• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America deserved what happened on 9/11

trouble13 said:
I want them to admit that they are partisan ideolouges and not the objective news organization they falsely portray themselves to be.

I dont actually care that they didnt cover the story. I care that they are dishonest about their bias.

Why is it so hard for you to simply admit that the msm does indeed have a heavy left leaning slant in its coverage? I dont understnd your persistent defense of something so blatantly obvious

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The MSM has a corporatist money slant.
Cable news is a consumer product in this country and it has been since the early 1990s or even earlier.

A cable news channel is obligated to take focus group data on its demographic and tailor its coverage to that which the demographic responds favorably to in order to maintain ratings, which equals $$$.

No ratings, no $$$...no $$$, no more cable news channel.

Fox News sells vanilla ice cream, CNN sells strawberry, MSNBC sells chocolate.
Right now the most objective channels for cable news might be C-SPAN or Newsy, maybe the BBC.

What exactly do you think you can prove wrt to "left bias" when it is clear that ANY channel that can get enough viewers is going to hue to their demographic? That's why Fox News consistently scores high in the ratings. They found their demographic and they serve it.

You don't understand how cable news works, this much is crystal clear.
 
trouble13 said:
Looks like your still unable to find anything from the NYTs talking about it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You NEED me to be pimping the NYT really badly, don't you?
Will it make your point more relevant if I pretend to pimp the NYT for you?
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Piker said the US deserved 9/11. Maher said that the terrorists who flew the planes into the towers weren't ******s, too bad if you can't see the dotted line.
Click to expand...
Your still struggling to understand the threads topic. It isnt about the content of his rant. Its about the major media outlets ignoring it. I can care less what his uncles opinion is or what Maher said about 9/11. Neither is relevant to the fact that the msm is intentionally ignoring this story. It fits a pattern with them. They are selective about what they sensationalize and what they ignore. When you look at the the methodology of their selectiviness it indicates they use an ideological bias to determine what is and is not covered. That bias is what this thread is about. Nothing else.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Your still struggling to understand the threads topic. It isnt about the content of his rant. Its about the major media outlets ignoring it. I can care less what his uncles opinion is or what Maher said about 9/11. Neither is relevant to the fact that the msm is intentionally ignoring this story. It fits a pattern with them. They are selective about what they sensationalize and what they ignore. When you look at the the methodology of their selectiviness it indicates they use an ideological bias to determine what is and is not covered. That bias is what this thread is about. Nothing else.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

First, you can forget NYT Times covering it because NYT is convinced that their demographic barely STARTS AT thirty years of age.
Second, MSNBC will NEVER cover ANY story about a Young Turks ANYBODY because Cenk did a brief stint as an MSNBC show host, then got into a very messy and very litigious fight, resulting in Cenk's exit from the network. He is persona non grata, and by extension, so is his show, and it IS HIS show, by the way. (TYT)

That leaves who? CNN? You're pissed and convinced that MSM is lefty biased because CNN isn't covering the story?
Yeah okay, that's your hill, my friend. Your choice if you want to die on it because I see a whiny and overly fashion conscious fringe lefty twit desperate for media attention and I see the mainstream media making the decision to deny what he seeks so desperately.
Maybe you can do better next time.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
The MSM has a corporatist money slant.
Cable news is a consumer product in this country and it has been since the early 1990s or even earlier.

A cable news channel is obligated to take focus group data on its demographic and tailor its coverage to that which the demographic responds favorably to in order to maintain ratings, which equals $$$.

No ratings, no $$$...no $$$, no more cable news channel.

Fox News sells vanilla ice cream, CNN sells strawberry, MSNBC sells chocolate.
Right now the most objective channels for cable news might be C-SPAN or Newsy, maybe the BBC.

What exactly do you think you can prove wrt to "left bias" when it is clear that ANY channel that can get enough viewers is going to hue to their demographic? That's why Fox News consistently scores high in the ratings. They found their demographic and they serve it.

You don't understand how cable news works, this much is crystal clear.
Click to expand...
I didnt bring up cable news.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Im not sure whst you mean thst im at my last straw. I believe i articulated my position and provided adequate evidence to support my supposition. Again thats on you if you dont draw the same conclusion as i have. Just because you believe the msm is something that its not does not mean i need to also.

The one pesky fact that none of you have be able to disproge is that the msm has choosen not give this story coverage and they have given less controversisl coverage. You claim its for a reason other than their left leaning bias and thats your choice. I disagree. I ssy the evidence is plain to see.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You said that it's your opinion tthat they deliberately ignored a nobody. That isn't evidence.
Just because you articulate your position so clearly that even a caveman can understand does not make it correct.
 
AProudLefty said:
You said that it's your opinion tthat they deliberately ignored a nobody. That isn't evidence.
Just because you articulate your position so clearly that even a caveman can understand does not make it correct.
Click to expand...
Ok well lets start with piker being a nobody. Thats one thing we disagree on. Adittedly i wasnt familiar with him but i do not follow the young turks. However i do know who they are and they do have a big following. I would not call this cat a "nobody" but i will concede he is likely a psuedi-celebrity. Enough of one to garner some national attention by the press when warranted.

