive what shows up on your nightly segment. Ratings and viewership numbers directly correlate to what’s broadcasted. It’s simple supply and demand at work.
No, you didn’t - you complain about the dishonesty of the MSM, but give Trump a pass. When asked why it’s not bad when Trump lies, you don’t have a good answer.
As for “leftists”, I don’t condemn them non-stop for several reasons - one, I don’t think they are categorically evil or bad because of their ideas, and two, I don’t think all modern ideas described as “leftist” are bad. (Example? Net neutrality is considered left-of-center, but I support it.)
Here’s the thing - I don’t fear ideas that differ from my preferred worldview or the people that have those ideas. I don’t loathe them either. In a free society, there’s plenty of room for all of us, and may the best ideas win.
As a (hypothetical) President, I wouldn’t feel so threatened by a decorated general who dared to disagree with me (and may have voted Democrat - the horror!) that I’d slander and disrespect his name and his service on social media.
Reason? I’m not a snowflake. Unlike Trump and his band of Trumpkins, who simply subscribe to the same version of grievance politics they claim to despise.
No. What’s Trump going to say - that lying to get ahead in one’s career is disqualifying? Trumpkins won’t get (or care about) the contradiction, but swing-voting independents will.
But I don’t think she’ll be the nominee, in any event.
I would actually prefer to read the same article by The Nation and The National Review and come to my own conclusions. I don’t trust anyone who claims objectivity. Give me the hyper partisanship right out in the open with no hidden agendas.
Obviously the Nation’s take on stuff would annoy me more, but it can’t hurt to challenge my assumptions and spy on the enemy a bit.
That being said I don’t like watching news talking heads of any flavor. Men and women in too much makeup boiling issues down to soundbites for idiots is not my cup of tea.
It depends whether the Democrats embrace the Marxist concept of revolutionary defeatism like the Corbynites in Labour Party in the UK did.
Originally the concept applied to revolutions and uprisings but when it’s applied to politics it goes like this - losing by fielding an ideologically pure candidate is vastly more preferable to winning with an impure candidate, especially if the individual was tainted by public displays of ideological lapses. This provides a heroic narrative of glorious failure and further radicalizes the rank-and-file.
Now, substitute “ideology” with “identity politics” and you can read the above paragraph as follows - yes, polls show that both Biden and Sanders (!) would beat Trump but they’re “white men” and therefore unacceptable as candidates.
If one lets Trump win 2020, when the pendulum swings back it will already be established as a mantra in 2024 that the Dem candidate cannot be a white man. That’s Marxist revolutionary defeatism applied to politics.
I agree 100%. I read biased media all the time and get news from them - but I know that going in and don’t complain about lack of objectivity.
My beef is with those who whine about lack of objectivity in MSM but then happily gorge themselves on the biased MSM outlet of their preference. Bias is either a problem, or it isn’t.
There are a few outlets trying to enter the market as straight news you can trust - and I’m happy about that development. I do wish we had more of that as part of our media. But, as stated above, we have a consumer-driven media, and do consumers actually want straight news?
Yeah, that’s the incongruous stuff I had to learn in school during the golden age of workers socialism - I can smell it a mile away.
It really is staggering how clueless kids in the West are now repeating verbatim phrases and concepts that have been proven as utter, murderous failures time and time again.
