Coulter unloads on Trump: "Disloyal actual retard"

[Rye Catcher]

You’re a big Ann Coulter follower, are you?

I'm fascinated by the behaviors and tactics of the narcissistic, dishonest, hypocritical ends of our political spectrum. When something is this destructive to my country, I want to observe and understand it as much as possible.

For example, one of the primary tactics practiced regularly by both ends is to try to change the subject and put the other on the defensive, as we see with your post.

So yes, I pay close attention - particularly to the Division Pimps, those on both ends of have a vested professional interest in lying and keeping us angry and divided, and to those they con. The Division Pimps are as responsible as anyone for what has happened to this country.

Thanks for asking.

Those pimps are paramount to the democrat party. Democrats thrive on division and segregation and count on a pravda media to train their constituents. That’s why dems’ only understanding of prominent non-dems is the image portrayed to them by pravda. Coulter is an example who is ragged on by dems who don’t really pay attention to any of her points, only what they’re told. So when an attention whore like coulter does an obvious controversial thing but it seems to jibe with the dem agenda, suddenly dems act as if they read her columns religiously.
Phonies.

So you don't see any of this coming from right wing media, too?

Do you mean one news station as opposed to 300 + leftist, commie-promoting stations? Oh, I get it. You're color blind to those with yellow egg on their face.

Actually, when I'm discussing the Division Pimps on the Right, I'm talking about people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Jones, Fox, AON, CNS, Breitbart, Red State, and all the other primary "news" and "information" sources of the alternate universe. I'll bet you've heard of them.

See, I fully agree that most of the media leans Left. I hold my side accountable for its hypocrisy and its bullshit.

I wish you folks would, too. But I'm not holding breath.

You should be upset that MSM leans toward —propagates for — the democrats. We’re supposed to rely on them for info so we can make serious decisions. You shouldn’t accept it at all. If they were balanced and objective, the Limbaugh’s and Levin’s and Hannity’s wouldn’t be necessary and wouldn’t exist. But as long as media is dishonest, those admittedly conservative voices are not only relevant but necessary and important.

I was in it for 18 years, I know quite well that it leans left, I don't like it, and I've squabbled many times with lefties here who deny it.

That doesn't excuse the rampant partisan intellectual dishonesty, comically disguised as "The Truth", by right wing media.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You put the cart before the horse.
Right wing media is an (necessary) alternative and a choice. It doesn’t pretend to be objective news. It’s syndicated media. It’s reactionary.
NBC, NPR (public funded), PBS (public funded), ABC, CNN, CBS, etc., are supposed to be journalists but they slant their news hard left.

Well, that's the first time I've seen right wing media characterized in that way. Usually what I see is consumers of right wing media saying that it's more accurate and objective than mainstream media.

With so much one-sided advocacy going on, I don't blame people for tuning the whole thing out and watching the Kardashians.

If you actually consulted right wing alternatives for balance and vetting instead of relying on lefty examples of right wing alternatives, you wouldn’t be surprised by that characterization.

I listen to talk radio regularly. I tune in to Fox and AON. I stop by the websites. I'm pretty confident I have a decent grasp, otherwise I wouldn't comment on them.

I just wish more of their consumers would admit those outlets are reactionary.

I think they already know. That’s why they consult non-left alternatives. Everyone gets left wing news everyday because it’s in all of the MSM feeds. Only those who additionally consult non-left-wing sources can possibly get the full picture. That’s simple logic.

Define "left wing".

 

[Rye Catcher]

It seems Ann Coulter has had it with Donald Trump in a huge twitter fight. Are there more conservatives ready to toss Trump under the bus?

Ann Coulter Turns on ‘Disloyal Actual Retard’ Trump in Twitter Rant

Ann Coulter went on an early Sunday morning Twitter tear, calling President Donald Trump “the most disloyal actual retard that has ever set foot in the Oval Office.”The far-right media pundit and former Trump defender was triggered by the president’s Friday tweet in which he called for Alabama...

www.yahoo.com

I don't recall that she ever liked or supported Trump for the White House, thus her commentary isn't surprising.

By the way your signature statement is absurd:

"Plan for the Future Fiscal conservatism is not fiscally responsible!"


It is clear you don't read up the current Federal Budget, since about 70% of it are MANDATED spending, all 70% of it was created by the Democrat party in the past. The Republican party never passed the SS, Medicare, Medic Aid and other fully mandated welfare based programs, they were all passed by the Democrat majorities.

She was pro Donald Trump, very early on.

I'm sorry, the person you seek to respond to is not available, not until you have achieved an IQ level over 85. Please try again if you are able to reach this minimum qualification.

I didn't respond because he didn't back up his claim at all.

WTF are you talking about?
Ann Coulter was one of the very first to say that Donald Trump was the most electable of the announced (at that time) candidates.
If don't know that, you don't know anything.

Yeah, and your point is ...? Some people were fooled by Donald Trump, many of them also agree with Ann Coulter's tweet. Thus someone with a + 86 IQ could comprehend that Donald Trump's incompetence, dishonestly, corruption and complete lack of leadership, especially when that 3 am phone call went unanswered, is not fit to hold the office of trust any longer.

Actually he is uniquely qualified.

As I stated, those with an IQ above yours > 85, understand Trump is not qualified to hold an office of trust.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sessions was weak and unconcerned about the impact his recusal would have on the entire planet

Yes, that's what the rule of law is. You don't violate US laws just to make some whiny canadian message board poster happy.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You’re a big Ann Coulter follower, are you?

I'm fascinated by the behaviors and tactics of the narcissistic, dishonest, hypocritical ends of our political spectrum. When something is this destructive to my country, I want to observe and understand it as much as possible.

For example, one of the primary tactics practiced regularly by both ends is to try to change the subject and put the other on the defensive, as we see with your post.

So yes, I pay close attention - particularly to the Division Pimps, those on both ends of have a vested professional interest in lying and keeping us angry and divided, and to those they con. The Division Pimps are as responsible as anyone for what has happened to this country.

Thanks for asking.

Those pimps are paramount to the democrat party. Democrats thrive on division and segregation and count on a pravda media to train their constituents. That’s why dems’ only understanding of prominent non-dems is the image portrayed to them by pravda. Coulter is an example who is ragged on by dems who don’t really pay attention to any of her points, only what they’re told. So when an attention whore like coulter does an obvious controversial thing but it seems to jibe with the dem agenda, suddenly dems act as if they read her columns religiously.
Phonies.

So you don't see any of this coming from right wing media, too?

Do you mean one news station as opposed to 300 + leftist, commie-promoting stations? Oh, I get it. You're color blind to those with yellow egg on their face.

Actually, when I'm discussing the Division Pimps on the Right, I'm talking about people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Jones, Fox, AON, CNS, Breitbart, Red State, and all the other primary "news" and "information" sources of the alternate universe. I'll bet you've heard of them.

See, I fully agree that most of the media leans Left. I hold my side accountable for its hypocrisy and its bullshit.

I wish you folks would, too. But I'm not holding breath.

You should be upset that MSM leans toward —propagates for — the democrats. We’re supposed to rely on them for info so we can make serious decisions. You shouldn’t accept it at all. If they were balanced and objective, the Limbaugh’s and Levin’s and Hannity’s wouldn’t be necessary and wouldn’t exist. But as long as media is dishonest, those admittedly conservative voices are not only relevant but necessary and important.

I was in it for 18 years, I know quite well that it leans left, I don't like it, and I've squabbled many times with lefties here who deny it.

That doesn't excuse the rampant partisan intellectual dishonesty, comically disguised as "The Truth", by right wing media.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You put the cart before the horse.
Right wing media is an (necessary) alternative and a choice. It doesn’t pretend to be objective news. It’s syndicated media. It’s reactionary.
NBC, NPR (public funded), PBS (public funded), ABC, CNN, CBS, etc., are supposed to be journalists but they slant their news hard left.

Well, that's the first time I've seen right wing media characterized in that way. Usually what I see is consumers of right wing media saying that it's more accurate and objective than mainstream media.

With so much one-sided advocacy going on, I don't blame people for tuning the whole thing out and watching the Kardashians.

If you actually consulted right wing alternatives for balance and vetting instead of relying on lefty examples of right wing alternatives, you wouldn’t be surprised by that characterization.

I listen to talk radio regularly. I tune in to Fox and AON. I stop by the websites. I'm pretty confident I have a decent grasp, otherwise I wouldn't comment on them.

I just wish more of their consumers would admit those outlets are reactionary.

I think they already know. That’s why they consult non-left alternatives. Everyone gets left wing news everyday because it’s in all of the MSM feeds. Only those who additionally consult non-left-wing sources can possibly get the full picture. That’s simple logic.

Define "left wing".

Anti-constitutional.

 

[beautress]

Holy crap, it's always fun to watch the nutters turn on each other. Ann Coulter, desperate for relevancy and almost as desperate as Trump for approval, let Trump have it yesterday: Ann Coulter Turns on ‘Disloyal Actual Retard’ Trump in Twitter Rant

From the linked article:

Ann Coulter went on an early Sunday morning Twitter tear, calling President Donald Trump “the most disloyal actual retard that has ever set foot in the Oval Office.”

The far-right media pundit and former Trump defender was triggered by the president’s Friday tweet in which he called for Alabama voters to “not trust Jeff Sessions” and instead put their support behind Sessions’ Republican Senate seat challenger, football coach Tommy Tuberville.

“3 years ago, after Jeff Sessions recused himself, the Fraudulent Mueller Scam began. Alabama, do not trust Jeff Sessions. He let our Country down. That’s why I endorsed Coach Tommy Tuberville (@TTuberville), the true supporter of our #MAGA agenda!,” Trump tweeted.

And that set off Coulter, who called Trump a “moron,” “retard” and “lout,” who was incapable of “pretending to be” a “decent, compassionate human being.”

Coulter hasn't had a kind word for Trump since he won the presidency. Not one. It's not shocking that she carry her grudge with nay-saying. She has the freedom of speech because she's an American citizen.

I don't believe that to be factual

Sorry, I haven't seen her say a kind word about him. All I've heard are below-the-belt comments where President Trump is concerned out of Ms. Coulter. I'm sorry if you think I misrepresented the only things I have heard her say in the last couple of years, as I once liked her opinions. Has she changed her mind about him and I did not know it? If you have a link of her liking his dutiful practice, I'd like to see it. Thank you if you have something.

 

[Billiejeens]

You’re a big Ann Coulter follower, are you?

I'm fascinated by the behaviors and tactics of the narcissistic, dishonest, hypocritical ends of our political spectrum. When something is this destructive to my country, I want to observe and understand it as much as possible.

For example, one of the primary tactics practiced regularly by both ends is to try to change the subject and put the other on the defensive, as we see with your post.

So yes, I pay close attention - particularly to the Division Pimps, those on both ends of have a vested professional interest in lying and keeping us angry and divided, and to those they con. The Division Pimps are as responsible as anyone for what has happened to this country.

Thanks for asking.

Those pimps are paramount to the democrat party. Democrats thrive on division and segregation and count on a pravda media to train their constituents. That’s why dems’ only understanding of prominent non-dems is the image portrayed to them by pravda. Coulter is an example who is ragged on by dems who don’t really pay attention to any of her points, only what they’re told. So when an attention whore like coulter does an obvious controversial thing but it seems to jibe with the dem agenda, suddenly dems act as if they read her columns religiously.
Phonies.

So you don't see any of this coming from right wing media, too?

Do you mean one news station as opposed to 300 + leftist, commie-promoting stations? Oh, I get it. You're color blind to those with yellow egg on their face.

Actually, when I'm discussing the Division Pimps on the Right, I'm talking about people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Jones, Fox, AON, CNS, Breitbart, Red State, and all the other primary "news" and "information" sources of the alternate universe. I'll bet you've heard of them.

See, I fully agree that most of the media leans Left. I hold my side accountable for its hypocrisy and its bullshit.

I wish you folks would, too. But I'm not holding breath.

You should be upset that MSM leans toward —propagates for — the democrats. We’re supposed to rely on them for info so we can make serious decisions. You shouldn’t accept it at all. If they were balanced and objective, the Limbaugh’s and Levin’s and Hannity’s wouldn’t be necessary and wouldn’t exist. But as long as media is dishonest, those admittedly conservative voices are not only relevant but necessary and important.

I was in it for 18 years, I know quite well that it leans left, I don't like it, and I've squabbled many times with lefties here who deny it.

That doesn't excuse the rampant partisan intellectual dishonesty, comically disguised as "The Truth", by right wing media.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You put the cart before the horse.
Right wing media is an (necessary) alternative and a choice. It doesn’t pretend to be objective news. It’s syndicated media. It’s reactionary.
NBC, NPR (public funded), PBS (public funded), ABC, CNN, CBS, etc., are supposed to be journalists but they slant their news hard left.

Well, that's the first time I've seen right wing media characterized in that way. Usually what I see is consumers of right wing media saying that it's more accurate and objective than mainstream media.

With so much one-sided advocacy going on, I don't blame people for tuning the whole thing out and watching the Kardashians.

If you actually consulted right wing alternatives for balance and vetting instead of relying on lefty examples of right wing alternatives, you wouldn’t be surprised by that characterization.

I listen to talk radio regularly. I tune in to Fox and AON. I stop by the websites. I'm pretty confident I have a decent grasp, otherwise I wouldn't comment on them.

I just wish more of their consumers would admit those outlets are reactionary.

I think they already know. That’s why they consult non-left alternatives. Everyone gets left wing news everyday because it’s in all of the MSM feeds. Only those who additionally consult non-left-wing sources can possibly get the full picture. That’s simple logic.

Absolutely
It takes more work to actually be informed.
But it's worth it.

 

[Billiejeens]

It seems Ann Coulter has had it with Donald Trump in a huge twitter fight. Are there more conservatives ready to toss Trump under the bus?

Ann Coulter Turns on ‘Disloyal Actual Retard’ Trump in Twitter Rant

Ann Coulter went on an early Sunday morning Twitter tear, calling President Donald Trump “the most disloyal actual retard that has ever set foot in the Oval Office.”The far-right media pundit and former Trump defender was triggered by the president’s Friday tweet in which he called for Alabama...

www.yahoo.com

I don't recall that she ever liked or supported Trump for the White House, thus her commentary isn't surprising.

By the way your signature statement is absurd:

"Plan for the Future Fiscal conservatism is not fiscally responsible!"


