« prev   random   next »

1
4

MEDIA BIAS IS MOSTLY RIGHT WING --professor at Princeton

By jazz_music following x   2019 Mar 8, 6:29pm 1,248 views   48 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


This article completely ignores talk radio which is nearly 100% right wing and a synchronized warm-up aspect for Fox news-propaganda cycle daily which frame current events to confirm GOP talking points.

Where Does the Right-Wing End and the Media Begin?
Economist Paul Krugman on how the right-wing media machine is destroying social progress.

Rory O'Connor / AlterNetOctober 26, 2007
I had the opportunity to sit down this week with one of America’s top economists, Paul Krugman, who of course doubles as an influential op-ed columnist for the New York Times. It’s more than a bit surprising when the guy from the New York Times sounds more radical than anyone else in the room, but Krugman and his twice-weekly column have been more consistently surprising and radically different than anything else allowed to appear in the Times (or indeed anywhere else in the so-called “mainstream media”) for so long that even Krugman himself no longer seems surprised by the force of his own outrage.

He certainly pulled no punches during our conversation, stating in a forthright manner his opinions on such controversial topics as truth and lies in the newsroom (“The Big Lies are all on the right”), media bias (“A large part of it is in fact right-wing bias, because they are effectively part of the right wing”) and corporate pressure (“It’s very clear that when the parent companies of the major news sources have issues at stake before the federal government … this definitely influences the coverage.) Perhaps the fact that he’s a tenured professor at Princeton — and not a professional journalist still on the make — has freed Krugman to speak truth to naked emperors and Times readers on a biweekly basis.

We spoke at the beginning of a national publicity tour for Krugman’s latest book, The Conscience of a Liberal, which ranges over the history of the past century to explain what went wrong in America — and then attempts to point the way to a “new New Deal.” Part of what went wrong with America, of course, was the role played in our democracy by the mass media, as Krugman recognized and parsed in one chapter in his book entitled “Weapons of Mass Distraction.”

***

Rory O’ Connor: You speak in your book about “movement conservatism,” which you call a “radical new force in American politics that took over the Republican Party.” What role if any do the media play in movement conservatism?

Paul Krugman: The media are a very important force in it. They shape perceptions, and they conceal issues. Look at the 2000 presidential campaign, for example, where the media were so heavily biased against Al Gore. That’s what brought Bush to within a Supreme Court decision of the White House. So if you look at, certainly these last seven years, the role of the media in not telling you reasons why you should be skeptical about the course of the war, for example, it’s enormously important.

We have a situation right now in which there are several major parts of the news media that are for all practical purposes part of “movement conservatism” — Fox News, the New York Post, the Washington Times — and in which other news organizations are intimidated, at least to some extent. I sometimes talk about what I call “asymmetrical intimidation.” If you say a true but unflattering thing about Bush or in fact about any other prominent conservative, oh, boy! People are going to go after you. I mean, I’ve got people working full-time going after me, right? But if you say a false, unflattering thing about a Democrat or a progressive, no risk … And that shapes coverage, no question about it. It’s better now, but it’s still very asymmetric. The other thing we should mention about the media is their addiction to the trivial. We’ve got the most substantive election coming up, I think, ever. We’ve got clear differences on policies between parties. And what are we seeing news stories about? John Edwards’ hair and Hillary Clinton’s laugh … this is horrifying! And again — it’s asymmetric. I can think of lots of unflattering things to say about any of the Republican candidates — Mitt Romney’s saying his sons are serving the country by helping him get elected! — but it doesn’t get nearly as much play in the media.

ROC: It sounds like you’re saying there’s a bias in the media. If you are, what is the bias?

PK: The media’s bias, a large part of it is in fact right-wing bias, because they are effectively part of the right wing. Fox News … there’s nothing like Fox News on other television networks that you can look at. There is no liberal equivalent of Fox News, there is no network that, if a conservative got the Nobel Peace Prize, would have responded the way Fox News did to Al Gore’s Peace Prize, by first saying nothing at all, then when they figured out the line, talking about how fat he is … So there’s no correspondence there.

Beyond that, there’s two things at least; first, the hatred of substance — they really want to talk about all that trivia — and there’s also the fetish of evenhandedness. If one candidate says something that’s completely false, and the other something that’s true, the media will say, “Some people believe what that guy said was false, and some people say it was true.” Way back in the 2000 campaign, I wrote a piece in which I said that if Bush said the earth was flat, the headline would read: “Opinions Differ on Shape of the Planet.” I was thinking specifically about what Bush was saying about taxes and Social Security, which were just out and out lies! But no one would say that, and they still won’t. It’s better now, a little, but they still won’t say it, and that tends — I imagine in some future environment that might work to the advantage of some dishonest candidates on the left — but the fact of the matter is the Big Lies are all on the right right now. So it works much more to their advantage.

ROC: Do you think it’s possible that economics is driving politics in the media?

PK: The role of economics in driving the media is an interesting one. One question is simply, “Do they respond to what sells?” And to some extent the focus on the trivial is there due to that. And also, by the way, talking heads screaming at each other is a lot cheaper than actually having reporters out in the field doing reporting, so that’s one reason why you get that.

I guess the question that you want to ask is, “To what extent is news coverage biased by the corporate interest of the parents?” And that’s hard to pin down in any direct way, but one of the interesting things that you notice right now is the remarkable reluctance of some of the networks to follow what the viewer ship numbers seem to be saying. I mean, look at Olbermann’s show versus anything else at MSNBC, for example. Why aren’t there more programs like that? Why is CNN still trying to be Fox Lite, when you clearly can’t outfox Fox and there clearly seems to be a bigger market opportunity on the other side? And you really do start to think that — there probably aren’t, at networks other than Fox, there probably aren’t memos saying here is how we are going to slant the news today — at Fox there are, every day. But there’s probably this general sort of pressure to go for the views that won’t upset the CEO of the firm that controls the network that has a lot of business interests that are best served by one side or the other … so yes, this is a problem.

ROC: So deregulation, consolidation and corporate issues like that might affect news coverage?

PK: Oh sure. It’s very clear that when the parent companies of the major news sources have issues at stake before the federal government — and if one party controls the White House and both houses of Congress, and has made it very clear that it keeps lists and remembers who its friend and not-so-friend are — this definitely influences the coverage. A lot of people I talk to in the media say that they have received pressure in ways that only seem to make sense if you think that at some level management — not the guys that think about audience shares but the guys who think about broader concerns — are taking into account the political liabilities. Which is one reason why it is remarkable, although it’s still not what I want, that the news coverage has gotten a whole lot better — funny, no? — after the polls really turned the other way.

ROC: In your book, you talk about the media’s use of “storylines” and what you’ve called the “Rambofication of history.”

PK: Yes, I’m rather proud of the term “Rambofication.” In the years immediately following Vietnam, all of this stuff that now seems so much a part of the story — that we lost the war because we were stabbed in the back, that the “weak” politicians, the Democrats, can’t be trusted on national security — wasn’t very much out there. I actually went back and looked at a lot of polling and what people had to say at the time. In 1977, people still remembered what Vietnam had actually been like, and why we needed to get the heck out of there.

It wasn’t really until the 1980s that the history began to be re-invented, so if only we’d let Sylvester Stallone flex his muscles, we could have gone back and won the war. The idea of Democrats as “weak” on national security really got invented then — and you know there were a couple of events that played into that, such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, which I really don’t think had much to do with Reagan, but helped make the storyline. So when 9/11 came along, the realities of 9/11 were that the Clinton people had been working pretty hard to try to so something about Bin Laden, and the Bushies said as soon as they came in, “We’re not interested, we want to think about a war with China.” But the storyline that the media fell into was that, “We’re the tough guys, the other guys neglected it.” And that gave them a good run — they won two elections, in ’02 and ’04, which I think otherwise they would have lost — by playing on this notion of “We’re strong, and they’re weak.” I guess the sort of good news is that they have done such an incredibly terrible job at all of that that we may have at least a while before all that scare tactic stuff comes back.

ROC: Or we may hear in four years how the Democrats “lost Iraq.”

PK: I’m worried, obviously. Clearly, if it’s a Democrat who withdraws from Iraq, which it appears likely it will be, then it will be more of the, “We were winning, we were on the edge of victory, then they stabbed us in the back …”

ROC: “They spit on our soldiers …”

PK: Yeah, that’s amazing, the “spitting on our soldiers” thing — because it never happened, there are no documented cases — but it became part of the storyline. Will that happen again? Certainly they’ll do their damnedest to make it happen …

I guess I’m more optimistic about the American public, that it will take a lot more than four years, for us to see that again, because it took more than four years after Vietnam, and right now the American public has a pretty good sense of just what a disaster that’s all been … I think people have made up their minds that this is a disaster. Maybe 10 years from now, they’ll have forgotten and be willing to, you know, see movies in which some heroic guy goes back and wins the Iraq war but … not for a while anyway.

ROC: Well, I’m more of a Mencken disciple when it comes to the American public, but I hope you’re right.

PK: I hope I’m right too!

https://www.alternet.org/2007/10/where_does_the_right-wing_end_and_the_media_begin/

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/part-2-of-4-why-measuring-political-bias-is-so-hard-and-how-we-can-do-it-anyway-the-media-bias-chart-horizontal-axis/

« First    « Previous    Comments 9 - 48 of 48    Last »

9   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2019 Mar 8, 7:02pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

jazz_music says
I hope I’m right too!


Sadly, no you're not.

Here, need accuracy, try this chart:

10   theoakman   ignore (0)   2019 Mar 8, 8:42pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Paul Krugman raving about Argentina's economic growth in 2012. Very distinguished.

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/down-argentina-way/
11   jazz_music   ignore (7)   2019 Mar 8, 11:22pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The pigheaded arrogance around here is just amazing when you look at how somebody with some real world achievements and recognition is judged and dismissed with a girlish taunt
12   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Mar 9, 6:48am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MrMagic says
There you go folks... Liberal tolerance at it's finest. Why do certain people love to live in their own self-induced echo chambers?


Lame argument - been around since 2013 and no doubt before that - nothing to do with intolerance.

Refer to comments #10 and #17 on this thread: http://patrick.net/post/1322853/2019-03-05-does-social-status-still-matter-at-a-certain-age

At best an ignore list is a slowdown or stopgap measure to try to avoid having threads run completely over run with stupid which is really what the whining is about.

Can't get in at will and upset someone's thread with nonsense and turn it political - whine, cry and allege "intolerance".

The "ban" needs to come back. Then the whining can go into overdrive.
13   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2019 Mar 9, 8:35am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MrMagic says


There you go folks... Liberal tolerance at it's finest. Why do certain people love to live in their own self-induced echo chambers?


That is gaslighting. If you look at TPB's history all he does is echo right wing conspiracy theories. Why do I want to discuss anything with someone like that.
15   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2019 Mar 9, 12:42pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
That is gaslighting. If you look at TPB's Tim Aurora's history all he does is echo right LEFT wing conspiracy theories. Why do I want to discuss anything with someone like that.


See what happens when you change two words. Your post is called "projecting".

And you're right, why would you want to discuss anything with someone who spew radical, Left wing crap all the time?
16   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Mar 9, 1:06pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Since I am too lazy to log off and see what has been typed or take the respondent off ignore to see it, going to guess whatever nonsense has been typed for comment 15 once again confirms comments #10 and #17 on this this thread: http://patrick.net/post/1322853/2019-03-05-does-social-status-still-matter-at-a-certain-age
17   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Mar 9, 2:07pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

theoakman says
Paul Krugman raving about Argentina's economic growth in 2012. Very distinguished.

