What Source Is The Most Informative Conservative Media?

AntiParty

Tea is the new Kool-Aid
Mar 12, 2014
4,054
362
85
What Source Is The Most Informative Conservative Media?

I pride myself on being "An informational Collectivist". Because how else can you base your argument/perspective if you don't hear all sides.

I've been asking the Right Wing for over a decade what their best informational source is.

I'm curious what Right Wingers think is the best media for them.
 
Could you be a little more specific? Obviously, Fox produces the most agreeable information for conservatives, but were you asking about accuracy or volume?
 
I've asked this in many servers over many years.

The Left Wing can answer the same question very fast.

The Right Wing never seems to step up to the plate on this one.
 
Could you be a little more specific? Obviously, Fox produces the most agreeable information for conservatives, but were you asking about accuracy or volume?

"Most Informative Conservative Media" was specific.
 
They will think I"m trolling but I honestly want to learn smart perspective.

But that is not possible when they don't even own their own perspective.
 
If I was a major Right Winger I would think this would be an easy question to answer and always wonder why no one will answer it.

But I don't believe in WINGS or PARTIES. I believe in information.

Why won't the Right Wing tell me what media is best for them to learn?
 
What Source Is The Most Informative Conservative Media?

I pride myself on being "An informational Collectivist". Because how else can you base your argument/perspective if you don't hear all sides.

I've been asking the Right Wing for over a decade what their best informational source is.

I'm curious what Right Wingers think is the best media for them.
I dont even get your question? All media is bias to a degree, the only way to get the full scope is to read every angle.
 
What Source Is The Most Informative Conservative Media?

I pride myself on being "An informational Collectivist". Because how else can you base your argument/perspective if you don't hear all sides.

I've been asking the Right Wing for over a decade what their best informational source is.

I'm curious what Right Wingers think is the best media for them.
I personally haven't found one that's 100% accurate 100% of the time. Same with most progressive media sources (although, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC are probably the most honest and accurate - even if Rachel is far far left).

I fact check topics I'm interested in no matter what the source. Rather than ask the media, these days it's possible to get to most information on your own. As bear513 observed, media has bias. So do interviewees - the internet makes it easy to figure out where some of the opinions are coming from and whether they have some skin in the game.
 
The problem in answering may be that the question could be interpreted as 'where is the greatest bulk of information' and 'where is the highest quality'.
To be informed can easily mean knowing what is said while not immediately taking it for true. It is 'informative' to know that, how, when and why someone lies, for instance.
The only problem with current media is that it is so difficult to know 'how' and 'when' they are lying.
 
I subscribe to Alex Jones, The Blaze, the ACLJ and Washington Times. Also C4L.
I also subscribe to ThinkProgress and TPM.
Signed up with Congress.org for their MegaVote newsletter that tells me how my senator and congress critter voted on each bill as it moves along
 
The problem in answering may be that the question could be interpreted as 'where is the greatest bulk of information' and 'where is the highest quality'.
To be informed can easily mean knowing what is said while not immediately taking it for true. It is 'informative' to know that, how, when and why someone lies, for instance.
The only problem with current media is that it is so difficult to know 'how' and 'when' they are lying.
Actually, it's not so hard. If you can see their lips move...
 
What Source Is The Most Informative Conservative Media?

I pride myself on being "An informational Collectivist". Because how else can you base your argument/perspective if you don't hear all sides.

I've been asking the Right Wing for over a decade what their best informational source is.

I'm curious what Right Wingers think is the best media for them.

Only Live C-SPAN is reliable when you see someone say something. Everything else is biased entertainment.
 
The best website for pure conservative stuff is Townhall.com. It's like any left wing site of course, you're only going to get one-sided, biased, generally intellectually dishonest commentary that avoids/ignores all contradictory information.

The commentators who do a decent job of avoiding the current purist hyperbole that has so infected the party? George Will, Krauthammer sometimes, Barone, Jonah Goldberg, Fred Barnes, a few others.

Anyone who automatically believes anything that partisan ideologues on either "side" say or write is either (a) foolishly naive or (b) a fellow partisan ideologue, obviously.

Do partisan ideologues really expect to be taken seriously anyway? Aw, never mind, that's for another thread.

.
 
Last edited:
What Source Is The Most Informative Conservative Media?

I pride myself on being "An informational Collectivist". Because how else can you base your argument/perspective if you don't hear all sides.

I've been asking the Right Wing for over a decade what their best informational source is.

I'm curious what Right Wingers think is the best media for them.
I dont even get your question? All media is bias to a degree, the only way to get the full scope is to read every angle.

"What Source Is The Most Informative Conservative Media?" <--That was my question. How do you not "get it"?
 
What Source Is The Most Informative Conservative Media?

I pride myself on being "An informational Collectivist". Because how else can you base your argument/perspective if you don't hear all sides.

I've been asking the Right Wing for over a decade what their best informational source is.

I'm curious what Right Wingers think is the best media for them.
I personally haven't found one that's 100% accurate 100% of the time. Same with most progressive media sources (although, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC are probably the most honest and accurate - even if Rachel is far far left).

I fact check topics I'm interested in no matter what the source. Rather than ask the media, these days it's possible to get to most information on your own. As bear513 observed, media has bias. So do interviewees - the internet makes it easy to figure out where some of the opinions are coming from and whether they have some skin in the game.


Good discussion but you aren't discussing the (OP) Opening Topic.
 
The problem in answering may be that the question could be interpreted as 'where is the greatest bulk of information' and 'where is the highest quality'.
To be informed can easily mean knowing what is said while not immediately taking it for true. It is 'informative' to know that, how, when and why someone lies, for instance.
The only problem with current media is that it is so difficult to know 'how' and 'when' they are lying.

Actually if I asked the Left they would lay the answer out very fast. And they would have multiple dozens of information sources to discuss and which is best or the most bias.

The question was EASY.

What is the MOST INFORMATIVE Right Wing Media today?
 
The best website for pure conservative stuff is Townhall.com. It's like any left wing site of course, you're only going to get one-sided, biased, generally intellectually dishonest commentary that avoids/ignores all contradictory information.

The commentators who do a decent job of avoiding the current purist hyperbole that has so infected the party? George Will, Krauthammer sometimes, Barone, Jonah Goldberg, Fred Barnes, a few others.

Anyone who automatically believes anything that partisan ideologues on either "side" say or write is either (a) foolishly naive or (b) a fellow partisan ideologue, obviously.

Do partisan ideologues really expect to be taken seriously anyway? Aw, never mind, that's for another thread.

.

I want to thank Mac1958 for informing me of a new website. But then he says, "it's like any one sided Left Wing Site where they get one sided biased and generally dishonest commentary".

TYT is the best Left Wing informational website. But I've noticed them go off the deep end occasionally, not often.

Thanks for your post and I'll look forward to informing myself more as an American.

(Went there and Malware went crazy)
 
Who cares?

(CNSNews.com) -- Sixty-one percent of Likely Voters in the United States say they do not trust the political news they are getting, according to a recent national Rasmussen survey.

In addition, 59 percent said coverage of the 2016 presidential race will be slanted, and 46 percent said ABC’s George Stephanopoulos should be banned from any presidential campaign coverage because of the donations he made to the Clinton Foundation.

The survey asked likely voters five questions ranging from whether they trusted the news they were getting to their opinions on whether reporters would try to help or hurt certain candidates.

The 61 percent of likely voters who do not trust the political news they receive is a 16-point increase from the last survey taken in October, when 45 percent of likely voters said the same thing.

According to Rasmussen, 21 percent of likely voters say they still have confidence in the political coverage they get while 17 percent say they aren’t sure. The 21 percent who said they have confidence is down 12 points from the last time the survey was taken, when 33 percent said they were confident.

In addition to not trusting the political news, 48 percent of likely voters believe that media bias is a problem in politics.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters think media bias is a bigger problem in politics today than big campaign contributions, but nearly as many (44%) see campaign cash as the larger problem,” states Rasmussen. “Majorities of voters across most demographic groups do not trust the political news they are getting.”

Not only do many voters think that media bias is a problem, but 37 percent of Americans believe that the average media reporter is more liberal than they are.

“Thirty-seven percent (37%) of Americans believe the average media reporter is more liberal than they are,” states Rasmussen. “Eighteen percent (18%) consider that reporter more conservative.”

“When it comes to the 2016 presidential campaign, only 23% believe most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage,” states the report. “Fifty-nine percent (59%) think that coverage will be slanted instead, with 36% who say most reporters will try to help Hillary Clinton during the campaign and 23% who say they will try to hurt her bid for the White House instead. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure.”

“Forty-two percent (42%) of voters who don’t trust the political news they are getting think most reporters will try to help Clinton; just 14% believe the media's coverage of the 2016 race will be unbiased,” states the survey. “Among those who do trust political news coverage, 38% say most reporters will try to stay neutral, but nearly as many (35%) think they will try to help the Democratic frontrunner.”

For those surveyed, 46 percent said ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, who was a top adviser to the president in the Clinton administration, should be banned from covering any news on the 2016 presidential race. In addition, 34 percent said “they are less likely to believe the reporting on ABC News because Stephanopoulos failed to disclose the donations [he made] to the Clinton Foundation,” said Rasmussen.

The national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted May 17-18, and the sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points.
 
Who cares?

(CNSNews.com) -- Sixty-one percent of Likely Voters in the United States say they do not trust the political news they are getting, according to a recent national Rasmussen survey.

In addition, 59 percent said coverage of the 2016 presidential race will be slanted, and 46 percent said ABC’s George Stephanopoulos should be banned from any presidential campaign coverage because of the donations he made to the Clinton Foundation.

The survey asked likely voters five questions ranging from whether they trusted the news they were getting to their opinions on whether reporters would try to help or hurt certain candidates.

The 61 percent of likely voters who do not trust the political news they receive is a 16-point increase from the last survey taken in October, when 45 percent of likely voters said the same thing.

According to Rasmussen, 21 percent of likely voters say they still have confidence in the political coverage they get while 17 percent say they aren’t sure. The 21 percent who said they have confidence is down 12 points from the last time the survey was taken, when 33 percent said they were confident.

In addition to not trusting the political news, 48 percent of likely voters believe that media bias is a problem in politics.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters think media bias is a bigger problem in politics today than big campaign contributions, but nearly as many (44%) see campaign cash as the larger problem,” states Rasmussen. “Majorities of voters across most demographic groups do not trust the political news they are getting.”

Not only do many voters think that media bias is a problem, but 37 percent of Americans believe that the average media reporter is more liberal than they are.

“Thirty-seven percent (37%) of Americans believe the average media reporter is more liberal than they are,” states Rasmussen. “Eighteen percent (18%) consider that reporter more conservative.”

“When it comes to the 2016 presidential campaign, only 23% believe most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage,” states the report. “Fifty-nine percent (59%) think that coverage will be slanted instead, with 36% who say most reporters will try to help Hillary Clinton during the campaign and 23% who say they will try to hurt her bid for the White House instead. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure.”

“Forty-two percent (42%) of voters who don’t trust the political news they are getting think most reporters will try to help Clinton; just 14% believe the media's coverage of the 2016 race will be unbiased,” states the survey. “Among those who do trust political news coverage, 38% say most reporters will try to stay neutral, but nearly as many (35%) think they will try to help the Democratic frontrunner.”

For those surveyed, 46 percent said ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, who was a top adviser to the president in the Clinton administration, should be banned from covering any news on the 2016 presidential race. In addition, 34 percent said “they are less likely to believe the reporting on ABC News because Stephanopoulos failed to disclose the donations [he made] to the Clinton Foundation,” said Rasmussen.

The national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted May 17-18, and the sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points.

"Don't trust your political news" I agree with. No argument here.

But I'm an informational collectivist and I want to know what is happing in all perspectives. It's fact that bias brains are learning their bias perspectives from media sources. They don't think.

I like to watch all media to stay on top of perspectives if I have time.

Look at how, "Don't listen to David Koresh" worked out. He built an army of small brained followers.
 

Forum List

Back
Top