Did they contemplate that 4 companies with ethnic ties would control the flow of information?And there are stories that none of the mainstream media, including Fox, would touch.What you are confusing is Fox News reporting with Fox prime time opinion shows. With that being said, Tucker Carlson takes Thea most honest approach to any of them
@joesheks No I am not. Fox makes a distinction - and is actually reasonably good at - differentiating between its news and opinion programs.In any case, I am not clear on your point. In the 1940s through 70s period, the outlets were limited in number. Now there are literally hundred of media outlets, including some directed at racial, ethnic, religious and other audiences. So again, you get audience segmentation.Finally, your first sentence is, in any case, unclear. "Did they contemplate that 4 companies with ethnic ties would control the flow of information?" Who is THEY? The antecedent is not clear and if you meant the Founding Fathers, why is that relevant. Freedom of speech and press exists as a constitutional principle regardless of the number of outlets.
@nightdrot I like Fox but nearly all the media outlets are owned by the same ethnic group. Imagine if Arabs owned all of our media. How do you think Israel would be portrayed? What if Chinese owned all of our media? How would China be portrayed? Our founders believed in fundamental freedoms but they did not contemplate them being owned by an ethnic group with interests far different than ours. Nearly all of the American “ethics” are new age: multiculturalism, diversity, equality (of outcome); democracy, voting for everyone, etc. we are a Republic, founded in European principles, les and ethics, understanding than men are not literally created equally but should have equality as to let, and that voting should not be extended to everyone — the constitution is very clear on this. Look at the results we have today.
@joesheks In other words, race and ethnicity determines what and how you think? That argument is rather problematic, don't you think?By the way, does it matter if a Chinese owned American network is Chinese who trace their ancestry to Hong Kong as against Chinese who trace their ancestry to Beijing? Do they all think alike?
@nightdrot actually race and ethnicity have a large impact on what and how we think... every other race understands that but whites have been browbeaten to think differently. A Chinese person from Beijing is likely different than one from Hong Kong. But when the issue might involve China and India, does the Chinese person side with China or India?Do Mexicans in Los Angeles cheer for the Mexican or US soccer team?
@joesheks You won't get an argument from me - and in things more elemental than soccer games. The idea behind the Enlightenment then was that man must be stripped of the illogical and irrational/pre-rational sources of his identity - i. e. religion, ethnicity, tribe, etc. - and law made in conformity with his natural rights. When law and natural rights are consistent, man will live in harmonious relationship with his fellows.The problem. of course, was that man gets his sense of identity from religion, family, tribe, nationality, etc. When stripped of these - as the British statesman and political philosopher put it - man is "reduced to his naked shivering nature."It was the Enlightenment's stripping away of such cultural identities into which stepped the Communists, Fascists and National Socialists. Each responding to the Enlightenment's "scientific" and mechanistic view of human nature with a "scientifically" rooted sense of identity.Of course, this can go too far. A sense of identity rooted to heavily in race or ethnicity or nationality or religion can conduce to mere tribalism and that can be as bloody and violent - as we have seen - than the reaction to their absence. Not for nothing did Aristotle say virtue is a mean, and Burke suggest that statecraft must accept and balance and accept man's organic nature while using law and custom to habituate man to virtue.
@nightdrot you make excellent points. In simple terms, societies are held together by people who have things in common. The more in common, the more peaceful and Vice versa. In much of the western civilization (Europe, North America, Australia/NZ), media is supporting the notion that countries are too white and must bring in those from the 3rd world. It creates tension and like a relationship, the less you have in common, the more likely there will be conflict or worse.We do not need to import people. I know those Entering western civilization cannot believe what whites have built. We have common religious, historical, racial etc ties with each other. These new folks literally only have an economic relationship with the host country. Soon, in the US, there are already millions who no history with the founders of the country.Blacks, who were brought here in slavery, resent much of American culture and traditions.Race is not just skin color— race is not just a social construct. It is biological and real. It is in the DNA — it’s in the structure of skeletons. This is not going to end well. Human nature is the way it is and there is no changing it.When the fury of the majority population is released, it’s not gonna be pretty.
