take it to EE chat
I'm pretty conservative in some points. I'll be on your side Medium. You and me against the behemoth that is sane society.
Liberal media bias.
How many Conservative bias networks can you name? 1?AussieReaper wrote:
Liberal media bias.
Medium, we need a game plan
i hope you realize that, to anyone outside of the stupid american media bubble, all of your news networks look centre-right, or right-wing. all of them.Extra Medium wrote:
How many Conservative bias networks can you name? 1?AussieReaper wrote:
Liberal media bias.
thegatewaypundit.comExtra Medium wrote:
How many Conservative bias networks can you name? 1?AussieReaper wrote:
Liberal media bias.
redstate.com
dailycaller.com
americanthinker.com
What, you think they don't exist?
Illusions of persecution is almost a default trait of right wingers, for news its usually about some media bias, when its factual reporting.
There's plenty of right wing thought bubbles out there, struggling with reality though. Any idea why they aren't as popular as the "lame stream" media?
Not exactly mainstream when considering fox news is up against NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS.AussieReaper wrote:
thegatewaypundit.comExtra Medium wrote:
How many Conservative bias networks can you name? 1?AussieReaper wrote:
Liberal media bias.
redstate.com
dailycaller.com
americanthinker.com
Up against? They should be reporting facts, not skewed "as a right wing / as a left wing" take on events.
FoxNews did argue in court that they are an entertainment network, so don't have any obligation towards being factual, however.
FoxNews did argue in court that they are an entertainment network, so don't have any obligation towards being factual, however.
dude people are always going to have a journalistic bias. that's what makes their network popular.AussieReaper wrote:
Up against? They should be reporting facts, not skewed "as a right wing / as a left wing" take on events.
FoxNews did argue in court that they are an entertainment network, so don't have any obligation towards being factual, however.
every news source has its own inherent bias, ideology, target audience, etc. there is no such thing as an 'objective' news story. news networks exist to capture a certain demographic audience and to profit off them through advertising revenue and click-throughs. there is no such thing as an 'objective' form of narratively relating an event. there is no such thing even, arguably, as 'objective' history or events itself, as actual phenomena and happenings. so to say that your news-source is definitively unbiased is a little crude and ridiculous. however what is certain is that some news-sources have more questionable ideological or commercial aims than others - especially in the case of reactionary, right-wing papers, who normally want to curtail the freedom of groups like gays and minorities, etc.AussieReaper wrote:
Up against? They should be reporting facts, not skewed "as a right wing / as a left wing" take on events.
FoxNews did argue in court that they are an entertainment network, so don't have any obligation towards being factual, however.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-28 08:21:19)
That post was literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on the internet. But I suppose for a guy who lives in a country where the largest news provider is funded by the government, our new services could seem that way.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i hope you realize that, to anyone outside of the stupid american media bubble, all of your news networks look centre-right, or right-wing. all of them.Extra Medium wrote:
How many Conservative bias networks can you name? 1?AussieReaper wrote:
Liberal media bias.
Ohhh yeah, super hard hitting websites with gigantic viewerships there. Also, are those even networks or just websites you googled?AussieReaper wrote:
thegatewaypundit.comExtra Medium wrote:
How many Conservative bias networks can you name? 1?AussieReaper wrote:
Liberal media bias.
redstate.com
dailycaller.com
americanthinker.com
What, you think they don't exist?
Illusions of persecution is almost a default trait of right wingers, for news its usually about some media bias, when its factual reporting.
There's plenty of right wing thought bubbles out there, struggling with reality though. Any idea why they aren't as popular as the "lame stream" media?
Want to know why the "lamestream" media has more viewership? Because most of it is FUCKING FREE. Anyone with a TV and an antenna can watch ABC, NBC, CBS, or PBS. Also you have more viewership on left wing media because there is simply MORE of it.
As far as factual reporting goes, your right, they do for the most part. In today's information age it's hard for a news company to lie without getting straight up choke slammed by social media and have it spread over the internet and rival news agency within a few hours. What I have a serious problem with is failing or choosing not to cover or report something. This is where the left wing bias is overwhelmingly dominant.
For example: When Bush was president, he could not fart without it being front page news over what a shit idiot horrible person he was. Every single scandal, every single decision, every single misstep, every single mistake he ever made for 8 years was reported then analyzed, then dissected, then criticized to the extreme.
Now we have Obama. There is next to zero negative press on him all the while he has plenty of negative shit going on to report about. The only network that attempted to cover the Benghazi scandal with any regularity until recently was FOX. The Kermit Gosnell trial? FOX did a 1 hour special but apart from that I saw no coverage. Fast and Furious? Barely anything. Finally in the last couple of weeks the IRS scandal has been making news but only because there are so many scandals currently happening to ignore them. Even the IRS scandal isn't getting as much press as Bush did when he nearly choked on a pretzel.
