I think your representation about the media is completely absurd.

The role of the media is the present the facts, as they know it. It's not the role of the media to present every opinion out there as if it is equivalent to the factually-backed narrative

All candidates need various support, a AIPAC is a very big one for sure, but don't forget there are all others, per sector (pharma, petrochem, industry, techs...), and the christians religious too... And some transverse i guess...
Candidates have to knock at all doors. Are they prostitutes? . More or Less.

There was a perception of bias in 2012, and confirmation of bias post-2016. You could plausibly argue that media maybe wasn't so bad in the pre-2016 era. I don't know anyone who seriously argues that anymore.



We have a laundry list of "factually backed narratives" that have fallen apart. You've been a big proponent of some of them. It's the job of media to present facts objectively, not run interference for one political party/candidate or the other.

Like what?

I'm not trying to be a big defender of cable news. It's infotainment, and even though Fox News is embarrassingly bad, MSNBC and CNN are subpar too. Russiagate was an example for CNN and MSNBC of pundits taking factual events and speculating endlessly, sometimes in an unfair manner. Print journalism is the best there is, but right-wingers reject those as well, because they don't cater to the right-wing worldview.

My comments on Russiagate were never unfair or unreasonable, but I did offer speculation, and some of that turned out to be untrue. As were the people here(which probably includes every Trump supporter, including yourself) who believed from the beginning there was nothing there, which turned out to be completely false. There was a ton of wrongdoing revealed by Trump and his team, including his campaign chairman handing over internal campaign polling data to a Russian intelligence operative(according to Republican senate intel committee report). But I rather not explain for the 1000th time all the damaging facts of the investigation, because nobody here is willing to absord the information and change the position they developed the second after they learned of the investigation in 2017.

I don't know what other narratives I believed in that fell apart. But believing things that turn out be untrue is just a part of life. You take in the best information available, and make decisions, but sometimes the reasonable view at the time based on the best information ends up wrong. The terminally online, right-wing, contrarian, populist mindset of believing that whatever the narrative is among the "establishment" or the expert class is wrong, ends up making them correct on a handful of issues, because smart people can believe wrong things based on incomplete information. But overall, my mindset leads to far more truthful beliefs than the contrarian mindset.

This post was edited by IceMage on Dec 3 2022 10:41am

This tells me how little you know about right-wingers.

The reason they reject print journalism is because most of it also has a left-wing slant. It's not because they want their world-view echoed back to them.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Feb 7 2023 09:46pm