@joesheks Well, you overstate things a touch. As Aristotle pointed out, virtue is a mean. We strike a balance. It is in man's nature alone to transcend his evolutionary origins. Raise a baby wolf to be the best wolf it can be, it will still be a wolf. Raise a baby human to be the best human it can be, and it may cure cancer or write sonnets. Of our nature, we can transcend our nature.If we assume that man is confined to like minded creatures that look like himself, you will ultimately get intellectual conformity and mere tribalism. Man cannot be totally severed from the environment and culture that made him what he is.Upend the whole social order and you get chaos followed by the most aggressive forms of totalitarianism as man will seek out new sources of identity. See Communism, see Fascism, see - appropriate to your observation - National Socialism. Yet leave man hermetically sealed, and stagnation surely follows. Indeed, this is true even at the most base biological level.So the mean must be struck. As to your observations about the media's part in all of this. You are surely overstating matters. Indeed, given the current technologies, almost everyone can find a media outlet that suits their predelictions.Indeed, that is the problem. When we went through the cultural upheavals of the 1960s and 70s there was a more or less common media that forced everyone to confront the world through more or less the same prism. Thus was set the basis of a common conversation.Now, each can choose the media that they want. Thus, all live in their own mental universe and the cultural conversation - which is in many ways similar to the 60s and 70s - has grown shrill and bitter. The same words mean different things to different people. Put simply, your assessment of media influence is overstated in the context of our current trechnology.
I didn’t know that about fox changing when the management changed. I watchmainly the prime time evening shows, starting with Tucker. I try to watch cnn and msnbc as much as I can stomach, just to see what they’re obsessing on... lol The difference just flipping through the channels and seeing them all n real time together, is stunning.
@Claireluvskaren- when you describe cnn and msnbc as being so hate filled, they’re all like in groupthink, an echo chamber, high giving each other, fist bumps, back slapping each other, laser focused on the wrong thing without knowing it... lol
MHO right here.☝
YES FINALLY SOMEONE SAYING IT
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Damned autocorrect! Fox, not good!
@OlderAndWiser: "Fox, not good!" I *will* quote you on that! :)
Exactly! (It's just a joke!)
Bother! The first response didn't appear, so I tried again. Apologies!
It would be so like a leftist to quote a conservative out of context! 😄😄😄
I guess I just don’t see any of that. CNN and MSNBC are centered. How many liberal anchors are there on fox? Bc msnbc’s got like 10.
You know everybody agrees that Russia did interfere in your elections on behalf of Trump, right? The only thing not proven is that they encouraged it. It's obvious they didn't discourage it.
Side note, your use of subjective criticism like "dumbass" shows anger, and bitterness toward one position. One thing that is unbiased fact is emotional bias limits ability to effectively judge information equally, and clearly, as winner has been decided before information is even presented.
What you're asking here for isn't opinions, but narcissistic confirmation to validate a truth you've already decided, in effort to feed your ego (i. e. you didn't write this question thinking "I want clarity on this topic, let me collect as many conflicting ideas as possible to consider where my ideas might be flawed.")
Strange. To me all media seems to be conservative bc they’re billion dollar companies.
Neither will have much to say about too-powerful corporations.
Just a quick comment: apparently, people can anonymously post an opinion, but only allow the asker to respond to (or DELETE) it. Which is useful, if you want to post propaganda.Can I not respond to anonymous people who have blocked me? ↗
I was going to say you should pay more attention to Harvard than Harvars, but it seems there was such a study (link at end). The problem is that it doesn't take account of whether his actions were objectively bad. If you had a news outlet that was defending Osama bin Laden half the time, would that have been the least biased?shorensteincenter.org/.../
So everything Trump does is bad and because Fox said some nice things about him and some bad things about him then they must be biased because Trump only does bad things? Is it more reasonable to think someone only does bad things or makes some decisions that are good and some decisions that are bad?
If someone made 90% bad decisions, and 10% good, would you expect 50% positive coverage? Would that be unbiased?
I don't expect hardly anyone to make 90% bad decisions. How biased do you have to be to think that's even remotely plausible?
You're avoiding the question. What proportion of Obama's decisions do you think were bad? What if just 50% of Trump's decisions were bad, would 50% positive coverage make sense?
