Am I blind or is Fox News not on that graph?
Maybe somewhat, but it was more like candy for a kid that never had any. It said all the things they thought but were afraid to say in the open. Fox has legitimized it.
The right seems to think itās all institutional and borne in the foundation of the media. Itās not. In all my years of newspapering, there was never any plotting to be liberal. We just reported the news. Period. Facts are facts.
Nah, the success of Fox is the same folks who listen to 3 hrs of Rush, then 3 hours of Sean, then 3 hours of Mark Levin, need a few more hours of brain washing to make sure what they heard on the radio is also being mimicked on TV.
Validation at its finest.
I think we said the same thing but in different ways. 
Both sides have their avenues to spew their BS.
Libs have TV on lock while Cons have Radio.
Itās a push when it comes to Social Media.
We as consumers of information must break out of our laziness and actually read and research in order to discern between fact, fiction, opinions, fake news and the truth. For example, Iāve been studying black history for most of my life as it relates to the United States, the Caribbean, South American and of course Africa. Through it all, historical accounts range from myth, urban legend, hyperbole and of course the truth. One popular belief/myth is Rosa Parks didnāt want to get up from her seat on the bus because her feet were tired. In her own words the real reason was because of what happened to Emmitt Till, his tragedy, and the anguish of his mother. Her feet werenāt tired, she was tired of the racists Jim Crow system during that era. A lot of us have chosen to stick with the posture of, āno matter what as long as it lines up with my own belief, ideology or my partisan leaning, itās alright with meā. We have to look deeper than the first page of a google search, or what Limbaugh, Hannity, Maddow, Levin, Ingram and all the local wannabees say on their respective shows. We have to read, research, open our minds and discern the truth.
I tried to get my iphone to pluck a strand of my hair out, it didnt work 
What a ridiculous comment and off point. The question was who delivers their message better to their followers. Left or right.
Those same people at one time in their life actually listened to music.
ā¦and yet they color the news. for example. When president Obama decided to open a embassy in the communist dictatorship of Cuba, the left leaning news media called it āan historic event.ā When Trump moved our existing embassy to Jerusalem, the same news media referred to it as āa controversial act.ā When in fact, both were historic events, and to some, they were both controversial.
And yet one led to 41 deaths
Iām not sure whether youāre talking about stories or headlines or in what context the descriptions were in. The very short and inadequate answer is that writers look to use tags like āhistoricā and ācontroversialā to categorize things. Itās a subjective task and one that not everyone will do the same. Writing a headline is a different situation ā¦ you only have very very limited space. Donāt condemn news stories like what you mentioned on the basis of one or two words you donāt agree with. Itās the story itself that matters. And the facts in the story. Not a couple of subjective words.
No. Its not that simplistic.
Take this story about Trump. It tells you that Trump is calling undocumented immigrants āanimalsā. It then quotes somebody about how calling people animals can lead to genocide.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/05/16/trump-calls-undocumented-immigrants-
animals-echoing/617762002/
Fine. Those are facts. But if you go to some other sites you find out that the conversation at the time was about M-13 gang members, and these are the āundocumentedā people he was referring to.
So USA Today was giving you the facts, just not all the facts that most people would consider relevant.
And that makes it, you know, FN.
P.S. Thatās why the internet is so great. Never rely on just one site.
Simsā comments are coincidentally not quoted. The only source I could find for the supposed MS-14 reference is the Daily News.
From the article:
āTrumpās harsh comment, which set off an avalanche of outrage over social media, came in response to a lament from a California sheriff who said her stateās sanctuary laws prevent local police from alerting federal authorities about MS-13 gang members.ā
Yes, you will see repeated Trumpās speech referring to some of these people as animals. The context was that thatā¦wellā¦as quoted above.
Accidentally not mentioned?
Yes, not surprised at all that the context is totally left off of most media sites.
P.S. Thanks for making my point.
Thatās not her being quoted. Thatās someone saying what she was supposedly talking about.
If it is a lie, I am sure the other media will let us know. If it is the true context, Iām sure they wont.
Confirmation from another source.
