- Joined
- Nov 25, 2019
- Messages
- 68,461
- Reaction score
- 16,195
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Quote for the ages:
But, this is the one which really matters:
Washington Post? Color me surprised.
Quote for the ages:
But, this is the one which really matters:
I fully agree that electing to feast on a steady diet of confirmation bias is bad news, but I do not agree that this is not also true among the MSM which had assured the public for years that Trump (and his campaign staff) had criminally colluded with Putin (and his government officials) to do harm to the Hillary campaign based on nothing provable (verifiable?) at all. Mueller stated that was simply not so long after he knew that to be the case, yet continued to allow his staff to keep on "investigating" in order to try to generate obstruction and/or perjury charges which he knew could not be brought by the DOJ on Trump.
Yes, MSNBC is better than Fox. The collective IQ of those watching Fox is probably 1/4 that of a single Maddow viewer.
Is Fox News not part of the free media? Does Kelly actually believe that MSNBC is better or did he do what he accused Fox News of doing?
Yep, and they are centrists, too, on MSNBS and CNN
They aren't propagandists like those on Fox News.
Fox News spins these outrageous narratives that viewers swallow whole-heartedly and then when reality intrudes they are left wailing about the Deep state, which their own leader is in charge of.
There has to be more to life than this sort of crazy, fantasy feedback loop.
I fully agree that electing to feast on a steady diet of confirmation bias is bad news, but I do not agree that this is not also true among the MSM which had assured the public for years that Trump (and his campaign staff) had criminally colluded with Putin (and his government officials) to do harm to the Hillary campaign based on nothing provable (verifiable?) at all. Mueller stated that was simply not so long after he knew that to be the case, yet continued to allow his staff to keep on "investigating" in order to try to generate obstruction and/or perjury charges which he knew could not be brought by the DOJ on Trump.
Actually, at the very beginning, I stated that evidence for "collusion" would include providing internal polling to the Russians. The kind of thing that would help them focus their disinformation campaigns.
I didn't find out until much later that Manafort did indeed provide internal polling data to someone with pretty direct ties to the IRA. Further, the trump tower attendees were given a pass, not because what they wers doing wasn't illegal, but because Mueller didn't think he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew what they were doing was against the law. And interestingly it was Manafort that left the meeting immediately.
And he would have known, due to his work over there for pro-putin clients.
So I do think there was some "collusion", just that it was more "peripheral" and I stated before the Report came out that trump may have just been a useful idiot who didn't "collude" directly, but was quite happy to take the help.
But to the overall point, the primary difference between the MSM conservatives cry out against and conservative media is active coordination. Conservativ have a distinct recent history from the rest of the world.
But it's the same, uniform recent history. The rest of the MSM is more in line with the consensus reality of the rest of the world. While at the same time providing confirmation bias to sell commercial time.
Why did Fox discontinue coverage of the impeachment after about 1.5 days? I'd say for two reasons. Greed for income and not wanting to show their viewers the truthful parts of the information.
The so-called MSM, IE MSNBC and CNN covered every minute of every day, not worrying about income or any bias they might be showing. While NBC was covering the impeachment, all the morons on Fox were doing was pointing out the right wing talking points. I rest my case.
The Kelly complaint mentioned in the OP was that (only?) Fox News served up a generous dose of confirmation bias, implying (by simple omission) that the rest of the MSM did not do so. It should be obvious to all that most media bias is accomplished by simple omission - presenting part (one side?) or none of a news event (story or issue) makes that very easy to do.
I fully agree that Fox News is biased, but there are few (if any) news sources which are not serving up generous helpings of confirmation bias based largely on what they do not choose to present, cover or discuss. As the NYT puts it "All the news that's fit to print" - that certainly places an emphasis on their ability (mission?) to decide what in their editorial opinion is fit to present.