Are we media zombies?

[Pogo]

NPR and PBS don't make "profit". That would be illegal. That is in fact what frees them from the Lowest Common Denominator bullshit game.

Nonsense. They are subsidized by their fans, and present the news as their contributing fans demand.

That's not "profit". "Profit" would be generating revenue by selling commercials. They don't do that; they can't do that; they don't want to do that; and if they ever did do that it would be completely illegal.

PERIOD.

This gets to the whole motivation of broadcasting. A commercial broadcaster runs sports or talk or hiphop not because they believe in sports or talk or hiphop but because they believe sports or talk or hiphop will grab them X amount of audience, which they can then point to an advertiser and tell them they will "deliver" that audience. A noncommercial broadcaster runs news or jazz or a documentary because it's worthy of broadcast.

Again --- this is the price of whoring out the airwaves.

My mother (92) is quite enamored of their BBC presentations. She does not, however, contribute so much as a thin dime to them.

Then she has that in common with as a general rule 90% of the audience.

Profit is irrelevant. That fact that they are not profitable does not reflect on the lack of veracity of their news presentations.

Sooooo first you're claiming they milk "profit" and then when you're called on that you retreat to "it's irrelevant".

They're "not profitable" because they're non-profit. That's what nonprofit MEANS; that you operate for some other purpose than profit. In this case it means you're using the people's airwaves to provide a public service and not to line your own pockets.

And as far as news presentations, presuming we're talking NPR here, they're the only radio that does any real news presentation, because news is expensive to do and never "profitable" when it's done objectively. That's why you don't see commercial networks doing news. There wouldn't be enough money in it for them to milk.

That's also why your local TV Fraction News will lead with a story about some fire or sinkhole or traffic collision somewhere you never heard of, instead of what your city council is doing, because that kind of shit draws gawkers. Again --- all about the money. It's also why when that legendary conservative William F. Buckley had his discussion show it had to run on PBS ---- because Buckley incited thought, and thought doesn't sell deodorant. Stupid sitcoms sell deodorant.

Non-profit means they're not profitable? WTF, don't tell the Catholic Church.....dumbass.

Non-profit means they don't operate for profit, yes.

What did you think it meant?

Every FM radio station operating below 92 on the dial in the United States is non-profit, by law. And a few that operate above 92.

 

[skye]

Yes.

The Left wing media...the communist/progressive media .....the CIA Mockingbird media.....CNN and all that shit media are zombies...



here you go it explains it very clearly

 

[Crixus]

One thing I've learned over the years is that partisanship is clear and obvious, and seems to be ever increasing.

The thing that perplexes me, however, is that the divide is distinct and very tangible. Has anyone not ever noticed how very clearly the line between right and left is laid out?

Look at our politicians, for example. When it comes to guns and abortion, they will almost always vote right down the party line. The thing is, I have a hard time believing that all Democrats are pro choice and anti gun, and that all Republicans are pro life and pro gun. I think most members of our legislative body fall somewhere in the middle point, but vote the party line because they are expected to do so.

I also think that most citizens are also somewhere in the middle.

I often wonder if media, both opinion talk radio and other forms of "news" play a major role in this.

Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day. Over time, you begin to get ingrained to their way of thinking, and it comes to the point when they say something, you automatically believe it, because you've become so programmed to that type of thinking that when they say something, you think that what they are saying aligns with your way of thinking, when in fact, it's their programming that got you to thinking that way.

Most people have no idea of what is going on in the world, other than what is told to them from their favorite talk show hosts. Is it too far fetched to believe that those hosts know this, and they tailor their shows to reinforce your programming to think a certain way?

Again, I don't believe most of these talk show hosts believe everything they are reporting, but they report it none the less because either they are trying to program you to a certain way of thinking, or they are trying to cater to what they think you want to hear, and drive ratings, which in turn also reinforces the programming.

I just wonder what would happen if everyone stopped listening to opinion talk radio for a year. Would things stay the same, or would we all gravitate to the same way of thinking? I surmise that we would at least get closer together because we are not being constantly fed a stream of directed, partisan information.

Anyway, I was just thinking, and thought I'd ask.

Looong winded. But accurate. For me I look back th election 2000. Fox News, Hannith and Colmbs, CNN, MSNBC and the election. I recall it as a time where the Media rallied around their preferred side and had it out. Then the recount of the recount, and then counting that. During the Booooosh years is when it seemed that the political operatives, the Roves and Carvells and so on. Then 9/11. Right after that is when media and polititions lost all shame. You asked how it would be if we all stopped watching news. We would likely go back to not giving two shits who is affiliated with whatever political party. Used to be republicans and Democrats were of the same mind as far as the country went. Basically, keep America awesome. Where they differed was how we all got there. Now? It’s all about power, for both parties. They won’t argue ideas, only hurl accusations at each other. Meh, the media ain’t to blame for all this. We are because we are to lazy to demand more from our polititions. Look at Trump and Clinton. Both reprobate piles of shit. Even more sad, Trump beat Hillary by showing up at a debate or rally and doing arm pit farts. Hillary showed up with nothing to offer. This is only going to get worse unless we demand more from our politicians. That, and stop watching the opinion shows on cable news.

Yeah, long as hell, but I’m REALLY fucked up. Also, sorry for being all over the place.

 

[ptbw forever]

One thing I've learned over the years is that partisanship is clear and obvious, and seems to be ever increasing.

The thing that perplexes me, however, is that the divide is distinct and very tangible. Has anyone not ever noticed how very clearly the line between right and left is laid out?

Look at our politicians, for example. When it comes to guns and abortion, they will almost always vote right down the party line. The thing is, I have a hard time believing that all Democrats are pro choice and anti gun, and that all Republicans are pro life and pro gun. I think most members of our legislative body fall somewhere in the middle point, but vote the party line because they are expected to do so.

I also think that most citizens are also somewhere in the middle.

I often wonder if media, both opinion talk radio and other forms of "news" play a major role in this.

Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day. Over time, you begin to get ingrained to their way of thinking, and it comes to the point when they say something, you automatically believe it, because you've become so programmed to that type of thinking that when they say something, you think that what they are saying aligns with your way of thinking, when in fact, it's their programming that got you to thinking that way.

Most people have no idea of what is going on in the world, other than what is told to them from their favorite talk show hosts. Is it too far fetched to believe that those hosts know this, and they tailor their shows to reinforce your programming to think a certain way?

