Naah, fagboy, wrong as always, lick my asscrack. Too bad you got no brain. If you did, maybe Donald might hire you as his next press rep, to fire you 30 seconds later when he realizes what a dumbass you are. LMAO
If you go to the main page of news.groopspeak.com it has a headline about the Donald supporting the death penalty for homosexuality. I think that would have made other news feeds if true.
On the other hand, you never know with this verkackte administration. I'm now convinced that something non-brilliant but avoidable by a normal administration is going to happen at some point during the Trump era. Perhaps nuking Fiji because of a Twitter fight. Who knows?
Clarification for the humorless: I picked nuking Fiji because it is the craziest thing I could think of at the moment. We all know that's not going to happen.
But Vanuatu better watch its back and stay off Twitter!
Not gonna happen. Likely to President Trump, compared to being a world class business man based in the bowels of NYC, this president thing is a walk in Central park. :)
^^^ Interesting website; haven't seen that before. I like sources that do a great job of separating objective news stories from editorial content. On MediaBiasFactCheck.com, the sites I visit most often (NY Times, Vox, WashPost) all get high marks for objective news reporting with liberal-bias editorials. Note that FoxNews does NOT get high marks for keeping their facts straight.
The only publication I actually pay for is "The Economist" and mediabiasfactcheck gives it high marks for accuracy and political bias right smack in the center (i.e, no political bias).
"Wall Street Journal" is rated highly for accuracy but with center-right bias in editorial content. THat sounds exactly right.
@Tx wrote: "blah blah blah blah im a DUMBAZZ libturd blah blah blah. "
-----------------
Thanks for the kind words @Tx, as always.
If I'm a libturd, it's a lot harder to pinpoint where you, and all your aliases stand.
Consider:
(1) @TxTittyFag who's clearly a redneck from the bowels of Texas, with no tolerance for those faggots who champion social causes. But he misspells every single word, almost like some caricature of some inbred dipshit from the deep South.
(2) @DoctorPhil our sadistic psychotherapist. He's done a lot of good with online therapy for our most needy members (like @SJG) but I think @DoctorPHil may be a Libertarian.
(3) @Trucidos is mostly apolitical but his hilarious avatar appears to be a picture of Trump as a 3-ft-tall little boy. Does he have a liberal bias?
(4) and @Dougster who's too smart and too above it all to have any political affiliation at all (not realizing that he's just as dogmatic as anyone else).
Take a weighted average and I'd say we're not all that far apart.
This groopspeak website is obvious garbage, but so are lots of so-called news sites nowadays. The "fake news" phenomenon definitely did not start with Russia.
Just for the record, editorials are *supposed* to be biased opinions. When you are watching Hannity, for example, you're watching someone's opinions. If you want straight news on Fox, try Special Report instead: It's only slightly biased. Same thing with the Post and the Journal; if you don't want their heavily biased opinions, don't read their editorials... just read their news pages instead for slightly biased coverage. That's the best you can hope for. Journalists are entitled to their views and these views will inevitably come out when a journalist reports the news.
Unfortunately, the democrat party has become the political wing of the liberal mainstream media. Even the big three networks, nevermind CNN and PMSNBC, are hopelessly dishonest and grossly based against conservative viewers and subjects. I won't lie, it enrages me to the point where I can't even watch them anymore. Everyone expects junk reporting from internet sites like vox, slate, and infowars; but the last of the honest Sunday shows ended when Bob Schieffer retired from Face the Nation.
BHF was correct when he said Special Report offers the best and least biased reporting on TV, excepting their round table at the end of the hour. Even that maintains a mostly balanced panel and avoids the shouting and talking over each other that is common on the panel shows.
gammanu95 said "I won't lie, it enrages me to the point where I can't even watch them anymore."
It's your right not to watch something if you don't like it. Just like it's their right to say whatever they want on their airwaves. But if it really 'enrages' you so much, you may want to seek counseling. Are you similarly enraged whenever you encounter a person with contrary opinions IRL? Try to hold the news reporters to the same standard that you hold your friends, relatives, and acquaintances... because at the end of the day, they are all just people with their own dopey opinions. When you hold them to a much higher standard, you feed into this bullshit notion that they are superior just because they are on tv.
"Everyone expects junk reporting from internet sites like vox, slate, and infowars; but the last of the honest Sunday shows ended when Bob Schieffer retired from Face the Nation."
I hold Fox and MSNBC to exactly the same standards as Vox, Slate and Infowars. They are all opinionated attention-whores. And Bob Schieffer was a hack, too.
"Special Report offers the best and least biased reporting on TV"
There are similar shows on CNN and MSNBC. But I happen to think that the opinion shows are usually better anyway. How much news do you really need? Tucker Carlson Tonight, S. E. Cupp Unfiltered, The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, and All In With Chris Hayes are all opinion shows and they are all very good.
It's rather charming to see that @GammaNut reads my posts, even though he won't admit it. Thing is, after you consistently call other TUSCL members "porch monkeys" you tend to lose all credibility on anything else. Same hysterical right-wing gibberish from @GammaNut.
I also watch O'Donnell and Chris Hayes -- both very good. Chris Hayes has Vox reporters Sarah Kliff, Matt Yglesius, and Ezra Klein on all the time. All three of those Vox reporters are consistently quoted by one of the Nobel Prize winners on the editorial board of the NY Times. Kliff can wind circles around anyone on the state the current and proposed healthcare laws. Klein and Yglesius are both super bright people. Do you actually read Vox, @Burlington?
@RandomMember, if Google puts it into my newsfeed and if it looks like a good article then I read it. I've read Vox pieces many times. I don't think much of Ezra Klein or Matt Yglesius but I have still read some of their work. You don't need to do a mind-meld with someone in order to read or watch them. If I want to watch political commentary, I will generally watch Fox or MSNBC. I'm not crazy about CNN, but once in a while I'll watch them, too. I also occasionally watch Fox Business and The Blaze (Glenn Beck's channel). There aren't any channels out there that specifically appeal to my political views, which may be a good thing because it forces me to watch several media outlets in order to get a balanced viewpoint.
@RandomMember, just the fact that he's educated at Harvard shouldn't mean much to you. George W. Bush went to Yale and Harvard and Trump went to The University of Pennsylvania, and I'm assuming you don't think much of them. Most of the guys whose work I read at the Cato institute or Reason Magazine are quite well educated and I'm assuming that you don't think much of their work, either. And while we're at it, don't Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter both have ivy league educations, too?
BHF, I am enraged by lies and propaganda being presented as facts and honest journalism. Also, you are wrong when you say the press has a right to say anything they want to say. They do not, not if they want the protection of the first amendment as a free and independent press media. As everyone already knows, there is virtually no independent media left. I know exactly what to expect when I turn on FNC or PMSNBC; I'm also old enough to remember when the networks were respectfully subtle in shading and coloring their reporting; as opposed to how blatant their biases are today.
Wrt your posts to randomloser, I'm only seeing your side of the conversation, but everyone knows his level of idiocy and bigotry is hard to match. Anyone who really thinks that education is corollary to intelligence is a hopeless fool.
@gammanu95 said "I'm also old enough to remember when the networks were respectfully subtle in shading and coloring their reporting; as opposed to how blatant their biases are today."
It sounds like you are remembering a time that never happened. Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, and Walter Winchell, just to name a few, they all carried tons of water for politicians that they liked and they tried to ruin the politicians they disliked. Winchell in particular was almost a blackmailer.
Also, during the 1964 presidential campaign, Lyndon Johnson spoke to a group of reporters and announced that he was going to start traveling to the states to campaign for other Democrats who were going to be on the ballot in November, and he asked the reporters where they thought he should travel. The reporters actually began to tell him who the most vulnerable Republicans were, and they suggested that he should go to their states first! This really happened, back in 1964.
Oh, and what about all the newspapers throughout the country that are named after a political party? Lots of papers from the 19th century are named The Daily Republican or the Daily Democrat. Why do you think that is? Because they were very partisan.
