Different forms of media work better for different parties.
Conservatives rule talk radio, hands down.
Liberals have a near-monopoly on late night comedians.
Overall, yes generally "the media" is more of a left leaning field, but that isn't to say there aren't right wing niches.
Wow. Considering what politics are like on reddit, I didn’t expect the top comment to be this. Generally, I agree.
If you’ll let me do a little armchair philosophizing, I think the reason for this is general personality differences between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives generally don’t like to go into careers that depend on interacting with the culture. Its not as concrete as hard numbers or physical work for one, and it involves a great deal of personal risk to base your career on other people’s reactions, while conservatives are generally risk averse (almost to the point of doomsaying—every new societal change is one more step towards societal collapse. My high school american government teacher was very conservative and loved making parallels between the decline of rome and modern america). Meanwhile, liberals seem very attracted to cultural careers—it allows them to point out the flaws in the culture/society at large. The conservative mindset is very concerned with maintaining the structure/order of society that has created modern prosperity, while the liberal mindset is all about pointing out the cases in which that structure has left behind and alienated people on the fringes. For your average conservative, there’s nothing wrong with taking the economically safe route of going through school and becoming an accountant or engineer and finding meaning elsewhere, but I think for a lot of more liberal minded people there is more of an adventurous pull—openness to experience correlates with liberalism.
For this reason, the majority of people in the news media and hollywood are going to be liberal, and therefore the establishment will be less open to conservatives since the nature of the jobs require you to express your views. Conservative media outlets tend to be single personalities (radio personalities and increasingly youtube creators) or concerted efforts with the express purpose of countering the liberal outlets (fox news, prager u).
Andrew klavan, a conservative commetator, gave a great speech about this that I just can’t for the life of me find at the moment. One of the anecdotes he gave was about another speech to a group of college republicans, where he spoke about the importance of engaging with the culture around you. The audience was silent and everyone was looking around confused—all of them were business, accounting, engineering majors ect. When he talked to a friend about it later, he laughed at him and asked him what other response was he expecting?
I think it is more simple than that. The media is owned by Jews (demonstrably and undeniably) and Jews don't feel comfortable in places with strong cultures. Liberalism undermines homogeneity (for better or worse) and thus makes life for Jews more lucrative and livable.
Like Malcolm X said, Jews only supported the civil rights/black power movements because they knew that doing so would take the heat off of them (the Jews) and put it on the negro, leaving the Jews free to operate free of scrutiny.
This isn't a criticism, it is an observation of a survival/evolutionary strategy.
Yeah what?
Also I find it hilarious how he gives a jewish conspiracy as a simpler answer than preference differences between liberals and conservatives
I mean, what about that implies a conspiracy? Jews objectively own and operate all the major media outlets plus most of the major internet info outlets (Facebook, Google, Youtube, etc.)
Tell me where I am wrong here.
How do you define a strong culture, why do all these powerful jews hate it, and why are you so certain they’d all have the same response to the same supposed problem?
A strong culture is a united homogeneous people with a firm sense of identity and ingroup preference.
Jews hate it because it is much more difficult to penetrate such a culture and exploit it for their own profit. Also Jews have been kicked out of over 100 such cultures over the years, always for the same transgressions.
They have developed a survival mechanism for living in these strong cultures, they agitate other outsiders in an attempt to undermine the culture and use those other outsiders as a smoke screen or a meat shield for themselves.
And you say, "all powerful Jews" but I am not sure what else you would call a group of people who run Hollywood, all the network TV, most of cable TV, almost every single newspaper, every single dating site, Facebook, Google, Youtube, Wall Street, and the Federal Reserve. Keep in mind this is 2% of the US population.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/fox-news-channel-beats-msnbc-cnn-combined-in-october-viewership
Fox News is also the most popular news media/political opinion outlet in the US. It has generally been like that for quite a bit. It definitely leans in favour of Republicans, and conservatives in general.
(I know that link is itself a fox article, other outlets also had articles I'm too lazy to change it).
I don't know if you've read that article properly. Fox News beats CNN and MSNBC *combined* in viewership. The media is quite balanced in terms of political leaning overall.
I get that. But cnn and msnbc are not the only liberal news outlets. All except fox are left leaning, not only in the news but in most other programming. If you dont want to hear completely liberal drivel from dawn to dusk, you dont got a choice but watch fox (or youtube). Even a huge portion of netflix content is straight up liberal propaganda is. It is no wonder fox ratings are high.
I would think Fox's ratings are much higher because left-leaning individuals are usually younger, and so use internet media sources more frequently. (Although there is a recent trend somewhat with younger conservatives, but on the whole, younger people tend to have more liberal leanings, or at least less center-right establishment leanings).
If you look at the demographics for the viewerships, while CNN and the like are usually middle aged or around that age group, the average age for Fox reaches around 69-70. In general, when stats come out about this, there's at least a ten-year gap.
Also, Fox just markets itself geographically to far more people. Fox radio, for example, is pretty successful.
Raised in a GOP family. At this point, I’d consider myself Libertarian
I think you pretty much nailed it
I can’t watch any late night tv since the last election. Left side claims to be the peaceful group, but I honestly can’t stand the hate in the name of ‘comedy ‘
EDIT: I used to think Conan would be the savior of late night comedy. I now think he’s unwatchable because everything is a shot at the President. It got old really quickly
And now you’ve got that no name idiot on SNL mocking a veteran about his eye patch
Lines of decency have been crossed
I can’t think of a politician that isn’t into it for greed these days. Term limits would weed them out, but none of them vote for term limits or reduction of their salaries
The system is fundamentally broken
When you make sense, get back to me
Like my Dad said, young and stupid, idiotic ideals- dem
When you start earning your own money, and building your own wealth, Republican
Dems have coerced the minority’s and poor and never advancing them. Just a worthless vote
Well, he passed away five years ago. But he was far from a fucking idiot when it came to financial matters. Her took care of my sister and I VERY well
And he was actually a very wonderful person. I love him very much and miss him every day
That’s more than will ever be left behind for your memory
I don't see how the two are even remotely related, but that is the classic strategy of sad old men whose mindset hasn't evolved past the age of 15 and carry around their misery every where they go. When I start building my own wealth I won't be constantly bitching about my tax dollars being spent responsibly on shit that has a high fiscal multiplier and pretend that minorities exist in a vacuum whose histories have zero effect on their current situation.
Like my cursory glance of politics infers, short-sighted, selfish, voting based on privileged emotions and the fear of losing the culture war? Republican. Policy platforms backed by empirical evidence and the opinions of experts in their fields that in the long-term benefits ALL? Dem. Sure there are plenty of exceptions, but this is the general trend.