I'm not avoiding the question, the question is self-evident. I don't need to spell it out for you. If someone made 90% bad decisions and 10% good decisions, 90% bad coverage and 10% good coverage would be merited. Now that I've explicitly spelled out the answer to your extremely obvious question, we can get back to my reponse which skipped this needless explanation. Trump has not made 90% bad decisions and 10% good decisions. So when the media from practically anywhere but Fox is 100% bad, that's biased. So when fox is the only one out there NOT doing that, they're evidently the least biased, as they have a mix of both positive and negative coverage. Yet you're implying that Fox is biased because they don't see the president as making 100% bad decisions. You can't tell me you don't see how ridiculous that is?
Actually, I've been thinking about it, and bad press has very little to do with the proportion of good to bad decisions.Good decisions, governing in a competent manner, not lying, isn't news. Doing the opposite of those things, on the other hand, is.Why was Trump always in the news? Because he wanted to be. His presidency was covered three times as much as previous presidents. He and his enablers took up three quarters of the talking time.Managing to find positive things to say about him is an indication of bias."So why is Trump’s coverage so negative even though he does most of the talking? The fact is, he’s been on the defensive during most of his 100 days in office, trying to put the best face possible on executive orders, legislative initiatives, appointments, and other undertakings that have gone bad. Even Fox has not been able to save him from what analyst David Gergen called the “’worst 100 days we’ve ever seen.”"shorensteincenter.org/.../
So good decisions, competent governing, and being truthful, is not news. "News" that claims those things are occurring is actually just groundless bias. So any of the good news about those things during/about Obama presidency was simply unmerited bias with no real foundation?
:) You know what I mean.
Are you avoiding answering my question?
Of course some good governance makes news, but saying both sides are equal when they're not is bias. There were good reasons why even foreign news outlets wrote generally negatively about Trump.
I haven't claimed both sides are equal, but I know both sides being equal is a hell of a lot more realistic than him only making bad decisions. And foreign news outlets aren't here in America. They don't see half the country rallying behind him, all they see is the media we allow them to see, and as you've admitted, it's virtually all negative. What else would someone think when all they ever see about someone is negative? Especially when a lot of the reports are outright lies. (Like when he allegedly made fun of a disabled person or when he allegedly told people to inject themselves with disinfectant).
I know you haven't. I'm saying that Fox tries to tease out anything they can possibly say about him that's positive, and even then, they had to admit his failures half the time. Their news division isn't quite so bad, they are at least slightly reality based ("If you are in a risky population here, and you are taking this as a preventative treatment... it will kill you. I cannot stress enough. This will kill you."), but the opinion shows go with the "alternative facts".Check out Pew research's reviews of media treatment of the last four presidents' first 100 days.It's not half the country behind him, and the trick to verifying their coverage of the negative reports is to simply watch videos of Trump doing it.
This guy knows what Fox News is there for.twitter.com/.../1263537553073942528
And this guy thinks that saying "fox News is less bias than news outlets who cover 100% ne7fatively of Trump" means I like fox news.
I actually wrongfully assumed this was on a different post, my mistake. I wasn't going to respond because this is just getting ridiculous but since you want to keep at it, what exactly do you call Trump getting 46.1% of the popular vote and Clinton getting 48.2? And again, how can you tell me people who can speak positively and negatively about someone or more biased than someone who can only speak negatively about someone. Seriously, I want a direct answer from you. Tell me that you think 100% negative coverage is less biased than nearing 50/50 good and bad coverage.
Except it was never 100% negative coverage. And there was three times as much coverage of Trump than with more normal presidents. The positive coverage would have been there still, as a larger proportion of the total.
I obviously didn't mean literally, exactly, precisely 100% coverage. You're being pedantic. Nearly all of the coverage is negative, and there's no way he's made that man poor decisions, it's just unreasonable. And why are you always so selective with what you want to acknowledge?
I asked you what you calll a 46.1% to 48.2 % popular vote.And just to further push the invalidity the (practically) 100% negative coverage, there are tons of videos online of people asking left-wingers how they feel about Trump's doing but they disguise his doings behind the veil of a democratic politician. And in nearly all cases, the left-wingers speak favorably towards what Trump has done. If what he has done is truly bad, why is it that left-wingers support it as long as they are told it isn't coming from Trump?
Not pedantic, precise. There's a huge difference between no positive coverage and not as much as you think he deserves.I would say that every time the man lies, that's a poor decision, and that's several times a day. Do you think it's acceptable? Good actions take time and effort, so there's way more negative than positive, and much gets let slide."I asked you what you calll a 46.1% to 48.2 % popular vote."I'd say it should be a win for the 48.2% candidate, since the president represents all Americans. The Senate should be enough to protect state's interests.As to the videos, I've never seen one like that, but I've seen the same trick used with Hitler quotes. If you want to provide an example, I'd be happy to take a look.
It is pedantic as well as precise. In many cases, precision isn't necessary. You could say "hey, lets go grab a bite to eat at iHop" or you could day "hey, Goaded, would you accept my invitation to commute to our local iHop located on *street name* via my Honda Civic so that way may trade US dollars for service and food, of which we will chew and digest four pleasure and nourishment." Specificity is not necessary because communication is based on logic leaps on judgement. When I day "hey, do you want to grab a bite to eat at iHop?" You don't assume I mean the iHop in Alaska, you logically assume I'm regaridng the local one, you assume we will traverse through my car, you assume we will eat there, and you assume many other things. Clarifying that 46.1% and 48.2% isn't half, and clarifying that 93% isn't 100% is, oddly enough, both pretentious and childish. It's pedantic whether you want to admit it or not. And if you think he lies several times a day, then I guess I don't have much else to say to you. Do you know anyone who lives several times a day every day? And if lying is such a concern of yours, where were you when people said he makes fun of disabled people, claim he raped people, claimed he told people to injext disinfectant into themselves, etc? I'm guessing you didn't dispute as single one of those nor the countless times the media does it.And I didn't say "what should be the result of 46.1% to 48.2%." I asked you what would you call it in the context of regarding it as half of a country.(Continued below to avoid character limit)
And if you really want to go down that popular vote vs elecotral college route, let me ask you this: do you think the UK is a legitimate country? If yes, then let me remind you that the UK is little over half the size of California, which is only a single one of our states. This is why we have states and are called the United STATES not just "the Single State." Each one of our states is liie a country, but we're all united. We all have a degree of independence but we all work together. If we did not have elecotral college and only had the popular vote, places like New York and California and a few other states would dictate what everyone else does. The elecotral college ensures that every state has a voice in his the entirety of America is ran. Which is exactly how it should be. We don't need 10 states telling 40 other states what to do. But what about what individual states want? Isn't it unfair for California and New York? No, it's not. Because in addition to federal law, we have state law. So the states that didn't get their preferred nominee can still inact their rules and governing in their state. But nobody seems to care about state laws because the people who complain about the elecotral college aren't politically integrated enough to realize how beneficial their state laws can be to them. Opposing the elecotral college is nothing short of ignorance. Montana doesn't need New York telling it that it needs to inact some sort of gang-retaliation program because the problems that New York has are not the problems that Montana has. Every state should have a voice because we have STATES and we are the United STATES.(Continued below to avoid character limit)
Just look at the elecotral map of the 2016 election: en.m.wikipedia.org/.../2016_United_States_presidential_electionThere were 31 red (Republican) states and and 20 blue (Democrat) states, 21 blue states if you count the District of Columbia. So Trump has 50% more electoral college points than Hillary did. Not to mention, you can't change the rules mid-race because the rules directly impact how the participants play. Trump could have still won because he may have acted differently if the rules were different. And I'd also like to point out that the difference in the popular vote was only 2.1%, so even under the rules of "popular vore rules" trump still would have hardly lost and that's when he wasn't even trying to win the popular vote.And the president doesn't represent all Americans, the president represents all of our states. The state officials is what represents all the people in their state.And quotes and policies are not the same thing. Hitler could have said "puppies are cute" and if you agree, you're not a bad person. But if you agree that jews should be killed by the millions, yeah, you're akin to Hitler.And sure, here one example:https://youtu.be/Ctz_dHfYfb8
So, if I said you were 100% wrong about Trump lying, you wouldn't object and point to the two days he didn't?I didn't say "46.1% and 48.2% isn't half" I said 48.2% > 46.1%, and should result in the person getting 48.2% winning because the president represents all Americans, not just the ones who voted for him. Nor did you say anything about half the country."if you think he lies several times a day, then I guess I don't have much else to say to you."Then that's because you don't pay attention."As of April 3, Trump’s 1,170th day in office, our database shows that he has made 18,000 false or misleading claims. That’s an average of more than 15 claims a day, though since our last update 75 days ago, he’s been averaging just over 23 claims a day. That’s slightly higher than the 22 a day he recorded in 2019."www.washingtonpost.com/.../I've seen or heard him make fun of a disabled person, brag about sexually assaulting women, and say that there might be some way to use disinfectant as a cure. Why do you disbelieve the evidence of your own eyes and ears?I also understand how your system works, but your claim that "the president doesn't represent all Americans, the president represents all of our states." is bullshit.I'll watch your video, now.
