My Post to ---VOTE--- Removed

northGAcock

The selection of his cabinet should be quite the follow. 

Foghorn

"I like your point of view here, but the media IS the socialist agenda."

I've heard/read this a number of times but I have never seen any evidence of it.  I have challenged colleagues to find/show evidence of it and they have tried and failed.

I think the mainstream media is like any other business and does what it does to maximize profits - like every other business.  To do otherwise would be to the detriment of their business and they likely wouldn't last long in the industry - like in any industry. 

They are good at knowing what will increase viewership and they do that to the best of their ability.  I just think that stories that pull at your heartstrings appeal more to the average person who is sitting at home (especially during the day) and watching TV. 

For example, if a Republican (or any political group) congress/senate/etc. implemented a program whereby welfare was reduced - and over time it was shown that 90% of the people on welfare went to work and got jobs because they didn't have welfare as an option - and as a result we had less expenditures on welfare and more revenues due to those people paying taxes from their job earnings - and overall the country was better for it... the media would find a way to show a story about some poor soul who probably is deserving of welfare for some valid reason but isn't getting it because he/she fell through the cracks of the new policy.  That would get people to watch for a few minutes as they show an in-depth story about the person.  On the other hand, showing a one-liner about improved economics lasts 1 second and doesn't get people to stop on your channel.

So, the bottom line, at least in my opinion, is that we can't really blame the media because they are just giving us what "WE" want.  As someone else said, WE are to blame for the lack of good candidates in this race and WE are to blame for any media bias.

Or am I missing something?

YukonRon

The media had over 400 individuals, reporters, that actually contributed to the Clinton campaign, and also fed the campaign intel for questions on the primary debates. Maybe not liberally socialist, but certainly a concerted interest in the political party.
Again, I am a liberal, and I want a quality democrat dedicated to the vision. However, that being said, I am not naive enough to think the media does not try to provide the direction or slant on the reporting of political affairs. 
I can't believe my interests, were represented by the media, at any time. That is why I did not vote for her, and in my view, doing so would have been a crime.
Political Media Reporting, is the VR of dime store novels from the past.

HeavyG

Foghorn said:

"I like your point of view here, but the media IS the socialist agenda."

I've heard/read this a number of times but I have never seen any evidence of it.  I have challenged colleagues to find/show evidence of it and they have tried and failed.

I think the mainstream media is like any other business and does what it does to maximize profits - like every other business.  To do otherwise would be to the detriment of their business and they likely wouldn't last long in the industry - like in any industry. 

They are good at knowing what will increase viewership and they do that to the best of their ability.  I just think that stories that pull at your heartstrings appeal more to the average person who is sitting at home (especially during the day) and watching TV. 

For example, if a Republican (or any political group) congress/senate/etc. implemented a program whereby welfare was reduced - and over time it was shown that 90% of the people on welfare went to work and got jobs because they didn't have welfare as an option - and as a result we had less expenditures on welfare and more revenues due to those people paying taxes from their job earnings - and overall the country was better for it... the media would find a way to show a story about some poor soul who probably is deserving of welfare for some valid reason but isn't getting it because he/she fell through the cracks of the new policy.  That would get people to watch for a few minutes as they show an in-depth story about the person.  On the other hand, showing a one-liner about improved economics lasts 1 second and doesn't get people to stop on your channel.

So, the bottom line, at least in my opinion, is that we can't really blame the media because they are just giving us what "WE" want.  As someone else said, WE are to blame for the lack of good candidates in this race and WE are to blame for any media bias.

Or am I missing something?

This article on Deadspin this morning sums up who to blame, and it's way more than just that mythical creature the "socialist media".

http://bit.ly/2ekU2d9

pgprescott

Foghorn said:

"I like your point of view here, but the media IS the socialist agenda."

I've heard/read this a number of times but I have never seen any evidence of it.  I have challenged colleagues to find/show evidence of it and they have tried and failed.

I think the mainstream media is like any other business and does what it does to maximize profits - like every other business.  To do otherwise would be to the detriment of their business and they likely wouldn't last long in the industry - like in any industry. 

They are good at knowing what will increase viewership and they do that to the best of their ability.  I just think that stories that pull at your heartstrings appeal more to the average person who is sitting at home (especially during the day) and watching TV. 

For example, if a Republican (or any political group) congress/senate/etc. implemented a program whereby welfare was reduced - and over time it was shown that 90% of the people on welfare went to work and got jobs because they didn't have welfare as an option - and as a result we had less expenditures on welfare and more revenues due to those people paying taxes from their job earnings - and overall the country was better for it... the media would find a way to show a story about some poor soul who probably is deserving of welfare for some valid reason but isn't getting it because he/she fell through the cracks of the new policy.  That would get people to watch for a few minutes as they show an in-depth story about the person.  On the other hand, showing a one-liner about improved economics lasts 1 second and doesn't get people to stop on your channel.

So, the bottom line, at least in my opinion, is that we can't really blame the media because they are just giving us what "WE" want.  As someone else said, WE are to blame for the lack of good candidates in this race and WE are to blame for any media bias.

Or am I missing something?

yeah, you are missing all of it, in it's entirety. You can't see it because it is what you personally believe. Even when you have emails as Ron described uncovering corruption of the press that should result in wholesale firings of entire divisions, you still din't see much of an issue. Trump winning is not something for there to be blame assessed. Get it.

fishlessman

HeavyG said:

Foghorn said:

"I like your point of view here, but the media IS the socialist agenda."

I've heard/read this a number of times but I have never seen any evidence of it.  I have challenged colleagues to find/show evidence of it and they have tried and failed.

I think the mainstream media is like any other business and does what it does to maximize profits - like every other business.  To do otherwise would be to the detriment of their business and they likely wouldn't last long in the industry - like in any industry. 

They are good at knowing what will increase viewership and they do that to the best of their ability.  I just think that stories that pull at your heartstrings appeal more to the average person who is sitting at home (especially during the day) and watching TV. 

For example, if a Republican (or any political group) congress/senate/etc. implemented a program whereby welfare was reduced - and over time it was shown that 90% of the people on welfare went to work and got jobs because they didn't have welfare as an option - and as a result we had less expenditures on welfare and more revenues due to those people paying taxes from their job earnings - and overall the country was better for it... the media would find a way to show a story about some poor soul who probably is deserving of welfare for some valid reason but isn't getting it because he/she fell through the cracks of the new policy.  That would get people to watch for a few minutes as they show an in-depth story about the person.  On the other hand, showing a one-liner about improved economics lasts 1 second and doesn't get people to stop on your channel.

So, the bottom line, at least in my opinion, is that we can't really blame the media because they are just giving us what "WE" want.  As someone else said, WE are to blame for the lack of good candidates in this race and WE are to blame for any media bias.

Or am I missing something?

This article on Deadspin this morning sums up who to blame, and it's way more than just that mythical creature the "socialist media".

http://bit.ly/2ekU2d9

and we thought the republican party was a mess

HeavyG

fishlessman said:

HeavyG said:

Foghorn said:

"I like your point of view here, but the media IS the socialist agenda."

I've heard/read this a number of times but I have never seen any evidence of it.  I have challenged colleagues to find/show evidence of it and they have tried and failed.

I think the mainstream media is like any other business and does what it does to maximize profits - like every other business.  To do otherwise would be to the detriment of their business and they likely wouldn't last long in the industry - like in any industry. 

They are good at knowing what will increase viewership and they do that to the best of their ability.  I just think that stories that pull at your heartstrings appeal more to the average person who is sitting at home (especially during the day) and watching TV. 