Speaking of the IRS, hows that for a fucking illusion of persecution for you? A government agency was caught red handed working against right wing organizations, then after being caught, Obama refuses to fucking fire them. But us right wingers are just crazy.
the dumbest thing you have ever read to say that america's politics and media are all centre-right or right-wing? are you kidding? you really need to think about the political 'spectrum' outside of america - in europe, south america, asia, australia, etc. america's 'left-wing' or 'liberal' (especially when used as insults) normally are thrown at policies or individuals who look absurdly centrist, over here. there aren't many american media outlets that will so openly go for a liberal line, like for e.g. the uk's guardian, or that will go for such a progressive-socialist line, like for e.g. france's le monde (there are in fact way more hardcore-left daily/weekly papers in europe than this, with huge circulation figures, but i don't want to blow your mind too much).
nothing in american politics seems 'left-wing' to an audience outside of america. subsequently, nothing in the american media really comes across as being dyed-in-the-wool progressive. everything is remarkably centrist. so no, i am not making "dumb comments". you are just extremely ignorant. if you think the huffington post or something is 'liberal' and 'progressive', you really need to leave your redneck backwater.
oh and the bbc isn't the "largest" news provider in the uk by any measure. it is a respected news source though - world-wide, not just in our little socialist utopias; even in america! - and its state-funded model doesn't impinge on its solid status as a news-organization. not at all. you are a moron.
nothing in american politics seems 'left-wing' to an audience outside of america. subsequently, nothing in the american media really comes across as being dyed-in-the-wool progressive. everything is remarkably centrist. so no, i am not making "dumb comments". you are just extremely ignorant. if you think the huffington post or something is 'liberal' and 'progressive', you really need to leave your redneck backwater.
oh and the bbc isn't the "largest" news provider in the uk by any measure. it is a respected news source though - world-wide, not just in our little socialist utopias; even in america! - and its state-funded model doesn't impinge on its solid status as a news-organization. not at all. you are a moron.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-28 10:58:34)
We aren't talking about the rest of the worlds media, we are talking about American media. So for you to say that it is centrist to right wing is ignorant and absurd. I really don't care what some asshole in Zimbabwe or some tart in London thinks about CNN. Also, the BBC isn't as big here as you think it is, comparatively speaking. Also, stop pretending you know anything about rednecks and backwaters, you are such a silly little shit and obviously no nothing about those kinds of people. I assure you if I belonged to that "group" we wouldn't be having this conversation right now............much less on a computer.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
the dumbest thing you have ever read to say that america's politics and media are all centre-right or right-wing? are you kidding? you really need to think about the political 'spectrum' outside of america - in europe, south america, asia, australia, etc. america's 'left-wing' or 'liberal' (especially when used as insults) normally are thrown at policies or individuals who look absurdly centrist, over here. there aren't many american media outlets that will so openly go for a liberal line, like for e.g. the uk's guardian, or that will go for such a progressive-socialist line, like for e.g. france's le monde (there are in fact way more hardcore-left daily/weekly papers in europe than this, with huge circulation figures, but i don't want to blow your mind too much).
nothing in american politics seems 'left-wing' to an audience outside of america. subsequently, nothing in the american media really comes across as being dyed-in-the-wool progressive. everything is remarkably centrist. so no, i am not making "dumb comments". you are just extremely ignorant. if you think the huffington post or something is 'liberal' and 'progressive', you really need to leave your redneck backwater.
oh and the bbc isn't the "largest" news provider in the uk by any measure. it is a respected news source though - world-wide, not just in our little socialist utopias; even in america! - and its state-funded model doesn't impinge on its solid status as a news-organization. not at all. you are a moron.
well of course you need some wider 'the media' context to start talking about 'right' and 'left' news-sources. otherwise the whole definition of 'right' and 'left' loses its meaning. if everything is essentially 'centrist' and you start calling it right/left, then those political belief systems start to lose their value and cogency. i'm not saying you should care what someone from australia's opinion is of CNN - all i'm saying is that if you're going to call-out its spot on the political compass, do it correctly. america has a really bad habit of misapplying terms like 'leftist' and 'liberal' (normally to try and sully people), when really the things being spoken about are entirely centrist.
I'm an American on an American forum in a thread about a crime that happened in America responding to a post about American media that included a list of American media outlets followed by rebuttals talking about American media. YOU are the ONLY person here that is mentioning ANYTHING about foreign countries, foreign media, and foreign opinion. I understand that all of America is relativly centrist in the eyes of the world but I can't sit here and make an argument where I call both sides fucking centrists for the sake of international political correctness can I?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i'm not saying you should care what someone from australia's opinion is of CNN - all i'm saying is that if you're going to call-out its spot on the political compass, do it correctly. america has a really bad habit of misapplying terms like 'leftist' and 'liberal' (normally to try and sully people), when really the things being spoken about are entirely centrist.
Why dont you say its further left of your stance/more centrist, rather than left wing.
in views of americans anything not fox news is left wing, which is pretty much true if you watch shit like maddow and olbermann. olbermann is just the liberal version of bill oreilly.Adams_BJ wrote:
Why dont you say its further left of your stance/more centrist, rather than left wing.
Adams_BJ wrote:
Why dont you say its further left of your stance/more centrist, rather than left wing.
Wait, is EM mocking me or agreeing with me.