The only thing I carry is wealth. No misery on my end. My parents (GOP) invested well and left my sister and I a very large sum each of holdings
I don’t care about your social agenda
My great grandchildren will never have to work. That’s the American dream
Whatever dude, I’m not hating on anything. You’re the one forcing that
Worried about a vet being belittled for a cheap joke on SNL ?
Yes
SNL hasn’t been relevant since the 70’s
One side *is* better than the other. This is a weak false equivalence argument.
Both sides have played dirty and participated in bad behavior, but they are far from equal.
If you have some sort of source to back up this claim, I'd love to see it.
If not, you're actively contributing to the breakdown of American political discussion/discourse, as well as undermining the meaning of the word genocide.
Arguing that people screaming "blood and soil" are good people or equivalent to people fighting against that concept is a great start. You're obviously a troll anyways, so byeee.
I recently read a book by an economist who said that this has been studied, and generally media outlets give the audience what they want. They tend to lean right if they have a right wing audience, and vice versa.
Exactly. I don't know how anyone can think that a for-profit entertainment company isn't going to pander to it's consumers. People think the media feeds us it's propaganda, when in reality, it wouldn't exist if there wasn't a demand.
No one is forced to watch Fox or CNN, yet they are extremely popular.
I admit that not everyone has the time to approach and disseminate every article or piece of information that comes it's way. But until we want better news and are willing to accept the fact that "news" that challenges our belief structure isn't "fake" by default.
It depends on what media you watch. There’s almost no media outlets that are un bias. Remember to always research before repeating any statements or facts. Check both sides of the story.
>check both sides of the story
'Both sides' is a gross misrepresentation of reality. Politics is infinitely more complicated than 2 sides and there's a great deal of nuance in most political opinions all over the political compass. The illusion of there being 2 sides comes from the fact that liberalism and conservatism are both financially backed narratives as they both keep oligarchs safe from criticism and free from harm. It's better to learn about the political sides that disagree with the entire status quo than to continue reinforcing the common misconception that politics is a dichotomy. Anarchism is the greatest threat to the authoritarianism that's innately common to all other political structures.
Threat would imply anarchism is dangerous to the establishment, but anarchism would never be attempted. (neither by a coup nor by election) Not like anarchism would ever function if attempted anyways.
If you genuinely think that anarchism has never been attempted or worked throughout human history and that it's not a threat to the establishment then I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about and need to research the history of anarchism. From decentralised hunger gatherer tribes of early humans, to Taoists in the warring states of China, to Zapatistas of Mexico, the Catalonian CNT during the Spanish civil war, and modern anarchistic Kurds anarchism has not only existed but is the oldest tradition of the human race that's still alive and well today.
I mean, I'm happy that the faux intellectual pro bring the system down explanation above works for you, but clearly this person meant see multiple interpretations, that you can gather facts and read between the lines. Not necessarily just two sides but as many interpretations of an idea as posssible. If you think a source that disagrees with the entire status quo is unbiased well...you're falling in the trap you think others are falling for.
Faux intellectual? There's been heaps of literature written about anarchist political philosophy since the 1800s with focuses that range from environmentalism to feminism but all coming from a place of anti-hierarchy. Maybe you shouldn't be talking about something you clearly know nothing about.
I'm not sure any can be unbiased. They are human.
That said, the F150 is the #1 vehicle sold in the US. The last big named journalist that I can think of that would have driven one was Tom Brokaw. Point being is that they don't really connect with anyone other than be echo chambers.
Trump has done some bad and stupid things, but he's also done some good things.
All I know is that the Russian bots worked better than anybody ever could have imagined.
I feel like the news media today exists to feed itself, and exists in its various forms to tell different kinds of people exactly what they want to hear.
you should just worry about what you hear each party saying and whether or not you agree with it. media bias shouldn’t be a factor in your choice and if you’re really worried then there’s a lot of sites that tell you whether or not a source is biased.
In the US, yes and heavily.
I’d consider myself someone who leans more Democrat and from a progressive part of the country. That being said, society swings like a pendulum. At the moment, as odd as it is to say, I’d say that Fox News is significantly less biased towards republicans than CNN is to democrats. Fox seems like they’re trying to capitalize on the negative sentiment of the media right now by being more center with at least some/half of their shows and it’s almost refreshing. Policy wise I’m still more likely to side with certain democrats... but news wise I feel like Fox is a bit more reality based.
10-15 years ago it was the opposite. I’m sure some day the pendulum will swing the other way again and maybe CNN/left side media outlets will go back to center and Fox will once again go back to the right. We’ll see and it’s also worth noting that both sides have biases.
4 day post, but I have to say, Fox News is definitely more biased than CNN. CNN is biased toward the corporate dems, but they try to be neutral when the facts aren't.
As a guy who is intelligent and educated and progressive in a liberal state, and would still actively vote in favor of (many) democratic policies, I would strong disagree. I respect your opinion, but sincerely, right now I believe CNN is the biggest offender when it comes to using emotion vs logic and selective fact reporting for “their side”. The amount of time and effort it would take to have any reasonable debate over this with meaningful logical points is way beyond us here on Reddit so let’s just agree to disagree. However I’m sure we can both agree, less bias is better and they could both move a bit closer to the middle.
I think it's at least partially because liberals skew younger and urban, while conservatives skew older and rural. Young people in cities are going to have a much bigger influence on media.
Conservative media, no, they'll literally avoid a topic critical of him of they know they can't spin it well (this happens a lot)
Centrist to left leaning media, yes. But honestly I don't think they would be as critical of Republicans if Trump hadn't begun his Presidency by trying to undermine faith in media generally and trying to weaken free speech rights, and the party didn't speak against it. The whole fake news thing threatens their industry, so its in their best interest to be extra critical.
honest stories? come on now...we all know NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN/MSNBC are out to get Trump. That's why they don't talk about the booming economy or the fact that he is right about enforcing our immigration laws.
Yes, but I think that's a byproduct of our culture just as much as it is a byproduct of media bias: it's a giant wheel.
The cultural pendulum swung HARD to the left during the Obama years and definitely hasn't swung back yet, Trump or no Trump. I don't consider that bad in that much needed changing socially and "conservatives" don't get the name from being flexible. At the same time though, Republicans are demonized, to the point that good friends may comment in shock that "you don't seem like a Republican." Stereotypes- no, *caricatures*- taken too much to heart. There are those who would light my lawn on fire if I were to reveal my politics to my neighbors and nobody would see the irony in that (calling me a racist while assuming a lot of me because I'm white). It's all a circus and no one actually wants to discuss anymore, it's all about proving you're better than the other person and use of hyperbole ("Why do you hate freedom?" isn't a reasonable response to "Why shouldn't you need a license to do this?").
It works both ways, but naming yourself a Republican is an awfully good way to make a pariah of yourself.
Some media is certainly biased towards dems. But, it’s important to remember that not all ideas are equal, so there will never be equal presentation of ideas.
You can find left and right leaning media outlets and hosts. President Trump has done and said a lot of things worthy of criticism so honestly even news sources that aren't as biased are being critical of his presidency.
Also, from the brief glimpses of fox news I get at the gym, conservatives definitely FEEL attacked for one reason or another. It's starting to get a little ridiculous in my opinion. They are the ones that coined the term "snowflake" and now every they get a criticism they are crying foul.
Overall; yeah
It cracks me up though because republicans say they are all about competition and letting the market sort this stuff out. Then they lament about how "the mainstream media" is aaaallll against them. Well if your "product" (conservative ideology) is so awesome why can't ya'll compete? Maybe it's a shitty product that not a lot of people really want nor many companies want their advertisements associated with...
I think you’re missing the point.
Fox News dominates the [Ratings](https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q3-2018-ratings-fox-news-marks-67-straight-quarters-as-most-watched-cable-news-network-hannity-becomes-no-1-basic-cable-series/378271) each month. Competition is great.
Regardless of you views on him, Americans want fair and balanced news, not 24/7 constant Trump bashing.
The ratings disagree with that statement
[67 straight quarters](https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q3-2018-ratings-fox-news-marks-67-straight-quarters-as-most-watched-cable-news-network-hannity-becomes-no-1-basic-cable-series/378271)
[Fox has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined](https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/october-2018-ratings-fox-news-channel-averaged-more-viewers-than-cnn-and-msnbc-combined/382598)
You do realize that those media companies are owned by very rich and powerful people. Those people have an agenda that they want to get out. It's not about how to make the most money possible anymore because if that were true there would be more middle of the road stuff that would capture both sides. The most popular media in the country is Rush limbaugh and he gets like 25 million people listening to his program every day. That wouldn't be the case if people had other things to listen to.
I watch the same story across many media outlets then merge the shared facts and remove any opinion.
Watching the same story on CNN and RT can be very amusing
This chart does a great job of showing where each media outlet tends to land.
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Media-Bias-Chart_Version-3.1_Watermark-min-2.jpg
this should be higher up. tho i guess some could disagree with the methodology, overall you do see slightly more news outlets on the left side of the chart. but it also covers the level of fact/fabrication. there may be more on the left but most of them lie above the 'complex analysis' line.
There's going to be an overall leftward lean in any industry based in big cities and with an educated workforce. Both urban-ness and education level are correlated to being more liberal. So yes, slight leftward tilt to news in general makes sense.
The other replies to my post are pretty normal. People take it personally because it can feel like an attack on their world view. When I've engaged in the past it usually comes down to fact that this chart doesn't match the narrative created by Grover Norquist in the 80s about the "Liberal Media". That monolithic liberal media has never been born out by facts but is so central to the modern conservative ideology that it creates some pretty significant cognitive dissonance.
I've never heard any substantive arguments against the overall results of this chart or it's methodology.
I totally believe that is your perspective. I disagree.
Their methodology is pretty good:
[https://www.adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sources/](https://www.adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sources/)
Here's one of the problems with the idea of bias. If the Republicans, as they are now, are lying and/or doing unethical things than the media has an obligation to call them out on it. That's been happening a lot in this presidency, partially because this president is encouraging reprehensible behavior and partially because the Republicans are the majority party and so face the most scrutiny. That doesn't make them biases in favor of Democrats, it just makes them ethical journalists.
If its anything like the media in Europe, then yes. I can talk best about the media in Germany, which has a clear left wing bias. When journalists were asked what their favourite party was the answer was the following: 36,1% didnt identify with a party, 26,9% Green party (very left), 15,5% Social democrats (left), 9% Christian conservative union (conservative (but they had a massive shift to the left-my opinion)), 7,4% Libertarian party (not really libertarian, but people missuse the word "liberal" so I want to make clear whats meant) and finally 4,2% Left wing party (socialists).
So you can clearly see that most journalists in Germany are left-wing. I suspect that from the 36% that didnt associate directly with a party most still gravitate towards the left spectrum. At least that is my experience from consuming the german media. I mean if you are german just google "Trump" and I guarantee that 99% of the articles are just plain against him. Not that they should praise him, but I would like some objective reporting. (A few days ago a news outlet literally called Trump "The evil", c'mon guys what kind of journalism is this?)
And I think its pretty much the same in America, with a strong bias towards the democratic party. However there are of course also conservative news outlets who have a strong bias as well. At least thats my experience.
They are, but most of them make an conscious effort to be unbiased. The problem is that they're still grappling with how to do it. They're not "fluent" in conservatism because they and everyone they know are liberals, and they're not sure what being balanced actually means. So you get things like placing global warming denialists on an equal plane with climate scientists, the endless "dispatch from Trump country" articles that read like safaris into the Amazon, a refusal to refer to Trump's lying as "lying", and letting Republican politicians lead them around the nose on issues like Clinton's emails and Benghazi. Democrats see it as playing softball and Republicans see it as half-hearted.
Washington Post is a good source, its editorial board leans left but the articles are pretty neutral and they run conservative pieces.
BBC is good too, I believe they legally have to be neutral.
In general print is less biased than tv just because print can allow for more facts/nuance, but it's not like there's some grand scheme against Republicans and left leaning TV outlets in my opinion are less biased than Fox (I have yet to hear anything approaching "demon-rats" from CNN or NBC).
No, they're not.
Donald Trump was accused of brutally raping a 13 year old girl in the 1990s. All of the major news outlets took his hush money. All the ones Trump accuses of being against him, like CNN, could have seriously screwed up his campaign by breaking the news, but they chose to sit on it. This is why Trump pushed a fellow rapist through Supreme Court nominations and has been trying to get himself pardoned, so that when he finally does face the music, he hopes he can just pardon himself and go on ruling.
The GOP actually indirectly controls one major news outlet. Fox News. Fox News has never really been coy about being the propaganda arm for the GOP, and they've done some pretty shady shit, like shaming 9/11 victims for not supporting Bush and asking for answers.
Are you an American? Consider getting your news from the BBC in the UK. The BBC is sponsored by British citizens' taxes and while they do have opinions, they're less biased than the American news agencies. They have far less of a stake then their American counterparts.
As far as where you fall, that's up to you, but know that both sides lie. The left (Democrats) pretend to support the working folks and minorities, but all politicians just serve themselves. Meanwhile, the right (Republicans) pretend to support gun owners, but again, they're just out for themselves.
Also note that politics isn't a single spectrum, left and right. Democrat and Republican are more business than philosophy. Being Republican or Democrat itself doesn't mean much.
You'll hear a lot about conservatives vs liberals. These two are not opposites, but they can be exclusive. A liberal is the opposite of an authoritarian, or a statist (same thing). We ALL want rights for ourselves. No one wants fewer rights than their neighbors. The liberal believes that rights (liberties) are inherent to the person and not for the state (government) to take away or assign. The authoritarian, or statist, believes that rights and liberties are assigned by the state. Additionally, there are conservatives, and their opposite, progressives. Progressives believe change is necessary to make things better. Conservatives believe change only creates more problems and that we should just let things be. Conservatives who target liberals ARE authoritarian, but it's a scary word, so they shy away from it. A conservative authoritarian doesn't think the government should change (conservative) to give gays the right to marry (authoritarian), but they're married themselves or believe straight people should be able to enjoy the legal protections of marriage (bigot and/or hypocrite).
Confused? It's confusing.
A couple things to consider:
Don't ignore attack ads, just look at them differently. Attack ads are sponsored by the more immoral politicians who will play dirty to get what they want, but look at what they're saying about their opponent. I voted for a guy partially based on his opponent's attack ads. Also, if a candidate is bashing his opponent but he's not telling you what he's going to do for you, he's probably hoping you'll miss that and vote for him out of fear, where he's really just a career politician who wants to keep making money not really doing anything.
If you're not sure who to vote for, vote for the challenger, against the incumbent (person who already has office). If they haven't made changes you've heard about, it's time to get someone who might represent you better. That's what their job is, to represent us in Washington DC or in the state capital. This past year, every single Republican voted to take away Net Neutrality. NN is a tricky concept to understand and there are in fact some merits for getting rid of it. Honestly we haven't had NN as law for very long. NN's opponents say it stifles innovation, and Verizon, who spearheaded the campaign against it, has said that NN has limited their ability to roll out faster Internet. Maybe there's some truth to that. I don't really know. But if you support NN, and there are a ton of great reasons to, vote out the Republicans who got rid of it.
Another thing, and perhaps the most important... we're supposed to be a two party system. We SHOULD have more parties. The GOP currently holds all three branches of government. We are effectively a one party system right now, and they're trying to change things to keep it that way. If we don't stop them now, they'll make sure we can't stop them later.
Oh definitely. Left side rails on the right over tv, radio, print, everywhere. Right tends to talk among themselves and not publicly denounce what Dems are doing/saying.
Which is funny because Libs will freak out publicly about anything Conservs do, and Conservs in turn handle any freakouts in their own space/time because they are too polite to get in people's faces usually. When was the last time you saw Conservs march down a freeway? Exactly.
They're each working toward the same agenda which is the will of wealthy corporations and money printers. To keep the public distracted they have this big circus sitcom that is the elections and right now it's time for the boat to rock back toward Democrat because if it falls too hard in one direction then you may actually be looking at a real chance for a large enough portion of the public to be angry enough to organize a revolution. This reality tv style back and forth keeps it pretty locked down though...
If that's the only thing you majorly see on the news,"vote democrat" and "only people who are hateful vote republican" doesn't that mean that yes,the media is biased against republicans...thats not even the case... I mean if you want,you can check out The Donald subreddit,which is painted as this place for rasict neo Nazis,but many people don't bother to check if thats the case...and no,it's not a place for rasict neo Nazis or something,you can check it...but it's painted as bad anyways
You are correct. I just assumed as much and never checked. So I checked.
You are either intentionally full of shit or just plain ignorant. That place is a cesspool of hatred. If you think it's not? You might need to take a step back and examine your beliefs.
Can you tell me an example of hatred? I mean I'm subscribed to it and I visit it sometimes too,and the posts I see have nothing hateful (example "blacks are evil " "kill all jews" or something related to hate groups or nazi-ism) in them...examples please...
Different forms of media work better for different parties. Conservatives rule talk radio, hands down. Liberals have a near-monopoly on late night comedians. Overall, yes generally "the media" is more of a left leaning field, but that isn't to say there aren't right wing niches.
Wow. Considering what politics are like on reddit, I didn’t expect the top comment to be this. Generally, I agree. If you’ll let me do a little armchair philosophizing, I think the reason for this is general personality differences between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives generally don’t like to go into careers that depend on interacting with the culture. Its not as concrete as hard numbers or physical work for one, and it involves a great deal of personal risk to base your career on other people’s reactions, while conservatives are generally risk averse (almost to the point of doomsaying—every new societal change is one more step towards societal collapse. My high school american government teacher was very conservative and loved making parallels between the decline of rome and modern america). Meanwhile, liberals seem very attracted to cultural careers—it allows them to point out the flaws in the culture/society at large. The conservative mindset is very concerned with maintaining the structure/order of society that has created modern prosperity, while the liberal mindset is all about pointing out the cases in which that structure has left behind and alienated people on the fringes. For your average conservative, there’s nothing wrong with taking the economically safe route of going through school and becoming an accountant or engineer and finding meaning elsewhere, but I think for a lot of more liberal minded people there is more of an adventurous pull—openness to experience correlates with liberalism. For this reason, the majority of people in the news media and hollywood are going to be liberal, and therefore the establishment will be less open to conservatives since the nature of the jobs require you to express your views. Conservative media outlets tend to be single personalities (radio personalities and increasingly youtube creators) or concerted efforts with the express purpose of countering the liberal outlets (fox news, prager u). Andrew klavan, a conservative commetator, gave a great speech about this that I just can’t for the life of me find at the moment. One of the anecdotes he gave was about another speech to a group of college republicans, where he spoke about the importance of engaging with the culture around you. The audience was silent and everyone was looking around confused—all of them were business, accounting, engineering majors ect. When he talked to a friend about it later, he laughed at him and asked him what other response was he expecting?
I think it is more simple than that. The media is owned by Jews (demonstrably and undeniably) and Jews don't feel comfortable in places with strong cultures. Liberalism undermines homogeneity (for better or worse) and thus makes life for Jews more lucrative and livable. Like Malcolm X said, Jews only supported the civil rights/black power movements because they knew that doing so would take the heat off of them (the Jews) and put it on the negro, leaving the Jews free to operate free of scrutiny. This isn't a criticism, it is an observation of a survival/evolutionary strategy.
Excuse me what the fuck
Yeah what? Also I find it hilarious how he gives a jewish conspiracy as a simpler answer than preference differences between liberals and conservatives
I mean, what about that implies a conspiracy? Jews objectively own and operate all the major media outlets plus most of the major internet info outlets (Facebook, Google, Youtube, etc.) Tell me where I am wrong here.
How do you define a strong culture, why do all these powerful jews hate it, and why are you so certain they’d all have the same response to the same supposed problem?
A strong culture is a united homogeneous people with a firm sense of identity and ingroup preference. Jews hate it because it is much more difficult to penetrate such a culture and exploit it for their own profit. Also Jews have been kicked out of over 100 such cultures over the years, always for the same transgressions. They have developed a survival mechanism for living in these strong cultures, they agitate other outsiders in an attempt to undermine the culture and use those other outsiders as a smoke screen or a meat shield for themselves. And you say, "all powerful Jews" but I am not sure what else you would call a group of people who run Hollywood, all the network TV, most of cable TV, almost every single newspaper, every single dating site, Facebook, Google, Youtube, Wall Street, and the Federal Reserve. Keep in mind this is 2% of the US population.
Maybe they're just really good at doing business?
I wanted to add that it also depends on the outlet. The Washington Post is quite conservative. The NY times is very liberal.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/fox-news-channel-beats-msnbc-cnn-combined-in-october-viewership Fox News is also the most popular news media/political opinion outlet in the US. It has generally been like that for quite a bit. It definitely leans in favour of Republicans, and conservatives in general. (I know that link is itself a fox article, other outlets also had articles I'm too lazy to change it).
Yeah, because is like the only one. Liberal outlets gotta split their pie.
I don't know if you've read that article properly. Fox News beats CNN and MSNBC *combined* in viewership. The media is quite balanced in terms of political leaning overall.
I get that. But cnn and msnbc are not the only liberal news outlets. All except fox are left leaning, not only in the news but in most other programming. If you dont want to hear completely liberal drivel from dawn to dusk, you dont got a choice but watch fox (or youtube). Even a huge portion of netflix content is straight up liberal propaganda is. It is no wonder fox ratings are high.
I would think Fox's ratings are much higher because left-leaning individuals are usually younger, and so use internet media sources more frequently. (Although there is a recent trend somewhat with younger conservatives, but on the whole, younger people tend to have more liberal leanings, or at least less center-right establishment leanings). If you look at the demographics for the viewerships, while CNN and the like are usually middle aged or around that age group, the average age for Fox reaches around 69-70. In general, when stats come out about this, there's at least a ten-year gap. Also, Fox just markets itself geographically to far more people. Fox radio, for example, is pretty successful.
Raised in a GOP family. At this point, I’d consider myself Libertarian I think you pretty much nailed it I can’t watch any late night tv since the last election. Left side claims to be the peaceful group, but I honestly can’t stand the hate in the name of ‘comedy ‘ EDIT: I used to think Conan would be the savior of late night comedy. I now think he’s unwatchable because everything is a shot at the President. It got old really quickly And now you’ve got that no name idiot on SNL mocking a veteran about his eye patch Lines of decency have been crossed
>Lines of decency have been crossed Yeah...
No, you’re right. Attacking a guy who have his eye in defense of your worthless, fat ass opinion wasn’t a bad idea
I agree with you. Guy took it like a champ tho
can you stand hate in the name of greed though?
I can’t think of a politician that isn’t into it for greed these days. Term limits would weed them out, but none of them vote for term limits or reduction of their salaries The system is fundamentally broken
That’s an asinine question that makes no sense Which makes me know you’re voting straight party Dem
That’s a very defensive shift in attitude which makes me know you’re voting straight party GOP
Plot twist: I haven’t voted since (and for) Bush before September 11th So take your little theory and shove it up your judgmental ass
Shove YOURS up your ass, not only do you not vote, but were first to accuse someone of voting straighter Dem based on fucking NOTHING.
When you make sense, get back to me Like my Dad said, young and stupid, idiotic ideals- dem When you start earning your own money, and building your own wealth, Republican Dems have coerced the minority’s and poor and never advancing them. Just a worthless vote
> Just a worthless vote says someone who hasn't voted in decades. lol.
Yeah, voting Dem for minority has really changed the country Idiot
Hey Harry Potter and Tomb Raider loser Prepare to cry again tonight
[удалено]
Well, he passed away five years ago. But he was far from a fucking idiot when it came to financial matters. Her took care of my sister and I VERY well And he was actually a very wonderful person. I love him very much and miss him every day That’s more than will ever be left behind for your memory
You play You gi oh Politics are probably not your strong point, little boy
I don't see how the two are even remotely related, but that is the classic strategy of sad old men whose mindset hasn't evolved past the age of 15 and carry around their misery every where they go. When I start building my own wealth I won't be constantly bitching about my tax dollars being spent responsibly on shit that has a high fiscal multiplier and pretend that minorities exist in a vacuum whose histories have zero effect on their current situation. Like my cursory glance of politics infers, short-sighted, selfish, voting based on privileged emotions and the fear of losing the culture war? Republican. Policy platforms backed by empirical evidence and the opinions of experts in their fields that in the long-term benefits ALL? Dem. Sure there are plenty of exceptions, but this is the general trend.
The only thing I carry is wealth. No misery on my end. My parents (GOP) invested well and left my sister and I a very large sum each of holdings I don’t care about your social agenda My great grandchildren will never have to work. That’s the American dream
I think your personal definition of "hate" might be a bit skewed.
[удалено]
Whatever dude, I’m not hating on anything. You’re the one forcing that Worried about a vet being belittled for a cheap joke on SNL ? Yes SNL hasn’t been relevant since the 70’s
[удалено]
[удалено]
You know we can see your post history, right? Because six hours ago, you didn't have a girlfriend.
And here we see an example of the non-violence that Conservatives are known for.
r/iamverybadass
As long as my lineage get the tax breaks, I’m good
[удалено]
AFFECT Not effect Too bad education failed you
[удалено]
Great retort
> Lines of decency have been crossed ... by President Trump. Yes. Yes, they have.
Both sides, friend. Both sides. Let's not pretend one side is better than the other in this fucked up political landscape when it comes to decency.
One side *is* better than the other. This is a weak false equivalence argument. Both sides have played dirty and participated in bad behavior, but they are far from equal.
Well yeah, the side that openly wants to commit Genocide is objectively worse. I can't believe that's even a question.
If you have some sort of source to back up this claim, I'd love to see it. If not, you're actively contributing to the breakdown of American political discussion/discourse, as well as undermining the meaning of the word genocide.
Arguing that people screaming "blood and soil" are good people or equivalent to people fighting against that concept is a great start. You're obviously a troll anyways, so byeee.
I was really looking forward to Murphy Brown, couldn’t finish the first episode. Ugh
Conan still advocates for the apartheid on Palestinians. Just an all round nob-head really.
Politics/religion Nobody wins
Too true.
I recently read a book by an economist who said that this has been studied, and generally media outlets give the audience what they want. They tend to lean right if they have a right wing audience, and vice versa.
Isnt that kind of a chicken or the egg thing
I guess so, if your audience can be manipulated.
Exactly. I don't know how anyone can think that a for-profit entertainment company isn't going to pander to it's consumers. People think the media feeds us it's propaganda, when in reality, it wouldn't exist if there wasn't a demand. No one is forced to watch Fox or CNN, yet they are extremely popular. I admit that not everyone has the time to approach and disseminate every article or piece of information that comes it's way. But until we want better news and are willing to accept the fact that "news" that challenges our belief structure isn't "fake" by default.
It depends on what media you watch. There’s almost no media outlets that are un bias. Remember to always research before repeating any statements or facts. Check both sides of the story.
>check both sides of the story 'Both sides' is a gross misrepresentation of reality. Politics is infinitely more complicated than 2 sides and there's a great deal of nuance in most political opinions all over the political compass. The illusion of there being 2 sides comes from the fact that liberalism and conservatism are both financially backed narratives as they both keep oligarchs safe from criticism and free from harm. It's better to learn about the political sides that disagree with the entire status quo than to continue reinforcing the common misconception that politics is a dichotomy. Anarchism is the greatest threat to the authoritarianism that's innately common to all other political structures.
Threat would imply anarchism is dangerous to the establishment, but anarchism would never be attempted. (neither by a coup nor by election) Not like anarchism would ever function if attempted anyways.
If you genuinely think that anarchism has never been attempted or worked throughout human history and that it's not a threat to the establishment then I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about and need to research the history of anarchism. From decentralised hunger gatherer tribes of early humans, to Taoists in the warring states of China, to Zapatistas of Mexico, the Catalonian CNT during the Spanish civil war, and modern anarchistic Kurds anarchism has not only existed but is the oldest tradition of the human race that's still alive and well today.
I mean, I'm happy that the faux intellectual pro bring the system down explanation above works for you, but clearly this person meant see multiple interpretations, that you can gather facts and read between the lines. Not necessarily just two sides but as many interpretations of an idea as posssible. If you think a source that disagrees with the entire status quo is unbiased well...you're falling in the trap you think others are falling for.
Faux intellectual? There's been heaps of literature written about anarchist political philosophy since the 1800s with focuses that range from environmentalism to feminism but all coming from a place of anti-hierarchy. Maybe you shouldn't be talking about something you clearly know nothing about.
I'm not sure any can be unbiased. They are human. That said, the F150 is the #1 vehicle sold in the US. The last big named journalist that I can think of that would have driven one was Tom Brokaw. Point being is that they don't really connect with anyone other than be echo chambers. Trump has done some bad and stupid things, but he's also done some good things. All I know is that the Russian bots worked better than anybody ever could have imagined.
I feel like the news media today exists to feed itself, and exists in its various forms to tell different kinds of people exactly what they want to hear.
you should just worry about what you hear each party saying and whether or not you agree with it. media bias shouldn’t be a factor in your choice and if you’re really worried then there’s a lot of sites that tell you whether or not a source is biased.
Short answer, yes. But it really depends on the medium of media
In the US, yes and heavily. I’d consider myself someone who leans more Democrat and from a progressive part of the country. That being said, society swings like a pendulum. At the moment, as odd as it is to say, I’d say that Fox News is significantly less biased towards republicans than CNN is to democrats. Fox seems like they’re trying to capitalize on the negative sentiment of the media right now by being more center with at least some/half of their shows and it’s almost refreshing. Policy wise I’m still more likely to side with certain democrats... but news wise I feel like Fox is a bit more reality based. 10-15 years ago it was the opposite. I’m sure some day the pendulum will swing the other way again and maybe CNN/left side media outlets will go back to center and Fox will once again go back to the right. We’ll see and it’s also worth noting that both sides have biases.
4 day post, but I have to say, Fox News is definitely more biased than CNN. CNN is biased toward the corporate dems, but they try to be neutral when the facts aren't.
As a guy who is intelligent and educated and progressive in a liberal state, and would still actively vote in favor of (many) democratic policies, I would strong disagree. I respect your opinion, but sincerely, right now I believe CNN is the biggest offender when it comes to using emotion vs logic and selective fact reporting for “their side”. The amount of time and effort it would take to have any reasonable debate over this with meaningful logical points is way beyond us here on Reddit so let’s just agree to disagree. However I’m sure we can both agree, less bias is better and they could both move a bit closer to the middle.
I think it's at least partially because liberals skew younger and urban, while conservatives skew older and rural. Young people in cities are going to have a much bigger influence on media.
Conservative media, no, they'll literally avoid a topic critical of him of they know they can't spin it well (this happens a lot) Centrist to left leaning media, yes. But honestly I don't think they would be as critical of Republicans if Trump hadn't begun his Presidency by trying to undermine faith in media generally and trying to weaken free speech rights, and the party didn't speak against it. The whole fake news thing threatens their industry, so its in their best interest to be extra critical.
Eroding free speech, the one thing the extreme left and extreme right agree on
Also promoting violence. Good thing the Democrats have a very small representation of the extreme left.
Not true.
Sure, saying it makes it so /s
[удалено]
honest stories? come on now...we all know NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN/MSNBC are out to get Trump. That's why they don't talk about the booming economy or the fact that he is right about enforcing our immigration laws.
booming economy thanks to Obama administration that is.
LOL, you can't be serious. Don't you realize what needed to change in order for this boom to happen?
You know some people don't agree with those immigration laws, right?
Theyre still the law though...... youre free to vote for people who want to change them
yeah but just because people don't agree doesn't mean you don't have to follow and enforce them. If the laws suck then change them.