"you are wrong when you say the press has a right to say anything they want to say. They do not, not if they want the protection of the first amendment as a free and independent press media."
I don't even know what you mean by that. The First Amendment protects everyone's right to say anything.
"As everyone already knows, there is virtually no independent media left."
Independent from what? From political parties? I thought you said the Democrats were part of the media complex, not the other way around. And besides, what about C-span, the Blaze, Reason, The Young Turks, the Daily Caller, Breitbart, etc.? Aren't they independent?
"I know exactly what to expect when I turn on FNC or PMSNBC"
Then their lies should have no effect on you. The real problem that you're not addressing is that there lots and lots of stupid and gullible people out there, but we let them all vote anyway. That's a real problem. But the solution is not to stifle the media to prevent them from misleading these people.
"Wrt your posts to randomloser, I'm only seeing your side of the conversation"
If you log out you'll be able to see all the posts from the people you've blocked.
I'm well aware of how to read the idiocy posted by petty trolls like 25IQ and randomloser, I just have no desire to waste time trying to comprehend their craven stupidity.
Murrow and Cronkite? Well before I was born, but you missed my point. I said the media had, up until this millenium, been more subtle in the partisanship- I never said they were impartial.
Finally, how to handle a media that is more focused on attacking their subjects than uncovering the facts? There is no easy solution. People seem to be devolving. Hillary is a monster and a criminal, that's obvious; but hoe could anyone be silly enough to believe that she has something to do with child sex ring at a pizza shop? The same type of idiot that would believe there are Nazis and Russians at work in the White House. And the truth? The Clintons and the DNC were collaborating with the Russians all along. I guess that means that Hilary is Putin's cockholster (we all know Bubba wasn't using it).
@gammanu95 said "Murrow and Cronkite? Well before I was born, but you missed my point. I said the media had, up until this millenium, been more subtle in the partisanship- I never said they were impartial."
That's odd. You mean you're ok with them being partisan as long as they're subtle about it? I mean, isn't it more insidious if it's subtle? Personally I would prefer them to be much LESS subtle. I also think it would be great if journalists would specifically tell their readers who they're voting for. As far as I know, Slate and Reason are the only two outlets that regularly publish their writers' picks for President every four years. I wish NPR and The Washington Post would do this.
You also said:
"People seem to be devolving. Hillary is a monster and a criminal, that's obvious; but hoe could anyone be silly enough to believe that she has something to do with child sex ring at a pizza shop? The same type of idiot that would believe there are Nazis and Russians at work in the White House."
Well that's the genius of Trump and it's one of the reasons why he won. He did something that no other politician in my lifetime was ever able to do: he simplified politics enough so that the unwashed masses could understand it.
He intuitively understood that most people don't understand or care about ideology. Or public policy. Or parliamentary procedure. What they do understand is fighting. They understand feuds. They understand 'my side' vs 'your side.' They understand good vs bad. They understand that we need to find and punish the traitors among us. That's what the average man and woman on the street understands. After all, if Washington can't solve our problems (and of course it can't) then it might as well be entertaining and satisfy our primal urges. So that's what Trump gave the people. And he won. Good for him.
@Burlington wrote: "Same thing with the Post and the Journal; if you don't want their heavily biased opinions, don't read their editorials... just read their news pages instead for slightly biased coverage."
------------------------
Yes, thanks for the lecture, @Burlington, restating exactly the point I made above.
The WSJ editorial board has gone absolutely batshit crazy -- asking for Mueller to step down and recommending that Trump pardon everyone associated with the Mueller investigation. Mueller is a Republican, a purple heart Vietnam war recipient, and initially appointed as FBI director by GW Bush. Just fucking amazing.
28 comments
If you go to the main page of news.groopspeak.com it has a headline about the Donald supporting the death penalty for homosexuality. I think that would have made other news feeds if true.
On the other hand, you never know with this verkackte administration. I'm now convinced that something non-brilliant but avoidable by a normal administration is going to happen at some point during the Trump era. Perhaps nuking Fiji because of a Twitter fight. Who knows?
