Which Networks are you claiming to speak for? I want you to be specific so I can cite the fact checks which we do all time time here. Just give me the networks you claim are "centrists" and I'll cite the sources. And then you'll disagree, but won't cite any other competing sources, and you'll lose the argument. let's go!
Your medical system is the most costly and least efficient in the developed world. What you mean to say is that when people get scared off by the corporate media and by the army of right of centre pundits on the internet, they don't know what to think and fall back to the mainstream position unless they can see facts and statistics that show the truth or are actually knowledgeable about how healthcare works in other countries.
Sure, I won't be back tonight but I will certainly read your content tomorrow and comment. CNN, Washington Post, NYT, MSNBC are examples of centrist corporate news outlets that promote a corporate mainstream bias. This is in general. Even Fox news host Chris Wallace criticizes Trump so we are not dealing in absolutes here. My point is the general editorial trend which is filtered through ownership, advertising and editorial bias. I would consider sources like Democracy Now, TYT and RealNews to be genuine leftist news sources that promote leftist causes. The reason the centrist media hates Trump so much is simply because he is a vulgarian and an embarrassment to their ideology as well as the fact he is not qualified for office and has turned the presidency into a crass reality TV show and stirred up divisions that upset the corporate ideal that the US is a functioning democracy - land of the free and brave and all that. Plus they wanted Hillary. Anyway, go for it. Let's see what you've got.
CNN: Far left https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ Washington Post: LEFT center https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/ NYT: LEFT of center https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/ MSNBC: STRONG left bias https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/ All sources come with links to examples and university polls (which is funny cause most colleges are liberal). Good luck on your next argument. You should view the media bias thread that started a few years ago. You'll see that all you lefties gave up long ago. Not even the alt left radicals try and push MSNBC as centrist LOL!
Kay, I'll keep it brief for tonight but......so I googled mediabias/factcheck and right in the opening line it I got this: "The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[2] Van Zandt describes himself as someone with "more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence."[3] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[4] But still, even taking MBFC at it's value, my first argument is that just because any of these sources are to the left compared to Fox or Brietbart, does not mean they are promoting the interests of the real left wing in American politics. It's all relative to how you define centrist or leftist. The real left that supported labour unions, radical socialism, the new deal policies and social justice for all including immigrants has been for the most part marginalized and destroyed by decades of attacks from far right, libertarian think tanks to the point where most Americans don't even understand what real liberalism is any more and all the major legacy media is afraid to even discuss those kind of policies. Also, the word liberal itself has had it's actual meaning distorted over the years but that is another story. gotta go for tonight but I am certainly willing to discuss this further. As an aside, what liberal policies do you think these liberal media are actively supporting other than bashing everything Trump does? (and collages are not liberal except for small cadres. Most universities are funded through debt and conservative business schools and think tanks. Humanities are a dying field as they do not train good obedient soldier for corporations and banks and real history is not taught anymore in favour of patriotic jingoism and American exceptionalism)
Thank you for proving my post before the last one, correct. MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, and CNN are wildly liberal. Thank you for not citing countering sources to verify your "claims". The university AND peer reviews are on there Plus they label FOX as right wing LOL! The alt left is hilarious
That is not accurate. American consumers pay for the healthcare they desire. And the American healthcare system is among the best in the world. Other government run healthcare systems ration healthcare.
Truth is not left, right, nor middle. The truth doesn't care about anyone's political biases. Truth has nothing to do with politics. Politics only chooses what we decide to call 'truth'.
On a practical level if kids can't add subtract multiply and divide, they have no business taking the time out of their day to learn abour sex.
Due to a great extent on government red tape. So what is the Left's solution, give government total control. The same government that needed a billion dollars to create a website for Obamacare that didn't work. https://www.forbes.com/sites/physic...lation-rather-than-patient-care/#384100e2e3c2
That is a very bad idea - this is what Warren is touting. The problem is that who gets to define what is fake and what is not - and you know how that will go. What we need is less Gov't - not more - less Gov't intervention - not more. The Establishment is using the "Fake News" hysteria to usher in censorship and attack freedom of speech, information, and press. The National Enquirer has been around for decades - and somehow we have survived. Now our mainstream MSM has become like the National Enquirer. The Gov't intervention that would be useful and warranted is to break up the MSM media Oligopoly - as this is one of the greatest threats to our electoral process and National Security. The idea that Russia has some significant ability to influence our electoral process is laughable. Compared to our MSM Oligopoly to Russia like comparing a hurricane to a raindrop. Criminalizing free speech online? Elizabeth Warren has a plan for that https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/elizabeth-warren-unveils-dystopian-fighting-disinformation-plan-criminalizing-free-speech-online
So you've taken one source, a guy with a website, D Van Zandt who the Columbia Journalism Review calls an " amateur, armchair pundit" who uses no statistical data of articles or any scientific methodology at all allowed this one person to form your opinion on media bias because in fits in with your own conformation bias of how the media works. There is no peer review or research studies here as you claim. He uses a Pew survey of public opinion on media as his only source - so that is a survey of what the average shmoe on the street thinks about media bias. Very scientific. No survey of actual articles or statistical analysis whatssoever just public opinion from people such as yourself. And you think this proves your point about media bias? No wonder conservatives and alt. right are so easily manipulated and molded by propaganda. At any rate lets take a look at what Van Zandt is actually saying from you own source: So, some of the people CNN interviews are not credible but generally their fact-checking is good and reporting factual. The main reason this is getting a left bias is because they use emotive language to sensationalize headlines about Trump. Yet, who doesn't? Almost everything Trump says is emotive and emotional as well as being factually inaccurate most of the time. We know that the corporate