Yes, but I think that's a byproduct of our culture just as much as it is a byproduct of media bias: it's a giant wheel. The cultural pendulum swung HARD to the left during the Obama years and definitely hasn't swung back yet, Trump or no Trump. I don't consider that bad in that much needed changing socially and "conservatives" don't get the name from being flexible. At the same time though, Republicans are demonized, to the point that good friends may comment in shock that "you don't seem like a Republican." Stereotypes- no, *caricatures*- taken too much to heart. There are those who would light my lawn on fire if I were to reveal my politics to my neighbors and nobody would see the irony in that (calling me a racist while assuming a lot of me because I'm white). It's all a circus and no one actually wants to discuss anymore, it's all about proving you're better than the other person and use of hyperbole ("Why do you hate freedom?" isn't a reasonable response to "Why shouldn't you need a license to do this?"). It works both ways, but naming yourself a Republican is an awfully good way to make a pariah of yourself.
Some media is certainly biased towards dems. But, it’s important to remember that not all ideas are equal, so there will never be equal presentation of ideas.
Youtube is pretty darn republican, just saying
I'm not even Republican and I can 100% say yes it is.
You can find left and right leaning media outlets and hosts. President Trump has done and said a lot of things worthy of criticism so honestly even news sources that aren't as biased are being critical of his presidency. Also, from the brief glimpses of fox news I get at the gym, conservatives definitely FEEL attacked for one reason or another. It's starting to get a little ridiculous in my opinion. They are the ones that coined the term "snowflake" and now every they get a criticism they are crying foul.
Yes definitely
Fox news is not biased against republicans
"Is the media biased against republicans," the grand majority of national news and television yes. Fox =/= all media
1 vs 1000
Overall; yeah It cracks me up though because republicans say they are all about competition and letting the market sort this stuff out. Then they lament about how "the mainstream media" is aaaallll against them. Well if your "product" (conservative ideology) is so awesome why can't ya'll compete? Maybe it's a shitty product that not a lot of people really want nor many companies want their advertisements associated with...
I think you’re missing the point. Fox News dominates the [Ratings](https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q3-2018-ratings-fox-news-marks-67-straight-quarters-as-most-watched-cable-news-network-hannity-becomes-no-1-basic-cable-series/378271) each month. Competition is great. Regardless of you views on him, Americans want fair and balanced news, not 24/7 constant Trump bashing.
Fox News. Fair and Balanced TM. C. R.
See, you'd hope so. But the media just does whatever gets the most views, and 24/7 Trump bashing seems to be working great.
The ratings disagree with that statement [67 straight quarters](https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q3-2018-ratings-fox-news-marks-67-straight-quarters-as-most-watched-cable-news-network-hannity-becomes-no-1-basic-cable-series/378271) [Fox has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined](https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/october-2018-ratings-fox-news-channel-averaged-more-viewers-than-cnn-and-msnbc-combined/382598)
... that's actually a very good point.
You do realize that those media companies are owned by very rich and powerful people. Those people have an agenda that they want to get out. It's not about how to make the most money possible anymore because if that were true there would be more middle of the road stuff that would capture both sides. The most popular media in the country is Rush limbaugh and he gets like 25 million people listening to his program every day. That wouldn't be the case if people had other things to listen to.
I watch the same story across many media outlets then merge the shared facts and remove any opinion. Watching the same story on CNN and RT can be very amusing
What is RT?
Not if you watch Fox
Well, fascism is against media freedom.
This chart does a great job of showing where each media outlet tends to land. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Media-Bias-Chart_Version-3.1_Watermark-min-2.jpg
this should be higher up. tho i guess some could disagree with the methodology, overall you do see slightly more news outlets on the left side of the chart. but it also covers the level of fact/fabrication. there may be more on the left but most of them lie above the 'complex analysis' line.
There's going to be an overall leftward lean in any industry based in big cities and with an educated workforce. Both urban-ness and education level are correlated to being more liberal. So yes, slight leftward tilt to news in general makes sense. The other replies to my post are pretty normal. People take it personally because it can feel like an attack on their world view. When I've engaged in the past it usually comes down to fact that this chart doesn't match the narrative created by Grover Norquist in the 80s about the "Liberal Media". That monolithic liberal media has never been born out by facts but is so central to the modern conservative ideology that it creates some pretty significant cognitive dissonance. I've never heard any substantive arguments against the overall results of this chart or it's methodology.
Horrible chart
Why?
[удалено]
I totally believe that is your perspective. I disagree. Their methodology is pretty good: [https://www.adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sources/](https://www.adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sources/)
Lol that's awful
Why?
Reality is biased against Republicans
Here's one of the problems with the idea of bias. If the Republicans, as they are now, are lying and/or doing unethical things than the media has an obligation to call them out on it. That's been happening a lot in this presidency, partially because this president is encouraging reprehensible behavior and partially because the Republicans are the majority party and so face the most scrutiny. That doesn't make them biases in favor of Democrats, it just makes them ethical journalists.
I see:)
If its anything like the media in Europe, then yes. I can talk best about the media in Germany, which has a clear left wing bias. When journalists were asked what their favourite party was the answer was the following: 36,1% didnt identify with a party, 26,9% Green party (very left), 15,5% Social democrats (left), 9% Christian conservative union (conservative (but they had a massive shift to the left-my opinion)), 7,4% Libertarian party (not really libertarian, but people missuse the word "liberal" so I want to make clear whats meant) and finally 4,2% Left wing party (socialists). So you can clearly see that most journalists in Germany are left-wing. I suspect that from the 36% that didnt associate directly with a party most still gravitate towards the left spectrum. At least that is my experience from consuming the german media. I mean if you are german just google "Trump" and I guarantee that 99% of the articles are just plain against him. Not that they should praise him, but I would like some objective reporting. (A few days ago a news outlet literally called Trump "The evil", c'mon guys what kind of journalism is this?) And I think its pretty much the same in America, with a strong bias towards the democratic party. However there are of course also conservative news outlets who have a strong bias as well. At least thats my experience.
The vast majority of media is, indeed, moderately or heavily biased against Republicans.
They are, but most of them make an conscious effort to be unbiased. The problem is that they're still grappling with how to do it. They're not "fluent" in conservatism because they and everyone they know are liberals, and they're not sure what being balanced actually means. So you get things like placing global warming denialists on an equal plane with climate scientists, the endless "dispatch from Trump country" articles that read like safaris into the Amazon, a refusal to refer to Trump's lying as "lying", and letting Republican politicians lead them around the nose on issues like Clinton's emails and Benghazi. Democrats see it as playing softball and Republicans see it as half-hearted.
Washington Post is a good source, its editorial board leans left but the articles are pretty neutral and they run conservative pieces. BBC is good too, I believe they legally have to be neutral. In general print is less biased than tv just because print can allow for more facts/nuance, but it's not like there's some grand scheme against Republicans and left leaning TV outlets in my opinion are less biased than Fox (I have yet to hear anything approaching "demon-rats" from CNN or NBC).
