turzovka
Gold Member
- Nov 20, 2012
- 5,195
- 1,039
- 265
This comment alone is enough for me to question everything else you may hold true.
Yet I know you to be a thoughtful poster. :0
The media includes newspapers, magazines, radio & TV, internet sources including blogs, movies and even stage plays (theater), books and pamphlets. To claim each individual source of information has a liberal bias is not correct.
The so called liberal bias is a construct of Rush Limbaugh, and has been echoed over and over so that it has become a big lie believed by the biddable. The BIG LIE is in essence propaganda and usually the polar opposite of reality. Examples:
Anyone who believes Big Lies and supports Trump is, IMO, a Fool.
- I will send all illegal immigrants back across the border
- We will build a wall, and Mexico will pay for it
- HRC is a crook
- I will defeat ISIS and have a plan in 30 days
- I will cut taxes and reduce the debt
Are you dancing around the subject a bit?
The only comment of yours I referred to was when you said >>> "I don't believe a MSM liberal bias exists."
MSM = Mainstream Media. MSM generally refers to the 7 major news networks and major city newspapers. Not the internet, not blogs, etc.
And you are saying the CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC have no liberal bias. And I am saying you are out of your mind.
FOX leans right or has a right wing bias, no doubt. But I am not like liberals who deny the same thing on their side.
The same goes for the major newspapers in this nation I will not bother listing the top ten. Maybe only the Wall Street Journal leans right in many of its dealings, but the others are all Left.
So I do not have time to talk about Rush Limbaugh or Donald Trump and we fools who support him. Maybe later.
First, define what you mean as a liberal bias.
The use of the terms left and right have become pejoratives, and have little resemblance to their original meaning. Other terms are misused and rarely defined, and also used as to express contempt or disapproval of someone who holds opinions which they disapprove.
I, for example, use the term far right (or crazy right wingers) and callous conservative to describe those whose posts I believe are contemptible (see my signature line). No one has yet posted anything which rebuts my use of these words, or my signature line, as credible.
Your latest post does nothing for me,
You act as though this is such a vague and abstract idea.
You don't know what a leftist belief or policy or what a right wing belief or policy is?
You cannot understand how the media covers up stories that hurt their agenda or party or candidate?
And you see no evidence of that on a continuous basis?
And you want me to explain it to you?
You are being evasive (you are not that ignorant) and I do not have the time to play games over this.
Sorry, I'll try to do something for you in the future (the far far distant future).
I don't need you to explain anything to me, I understand that the left wing is pretty much dormant at this time in our history. It only exists in the large void between the ears of members of the echo chamber.
Progressives are not far left, one characteristic of the far left is their goal of immediate gratification - they do not rely on the ballot box, they take to the streets and create havoc, as did the minority of those whose behavior the press highlighted during OWS marches.
The liberals and progressives and RINO's walked, sang, carried signs and the left wing engaged in violent acts of vandalism and looting. In short, the far left are revolutionary and disdain democracy and compromise; progressive, liberals and mainstream Democrats seek the will of the people for change.
More semantics? I am not all that interested in understanding the distinctions between a leftist, a liberal, a progressive, or someone who votes democrat at the national level. They are for all intents and purposes, distinctions without a difference. But thanks for the education.
There is a major, major left wing bias in the TV news and major newspaper business in this nation. And they are as big of a factor as there is in changing the mindset of the nation and the culture. Throw in the entertainment media and a liberal education system and you have almost a downright monopoly.
Throw in Snopes, Wikipedia, Google, Facebook and Amazon and now you are really swimming. Yes, those are much more subtle but their presence is real.Why just today we have this little plum out of Amazon.
===============================================================
Hillary Clinton's newest book, "Stronger Together," has been met with critical reviews and slow sales since its release earlier this month.
But Amazon.com appears to be helping the Democratic presidential nominee by removing negative reviews from its website, WND.com reported.
The book, co-authored by Clinton's running mate, Tim Kaine, sold just 2,912 copies in its first week on sale, according to Nielsen BookScan. And the online ratings have been abysmal, with 81 percent one-star ratings and an average of only 1.7 on Amazon.com after it hit book shelves on Sept 6.Amazon, however, has tried to fix that.
According to WND.com -- which has been tracking the number of reviews -- Amazon deleted hundreds of comments last week that were critical of the book, which lays out a policy blueprint of how the country would look under a Clinton-Kaine administration.
On Thursday, Amazon -- whose CEO, Jeff Bezos, owns the Washington Post -- said there were 91 positive reviews compared to 166 critical ones, according to WND. Just two days earlier, there were 1,244 reviews -- 81 percent of them with one-star and 16 percent with five-star ratings, the website reported.
Bias Alert: Amazon 'Fixed' Reviews For Hillary Clinton's Book
Last edited: