CNN getting a taste of its own medicine

Post Reply New Topic

Of course you do.

So climate change, or the fact that the President had been born on American soil, or even that the Clintons and Lady GaGa are not really involved in a pedophile sex ring in a pizza shop's basement is a baseless charge, is somehow wrong on my part because I'm swayed by my political liberalism?
Conservatives are free to believe any fictions they want, but I have to draw the line when fake news stories inspire insane idiots to shoot up places of business, or removing the teaching of evolution from school science books, or when school shootings are called false flag operations complete with actors playing grieving parents, because that's when tinfoil hat conspiracy theories can hurt others, either physically, educationally, or emotionally. That's the difference between real news from CNN, and the fake news on alt right sites like Breitbart or the Heritage Foundation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 96d4078261

WaPo is hardly a bastion of conservatism, so I'm going to say that their 5/1 in favor of liberals number is likely to be if anything, low on the imbalance.



I don't know whether to laugh at you or cry.



I'm a libertarian living in Seattle who went to alternative high school here and gunsmithing school in Denver; you aren't going to win a pissing contest regarding who's been more exposed to alternative viewpoints. My Facebook feed is literally social justice people debating whether trans-women have residual male privilege next to gun people discussing whether k-baffles or mono-cores work better for first round pop in a silencer, and all of them would agree that academia is largely liberal. They might disagree as the extent and what if any problems this causes, but no one would argue against something so obvious and known.



Good for them. Say, that sounds an awful lot like anecdotal evidence; as a person who respects science so much and all, you wouldn't try to argue that anecdotal evidence trumps research, would you?

http://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opini ... rance.html



A very useful idiot.



http://theweek.com/articles/441474/how- ... al-science



Wow, are you authoring studies in your spare time, cause that's almost you word for word.

I can keep going if you want, there's about as much evidence for liberal bias in academia as there is for climate change.

You're missing my point here Bill, it's not about those stories, it's about you uncritically swallowing some information while rejecting other sources, while claiming that it has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with facts that you don't actually have. I don't reject pizzagate because of where the story came from, I reject it because the facts don't support it, while I'd be willing to bet a sizable sum that you never actually looked at the emails or the so called "evidence" of the conspiracy before dismissing it out of hand because of where the story came from and who it implicated. Sure, it seems crazy on the face, but sometimes there's actually something there, though clearly not in this case.



But it's totally different when liberal conspiracy theorists, say, block GMO foods that could improve the lives of millions because of what really comes down to prejudice and superstition? Don't act as if conservatives have a monopoly on these things, they don't.



You're in no position to make that determination, and you wouldn't know it if you were.

Fox and Breitbart are awful, but so are liberal news sites.

Time and time again I've seen progressive news agencies slander large groups of people (though I can't be sure if they do it on purpsoe or if they are just that ignorant about the people they claim to have the facts on) and label them as irredeemable rather than actually report on the facts, calling them names like basement dwellers, virgins etc (as if living condition or not having had sex makes them bad (though let's face it, "normal" people actually do think like that)).

It's not just the right that pulls that kind of crap, it goes both ways. Honestly I wish the entire news industry would just crash and burn so we could start over with better guidelines and less clickbait.

I love how some people only believe that "liberal media" is propaganda news and that somehow conservative news is propaganda free.

Rubbing a couple brain cells together should tell you how absurd it is to believe that one is propaganda yet somehow the other isn't also propaganda filled.

Corporate media is all full of propaganda. CNN, MSMBC and Fox are all corporate media propaganda outlets.

The lacks of facts and misinformation, and the source of misinformation, are indivisible.

It's how you use data that makes it factually incorrect...like a that spurious line graph puporting that college professors are becoming increasingly liberal. I've worked with university professors all my life and the only cause they are "all" passionate about is their own research. If you cherry pick you can pick a sample that are concerned about climate change, or black lives matter but that doesn't make them environmentalist or socialists like your nutcase "Briebart news" would gleefully claim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 3c72f8a13e

What a crock...liberal or far left is quite a wide definition. Here in Australia a large number of wealthy people are conservationists and are concerned about environmental issues and the conservation or retention of native flora and fauna. You get this in Europe as well where landed gentry/landowners are heavily involved in conservation projects and reforestation. This doesn't make them socialist pinko lefties by any stretch of the imagination.

Sir, you forget, you're talking about 'Murricans. Most of us don't give a sh!t what others think about us, since we're always right, and everyone else is always wrong, even when you're right.

Yes of course. You guys still have the biggest...guns...my bad

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. While I was in graduate school, studying to become a librarian (and if you want to talk about a large group of liberal wing nuts, it's the American Library Association), the big discussion in providing reference services to the public (especially after the failure of what the Pratt Library in Baltimore City, and, to a lesser extent, Baltimore County Public Library System was trying to do at the time. (Baltimore City and Baltimore County are 2 distinct government entities. Baltimore City derives no funding from Baltimore County, and vice versa.), was something that Tom Childers, the long-time professor of reference service in the School of Library and Information Science at Drexel University gave him nightmares, namely, the common ownership of both content AND conduit. Now, 30 years later, his nightmare has come true. For example, let's look at basic cable TV service. You have Comcast, which owns NBC/Universal, followed by TimeWarner/Turner (and I've never trusted anything the Mouth from the South has ever been associated with, including Jane Fonda), Fox (and I never cared for Rupert Murdoch either, especially after how he ruined the NY Daily News, The Chicago Sun-Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Times of London, VIACOM (formerly owned by CBS (which was formerly Westinghouse Broadcasting, which was formerly CBS-Paramount, which was formerly CBS), ABC/Disney, and Discovery Networks.

In short, the flow of (dis)information is now being controlled by a handful of corporations. Why so few? We can thank the Reagan Administration for all of the consolidation, under the guise of increased competition.

Rupert Murdoch runs the US, UK and Australian newsmedia
George Soros runs the stock market

monopoly anyone?

Perhaps we need a new trust buster like Teddy Roosevelt.