It is clear you don't read up the current Federal Budget, since about 70% of it are MANDATED spending, all 70% of it was created by the Democrat party in the past. The Republican party never passed the SS, Medicare, Medic Aid and other fully mandated welfare based programs, they were all passed by the Democrat majorities.

She was pro Donald Trump, very early on.

I'm sorry, the person you seek to respond to is not available, not until you have achieved an IQ level over 85. Please try again if you are able to reach this minimum qualification.

I didn't respond because he didn't back up his claim at all.

WTF are you talking about?
Ann Coulter was one of the very first to say that Donald Trump was the most electable of the announced (at that time) candidates.
If don't know that, you don't know anything.

Yeah, and your point is ...? Some people were fooled by Donald Trump, many of them also agree with Ann Coulter's tweet. Thus someone with a + 86 IQ could comprehend that Donald Trump's incompetence, dishonestly, corruption and complete lack of leadership, especially when that 3 am phone call went unanswered, is not fit to hold the office of trust any longer.

Actually he is uniquely qualified.

As I stated, those with an IQ above yours > 85, understand Trump is not qualified to hold an office of trust.

And yet he has performed spectacularly, while successfully fighting back a series of coup attempts.

 

[Mac1958]

You’re a big Ann Coulter follower, are you?

I'm fascinated by the behaviors and tactics of the narcissistic, dishonest, hypocritical ends of our political spectrum. When something is this destructive to my country, I want to observe and understand it as much as possible.

For example, one of the primary tactics practiced regularly by both ends is to try to change the subject and put the other on the defensive, as we see with your post.

So yes, I pay close attention - particularly to the Division Pimps, those on both ends of have a vested professional interest in lying and keeping us angry and divided, and to those they con. The Division Pimps are as responsible as anyone for what has happened to this country.

Thanks for asking.

Those pimps are paramount to the democrat party. Democrats thrive on division and segregation and count on a pravda media to train their constituents. That’s why dems’ only understanding of prominent non-dems is the image portrayed to them by pravda. Coulter is an example who is ragged on by dems who don’t really pay attention to any of her points, only what they’re told. So when an attention whore like coulter does an obvious controversial thing but it seems to jibe with the dem agenda, suddenly dems act as if they read her columns religiously.
Phonies.

So you don't see any of this coming from right wing media, too?

Do you mean one news station as opposed to 300 + leftist, commie-promoting stations? Oh, I get it. You're color blind to those with yellow egg on their face.

Actually, when I'm discussing the Division Pimps on the Right, I'm talking about people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Jones, Fox, AON, CNS, Breitbart, Red State, and all the other primary "news" and "information" sources of the alternate universe. I'll bet you've heard of them.

See, I fully agree that most of the media leans Left. I hold my side accountable for its hypocrisy and its bullshit.

I wish you folks would, too. But I'm not holding breath.

You should be upset that MSM leans toward —propagates for — the democrats. We’re supposed to rely on them for info so we can make serious decisions. You shouldn’t accept it at all. If they were balanced and objective, the Limbaugh’s and Levin’s and Hannity’s wouldn’t be necessary and wouldn’t exist. But as long as media is dishonest, those admittedly conservative voices are not only relevant but necessary and important.

I was in it for 18 years, I know quite well that it leans left, I don't like it, and I've squabbled many times with lefties here who deny it.

That doesn't excuse the rampant partisan intellectual dishonesty, comically disguised as "The Truth", by right wing media.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You put the cart before the horse.
Right wing media is an (necessary) alternative and a choice. It doesn’t pretend to be objective news. It’s syndicated media. It’s reactionary.
NBC, NPR (public funded), PBS (public funded), ABC, CNN, CBS, etc., are supposed to be journalists but they slant their news hard left.

Well, that's the first time I've seen right wing media characterized in that way. Usually what I see is consumers of right wing media saying that it's more accurate and objective than mainstream media.

With so much one-sided advocacy going on, I don't blame people for tuning the whole thing out and watching the Kardashians.

If you actually consulted right wing alternatives for balance and vetting instead of relying on lefty examples of right wing alternatives, you wouldn’t be surprised by that characterization.

I listen to talk radio regularly. I tune in to Fox and AON. I stop by the websites. I'm pretty confident I have a decent grasp, otherwise I wouldn't comment on them.

I just wish more of their consumers would admit those outlets are reactionary.

I think they already know. That’s why they consult non-left alternatives. Everyone gets left wing news everyday because it’s in all of the MSM feeds. Only those who additionally consult non-left-wing sources can possibly get the full picture. That’s simple logic.

The problem, at least as I see it, is that many have allowed themselves to become convinced that the "news" and "information" they get from those clearly reactionary sources is The Truth, and all they need to know.

These are the people who scream FAKE NEWS at any and all facts and information that doesn't coincide with what they consume from those reactionary sources. That is absolutely obvious.

And this is clearly not a small number. This is an entirely self-contained, closed circuit "news" and "information" universe now. No intellectual curiosity required. That is dangerous.

 

[Billiejeens]

You’re a big Ann Coulter follower, are you?

I'm fascinated by the behaviors and tactics of the narcissistic, dishonest, hypocritical ends of our political spectrum. When something is this destructive to my country, I want to observe and understand it as much as possible.

For example, one of the primary tactics practiced regularly by both ends is to try to change the subject and put the other on the defensive, as we see with your post.

So yes, I pay close attention - particularly to the Division Pimps, those on both ends of have a vested professional interest in lying and keeping us angry and divided, and to those they con. The Division Pimps are as responsible as anyone for what has happened to this country.

Thanks for asking.

Those pimps are paramount to the democrat party. Democrats thrive on division and segregation and count on a pravda media to train their constituents. That’s why dems’ only understanding of prominent non-dems is the image portrayed to them by pravda. Coulter is an example who is ragged on by dems who don’t really pay attention to any of her points, only what they’re told. So when an attention whore like coulter does an obvious controversial thing but it seems to jibe with the dem agenda, suddenly dems act as if they read her columns religiously.
Phonies.

So you don't see any of this coming from right wing media, too?

Do you mean one news station as opposed to 300 + leftist, commie-promoting stations? Oh, I get it. You're color blind to those with yellow egg on their face.

Actually, when I'm discussing the Division Pimps on the Right, I'm talking about people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Jones, Fox, AON, CNS, Breitbart, Red State, and all the other primary "news" and "information" sources of the alternate universe. I'll bet you've heard of them.

See, I fully agree that most of the media leans Left. I hold my side accountable for its hypocrisy and its bullshit.

I wish you folks would, too. But I'm not holding breath.

You should be upset that MSM leans toward —propagates for — the democrats. We’re supposed to rely on them for info so we can make serious decisions. You shouldn’t accept it at all. If they were balanced and objective, the Limbaugh’s and Levin’s and Hannity’s wouldn’t be necessary and wouldn’t exist. But as long as media is dishonest, those admittedly conservative voices are not only relevant but necessary and important.

I was in it for 18 years, I know quite well that it leans left, I don't like it, and I've squabbled many times with lefties here who deny it.

