264

…and the beat goes on.

2 Likes
265

You really don’t want to get into what the media looked like when the constitution was written

Also the two of you are going after a blog post aggregated by msn

266

When it comes to lies in the MSM, it’s a target rich environment.

267

Of course as are blog posts. I don’t disagree.

268

Reported in multiple places, with the same lie. You can google, I’m sure.

269

Romney and Cheney are deep-state approved Republicans.

Iran has the mullahs on its Guardian Council who determine acceptable candidates. We have a similar setup in the US, only with less transparency.

270

The press of the 19th century and even the 18th was way worse than what we have today. Some newspapers were originally owned and operated by political parties. And early media sensationalism was incredible.

It’s actually a really interesting topic.

271

Did you check out the site that provided the study? Lol. Talk about bashing…Fox quoting a MCR study is like MSNBC quoting Media Matters.

Did they take the time to study Fox and their treatment of Biden or Dem govs.?

And their ‘study’ is a total political hit piece with such gems as this: " “Instead of focusing on the Biden failures exposed by the migrants arriving in the north, reporters chose instead to dismiss it all as a political stunt.”

So balanced!

272

You can’t refute it so you try and change direction.

273

Libs seem to like this argument. “Well, it was worse (insert some example of when it was worse.)”

Thread after thread. Issue after issue.

It gives the impression that they are OK with how it is now.

1 Like
274

Precisely.

275

Not at all - I’m continuing the conversation.

Let’s take this step by step -

  • A website claiming to me a media watch dog has headlines like “Eight brand new hunter biden scandals the media is censoring”, “Why is the media hiding these radical dems who suppport abortion up till the moment before birth?” and “Four Soros backed DAs the media is hiding from you” claims to have looked into media coverage of governors.

  • Another website, one that claims to be journalistic, covers this study as news.

  • The second website does not point out the first website’s obvious bias. Nor does it ask a single question of the methodology of the study. For example, it doesn’t point out the first website didn’t consider other media outlets treatemnts of R or D govs, instead focusing on just three media outlets. The second website takes no note of this small sample size.

  • This now amplified study by an obviously partisan interest becomes proof of media bias.

Does that sound about right?

276

I don’t like or dislike this argument. Because it falls both ways, right? I think contemporary media is terrible. I think the RW echo chamber is a little worse than the left wing echo chamber, and it depresses me that this is our news media.

But I was informed by a historical friend of mine years ago when i was lamenting the state of our media, that it is actually pretty tame compared to the lunacy of the past, and he gave me some really interesting, and funny pieces to read on it.

To be clear, I am not ok with our media today. I was simply noting, it has in fact been worse.

277

Yet libs (including you) use it whenever something libbish needs to be discounted. :man_shrugging:

Your attempt to worm away from that is noted. :+1:

2 Likes
278

I wasn’t worming out of anything. Someone said something about the founders. I pointed out their media sucked too, probably even worse than ours.

Not sure what on earth about that would upset you, other than of course, anything a lib says here has to be wrong!

But hey, the Hearst papers make the national enquire look sane, and the partisan, party owned newspapers of the early 19th century make fox and msnbc look fair and balanced.

But my all means, accuse me of something or other for posting that.

279

Yes you were.

280

By and large, especially from you, that’s sadly the truth.

Hope that helps!

281

This is the post that started this exchange.

How they heck is the innocuous and true comment that the papers of the past were worse than today at all bothersome to you guys piling on to this now?

It’s ■■■■■■■ nuts.

I can’t even understand what you all are bitching about.

282

At least you are truthful about your complete lack of intellectual honesty!

1 Like
283

If you don’t understand stay out of the debate. Nothing shows lib hate more then trying to debate with no facts but "I must a con said something " similar to Pavlov dog.

1 Like