151–160 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's been studies showing people who watch Fox are more uninformed
What you're saying is anedoctal. Ultimately, Fox News were the few news organizations that knew that Trump was going to win by a landslide. Every other news organization were all singing that Hillary had a 99% chance of a victory (I'm not being hyperbolic with the 99%).
I remember being on Twitter on most of election day and seeing evidence of all sorts of manufactured rhetoric from Reuters, and was really disturbed (proof below). There are a lot of other explanations for why this happened, but I'm not inclined to believe them given the reality of what happened on election day. It looked like Reuters' polling towards the 8th showed Trump taking the lead, but they deleted the data an…
I'm a Trump supporter so take this with a grain of salt. When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excluding Fox News). Anyone who follows Trump know these are the folks he's referring to. If he didn't like ALL of the media, he wouldn't even have a press corps. Reuters isn't really engaging with what Trump's saying. Are Trump's claims substantiated? I would say, Yes…
1984 Reagan/Mondale, Reagan gets 59% of the popular vote and 98% of the electoral college -- that is a landslide. Trump getting 46% of the popular vote and 56% of the electoral college sure doesn't seem like a landslide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I should note that if you lean to the Right and/or don't worship the Clintons and the Democratic party, then most of the US media has seemed like a third-world Party Line news for a long time.
So long-running papers such as the Wall Street Journal, regional / local newspapers with long conservative histories (example: the Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News, etc.), several long running political analysis magazines (National Review, Weekly Standard, American Spectator), even the vast tabloid (New York Post) and AM talk market, are Clinton / Democratic party worshipers? News to me. Heck, Fox News itself is…
That is: Yes, there are center-right or right-wing press organizations. Despite that, it is still true that the bulk of the "mainstream" press is no longer center - they have become biased, and sometimes even actively helping Democratic campaigns. That's not what "mainstream" used to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, tell me the numbers for electoral votes. I would consider that a landslide. Second, Obama's birth certificate was forged[1]. I'm not saying he wasn't born in America, but anyone with Photoshop and how layers work knows that the document was doctored. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/15/she...
I'm having trouble seeing where in your link there is any evidence presented that Obama's birth certificate is forged. It's an article about some guy saying it was forged.
I'm a Trump supporter so take this with a grain of salt. When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excluding Fox News). Anyone who follows Trump know these are the folks he's referring to. If he didn't like ALL of the media, he wouldn't even have a press corps. Reuters isn't really engaging with what Trump's saying. Are Trump's claims substantiated? I would say, Yes…
Can you point me to some concrete examples of times CNN or WaPo has been dishonest? Not counting editorials. > The fact that almost every liberal in America is yelling at Trump more than they're yelling at the DNC (and Debbie Wasserman Schultz) shows the state of mainstream media. Plenty of liberals in my liberal social media bubble were yelling at the DNC and DWS when they were doing news worthy things. But why shou…
I'm a Trump supporter so take this with a grain of salt. When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excluding Fox News). Anyone who follows Trump know these are the folks he's referring to. If he didn't like ALL of the media, he wouldn't even have a press corps. Reuters isn't really engaging with what Trump's saying. Are Trump's claims substantiated? I would say, Yes…
Can you point me to some concrete examples of times CNN or WaPo has been dishonest? Not counting editorials. > The fact that almost every liberal in America is yelling at Trump more than they're yelling at the DNC (and Debbie Wasserman Schultz) shows the state of mainstream media. Plenty of liberals in my liberal social media bubble were yelling at the DNC and DWS when they were doing news worthy things. But why shou…
EDIT - Even though I said link sharing was a waste of time, fuck it, this one just gets my blood boiling https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/feari...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, tell me the numbers for electoral votes. I would consider that a landslide. Second, Obama's birth certificate was forged[1]. I'm not saying he wasn't born in America, but anyone with Photoshop and how layers work knows that the document was doctored. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/15/she...
> First, tell me the numbers for electoral votes. I would consider that a landslide Then you don't understand what a landslide, electoral or otherwise, is. Of the post-WWII elections, virtually all were bigger wins, electorally, the exception being both of George W. Bush's elections, Nixon's 1968 election, and Kennedy's 1960 election. Actually, while WWII is often used as a breakpoint for considering modern elections…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bernie supporter here, so obvious bias, but the way they (CNN, Fox, etc.) talked down to Sanders in the primaries was disgusting, so I have to agree there. However, the trump administration wasn't attacking Fox news which I think we can all agree from an objective standpoint is several times worse than CNN in their distortion of the truth.
Can you give examples of Fox distorting things? I gave many examples of issues that the MSMs didn't seriously cover. I don't believe that there isn't "true" objective coverage but Fox News with Hannity and Carlson are really providing coverage that is sharp, and enlightening. They're actually informing the public instead of participating in the media churn.
To my understanding they didn't retract their erroneous position for more than 24 hours after accurate details were known. Many of their listeners still believe the shooter was a Muslim immigrant. Trump's press secretary, knowing this falsehood is widespread, has cited this incident as a reason to support the travel ban. The level of disinformation that comes from Fox News approaches that of Russian state run media.
Reuters is consistently my favorite news source. What I love about them is how they sell news to everyone, so they've got to make it as factual and unbiased as possible. Of course, like any news organization, they have a few biases, but I think that purely because of the position that they're in they are the least biased news source today. They might sell the same article to Russia Today, the New York Times, Fox, Al…
> What I love about them is how they sell news to everyone, so they've got to make it as factual and unbiased as possible. As a side point: this is the origin of the "unbiased news" stance: the rise of the third party reporting agencies (Reuters, then AP UPI, AFP), massively accelerated by the telegraph. Previously papers were connected to parties (as they often still are in many countries), but the appearance/practi…
Is this based on any real data? Have there been any credible studies that show unbiased reporting = higher sales?