That doesn't excuse the rampant partisan intellectual dishonesty, comically disguised as "The Truth", by right wing media.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You put the cart before the horse.
Right wing media is an (necessary) alternative and a choice. It doesn’t pretend to be objective news. It’s syndicated media. It’s reactionary.
NBC, NPR (public funded), PBS (public funded), ABC, CNN, CBS, etc., are supposed to be journalists but they slant their news hard left.

Well, that's the first time I've seen right wing media characterized in that way. Usually what I see is consumers of right wing media saying that it's more accurate and objective than mainstream media.

With so much one-sided advocacy going on, I don't blame people for tuning the whole thing out and watching the Kardashians.

If you actually consulted right wing alternatives for balance and vetting instead of relying on lefty examples of right wing alternatives, you wouldn’t be surprised by that characterization.

I listen to talk radio regularly. I tune in to Fox and AON. I stop by the websites. I'm pretty confident I have a decent grasp, otherwise I wouldn't comment on them.

I just wish more of their consumers would admit those outlets are reactionary.

I think they already know. That’s why they consult non-left alternatives. Everyone gets left wing news everyday because it’s in all of the MSM feeds. Only those who additionally consult non-left-wing sources can possibly get the full picture. That’s simple logic.

The problem, at least as I see it, is that many have allowed themselves to become convinced that the "news" and "information" they get from those clearly reactionary sources is The Truth, and all they need to know.

These are the people who scream FAKE NEWS at any and all facts and information that doesn't coincide with what they consume from those reactionary sources. That is absolutely obvious.

And this is clearly not a small number. This is an entirely self-contained, closed circuit "news" and "information" universe now. No intellectual curiosity required. That is dangerous.

Your description is good.
Your target is bad.

 

[Mac1958]

You’re a big Ann Coulter follower, are you?

I'm fascinated by the behaviors and tactics of the narcissistic, dishonest, hypocritical ends of our political spectrum. When something is this destructive to my country, I want to observe and understand it as much as possible.

For example, one of the primary tactics practiced regularly by both ends is to try to change the subject and put the other on the defensive, as we see with your post.

So yes, I pay close attention - particularly to the Division Pimps, those on both ends of have a vested professional interest in lying and keeping us angry and divided, and to those they con. The Division Pimps are as responsible as anyone for what has happened to this country.

Thanks for asking.

Those pimps are paramount to the democrat party. Democrats thrive on division and segregation and count on a pravda media to train their constituents. That’s why dems’ only understanding of prominent non-dems is the image portrayed to them by pravda. Coulter is an example who is ragged on by dems who don’t really pay attention to any of her points, only what they’re told. So when an attention whore like coulter does an obvious controversial thing but it seems to jibe with the dem agenda, suddenly dems act as if they read her columns religiously.
Phonies.

So you don't see any of this coming from right wing media, too?

Do you mean one news station as opposed to 300 + leftist, commie-promoting stations? Oh, I get it. You're color blind to those with yellow egg on their face.

Actually, when I'm discussing the Division Pimps on the Right, I'm talking about people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Jones, Fox, AON, CNS, Breitbart, Red State, and all the other primary "news" and "information" sources of the alternate universe. I'll bet you've heard of them.

See, I fully agree that most of the media leans Left. I hold my side accountable for its hypocrisy and its bullshit.

I wish you folks would, too. But I'm not holding breath.

You should be upset that MSM leans toward —propagates for — the democrats. We’re supposed to rely on them for info so we can make serious decisions. You shouldn’t accept it at all. If they were balanced and objective, the Limbaugh’s and Levin’s and Hannity’s wouldn’t be necessary and wouldn’t exist. But as long as media is dishonest, those admittedly conservative voices are not only relevant but necessary and important.

I was in it for 18 years, I know quite well that it leans left, I don't like it, and I've squabbled many times with lefties here who deny it.

That doesn't excuse the rampant partisan intellectual dishonesty, comically disguised as "The Truth", by right wing media.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You put the cart before the horse.
Right wing media is an (necessary) alternative and a choice. It doesn’t pretend to be objective news. It’s syndicated media. It’s reactionary.
NBC, NPR (public funded), PBS (public funded), ABC, CNN, CBS, etc., are supposed to be journalists but they slant their news hard left.

Well, that's the first time I've seen right wing media characterized in that way. Usually what I see is consumers of right wing media saying that it's more accurate and objective than mainstream media.

With so much one-sided advocacy going on, I don't blame people for tuning the whole thing out and watching the Kardashians.

If you actually consulted right wing alternatives for balance and vetting instead of relying on lefty examples of right wing alternatives, you wouldn’t be surprised by that characterization.

I listen to talk radio regularly. I tune in to Fox and AON. I stop by the websites. I'm pretty confident I have a decent grasp, otherwise I wouldn't comment on them.

I just wish more of their consumers would admit those outlets are reactionary.

I think they already know. That’s why they consult non-left alternatives. Everyone gets left wing news everyday because it’s in all of the MSM feeds. Only those who additionally consult non-left-wing sources can possibly get the full picture. That’s simple logic.

The problem, at least as I see it, is that many have allowed themselves to become convinced that the "news" and "information" they get from those clearly reactionary sources is The Truth, and all they need to know.

These are the people who scream FAKE NEWS at any and all facts and information that doesn't coincide with what they consume from those reactionary sources. That is absolutely obvious.

And this is clearly not a small number. This is an entirely self-contained, closed circuit "news" and "information" universe now. No intellectual curiosity required. That is dangerous.

Your description is good.
Your target is bad.

Okay, so tell me: Do you agree with Roshawn that the right wing media is more reactionary than it is an objective source of news and information? (Roshawn, let me know if I mis-characterized your position)

If so, do you think it's healthy to have an overall media that is biased in one direction or the other? Is it a good idea for people to only expose themselves to news and information from one "side" or the other, and to automatically dismiss the rest, no matter what? And if not, what would your prescription be for that?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You’re a big Ann Coulter follower, are you?

I'm fascinated by the behaviors and tactics of the narcissistic, dishonest, hypocritical ends of our political spectrum. When something is this destructive to my country, I want to observe and understand it as much as possible.

For example, one of the primary tactics practiced regularly by both ends is to try to change the subject and put the other on the defensive, as we see with your post.

So yes, I pay close attention - particularly to the Division Pimps, those on both ends of have a vested professional interest in lying and keeping us angry and divided, and to those they con. The Division Pimps are as responsible as anyone for what has happened to this country.

Thanks for asking.

Those pimps are paramount to the democrat party. Democrats thrive on division and segregation and count on a pravda media to train their constituents. That’s why dems’ only understanding of prominent non-dems is the image portrayed to them by pravda. Coulter is an example who is ragged on by dems who don’t really pay attention to any of her points, only what they’re told. So when an attention whore like coulter does an obvious controversial thing but it seems to jibe with the dem agenda, suddenly dems act as if they read her columns religiously.
Phonies.

So you don't see any of this coming from right wing media, too?

Do you mean one news station as opposed to 300 + leftist, commie-promoting stations? Oh, I get it. You're color blind to those with yellow egg on their face.

Actually, when I'm discussing the Division Pimps on the Right, I'm talking about people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Jones, Fox, AON, CNS, Breitbart, Red State, and all the other primary "news" and "information" sources of the alternate universe. I'll bet you've heard of them.

See, I fully agree that most of the media leans Left. I hold my side accountable for its hypocrisy and its bullshit.

I wish you folks would, too. But I'm not holding breath.

You should be upset that MSM leans toward —propagates for — the democrats. We’re supposed to rely on them for info so we can make serious decisions. You shouldn’t accept it at all. If they were balanced and objective, the Limbaugh’s and Levin’s and Hannity’s wouldn’t be necessary and wouldn’t exist. But as long as media is dishonest, those admittedly conservative voices are not only relevant but necessary and important.

I was in it for 18 years, I know quite well that it leans left, I don't like it, and I've squabbled many times with lefties here who deny it.

That doesn't excuse the rampant partisan intellectual dishonesty, comically disguised as "The Truth", by right wing media.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You put the cart before the horse.
Right wing media is an (necessary) alternative and a choice. It doesn’t pretend to be objective news. It’s syndicated media. It’s reactionary.
NBC, NPR (public funded), PBS (public funded), ABC, CNN, CBS, etc., are supposed to be journalists but they slant their news hard left.

Well, that's the first time I've seen right wing media characterized in that way. Usually what I see is consumers of right wing media saying that it's more accurate and objective than mainstream media.

With so much one-sided advocacy going on, I don't blame people for tuning the whole thing out and watching the Kardashians.

If you actually consulted right wing alternatives for balance and vetting instead of relying on lefty examples of right wing alternatives, you wouldn’t be surprised by that characterization.

I listen to talk radio regularly. I tune in to Fox and AON. I stop by the websites. I'm pretty confident I have a decent grasp, otherwise I wouldn't comment on them.

I just wish more of their consumers would admit those outlets are reactionary.

I think they already know. That’s why they consult non-left alternatives. Everyone gets left wing news everyday because it’s in all of the MSM feeds. Only those who additionally consult non-left-wing sources can possibly get the full picture. That’s simple logic.

The problem, at least as I see it, is that many have allowed themselves to become convinced that the "news" and "information" they get from those clearly reactionary sources is The Truth, and all they need to know.

These are the people who scream FAKE NEWS at any and all facts and information that doesn't coincide with what they consume from those reactionary sources. That is absolutely obvious.

And this is clearly not a small number. This is an entirely self-contained, closed circuit "news" and "information" universe now. No intellectual curiosity required. That is dangerous.

But you ignored the part about how these allegedly uncurious already consult left wing news. All MSM is left wing. It’s unavoidable. It’s on google, FB, in airports and business waiting rooms. By default, everyone gets inundated with left wing news. It’s then up to individuals to consult non-left wing sources for vetting. Those who don’t are left in the democrats’ darkness.
The Washington Post’s motto should be Democrats Die In Darkness.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You’re a big Ann Coulter follower, are you?

I'm fascinated by the behaviors and tactics of the narcissistic, dishonest, hypocritical ends of our political spectrum. When something is this destructive to my country, I want to observe and understand it as much as possible.

For example, one of the primary tactics practiced regularly by both ends is to try to change the subject and put the other on the defensive, as we see with your post.

So yes, I pay close attention - particularly to the Division Pimps, those on both ends of have a vested professional interest in lying and keeping us angry and divided, and to those they con. The Division Pimps are as responsible as anyone for what has happened to this country.

Thanks for asking.

Those pimps are paramount to the democrat party. Democrats thrive on division and segregation and count on a pravda media to train their constituents. That’s why dems’ only understanding of prominent non-dems is the image portrayed to them by pravda. Coulter is an example who is ragged on by dems who don’t really pay attention to any of her points, only what they’re told. So when an attention whore like coulter does an obvious controversial thing but it seems to jibe with the dem agenda, suddenly dems act as if they read her columns religiously.
Phonies.

So you don't see any of this coming from right wing media, too?

Do you mean one news station as opposed to 300 + leftist, commie-promoting stations? Oh, I get it. You're color blind to those with yellow egg on their face.

Actually, when I'm discussing the Division Pimps on the Right, I'm talking about people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Jones, Fox, AON, CNS, Breitbart, Red State, and all the other primary "news" and "information" sources of the alternate universe. I'll bet you've heard of them.

See, I fully agree that most of the media leans Left. I hold my side accountable for its hypocrisy and its bullshit.

I wish you folks would, too. But I'm not holding breath.

You should be upset that MSM leans toward —propagates for — the democrats. We’re supposed to rely on them for info so we can make serious decisions. You shouldn’t accept it at all. If they were balanced and objective, the Limbaugh’s and Levin’s and Hannity’s wouldn’t be necessary and wouldn’t exist. But as long as media is dishonest, those admittedly conservative voices are not only relevant but necessary and important.

I was in it for 18 years, I know quite well that it leans left, I don't like it, and I've squabbled many times with lefties here who deny it.

That doesn't excuse the rampant partisan intellectual dishonesty, comically disguised as "The Truth", by right wing media.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You put the cart before the horse.
Right wing media is an (necessary) alternative and a choice. It doesn’t pretend to be objective news. It’s syndicated media. It’s reactionary.
NBC, NPR (public funded), PBS (public funded), ABC, CNN, CBS, etc., are supposed to be journalists but they slant their news hard left.

Well, that's the first time I've seen right wing media characterized in that way. Usually what I see is consumers of right wing media saying that it's more accurate and objective than mainstream media.

With so much one-sided advocacy going on, I don't blame people for tuning the whole thing out and watching the Kardashians.

If you actually consulted right wing alternatives for balance and vetting instead of relying on lefty examples of right wing alternatives, you wouldn’t be surprised by that characterization.

I listen to talk radio regularly. I tune in to Fox and AON. I stop by the websites. I'm pretty confident I have a decent grasp, otherwise I wouldn't comment on them.

I just wish more of their consumers would admit those outlets are reactionary.

I think they already know. That’s why they consult non-left alternatives. Everyone gets left wing news everyday because it’s in all of the MSM feeds. Only those who additionally consult non-left-wing sources can possibly get the full picture. That’s simple logic.

The problem, at least as I see it, is that many have allowed themselves to become convinced that the "news" and "information" they get from those clearly reactionary sources is The Truth, and all they need to know.

These are the people who scream FAKE NEWS at any and all facts and information that doesn't coincide with what they consume from those reactionary sources. That is absolutely obvious.

And this is clearly not a small number. This is an entirely self-contained, closed circuit "news" and "information" universe now. No intellectual curiosity required. That is dangerous.

Your description is good.
Your target is bad.

Okay, so tell me: Do you agree with Roshawn that the right wing media is more reactionary than it is an objective source of news and information? (Roshawn, let me know if I mis-characterized your position)

If so, do you think it's healthy to have an overall media that is biased in one direction or the other? Is it a good idea for people to only expose themselves to news and information from one "side" or the other, and to automatically dismiss the rest, no matter what? And if not, what would your prescription be for that?

It’s both reactionary and objective. Reactionary in that it points out flaws of bias in MSM and objective as it corrects the bias. It’s not about choosing sides. It’s about recognizing bias and consulting all sides. Those who don’t shortchange themselves and lose credibility.

 

[beautress]

Sessions was weak and unconcerned about the impact his recusal would have on the entire planet

Yes, that's what the rule of law is. You don't violate US laws just to make some whiny canadian message board poster happy.

The providers of this website made it welcome to all povs plus they added foreign countries to make it an international welcome mat for this country. The Mods help make that happen by practicing tolerance as best they can most days. Shockedcanadian is a respected member of this internationally-welcoming website aka usmessageboard.com. Surely you knew that.

 

[Mac1958]

You’re a big Ann Coulter follower, are you?

I'm fascinated by the behaviors and tactics of the narcissistic, dishonest, hypocritical ends of our political spectrum. When something is this destructive to my country, I want to observe and understand it as much as possible.

For example, one of the primary tactics practiced regularly by both ends is to try to change the subject and put the other on the defensive, as we see with your post.

So yes, I pay close attention - particularly to the Division Pimps, those on both ends of have a vested professional interest in lying and keeping us angry and divided, and to those they con. The Division Pimps are as responsible as anyone for what has happened to this country.

Thanks for asking.

Those pimps are paramount to the democrat party. Democrats thrive on division and segregation and count on a pravda media to train their constituents. That’s why dems’ only understanding of prominent non-dems is the image portrayed to them by pravda. Coulter is an example who is ragged on by dems who don’t really pay attention to any of her points, only what they’re told. So when an attention whore like coulter does an obvious controversial thing but it seems to jibe with the dem agenda, suddenly dems act as if they read her columns religiously.
Phonies.

So you don't see any of this coming from right wing media, too?

Do you mean one news station as opposed to 300 + leftist, commie-promoting stations? Oh, I get it. You're color blind to those with yellow egg on their face.

Actually, when I'm discussing the Division Pimps on the Right, I'm talking about people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Jones, Fox, AON, CNS, Breitbart, Red State, and all the other primary "news" and "information" sources of the alternate universe. I'll bet you've heard of them.

See, I fully agree that most of the media leans Left. I hold my side accountable for its hypocrisy and its bullshit.

I wish you folks would, too. But I'm not holding breath.

You should be upset that MSM leans toward —propagates for — the democrats. We’re supposed to rely on them for info so we can make serious decisions. You shouldn’t accept it at all. If they were balanced and objective, the Limbaugh’s and Levin’s and Hannity’s wouldn’t be necessary and wouldn’t exist. But as long as media is dishonest, those admittedly conservative voices are not only relevant but necessary and important.

I was in it for 18 years, I know quite well that it leans left, I don't like it, and I've squabbled many times with lefties here who deny it.

That doesn't excuse the rampant partisan intellectual dishonesty, comically disguised as "The Truth", by right wing media.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You put the cart before the horse.
Right wing media is an (necessary) alternative and a choice. It doesn’t pretend to be objective news. It’s syndicated media. It’s reactionary.
NBC, NPR (public funded), PBS (public funded), ABC, CNN, CBS, etc., are supposed to be journalists but they slant their news hard left.

Well, that's the first time I've seen right wing media characterized in that way. Usually what I see is consumers of right wing media saying that it's more accurate and objective than mainstream media.

With so much one-sided advocacy going on, I don't blame people for tuning the whole thing out and watching the Kardashians.

If you actually consulted right wing alternatives for balance and vetting instead of relying on lefty examples of right wing alternatives, you wouldn’t be surprised by that characterization.

I listen to talk radio regularly. I tune in to Fox and AON. I stop by the websites. I'm pretty confident I have a decent grasp, otherwise I wouldn't comment on them.

I just wish more of their consumers would admit those outlets are reactionary.

I think they already know. That’s why they consult non-left alternatives. Everyone gets left wing news everyday because it’s in all of the MSM feeds. Only those who additionally consult non-left-wing sources can possibly get the full picture. That’s simple logic.

The problem, at least as I see it, is that many have allowed themselves to become convinced that the "news" and "information" they get from those clearly reactionary sources is The Truth, and all they need to know.

These are the people who scream FAKE NEWS at any and all facts and information that doesn't coincide with what they consume from those reactionary sources. That is absolutely obvious.

And this is clearly not a small number. This is an entirely self-contained, closed circuit "news" and "information" universe now. No intellectual curiosity required. That is dangerous.

But you ignored the part about how these allegedly uncurious already consult left wing news. All MSM is left wing. It’s unavoidable. It’s on google, FB, in airports and business waiting rooms. By default, everyone gets inundated with left wing news. It’s then up to individuals to consult non-left wing sources for vetting. Those who don’t are left in the democrats’ darkness.
The Washington Post’s motto should be Democrats Die In Darkness.

My actual point is that biased "news" is bad, regardless of which direction it comes from. Is there more of it from the Left? Yes, sure as hell. I was in the business for about 18 years, I can tell you all about it. But if the Right wing response to it is just as bad, if all the Right does to respond is spew the opposite, that's not any better or more objective.

"Well, they do it too, so it's okay that we do it." Bull. Moral relativism only lowers standards across the board. This doesn't improve unless and until both the Left wing media and the Right wing media are held accountable by their own tribes. And I'm sure not holding my breath. All I see is both tribes enabling it, dropping their standards along the way.

 

[Rye Catcher]

It seems Ann Coulter has had it with Donald Trump in a huge twitter fight. Are there more conservatives ready to toss Trump under the bus?

Ann Coulter Turns on ‘Disloyal Actual Retard’ Trump in Twitter Rant

Ann Coulter went on an early Sunday morning Twitter tear, calling President Donald Trump “the most disloyal actual retard that has ever set foot in the Oval Office.”The far-right media pundit and former Trump defender was triggered by the president’s Friday tweet in which he called for Alabama...

www.yahoo.com

I don't recall that she ever liked or supported Trump for the White House, thus her commentary isn't surprising.

By the way your signature statement is absurd:

"Plan for the Future Fiscal conservatism is not fiscally responsible!"


It is clear you don't read up the current Federal Budget, since about 70% of it are MANDATED spending, all 70% of it was created by the Democrat party in the past. The Republican party never passed the SS, Medicare, Medic Aid and other fully mandated welfare based programs, they were all passed by the Democrat majorities.

She was pro Donald Trump, very early on.

I'm sorry, the person you seek to respond to is not available, not until you have achieved an IQ level over 85. Please try again if you are able to reach this minimum qualification.

I didn't respond because he didn't back up his claim at all.

WTF are you talking about?
Ann Coulter was one of the very first to say that Donald Trump was the most electable of the announced (at that time) candidates.
If don't know that, you don't know anything.

Yeah, and your point is ...? Some people were fooled by Donald Trump, many of them also agree with Ann Coulter's tweet. Thus someone with a + 86 IQ could comprehend that Donald Trump's incompetence, dishonestly, corruption and complete lack of leadership, especially when that 3 am phone call went unanswered, is not fit to hold the office of trust any longer.

Actually he is uniquely qualified.

As I stated, those with an IQ above yours > 85, understand Trump is not qualified to hold an office of trust.

And yet he has performed spectacularly, while successfully fighting back a series of coup attempts.

First of all you have no clue what a coup is, and his use of words which convinced his biddable fools to go out and play has already created more people infected by the Coronavirus. Wake up and be honest, Trump is not only incompetent, he's evil.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I was in the business for about 18 years

11 for me.

Moral relativism only lowers standards across the board. This doesn't improve unless and until both the Left wing media and the Right wing media are held accountable by their own tribes.

Being in the business, you know this will not happen. Especially if you know reporters, editors and publishers. They know which side of the bread is buttered. I saw the priorities of corporate media change first hand seemingly overnight from a focus on journalistic integrity and ethics to headline chasing, breaking news and more often than not click bait articles. Newspapers and TV only embraced Internet because they had no other choice. Ride or die. It was once a scary, powerful new platform to them but the ad revenue stream was too good to not exploit. Now that's done, the media are addicted. But that Internet addiction has watered down the impact on the entire industry now that the field has been leveled: IE. any mouth breather can buy a website and declare themselves 'news content providers'.

Over three paragraphs is too much for most people to read. Seriously, these were the conclusions from industry studies we read. Facebook and Twatter's platforms soon became popular enough that people consumed the headline only, and then endlessly debated this instead of actually consuming the whole product, spawning completely pointless Internet arguments on the daily between the unwashed.

The exposure and ad revenue gold mine is simply too good for the media to hold itself accountable these days. I believe they will keep doing the bare minimum (doing just enough to avoid lawsuits), and the dumbing down of news as we know it will continue.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You’re a big Ann Coulter follower, are you?

I'm fascinated by the behaviors and tactics of the narcissistic, dishonest, hypocritical ends of our political spectrum. When something is this destructive to my country, I want to observe and understand it as much as possible.

For example, one of the primary tactics practiced regularly by both ends is to try to change the subject and put the other on the defensive, as we see with your post.

So yes, I pay close attention - particularly to the Division Pimps, those on both ends of have a vested professional interest in lying and keeping us angry and divided, and to those they con. The Division Pimps are as responsible as anyone for what has happened to this country.

Thanks for asking.

Those pimps are paramount to the democrat party. Democrats thrive on division and segregation and count on a pravda media to train their constituents. That’s why dems’ only understanding of prominent non-dems is the image portrayed to them by pravda. Coulter is an example who is ragged on by dems who don’t really pay attention to any of her points, only what they’re told. So when an attention whore like coulter does an obvious controversial thing but it seems to jibe with the dem agenda, suddenly dems act as if they read her columns religiously.
Phonies.

So you don't see any of this coming from right wing media, too?

Do you mean one news station as opposed to 300 + leftist, commie-promoting stations? Oh, I get it. You're color blind to those with yellow egg on their face.

Actually, when I'm discussing the Division Pimps on the Right, I'm talking about people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Jones, Fox, AON, CNS, Breitbart, Red State, and all the other primary "news" and "information" sources of the alternate universe. I'll bet you've heard of them.

See, I fully agree that most of the media leans Left. I hold my side accountable for its hypocrisy and its bullshit.

I wish you folks would, too. But I'm not holding breath.

You should be upset that MSM leans toward —propagates for — the democrats. We’re supposed to rely on them for info so we can make serious decisions. You shouldn’t accept it at all. If they were balanced and objective, the Limbaugh’s and Levin’s and Hannity’s wouldn’t be necessary and wouldn’t exist. But as long as media is dishonest, those admittedly conservative voices are not only relevant but necessary and important.

I was in it for 18 years, I know quite well that it leans left, I don't like it, and I've squabbled many times with lefties here who deny it.

That doesn't excuse the rampant partisan intellectual dishonesty, comically disguised as "The Truth", by right wing media.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You put the cart before the horse.
Right wing media is an (necessary) alternative and a choice. It doesn’t pretend to be objective news. It’s syndicated media. It’s reactionary.
NBC, NPR (public funded), PBS (public funded), ABC, CNN, CBS, etc., are supposed to be journalists but they slant their news hard left.

Well, that's the first time I've seen right wing media characterized in that way. Usually what I see is consumers of right wing media saying that it's more accurate and objective than mainstream media.

With so much one-sided advocacy going on, I don't blame people for tuning the whole thing out and watching the Kardashians.

If you actually consulted right wing alternatives for balance and vetting instead of relying on lefty examples of right wing alternatives, you wouldn’t be surprised by that characterization.

I listen to talk radio regularly. I tune in to Fox and AON. I stop by the websites. I'm pretty confident I have a decent grasp, otherwise I wouldn't comment on them.

I just wish more of their consumers would admit those outlets are reactionary.

I think they already know. That’s why they consult non-left alternatives. Everyone gets left wing news everyday because it’s in all of the MSM feeds. Only those who additionally consult non-left-wing sources can possibly get the full picture. That’s simple logic.

The problem, at least as I see it, is that many have allowed themselves to become convinced that the "news" and "information" they get from those clearly reactionary sources is The Truth, and all they need to know.

These are the people who scream FAKE NEWS at any and all facts and information that doesn't coincide with what they consume from those reactionary sources. That is absolutely obvious.

And this is clearly not a small number. This is an entirely self-contained, closed circuit "news" and "information" universe now. No intellectual curiosity required. That is dangerous.

But you ignored the part about how these allegedly uncurious already consult left wing news. All MSM is left wing. It’s unavoidable. It’s on google, FB, in airports and business waiting rooms. By default, everyone gets inundated with left wing news. It’s then up to individuals to consult non-left wing sources for vetting. Those who don’t are left in the democrats’ darkness.
The Washington Post’s motto should be Democrats Die In Darkness.

My actual point is that biased "news" is bad, regardless of which direction it comes from. Is there more of it from the Left? Yes, sure as hell. I was in the business for about 18 years, I can tell you all about it. But if the Right wing response to it is just as bad, if all the Right does to respond is spew the opposite, that's not any better or more objective.

"Well, they do it too, so it's okay that we do it." Bull. Moral relativism only lowers standards across the board. This doesn't improve unless and until both the Left wing media and the Right wing media are held accountable by their own tribes. And I'm sure not holding my breath. All I see is both tribes enabling it, dropping their standards along the way.

I don’t see non-left sources as mere contrarians. I see them often filling in the blanks and providing context.

 

[Mac1958]

I was in the business for about 18 years

11 for me.

Moral relativism only lowers standards across the board. This doesn't improve unless and until both the Left wing media and the Right wing media are held accountable by their own tribes.

Being in the business, you know this will not happen. Especially if you know reporters, editors and publishers. They know which side of the bread is buttered. I saw the priorities of corporate media change first hand seemingly overnight from a focus on journalistic integrity and ethics to headline chasing, breaking news and more often than not click bait articles. Newspapers and TV only embraced Internet because they had no other choice. Ride or die. It was once a scary, powerful new platform to them but the ad revenue stream was too good to not exploit. Now that's done, the media are addicted. But that Internet addiction has watered down the impact on the entire industry now that the field has been leveled: IE. any mouth breather can buy a website and declare themselves 'news content providers'.

Over three paragraphs is too much for most people to read. Seriously, these were the conclusions from industry studies we read. Facebook and Twatter's platforms soon became popular enough that people consumed the headline only, and then endlessly debated this instead of actually consuming the whole product, spawning completely pointless Internet arguments on the daily between the unwashed.

The exposure and ad revenue gold mine is simply too good for the media to hold itself accountable these days. I believe they will keep doing the bare minimum (doing just enough to avoid lawsuits), and the dumbing down of news as we know it will continue.

I'm afraid you're right, and it could actually get worse. There is now a movement that would essentially free all "news" media from even claiming to be objective journalism. So all the TV networks, newspapers, radio, etc., would just go ahead and admit how they lean and go pure advocacy. It's essentially officially giving up, and admitting that the charade is over.

But I think what we'd see happen is all "news" media turning into nothing more than Hannity or Maddow - focusing on only what which advances their agenda, avoiding all contrary information, distorting the views of the other side, and making ridiculous assumptions and extrapolations. And if you're thinking "they already do that", I can understand that. But it would be worse.

 

[Mac1958]

You’re a big Ann Coulter follower, are you?

I'm fascinated by the behaviors and tactics of the narcissistic, dishonest, hypocritical ends of our political spectrum. When something is this destructive to my country, I want to observe and understand it as much as possible.

For example, one of the primary tactics practiced regularly by both ends is to try to change the subject and put the other on the defensive, as we see with your post.

So yes, I pay close attention - particularly to the Division Pimps, those on both ends of have a vested professional interest in lying and keeping us angry and divided, and to those they con. The Division Pimps are as responsible as anyone for what has happened to this country.

Thanks for asking.

Those pimps are paramount to the democrat party. Democrats thrive on division and segregation and count on a pravda media to train their constituents. That’s why dems’ only understanding of prominent non-dems is the image portrayed to them by pravda. Coulter is an example who is ragged on by dems who don’t really pay attention to any of her points, only what they’re told. So when an attention whore like coulter does an obvious controversial thing but it seems to jibe with the dem agenda, suddenly dems act as if they read her columns religiously.
Phonies.

So you don't see any of this coming from right wing media, too?

Do you mean one news station as opposed to 300 + leftist, commie-promoting stations? Oh, I get it. You're color blind to those with yellow egg on their face.

Actually, when I'm discussing the Division Pimps on the Right, I'm talking about people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Jones, Fox, AON, CNS, Breitbart, Red State, and all the other primary "news" and "information" sources of the alternate universe. I'll bet you've heard of them.

See, I fully agree that most of the media leans Left. I hold my side accountable for its hypocrisy and its bullshit.

I wish you folks would, too. But I'm not holding breath.

You should be upset that MSM leans toward —propagates for — the democrats. We’re supposed to rely on them for info so we can make serious decisions. You shouldn’t accept it at all. If they were balanced and objective, the Limbaugh’s and Levin’s and Hannity’s wouldn’t be necessary and wouldn’t exist. But as long as media is dishonest, those admittedly conservative voices are not only relevant but necessary and important.

I was in it for 18 years, I know quite well that it leans left, I don't like it, and I've squabbled many times with lefties here who deny it.

That doesn't excuse the rampant partisan intellectual dishonesty, comically disguised as "The Truth", by right wing media.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You put the cart before the horse.
Right wing media is an (necessary) alternative and a choice. It doesn’t pretend to be objective news. It’s syndicated media. It’s reactionary.
NBC, NPR (public funded), PBS (public funded), ABC, CNN, CBS, etc., are supposed to be journalists but they slant their news hard left.

Well, that's the first time I've seen right wing media characterized in that way. Usually what I see is consumers of right wing media saying that it's more accurate and objective than mainstream media.

With so much one-sided advocacy going on, I don't blame people for tuning the whole thing out and watching the Kardashians.

If you actually consulted right wing alternatives for balance and vetting instead of relying on lefty examples of right wing alternatives, you wouldn’t be surprised by that characterization.

I listen to talk radio regularly. I tune in to Fox and AON. I stop by the websites. I'm pretty confident I have a decent grasp, otherwise I wouldn't comment on them.

I just wish more of their consumers would admit those outlets are reactionary.

I think they already know. That’s why they consult non-left alternatives. Everyone gets left wing news everyday because it’s in all of the MSM feeds. Only those who additionally consult non-left-wing sources can possibly get the full picture. That’s simple logic.

The problem, at least as I see it, is that many have allowed themselves to become convinced that the "news" and "information" they get from those clearly reactionary sources is The Truth, and all they need to know.

These are the people who scream FAKE NEWS at any and all facts and information that doesn't coincide with what they consume from those reactionary sources. That is absolutely obvious.

And this is clearly not a small number. This is an entirely self-contained, closed circuit "news" and "information" universe now. No intellectual curiosity required. That is dangerous.

But you ignored the part about how these allegedly uncurious already consult left wing news. All MSM is left wing. It’s unavoidable. It’s on google, FB, in airports and business waiting rooms. By default, everyone gets inundated with left wing news. It’s then up to individuals to consult non-left wing sources for vetting. Those who don’t are left in the democrats’ darkness.
The Washington Post’s motto should be Democrats Die In Darkness.

My actual point is that biased "news" is bad, regardless of which direction it comes from. Is there more of it from the Left? Yes, sure as hell. I was in the business for about 18 years, I can tell you all about it. But if the Right wing response to it is just as bad, if all the Right does to respond is spew the opposite, that's not any better or more objective.

"Well, they do it too, so it's okay that we do it." Bull. Moral relativism only lowers standards across the board. This doesn't improve unless and until both the Left wing media and the Right wing media are held accountable by their own tribes. And I'm sure not holding my breath. All I see is both tribes enabling it, dropping their standards along the way.

I don’t see non-left sources as mere contrarians. I see them often filling in the blanks and providing context.

I think there's some of that, sure.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I was in the business for about 18 years

11 for me.

Moral relativism only lowers standards across the board. This doesn't improve unless and until both the Left wing media and the Right wing media are held accountable by their own tribes.

Being in the business, you know this will not happen. Especially if you know reporters, editors and publishers. They know which side of the bread is buttered. I saw the priorities of corporate media change first hand seemingly overnight from a focus on journalistic integrity and ethics to headline chasing, breaking news and more often than not click bait articles. Newspapers and TV only embraced Internet because they had no other choice. Ride or die. It was once a scary, powerful new platform to them but the ad revenue stream was too good to not exploit. Now that's done, the media are addicted. But that Internet addiction has watered down the impact on the entire industry now that the field has been leveled: IE. any mouth breather can buy a website and declare themselves 'news content providers'.

Over three paragraphs is too much for most people to read. Seriously, these were the conclusions from industry studies we read. Facebook and Twatter's platforms soon became popular enough that people consumed the headline only, and then endlessly debated this instead of actually consuming the whole product, spawning completely pointless Internet arguments on the daily between the unwashed.

The exposure and ad revenue gold mine is simply too good for the media to hold itself accountable these days. I believe they will keep doing the bare minimum (doing just enough to avoid lawsuits), and the dumbing down of news as we know it will continue.

I'm afraid you're right, and it could actually get worse. There is now a movement that would essentially free all "news" media from even claiming to be objective journalism. So all the TV networks, newspapers, radio, etc., would just go ahead and admit how they lean and go pure advocacy. It's essentially officially giving up, and admitting that the charade is over.

But I think what we'd see happen is all "news" media turning into nothing more than Hannity or Maddow - focusing on only what which advances their agenda, avoiding all contrary information, distorting the views of the other side, and making ridiculous assumptions and extrapolations. And if you're thinking "they already do that", I can understand that. But it would be worse.

The 24/7 news cycle is the culprit for me. Too much priority to fill time. Networks allowing news givers to inject their personal opinions, then a little more. Then running strings of editorial blocks (Hannity, Maddow, et. Al) to group editorial shows (Morning Joe, The View).

I was never interested in the opinions of news givers. I just wanted them to read the news. Apparently, that's no longer the lucrative model.