OK, so, the video. If you're told, with no notice or chance to look it up, that someone you trust is proposing something, you'll probably assume it's a positive thing.On the other hand, if you know already that the "Death Tax" only affects people worth (multiple) millions, then you might not agree that abolishing it is a good thing, but anyone who answered that would not have made it into the video.You're also going to assume what's being presented is better than the staus quo. Do you expect people to know what the small business rates, let alone that a small business is defined by number of direct employees, rather than turnover? Many oil companies are "small businesses" by that standard.
I'm not going to devote any more time to this, nor am I going to continue reading past that second sentence. Mainly because this is going on for too long but as for another reason, now you're either outright lying or outright mistaken and I don't have the time to start going back through this conversation to show you the indisputable facts of this conversation. But just to demonstrate why I'm not going to continue this conversation, I'll do it once. In the response that begins with "I haven't claimed both sides are equal" I said "foreign news outlers aren't here in America. They don't see half the country rallying behind him" of which you directly responded "it's not half the country behind him." Then in response to that (in the paragraph that begins with "I actually wrongfully assumed") I said "what exactly do you call Trump getting 46.1% of the popular vote and Clinton getting 48.2%?" Then in response to that (this response in question begins with "not pedantic, precise") you said "I'd say it should be a win for the 48.2% candidate." So yes, you did say that half of the country is not rallying behind him, despite 46.1% having voted for him.
Fine, we can leave it there, except for one thing: voter turnout was only 55% of the voting age population in 2016.
I don’t see why the graph is a problem. Obamagate was news, obviously they’re going to talk about it for a few days.Where’s the graph for CNN?
You know that’s false.
Because crazy people will take a yes and run with it, when reality it’s more nuanced than that and should be heavily caveated.
@AllThatSweetJazz that’s true but he did include that all media has an agenda. I see more crazy in comments, where people are justifying why there needs to be a bias.
You do realize trump was Democrat before he ran right?
@cast277 Yeah, so what?
Lol you dont see how stupid it is to claim someone is so right wing when 6 years ago they paid for elections and helped to get obama elected.
@cast277 Are you retarded or something? Trump has been one of Obama's biggest critics from the beginning? He was the one who started the whole "birther" bullshit about Obama. In Obama's 8 years in office Trump tweeted like a maniac against him, and even since he himself became president he continued to bash Obama nonstop.But all the aside, even if it were true that he once supported Obama (which is the polar opposite of what is true), you'd just need to look at what Trump is NOW. His policies, views, actions, and rhetoric as a president is as far right-wing as it gets in terms of US presidents.Yeah, you are retarded.
The fuck are you talking about?
@cast277 their downplay of the virus is having serious consequences.
