PERFECT example DaveMan of why the explosion in media sources is a blessing and gets us to "the truth" faster than Huntley-Brinkley or Walter Cronkite used to.. Life's too short to live under decades of misconceptions, unwarranted hatred, and faulty biases..
Kudos for the demonstration...
Both sides accuse the other of wanting to go back to the "old days".. I'm not all that fond of the "old media". But in fairness, there's a lot more out there that IS lesser quality.. The marketplace of "news consumers" will act to reduce that problem UNLESS there's a MARKET for low quality "news"..
Breitbart and Fox are two examples of 100% advocacy pseudo journalsm. Rush created the 100% advocacy model, and then Fox made the model incredibly profitable. It's competely understandable that conservative media would make you and Daveman feel like you're hearing "the truth". "The truth" is a very subjective term. Here is one example...when conservative media shows a poll on "the direction of the country", and it's results show that people are unhappy with the direction, the concluion is drawn that those unhappy people don't like Obama. I would anwer yes to the same poll, but I think the direction this country is talking is bad because so many so called "conservatives" won seats in the house last January.
With sources like Breitbart, and Fox, the problem isn't what conservative media tells you about Democrat...it's what they won't tell you about Republicans, and that is not even low quality news, it's propaganda.
I think the following sources are the problem. Fox, MSNBC, Drudge, The Huffington Post, The New York Post, The New York Times, Breitbart, Crook and Liars, Michelle Malkin, Daily KOS, Redstates, Wonkette, Hotair, Rush, CNN, and so on...If you're getting your information from any of these sources...you have a head full of propaganda.
The fact is...new agencies since the beginning of time have raked muck and perpetuated centuries of misconceptions, unwarranted hatred, and faulty biases. Sorting out "the truth" from US media of today is abolutely imposible.
What I know about the middle east and Muslims, I learned from living there. What I know about the healthcare industry, I learned from working in it. What I know about political history, I learned from reading political history. All these sources that you think are bringing the undisclosed to light, are just telling you how you should think. Today's media holds focus groups that find out what conservatives and liberals want to hear, then they produce that product. Because that product is favorable to a particular electioneering effort, those politicians will appear. It's simply what I call the media/political complex. Parties don't tell their advocacy news agencies what to say, but those news agencies know what to say to keep their party members engaged. Cronkite and Brinkley didn't have any relationships with Democrats that even approaches the level of integration that the GOP and Fox does. Cronkite and Brinkley didn't rely on focus groups, verified all stories with 2 sources, and they didn't have the Frank Lunz's of the world running around pretending to NOT be a Republican political strategist.
The most liberating thing that ha happened to me in the last five years was to quit watching cable news. Now my two sources for everything are the house and senate web sites where you can read the legislation yourself...and history books written before 1970.
Just to be clear...I mean no disrepect to your critical reasoning skills, or you. It's also very refreshing to debate with someone who doen't need inults to reinforce salient points.
