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.

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.

But when the alleged arbiter is one of the wrongs...

Are you saying that right wing media doesn't do what I describe?

How did you figure that?

I didn't figure it. I'm asking it, because you're not being very direct and I'd like some clarification.

So: Does the right wing media do what I describe?

What description?

"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."

 

[Mac1958]

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.”

She has her opinion and I have mine. I read several of her books and they were good. See how that works?

I sure do!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No one has a right to health care.

Everyone does. Our kids will make sure they do. Our generation is too stupid to get it done.

You're brainwashed by too many Ayn Rand piles of shit masquerading as books.

 

[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.

No dilemma. I simply disagree with your view.

Then you’re a dupe to lefty bias. At least you admit it.

Then you're a dupe to righty bias if you believe Conservative media isn't mainstream. You're simply out of your fucking melon if you believe that. Just because it may not come from mainstream sources anymore, doesn't mean Conservative media gets any less air time than anyone else. Many talented people happen to be conservative and are innovating in this industry. Limbaugh still has 15.5 million listeners a week on radio and podcast. Hannity still has the #1 cable news opinion program. Alex Jones is still a big fruitcake. OAN is trying to make waves.

Your assertions don't reflect reality to me at all. That's all.

You’re in denial. And your reality is the problem. When institutionally biased journalists hang with each other they are part of a culture of bias that they can’t even recognize.
Conservative media is not ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS. Those are all left wing biased. Conservative media then becomes the alternative. And to objective people it becomes a necessary alternative.

NPR is good journalism. Give them another listen.

They’re lefty biased. And I have to subsidize them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Then you’re a dupe to lefty bias. At least you admit it.

Then you're a dupe to righty bias if you believe Conservative media isn't mainstream. You're simply out of your fucking melon if you believe that. Just because it may not come from mainstream sources anymore, doesn't mean Conservative media gets any less air time than anyone else. Many talented people happen to be conservative and are innovating in this industry. Limbaugh still has 15.5 million listeners a week on radio and podcast. Hannity still has the #1 cable news opinion program. Alex Jones is still a big fruitcake. OAN is trying to make waves.

Your assertions don't reflect reality to me at all. That's all.

You’re in denial. And your reality is the problem. When institutionally biased journalists hang with each other they are part of a culture of bias that they can’t even recognize.
Conservative media is not ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS. Those are all left wing biased. Conservative media then becomes the alternative. And to objective people it becomes a necessary alternative.

NPR is good journalism. Give them another listen.

They’re lefty biased. And I have to subsidize them.

Their journalism is not. Not that you have ever actually listened.

NPR doesn't receive any direct federal funding. They apply for and receive grants, in competition with many other groups. This accounts for about 2% of their revenue.

 

[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.

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

But when the alleged arbiter is one of the wrongs...

Are you saying that right wing media doesn't do what I describe?

How did you figure that?

I didn't figure it. I'm asking it, because you're not being very direct and I'd like some clarification.

So: Does the right wing media do what I describe?

What description?

"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."

You obviously havent seen presentations where the right wing host debates a left wing guest.
Madcow got started by being a regular sparring partner for T Carlson on MSNBC. Carlson was eventually fired and replaced by madcow who debates no one. She brings on agreeable guests and propagates lefty/dem talking points.

 

[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.

But when the alleged arbiter is one of the wrongs...

Are you saying that right wing media doesn't do what I describe?

How did you figure that?

I didn't figure it. I'm asking it, because you're not being very direct and I'd like some clarification.

So: Does the right wing media do what I describe?

What description?

"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."

You obviously havent seen presentations where the right wing host debates a left wing guest.
Madcow got started by being a regular sparring partner for T Carlson on MSNBC. Carlson was eventually fired and replaced by madcow who debates no one. She brings on agreeable guests and propagates lefty/dem talking points.

Okay, never mind.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

No one has a right to health care.

Everyone does. Our kids will make sure they do. Our generation is too stupid to get it done.

You're brainwashed by too many Ayn Rand piles of shit masquerading as books.

No one has a right to health care. That is a democrat, socialist, unconstitutional talking point. You’re brainwashed.

 

[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.

No dilemma. I simply disagree with your view.

Then you’re a dupe to lefty bias. At least you admit it.

Then you're a dupe to righty bias if you believe Conservative media isn't mainstream. You're simply out of your fucking melon if you believe that. Just because it may not come from mainstream sources anymore, doesn't mean Conservative media gets any less air time than anyone else. Many talented people happen to be conservative and are innovating in this industry. Limbaugh still has 15.5 million listeners a week on radio and podcast. Hannity still has the #1 cable news opinion program. Alex Jones is still a big fruitcake. OAN is trying to make waves.