Like what? I mean it's a virus. In the beginning no one cared. They were mad at trump for acting on it. Then hated how well it worked and said why didn't you act sooner? Now that we are realizing how fragile this virus is. People are learning the truth. As summer warms up the virus will die and all will be good until we get vaccines next year. Plus the death toll has been. Like what? 1/6 of what they expected. And the mortality rate is less then 2 percent. It isn't the monster you were told it was. Sure at the time in china it hit hard harder mainly cause of their over population, low quality of life in most parts of rural china as far as modern medicine and such is concerned. Plus the air quality was already causeing generations to be born with less functioning lungs. And Italy got hit so hard because the population is on average much older then normal. The usa got it much later in the year sure there was a spike but it stopped spreading as the temperatures rose. Right now our major concern should be how to reopen without the leftists pushing socialism into policymaking. It's long been known that fascists and dictators will always use a crisis to take power. Throwing out promises they never planned to keep. How hard would it be for the left to say. I'll make sure every American get 1000 a month forever. And then getting into office and announcing how many catches come with that money. Like, that money becomes worth only 100 dollars due to inflation and over printing. Or how they will pay twice that amount in extra taxes. People tend to sacrifice freedom for safety even when you are only safe from the person making the offer.
@cast277 first off-trump was warned how bad it could be last month-trump failed to act. hate to tell ya-but more and more people are still dying and it's passed April-now, they're talking about November-ignoring the very well possibility of a second wave in the fall. that was if we did nothing-the death toll currently is: 94,451 with 1,584,535 cases. more and more people are dying everyday-fox news viewers are the most at risk-less than 40 are even concerned-some have died-recently, a guy coughs on a woman on purpose-she leaves behind a husband and child even trump admits we're in the lead... though that moron thinks it's a good thing. you just described trump, there.
Someone coughs on people on purpose? Really that's how you finish that. I was with you until then. Dont make this a moral issue. Please dont be one of them. This is national by the numbers. If you look at the numbers. They are not growing anywhere near they were supposed to be even after trump failed. And if he did or not who would have done better? The media personalities chomping at the bit to get at trump? No the government did what it did and that's the best we could have hoped for. It's a virus it's designed to infect organisms and spread through a population. I'm not saying it isn't a virus that can kill obviously it can and does. But it only kills those individuals too weak to be a hos, hints elderly and those with lung issues, as that's the area of the body it attacks. You get that the second wave is because the seasonal temperatures will return to the point at which the virus thrives and infects? Right? And not because humans are to exposed. There is nothing we can do to prevent that. Aside from global vaccinations including everyone in china and Europe along with unsettled parts of Africa. We will see this virus every year from now on. And as we grow more familiar with it the less effective it will be. Through medicines. And natural antibodies our body will create after exposure and cleansing. Let's take a look at these numbers here. Using the numbers you have given the number of (I assume reported cases) are 1,584,535And deaths are 94,451. Correct?
That's less then 6 percent. That's next to nothing when it comes to viruses. Who have normally been in the mid 60s to 70s. Or some up in the 80s before modern medicine did its thing. It's not super deadly it's an almost perfect virus aside from the fact that it gets greedy and kills the weak. Rather then. Using them as reproduction centers only harming them slightly while transferring the virus to other hosts along the way. But I digress Now that we have looked at the numbers and found that just under 6 that's right under 6 percent of people who get this virus are likely to die. (Number gets smaller when you take in account the number of people who have it and just go through it. Our bodies naturally beat it and destroy it given time and support so there's no knowing who all had it and it didn't get recorded. Especially in china.
@cast277 i sense i'm not gonna get anywhere with facts-again-even trump admits we're in the lead with cases and death. even if you're right-try telling that to one of the thousands who've lost loved ones.
Again. Making it a moral issue.
Of course he admits it because we are. Our population is massive. 328 million in fact. Also have the most connected infastructue. We are literally never going to not be in the lead for anything like this. China is like 98% rural with much less density then European countries and the united states. They already did social distancing. We didn't, and probably won't after this year. Some people will probably wear masks for a while but give the virus a couple cycles amd it will be basically forgotten.
@cast277 you just admitted we are leading in cases and death-therefor, dismantling your own argument. all according to trump and fox news-which both have been wrong on day one-every prediction by these idiots has been wrong-we keep going in cases passed their hunches. trump said it would magically go away in April-which in case you didn't know-was last month.
Am I defending anyone? Not really other then staying how impossible the expectations were. The funny part here is that while everyone blames trump and governments for this people are still acting like morons and not being safe. Like pick one dude. Ffs
@cast277 not the same people.
Yes they are. Lol
true, but fox is deeply dividing the country