Again, I don't believe most of these talk show hosts believe everything they are reporting, but they report it none the less because either they are trying to program you to a certain way of thinking, or they are trying to cater to what they think you want to hear, and drive ratings, which in turn also reinforces the programming.

I just wonder what would happen if everyone stopped listening to opinion talk radio for a year. Would things stay the same, or would we all gravitate to the same way of thinking? I surmise that we would at least get closer together because we are not being constantly fed a stream of directed, partisan information.

Anyway, I was just thinking, and thought I'd ask.

Every Democrat here is on the far left of the spectrum, so no, you are wrong.

And of course your stupid ass chastises weak ass talk radio while ignoring the blatant lunacy from the contemporary left throughout every medium.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Great post. The electorate is being led by the nose by people just trying to separate them from their money. All news agencies are businesses trying to make as much profit by attracting as many viewers/listeners as they can (sorry NPR and PBS, this means you too!) They believe in making money more than any ideas they may present. I too wonder if the tempature would go down if we spoke to our neighbors instead of watching talking heads or listening to radio/podcast hosts who are for sale. I choose to believe it would.

NPR and PBS don't make "profit". That would be illegal. That is in fact what frees them from the Lowest Common Denominator bullshit game.

Nonsense. They are subsidized by their fans, and present the news as their contributing fans demand.

That's not "profit". "Profit" would be generating revenue by selling commercials. They don't do that; they can't do that; they don't want to do that; and if they ever did do that it would be completely illegal.

PERIOD.

This gets to the whole motivation of broadcasting. A commercial broadcaster runs sports or talk or hiphop not because they believe in sports or talk or hiphop but because they believe sports or talk or hiphop will grab them X amount of audience, which they can then point to an advertiser and tell them they will "deliver" that audience. A noncommercial broadcaster runs news or jazz or a documentary because it's worthy of broadcast.

Again --- this is the price of whoring out the airwaves.

My mother (92) is quite enamored of their BBC presentations. She does not, however, contribute so much as a thin dime to them.

Then she has that in common with as a general rule 90% of the audience.

Profit is irrelevant. That fact that they are not profitable does not reflect on the lack of veracity of their news presentations.

Sooooo first you're claiming they milk "profit" and then when you're called on that you retreat to "it's irrelevant".

Another case of Pogo's reading disability.

 

[EL Rich]

NPR and PBS don't make "profit". That would be illegal. That is in fact what frees them from the Lowest Common Denominator bullshit game.

Nonsense. They are subsidized by their fans, and present the news as their contributing fans demand.

That's not "profit". "Profit" would be generating revenue by selling commercials. They don't do that; they can't do that; they don't want to do that; and if they ever did do that it would be completely illegal.

PERIOD.

This gets to the whole motivation of broadcasting. A commercial broadcaster runs sports or talk or hiphop not because they believe in sports or talk or hiphop but because they believe sports or talk or hiphop will grab them X amount of audience, which they can then point to an advertiser and tell them they will "deliver" that audience. A noncommercial broadcaster runs news or jazz or a documentary because it's worthy of broadcast.

Again --- this is the price of whoring out the airwaves.

My mother (92) is quite enamored of their BBC presentations. She does not, however, contribute so much as a thin dime to them.

Then she has that in common with as a general rule 90% of the audience.

Profit is irrelevant. That fact that they are not profitable does not reflect on the lack of veracity of their news presentations.

Sooooo first you're claiming they milk "profit" and then when you're called on that you retreat to "it's irrelevant".

They're "not profitable" because they're non-profit. That's what nonprofit MEANS; that you operate for some other purpose than profit. In this case it means you're using the people's airwaves to provide a public service and not to line your own pockets.

And as far as news presentations, presuming we're talking NPR here, they're the only radio that does any real news presentation, because news is expensive to do and never "profitable" when it's done objectively. That's why you don't see commercial networks doing news. There wouldn't be enough money in it for them to milk.

That's also why your local TV Fraction News will lead with a story about some fire or sinkhole or traffic collision somewhere you never heard of, instead of what your city council is doing, because that kind of shit draws gawkers. Again --- all about the money. It's also why when that legendary conservative William F. Buckley had his discussion show it had to run on PBS ---- because Buckley incited thought, and thought doesn't sell deodorant. Stupid sitcoms sell deodorant.

Non-profit means they're not profitable? WTF, don't tell the Catholic Church.....dumbass.

D

Great post. The electorate is being led by the nose by people just trying to separate them from their money. All news agencies are businesses trying to make as much profit by attracting as many viewers/listeners as they can (sorry NPR and PBS, this means you too!) They believe in making money more than any ideas they may present. I too wonder if the tempature would go down if we spoke to our neighbors instead of watching talking heads or listening to radio/podcast hosts who are for sale. I choose to believe it would.

NPR and PBS don't make "profit". That would be illegal. That is in fact what frees them from the Lowest Common Denominator bullshit game.

Yes and they rely on both underwriters (paid advertising) and individual donations/sponsorships (listeners) to “keep the lights on”. That seems to be the same equation other than the public funding, no? And despite the claims of some, their funding comes mostly from the first two.

Nope. Their funding comes mainly from listener/viewer donations.

Underwriting is not "paid advertising". It's paid but it's under strict rules, e.g. it can't use a "call to action" verb or exhort the viewer/listener to buy its product. That's exactly why the blurbs always say "more information is available at..." in the passive voice, and never says "for more info GO TO ...." which is a call to action. So that's still a different animal. Underwriting and public funding are a collective drop in the bucket of a station's budget. .

By far the vast majority comes from public donations. And zero from advertising.

We are going to have to agree to disagree about underwriters. Why would huge companies pay for Public Broadcasters? Is this a new wave of social consciousness by businesses conglomerates? What do you think motivates underwriters, their profit or the love they get from listeners ?

 

[ThisIsMe]

One thing I've learned over the years is that partisanship is clear and obvious, and seems to be ever increasing.

The thing that perplexes me, however, is that the divide is distinct and very tangible. Has anyone not ever noticed how very clearly the line between right and left is laid out?

Look at our politicians, for example. When it comes to guns and abortion, they will almost always vote right down the party line. The thing is, I have a hard time believing that all Democrats are pro choice and anti gun, and that all Republicans are pro life and pro gun. I think most members of our legislative body fall somewhere in the middle point, but vote the party line because they are expected to do so.

I also think that most citizens are also somewhere in the middle.

I often wonder if media, both opinion talk radio and other forms of "news" play a major role in this.

Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day. Over time, you begin to get ingrained to their way of thinking, and it comes to the point when they say something, you automatically believe it, because you've become so programmed to that type of thinking that when they say something, you think that what they are saying aligns with your way of thinking, when in fact, it's their programming that got you to thinking that way.

Most people have no idea of what is going on in the world, other than what is told to them from their favorite talk show hosts. Is it too far fetched to believe that those hosts know this, and they tailor their shows to reinforce your programming to think a certain way?

Again, I don't believe most of these talk show hosts believe everything they are reporting, but they report it none the less because either they are trying to program you to a certain way of thinking, or they are trying to cater to what they think you want to hear, and drive ratings, which in turn also reinforces the programming.

I just wonder what would happen if everyone stopped listening to opinion talk radio for a year. Would things stay the same, or would we all gravitate to the same way of thinking? I surmise that we would at least get closer together because we are not being constantly fed a stream of directed, partisan information.

Anyway, I was just thinking, and thought I'd ask.

Looong winded. But accurate. For me I look back th election 2000. Fox News, Hannith and Colmbs, CNN, MSNBC and the election. I recall it as a time where the Media rallied around their preferred side and had it out. Then the recount of the recount, and then counting that. During the Booooosh years is when it seemed that the political operatives, the Roves and Carvells and so on. Then 9/11. Right after that is when media and polititions lost all shame. You asked how it would be if we all stopped watching news. We would likely go back to not giving two shits who is affiliated with whatever political party. Used to be republicans and Democrats were of the same mind as far as the country went. Basically, keep America awesome. Where they differed was how we all got there. Now? It’s all about power, for both parties. They won’t argue ideas, only hurl accusations at each other. Meh, the media ain’t to blame for all this. We are because we are to lazy to demand more from our polititions. Look at Trump and Clinton. Both reprobate piles of shit. Even more sad, Trump beat Hillary by showing up at a debate or rally and doing arm pit farts. Hillary showed up with nothing to offer. This is only going to get worse unless we demand more from our politicians. That, and stop watching the opinion shows on cable news.

Yeah, long as hell, but I’m REALLY fucked up. Also, sorry for being all over the place.

No, you are absolutely correct. We do need to require more from our politicians. I am of the mind that all politicians are guilty of not enacting the peoples will. I do think, however, this is amplified by the media, as they spin every decision a politician makes into their own narrative.

This is why I think the media is largely responsible for the division we have in the country. If opinion talk radio simply reported things verbatim and as they happened, it would be very dry and sometimes boring. They have to spice it up to keep people emotions high, and that keeps them glued to the program. Because they play on people's emotions, it gives them the ability to manipulate things, and I wonder if the end goal is to make you think a certain way, and then reinforce that thinking, e.g....programming.

The issue with that is, over time, a person begins to have that kind of mindset, that they feel a certain way about a particular topic, when in fact, it is that media manipulation that caused you to think that way. In other words, these talk show hosts are programming the way you think, and programming what you believe. Over a long time of constant barrage of reinforcing programming, the listener begins to think those views are their own, when in fact, they may not be, but rather the views of the talk host, projected onto the listener.

 

[iceberg]

One thing I've learned over the years is that partisanship is clear and obvious, and seems to be ever increasing.

The thing that perplexes me, however, is that the divide is distinct and very tangible. Has anyone not ever noticed how very clearly the line between right and left is laid out?

Look at our politicians, for example. When it comes to guns and abortion, they will almost always vote right down the party line. The thing is, I have a hard time believing that all Democrats are pro choice and anti gun, and that all Republicans are pro life and pro gun. I think most members of our legislative body fall somewhere in the middle point, but vote the party line because they are expected to do so.

I also think that most citizens are also somewhere in the middle.

I often wonder if media, both opinion talk radio and other forms of "news" play a major role in this.

Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day. Over time, you begin to get ingrained to their way of thinking, and it comes to the point when they say something, you automatically believe it, because you've become so programmed to that type of thinking that when they say something, you think that what they are saying aligns with your way of thinking, when in fact, it's their programming that got you to thinking that way.

Most people have no idea of what is going on in the world, other than what is told to them from their favorite talk show hosts. Is it too far fetched to believe that those hosts know this, and they tailor their shows to reinforce your programming to think a certain way?

Again, I don't believe most of these talk show hosts believe everything they are reporting, but they report it none the less because either they are trying to program you to a certain way of thinking, or they are trying to cater to what they think you want to hear, and drive ratings, which in turn also reinforces the programming.

I just wonder what would happen if everyone stopped listening to opinion talk radio for a year. Would things stay the same, or would we all gravitate to the same way of thinking? I surmise that we would at least get closer together because we are not being constantly fed a stream of directed, partisan information.

Anyway, I was just thinking, and thought I'd ask.

we all use the media to validate our side of how we feel about things. we used to use it to get the news. from your newspaper on your driveway where we had a few sources to the internet where you can't swing a dead cat w/o hitting a blogger giving you THE TRUTH, we've really made a mess of things.

 

[ThisIsMe]

One thing I've learned over the years is that partisanship is clear and obvious, and seems to be ever increasing.

The thing that perplexes me, however, is that the divide is distinct and very tangible. Has anyone not ever noticed how very clearly the line between right and left is laid out?

Look at our politicians, for example. When it comes to guns and abortion, they will almost always vote right down the party line. The thing is, I have a hard time believing that all Democrats are pro choice and anti gun, and that all Republicans are pro life and pro gun. I think most members of our legislative body fall somewhere in the middle point, but vote the party line because they are expected to do so.

I also think that most citizens are also somewhere in the middle.

I often wonder if media, both opinion talk radio and other forms of "news" play a major role in this.

Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day. Over time, you begin to get ingrained to their way of thinking, and it comes to the point when they say something, you automatically believe it, because you've become so programmed to that type of thinking that when they say something, you think that what they are saying aligns with your way of thinking, when in fact, it's their programming that got you to thinking that way.

Most people have no idea of what is going on in the world, other than what is told to them from their favorite talk show hosts. Is it too far fetched to believe that those hosts know this, and they tailor their shows to reinforce your programming to think a certain way?

Again, I don't believe most of these talk show hosts believe everything they are reporting, but they report it none the less because either they are trying to program you to a certain way of thinking, or they are trying to cater to what they think you want to hear, and drive ratings, which in turn also reinforces the programming.

I just wonder what would happen if everyone stopped listening to opinion talk radio for a year. Would things stay the same, or would we all gravitate to the same way of thinking? I surmise that we would at least get closer together because we are not being constantly fed a stream of directed, partisan information.

Anyway, I was just thinking, and thought I'd ask.

Every Democrat here is on the far left of the spectrum, so no, you are wrong.

And of course your stupid ass chastises weak ass talk radio while ignoring the blatant lunacy from the contemporary left throughout every medium.

But, that's just my point. Maybe they are on the far left because they have been programmed to be that way.

Maybe their parents were Democrats, and as they got older, it's just something they continued with, and when they got to the age of understanding, they started listening to a specific side, and over years of doing so, they were pushed even further to one side.

Perhaps they always felt they learned to one ideological side, but were on the fence, but they started listening to a particular talk show, that had a gripping and controversial host, and they continued listening, and again, over the years, they slid further to one side not necessarily because if their own opinion, but because of the continual stream of information specifically broadcast by one sided media that programmed their thought patterns.

Again, I'm not alleging anything, I simply was asking the question, do people believe that our political ideology, and our views on things, come from within, or are they more a product of negative reinforcement from a source that specifically tailors their programming to do so?

 

[Theowl32]

Some salient points. Yes it's a product of a Duopoly that draws such lines of dichotomy and steamrolls everybody (or nearly everybody) in a given political party to take a position they may or may not be comfortable with. Political parties exist for the purpose of consolidating power; unfortunately they operate by lumping some of the grand questions you bring up into a hive mentality thereby completely neglecting the actual intention of Congress, which is to represent constituents and not to represent a political party.

I totally disagree though that "Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day". That's a pathetic existence. If I ever found myself living like that I'd just frickin' shoot myself on the spot. However your point is well taken that such squawk shows exist to polarize and are a major reason for that dynamic's proliferation.

Well, perhaps not most people, but, many do, and even if they dont wake up and start listening, most people who do listen, tend to listen to only one type of opinion talk radio, well, at least I would think they do.

I tend to listen to both. I listen to a lot of Sirius xm, so, I'll listen to Breitbart in the morning, then glen beck, and then Andrew wilkow. I'll also listen to signoreli, and obeidallah, as well as thom hartman, and sometimes I'll switch to hannity.

The thing that really strikes me is the complete and utter opposite way of thinking between each side. It's almost hard to fathom that there could be such a concrete divide in the way of thinking between the left and the right, but if you listen to both left and right leaning talk radio, there it is.

You can listen to hannity talk about a topic, and then switch to obeidallah and he will talk about the same thing, and each will come to a complete opposite conclusion. It's just hard for me to wrap my head around how two people can see the same information, and come to two completely different conclusions. Hence why I wonder if this is by design.

Which side is using actual FACTS. Which means irrefutable. You know, facts.

Which side is doing that and can you give some examples.

For instance, has anyone as of yet presented facts about Trump colluding with Russia and stealing the election? Is that a fact?

Is it a fact that hillary deleted 30k emails that were subpoenaed? Is that a fact?

Is it a fact that Kavanaugh gang raped this woman? Is, that a fact?

Is it a fact that the dems said they would do everything they could to obstruct the nomination? Is that a fact?

Is it a fact that the democrats sat on this letter until all of their efforts failed to obstruct and one week before the confirmation vote? Is that a fact?

Which are facts? Provable and irrefutable.

I will be waiting for the answers from you and will decide accordingly.

It seems to me when a left winger is EVER confronted with truth, that it causes a cognitive dissonance, which then causes the left winger to claim BOTH SIDES are to blame.


That, is a defense mechanism. I will be waiting for those facts.

 

[Theowl32]

One thing I've learned over the years is that partisanship is clear and obvious, and seems to be ever increasing.

The thing that perplexes me, however, is that the divide is distinct and very tangible. Has anyone not ever noticed how very clearly the line between right and left is laid out?

Look at our politicians, for example. When it comes to guns and abortion, they will almost always vote right down the party line. The thing is, I have a hard time believing that all Democrats are pro choice and anti gun, and that all Republicans are pro life and pro gun. I think most members of our legislative body fall somewhere in the middle point, but vote the party line because they are expected to do so.

I also think that most citizens are also somewhere in the middle.

I often wonder if media, both opinion talk radio and other forms of "news" play a major role in this.

Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day. Over time, you begin to get ingrained to their way of thinking, and it comes to the point when they say something, you automatically believe it, because you've become so programmed to that type of thinking that when they say something, you think that what they are saying aligns with your way of thinking, when in fact, it's their programming that got you to thinking that way.

Most people have no idea of what is going on in the world, other than what is told to them from their favorite talk show hosts. Is it too far fetched to believe that those hosts know this, and they tailor their shows to reinforce your programming to think a certain way?

Again, I don't believe most of these talk show hosts believe everything they are reporting, but they report it none the less because either they are trying to program you to a certain way of thinking, or they are trying to cater to what they think you want to hear, and drive ratings, which in turn also reinforces the programming.

I just wonder what would happen if everyone stopped listening to opinion talk radio for a year. Would things stay the same, or would we all gravitate to the same way of thinking? I surmise that we would at least get closer together because we are not being constantly fed a stream of directed, partisan information.

Anyway, I was just thinking, and thought I'd ask.

we all use the media to validate our side of how we feel about things. we used to use it to get the news. from your newspaper on your driveway where we had a few sources to the internet where you can't swing a dead cat w/o hitting a blogger giving you THE TRUTH, we've really made a mess of things.

Not sure here. Are you saying the democrats are not obstructing the nomination?

Has the left proved any of their claims they have yelled about since November 2016? What?

Did hillary delete 30k emails?

Do the metoo hollywood women still fully support bill clinton while speaking out against Kavanaugh? Is that fact? How about Alyssa Milano?

Both sides use the media? What agenda does cnn or msnbc have?

 

[my2¢]

Media zombies is a good way of putting it. My general objection with the OP is its pointing the finger exclusively on opinion talk radio. I would broaden the problem to what's happened to journalism over the years and how it has ventured away from the foundation of reporting. In today's world politics is treated like a sporting event. Latest example is this Kavanaugh nomination, I guess we'll soon find out which side wins and which goes down in defeat. And those of us that refuse to be partisans will simply be glad it is over with, no matter which way it goes.

