very. too MANY libruls. must destroy

Don't you think bias might be an obstacle to getting the truth?

yea one side is biased for western civilization and the other is biased against it. this is hardly a case of there being two equally bad or good sides. this isn't turd sandwich vs giant douche.

if you side with the left, or whatever part of their PR machine in media or academia you choose to reference directly, you are siding against everything that has brought us to where we are now. islam, communism, anarchy...we know how these ideologies end. we know what happens to communist countries. we know what happens when there are no police. we know what happens when islam is allowed to grow. the case studies surround us in our world today and in history have almost no deviation. the outcomes are always ALWAYS bad.

i'm pretty far to the left economically and i have had to suspend that because this fight is just bigger than what you feel about eduction or taxes or foriegn policy. its an ideological struggle for what happens next to north america, europe and oceania. to sit it out and pretend its still 2005 when the parties are indistinguishable blobs is naive.

So, if you are against communism, radical muslims and anarchy, the only choice is to support Donald Trump?

Did I call you a name? I don't think so. And I'm certainly not "playing a victim". I'm pointing out obvious bias in news coverage and you don't want to hear it because it's bias you agree with.

And let's not pretend here. You certainly don't "hate" Hillary Clinton more than you hate Donald Trump or anyone else with an (R) next to his name.

nah, there are some sites on the left far more biased than Fox News. Salon, Mother Jones, etc.

As for Fox News, there really are 2 Fox News's to look at. There is the Fox News which actually handles news. That would be Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, and Shepherd Smith. Heck, if you gave those 3 guys primetime shows in a network, it would be the best news on cable TV. They are pretty straight down the middle and actually would represent relatively unbiased news reporting. Their equivalent on CNN would be Jake Tapper. Then there is Fox's morning show and primetime trash which is Breitbart lite. Avoid that shit like the plague.

So, if you are against communism, radical muslims and anarchy, the only choice is to support Donald Trump?

I really dont even count websites like Salon or Young Cons. Of course they are more biased but that's what they deal in.


The newsy version of FoxNews may as well not exist. As you said yourself, they put Breitbart lite in all the major time slots and squeeze in some Shep/Wallace integrity in the late morning and afternoon.


FoxNews is Hannity and Fox and Friends the same way MSNBC is Maddow.

Nothing on this planet is more biased than Sean Hannity.

When you and I were much younger, news broadcasts were loss leaders, newspapers, although dying, still had some integrity. The Brookings Institution was really the only "think tank" (moderate) and intelligence was something sought after and not scorned.

But the Powell memo and Roger Ailes figuring out how to make money from the Coors & Koch families started to change all of that.

The median age of liberals vs conservatives kinda makes the "get rid of libs" idea a weird one.


Unless, murder is in the cards. Murdering them would work.

When you and I were much younger, news broadcasts were loss leaders, newspapers, although dying, still had some integrity. The Brookings Institution was really the only "think tank" (moderate) and intelligence was something sought after and not scorned.

But the Powell memo and Roger Ailes figuring out how to make money from the Coors & Koch families started to change all of that.

As a result, half of this country takes Sean Hannity as gospel while the other half does the same with Maddow. Both are biased pieces of human excrement.

Oh, I guess you're not "immediately being called a Trumpist" by others here when you draw false equivalence after false equivalence but instead are merely being told that you come off as one. Really big difference there.


But of course I've never denied hating Trump more. I can think Hillary was a shit candidate with a shit ideology while also thinking Trump presents a greater threat to civilization, just like I can think the Jeff Bezos Post is a shit newspaper while also thinking it's nowhere close to the equivalent of Project Veritas and that efforts to paint them with the same brush are disingenuous.

BTW, bringing up Hillary when there was nothing about her in this thread is a sign of Trumpism. I wouldn't want anyone to say you come off as something.

I think you are forgetting the famous republican Ted Turner was the one to monetize and explode "news".

And then claims objectivity and an absence of bias.

Odd take. Hannity has never strayed from the tea party line, never has asked a difficult question about the party line or misdeeds and boasts about his roles in campaigns. And then claims objectivity and an absence of bias. Which his viewers appear to accept.

Maddon acknowledges her political biases, gets extremely passionate about her show topics while always trying to document and objectively support her positions. She hasn't had to retract or apologize for egregious errors in fact like the other guy, at worst a bit embarrassed by getting used in the 2005 tax "release".

What brings her, in your estimation, a Hannity level piece of excrement?

Does he really? I've never watched more than a few minutes of Hannity, but I find it difficult to believe that he could make such claims with a straight face.

The false equivalence is that Project Veritas is some marginal organization and millions of people actually get their news from John Oliver.

And of course there is bias everywhere, but you're an obvious advocate for a point of view. You don't really want to have a discussion. You come off as if you're Hillary Clinton's campaign manager.

No one repeats the company lines about "fair and balanced " or "we report (the news) you decide" more than Hannity.

I agree there is nothing worse than Hannity. However, I will ask, what is MSNBC's version of guys like Wallace, Baier, and Shep? I'd say they don't exist. CNN has Tapper (who may be the best thing going on US cable news)

I dont think that's true. You cant just throw Oliver in your old Daily Show statement. Not that many people have HBO.

Also, more people get their news from Sean Hannity and the Donald Trump produced Fox and Friends. That is FAAARRR worse by any measure.

Well, I had this conversation with RPB awhile back. I don't think the Fox tagline of "fair and balanced" means that they are fair and balanced themselves, but rather that their existence gives fairness and balance to the media as a whole that was previously largely left leaning. I don't see how they could realistically argue that they aren't approaching the news from a particular viewpoint.

Look no further than her embarrassment earlier this year with the tax return. She had the biggest primetime TV news flop since Geraldo went into Capone's vault. She literally is just as bad as Hannity when it comes to her biased crap she peddles. The only difference is she polishes her turds better than he does.

What you say is undoubtedly true if I was bumping up against farmers from Nebraska and coalminers from West Virginia everyday. The fact is, I'm not. And a whole lot of people that I talk to believe that The Daily Show is news.

CNN has made many mistakes over the years, but until trump saw the benefits of labelling them fake news, they were seen as the milquetoast, middle of the road news reading channel, even on this board.

I don't feel victimized. I'm just pointing out that it's false.

And what's disingenuous is the suggestion that Project Veritas, something most people have never even heard of, has influence anywhere near that of the Washington Post or New Your Times.

and then when he was elected he fled the country.

Have a terrible night and die in MANY fires.