The Myth of the Liberal Media & Liberal Corporations

[BullBuchanan]

The idea that a corporation and/or news organization would have any sort of intentional political agenda that did not directly correlate to their bottom line has always been absurd at face value. The "media" is just a company like any other and they have a product that they sell in which they wish to get the maximum return for the minimum investment possible. They don't care whether their employees, partners, or customers are fascists or anarchists - only that it serves to generate them money. Certain brands, like Fox and MSNBC have carved out partisan ecosystems for themselves, but that's more a function of market niche in pursuit of the aforementioned financial returns, than any stoic principle they'll proudly stand for in the face of economic demise.
 

In spite of all of that, those on the extreme right have continued to demand that media, big tech, and whatever corporation features a gay couple in a commercial is somehow a liberal institution instead of one that just understands how to maximize returns. They do this, while accused liberally biased companies like Facebook, pull shenanigans like this: 

"Mark Zuckerberg said banning Steve Bannon from the platform for advocating for the beheading of Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI director Christopher Wray is 'not what our policies would suggest'"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-said-banning-steve-172706111.html

Zuckerberg, one of the world's richest people, is not anything remotely resembling the kind of "liberal" the right has defined in recent years. He may actually be a "neo-liberal" by definition, but then again so are most of the GOP who support corporatism, either openly or behind closed doors. 

This idea of "liberal" media is a nice 2 for 1 that tries to vaguely define political enemies in an Animal Farm type structure along with something even more insidious. Anyone that's ever spent time around their racist uncles can remember when The Liberal Media used to run by a different anti-Semitic moniker. Replacing it with the world "liberal" gets the same point across while being a little more socially acceptable at kids birthday parties and holidays. Much the same can be said for the whole George Soros fascination from the right. They can do all of this with a straight face because Fox News & the church told them they should feign support for a corrupt war criminal in Netanyahu and that means that they aren't bigots. Bravo!

It's high time we started putting meaning back in words, because  as Inigo Montoya would say:





 

[RochesterRob]

3 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

The idea that a corporation and/or news organization would have any sort of intentional political agenda that did not directly correlate to their bottom line has always been absurd at face value. The "media" is just a company like any other and they have a product that they sell in which they wish to get the maximum return for the minimum investment possible. They don't care whether their employees, partners, or customers are fascists or anarchists - only that it serves to generate them money. Certain brands, like Fox and MSNBC have carved out partisan ecosystems for themselves, but that's more a function of market niche in pursuit of the aforementioned financial returns, than any stoic principle they'll proudly stand for in the face of economic demise.
 

In spite of all of that, those on the extreme right have continued to demand that media, big tech, and whatever corporation features a gay couple in a commercial is somehow a liberal institution instead of one that just understands how to maximize returns. They do this, while accused liberally biased companies like Facebook, pull shenanigans like this: 

"Mark Zuckerberg said banning Steve Bannon from the platform for advocating for the beheading of Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI director Christopher Wray is 'not what our policies would suggest'"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-said-banning-steve-172706111.html

Zuckerberg, one of the world's richest people, is not anything remotely resembling the kind of "liberal" the right has defined in recent years. He may actually be a "neo-liberal" by definition, but then again so are most of the GOP who support corporatism, either openly or behind closed doors. 

This idea of "liberal" media is a nice 2 for 1 that tries to vaguely define political enemies in an Animal Farm type structure along with something even more insidious. Anyone that's ever spent time around their racist uncles can remember when The Liberal Media used to run by a different anti-Semitic moniker. Replacing it with the world "liberal" gets the same point across while being a little more socially acceptable at kids birthday parties and holidays. Much the same can be said for the whole George Soros fascination from the right. They can do all of this with a straight face because Fox News & the church told them they should feign support for a corrupt war criminal in Netanyahu and that means that they aren't bigots. Bravo!

