Even the polling is BIASED!

[healthmyths]

These are the most — and the least — trusted news sources in the U.S.
Published: Aug 6, 2017 10:13 a.m. ET

The results were based on a survey of more than 8,000 people conducted by 28 media organizations in the U.S. Participation was voluntary but respondents tended to reside near the news outlets that made the questionnaire available on their websites, and leaned toward the liberal side of the political spectrum.
These are the most — and the least — trusted news sources in the U.S.
AND LEANED toward the LIBERAL!!!
A) News sources are NOT suppose to BIASED. That's the editorial page. The Commentators page!
Limbaugh ACKNOWLEDGES he is BIASED conservative!
BUT he is NOT a NEWS source!
NOR is TRUMP a NEWS source!
This is such a screwy mixed up poll by the "prestigious" (bull crap) Reynolds Journalism Institute of the University of Missouri!
Limbaugh is not a journalist!
Nor is "Occupy Democrats"! They are not "journalists" i.e. News sources!
The question should have been of these purported "journalism" sources:
ABC,CBS,NBC, MSNBC,FOX, USA Today Wall Street... and so on then this would be a legitimate
poll! But by lumping known BIASED commentators, i.e. Limbaugh, Occupy Democrats, Huffington Post,PBS, NPR, in as "News sources"... Total bull crap!

 

[Mac1958]

The problem is that "news" doesn't mean what it used to mean. Today, people will go onto a site like HuffPo or Breitbart and, in their minds, think that they're reading a "news" story.

Because the "news article" is written from their political perspective, they swallow it whole like a child eats candy. It doesn't even occur to them that the piece could be slanted in their direction.

"News" is a term that's just impossible to define now, sadly.
.

 

[The VOR]

Because the "news article" is written from their political perspective, they swallow it whole like a child eats candy. It doesn't even occur to them that the piece could be slanted in their direction.

How dare you talk about the orange cheeto like that!

 

[Norman]

Seems like their graph didn't go far enough to the left to include CNN.

EDIT: Wait, it's actually there, no one can take the polling seriously now...

 

[francoHFW]

Considering RWers just love BS and fake news, their opinions should be thrown out- see their opinions of the NYT, Wapo, etc- based on nonstop insults they DO hear... THEY think Rush, Sean, Beck are journalists, and never hear a retraction. Poor America. Huffpo makes Breitbart etc etc look like the disgraces they are.

 

[gipper]

These are the most — and the least — trusted news sources in the U.S.
Published: Aug 6, 2017 10:13 a.m. ET

The results were based on a survey of more than 8,000 people conducted by 28 media organizations in the U.S. Participation was voluntary but respondents tended to reside near the news outlets that made the questionnaire available on their websites, and leaned toward the liberal side of the political spectrum.
These are the most — and the least — trusted news sources in the U.S.
AND LEANED toward the LIBERAL!!!
A) News sources are NOT suppose to BIASED. That's the editorial page. The Commentators page!
Limbaugh ACKNOWLEDGES he is BIASED conservative!
BUT he is NOT a NEWS source!
NOR is TRUMP a NEWS source!
This is such a screwy mixed up poll by the "prestigious" (bull crap) Reynolds Journalism Institute of the University of Missouri!
Limbaugh is not a journalist!
Nor is "Occupy Democrats"! They are not "journalists" i.e. News sources!
The question should have been of these purported "journalism" sources:
ABC,CBS,NBC, MSNBC,FOX, USA Today Wall Street... and so on then this would be a legitimate
poll! But by lumping known BIASED commentators, i.e. Limbaugh, Occupy Democrats, Huffington Post,PBS, NPR, in as "News sources"... Total bull crap!
View attachment 142375

Boy what a bunch of bull shit.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

These are the most — and the least — trusted news sources in the U.S.
Published: Aug 6, 2017 10:13 a.m. ET

The results were based on a survey of more than 8,000 people conducted by 28 media organizations in the U.S. Participation was voluntary but respondents tended to reside near the news outlets that made the questionnaire available on their websites, and leaned toward the liberal side of the political spectrum.
These are the most — and the least — trusted news sources in the U.S.
AND LEANED toward the LIBERAL!!!
A) News sources are NOT suppose to BIASED. That's the editorial page. The Commentators page!
Limbaugh ACKNOWLEDGES he is BIASED conservative!
BUT he is NOT a NEWS source!
NOR is TRUMP a NEWS source!
This is such a screwy mixed up poll by the "prestigious" (bull crap) Reynolds Journalism Institute of the University of Missouri!
Limbaugh is not a journalist!
Nor is "Occupy Democrats"! They are not "journalists" i.e. News sources!
The question should have been of these purported "journalism" sources:
ABC,CBS,NBC, MSNBC,FOX, USA Today Wall Street... and so on then this would be a legitimate
poll! But by lumping known BIASED commentators, i.e. Limbaugh, Occupy Democrats, Huffington Post,PBS, NPR, in as "News sources"... Total bull crap!
View attachment 142375

Wow, that graph is real crap. They surpassed themselves.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The problem is that "news" doesn't mean what it used to mean. Today, people will go onto a site like HuffPo or Breitbart and, in their minds, think that they're reading a "news" story.

Because the "news article" is written from their political perspective, they swallow it whole like a child eats candy. It doesn't even occur to them that the piece could be slanted in their direction.

"News" is a term that's just impossible to define now, sadly.
.

Have you ever gone to Huffpo or Brietbart and swallowed a news story like it was candy?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The problem is that "news" doesn't mean what it used to mean. Today, people will go onto a site like HuffPo or Breitbart and, in their minds, think that they're reading a "news" story.

Because the "news article" is written from their political perspective, they swallow it whole like a child eats candy. It doesn't even occur to them that the piece could be slanted in their direction.

"News" is a term that's just impossible to define now, sadly.
.

The problem is outright corruption and the stupidity of Americans.

 

[Mac1958]

The problem is that "news" doesn't mean what it used to mean. Today, people will go onto a site like HuffPo or Breitbart and, in their minds, think that they're reading a "news" story.

Because the "news article" is written from their political perspective, they swallow it whole like a child eats candy. It doesn't even occur to them that the piece could be slanted in their direction.

"News" is a term that's just impossible to define now, sadly.
.

The problem is outright corruption and the stupidity of Americans.

There's a lot of corruption, there are Americans who don't pay much attention, there are Americans who DO pay attention, and there are Americans who can only see or believe their "side" of any given issue.

That last group is an easy mark for intellectually dishonest advocacy "journalism" like Breitbart and HuffPo.
.

 

[gipper]

The problem is that "news" doesn't mean what it used to mean. Today, people will go onto a site like HuffPo or Breitbart and, in their minds, think that they're reading a "news" story.

Because the "news article" is written from their political perspective, they swallow it whole like a child eats candy. It doesn't even occur to them that the piece could be slanted in their direction.

"News" is a term that's just impossible to define now, sadly.
.

The problem is outright corruption and the stupidity of Americans.

There's a lot of corruption, there are Americans who don't pay much attention, there are Americans who DO pay attention, and there are Americans who can only see or believe their "side" of any given issue.

That last group is an easy mark for intellectually dishonest advocacy "journalism" like Breitbart and HuffPo.
.

Agreed...the problem is intellectually dishonest advocacy journalism goes far deeper into the MSM, than most know or will admit. It is obvious that most of the MSM is intellectually dishonest and leaning far left. Certainly this includes such beacons of journalism as NY Slimes, Washington ComPost, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, PBS, CNN, AP, Reuters, and so many more.

I suppose this is what results when six billionaires control 95% of the media.

 

[healthmyths]

The problem is that "news" doesn't mean what it used to mean. Today, people will go onto a site like HuffPo or Breitbart and, in their minds, think that they're reading a "news" story.

Because the "news article" is written from their political perspective, they swallow it whole like a child eats candy. It doesn't even occur to them that the piece could be slanted in their direction.

"News" is a term that's just impossible to define now, sadly.
.

The problem is outright corruption and the stupidity of Americans.

There's a lot of corruption, there are Americans who don't pay much attention, there are Americans who DO pay attention, and there are Americans who can only see or believe their "side" of any given issue.

That last group is an easy mark for intellectually dishonest advocacy "journalism" like Breitbart and HuffPo.
.

Sorry but you MISSED the entire point! The MSM i.e. ABC,CBS,et.al. are biased. To believe otherwise is "intellectually dishonest"!
FACTS..

 

[Mac1958]

The problem is that "news" doesn't mean what it used to mean. Today, people will go onto a site like HuffPo or Breitbart and, in their minds, think that they're reading a "news" story.

Because the "news article" is written from their political perspective, they swallow it whole like a child eats candy. It doesn't even occur to them that the piece could be slanted in their direction.

"News" is a term that's just impossible to define now, sadly.
.

The problem is outright corruption and the stupidity of Americans.

There's a lot of corruption, there are Americans who don't pay much attention, there are Americans who DO pay attention, and there are Americans who can only see or believe their "side" of any given issue.

That last group is an easy mark for intellectually dishonest advocacy "journalism" like Breitbart and HuffPo.
.

Sorry but you MISSED the entire point! The MSM i.e. ABC,CBS,et.al. are biased. To believe otherwise is "intellectually dishonest"!
FACTS..
View attachment 142411
View attachment 142412

Yes, I was in it for nearly 20 years, it is.

