Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'GMD Social Forum' started by Jimmy... Dead., Jun 19, 2014.
I don't claim to be good at it. But then, I also find things like "cuck Todd" to be pretty lame too.
'Fucker Carlson' is sub-Carlos Maza-tier insulting, you only make yourself look cringe when you talk like that. He's the least partisan guy on FOX btw, as well as the best.
"Cuck" at least ties into something cultural and rubs many people the wrong way (its overuse has caused an attempt by progressives to paint cuckoldery in a positive light lately which has been hilarious to witness).
least partisan guy as far as the political commentators/talk show dudes on FOX go. But he isnt bad at all imo and is faaar more legit than garbage like chuck todd and don lemon. As for the actual news reporting, no one comes close to Fox imo.
yes because you cant respond to facts. You're the same dude who is sitting here and claiming that the local news networks dont trash on the right every chance they get. How about we ask every other person on this forum that watch their local news and see what they say? Do you even watch those networks for implying something that would make you look this fucking clueless and ignorant? Dont know how you expect anyone to take you seriously when you spew out false nonsense like this. I'm starting to think you might actually not be lying on purpose but are just completely disconnected from the general public and live in your own little bubble. Either way, you're just making a fool of yourself.
more facts for dat ass...
Ask journalists, and they'll likely tell you they play things right down the middle. They strive to be "fair." They're "centrists." Sorry, not true. The profound leftward ideological bias of the Big Media is the main reason why America now seems saturated with "fake news." Journalists, besotted with their own ideology, are no longer able to recognize their own bias.
Despite journalists' denials, it's now pretty much a fact that journalism is one of the most left-wing of all professions. But until recently, that wasn't thought to be true of financial journalists — who have a reputation for being the most right-leaning and free-market-oriented among mainstream journalists.
If that was ever true, it sure isn't today, a new study suggests.
Researchers from Arizona State University and Texas A&M University questioned 462 financial journalists around the country. They followed up with 18 additional interviews. The journalists worked for the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press and a number of other newspapers.
What they found surprised them. Even the supposedly hard-nosed financial reporters were overwhelmingly liberal. Of the 462 people surveyed, 17.63% called themselves "very liberal," while 40.84% described themselves as "somewhat liberal."
Media Conservatives: Endangered
When you add it up, 58.47% admit to being left of center. Along with that, another 37.12% claim to be "moderate."
What about the mythic "conservative" financial journalist? In fact, a mere 0.46% of financial journalists called themselves "very conservative," while just 3.94% said they were "somewhat conservative." That's a whopping 4.4% of the total that lean right-of-center.
That's a ratio of 13 "liberals" for every one "conservative." Whatever happened to ideological diversity? Please remember this as you watch the business news or read a financial story in the paper. You might want to take its message with a grain of salt. That's especially true if the piece seems unduly harsh on the free-market system and its many proven benefits. Or if it lauds socialism as an "answer" to society's ills.
This is an enormous problem for the media — perhaps bigger than they realize. A Rasmussen Reports survey in late October found that 45% of all likely voters in the midterm elections believed "that when most reporters write about a congressional race, they are trying to help the Democratic candidate."
Just 11% said the media would try to help the Republican. And only 35% said they thought reporters simply try to report the news in an unbiased way.
Rasumussen notes that this "helps explain why Democratic voters are much bigger fans of election news coverage" than others. They see it as favorable to their own beliefs.
Media Bias Is Real
Even so, that doesn't keep people from seeing the harsh reality of bias.
A post-election survey of 1,000 voters by McLaughlin & Associates found that "a forceful plurality (48%) of respondents believe the media coverage is unfair and biased" against President Trump. Even 16% of Democrats agreed.
It used to be thought that, sure, the cultural beat writers, book reviewers and Op-Ed writers all shared a common intellectual bent and thus were more likely to be left-leaning than other reporters. But these recent studies show that's not true. The taint of bias now infects all of journalism, not just the cultural and opinion spinners.
Media Bias: Data Don't Lie
It wasn't always this way. Along-term study of reporters' leanings and attitudes, "The American Journalist in the Digital Age," shows that the drift toward liberalism has been going on for years within journalism. In 1971, Republicans made up 25.7% of all journalists. Democrats were 35.5%, and independents were 32.5%. Some 6.3% of responses were "other."