It's high time we started putting meaning back in words, because  as Inigo Montoya would say:





 

  Seek out professional help at once.  No one believes your bull plop other than the like minded sycophants that populate the board here.  Go back to pretending that you are some rich socialite that moonlights here to enlighten the less fortunate or some other fantasy that you may have.  Such as saving Hillary from the evil king who stole the throne.  

[BullBuchanan]

4 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Seek out professional help at once.  No one believes your bull plop other than the like minded sycophants that populate the board here.  Go back to pretending that you are some rich socialite that moonlights here to enlighten the less fortunate or some other fantasy that you may have.  Such as saving Hillary from the evil king who stole the throne.  

I'm taking the under on you ever actually contributing a post of substance, Westside4. 

[RochesterRob]

11 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

I'm taking the under on you ever actually contributing a post of substance, Westside4. 

  That's right.  Tear down or discredit things that you do not understand.  That aside since the schism this board has become an interesting study in sociology. A couple generations ago guys like you would have been shunned to the corner of the neighborhood bar barely allowed in only because of the long held belief of because you have a penis you need a retreat from your household.  Today you have the platform to find like minded fools in WNY and points beyond.  You lucked out as to when you were born.  In 1975 you would have had a couple of stale beers still in the can tossed your way as a measure to shut your pie hole.

[TBBills]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  That's right.  Tear down or discredit things that you do not understand.  That aside since the schism this board has become an interesting study in sociology. A couple generations ago guys like you would have been shunned to the corner of the neighborhood bar barely allowed in only because of the long held belief of because you have a penis you need a retreat from your household.  Today you have the platform to find like minded fools in WNY and points beyond.  You lucked out as to when you were born.  In 1975 you would have had a couple of stale beers still in the can tossed your way as a measure to shut your pie hole.

The irony of this...

[RochesterRob]

2 minutes ago, TBBills said:

The irony of this...

  As applied to yourself?  Yes, I can see it.

[TBBills]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  As applied to yourself?  Yes, I can see it.

Look, he did it again!

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

The idea that a corporation and/or news organization would have any sort of intentional political agenda that did not directly correlate to their bottom line has always been absurd at face value. The "media" is just a company like any other and they have a product that they sell in which they wish to get the maximum return for the minimum investment possible. They don't care whether their employees, partners, or customers are fascists or anarchists - only that it serves to generate them money. Certain brands, like Fox and MSNBC have carved out partisan ecosystems for themselves, but that's more a function of market niche in pursuit of the aforementioned financial returns, than any stoic principle they'll proudly stand for in the face of economic demise.
 

In spite of all of that, those on the extreme right have continued to demand that media, big tech, and whatever corporation features a gay couple in a commercial is somehow a liberal institution instead of one that just understands how to maximize returns. They do this, while accused liberally biased companies like Facebook, pull shenanigans like this: 

"Mark Zuckerberg said banning Steve Bannon from the platform for advocating for the beheading of Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI director Christopher Wray is 'not what our policies would suggest'"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-said-banning-steve-172706111.html

Zuckerberg, one of the world's richest people, is not anything remotely resembling the kind of "liberal" the right has defined in recent years. He may actually be a "neo-liberal" by definition, but then again so are most of the GOP who support corporatism, either openly or behind closed doors. 

This idea of "liberal" media is a nice 2 for 1 that tries to vaguely define political enemies in an Animal Farm type structure along with something even more insidious. Anyone that's ever spent time around their racist uncles can remember when The Liberal Media used to run by a different anti-Semitic moniker. Replacing it with the world "liberal" gets the same point across while being a little more socially acceptable at kids birthday parties and holidays. Much the same can be said for the whole George Soros fascination from the right. They can do all of this with a straight face because Fox News & the church told them they should feign support for a corrupt war criminal in Netanyahu and that means that they aren't bigots. Bravo!

It's high time we started putting meaning back in words, because  as Inigo Montoya would say:





 

It’s very stupid, yet the whole right is built upon the idea that “The Media” is out to get them. Fox News runs with any story anywhere of a dark skinned person committing a crime. It’s just a bunch of rich guys tricking the rubes into supporting the oligarchs agenda. That so many whites are totally racist makes it all so easy. 

[BullBuchanan]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

It’s very stupid, yet the whole right is built upon the idea that “The Media” is out to get them. Fox News runs with any story anywhere of a dark skinned person committing a crime. It’s just a bunch of rich guys tricking the rubes into supporting the oligarchs agenda. That so many whites are totally racist makes it all so easy. 

Fox's recent out of character rebuffing of late-stage Trumpism should be seen as further evidence. They were anti-Trump in the beginning until it served their interests to jump full on the bandwagon, and now they're hedging their bets that they may need to be looked as as a more moderate voice to win over right leaning independents and democrats during a GOP dark age. It all comes down to money.

[SoCal Deek]

You guys really have to be kidding here. There is ZERO question that the main stream media has become an extension of the Democratic Party. All of the pretenses that I grew up with are gone. 

Edited November 17, 2020 by SoCal Deek

[Doc]

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You guys really have to be kidding here. There is ZERO question that the main stream media has become an extension of the Democratic Party. All of the pretenses that I grew up with are gone. 

 

It's like racists claiming there is no racism.  My boss, who was a lifelong Dem until a few months ago when he switched to "unaffiliated" (but still voted for Biden because he hates Trump) finally agreed with me that the media is liberally biased.

[Warcodered]

16 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Fox's recent out of character rebuffing of late-stage Trumpism should be seen as further evidence. They were anti-Trump in the beginning until it served their interests to jump full on the bandwagon, and now they're hedging their bets that they may need to be looked as as a more moderate voice to win over right leaning independents and democrats during a GOP dark age. It all comes down to money.

Fox is in general following the base line GOP during 2016 they were against Trump when it was the Primary and he was a ridiculous candidate. Then when he was the GOPs ridiculous candidate suddenly things changed. Right now to a degree they're waffling which pretty well sums up what Republicans are doing with the results of this election. The rest of the media is biased as well but more along the lines of what Jon Stewart said that they are biased towards laziness and sensationalism. Which makes sense as corporate entities lazy=easy/cheap and sensationalism draws viewers.

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Fox is in general following the base line GOP during 2016 they were against Trump when it was the Primary and he was a ridiculous candidate. Then when he was the GOPs ridiculous candidate suddenly things changed. Right now to a degree they're waffling which pretty well sums up what Republicans are doing with the results of this election. The rest of the media is biased as well but more along the lines of what Jon Stewart said that they are biased towards laziness and sensationalism. Which makes sense as corporate entities lazy=easy/cheap and sensationalism draws viewers.

Yup - all of that.

[snafu]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

The idea that a corporation and/or news organization would have any sort of intentional political agenda that did not directly correlate to their bottom line has always been absurd at face value. The "media" is just a company like any other and they have a product that they sell in which they wish to get the maximum return for the minimum investment possible. They don't care whether their employees, partners, or customers are fascists or anarchists - only that it serves to generate them money. Certain brands, like Fox and MSNBC have carved out partisan ecosystems for themselves, but that's more a function of market niche in pursuit of the aforementioned financial returns, than any stoic principle they'll proudly stand for in the face of economic demise.
 

In spite of all of that, those on the extreme right have continued to demand that media, big tech, and whatever corporation features a gay couple in a commercial is somehow a liberal institution instead of one that just understands how to maximize returns. They do this, while accused liberally biased companies like Facebook, pull shenanigans like this: 

"Mark Zuckerberg said banning Steve Bannon from the platform for advocating for the beheading of Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI director Christopher Wray is 'not what our policies would suggest'"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-said-banning-steve-172706111.html

Zuckerberg, one of the world's richest people, is not anything remotely resembling the kind of "liberal" the right has defined in recent years. He may actually be a "neo-liberal" by definition, but then again so are most of the GOP who support corporatism, either openly or behind closed doors. 

This idea of "liberal" media is a nice 2 for 1 that tries to vaguely define political enemies in an Animal Farm type structure along with something even more insidious. Anyone that's ever spent time around their racist uncles can remember when The Liberal Media used to run by a different anti-Semitic moniker. Replacing it with the world "liberal" gets the same point across while being a little more socially acceptable at kids birthday parties and holidays. Much the same can be said for the whole George Soros fascination from the right. They can do all of this with a straight face because Fox News & the church told them they should feign support for a corrupt war criminal in Netanyahu and that means that they aren't bigots. Bravo!

It's high time we started putting meaning back in words, because  as Inigo Montoya would say:





 

 

 

Okay.

Honest question:  What's your point?

Is your point that the media is a capitalist enterprise?  That's obvious.

 

Is your point that people don't like the media?  That's true, too. Doesn't matter left or right.  Only 40% of the public "trusts" that the media are fair reporters. And in fact, the trend is to believe a liberal bias.  Here are poll results from April, 2020.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1663/media-use-evaluation.aspx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

22 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It's like racists claiming there is no racism.  My boss, who was a lifelong Dem until a few months ago when he switched to "unaffiliated" (but still voted for Biden because he hates Trump) finally agreed with me that the media is liberally biased.

What do you consider liberal? 

 

If its calling out the Trump lies, then I guess they are. 

 

Media companies shouldnt be part part of the Trump cult. 

 

Its more like the media is full of educated people. 

[BullBuchanan]

22 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

 

Okay.

Honest question:  What's your point?

Is your point that the media is a capitalist enterprise?  That's obvious.

 

Is your point that people don't like the media?  That's true, too. Doesn't matter left or right.  Only 40% of the public "trusts" that the media are fair reporters. And in fact, the trend is to believe a liberal bias.  Here are poll results from April, 2020.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1663/media-use-evaluation.aspx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point is in the title and the first sentence. The notion that "the media" is politically biased and thus cannot be trusted is false. They are financially biased. Whether or not you can trust that depends on how well you understand financial motivation.

However, conflating the people that work at the corporations with the corporations themselves is likely where things get confused. As I've identified before, the tendency to hold "American conservative" views tends to diminish as education increases. Given that most roles involved within media tend to require advanced education, it stands to reason that those that work in the media will also be less likely to have "American conservative" views. This is also true of Big Tech. The fact that Facebook is made up of predominantly people that would be significantly more likely to have "American liberal" views could lead certain people to believe that Facebook is a "liberal" company, when that is not true in any sense of how they exist in the world. The may say and do some things in order to reap the benefits of appealing to their employees and their customer base, but the corporation itself does not hold a liberal political ideology beyond that.

The claim that it does, and the lack of understanding why it doesn't, is what allows anti-intellectualism and crazy conspiracy theories to fester which further draws people to extreme ends of the political spectrum. The idea that a corporation is on any working person's "team" is completely ludicrous, and the sooner we put it to bed the sooner we can start to have meaningful political discussions and compromises as a country. 

If someone thinks that the best way to increase our economic growth as a country is through a limited tax structure? Great - let's talk about the pros and cons of that. If someone thinks think that there's a liberal sponsored sex cult taking place in the basements of pizzerias and the reason that they haven't gotten a raise in 5 years is because there aren't enough Mexican kids in cages at the border, we can't even pretend we're functionally the same species.

Edited November 17, 2020 by BullBuchanan

[Doc]

51 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

What do you consider liberal? 

 

If its calling out the Trump lies, then I guess they are. 

 

Media companies shouldnt be part part of the Trump cult. 

 

Its more like the media is full of educated people. 

 

Calling out some people's lies and not others is what makes you biased.

[SoCal Deek]

Right! It’s all about money. So in a completely divided country these media companies have decided that only democratic voters actually buy things and watch television! 😂😂😂😂

[Tiberius]

28 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Calling out some people's lies and not others is what makes you biased.

Did Trump win the election in 2020? 

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Right! It’s all about money. So in a completely divided country these media companies have decided that only democratic voters actually buy things and watch television! 😂😂😂😂

Isn’t Fox the number one rated cable tv network? 

[SoCal Deek]

44 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Did Trump win the election in 2020? 

Isn’t Fox the number one rated cable tv network? 

Tibs....where are you going with this? The FOX comment is proof that it isn't just about money and eyeballs on screens. They filled a void in right leaning television.  That void was created by the usual Media outlets leaning hard left.

Edited November 18, 2020 by SoCal Deek

[RiotAct]

How’s the sand, OP?

[HamSandwhich]

On 11/17/2020 at 5:30 PM, BullBuchanan said:

The point is in the title and the first sentence. The notion that "the media" is politically biased and thus cannot be trusted is false. They are financially biased. Whether or not you can trust that depends on how well you understand financial motivation.

However, conflating the people that work at the corporations with the corporations themselves is likely where things get confused. As I've identified before, the tendency to hold "American conservative" views tends to diminish as education increases. Given that most roles involved within media tend to require advanced education, it stands to reason that those that work in the media will also be less likely to have "American conservative" views. This is also true of Big Tech. The fact that Facebook is made up of predominantly people that would be significantly more likely to have "American liberal" views could lead certain people to believe that Facebook is a "liberal" company, when that is not true in any sense of how they exist in the world. The may say and do some things in order to reap the benefits of appealing to their employees and their customer base, but the corporation itself does not hold a liberal political ideology beyond that.

The claim that it does, and the lack of understanding why it doesn't, is what allows anti-intellectualism and crazy conspiracy theories to fester which further draws people to extreme ends of the political spectrum. The idea that a corporation is on any working person's "team" is completely ludicrous, and the sooner we put it to bed the sooner we can start to have meaningful political discussions and compromises as a country. 

If someone thinks that the best way to increase our economic growth as a country is through a limited tax structure? Great - let's talk about the pros and cons of that. If someone thinks think that there's a liberal sponsored sex cult taking place in the basements of pizzerias and the reason that they haven't gotten a raise in 5 years is because there aren't enough Mexican kids in cages at the border, we can't even pretend we're functionally the same species.

The mental gymnastics you make are impressive, I’ll give you that. It’s overtly obvious the liberal bias to the media at large. This is not controversial at all. 

[BullBuchanan]

1 hour ago, HamSandwhich said:

The mental gymnastics you make are impressive, I’ll give you that. It’s overtly obvious the liberal bias to the media at large. This is not controversial at all. 

[Doc Brown]

On 11/17/2020 at 7:24 PM, SoCal Deek said:

Tibs....where are you going with this? The FOX comment is proof that it isn't just about money and eyeballs on screens. They filled a void in right leaning television.  That void was created by the usual Media outlets leaning hard left.

I was about to say that Fox wouldn’t be the force it is without a left leaning media.  It’ll be interesting to see if Trump creates a competing network.

[Orlando Tim]

There are several basic premises of this thread is that are hilariously ignorant: 1)  good businesses do not make mistakes, as can be proven by the Edsall, the Apple Newton, and Kodak dominating the camera digital camera industry

2) that the people in media feel that their first job is to be honest and factual, not to tell a story 

3) that getting clicks on a story is not more important than facts

4) that 90% of the MSM is not extremely liberal and therefore no one is there to check their bias.

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

What I find to be hilarious is that the OP has to tie himself in mental knots to justify a narrative that NOBODY buys anymore. Why? The veil has been torn and the media themselves don’t work all that hard to deny it. Does the OP think we need state sponsored media to run interference for these ‘party first’ policies? The policies can’t stand the scrutiny of an informed electorate? To quote his candidate: Come On Man.

Edited November 19, 2020 by SoCal Deek

[oldmanfan]

A free press is the bastion of democracy.  Without it you fall into totalitarianism.  That said, it is laughable how so many towards the right always want to lean on media outlets like CNN.  As if Fox and now OAN and Newsmax are somehow the guardians of honest, non-biased reporting.

 

The issue is not whether the press tells the truth or not, the issue is that the reader has already made up his or her mind about what they want to believe and refuse to let actual data sway their view.  And that goes for either extreme of the political spectrum.

[T master]

So all this time i have been fed a line by the conservatives and those news companies such as CNN , MSNBC , Fox  there narrative is all a fantasy and that there liberal agenda's don't truly exist and we have been being lied to by a politician and that by the gov't wanting to control (that's not politically correct)  i'm sorry want to give us all "free" health care and tell us how we should live because all politicians are smarter than us not to mention that they think i don't have the facility to take care of my self and make competent decisions for me is all true ??

 

After 59 years it all comes into focus and i now know that the media is just not bias in any way shape or form and tells the news exactly as it is face value with no personal opinions or views integrated into their commentary  🤔 well it may take a while but okay i'll try to see it for what you have pointed out thanks ...

 

OMG  it's not all true it's just a myth ?? 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by T master

[Tiberius]

53 minutes ago, T master said:

So all this time i have been fed a line by the conservatives and those news companies such as CNN , MSNBC , Fox  there narrative is all a fantasy and that there liberal agenda's don't truly exist and we have been being lied to by a politician and that by the gov't wanting to control (that's not politically correct)  i'm sorry want to give us all "free" health care and tell us how we should live because all politicians are smarter than us not to mention that they think i don't have the facility to take care of my self and make competent decisions for me is all true ??

 

After 59 years it all comes into focus and i now know that the media is just not bias in any way shape or form and tells the news exactly as it is face value with no personal opinions or views integrated into their commentary  🤔 well it may take a while but okay i'll try to see it for what you have pointed out thanks ...

 

OMG  it's not all true it's just a myth ?? 

 

 

 

 

Do you believe anything the NY Times says?

[All_Pro_Bills]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

There are several basic premises of this thread is that are hilariously ignorant:

1)  good businesses do not make mistakes, as can be proven by the Edsall, the Apple Newton, and Kodak dominating the camera digital camera industry.  Look at the composition of the DOW or the S&P 500 over time and you will find "good" businesses disappear because of some strategic blunder, obsolescence of their product, a failure to adapt, or competition that takes market share.

2) that the people in media feel that their first job is to be honest and factual, not to tell a story.  Using the Hunter Biden PC files for example.  A cursory check of the lead stories and home pages of major media outlets both print and online will reveal that outlets identified as "liberal" reveals the story was treated as if it did not exist.  Social media sites like Facebook and Twitter labeled user posts about the story "misinformation" and suspended accounts even though the authenticity of the PC files was never contested and facts prove the files, such as people that sent and received the e-mails confirming they are real and copies are on their personal devices, and e-mails are genuine.  Along with this the liberal media helped create and spread an elaborate and crackpot conspiracy theory about Russian generated mis-information.  Twitter and Facebook don't suspend the accounts of terrorists that post about all the people they want to kill.    

3) that getting clicks on a story is not more important than facts Nothing to say about this.

4) that 90% of the MSM is not extremely liberal and therefore no one is there to check their bias.  This is so obvious that anyone disputing this needs to confront the fact that they are lying to themselves.  Just look at the softball questions the press asked Biden vs. Trump.  What's your favorite color Joe?  Hey Don, how does it feel to kill all those COVID patients? 

 

 

See bold

[Orlando Tim]

21 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Do you believe anything the NY Times says?

Do you believe anything Trump says?

5 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

See bold

If it was not clear I was pointing out that the OP is ignorant of those 4 things. You supported me well, but not sure if you thought I was arguing opposite 

[BullBuchanan]

On 11/17/2020 at 6:24 PM, SoCal Deek said:

Tibs....where are you going with this? The FOX comment is proof that it isn't just about money and eyeballs on screens. They filled a void in right leaning television.  That void was created by the usual Media outlets leaning hard left.

You should have read my post. It addressed this - in the first paragraph.

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Do you believe anything Trump says?

If it was not clear I was pointing out that the OP is ignorant of those 4 things. You supported me well, but not sure if you thought I was arguing opposite 

The NYTimes has credibility, imo, Trump has none. 

[Orlando Tim]

47 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The NYTimes has credibility, imo, Trump has none. 

So you have decided you have received enough bad information from Trump that whatever he says not worth even checking. I feel the same way about the NYT, facts are not as important to them as narrative.

[Tiberius]

10 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

So you have decided you have received enough bad information from Trump that whatever he says not worth even checking. I feel the same way about the NYT, facts are not as important to them as narrative.

What lies has the Times reported? 

[JaCrispy]

It’s not so much a liberal bias as much as it is a Military Industrial Complex bias...whatever stories the mainstream media seems to be pushing is the narrative that the CIA is feeding them...and it doesn’t necessarily have to be liberal...

 

For example, the media pushed the Iraq invasion under Bush, just like they pushed the Russia collusion story under Trump...essentially they advocate for the bottom line of the MIC...

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Do you believe anything Trump says?

If it was not clear I was pointing out that the OP is ignorant of those 4 things. You supported me well, but not sure if you thought I was arguing opposite 

I was clear on your intent.  But I just wanted to provide some specific examples.  The liberals have a penchant for demanding "evidence" while providing none to support their claims.  Like the Russian collusion hoax.  No convictions, no trials, no indictments, no evidence, only unconfirmed suspicion but they "know" its true because CNN and MSNBC, the NY Times, and the Washington Post and their "anonymous sources said so.  I wish the girls I knew in high school were as gullible as the lefties.   I would have had a much better time!  Regards..

[Orlando Tim]

5 hours ago, Tiberius said:

What lies has the Times reported? 

1619 project, russian collusion, are the big two recently. I will provide a link to CNN discussing the "mistakes"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-york-times-is-having-a-rough-year-cnn-anchors-lament-recent-mistakes%3f_amp=true

And one of their debunked Russian story

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/18/new-document-shows-fbi-totally-debunked-new-york-t/

 

[BullBuchanan]

7 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

So you have decided you have received enough bad information from Trump that whatever he says not worth even checking. I feel the same way about the NYT, facts are not as important to them as narrative.

Maybe the fact that he's lied over 20,000 times while in office has something to do with it? He's likely the most documented dishonest person who has ever lived.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/13/donald-trump-20000-false-or-misleading-claims

Can you make an evidence based claim that NYT has done the same?

Edited November 20, 2020 by BullBuchanan

[Orlando Tim]

2 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

Maybe the fact that he's lied over 20,000 times while in office has something to do with it? He's likely the most documented dishonest person who has ever lived.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/13/donald-trump-20000-false-or-misleading-claims

Can you make an evidence based claim that NYT has done the same?

I can't do the research right now but since the NYT printed literally thousands of stories about the Russian collusion and probably another thousand that were 100% wrong about spying on Trump, not to mention the 1619 project until they admitted it was a narrative not history I am quite certain I could come up with 20k worth of dishonesty if I tried. I will finally state on multiple of Trump's lies are simply disagreement of opinion. The greatest economy ever is an opinion, the best testing record is opinion, and least racist person is opinion. But the "best testing record" is of interest to me Bill- which country has a better testing record than us? Only two countries have test more people per capita and both of them are much smaller. So please understand when I don't care what your opinion is because it clearly is formed from ignorance.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104645/covid19-testing-rate-select-countries-worldwide/