Your assertions don't reflect reality to me at all. That's all.

You’re in denial. And your reality is the problem. When institutionally biased journalists hang with each other they are part of a culture of bias that they can’t even recognize.
Conservative media is not ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS. Those are all left wing biased. Conservative media then becomes the alternative. And to objective people it becomes a necessary alternative.

NPR is good journalism. Give them another listen.

They’re lefty biased. And I have to subsidize them.

Their journalism is not. Not that you have ever actually listened.

NPR doesn't receive any direct federal funding. They apply for and receive grants, in competition with many other groups. This accounts for about 2% of their revenue.

They are taxpayer subsidized and their analysis shows are left wing. Their news is accurate but contextualized and not challenged.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No one has a right to health care.

Everyone does. Everyone also has a right to a scientific education, food, and housing.

 

[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.

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

But when the alleged arbiter is one of the wrongs...

Are you saying that right wing media doesn't do what I describe?

How did you figure that?

I didn't figure it. I'm asking it, because you're not being very direct and I'd like some clarification.

So: Does the right wing media do what I describe?

What description?

"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."

You obviously havent seen presentations where the right wing host debates a left wing guest.
Madcow got started by being a regular sparring partner for T Carlson on MSNBC. Carlson was eventually fired and replaced by madcow who debates no one. She brings on agreeable guests and propagates lefty/dem talking points.

Okay, never mind.

No rebuttal? So you finally understand?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They are taxpayer subsidized

False. That's not what grants are. Subsidies are subsidies. Grants are grants. They apply for grants, in competition with many groups.

And nobody is perfectly happy with how every penny of their taxes is spent. What makes you so special?

Their analysis shows? And which shows are those? Can you give an example of this bias? Nope.

 

[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.

But when the alleged arbiter is one of the wrongs...

Are you saying that right wing media doesn't do what I describe?

How did you figure that?

I didn't figure it. I'm asking it, because you're not being very direct and I'd like some clarification.

So: Does the right wing media do what I describe?

What description?

"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."

You obviously havent seen presentations where the right wing host debates a left wing guest.
Madcow got started by being a regular sparring partner for T Carlson on MSNBC. Carlson was eventually fired and replaced by madcow who debates no one. She brings on agreeable guests and propagates lefty/dem talking points.

Okay, never mind.

No rebuttal? So you finally understand?

I only have so much patience for asymmetrical conversations, and I've hit my limit here.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

They are taxpayer subsidized

False. That's not what grants are. Subsidies are subsidies. Grants are grants. They apply for grants, in competition with many groups.

And nobody is perfectly happy with how every penny of their taxes is spent. What makes you so special?

Their analysis shows? And which shows are those? Can you give an example of this bias? Nope.

All Things (left wing) Considered, for one.
Grants, subsidies, same thing, different angles. Public money. That’s what the P stands for.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All Things (left wing) Considered, for one

Repeating your claim is not an example. I want to see the pattern of bias you claim. Because i dont see it.

Grants, subsidies, same thing, different angles.

False. Subsidies are legislated to go specifically to certain groups. Grants must be applied for and competed for.

NPR received about $4 million in government grants last year. I.E., About the cost of 2 or 3 of Trump's 250+ golf trips.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

All Things (left wing) Considered, for one

Repeating your claim is not an example. I want to see the pattern of bias you claim. Because i dont see it.

Grants, subsidies, same thing, different angles.

False. Subsidies are legislated to go specifically to certain groups. Grants must be applied for and competed for.

NPR received about $4 million in government grants last year. I.E., About the cost of 2 or 3 of Trump's 250+ golf trips.

It’s public money! NPR and PBS push left wing agendas. With public money! Just like public schools.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It’s public money!

i know! It's outrageous that we pay more for the fat idiot to cheat at golf 3 times than we do for a year of original journalistic and artistic content. I feel ya. Believe me.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It’s public money!

i know! It's outrageous that we pay more for the fat idiot to cheat at golf 3 times than we do for a year of original journalistic and artistic content. I feel ya. Believe me.

One bad thing doesn’t justify another though your example isn’t even close to a parallel.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One bad thing doesn’t justify another

I didn't imply it does. The important, commercial free content provided by NPR more than justifies the $4 million per year. A fat idiot cheating at golf 3 times and enriching himself with taxpayer money at his own golf clubs does not justify $4 million.