Aren’t you one of the users arguing with me saying Tim pool is a far right conservative?

I think the most accurate labels for me politically are pro-establishment and anti-populist. So if it's true that a majority of Americans believe the media is so biased they can't trust it, I think that's just evidence that Americans are too stupid to recognize most media outlets are trustworthy, and those Americans lack the discernment necessary to wade through the media environment.

Also, there's obviously a difference between the statement that the mass media is biased, and the mass media is so biased that we can't trust it. First off, right-wing media, which represents a fairly large segment, is hopelessly biased and they cannot be trusted. Still, there's explicitly right-wing outlets who acknowledge their bias and make honest arguments(The Dispatch, National Review, etc). On the other hand, traditional media is biased to some extent, but they are mostly credible, with some caveats(like religion, gender, etc). You know how I know the right-wing propagandists acknowledge the legitimacy of mass media? Because they talk about the reporting from mass media every day as legitimate.

There is just way to much media out there for anyone to legit believe it's so biased they can't trust it.
It's not like one group runs it all.

I just looked those names up and Brian Roberts is the only one who holds the CEO position. So you've posted an image where the author was trying to create a Jewish connection that did not exist.

I'm not sure it's productive to respond to overt anti-Semites but I'll just say that on the face of it, it's absurd to equate an outlet like Fox News with MSNBC. I mean unless you are venturing into the extreme conspiracist territory of reptilian overlords, it's kind of obvious that whatever power the "Jews" have, there's no unified plan, intention, or conspiracy among them. So they are just another group of people.

This post was edited by IceMage on Dec 1 2022 11:25pm

You sure about that?

Chinese media mostly reports legitimate news, and we know that the Chinese rely on it every day, even those very critical of their government. That doesn't make it trustworthy, it's a case of beggars can't be choosers. American media is far worse for wear now than it was just 10 years ago, and likely to get worse still. But we certainly still need it, we just can do without the Brian Stelters of the world, fighting nonexistent crusades within the bowels of one of the most histrionic news stations on earth.

The takeaway should be, "when I read a story from Fox, CNN, MSNBC, has the story been curated to appeal to a particular demographic? Is it missing context?" The answer is most often yes. When WaPo writes about an "austere religious scholar" dead to American imperialists, it makes you at least wonder just how incompetent and/or biased an editor must be to feel confident in putting that to print.

For me personally, 2012 was the end of the road. The bias against Romney and McCain was more subtle but still egregious. When Trump called them out, the gloves came off, and they stopped pretending. Whatever his other many personal failings, I will give him credit for that.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Dec 1 2022 11:49pm

You didn't respond to my post substantively at all and just posted another image you found. Maybe the first step for you personally is to critically analyze the memes you post.

Well there's always an opening because fact-based outlets do publish rubbish from time to time, but it's simply reality that the vast majority of news from the "mass media" is factual. When it's not, there's so much outrage over on right-wing outlets, and that happens rarely.

Factual and hopelessly slanted. It's a matter of what stories you cover, how you frame them, what facts you choose to check, what sources you choose to ask and how you present them. "...Experts say" is a really popular one right now. Who are the experts? What's their credibility? Could they find contrasting experts, in the same field or different? What argument are the contrarians making? If a media site doesn't make at least a half-hearted effort to present these differences fairly, it's propaganda.

On Fox News, it's interesting that the right doesn't believe it's credible, at least insofar as polls can be believed. They think it's hopelessly biased, and admit as much to pollsters, they just enjoy consuming "their" propaganda over the alternative, all things being equal.

I've heard this sentiment so many times and it comes from a place of weakness. There's a sort of desperation that exists on the right because Obama beat them twice, and even though Trump beat Hillary, it still exists. They are desperate so they use that to justify all the bad things that Trump has done, and to justify supporting him in this present moment.