 

[Theowl32]

Media zombies is a good way of putting it. My general objection with the OP is its pointing the finger exclusively on opinion talk radio. I would broaden the problem to what's happened to journalism over the years and how it has ventured away from the foundation of reporting. In today's world politics is treated like a sporting event. Latest example is this Kavanaugh nomination, I guess we'll soon find out which side wins and which goes down in defeat. And those of us that refuse to be partisans will simply be glad it is over with, no matter which way it goes.

Thats the problem. It isn't who wins. It is who is telling the truth.

I have noticed that my rhetorical questions are going ignored.

Explain in detail the lies told by Kavanaugh.

Give me the irrefutable facts told by the left wing media.

So, they might win. However would they win based on facts or political pressure brought about either lies or unprovable facts?

 

[EL Rich]

Some salient points. Yes it's a product of a Duopoly that draws such lines of dichotomy and steamrolls everybody (or nearly everybody) in a given political party to take a position they may or may not be comfortable with. Political parties exist for the purpose of consolidating power; unfortunately they operate by lumping some of the grand questions you bring up into a hive mentality thereby completely neglecting the actual intention of Congress, which is to represent constituents and not to represent a political party.

I totally disagree though that "Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day". That's a pathetic existence. If I ever found myself living like that I'd just frickin' shoot myself on the spot. However your point is well taken that such squawk shows exist to polarize and are a major reason for that dynamic's proliferation.

Well, perhaps not most people, but, many do, and even if they dont wake up and start listening, most people who do listen, tend to listen to only one type of opinion talk radio, well, at least I would think they do.

I tend to listen to both. I listen to a lot of Sirius xm, so, I'll listen to Breitbart in the morning, then glen beck, and then Andrew wilkow. I'll also listen to signoreli, and obeidallah, as well as thom hartman, and sometimes I'll switch to hannity.

The thing that really strikes me is the complete and utter opposite way of thinking between each side. It's almost hard to fathom that there could be such a concrete divide in the way of thinking between the left and the right, but if you listen to both left and right leaning talk radio, there it is.

You can listen to hannity talk about a topic, and then switch to obeidallah and he will talk about the same thing, and each will come to a complete opposite conclusion. It's just hard for me to wrap my head around how two people can see the same information, and come to two completely different conclusions. Hence why I wonder if this is by design.

Which side is using actual FACTS. Which means irrefutable. You know, facts.

Which side is doing that and can you give some examples.

For instance, has anyone as of yet presented facts about Trump colluding with Russia and stealing the election? Is that a fact?

Is it a fact that hillary deleted 30k emails that were subpoenaed? Is that a fact?

Is it a fact that Kavanaugh gang raped this woman? Is, that a fact?

Is it a fact that the dems said they would do everything they could to obstruct the nomination? Is that a fact?

Is it a fact that the democrats sat on this letter until all of their efforts failed to obstruct and one week before the confirmation vote? Is that a fact?

Which are facts? Provable and irrefutable.

I will be waiting for the answers from you and will decide accordingly.

It seems to me when a left winger is EVER confronted with truth, that it causes a cognitive dissonance, which then causes the left winger to claim BOTH SIDES are to blame.


That, is a defense mechanism. I will be waiting for those facts.

I have a fact for you, Republicans claim to be economically responsible, why has the national debt risen under every Republican administration since Reagan? And why aren’t “conservative” media outlets howling about it?
Does President Trump always say things that truthful? No, he makes up data on the spur of the moment that fit the narrative he is presenting. I do not begrudge him that, it seems to be working quite well.
I think the point that you are missing here is that our political discourse has become partisan and divided. In response to that, folks here are making the point that the partisanship being viewed in the media is perhaps, being mirrored in the electorate. When Fox News, CNN, Breitbart, the NYT, the Drudge Report and (sorry lefty-college grads) NPR present a predictable narrative based on clear tribal alliances, a thinking person must question what is happening. In the end, we tend to believe what we are told and when your preferred source of news is of a particular bent it reinforces what you believe and entrenches you deeper into your tribe. For a democracy that is reliant on a informed electorate that is dangerous ground.

 

[Pogo]

NPR and PBS don't make "profit". That would be illegal. That is in fact what frees them from the Lowest Common Denominator bullshit game.

Nonsense. They are subsidized by their fans, and present the news as their contributing fans demand.

That's not "profit". "Profit" would be generating revenue by selling commercials. They don't do that; they can't do that; they don't want to do that; and if they ever did do that it would be completely illegal.

PERIOD.

This gets to the whole motivation of broadcasting. A commercial broadcaster runs sports or talk or hiphop not because they believe in sports or talk or hiphop but because they believe sports or talk or hiphop will grab them X amount of audience, which they can then point to an advertiser and tell them they will "deliver" that audience. A noncommercial broadcaster runs news or jazz or a documentary because it's worthy of broadcast.

Again --- this is the price of whoring out the airwaves.

My mother (92) is quite enamored of their BBC presentations. She does not, however, contribute so much as a thin dime to them.

Then she has that in common with as a general rule 90% of the audience.

Profit is irrelevant. That fact that they are not profitable does not reflect on the lack of veracity of their news presentations.

Sooooo first you're claiming they milk "profit" and then when you're called on that you retreat to "it's irrelevant".

Another case of Pogo's reading disability.

Hey, if you don't want your fallacies called out don't float 'em in the bowl. Not that complex.

 

[Pogo]

Nonsense. They are subsidized by their fans, and present the news as their contributing fans demand.

That's not "profit". "Profit" would be generating revenue by selling commercials. They don't do that; they can't do that; they don't want to do that; and if they ever did do that it would be completely illegal.

PERIOD.

This gets to the whole motivation of broadcasting. A commercial broadcaster runs sports or talk or hiphop not because they believe in sports or talk or hiphop but because they believe sports or talk or hiphop will grab them X amount of audience, which they can then point to an advertiser and tell them they will "deliver" that audience. A noncommercial broadcaster runs news or jazz or a documentary because it's worthy of broadcast.

Again --- this is the price of whoring out the airwaves.

My mother (92) is quite enamored of their BBC presentations. She does not, however, contribute so much as a thin dime to them.

Then she has that in common with as a general rule 90% of the audience.

Profit is irrelevant. That fact that they are not profitable does not reflect on the lack of veracity of their news presentations.

Sooooo first you're claiming they milk "profit" and then when you're called on that you retreat to "it's irrelevant".

They're "not profitable" because they're non-profit. That's what nonprofit MEANS; that you operate for some other purpose than profit. In this case it means you're using the people's airwaves to provide a public service and not to line your own pockets.

And as far as news presentations, presuming we're talking NPR here, they're the only radio that does any real news presentation, because news is expensive to do and never "profitable" when it's done objectively. That's why you don't see commercial networks doing news. There wouldn't be enough money in it for them to milk.

That's also why your local TV Fraction News will lead with a story about some fire or sinkhole or traffic collision somewhere you never heard of, instead of what your city council is doing, because that kind of shit draws gawkers. Again --- all about the money. It's also why when that legendary conservative William F. Buckley had his discussion show it had to run on PBS ---- because Buckley incited thought, and thought doesn't sell deodorant. Stupid sitcoms sell deodorant.

Non-profit means they're not profitable? WTF, don't tell the Catholic Church.....dumbass.

D

Great post. The electorate is being led by the nose by people just trying to separate them from their money. All news agencies are businesses trying to make as much profit by attracting as many viewers/listeners as they can (sorry NPR and PBS, this means you too!) They believe in making money more than any ideas they may present. I too wonder if the tempature would go down if we spoke to our neighbors instead of watching talking heads or listening to radio/podcast hosts who are for sale. I choose to believe it would.

NPR and PBS don't make "profit". That would be illegal. That is in fact what frees them from the Lowest Common Denominator bullshit game.

Yes and they rely on both underwriters (paid advertising) and individual donations/sponsorships (listeners) to “keep the lights on”. That seems to be the same equation other than the public funding, no? And despite the claims of some, their funding comes mostly from the first two.

Nope. Their funding comes mainly from listener/viewer donations.

Underwriting is not "paid advertising". It's paid but it's under strict rules, e.g. it can't use a "call to action" verb or exhort the viewer/listener to buy its product. That's exactly why the blurbs always say "more information is available at..." in the passive voice, and never says "for more info GO TO ...." which is a call to action. So that's still a different animal. Underwriting and public funding are a collective drop in the bucket of a station's budget. .

By far the vast majority comes from public donations. And zero from advertising.

We are going to have to agree to disagree about underwriters. Why would huge companies pay for Public Broadcasters? Is this a new wave of social consciousness by businesses conglomerates? What do you think motivates underwriters, their profit or the love they get from listeners ?

I know exactly how underwriting works and what its official guidelines are because I worked in that business for decades. It was literally my job to know this stuff on the broadcast end. The end point still being, it isn't advertising nor does the underwriter have any input into the programming. Usually the underwriter comes on after the programming is already established. All of which means there remains no incentive for the broadcaster to pile up numbers in any way possible to sell more burgers.

What motivates them is a positive image that they can put on the face of their business, which they can also write off their taxes.

 

[Pogo]

One thing I've learned over the years is that partisanship is clear and obvious, and seems to be ever increasing.

The thing that perplexes me, however, is that the divide is distinct and very tangible. Has anyone not ever noticed how very clearly the line between right and left is laid out?

Look at our politicians, for example. When it comes to guns and abortion, they will almost always vote right down the party line. The thing is, I have a hard time believing that all Democrats are pro choice and anti gun, and that all Republicans are pro life and pro gun. I think most members of our legislative body fall somewhere in the middle point, but vote the party line because they are expected to do so.

I also think that most citizens are also somewhere in the middle.

I often wonder if media, both opinion talk radio and other forms of "news" play a major role in this.

Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day. Over time, you begin to get ingrained to their way of thinking, and it comes to the point when they say something, you automatically believe it, because you've become so programmed to that type of thinking that when they say something, you think that what they are saying aligns with your way of thinking, when in fact, it's their programming that got you to thinking that way.

Most people have no idea of what is going on in the world, other than what is told to them from their favorite talk show hosts. Is it too far fetched to believe that those hosts know this, and they tailor their shows to reinforce your programming to think a certain way?

Again, I don't believe most of these talk show hosts believe everything they are reporting, but they report it none the less because either they are trying to program you to a certain way of thinking, or they are trying to cater to what they think you want to hear, and drive ratings, which in turn also reinforces the programming.

I just wonder what would happen if everyone stopped listening to opinion talk radio for a year. Would things stay the same, or would we all gravitate to the same way of thinking? I surmise that we would at least get closer together because we are not being constantly fed a stream of directed, partisan information.

Anyway, I was just thinking, and thought I'd ask.

Looong winded. But accurate. For me I look back th election 2000. Fox News, Hannith and Colmbs, CNN, MSNBC and the election. I recall it as a time where the Media rallied around their preferred side and had it out. Then the recount of the recount, and then counting that. During the Booooosh years is when it seemed that the political operatives, the Roves and Carvells and so on. Then 9/11. Right after that is when media and polititions lost all shame. You asked how it would be if we all stopped watching news. We would likely go back to not giving two shits who is affiliated with whatever political party. Used to be republicans and Democrats were of the same mind as far as the country went. Basically, keep America awesome. Where they differed was how we all got there. Now? It’s all about power, for both parties. They won’t argue ideas, only hurl accusations at each other. Meh, the media ain’t to blame for all this. We are because we are to lazy to demand more from our polititions. Look at Trump and Clinton. Both reprobate piles of shit. Even more sad, Trump beat Hillary by showing up at a debate or rally and doing arm pit farts. Hillary showed up with nothing to offer. This is only going to get worse unless we demand more from our politicians. That, and stop watching the opinion shows on cable news.

Yeah, long as hell, but I’m REALLY fucked up. Also, sorry for being all over the place.

No, you are absolutely correct. We do need to require more from our politicians. I am of the mind that all politicians are guilty of not enacting the peoples will. I do think, however, this is amplified by the media, as they spin every decision a politician makes into their own narrative.

This is why I think the media is largely responsible for the division we have in the country. If opinion talk radio simply reported things verbatim and as they happened, it would be very dry and sometimes boring. They have to spice it up to keep people emotions high, and that keeps them glued to the program. Because they play on people's emotions, it gives them the ability to manipulate things, and I wonder if the end goal is to make you think a certain way, and then reinforce that thinking, e.g....programming.

The issue with that is, over time, a person begins to have that kind of mindset, that they feel a certain way about a particular topic, when in fact, it is that media manipulation that caused you to think that way. In other words, these talk show hosts are programming the way you think, and programming what you believe. Over a long time of constant barrage of reinforcing programming, the listener begins to think those views are their own, when in fact, they may not be, but rather the views of the talk host, projected onto the listener.