BBC is actually one of the only sources of English language news that focuses on events outside the spectrum of normal American interest. If you were watching CNN, MSNBC or Fox you would have never known Kenya just had an election, for example. Well, they probably mentioned it in one of the bullshit 30 second "breaking news" segments that comes on in between commercials. But as far as a detailed analysis? Please. BBC fills the vacuum that the American media purposefully leaves out. What uzique is trying to tell you is that our news isn't really news, it's entertainment. So unless you enjoy sleeping with PBS on TV I'll take BBC over pretty much every other mainstream American organization anyday. In other words, speak for yourself, and BBC actually has a pretty broad American base. Not like anyone in Oklahoma gives a shit, though.Extra Medium wrote:
We aren't talking about the rest of the worlds media, we are talking about American media. So for you to say that it is centrist to right wing is ignorant and absurd. I really don't care what some asshole in Zimbabwe or some tart in London thinks about CNN. Also, the BBC isn't as big here as you think it is, comparatively speaking. Also, stop pretending you know anything about rednecks and backwaters, you are such a silly little shit and obviously no nothing about those kinds of people. I assure you if I belonged to that "group" we wouldn't be having this conversation right now............much less on a computer.
The BBC was leading the propaganda war against fascism 24/7 when most Americans were still getting their news in 5 minute War Department produced crap before their Saturday night movie. Please don't speak for us, you make us look bad.
Last edited by Spearhead (2013-05-29 00:47:45)
Kenyan elections are relevant to my interests.Spearhead wrote:
BBC is actually one of the only sources of English language news that focuses on events outside the spectrum of normal American interest. If you were watching CNN, MSNBC or Fox you would have never known Kenya just had an election, for example.
If it wasn't for Doctor Who most Americans would think BBC was a church or a medical insturment. BBC does not have a large viewing block in the U.S., I'm sorry, it does not. No one ever says "Hey this thing just happened, QUICK turn it to BBC!"Spearhead wrote:
BBC fills the vacuum that the American media purposefully leaves out. What uzique is trying to tell you is that our news isn't really news, it's entertainment. So unless you enjoy sleeping with PBS on TV I'll take BBC over pretty much every other mainstream American organization anyday. In other words, speak for yourself, and BBC actually has a pretty broad American base.
I know right, too busy fucking our sisters and eating crawdads. WTF is a Kenya?Spearhead wrote:
Not like anyone in Oklahoma gives a shit, though.
I don't think watching the BBC opposed to Fox News is a superior way to spend your time. You would learn more watching the BBC but you would be entertained by Fox.
There was this one political scientist I read once who made the argument that being informed about the world around you was a waste of time for the majority of Americans and westerners. It wasn't worth the effort and spending time increasing your wealth or enjoying yourself was a better investment. Tuning out would not only make you healthier, happier, and wealthier, but it was also very easy compared to the alternative. I have to agree with this.
I don't tune out because I enjoy being tuned in. I don't fault someone who doesn't like consuming info when they tune out from the world.
There was this one political scientist I read once who made the argument that being informed about the world around you was a waste of time for the majority of Americans and westerners. It wasn't worth the effort and spending time increasing your wealth or enjoying yourself was a better investment. Tuning out would not only make you healthier, happier, and wealthier, but it was also very easy compared to the alternative. I have to agree with this.
I don't tune out because I enjoy being tuned in. I don't fault someone who doesn't like consuming info when they tune out from the world.
Last edited by Macbeth (2013-05-29 01:50:45)
The trouble starts when people get news confused with entertainment.
oh now come on... seriously? this is one of the lamest rationalisations for being a dumbshit american i have ever heard. "some political scientist"? oh well, i guess that just validates it and makes it a matter of ontic fact. a political scientist once said! look, nobody is saying that having world awareness and a little bit of education about foreign affairs or specialist subjects will help you in an instrumental, day-to-day basis. but then how much knowledge really does help you this way? i guess you never pick up history books, or spend your time playing niche strategy games, or holding forth trivial pursuit topics on subjects that are 1400 years old, then . this is a lame-as-fuck excuse, really. especially coming from you. nobody is saying an american should have an in-depth understanding of the kenyan candidates' political policies and individual positions - that would obviously be absurd. however saying "some political scientist once said..." as an excuse for the mass ignorance that seems to be encouraged in america, is absolutely unforgivable. being intellectually moribund and ignorant to world events - especially in the 21st century of geo-politick and 'the world market' - is really stupid. i'm sure it would kill a busy, intelligently-engaged american to read a weekly news-magazine or something. too busy investing all of their all-so-valuable 'attention capital' in oprah.Macbeth wrote:
There was this one political scientist I read once who made the argument that being informed about the world around you was a waste of time for the majority of Americans and westerners. It wasn't worth the effort and spending time increasing your wealth or enjoying yourself was a better investment. Tuning out would not only make you healthier, happier, and wealthier, but it was also very easy compared to the alternative. I have to agree with this.
I don't tune out because I enjoy being tuned in. I don't fault someone who doesn't like consuming info when they tune out from the world.