For example, if a Republican (or any political group) congress/senate/etc. implemented a program whereby welfare was reduced - and over time it was shown that 90% of the people on welfare went to work and got jobs because they didn't have welfare as an option - and as a result we had less expenditures on welfare and more revenues due to those people paying taxes from their job earnings - and overall the country was better for it... the media would find a way to show a story about some poor soul who probably is deserving of welfare for some valid reason but isn't getting it because he/she fell through the cracks of the new policy.  That would get people to watch for a few minutes as they show an in-depth story about the person.  On the other hand, showing a one-liner about improved economics lasts 1 second and doesn't get people to stop on your channel.

So, the bottom line, at least in my opinion, is that we can't really blame the media because they are just giving us what "WE" want.  As someone else said, WE are to blame for the lack of good candidates in this race and WE are to blame for any media bias.

Or am I missing something?

This article on Deadspin this morning sums up who to blame, and it's way more than just that mythical creature the "socialist media".

http://bit.ly/2ekU2d9

and we thought the republican party was a mess

It is...but the Democratic Party was more so this season. Will be interesting to see how both organizations respond to this election.

GATraveller

FearlessTheEggNoob

No evidence of MSM bias?

Did this agenda not get followed to a T?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/730459/Julian-Assange-Wikileaks-Hillary-Clinton-Donald-Trump-pied-pipers

bhedges1987

Flag burning.... Stay classy folks.


http://wjla.com/news/local/video-american-flags-burned-at-american-universitys-campus

fishlessman

bhedges1987 said:

Flag burning.... Stay classy folks.


http://wjla.com/news/local/video-american-flags-burned-at-american-universitys-campus

everything flies on recreational rage day

DoubleEgger

I should start a business building safe spaces on college campuses. 

NPHuskerFL

@YukonRon Well said. I can respect that.  For the media aspect...I don't see them as a support system.  They are too corrupt (this was beyond transparent).  Hopefully folks don't forget the first year or so is President Obama's economics not President Trump's.  I believe we as Americans will benefit socially, economically and globally.  We need unity not divide.  

HeavyG

NPHuskerFL said:

...  I believe we as Americans will benefit socially, economically and globally... 

That's just the laugh I needed on such a dreary day. Thanks!

Dobie

Well the stock market closed with gains today so the sky's not falling yet....

DoubleEgger

NPHuskerFL

@HeavyG so my guess is that you did not support Trump? That's cool.   at least you let your voice be heard and voted. I wasn't trying to be funny and sadly if we don't work together will never accomplish anything. Why not be hopeful with a positive attitude? Negativity gets us nowhere. Don't get me wrong had the tables been turned I would have been upset. But ultimately our country will go on and we all have to keep a positive attitude and do our best to be successful.

pgprescott

It will definitely be a very rough and disruptive transition. How do I know this? Obama said just the opposite. Therefore, he and the msm can point to his words and ignore his deeds. It's the democrat way. 

HeavyG

NPHuskerFL said:

@HeavyG so my guess is that you did not support Trump? That's cool.   at least you let your voice be heard and voted. I wasn't trying to be funny and sadly if we don't work together will never accomplish anything. Why not be hopeful with a positive attitude? Negativity gets us nowhere. Don't get me wrong had the tables been turned I would have been upset. But ultimately our country will go on and we all have to keep a positive attitude and do our best to be successful.

I'm not upset about the results.

I find the election results equal parts shocking/frightening/embarrasing/hilarious.

But who knows how this will play out. Perhaps the wise, mature, rational, compromising, caring "The Donald" will show up and all will be well.

bgebrent

.

DoubleEgger

Looks like Alec Baldwin has a job for the next four years. 

bgebrent

DoubleEgger said:

Looks like Alec Baldwin has a job for the next four years. 

DB liberal Twitter King.

YukonRon

 The spin should be interesting, this Saturday, for sure.

Foghorn

pgprescott said:

Foghorn said:

"I like your point of view here, but the media IS the socialist agenda."

I've heard/read this a number of times but I have never seen any evidence of it.  I have challenged colleagues to find/show evidence of it and they have tried and failed.

I think the mainstream media is like any other business and does what it does to maximize profits - like every other business.  To do otherwise would be to the detriment of their business and they likely wouldn't last long in the industry - like in any industry. 

They are good at knowing what will increase viewership and they do that to the best of their ability.  I just think that stories that pull at your heartstrings appeal more to the average person who is sitting at home (especially during the day) and watching TV. 

For example, if a Republican (or any political group) congress/senate/etc. implemented a program whereby welfare was reduced - and over time it was shown that 90% of the people on welfare went to work and got jobs because they didn't have welfare as an option - and as a result we had less expenditures on welfare and more revenues due to those people paying taxes from their job earnings - and overall the country was better for it... the media would find a way to show a story about some poor soul who probably is deserving of welfare for some valid reason but isn't getting it because he/she fell through the cracks of the new policy.  That would get people to watch for a few minutes as they show an in-depth story about the person.  On the other hand, showing a one-liner about improved economics lasts 1 second and doesn't get people to stop on your channel.

So, the bottom line, at least in my opinion, is that we can't really blame the media because they are just giving us what "WE" want.  As someone else said, WE are to blame for the lack of good candidates in this race and WE are to blame for any media bias.

Or am I missing something?

yeah, you are missing all of it, in it's entirety. You can't see it because it is what you personally believe. Even when you have emails as Ron described uncovering corruption of the press that should result in wholesale firings of entire divisions, you still din't see much of an issue. Trump winning is not something for there to be blame assessed. Get it.

First, if you are referring to my political beliefs (as opposed to my beliefs about the media) I can wholeheartedly tell you that you are wrong.  I have voted for a lot more republicans than democrats in my life - and in this election.  And in the example I gave I thought it was pretty clear that I outlined a potentially successful conservative fiscal policy that would get shot down in the media and therefore have little hope of success even if the net result was a lot of good.  I assumed you would recognize that I'd be in favor of that sort of fiscal policy.

Second, I think that if a story about Clinton emails will increase revenue for a media company they will run a story about Clinton emails.  Like I said, (maybe not very clearly) I don't think that FOR THE MOST PART the media manipulates the election.  I think they publish/broadcast whatever makes them the most money.  I think that each campaign works to manipulate the media - because well, that's part of their job.  There are some exceptions that probably come out most during election periods where the media overstep their bounds and I think that termination or other disciplinary action would be appropriate. I do think that we have a major problem with media accountability - from publishing typos all the way to frank corruption.

Third, regardless of who won this election, I think there is a good reason for us to question our electoral process and political situation.  I think both candidates were problematic - just in different ways.  So, I'm not assessing blame because Trump won.  I'm assessing blame because there are over 300,000,000 people in this country and the two people running for president should represent our best - and I don't think that was the case.

So, I wasn't trying to start an argument.  I'm just trying to learn and find the truth to the best of my ability.  If my comments were taken in any other way, I apologize.   

DoubleEgger

bgebrent said:

DoubleEgger said:

Looks like Alec Baldwin has a job for the next four years. 

DB liberal Twitter King.

He does a good Trump though...

pgprescott

Foghorn said:

pgprescott said:

Foghorn said:

"I like your point of view here, but the media IS the socialist agenda."

I've heard/read this a number of times but I have never seen any evidence of it.  I have challenged colleagues to find/show evidence of it and they have tried and failed.

I think the mainstream media is like any other business and does what it does to maximize profits - like every other business.  To do otherwise would be to the detriment of their business and they likely wouldn't last long in the industry - like in any industry. 

They are good at knowing what will increase viewership and they do that to the best of their ability.  I just think that stories that pull at your heartstrings appeal more to the average person who is sitting at home (especially during the day) and watching TV. 

