Oof

[sirkickyass]

Yeah thank goodness Al Gore invented the internet so "bloggers" could do the job the Main Stream media is supposed to do.

This is actually a serious question: who is the main stream media?

I hear a lot about them, but last I checked Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings aren't exactly influencing the hearts and minds of America presently.

Quick quiz: Can you name all the anchors of CBS, NBC, and ABC's nightly news programs right now? I can't, and I like to think I pay attention.

But seriously, new media does a great job. Look how informed you are!

 

[PearlWatson]

You mostly answered your own "serious" question. Major TV networks and all their "news" and "comedy" shows. They all have the same pro-Obama mantra. Even major print media focuses on all the same stories with the same slant.

How many voters do you think have easy access to internet media?

You and I ain't normal in how much we pay attention to political news. Most people don't go beyond headlines and TV blurbs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQSv2WhRuds

 

[sirkickyass]

You mostly answered your own "serious" question. Major TV networks and all their "news" shows.

Who watches those as their primary source of news? We aren't exactly in the days of Edgar R. Murrow.

Even major print media focuses on all the same stories with the same slant.

The three biggest newspapers in the country, in terms of circulation and page views, are the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the New York Times.

The WSJ and the NYT have extraordinarily different editorial bents. If your claim is that the WSJ is liberal you'll get laughed out of the room. USA today's pie charts don't seem biased one way or the other to me. I'm not even certain they have regular opinion columnists.

How many voters do you think have easy access to internet media?

You and I ain't normal in how much we pay attention to political news. Most people don't go beyond headlines and TV blurbs.

The first estimate I found pegs it at 77.3% in the US. For the record, I suspect that non-internet and non-voters largely overlap since level of income is predictive of each.

https://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm

And yes, it is obvious that you have a very deep understanding of relevant issues.

 

[PearlWatson]

Who watches those as their primary source of news? We aren't exactly in the days of Edgar R. Murrow.

I would think most adults in the country still do.

The three biggest newspapers in the country, in terms of circulation and page views, are the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the New York Times.

The WSJ and the NYT have extraordinarily different editorial bents. If your claim is that the WSJ is liberal you'll get laughed out of the room. USA today's pie charts don't seem biased one way or the other to me. I'm not even certain they have regular opinion columnists.

If "extraordinarily different" means liberal vs. moderately liberal.

The first estimate I found pegs it at 77.3% in the US. For the record, I suspect that non-internet and non-voters largely overlap since level of income is predictive of each.

https://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm

And yes, it is obvious that you have a very deep understanding of relevant issues.

Well I don't know what sweet movies to watch or cars to buy but I try to keep up on the political happenings of the day, of which "relevant" would depend on your own personal values not necessarily what the MSM is focusing on (another part of the malpractice of the media is what has become their primary focuses depending on the president).

 

[One Brow]

I would think most adults in the country still do.

It's certainly easier to "think" something than to pay attention to facts presented to you.

If "extraordinarily different" means liberal vs. moderately liberal.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee!
Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho!

 

[moevillini]

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee!
Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho!

OK now, a simple LOL would've sufficed

:wink:

 

[sirkickyass]

I would think most adults in the country still do.

You'd be wrong. While television is still the most frequently cited primary source of news, cable news has dominated broadcast news as that source of information for the last decade.

We all know what the most consistently highest rated cable news network is. As a result Fox is basically the definition of the "Mainstream Media," despite the constant pose that they are a solution to the mainstream media's bias. There's a reason several people here could name multiple Fox news personalities but would have trouble naming the major network anchors.

If "extraordinarily different" means liberal vs. moderately liberal.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee!
Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho!

Like I said, laughed out of the room. The WSJ is a Newscorp company and for decades prior to its acquisition has had a notoriously conservative editorial page and staff. It's also the most widely circulated paper in the country. One virtually any issue that is NOT immigration they are in functional lockstep with movement conservatism, particularly with respect to economic issues.

If you seriously think otherwise, I'm guessing you don't read the paper.

Well I don't know what sweet movies to watch or cars to buy but I try to keep up on the political happenings of the day, of which "relevant" would depend on your own personal values not necessarily what the MSM is focusing on (another part of the malpractice of the media is what has become their primary focuses depending on the president).

To get at where I'm going, I think the "MSM" is largely a mythical marketing concept used to sell people on the idea that they're being lied to and that only those who point to other organizations as the monolithic MSM can be trusted to tell you the truth.

 

[PearlWatson]

I may not have made it clear but I was including local news in with network news since they parrot the national political news of their network. I would also count their affiliated cable news networks. I obviously didn't include FOX because they have been singled out because they are willing to criticize the president.

You can figure who they are because they all have the same mantra, the same focus, the same unwillingness to be critical of the president. Like I said before it is too dangerous to have such a large majority of the media unwilling to do the job the media should do. They aren't being government watchdogs but government lapdogs (when it is a liberal president).

 

[TroutBum]

I may not have made it clear but I was including local news in with network news since they parrot the national political news of their network. I would also count their affiliated cable news networks. I obviously didn't include FOX because they have been singled out because they are willing to criticize the president.

You can figure who they are because they all have the same mantra, the same focus, the same unwillingness to be critical of the president. Like I said before it is too dangerous to have such a large majority of the media unwilling to do the job the media should do. They aren't being government watchdogs but government lapdogs (when it is a liberal president).

Gosh, I hate you.

 

[sirkickyass]

Local news? I mean, I thought they basically sucked generally at covering anything other than panda births at the zoo.

 

[One Brow]

Local news? I mean, I thought they basically sucked generally at covering anything other than panda births at the zoo.

For that matter, so does national news. On NPR yesterday afternoon, they did a ten-minute segment on the E. coli outbreak in Europe, that discussed how the bacteria may or may not be a mutant, the reliability of the information, that this strain might have ordinary toxicity but there could be thousands more infected than we realize, etc. Diane Sawyer(?) did thrity seconds on the killer strain of E coli.