But Vanuatu better watch its back and stay off Twitter!
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2016/11/2…
Not gonna happen. Likely to President Trump, compared to being a world class business man based in the bowels of NYC, this president thing is a walk in Central park. :)
"mediabiasfactcheck.com"
^^^ Interesting website; haven't seen that before. I like sources that do a great job of separating objective news stories from editorial content. On MediaBiasFactCheck.com, the sites I visit most often (NY Times, Vox, WashPost) all get high marks for objective news reporting with liberal-bias editorials. Note that FoxNews does NOT get high marks for keeping their facts straight.
"Wall Street Journal" is rated highly for accuracy but with center-right bias in editorial content. THat sounds exactly right.
-----------------
Thanks for the kind words @Tx, as always.
If I'm a libturd, it's a lot harder to pinpoint where you, and all your aliases stand.
Consider:
(1) @TxTittyFag who's clearly a redneck from the bowels of Texas, with no tolerance for those faggots who champion social causes. But he misspells every single word, almost like some caricature of some inbred dipshit from the deep South.
(2) @DoctorPhil our sadistic psychotherapist. He's done a lot of good with online therapy for our most needy members (like @SJG) but I think @DoctorPHil may be a Libertarian.
(3) @Trucidos is mostly apolitical but his hilarious avatar appears to be a picture of Trump as a 3-ft-tall little boy. Does he have a liberal bias?
(4) and @Dougster who's too smart and too above it all to have any political affiliation at all (not realizing that he's just as dogmatic as anyone else).
Take a weighted average and I'd say we're not all that far apart.
"butterfly boi" Yeah, right.
Just for the record, editorials are *supposed* to be biased opinions. When you are watching Hannity, for example, you're watching someone's opinions. If you want straight news on Fox, try Special Report instead: It's only slightly biased. Same thing with the Post and the Journal; if you don't want their heavily biased opinions, don't read their editorials... just read their news pages instead for slightly biased coverage. That's the best you can hope for. Journalists are entitled to their views and these views will inevitably come out when a journalist reports the news.
BHF was correct when he said Special Report offers the best and least biased reporting on TV, excepting their round table at the end of the hour. Even that maintains a mostly balanced panel and avoids the shouting and talking over each other that is common on the panel shows.
It's your right not to watch something if you don't like it. Just like it's their right to say whatever they want on their airwaves. But if it really 'enrages' you so much, you may want to seek counseling. Are you similarly enraged whenever you encounter a person with contrary opinions IRL? Try to hold the news reporters to the same standard that you hold your friends, relatives, and acquaintances... because at the end of the day, they are all just people with their own dopey opinions. When you hold them to a much higher standard, you feed into this bullshit notion that they are superior just because they are on tv.
"Everyone expects junk reporting from internet sites like vox, slate, and infowars; but the last of the honest Sunday shows ended when Bob Schieffer retired from Face the Nation."
I hold Fox and MSNBC to exactly the same standards as Vox, Slate and Infowars. They are all opinionated attention-whores. And Bob Schieffer was a hack, too.
"Special Report offers the best and least biased reporting on TV"
There are similar shows on CNN and MSNBC. But I happen to think that the opinion shows are usually better anyway. How much news do you really need? Tucker Carlson Tonight, S. E. Cupp Unfiltered, The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, and All In With Chris Hayes are all opinion shows and they are all very good.
I also watch O'Donnell and Chris Hayes -- both very good. Chris Hayes has Vox reporters Sarah Kliff, Matt Yglesius, and Ezra Klein on all the time. All three of those Vox reporters are consistently quoted by one of the Nobel Prize winners on the editorial board of the NY Times. Kliff can wind circles around anyone on the state the current and proposed healthcare laws. Klein and Yglesius are both super bright people. Do you actually read Vox, @Burlington?
@Burlington, GW Bush was a Yale legacy admission and Penn is pseudo ivy. But basically agree with you.
Wrt your posts to randomloser, I'm only seeing your side of the conversation, but everyone knows his level of idiocy and bigotry is hard to match. Anyone who really thinks that education is corollary to intelligence is a hopeless fool.
It sounds like you are remembering a time that never happened. Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, and Walter Winchell, just to name a few, they all carried tons of water for politicians that they liked and they tried to ruin the politicians they disliked. Winchell in particular was almost a blackmailer.
Also, during the 1964 presidential campaign, Lyndon Johnson spoke to a group of reporters and announced that he was going to start traveling to the states to campaign for other Democrats who were going to be on the ballot in November, and he asked the reporters where they thought he should travel. The reporters actually began to tell him who the most vulnerable Republicans were, and they suggested that he should go to their states first! This really happened, back in 1964.
Oh, and what about all the newspapers throughout the country that are named after a political party? Lots of papers from the 19th century are named The Daily Republican or the Daily Democrat. Why do you think that is? Because they were very partisan.
"you are wrong when you say the press has a right to say anything they want to say. They do not, not if they want the protection of the first amendment as a free and independent press media."
I don't even know what you mean by that. The First Amendment protects everyone's right to say anything.
"As everyone already knows, there is virtually no independent media left."
Independent from what? From political parties? I thought you said the Democrats were part of the media complex, not the other way around. And besides, what about C-span, the Blaze, Reason, The Young Turks, the Daily Caller, Breitbart, etc.? Aren't they independent?
"I know exactly what to expect when I turn on FNC or PMSNBC"
Then their lies should have no effect on you. The real problem that you're not addressing is that there lots and lots of stupid and gullible people out there, but we let them all vote anyway. That's a real problem. But the solution is not to stifle the media to prevent them from misleading these people.
"Wrt your posts to randomloser, I'm only seeing your side of the conversation"
If you log out you'll be able to see all the posts from the people you've blocked.
Murrow and Cronkite? Well before I was born, but you missed my point. I said the media had, up until this millenium, been more subtle in the partisanship- I never said they were impartial.
Finally, how to handle a media that is more focused on attacking their subjects than uncovering the facts? There is no easy solution. People seem to be devolving. Hillary is a monster and a criminal, that's obvious; but hoe could anyone be silly enough to believe that she has something to do with child sex ring at a pizza shop? The same type of idiot that would believe there are Nazis and Russians at work in the White House. And the truth? The Clintons and the DNC were collaborating with the Russians all along. I guess that means that Hilary is Putin's cockholster (we all know Bubba wasn't using it).
That's odd. You mean you're ok with them being partisan as long as they're subtle about it? I mean, isn't it more insidious if it's subtle? Personally I would prefer them to be much LESS subtle. I also think it would be great if journalists would specifically tell their readers who they're voting for. As far as I know, Slate and Reason are the only two outlets that regularly publish their writers' picks for President every four years. I wish NPR and The Washington Post would do this.
You also said:
"People seem to be devolving. Hillary is a monster and a criminal, that's obvious; but hoe could anyone be silly enough to believe that she has something to do with child sex ring at a pizza shop? The same type of idiot that would believe there are Nazis and Russians at work in the White House."
Well that's the genius of Trump and it's one of the reasons why he won. He did something that no other politician in my lifetime was ever able to do: he simplified politics enough so that the unwashed masses could understand it.
He intuitively understood that most people don't understand or care about ideology. Or public policy. Or parliamentary procedure. What they do understand is fighting. They understand feuds. They understand 'my side' vs 'your side.' They understand good vs bad. They understand that we need to find and punish the traitors among us. That's what the average man and woman on the street understands. After all, if Washington can't solve our problems (and of course it can't) then it might as well be entertaining and satisfy our primal urges. So that's what Trump gave the people. And he won. Good for him.
------------------------
Yes, thanks for the lecture, @Burlington, restating exactly the point I made above.
The WSJ editorial board has gone absolutely batshit crazy -- asking for Mueller to step down and recommending that Trump pardon everyone associated with the Mueller investigation. Mueller is a Republican, a purple heart Vietnam war recipient, and initially appointed as FBI director by GW Bush. Just fucking amazing.