i guess i agree that the "media acts only in it's own profitable interest" aspect, I just don't think there's anything particularly shocking in that.

however, as the media is profit driven against Trump, they are profit driven to hire more liberal writers, hosts, and personalities. and therefore become more liberal as a result. so their profit bias leads in some cases to a bias with no distinction.

i think in general the media is MORE profit driven to be liberal than conservative. and as a result this causes very real liberal media bias. there is really only Fox News for a reason, there's less desire for conservative news and Fox has branded phenomenally. There always seems to be a lot of pushback on the "liberal media" label, that's what i don't understand. it's evident.

That kind of requires a discussion on what bias actually is.

For instance, I don't think it's "liberal bias" when Trump is called out for not being presidential, but many people here would say that it is. Likewise, I think that many people equate being unbiased with being neutral such as media companies not covering global warming as strongly as they should have in the early 2000's. But again, that can be traced back to the profit motive and them having oil companies as advertisers.

I agree with what you posted a while ago that the media has a profit incentive to be liberal since conservatives are generally urged to disregard media, so they consume less of it. That's also reflected in the fact that popular non-Fox hosts such as Limbaugh, Beck, and the like haven't been profitable for over a decade and have to rely on funding from outside groups, such as the Koch payments that were traced to going to keeping Limbaugh and Levin on air.

I agree with everything said here, generally. but this is a bit of circular logic:



we can't be semantic about "bias" while not being semantic about "presidential". given the most literal description Trump is more presidential than not, most of the presidents we've had were callous and often cruel men.

i think we all know bias when we see it the same way we all know that trump isn't presidential, because the term is a modern creation and historically a misnomer.

Honestly for most of the cases we could just replace presidential with dignified, professional or several other words.

I mean, if the bar before Trump was a tan suit I don't think 99.9% of the criticisms Trump gets for acting presidential are out of line.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 21 2018 11:21am

yeah the whole concept of presidential has always been a minor pet peeve of mine. i have a hard time finding a president in the 20th century that i admire. and accept that the only reason i may respect the older ones is because they controlled the information we know of them. one short Jefferson biography can show you the founding fathers were at least very flawed people personally, even if their ideas were pretty tubular.

on the picture topic to break up these text walls!

Fail

Now in 2018 Thor is defending toxic corporatism. The keks that have been had this past two years

Where am I defending it?

fucking reddit links, smh fam

was from blackpeopletwitter:

[Headline about legal pot in Canada]

"wth they got legal pot and free healthcare, they up 2-0 in the finals"

To post from reddit, you have to left click on the picture first