Definitely on the right track. Emotion sells, dry facts do not. Fear and loathing sell best, and they also bring loyalty (after this message for foam rubber face lacerations you can paste on we'll tell you which asteroid is going to kill you) which keeps them sitting ducks for the commercial.

Next big town over there are multiple radio stations owned by ClearChannel. One of them has right-wing talk radio all day, another has left-wing talk all day. Clearly they don't care which side a listener takes because they make money from both, and that's all they do care about. The listener is just a pawn to that end.

 

[EL Rich]

That's not "profit". "Profit" would be generating revenue by selling commercials. They don't do that; they can't do that; they don't want to do that; and if they ever did do that it would be completely illegal.

PERIOD.

This gets to the whole motivation of broadcasting. A commercial broadcaster runs sports or talk or hiphop not because they believe in sports or talk or hiphop but because they believe sports or talk or hiphop will grab them X amount of audience, which they can then point to an advertiser and tell them they will "deliver" that audience. A noncommercial broadcaster runs news or jazz or a documentary because it's worthy of broadcast.

Again --- this is the price of whoring out the airwaves.

Then she has that in common with as a general rule 90% of the audience.

Profit is irrelevant. That fact that they are not profitable does not reflect on the lack of veracity of their news presentations.

Sooooo first you're claiming they milk "profit" and then when you're called on that you retreat to "it's irrelevant".

They're "not profitable" because they're non-profit. That's what nonprofit MEANS; that you operate for some other purpose than profit. In this case it means you're using the people's airwaves to provide a public service and not to line your own pockets.

And as far as news presentations, presuming we're talking NPR here, they're the only radio that does any real news presentation, because news is expensive to do and never "profitable" when it's done objectively. That's why you don't see commercial networks doing news. There wouldn't be enough money in it for them to milk.

That's also why your local TV Fraction News will lead with a story about some fire or sinkhole or traffic collision somewhere you never heard of, instead of what your city council is doing, because that kind of shit draws gawkers. Again --- all about the money. It's also why when that legendary conservative William F. Buckley had his discussion show it had to run on PBS ---- because Buckley incited thought, and thought doesn't sell deodorant. Stupid sitcoms sell deodorant.

Non-profit means they're not profitable? WTF, don't tell the Catholic Church.....dumbass.

D

Great post. The electorate is being led by the nose by people just trying to separate them from their money. All news agencies are businesses trying to make as much profit by attracting as many viewers/listeners as they can (sorry NPR and PBS, this means you too!) They believe in making money more than any ideas they may present. I too wonder if the tempature would go down if we spoke to our neighbors instead of watching talking heads or listening to radio/podcast hosts who are for sale. I choose to believe it would.

NPR and PBS don't make "profit". That would be illegal. That is in fact what frees them from the Lowest Common Denominator bullshit game.

Yes and they rely on both underwriters (paid advertising) and individual donations/sponsorships (listeners) to “keep the lights on”. That seems to be the same equation other than the public funding, no? And despite the claims of some, their funding comes mostly from the first two.

Nope. Their funding comes mainly from listener/viewer donations.

Underwriting is not "paid advertising". It's paid but it's under strict rules, e.g. it can't use a "call to action" verb or exhort the viewer/listener to buy its product. That's exactly why the blurbs always say "more information is available at..." in the passive voice, and never says "for more info GO TO ...." which is a call to action. So that's still a different animal. Underwriting and public funding are a collective drop in the bucket of a station's budget. .

By far the vast majority comes from public donations. And zero from advertising.

We are going to have to agree to disagree about underwriters. Why would huge companies pay for Public Broadcasters? Is this a new wave of social consciousness by businesses conglomerates? What do you think motivates underwriters, their profit or the love they get from listeners ?

I know exactly how underwriting works and what its official guidelines are because I worked in that business for decades. It was literally my job to know this stuff on the broadcast end. The end point still being, it isn't advertising nor does the underwriter have any input into the programming. Usually the underwriter comes on after the programming is already established. All of which means there remains no incentive for the broadcaster to pile up numbers in any way possible to sell more burgers.

What motivates them is a positive image that they can put on the face of their business, which they can also write off their taxes.

So they are trying to influence listeners by using their money to support something those listeners care about. While that is not legally advertising, it is influence, no? Yes, underwriters do not have the ability to directly push their agenda on programming, but they can take away their support if they see that programming as counter to their desire to turn a profit. Public broadcasting would be crippled without that support, so I think that counts as leverage.
To be clear, I am not saying the playing field or the stated intent of public broadcasting is the same as it is for purely profit driven entities. That does not remove their need to generate dollars though. And just like most folks in their 20’s realize, if you don’t want to hear someone’s opinions about what you do, pay your own bills. I invite you to listen to how many narratives on NPR are presented (I do and I am a member), they are clearly anti-Trump, regardless of the issue. They lambasted Trump for his attempts with North Korea, if I remember correctly...and I do, they praised Obama for being willing to dialogue with Iran. Is that not a double standard?
It isn’t wrong, but it is just as intellectually dishonest as what Fox News does.

 

[healthmyths]

One thing I've learned over the years is that partisanship is clear and obvious, and seems to be ever increasing.

The thing that perplexes me, however, is that the divide is distinct and very tangible. Has anyone not ever noticed how very clearly the line between right and left is laid out?

Look at our politicians, for example. When it comes to guns and abortion, they will almost always vote right down the party line. The thing is, I have a hard time believing that all Democrats are pro choice and anti gun, and that all Republicans are pro life and pro gun. I think most members of our legislative body fall somewhere in the middle point, but vote the party line because they are expected to do so.

I also think that most citizens are also somewhere in the middle.

I often wonder if media, both opinion talk radio and other forms of "news" play a major role in this.

Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day. Over time, you begin to get ingrained to their way of thinking, and it comes to the point when they say something, you automatically believe it, because you've become so programmed to that type of thinking that when they say something, you think that what they are saying aligns with your way of thinking, when in fact, it's their programming that got you to thinking that way.

Most people have no idea of what is going on in the world, other than what is told to them from their favorite talk show hosts. Is it too far fetched to believe that those hosts know this, and they tailor their shows to reinforce your programming to think a certain way?

Again, I don't believe most of these talk show hosts believe everything they are reporting, but they report it none the less because either they are trying to program you to a certain way of thinking, or they are trying to cater to what they think you want to hear, and drive ratings, which in turn also reinforces the programming.

I just wonder what would happen if everyone stopped listening to opinion talk radio for a year. Would things stay the same, or would we all gravitate to the same way of thinking? I surmise that we would at least get closer together because we are not being constantly fed a stream of directed, partisan information.

Anyway, I was just thinking, and thought I'd ask.

I follow fundamental principles.
Consequently I've found that conservative principles are closer to mine than liberal/progressives.
The major problem is what I observed in the 60s in my college journalism classes.
That some of my fellow students were either on the fringe like I was of the Students for Democratic Society (SDS) of which a subset was the Weathermen an anarchist group or members.
Some of these journalism students were majors and went on to become editors/producers in the news industry.
They retained their SDS/Weathermen leanings, i.e. the USA is inherently a bad country. The military is bad. Capitalism is bad.
Consequently these same editors/producers have gone on to produce BIASED news that slants stories to present the above leanings.
Today the proof that the MSM is biased in several ways:
1)Studies and polls
A) Studies by Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, finds the American media's popularity way down with that of Washington politicians.
With 2,014 adults surveyed, only 6% expressed “a lot of confidence” in the press.
Only 6% Trust Media, But It Should Be Less | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

B) The AP cites a Pew Research Center report that two-thirds (66%) of Americans believe “fabricated news” is causing a “great deal of confusion” about basic facts,
and a poll conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago found the percentage of Americans expressing a “great deal of confidence” in the press
has fallen from 28 percent in 1976 to just 8 percent in 2016.
The Media Still Can't Figure Out Why They're Losing Credibility

Studies conclusion: The MSM IS not to be believed today as compared to periods earlier... like when I was in college when journalists were considered professionals.

2) Realities of MSM donations Democrats vs GOP
A) to Hillary vs Trump in 2012.

B) In 2008 85% of media donated money to Democrats!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

Now these are JUST two independent observations i.e. majority of Americans believing MSM is NOT believable and where the MSM gives it's money...to Democrats.

Now I have more information that validates that the MSM journalism students are taught by BIASED educators to believe what I said early..
America is bad. Military is bad. Businesses corporations are bad.

These are just two of several validations that the MSM has corrupted the news to bias Americans views and it continues to get worse.
The solution is what the vast majority of Americans are doing... doubting the objectivity of the MSM!

 

[EL Rich]

One thing I've learned over the years is that partisanship is clear and obvious, and seems to be ever increasing.

The thing that perplexes me, however, is that the divide is distinct and very tangible. Has anyone not ever noticed how very clearly the line between right and left is laid out?

Look at our politicians, for example. When it comes to guns and abortion, they will almost always vote right down the party line. The thing is, I have a hard time believing that all Democrats are pro choice and anti gun, and that all Republicans are pro life and pro gun. I think most members of our legislative body fall somewhere in the middle point, but vote the party line because they are expected to do so.

I also think that most citizens are also somewhere in the middle.

I often wonder if media, both opinion talk radio and other forms of "news" play a major role in this.

Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day. Over time, you begin to get ingrained to their way of thinking, and it comes to the point when they say something, you automatically believe it, because you've become so programmed to that type of thinking that when they say something, you think that what they are saying aligns with your way of thinking, when in fact, it's their programming that got you to thinking that way.

Most people have no idea of what is going on in the world, other than what is told to them from their favorite talk show hosts. Is it too far fetched to believe that those hosts know this, and they tailor their shows to reinforce your programming to think a certain way?

Again, I don't believe most of these talk show hosts believe everything they are reporting, but they report it none the less because either they are trying to program you to a certain way of thinking, or they are trying to cater to what they think you want to hear, and drive ratings, which in turn also reinforces the programming.

I just wonder what would happen if everyone stopped listening to opinion talk radio for a year. Would things stay the same, or would we all gravitate to the same way of thinking? I surmise that we would at least get closer together because we are not being constantly fed a stream of directed, partisan information.

Anyway, I was just thinking, and thought I'd ask.

Looong winded. But accurate. For me I look back th election 2000. Fox News, Hannith and Colmbs, CNN, MSNBC and the election. I recall it as a time where the Media rallied around their preferred side and had it out. Then the recount of the recount, and then counting that. During the Booooosh years is when it seemed that the political operatives, the Roves and Carvells and so on. Then 9/11. Right after that is when media and polititions lost all shame. You asked how it would be if we all stopped watching news. We would likely go back to not giving two shits who is affiliated with whatever political party. Used to be republicans and Democrats were of the same mind as far as the country went. Basically, keep America awesome. Where they differed was how we all got there. Now? It’s all about power, for both parties. They won’t argue ideas, only hurl accusations at each other. Meh, the media ain’t to blame for all this. We are because we are to lazy to demand more from our polititions. Look at Trump and Clinton. Both reprobate piles of shit. Even more sad, Trump beat Hillary by showing up at a debate or rally and doing arm pit farts. Hillary showed up with nothing to offer. This is only going to get worse unless we demand more from our politicians. That, and stop watching the opinion shows on cable news.

Yeah, long as hell, but I’m REALLY fucked up. Also, sorry for being all over the place.

No, you are absolutely correct. We do need to require more from our politicians. I am of the mind that all politicians are guilty of not enacting the peoples will. I do think, however, this is amplified by the media, as they spin every decision a politician makes into their own narrative.

This is why I think the media is largely responsible for the division we have in the country. If opinion talk radio simply reported things verbatim and as they happened, it would be very dry and sometimes boring. They have to spice it up to keep people emotions high, and that keeps them glued to the program. Because they play on people's emotions, it gives them the ability to manipulate things, and I wonder if the end goal is to make you think a certain way, and then reinforce that thinking, e.g....programming.

The issue with that is, over time, a person begins to have that kind of mindset, that they feel a certain way about a particular topic, when in fact, it is that media manipulation that caused you to think that way. In other words, these talk show hosts are programming the way you think, and programming what you believe. Over a long time of constant barrage of reinforcing programming, the listener begins to think those views are their own, when in fact, they may not be, but rather the views of the talk host, projected onto the listener.

Definitely on the right track. Emotion sells, dry facts do not. Fear and loathing sell best, and they also bring loyalty (after this message for foam rubber face lacerations you can paste on we'll tell you which asteroid is going to kill you) which keeps them sitting ducks for the commercial.

Next big town over there are multiple radio stations owned by ClearChannel. One of them has right-wing talk radio all day, another has left-wing talk all day. Clearly they don't care which side a listener takes because they make money from both, and that's all they do care about. The listener is just a pawn to that end.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, but why does that emotion peddling only apply to conservatives and not liberals?