Coulter unloads on Trump: "Disloyal actual retard"

[Tom Paine 1949]

One simply has to make an effort. Set a high standard. Don’t watch all that shit unless you absolutely must. Better to not even know who Ann Coulter was, or is. It all rots your mind. MSNBC and CNN included. There are real sources out there on the internet. Stuff worth reading. But we have to investigate the world the way we read Wikipedia. With a curious mind. Checking the sources. The links. The footnotes. Re-checking anything that doesn’t seem right. **** Twitter!

 

[initforme]

To me the deep state refers to any Uber wealthy person in politics. I believe I'm spit on...would bet everything I have on it.

 

[anynameyouwish]

You had one part right...it's hey look at me....Let's not pretend that the vast majority of moonbat nutters does not reside on the American left.

it is obvious that the vast majority of loony tune moonbats are conservatives....

 

[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.

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.

You're a fool

 

[Billiejeens]

To me the deep state refers to any Uber wealthy person in politics. I believe I'm spit on...would bet everything I have on it.

Who spit on you?

 

[initforme]

Just stating the facts...

 

[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.

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.

Yes to all of this -

The left wing agenda is promoted everywhere -
About as easy to avoid as oxygen.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

Hannity admits he’s conservative; Madcow does not admit she’s lefty. There’s the dilemma.

 

[Billiejeens]

You had one part right...it's hey look at me....Let's not pretend that the vast majority of moonbat nutters does not reside on the American left.

it is obvious that the vast majority of loony tune moonbats are conservatives....

Delusion -

Conservatives are easily the most informed.
We are force fed the left's agenda by default
Then we go supplement that diet.
We are the most nourished by default and by definition.

 

[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.

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.

Cable news was the setup, the internet was the knockout punch.

Straight news is boring. Real journalism is hard. We can't have that.

 

[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.

Hannity admits he’s conservative; Madcow does not admit she’s lefty. There’s the dilemma.

Not a dilemma if you don't feel that information is important in the first place.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I don’t believe liberal capitalist media sources are “left wing” anymore than I believe that Trump and Breitbart and Hannity are traditional conservatives.

 

[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.

Hannity admits he’s conservative; Madcow does not admit she’s lefty. There’s the dilemma.

That's a pretty slim difference. Her agenda is blazingly clear to all, and she doesn't claim to be objective.

 

[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.

Cable news was the setup, the internet was the knockout punch.

Straight news is boring. Real journalism is hard. We can't have that.

Precisely.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

Hannity admits he’s conservative; Madcow does not admit she’s lefty. There’s the dilemma.

Not a dilemma if you don't feel that information is important in the first place.

Speak for yourself.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

Hannity admits he’s conservative; Madcow does not admit she’s lefty. There’s the dilemma.

That's a pretty slim difference. Her agenda is blazingly clear to all, and she doesn't claim to be objective.

She does not claim to be biased and neither does her network. Dishonest.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I don’t believe liberal capitalist media sources are “left wing” anymore than I believe that Trump and Breitbart and Hannity are traditional conservatives.

You can rely on one thing: they're all capitalists. Not red or blue, only green

 

[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.

Hannity admits he’s conservative; Madcow does not admit she’s lefty. There’s the dilemma.

Not a dilemma if you don't feel that information is important in the first place.

Speak for yourself.

Yeah. I just did. In the last few comments. Keep up.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I don’t believe liberal capitalist media sources are “left wing” anymore than I believe that Trump and Breitbart and Hannity are traditional conservatives.

You can rely on one thing: they're all capitalists. Not red or blue, only green

Except the lefties promote socialism beyond their own paychecks.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

Hannity admits he’s conservative; Madcow does not admit she’s lefty. There’s the dilemma.

Not a dilemma if you don't feel that information is important in the first place.

Speak for yourself.

Yeah. I just did. In the last few comments. Keep up.

I just acknowledged that. How is that not keeping up? Keep up now.