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/down-argentina-way/


Classic Krugman. Wrong on Everything.

The Argentine Economy moved sideways for the next few years.
18   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2019 Mar 9, 2:35pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Kakistocracy says
Since I am too lazy to log off and see what has been typed or take the respondent off ignore to see it, going to guess whatever nonsense has been typed for comment 15 once again confirms


Confirms what, that you'll just continue to spam the forum and choose to hide behind ignore from people who propose a different point of view than you offer? Sounds just like MORE Liberal tolerance on display, if you can't handle an opposing position and choose to live in a echo chamber.
19   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2019 Mar 9, 4:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MrMagic says
And you're right, why would you want to discuss anything with someone who spew radical, Left wing crap all the time?


Of all the right wingers I have only ignored TPB. It is because we do not agree on facts. If you want I can leave this forum.
20   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Mar 9, 4:44pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
If you want I can leave this forum.


Don't. That is the goal.

My reasons for people on ignore are pretty much the same as Bellingham Bill, Dan and others.

Go back and look at the comment history for some of the respondents - thinly disguised, it at all, personal attacks in one way shape form or another or utter nonsense.

Should the personal attack not be an option or someone is pressed for time - hysterically scream TDS, Orange Man Bad etc. and wait for the "likes" to roll in
21   MAGA_BOMBER   ignore (3)   2019 Mar 9, 11:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MrMagic says
jazz_music says
I hope I’m right too!


Sadly, no you're not.

Here, need accuracy, try this chart:


That one presents no data at all, merely assertion.

It's you!
22   CBOEtrader   ignore (5)   2019 Mar 10, 6:15am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Kakistocracy says
Don't. That is the goal.


I want far more diversity if thought in the discussions. I would like to see the best case for contradictory opinions.

Unfortunately the left today has echo-chambered thenselves into thinking their argument is de-facto made for them via the press. Trump is apparently a liar, tyrant, etc... and this much is so obvious to the left that the base criticisms for which all other arguments are launched have never been supported or properly argued.

https://quillette.com/2018/03/10/psychology-progressive-hostility/

Reducing the right to "racist" fosters an ignorant echo chamber in the left, which is not found in the right.
24   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Mar 10, 7:25am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
I want far more diversity if thought in the discussions. I would like to see the best case for contradictory opinions.

Unfortunately the left today has echo-chambered thenselves into thinking their argument is de-facto made for them via the press. Trump is apparently a liar, tyrant, etc... and this much is so obvious to the left that the base criticisms for which all other arguments are launched have never been supported or properly argued.


That would be nice if it happened - unfortunately that is not the case and not every thread has to be about politics and or Trump but that also seems to be the de-facto case on the forum.

Only to be outdone by the enticing someone to look for supporting data to back up there position which will immediately get attacked as a nothing burger etc. while escalating the attacks on the position and now going after the person themselves.

When all else fails and attacking the position or person isn't working - make the thread political and turn it into one more political shit storm totally devoid of what ever the original topic was about.
25   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Mar 10, 7:27am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Reducing the right to "racist" fosters an ignorant echo chamber in the left, which is not found in the right.


Reducing the left to Commies, SJWs, Liars, Libbies, Libruls, Losers, Snowflakes, Socialists, etc. - those type of comments from the regulars on the forum in the echo chamber of the right ?

That's the type of shit Potus engages in on twitter.

Does anyone from the base find it curious that any time Trump is criticized for something, his immediate response is not to answer the criticism, but instead to start calling the critic names. It's like he never left the school yard.

Almost as if Potus was following along with some of the threads here....
26   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2019 Mar 10, 7:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says

Unfortunately the left today has echo-chambered thenselves into thinking their argument is de-facto made for them via the press. Trump is apparently a liar, tyrant, etc


It is very hard to have a discussion if people have different facts. Opinions and even spin can be argued against. Facts ( wrong ones) and conspiracy theories , I do not have time to discuss them.
27   CBOEtrader   ignore (5)   2019 Mar 10, 9:22am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
CBOEtrader says

Unfortunately the left today has echo-chambered thenselves into thinking their argument is de-facto made for them via the press. Trump is apparently a liar, tyrant, etc


It is very hard to have a discussion if people have different facts. Opinions and even spin can be argued against. Facts ( wrong ones) and conspiracy theories , I do not have time to discuss them.


That's fair. I also havent seen you try to make the point that Trump is behaving [racist, sexist, liar, anti-gay...] enter your generic ism.

If you do, you should make the case w facts.

Unfortunately too many leftists just resort to the predominant MSM opinions as too obvious to challenge, AKA the washpo Trump lie list. Smfh.
28   CBOEtrader   ignore (5)   2019 Mar 10, 9:31am   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Kakistocracy says
Reducing the left to Commies, SJWs, Liars, Libbies, Libruls, Losers, Snowflakes, Socialists, etc. - those type of comments from the regulars on the forum in the echo chamber of the right ?


Did you read the article? The right may label the same as the left. That's called communicating as a human.

However people on the right are forced to hear and understand the left's arguments. The left doesnt even try to understanding the right. This is due to the default propaganda setting in high school/college/MSM/Hollywood being leftist.

" conservatives see an unfortunate world of moral trade-offs in which every moral judgment comes with costs that must be properly balanced. Progressives, on the other hand, seem to be blind to, or in denial about, these trade-offs, whether economic and social; theirs is a utopian or unconstrained vision, in which every moral grievance must be immediately extinguished until we have perfected society. This is why conservatives don’t tend to express the same emotional hostility as the Left; a deeper grasp of the world’s complexity has the effect of encouraging intellectual humility. The conservative hears the progressive’s latest demands and says, “I can see how you might come to that conclusion, but I think you’ve overlooked the following…” In contrast, the progressive hears the conservative and thinks, “I have no idea why you would believe that. You’re probably a racist"
29   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2019 Mar 10, 10:44am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Kakistocracy says
That would be nice if it happened - unfortunately that is not the case and not every thread has to be about politics and or Trump but that also seems to be the de-facto case on the forum.


If your posts aren't negative about Trump or #OrangeManBad, then they are normally anti-American. America Bad, America Evil, Capitalism Evil.... the pattern is clear.

Kakistocracy says
CBOEtrader says
Reducing the right to "racist" fosters an ignorant echo chamber in the left, which is not found in the right.


Reducing the left to Commies, SJWs, Liars, Libbies, Libruls, Losers, Snowflakes, Socialists, etc. - those type of comments from the regulars on the forum in the echo chamber of the right ?


Have you been paying attention to the left echo chamber comments by the regular radical Left wing posters here? Doesn't look like it. They are definitely a lot worse.

Even worse, those same left wing posters hide behind ignore so they don't have to engage other posters. That the clinical definition of Living in a Echo Chamber.
30   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2019 Mar 10, 10:45am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Kakistocracy says
Reducing the left to Commies, SJWs, Liars, Libbies, Libruls, Losers, Snowflakes, Socialists, etc. - those type of comments from the regulars on the forum in the echo chamber of the right ?

That's the type of shit Potus engages in on twitter.

Does anyone from the base find it curious that any time Trump is criticized for something, his immediate response is not to answer the criticism, but instead to start calling the critic names. It's like he never left the school yard.

Almost as if Potus was following along with some of the threads here....

+1
31   CBOEtrader   ignore (5)   2019 Mar 10, 10:57am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
+1


Why do you deny science?
32   Quigley   ignore (0)   2019 Mar 10, 11:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
. If you want I can leave this forum.


We may not agree on much, but I don’t find your posts aggravating or dishonest. Often they are enlightening at least for the opposite perspective. I don’t think you should leave.
33   Quigley   ignore (0)   2019 Mar 10, 11:13am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Kakistocracy says
Almost as if Potus was following along with some of the threads here....


I doubt Trump reads Patnet, but I’m fairly convinced that at least one of his advisors does. Too often we’ve proposed a spin or an idea on here and he’s tweeted the same thing the following day or week.
Ideas get around.
34   Quigley   ignore (0)   2019 Mar 10, 11:16am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
However people on the right are forced to hear and understand the left's arguments. The left doesnt even try to understanding the right. This is due to the default propaganda setting in high school/college/MSM/Hollywood being leftist.


Yes. I find it amusing that Left wing conservatives can’t even comprehend the POV of right wing or even classical liberals. It’s a true failure in both education and imagination. That’s why studies show right wing voters to be more informed than left wing voters.
36   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2019 Mar 10, 5:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Why do you deny science?


And which science are we talking about. Earth is round, Climate is changing or anything else
37   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Mar 10, 7:24pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

When you're a left wing professor who thinks the Swedish Feminists aren't Woke and Socialist Enough, dailykos looks conservative.
39   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2019 Mar 11, 3:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

jazz_music says
The media’s bias, a large part of it is in fact right-wing bias


Paul Krugman is obviously biased here. What about CNN and MSNBC? If he doesn't see a heavily distorted bias on those networks then he isn't being objective. FOX is the only right-wing major network and conservatives are inundated with left-wing biased news everyday. If you were a conservative you would see it. Most reporters are dems, so to sit there and say the media has a right-wing bias is disingenous and false.
40   jazz_music   ignore (7)   2019 Mar 11, 7:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

WillPowers says
What about CNN and MSNBC?

the 2018 data shows MSNBC hyper-partisan to the left yet presenting some analysis and opinion using fair persuasion.

Your opinion may differ yet not by a large margin.

Media may distort news by simply not covering it. Like I pointed out the other Wednesday. Fox spent all day and night laughing at Democratic hopefuls for 2 years from now and also fawning over Trump's failed summit with Kim 12,000 miles away from the Congressional hearing. His motive was adding the Nobel Prize to the Trump brand; FAIL, and so Kim really got a lot out of that summit.

All that bias without ever even saying a word, the day is just gone. To be fair they did feature the Hearing in snarky crawl line which looked like dismissal to me.

I watched Fox that day and it was a jaw-dropping experience as ever.
43   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Mar 13, 12:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

So I need SPF 5000 to take a swim, and Miami and Manhattan is under water and the Federated States of Micronesia and Nauru have entirely disappeared?
44   WaltertheoFlanders   ignore (0)   2019 Mar 14, 6:57am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MisterLearnToCode says
So I need SPF 5000 to take a swim


Where can I pick some of that stuff up?
45   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2019 Mar 14, 6:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Kakistocracy says
Reducing the left to Commies, SJWs, Liars, Libbies, Libruls, Losers, Snowflakes, Socialists, etc

Just callin' them like we see them.
46   Goran_K   ignore (2)   2019 Mar 14, 7:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
Kakistocracy says
Reducing the left to Commies, SJWs, Liars, Libbies, Libruls, Losers, Snowflakes, Socialists, etc

Just callin' them like we see them.


I’ll wait for someone to recommend just ONE moderate lefty that has any sway on MSM.
47   jazz_music   ignore (7)   2019 Mar 14, 10:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Fox News is shown to be over 60% lies, deliberate misdirections and manipulations.

This is more than any other network. And Fox is the largest audience because the cable carriers do not have to pay for Fox as long as they show it 24/7 unlike the other MSM where payment is required.
48   jazz_music   ignore (7)   2019 Mar 14, 10:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Now here are several people calling out Fox for lying, because if you look at the above and believe it you would feel the opposite is true.

« First    « Previous    Comments 9 - 48 of 48    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions