Biden wins presidency, Trump denied second term in White House, Fox News projects

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Interesting, you seem to really be stuck on sources.  Unfortunately your approved sources are not covering this story for whatever reason, but not sure any of that is relative to the facts in the story.

No more embarrassing that wasting taxpayer money on a SP to investigate nothing.

If the propaganda website you're reading is covering a story that nobody else is covering, that's a really good sign that you're reading a propaganda website.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

7 minutes ago, moxy said:

If the propaganda website you're reading is covering a story that nobody else is covering, that's a really good sign that you're reading a propaganda website.

To add to your comment, they are not even "covering" it as news, Kobach is simply a guest columnist.

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, CanAm1980 said:

To add to your comment, they are not even "covering" it as news, Kobach is simply a guest columnist.

Ah, yeah that sounds about Breit.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

3 minutes ago, moxy said:

If the propaganda website you're reading is covering a story that nobody else is covering, that's a really good sign that you're reading a propaganda website.

Simple web searches would not only yield you other articles, but the source itself that filed the lawsuit. Argument about the veracity of the article's basis is as bizarre as the criteria of what propaganda is. Being this source/source labeling obsessive doesn't seem like it's helping much.

[moxy 1,051]

3 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Simple web searches would not only yield you other articles, but the source itself that filed the lawsuit. Argument about the veracity of the article's basis is as bizarre as the criteria of what propaganda is. Being this source/source labeling obsessive doesn't seem like it's helping much.

Not my job to research a story you linked from a propaganda website to see if there's any truth to it. It's on you to post responsibly.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

14 minutes ago, moxy said:

Not my job to research a story you linked from a propaganda website to see if there's any truth to it. It's on you to post responsibly.

I guess you're stuck then wherever you are on the subject with the criteria you invented to go nowhere. The good news is, it moves forward regardless of where you're at, and where you're at now is being wrong.

Edited December 8, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,110]

1 hour ago, moxy said:

If the propaganda website you're reading is covering a story that nobody else is covering, that's a really good sign that you're reading a propaganda website.

Of course that depends on the political activism being practiced in the MSM outlets.  Just because the Leftist NYTimes or WaPo, or CNN does not cover a story does not mean there is no story.  Thankfully we have many many sources available to us since the impartial quality of the traditional media has declined significantly.

[Dashinka 24,110]

45 minutes ago, moxy said:

Not my job to research a story you linked from a propaganda website to see if there's any truth to it. It's on you to post responsibly.

Then why comment on it other than to cheerlead for the Leftist traditional media?

[moxy 1,051]

19 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Of course that depends on the political activism being practiced in the MSM outlets.  Just because the Leftist NYTimes or WaPo, or CNN does not cover a story does not mean there is no story.  Thankfully we have many many sources available to us since the impartial quality of the traditional media has declined significantly.

Think about what you're saying: "I believe the traditional media is propaganda, so I'm going to get my news from a different source of propaganda that agrees with my personal biases."

 

 

18 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Then why comment on it other than to cheerlead for the Leftist traditional media?

Just yesterday you and I were actually having a decent conversation on media bias. Looks like THEY got to you. #tinfoil

 

[Dashinka 24,110]

1 minute ago, moxy said:

Think about what you're saying: "I believe the traditional media is propaganda, so I'm going to get my news from a different source of propaganda that agrees with my personal biases."

 

 

Just yesterday you and I were actually having a decent conversation on media bias. Looks like THEY got to you. #tinfoil

 

It is what it is.  The bias of the traditional media is growing, but of course many are not seeing it.  I certainly recognize the bias of Brietbart, not sure you recognize the bias of the traditional media sources.  Regardless, facts are facts regardless of who covers it.

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

It is what it is.  The bias of the traditional media is growing, but of course many are not seeing it.  I certainly recognize the bias of Brietbart, not sure you recognize the bias of the traditional media sources.  Regardless, facts are facts regardless of who covers it.

I have seen instances of bias in traditional media outlets, but never have I seen some kind of coordinated bias. That's why you don't, for example, rely solely on the New York Times. And if you are reading the NYT, and a story seems to fail the smell test (or overly confirms/rejects a bias), then maybe you head over to NPR, the WSJ, LA Times, etc. You also get to know individual journalists. Clare Malone tends to be a little left-leaning, Chris Wallace somewhat right-leaning, but both are excellent journalists and you can typically trust them. Contrast with ANYONE at Breitbart. To a man (or woman) they are selling you a narrative. Their interest is not in journalism, their interest is in propaganda.

 

This is how you consume media. Dismissing the entire traditional media as left-leaning is juvenile. Consuming propaganda because you've erroneously dismissed an entire industry is just willfully turning your brain off and letting propagandists spoon-feed you a narrative.

[Dashinka 24,110]

24 minutes ago, moxy said:

I have seen instances of bias in traditional media outlets, but never have I seen some kind of coordinated bias. That's why you don't, for example, rely solely on the New York Times. And if you are reading the NYT, and a story seems to fail the smell test (or overly confirms/rejects a bias), then maybe you head over to NPR, the WSJ, LA Times, etc. You also get to know individual journalists. Clare Malone tends to be a little left-leaning, Chris Wallace somewhat right-leaning, but both are excellent journalists and you can typically trust them. Contrast with ANYONE at Breitbart. To a man (or woman) they are selling you a narrative. Their interest is not in journalism, their interest is in propaganda.

 

This is how you consume media. Dismissing the entire traditional media as left-leaning is juvenile. Consuming propaganda because you've erroneously dismissed an entire industry is just willfully turning your brain off and letting propagandists spoon-feed you a narrative.

You have not heard the montages of the media readers from the traditional outlets parroting almost the exact same words?  Chris Wallace is nowhere near Right Leaning, not sure what you are watching.  Trust is in the eye of the beholder, and when the media does things differently just because of political leanings, there is no reason to trust them.  They may not be seeing it themselves as it is often times inherent especially with the inside the Beltway types.  We can get into the Russian Collusion narrative the NYTimes, WaPo, etc. were pushing as propaganda again, but it is what it is.  The simple fact is that journalists in DC are looking more and more like the Pravda of the US.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, moxy said:

I have seen instances of bias in traditional media outlets, but never have I seen some kind of coordinated bias. 

I guess we only see what we want to see...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

I guess we only see what we want to see...

I guess we do, because this is evidence of a coordinated bias in the same way that rocks fly. Poorly.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

27 minutes ago, moxy said:

I guess we do, because this is evidence of a coordinated bias in the same way that rocks fly. Poorly.

In weighing that evidence versus yours (nothing), it's a pretty tough choice.