I know nothing about most of these other names you cite.
Which is a big problem given the claims you're making.
No, I didn't watch the video. After the Epoch Times recommendation and the nature of your replies to the people of that thread (prior to me), you've burned your video recommendation credibility with me for quite a while.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
I know nothing about most of these other names you cite.
No, I didn't watch the video. After the Epoch Times recommendation and the nature of your replies to the people of that thread (prior to me), you've burned your video recommendation credibility with me for quite a while.
That said, editorial bias one way or the other doesn't necessarily bother me as long as the reporting is factual and points me to the source material so I can check for myself. This quality is what makes reporting from sources like NPR and WSJ generally reliable despite editorially leaning in opposite directions. After all, "reliable reporting" /= "anything that flatters existing beliefs." Right?
Emphasis mine.
And this ‘bias’ would seem like nothing new. Any given news outlet or newspaper may issue/print ‘opinions’ and endorse candidates. Seems like this has been happening since the dawn of printing.
No, I didn't watch the video. After the Epoch Times recommendation and the nature of your replies to the people of that thread (prior to me), you've burned your video recommendation credibility with me for quite a while.
I figured that you might have hit that point way back when Ceebs was posting Prager video links. : )
I was referring to mainstream media (MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post. NPR, The View, Maher, etc). I know nothing about most of these other names you cite.
Honor and Gad - Did you watch the video? If so, any thought?
I watched the video yesterday after you had posted and before anyone else had replied. I opted to not reply. The video of a producer commenting on a date they amplify Harris' message isn't just uninteresting. It implied either you are stupid if you did it ignorant of how that plays on the right, or you were being disingenuous as you are aware of this and just making an issue out of one side doing what "fair and balanced" Fox News, Newsmax, the Post, countless radio shows, and many other have been doing forever. No one who has even a remote idea of the lay of the political landscape in the US doubted MSNBC was effectively a parallel to Fox.
What I find disingenuous and worthy of remark were your comments that you are concerned about partisanship.
Your actions are honest if your words aren't.
I'm also uninterested in the constant complaint from folks whose media consumption is hard right who believe there are legions on the other side against them. It's a product of how far to the right you are that you see most news as partisan. And that's a problem that's never been fixed by posting in a message board with someone who doesn't engage in discussion.
Last edited by honorentheos on Sat Oct 05, 2024 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ok , now I watched the whole thing to the end when Megan is selling some stuff to put on your skin to make the dark spots disappear.
First it is obvious and hardly news that MSNBC supports the democratic party. I can consider the clip of the producer wining it up with a female date saying the MSNBC dumbing down helps Trump. There could be a point to that. MSN could do better. Maddow talks on and on repeating a point.
Then the presentation goes on and on with Megan and her partner hating on the women of MSNBC.Whatever.