For example, if a Republican (or any political group) congress/senate/etc. implemented a program whereby welfare was reduced - and over time it was shown that 90% of the people on welfare went to work and got jobs because they didn't have welfare as an option - and as a result we had less expenditures on welfare and more revenues due to those people paying taxes from their job earnings - and overall the country was better for it... the media would find a way to show a story about some poor soul who probably is deserving of welfare for some valid reason but isn't getting it because he/she fell through the cracks of the new policy.  That would get people to watch for a few minutes as they show an in-depth story about the person.  On the other hand, showing a one-liner about improved economics lasts 1 second and doesn't get people to stop on your channel.

So, the bottom line, at least in my opinion, is that we can't really blame the media because they are just giving us what "WE" want.  As someone else said, WE are to blame for the lack of good candidates in this race and WE are to blame for any media bias.

Or am I missing something?

yeah, you are missing all of it, in it's entirety. You can't see it because it is what you personally believe. Even when you have emails as Ron described uncovering corruption of the press that should result in wholesale firings of entire divisions, you still din't see much of an issue. Trump winning is not something for there to be blame assessed. Get it.

First, if you are referring to my political beliefs (as opposed to my beliefs about the media) I can wholeheartedly tell you that you are wrong.  I have voted for a lot more republicans than democrats in my life - and in this election.  And in the example I gave I thought it was pretty clear that I outlined a potentially successful conservative fiscal policy that would get shot down in the media and therefore have little hope of success even if the net result was a lot of good.  I assumed you would recognize that I'd be in favor of that sort of fiscal policy.

Second, I think that if a story about Clinton emails will increase revenue for a media company they will run a story about Clinton emails.  Like I said, (maybe not very clearly) I don't think that FOR THE MOST PART the media manipulates the election.  I think they publish/broadcast whatever makes them the most money.  I think that each campaign works to manipulate the media - because well, that's part of their job.  There are some exceptions that probably come out most during election periods where the media overstep their bounds and I think that termination or other disciplinary action would be appropriate. I do think that we have a major problem with media accountability - from publishing typos all the way to frank corruption.

Third, regardless of who won this election, I think there is a good reason for us to question our electoral process and political situation.  I think both candidates were problematic - just in different ways.  So, I'm not assessing blame because Trump won.  I'm assessing blame because there are over 300,000,000 people in this country and the two people running for president should represent our best - and I don't think that was the case.

So, I wasn't trying to start an argument.  I'm just trying to learn and find the truth to the best of my ability.  If my comments were taken in any other way, I apologize.   

Hey, I'm not looking to argue either. Believe what you want to believe. I whole heartedly believe the msm is possibly the single greatest threat to our countries future success. They absolutely do everything they can to put their hand on the scales of fairness. They are dishonest in how they report stories and how they frame current events. It can be as subtle as how the headline is written. Again, if it is not obvious to you or anyone else, it is because of something. It is blatant. 

bhedges1987

I don't believe I have ever seen a red map like this.  

I think it's way more of a vote against hillary than a vote for trump.

Please disregard the verizon thing on there.

SemolinaPilchard

This is from 2 or 3 days ago.

SemolinaPilchard

During the 2012 election Romney spoke to the NAACP. ABC did a story on it, and Stephanopolous said how the speech was not received well at all, and showed the response of people in the audience when the speech ended. It was a tight shot of three people, one person clapping, and the other two not clapping. Later, on Foxnews, they had a wide shot of the crowd at the end of the speech, and the overwhelming majority of the people stood and clapped. Same event portrayed completely different.
The night that Ferguson, Missouri burned I was watching Foxnews. They had a live shot of a police car on fire, panned across and showed a building nearby on fire. Switched to another reporter in front of several buildings on fire. Three or four minutes later a live shot of a business being looted. I flip over to CNN and it was a tight shot of a reporter and he said "it is a mostly peaceful protest here in Ferguson tonight." 

NPHuskerFL

@Semolina Pilchard Say it ain't so!  After all Jefferey Zucker said CNN is truly fair and balanced.