Coulter unloads on Trump: "Disloyal actual retard"

[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.

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

Both ends of this are dishonest. Both play the same games, as I describe above.

As long as they're not held accountable by their fans, this just gets worse.

 

[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.

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.

You also have the choice of not watching said network.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

Nope -

Real Truthful Journalism doesn't promote Progressive ideas by default.

That's the problem.

 

[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.

Both ends of this are dishonest. Both play the same games, as I describe above.

As long as they're not held accountable by their fans, this just gets worse.

It is not an equal thing as you suggest. MSM is biased. Conservative media is not MSM. That’s the dilemma.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

You may simply not know what objective means.

 

[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.

Nope -

Real Truthful Journalism doesn't promote Progressive ideas by default.

That's the problem.

Yes, the major media leans left. That's not an excuse to copy them in the other direction.

 

[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.

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.

Both ends of this are dishonest. Both play the same games, as I describe above.

As long as they're not held accountable by their fans, this just gets worse.

It is not an equal thing as you suggest. MSM is biased. Conservative media is not MSM. That’s the dilemma.

No dilemma. I simply disagree with your view.

 

[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.

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

Both ends of this are dishonest. Both play the same games, as I describe above.

As long as they're not held accountable by their fans, this just gets worse.

It is not an equal thing as you suggest. MSM is biased. Conservative media is not MSM. That’s the dilemma.

I didn't say equal. My point is two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Real Truthful Journalism doesn't promote Progressive ideas by default.
That's the problem.

I think real Progressives can and should fight for truth in journalism. It is much needed. And it usually can’t be found on MSNBC!

The same goes for real Conservatives. They need to fight for truth In journalism, as they see it.

I consider myself a “progressive” and also a “leftist” on most issues. But that absolutely doesn’t prevent me from doggedly insisting on truthful reporting. Of course I am not a paid journalist!

 

[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.

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

You may simply not know what objective means.

If you see everything through a certain political lens you may simply not know what objective means.

 

[Mac1958]

Real Truthful Journalism doesn't promote Progressive ideas by default.
That's the problem.

I think real Progressives can and should fight for truth in journalism. It is much needed. And it usually can’t be found on MSNBC!

The same goes for real Conservatives. They need to fight for truth In journalism, as they see it.

I consider myself a “progressive” and also a “leftist” on most issues. But that absolutely doesn’t prevent me from doggedly standing for truthful reporting. Of course I am not a paid journalist!

The problem is that the two ends of the spectrum exist within two completely different versions of "The Truth".

So they're getting what they want from their chosen media. They want as little contrary information as possible.

This is a freakin' mess.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

You may simply not know what objective means.

If you see everything through a certain political lens you may simply not know what objective means.

Correct -
Now what steps will you take to rectify yourself?

 

[Billiejeens]

Real Truthful Journalism doesn't promote Progressive ideas by default.
That's the problem.

I think real Progressives can and should fight for truth in journalism. It is much needed. And it usually can’t be found on MSNBC!

The same goes for real Conservatives. They need to fight for truth In journalism, as they see it.

I consider myself a “progressive” and also a “leftist” on most issues. But that absolutely doesn’t prevent me from doggedly standing for truthful reporting. Of course I am not a paid journalist!

The problem is that the two ends of the spectrum exist within two completely different versions of "The Truth".

So they're getting what they want from their chosen media. They want as little contrary information as possible.

This is a freakin' mess.

It is not -
Conservatives are able to digest each side.
The left makes no effort to consume anything that doesn't support their position.

 

[Billiejeens]

Real Truthful Journalism doesn't promote Progressive ideas by default.
That's the problem.

I think real Progressives can and should fight for truth in journalism. It is much needed. And it usually can’t be found on MSNBC!

The same goes for real Conservatives. They need to fight for truth In journalism, as they see it.

I consider myself a “progressive” and also a “leftist” on most issues. But that absolutely doesn’t prevent me from doggedly standing for truthful reporting. Of course I am not a paid journalist!

The problem is that the two ends of the spectrum exist within two completely different versions of "The Truth".

So they're getting what they want from their chosen media. They want as little contrary information as possible.

This is a freakin' mess.

It is not -
Conservatives are able to digest each side.
The left makes no effort to consume anything that doesn't support their position.

Your laugh simply confirms my assertions.

 

[Mac1958]

Real Truthful Journalism doesn't promote Progressive ideas by default.
That's the problem.

I think real Progressives can and should fight for truth in journalism. It is much needed. And it usually can’t be found on MSNBC!

The same goes for real Conservatives. They need to fight for truth In journalism, as they see it.

I consider myself a “progressive” and also a “leftist” on most issues. But that absolutely doesn’t prevent me from doggedly standing for truthful reporting. Of course I am not a paid journalist!

The problem is that the two ends of the spectrum exist within two completely different versions of "The Truth".

So they're getting what they want from their chosen media. They want as little contrary information as possible.

This is a freakin' mess.

It is not -
Conservatives are able to digest each side.
The left makes no effort to consume anything that doesn't support their position.

Your laugh simply confirms my assertions.

I'm tired of asymmetrical conversations. I know you believe that, and that's fine.

 

[Muhammed]

Almost made me spit out my coffee

The fight scene between Timmy and Jimmy is a shot-for-shot remake from John Carpenter's classic They Live.

Best movie fight EVAH. Over sunglasses!

That brawl in the alley was almost half the movie. But that stubborn bastard did eventually obey and put on the sunglasses IIRC.

 

[mdk]

Almost made me spit out my coffee

The fight scene between Timmy and Jimmy is a shot-for-shot remake from John Carpenter's classic They Live.

Best movie fight EVAH. Over sunglasses!

That brawl in the alley was almost half the movie. But that stubborn bastard did eventually obey and put on the glasses IIRC.

Meg Foster has stunning eyes and they really popped with that red hair.

 

[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.

You're a fool

Idiot-gram ^^^, Variety, ad hominem.

 

[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".

Anti-constitutional.

Do you support or oppose R v W? Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda, the PPACA (Obamacare)?

If you don't you are anti-constitutional. Have you ever chanted, "lock her up", or supported those who chant this statement? If so, you are anti-Bill of Rights.

So let's not pretend your response to my question to define the phrase you posted, "left wing" is anything but an example of your inability to define it, and you only used it as a pejorative, something you've been told to believe by the far right fringe.

[And YES, I will define "far right fringe" when you define "left wing"]

 

[Muhammed]

Almost made me spit out my coffee

The fight scene between Timmy and Jimmy is a shot-for-shot remake from John Carpenter's classic They Live.

Best movie fight EVAH. Over sunglasses!

That brawl in the alley was almost half the movie. But that stubborn bastard did eventually obey and put on the glasses IIRC.

Meg Foster has stunning eyes and they really popped with that red hair.

She was pretty. Too bad she was a fake news kunt colluding with the aliens.