The fact remains, partisans on both ends eat what's fed them by media that is on their "side".
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Shall we, once again, endeavor to establish a set of facts the participants here at the USMB can rely upon?

Whaddya say, Mac1958 ? You certainly have the ability to discern fact from media biased fiction. Wanna serve on the board of the USMB Indisputable Facts Commission?

 

[healthmyths]

The problem is that "news" doesn't mean what it used to mean. Today, people will go onto a site like HuffPo or Breitbart and, in their minds, think that they're reading a "news" story.

Because the "news article" is written from their political perspective, they swallow it whole like a child eats candy. It doesn't even occur to them that the piece could be slanted in their direction.

"News" is a term that's just impossible to define now, sadly.
.

The problem is outright corruption and the stupidity of Americans.

There's a lot of corruption, there are Americans who don't pay much attention, there are Americans who DO pay attention, and there are Americans who can only see or believe their "side" of any given issue.

That last group is an easy mark for intellectually dishonest advocacy "journalism" like Breitbart and HuffPo.
.

Sorry but you MISSED the entire point! The MSM i.e. ABC,CBS,et.al. are biased. To believe otherwise is "intellectually dishonest"!
FACTS..
View attachment 142411
View attachment 142412

Yes, I was in it for nearly 20 years, it is.

The fact remains, partisans on both ends eat what's fed them by media that is on their "side".
.

Don't dispute partisanship in the media. My point though is the majority of people that depend on the MSM, ABC,CBS,etc. for their news are being BIASED!
And the balance is not there! Why is it impossible for people like you to admit these FACTS exist?

Or this fact:
85% of ABC,CBS, NBC employees DONATED to Democrats!!!!
"When 1,160 (85%) 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

What is the problem in admitting that the MAJORITY of the MSM is:
A) Biased.
B) Biased towards the left/Democrats/progressives.

 

[Mac1958]

The problem is that "news" doesn't mean what it used to mean. Today, people will go onto a site like HuffPo or Breitbart and, in their minds, think that they're reading a "news" story.

Because the "news article" is written from their political perspective, they swallow it whole like a child eats candy. It doesn't even occur to them that the piece could be slanted in their direction.

"News" is a term that's just impossible to define now, sadly.
.

The problem is outright corruption and the stupidity of Americans.

There's a lot of corruption, there are Americans who don't pay much attention, there are Americans who DO pay attention, and there are Americans who can only see or believe their "side" of any given issue.

That last group is an easy mark for intellectually dishonest advocacy "journalism" like Breitbart and HuffPo.
.

Sorry but you MISSED the entire point! The MSM i.e. ABC,CBS,et.al. are biased. To believe otherwise is "intellectually dishonest"!
FACTS..
View attachment 142411
View attachment 142412

Yes, I was in it for nearly 20 years, it is.

The fact remains, partisans on both ends eat what's fed them by media that is on their "side".
.

Don't dispute partisanship in the media. My point though is the majority of people that depend on the MSM, ABC,CBS,etc. for their news are being BIASED!
And the balance is not there! Why is it impossible for people like you to admit these FACTS exist?
View attachment 142417
Or this fact:
85% of ABC,CBS, NBC employees DONATED to Democrats!!!!
"When 1,160 (85%) 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

What is the problem in admitting that the MAJORITY of the MSM is:
A) Biased.
B) Biased towards the left/Democrats/progressives.

I don't know what you think I'm saying.

Most of the media is biased to the Left, to different degrees. Then there is right wing media, which is much smaller.

In my experience, I'd say 85% sounds about correct overall.
.

 

[healthmyths]

The problem is outright corruption and the stupidity of Americans.

There's a lot of corruption, there are Americans who don't pay much attention, there are Americans who DO pay attention, and there are Americans who can only see or believe their "side" of any given issue.

That last group is an easy mark for intellectually dishonest advocacy "journalism" like Breitbart and HuffPo.
.

Sorry but you MISSED the entire point! The MSM i.e. ABC,CBS,et.al. are biased. To believe otherwise is "intellectually dishonest"!
FACTS..
View attachment 142411
View attachment 142412

Yes, I was in it for nearly 20 years, it is.

The fact remains, partisans on both ends eat what's fed them by media that is on their "side".
.

Don't dispute partisanship in the media. My point though is the majority of people that depend on the MSM, ABC,CBS,etc. for their news are being BIASED!
And the balance is not there! Why is it impossible for people like you to admit these FACTS exist?
View attachment 142417
Or this fact:
85% of ABC,CBS, NBC employees DONATED to Democrats!!!!
"When 1,160 (85%) 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

What is the problem in admitting that the MAJORITY of the MSM is:
A) Biased.
B) Biased towards the left/Democrats/progressives.

I don't know what you think I'm saying.

Most of the media is biased to the Left, to different degrees. Then there is right wing media, which is much smaller.

In my experience, I'd say 85% sounds about correct overall.
.

I agree. The problem though is when make a statement like"partisans on both ends eat what's fed them by media that is on their "side".
the impression is you believe there is a "balance" and now I see you agree...there isn't a balance.
It is even more pronounced though with the "type" of MSM i.e. network news, NYT,WaPo, etc. and this sad to say is what most of the honestly diminishing number
of Americans get their news from. So I was addressing the constant battle with people that say "oh both sides of the MSM are equal". They aren't.
That was my point and I'm glad you for one (now that I understand your point) have pointed out the bias.
Thanks.

 

[francoHFW]

The problem is that "news" doesn't mean what it used to mean. Today, people will go onto a site like HuffPo or Breitbart and, in their minds, think that they're reading a "news" story.

Because the "news article" is written from their political perspective, they swallow it whole like a child eats candy. It doesn't even occur to them that the piece could be slanted in their direction.

"News" is a term that's just impossible to define now, sadly.
.

The problem is outright corruption and the stupidity of Americans.

There's a lot of corruption, there are Americans who don't pay much attention, there are Americans who DO pay attention, and there are Americans who can only see or believe their "side" of any given issue.

That last group is an easy mark for intellectually dishonest advocacy "journalism" like Breitbart and HuffPo.
.

Example of Huffpo lying like Breitbart does nonstop?

 

[francoHFW]

The problem is outright corruption and the stupidity of Americans.

There's a lot of corruption, there are Americans who don't pay much attention, there are Americans who DO pay attention, and there are Americans who can only see or believe their "side" of any given issue.

That last group is an easy mark for intellectually dishonest advocacy "journalism" like Breitbart and HuffPo.
.

Sorry but you MISSED the entire point! The MSM i.e. ABC,CBS,et.al. are biased. To believe otherwise is "intellectually dishonest"!
FACTS..
View attachment 142411
View attachment 142412

Yes, I was in it for nearly 20 years, it is.

The fact remains, partisans on both ends eat what's fed them by media that is on their "side".
.

Don't dispute partisanship in the media. My point though is the majority of people that depend on the MSM, ABC,CBS,etc. for their news are being BIASED!
And the balance is not there! Why is it impossible for people like you to admit these FACTS exist?
View attachment 142417
Or this fact:
85% of ABC,CBS, NBC employees DONATED to Democrats!!!!
"When 1,160 (85%) 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

What is the problem in admitting that the MAJORITY of the MSM is:
A) Biased.
B) Biased towards the left/Democrats/progressives.

I don't know what you think I'm saying.

Most of the media is biased to the Left, to different degrees. Then there is right wing media, which is much smaller.

In my experience, I'd say 85% sounds about correct overall.
.

Telling the truth is now being biased to the Left, according to the New BS GOP, its dupes, and the big orange tool...

 

[francoHFW]

There's a lot of corruption, there are Americans who don't pay much attention, there are Americans who DO pay attention, and there are Americans who can only see or believe their "side" of any given issue.

That last group is an easy mark for intellectually dishonest advocacy "journalism" like Breitbart and HuffPo.
.

Sorry but you MISSED the entire point! The MSM i.e. ABC,CBS,et.al. are biased. To believe otherwise is "intellectually dishonest"!
FACTS..
View attachment 142411
View attachment 142412

Yes, I was in it for nearly 20 years, it is.

The fact remains, partisans on both ends eat what's fed them by media that is on their "side".
.

Don't dispute partisanship in the media. My point though is the majority of people that depend on the MSM, ABC,CBS,etc. for their news are being BIASED!
And the balance is not there! Why is it impossible for people like you to admit these FACTS exist?
View attachment 142417
Or this fact:
85% of ABC,CBS, NBC employees DONATED to Democrats!!!!
"When 1,160 (85%) 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

What is the problem in admitting that the MAJORITY of the MSM is:
A) Biased.
B) Biased towards the left/Democrats/progressives.

I don't know what you think I'm saying.

Most of the media is biased to the Left, to different degrees. Then there is right wing media, which is much smaller.

In my experience, I'd say 85% sounds about correct overall.
.

I agree. The problem though is when make a statement like"partisans on both ends eat what's fed them by media that is on their "side".
the impression is you believe there is a "balance" and now I see you agree...there isn't a balance.
It is even more pronounced though with the "type" of MSM i.e. network news, NYT,WaPo, etc. and this sad to say is what most of the honestly diminishing number
of Americans get their news from. So I was addressing the constant battle with people that say "oh both sides of the MSM are equal". They aren't.
That was my point and I'm glad you for one (now that I understand your point) have pointed out the bias.
Thanks.

You'lll get the same news as MSM's all around the world and from all respected outlets. Your BS you only get in the US from crap bought off RW propaganda, superdupe.