media was appalled at the prospect of a Trump presidency and were mostly against him especially those whose corporate identity associated with the Democratic party such as Jeff Bezos. And if you think Jeff Bezos, owner of the Post is some kind of flaming liberal, you are doing better drugs than I am. Bezos is liberal on some social policy such as abortion but he is a corporate democrat and fiscal conservative with no liberal credibility except for the usual "feel your pain" lip service. Corporate democrats talk the language of liberals but rule on the right as did both the Clinton's in when in power. Trump hogged all the media spotlight all the time so of course there is going to be emotive emotional language towards him but look at all the negative media coverage Hillary got over her e-mails and Benghazi. Let's look at another one: So again, the only standard Van Zandt is able to muster to qualify the Washington Post as left bias is that it uses emotive, emotional language in headlines regarding Donald Trump. But look at the headlines he quotes. Trump did escalate a trade war with China and plan more tariffs and he does have a terrible, incoherent and abusive possibly illegal border policy. What the hell is the Post supposed to do, not report it? At any rate, this and Pew public opinion survey is the only reason Van Zandt has for calling this left biased. There is no analysis, not statistics and certainly no peer review as you claimed in your op. These are all the same but lets look at one more just for fun: So this is mostly exactly the same as the others except he takes the Times to task for endorsing Democratic candidates over the last few decades. Other than that, the only criteria for being left bias in because of the same emotive language in 2016 towards Trump based on Pew public opinion survey. Here is how Van Zandt finishes his rating of the Times: So this is hardly the raging "FAKE NEWS LIBERAL MEDIA SOCIALIST TAKEOVER" that you have been shrieking about is it. In fact, this is all one guy with a website and his opinion based on a singe Pew survey after the 2016 election isn't it? And you have tried to pass this off as scientific and peer-reviewed research from Universities and been so obtuse as to declare yourself the winner of this argument based on nothing but the opinion of an amateur, arm chair pundit with a website. But let's look at some actual peer-reviewed university research. To be continued.......................
So I didn't have time for this tonight but let's look at some actual peer-reviewed research. Here is one from an undergrad study form the Elon School of Communications about the perception of media bias: Research from MIT professor of linguistics Noam Chomsky and Berkeley economist Edward Herman back up the findings in the above paper in which they put forward the "Propaganda" model of journalism: https://www.mediaed.org/transcripts/Myth-of-The-Liberal-Media-Transcript.pdf I know Trumpers and alt. righters don't like to read stuff so I'll include a link to the video of this discussion which comes in parts but you can easily look up on youtube if you are genuinely interested in arguing this. You might want to read Chomsky and Herman's, "Manufacturing Consent" or Edward Bernay's "Propaganda" for further insight. You are free to take any of the points these researchers and commentators are making and rebut them but please provide something more concrete as a guy with a website before claiming victory again. Their thesis and mine is that all the media is controlled by a few corporations and billionaires such as Bezos and that far from a liberal bias, the overwhelming majority of editorial news coverage is exactly the opposite and has a strong conservative bias especially in the areas of finance and commerce. The news you are getting to form your view of the world is filtered down through several blocking mechanisms that include interests and opinions of owners and advertisers as shown in the video I presented in this post. Here is more background for you: FRED PROUSER/REUTERS https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...r-on-liberal-media-has-a-long-history/283149/ https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/platform-bias.php https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf In conclusion, the liberal media bias is a myth. The overwhelming slant of media coverage is towards conservative issues with very little emphasis on content that could be considered truly liberal. If there were really a liberal bias you would see issues that are traditionally liberal brought up to media attention such as universal health care, support for poverty reduction and higher wages through trade unions, critical analysis of war and trade policy ect. Further, any bias towards Democrats is largely illusion as Democrats ceased being truly liberal after the FDR administration and have veered right to take positions in moderation to the increasingly radical right-wing positions of Republicans through organizations like the tea-party, the NRA and the evangelical christian lobby. Democrats serve corporate interests - perhaps not to the degree of Republicans but to think that mainstream Democrats like Hillary Clinton or Adam Schiff are somehow liberal or support liberal policies such as those put forward by Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is simply wrong. One only has to look at the strong opposition within the party towards a Sanders nomination to see that. There is no mainstream liberal media anymore. Media has been corporatized and financialized like most other aspects of American public life.
You keep saying you don't have time for this, and then you deflect. We're all seeing a pattern here. Now it's clear why you campaign for the liberal media such as MSNBC (as proven) and CNN (as proven) and all of the others. No need to keep deflecting and making excuses such as "Oh I don't have time tonight". We all get your point. Thank you!
Huh? Are you drunk or something. I don't campaign for the corporate media, you've proven nothing except that when you can't support an argument you fall back on the tired old excuse to attack the poster because you cannot make a coherent argument. I have a life. Don't blame me if you claimed victory before I even had a chance to make my argument. And don't blame me that you tried to pass a single public opinion survey as peer-reviewed scientific research. Is this the way you always conduct yourself on this forum? The only pattern here is the one where people like you stoop to personal insults when they make fools of themselves - get over yourself!
"The only pattern here is the one where people like you stoop to personal insults when they make fools of themselves - get over yourself!" Hmm... Looks like a personal insult, to me.
Not that anyone is talking to you or anything but he was the one who started out bragging he was going to post proof and then I would post nothing and then he would win or whatever just as I was getting ready to go out. I had to go eat dinner and spend a night with my family - he seems to have taken issue with that and blathered some nonsense about me deflecting and working for MSNBC or whatever he was jabbering about. I am sorry your friend made a fool of himself but it isn't my fault. Would he like a kleenex or a wet wipe?
I appreciate you admitting that you deflected again. I also hope you remember the rules of the forum before posting. Now what again do you have against university polls and peer reviews that label your favorite media outlets as left wing? You keep deflecting. We all see this. No need to accuse me of being "drunk" when you cannot form a complete argument.
