Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just wanting to hear reasons, and maybe a little insight as to why/how it has inhibited the Republican Party.
Please keep it civil, and help me understand. From my perspective, they've occupied the Whitehouse more in the last 40 years than Dems, and there has been a pretty healthy back and forth of having the majority in both House and Senate.
Is there really a bias? If yes, I'd like to learn more about it, and it will help me to see it illustrated with some facts. Or is it just a "feeling" that both sides get, that they are being held back?
Keep it friendly and informative please. Will just skip over offensive posts or anything that tries to discredit the question with labels like "TDS" or such...
The Media/Democrat Alliance is purposely causing the divisiveness. The Media is a huge problem because it is 95% Democrat and far left.
Certainly not cable and certainly not talk radio. Most newspapers do have a slant to the left but my question is why is the right wing incapable of a popular newspaper other than WSJ and the Washington Times, maybe the NYT and WaPo are more popular because if their research and integrity. I don't see that there is a lack of funding to compete with Koch, Coors and Mellon, so whats the issue.
Most on the right resort to the Conservative Treehouse or Red State News or Breitbart, is that the best they have to offer as an alternative.
Certainly not cable and certainly not talk radio. Most newspapers do have a slant to the left but my question is why is the right wing incapable of a popular newspaper other than WSJ and the Washington Times, maybe the NYT and WaPo are more popular because if their research and integrity. I don't see that there is a lack of funding to compete with Koch, Coors and Mellon, so whats the issue.
Most on the right resort to the Conservative Treehouse or Red State News or Breitbart, is that the best they have to offer as an alternative.
The NY Post has the 4th largest distribution in the country.
Troll thread, I hope anyway. The OP cannot be srs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shhon
Fox news is for racist old people that havent moved with the times of today...
All other media reports how things are supposed to be....
Being racist is bad, its not okay to be racist in 2020.
Make Racists Afraid Again.
FOX news is about 60% to 40% liberal. The rest are probably north of 95% liberal.
Then you complain about bias.
Go back to your echo chamber which is every single news outlet besides FOX.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost
From my perspective, they've occupied the Whitehouse more in the last 40 years than Dems, and there has been a pretty healthy back and forth of having the majority in both House and Senate.
Is there really a bias?
From 1933 to 1995, Republicans had controlled both House and Senate for only four years.
Troll thread, I hope anyway. The OP cannot be srs.
FOX news is about 60% to 40% liberal. The rest are probably north of 95% liberal.
Then you complain about bias.
Go back to your echo chamber which is every single news outlet besides FOX.
From 1933 to 1995, Republicans had controlled both House and Senate for only four years.
There's some info for ya.
I grew up with the assumption the House would always be Democrat until Gingrich came through. I didn't remember a time when the Republicans had even 200 seats (1959 was the last time until 1995). It was Republican only 4 years during those 62 years and not at all from 1955 to 1995. The Democrats usually had the Senate as well, but weren't as dominate.
Interesting that those on CD who claim that the media is biased never give specifics and they almost never a was pure The Post or WSJ. NYT and WaPo provide extensive in depth reporting as do many papers around the country. So why is the media biased
Interesting that those on CD who claim that the media is biased never give specifics and they almost never a was pure The Post or WSJ. NYT and WaPo provide extensive in depth reporting as do many papers around the country. So why is the media biased
I think it is pretty clear that most media sources are biased one way or the other. There are more left biased sources by far, but the right biased sources tend to get more viewers, readers, or what have you, because there are so few right biased sources to choose from by comparison to left biased sources.
Plus, the media that we consider "mainstream media" is almost 100% on the left. That label carries a lot of weight, and harps back to the time when media was more fact based and far less opinion based. I used to have a subscription to the NYT. Had it for 15 years starting in the early 1990s. When I read the NYT today, it is unrecognizable from what it was back then.
So I guess what I am saying is that the bias of the media is important for people on the right to bring up, so that there is no mistaking "mainstream" for "unbiased". The NYT can't be seen as the paper of record in this day and age, because it is not anymore. It is just another biased source. That is not to say it is not factual, but the facts are presented in a way to promote an agenda. CNN is not the CNN of old. These days it is a lot closer to the Fox News of the left. I cant speak for all conservatives, but when I talk about media bias, I just want it to be recognized that the news stalwarts of old, should not be given the same credence and respect that they once were.
I think it is pretty clear that most media sources are biased one way or the other. There are more left biased sources by far, but the right biased sources tend to get more viewers, readers, or what have you, because there are so few right biased sources to choose from by comparison to left biased sources.
Plus, the media that we consider "mainstream media" is almost 100% on the left. That label carries a lot of weight, and harps back to the time when media was more fact based and far less opinion based. I used to have a subscription to the NYT. Had it for 15 years starting in the early 1990s. When I read the NYT today, it is unrecognizable from what it was back then.
So I guess what I am saying is that the bias of the media is important for people on the right to bring up, so that there is no mistaking "mainstream" for "unbiased". The NYT can't be seen as the paper of record in this day and age, because it is not anymore. It is just another biased source. That is not to say it is not factual, but the facts are presented in a way to promote an agenda. CNN is not the CNN of old. These days it is a lot closer to the Fox News of the left. I cant speak for all conservatives, but when I talk about media bias, I just want it to be recognized that the news stalwarts of old, should not be given the same credence and respect that they once were.
Good points but I don't see an overwhelming bias in media in general but that of course is just opinion. There is a big difference between entertainment and a news source and many mistake Sean Hannity as a credible news source. Talk radio in my areas is inundated with the right wing. The NY Times is a lighting rod for complaints of unfairness but I hear very few about the WSJ and NY Post.
The largest problem is the current portrayal of news media as being the enemy of the state pushing people to get their education from random unreliable sources, that is dangerous.
Good points but I don't see an overwhelming bias in media in general but that of course is just opinion. There is a big difference between entertainment and a news source and many mistake Sean Hannity as a credible news source. Talk radio in my areas is inundated with the right wing. The NY Times is a lighting rod for complaints of unfairness but I hear very few about the WSJ and NY Post.
The largest problem is the current portrayal of news media as being the enemy of the state pushing people to get their education from random unreliable sources, that is dangerous.
I don't know, when I read a source, whether it be the NYT, WSJ, or the NY Post, I understand that the source I am reading has their own agenda. And I think most intelligent people do. I don't think they are "the enemy of the state".
But keep in mind, there are so many left wing random unreliable sources too. The mainstream media disproportionally takes hits from the right, but the alternative media takes disproportional hits from the left, who rarely recognize their own random unreliable sources. A left wing blog, like The Huffington Post is treated like a reliable source by many on the left, where Breitbart is the devil incarnate.
As a small example, I’ve noticed that in the Chicago Tribune, columnists will insert the word “falsely” when they are writing about something Trump or his supporters claim. For instance, a column this week said Trump falsely claimed that Biden and the Democrats have been ignoring the ongoing violence in cities like Portland, Minneapolis and Chicago.
If that’s the columnist’s opinion, fine, but don’t report it as fact in a major newspaper.
Especially when the Democrat's convention, they ALL ignored the violence, with not one speaker, including Joe, making even a passing reference to the three months of violence, looting, burning and deaths.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.