By 2014, the year of the last survey, the share of journalists identifying as Republican had shrunk to 7.1%, an 18.6 percentage point drop. From having near-parity with the journalist Republicans in the 1970s, Democrats today outnumber Republicans today by four to one.
Meanwhile, the share of journalists calling themselves "independent" has surged to 50.2%. In case you think the growing body of Independents qualifies as "the center," think again.
Repeated surveys show that independents are usually left-of-center on social issues, but centrist on fiscal issues and many issue of governance. So you should really characterize them as "moderate left."
A Reader Turn Off?
Bad news for journalists, and bad news for journalism. Because as Americans continue down their path of growing mistrust of the mainstream media, they will start looking for alternatives.
Will they find new, more trustworthy sources of news? Or will they just turn it off entirely? Either one isn't good for journalists, or good for America.
It's time the journalistic mainstream addresses this problem. Smug denial is no longer an option. It starts with owners, publishers and editors demanding fairness in their reporting and weeding out obvious bias. While they're at it, they should elevate the idea of unbiased news coverage to a goal, even if it's not attainable.
The sex pest gaylord.
i heard he rubbed his finger on Eins face.
That's not saying much.
You're citing hot takes on media bias from a media source. Do you have any knowledge of the blinders on your perspective? Do you have any sense of self-reflection, any ability to conceive your own opinion? You're incapable of realizing that your position, and the data you so confidently insist upon, are provided from biased sources. It's really something to watch you work. Like a hamster spinning in his wheel and thinking he's going somewhere.
Also, your "drift toward liberalism has been going on for years" link doesn't actually link to a story about journalistic drift toward liberalism. You making shit up now?
If you want "facts," here are some: https://www.vox.com/2018/4/3/171800...ive-trump-david-smith-local-news-tv-affiliate
But it's from Vox, so you probably won't pay any attention... (nothing new there)
Einhercommie talking to me about "bias sources", hamster wheels and basically repeating things i've been pointing out about him for years now. i love it!
I know that from a certain perspective the "cuck" phenomenon is comedy gold; but from another it's all eye-roll material. I see it as mostly vapid indifference masked as insightful criticism.
I realized you were simply voicing deep-seeded insecurities about your own intellect.
lmao, spoken like a true faggot
i think we're pretty much done here. I'm gonna go ahead and close to door on you and go take my victory lap ...
This gif is amazin.
By the phenomenon do you mean cuckolding or just using the slur?
If you mean the slur, it's only comedy gold because it triggers people (and like NPC its targets started trying to use it themselves but that only made them look more pathetic). I don't know that anybody has ever pretended calling someone a "cuck" was insightful criticism though. You might have just made that bit up.
I probably did. But I also think that doing something simply because it triggers someone else is pretty stupid.
Nobody said trolling was intellectual pal.
I don't know if I'd call Chuck Todd a "cuck" myself, he more strikes me as a complete fucking retard who probably has a few #MeToo skeletons in his closet waiting to be discovered. He has a date-rape beard lmao.
But boy he is either very stupid or tactically obtuse: http://twitter.com/BenjaminPDixon/status/1227752386204139520
Whew lad. Never mind the liberal bias in the mainstream media, the liberal bias on social media is out of control. Mayor Buttcrack seems to have as many tentacles as Hillary. Kyle Kulinski is doing some great stuff calling out this guy as well as Warren.
That's because the conservative demographic doesn't know how to social media (literally--they can't figure out their computers and phones).
Buttigieg is slimy as hell. Not sure what he has on Warren though; she's way cleaner than Buttigieg, Biden, Clinton, etc.
I don't doubt that the right has its fair share of boomers, but are we really pretending there aren't a shitload of aged liberals who clunk around on social media? Also I don't really get what that has to do with anything, I'm not talking about % vs % of the userbase, I'm talking about biases in how sites are moderated and so on.
For one her disingenuous attack on Bernie. Also her backtracking on Medicare-for-all. His stuff on Twitter is too countless to list (you know, everyday Tweets being picked apart by him etc).