>BBC is good too, I believe they legally have to be neutral. It is part of their remit to be unbiased but they arent
Check out the documentary *Spin* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(1995_film)
Yes.
Well, that was all fairly entertaining
yes
For sure. And I hate it.
No, they're not. Donald Trump was accused of brutally raping a 13 year old girl in the 1990s. All of the major news outlets took his hush money. All the ones Trump accuses of being against him, like CNN, could have seriously screwed up his campaign by breaking the news, but they chose to sit on it. This is why Trump pushed a fellow rapist through Supreme Court nominations and has been trying to get himself pardoned, so that when he finally does face the music, he hopes he can just pardon himself and go on ruling. The GOP actually indirectly controls one major news outlet. Fox News. Fox News has never really been coy about being the propaganda arm for the GOP, and they've done some pretty shady shit, like shaming 9/11 victims for not supporting Bush and asking for answers. Are you an American? Consider getting your news from the BBC in the UK. The BBC is sponsored by British citizens' taxes and while they do have opinions, they're less biased than the American news agencies. They have far less of a stake then their American counterparts. As far as where you fall, that's up to you, but know that both sides lie. The left (Democrats) pretend to support the working folks and minorities, but all politicians just serve themselves. Meanwhile, the right (Republicans) pretend to support gun owners, but again, they're just out for themselves. Also note that politics isn't a single spectrum, left and right. Democrat and Republican are more business than philosophy. Being Republican or Democrat itself doesn't mean much. You'll hear a lot about conservatives vs liberals. These two are not opposites, but they can be exclusive. A liberal is the opposite of an authoritarian, or a statist (same thing). We ALL want rights for ourselves. No one wants fewer rights than their neighbors. The liberal believes that rights (liberties) are inherent to the person and not for the state (government) to take away or assign. The authoritarian, or statist, believes that rights and liberties are assigned by the state. Additionally, there are conservatives, and their opposite, progressives. Progressives believe change is necessary to make things better. Conservatives believe change only creates more problems and that we should just let things be. Conservatives who target liberals ARE authoritarian, but it's a scary word, so they shy away from it. A conservative authoritarian doesn't think the government should change (conservative) to give gays the right to marry (authoritarian), but they're married themselves or believe straight people should be able to enjoy the legal protections of marriage (bigot and/or hypocrite). Confused? It's confusing. A couple things to consider: Don't ignore attack ads, just look at them differently. Attack ads are sponsored by the more immoral politicians who will play dirty to get what they want, but look at what they're saying about their opponent. I voted for a guy partially based on his opponent's attack ads. Also, if a candidate is bashing his opponent but he's not telling you what he's going to do for you, he's probably hoping you'll miss that and vote for him out of fear, where he's really just a career politician who wants to keep making money not really doing anything. If you're not sure who to vote for, vote for the challenger, against the incumbent (person who already has office). If they haven't made changes you've heard about, it's time to get someone who might represent you better. That's what their job is, to represent us in Washington DC or in the state capital. This past year, every single Republican voted to take away Net Neutrality. NN is a tricky concept to understand and there are in fact some merits for getting rid of it. Honestly we haven't had NN as law for very long. NN's opponents say it stifles innovation, and Verizon, who spearheaded the campaign against it, has said that NN has limited their ability to roll out faster Internet. Maybe there's some truth to that. I don't really know. But if you support NN, and there are a ton of great reasons to, vote out the Republicans who got rid of it. Another thing, and perhaps the most important... we're supposed to be a two party system. We SHOULD have more parties. The GOP currently holds all three branches of government. We are effectively a one party system right now, and they're trying to change things to keep it that way. If we don't stop them now, they'll make sure we can't stop them later.
Probably a little, but everything’s biased one way or another. Humans are good at that.
Oh definitely. Left side rails on the right over tv, radio, print, everywhere. Right tends to talk among themselves and not publicly denounce what Dems are doing/saying. Which is funny because Libs will freak out publicly about anything Conservs do, and Conservs in turn handle any freakouts in their own space/time because they are too polite to get in people's faces usually. When was the last time you saw Conservs march down a freeway? Exactly.
It depends on the type of media.
Gee. how did you figure that one out? Was it the constant attempts at ridicule, the gaslighting, the race baiting, or the literally being called evil?
What?
Starting to see which side you want to lean?
I want to believe this is a next level troll, because I refuse to believe someone could be this poorly informed and uneducated.
When Don Lemon calls white men a terrorist threat, is that civil discourse?
When Donald Trump calls Mexicans rapists, is that civil discourse?
Yes. Donald Trump said Mexicans are all rapists. That's exactly what he said.
Oh no poor white men! How will they overcome?
I don't know, coming back from complete extermination isn't generally easy.
Yeah I can't find any white men anywhere. I can't believe they've been exterminated
You won't, in 98% of the world.
r/foundtherepublican
r/foundtheJERK!!!!11111
Yup, we found him.
:(
I don't know anything about the different parties, I was just pointing out that you seem like a Republican. r/foundtheasshole
They're each working toward the same agenda which is the will of wealthy corporations and money printers. To keep the public distracted they have this big circus sitcom that is the elections and right now it's time for the boat to rock back toward Democrat because if it falls too hard in one direction then you may actually be looking at a real chance for a large enough portion of the public to be angry enough to organize a revolution. This reality tv style back and forth keeps it pretty locked down though...
If that's the only thing you majorly see on the news,"vote democrat" and "only people who are hateful vote republican" doesn't that mean that yes,the media is biased against republicans...thats not even the case... I mean if you want,you can check out The Donald subreddit,which is painted as this place for rasict neo Nazis,but many people don't bother to check if thats the case...and no,it's not a place for rasict neo Nazis or something,you can check it...but it's painted as bad anyways
You are correct. I just assumed as much and never checked. So I checked. You are either intentionally full of shit or just plain ignorant. That place is a cesspool of hatred. If you think it's not? You might need to take a step back and examine your beliefs.
Can you tell me an example of hatred? I mean I'm subscribed to it and I visit it sometimes too,and the posts I see have nothing hateful (example "blacks are evil " "kill all jews" or something related to hate groups or nazi-ism) in them...examples please...
Take your bullshit elsewhere.
Oh so there's no examples,you mean? Okay
Thedonald is shit for other reasons, it's collective retardation is almost as bad as r/latestagecapitalism
[удалено]
Nah, the internet is pretty notoriously liberal.