That brings us to if his comments warrant the attention or not. I can go as far as saying its debatable BUT heres the thing about that.

Judging by past standards applied by the press i would say they absolutely think a person of his stature does merit national coverage when it fits their perferred narrative. I have not heard of Scarry before stumbling across his name doing a search today for similiar examples. The media gave him national attention for posting a pic of aoc and criticizing her attire on twitter.

Lets be honest about this, from an objective point of view, piker is not more obscure of a name to the public than scarry is. Also what piker said about crenshaw was more eggregious than what scarry said about AOC. Looking for an objective reason why scarry meritted national attention but piker did not; the explination that piker isnt well known enough does not pass the smell test.

I submit yo you that based on quite a bit of antidotal evidence from the history of coverage choices it seems reasonable that the explination is that these organazations do indeed have an editorial bias that is solidily left.

Now you obviously disagree thats the answer. I give the respect to make a reasonable alternative explination but the one your making is not it. I think i have pretty convincingly debunked your explination. I dont feel like you have debunked mine nor have you given me something to give me pause enough to say to myself hey maybe youre onto something and its a possibility to consider. I am open to listening with an open mind if you have one. The idea that piker isnt a big enough name gave me that pause until i investigated it a bit and it just does not sell.

Thats about as plainly as i csn explain where i am at on this.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Ok well lets start with piker being a nobody. Thats one thing we disagree on. Adittedly i wasnt familiar with him but i do not follow the young turks. However i do know who they are and they do have a big following. I would not call this cat a "nobody" but i will concede he is likely a psuedi-celebrity. Enough of one to garner some national attention by the press when warranted.

That brings us to if his comments warrant the attention or not. I can go as far as saying its debatable BUT heres the thing about that.

Judging by past standards applied by the press i would say they absolutely think a person of his stature does merit national coverage when it fits their perferred narrative. I have not heard of Scarry before stumbling across his name doing a search today for similiar examples. The media gave him national attention for posting a pic of aoc and criticizing her attire on twitter.

Lets be honest about this, from an objective point of view, piker is not more obscure of a name to the public than scarry is. Also what piker said about crenshaw was more eggregious than what scarry said about AOC. Looking for an objective reason why scarry meritted national attention but piker did not; the explination that piker isnt well known enough does not pass the smell test.

I submit yo you that based on quite a bit of antidotal evidence from the history of coverage choices it seems reasonable that the explination is that these organazations do indeed have an editorial bias that is solidily left.

Now you obviously disagree thats the answer. I give the respect to make a reasonable alternative explination but the one your making is not it. I think i have pretty convincingly debunked your explination. I dont feel like you have debunked mine nor have you given me something to give me pause enough to say to myself hey maybe youre onto something and its a possibility to consider. I am open to listening with an open mind if you have one. The idea that piker isnt a big enough name gave me that pause until i investigated it a bit and it just does not sell.

Thats about as plainly as i csn explain where i am at on this.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I do not disagree that the media has bias. Thats just the nature of the beast. Like I said, you're preaching to the choir.
 
trouble13 said:
Yes in this particular circumstance i do think it was newsworthy and ignored for partisan reasons. Thats why i made the thread. Its worthy of discussing.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Okay, so where exactly did you find out about this rant on an oblique blog, known only to a handful of hardcore "fanbois" on the interwebz? You found out from FOX NEWS, right? FOX NEWS, that has a handy list of "ENEMY LIBERALS WHO DO DUMB STUFF" and, as part of the MSM, FOX NEWS plays it for its viewers!!

Why? It's obvious, because FOX NEWS knows that their viewers eat this stuff up with a spoon, and will immediately go onto their own blogs and forums to bitch about EVIL LIBERALS saying hateful, disgusting things that is NOT BEING SHOWN ON CNN or MSNBC? And why is that? Because CNN and MSNBC do not have access to FOX NEWS' ENEMY LIBERALS WHO DO DUMB STUFF list, because their own viewers would rather hear about ENEMY CONSERVATIVES WHO DO DUMB STUFF.

If you are old enough to vote and drive a car, you shouldn't need this explained to you. :roll:
 
trouble13 said:
Npr, wapo, bbc, ap, nbc, cbs, abc take your pick

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, I noticed that they're not covering it either but I'm trying to explain to you that Hasan Piker is small potatoes.
Should someone like Ilhan Omar make another wisecrack like "Some people did some stuff" and I guarantee you it will be in ALL the papers and on ALL the cable and broadcast news outlets, like it was when she said it.

I have two kids from "the woke generation" and even my DAUGHTER didn't know who he was.
My SON did:

"He's this idiot that has his own Twitch stream, I think he's boring."

But I had to show him a PICTURE of the guy. He did not know Hasan's name!
Now, you want to keep insisting that Hasan Piker deserves column inches of ink or two hours of TV poutrage, go ahead.
But I think he's small potatoes. The biggest media outlet he's ever been on is TYT.

PS: Daughter says he's kind of cute, till I shared his remark.

This was her reaction:

giphy.gif
 
trouble13 said:
I just got home tonight and the devil i guess corrupted me into turning on that evil bias fox news.

Laurs ingrham (eek!) Was covering a story about a member of the young turks making controversial remarks.

Here is a link to the story
The Young Turks’ Hasan Piker Says ‘America Deserved 9/11’, Mocks Dan Crenshaw’s War Injury: ‘Brave Soldier F***ed His Eye Hole’ | Daily Wire

I googled it to see how any of the supposed unbias news sources were covering it. Apparently they are not covering it all. Where is the nbc, adc, cbs, the NYT, the post, wheres is the coverage by any of these bastions of objective journalism? As far as i can tell they are nowhere to be found.

Whats the deal lefties? Expain, why isnt this newsworthy to objective nonbias journalists?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, yes. Another conspiracy uncovered by a wingnut.

God bless this poor country.
 
If the cable news and the newspapers don't cover Logan Paul, is that ALSO an example of left wing bias, too?
 
How about Empirica??
Since we're reaching into the bucket for Twitch and YouTube celebs for examples of lefty bias, why isn't Fox News covering Empirica's latest posts?
 
DiAnna said:
Okay, so where exactly did you find out about this rant on an oblique blog, known only to a handful of hardcore "fanbois" on the interwebz? You found out from FOX NEWS, right? FOX NEWS, that has a handy list of "ENEMY LIBERALS WHO DO DUMB STUFF" and, as part of the MSM, FOX NEWS plays it for its viewers!!

Why? It's obvious, because FOX NEWS knows that their viewers eat this stuff up with a spoon, and will immediately go onto their own blogs and forums to bitch about EVIL LIBERALS saying hateful, disgusting things that is NOT BEING SHOWN ON CNN or MSNBC? And why is that? Because CNN and MSNBC do not have access to FOX NEWS' ENEMY LIBERALS WHO DO DUMB STUFF list, because their own viewers would rather hear about ENEMY CONSERVATIVES WHO DO DUMB STUFF.

If you are old enough to vote and drive a car, you shouldn't need this explained to you. :roll:
Click to expand...
Are you conceding that all the others are left bias?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Yes, I noticed that they're not covering it either but I'm trying to explain to you that Hasan Piker is small potatoes.
Should someone like Ilhan Omar make another wisecrack like "Some people did some stuff" and I guarantee you it will be in ALL the papers and on ALL the cable and broadcast news outlets, like it was when she said it.

I have two kids from "the woke generation" and even my DAUGHTER didn't know who he was.
My SON did:

"He's this idiot that has his own Twitch stream, I think he's boring."

But I had to show him a PICTURE of the guy. He did not know Hasan's name!
Now, you want to keep insisting that Hasan Piker deserves column inches of ink or two hours of TV poutrage, go ahead.
But I think he's small potatoes. The biggest media outlet he's ever been on is TYT.

PS: Daughter says he's kind of cute, till I shared his remark.

This was her reaction:

giphy.gif
Click to expand...
I get what your saying but if the explination is what you say it is and not a partisan bias how so you explain them covering eddie scarrys (who?) Tweets?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I get what your saying but if the explination is what you say it is and not a partisan bias how so you explain them covering eddie scarrys (who?) Tweets?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Who is Eddie Scarry?
Is he in office?
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Who is Eddie Scarry?
Is he in office?
Click to expand...
Lol thats sorta the point. You don't know who he is either. I posted several msm links in this thread. He dared to be critical of aocs fashion choices. Apparently thats worthy of national attention

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Lol thats sorta the point. You don't know who he is either. I posted several msm links in this thread. He dared to be critical of aocs fashion choices. Apparently thats worthy of national attention

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And that lasted ten minutes.
 


Never forget.

If an evangelical leader talks about Americans probably deserving it cause of homosexuality, and the ACLU it's fine, and he gets DP RIP threads.

If a guy with a funny ethnic name does it, it's on all liberals.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.
 
uptower said:
Israel was mentioned in AQ's manifesto but they had other grievances as well. It simplifies it too much to hang it all on Israel when in reality the US, and the west, has a web of interests and clients in the region.
Click to expand...

AQ had nothing at all to do with the events of 911.

The official story says otherwise, but the official story is intellectually bankrupt.
 
trouble13 said:
I just got home tonight and the devil i guess corrupted me into turning on that evil bias fox news.

Laurs ingrham (eek!) Was covering a story about a member of the young turks making controversial remarks.

Here is a link to the story
The Young Turks’ Hasan Piker Says ‘America Deserved 9/11’, Mocks Dan Crenshaw’s War Injury: ‘Brave Soldier F***ed His Eye Hole’ | Daily Wire

I googled it to see how any of the supposed unbias news sources were covering it. Apparently they are not covering it all. Where is the nbc, adc, cbs, the NYT, the post, wheres is the coverage by any of these bastions of objective journalism? As far as i can tell they are nowhere to be found.

Whats the deal lefties? Expain, why isnt this newsworthy to objective nonbias journalists?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What do you expect from a piece of human excrement like Hasan who works for a group literally named after the regime that committed the Armenian Genocide (which Cenk, the head of the group, still denies ever occurred, last I checked).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom