Homophobia At Its Finest

[Primemuscle]

Ok...makes sense.

I will leave the googling to you if you want to dig in to numbers, but, a couple statements from mostly memory.

Obviously some of these are just single examples, but they add up.

1. The Hunter Biden lack of coverage, intentional spread of disinformation (it was Russian!) happened in real time in front of all of us.
2. Zuckerberg admitting their algorithm needed tweaking as it was too anti-conservative
3. The Senate hearings and stats/examples brought up in the hearings against Facebook and Twitter.
4. Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media study which showed 80% of coverage of Trumps first 100 days was negative, whereas Obama's was 59% positive.
5. How the "very fine people",  "veterans are losers" myths were perpetuated
6. How little coverage positive things were given - Trump making cruelty to animals a federal offense, Trump admonishing countries who outlaw homosexuality, no wars, nobel peace nominations, trade reform.
7. Killing Solemani was criticized heavily, whereas killing Bin Laden was universally celebrated.
8. Not one Republican White House reporter
9. Center for Public Integrity study showed that 96% of media donations were to Democrats
10. Kids in cages stories blaming Trump, when it was Obama's admin that started it.
11. The complete lack of any tough questions levelled at Biden during his non-campaign.
12. Lack of transparency over what the $700 in taxes really represented.

Plenty more.

Thank you for going to the trouble to explain this to me by mostly offering you opinion on the matter of fair media coverage. I did a smattering of checking and found where some of the issues you listed were also reported in centrist and leftist media. How it was reported was no doubt reflective of each side's bias.

“There are three sides to every story – yours, mine, and the truth.” Robert Evans

[Grape Ape]

Thank you for going to the trouble to explain this to me by mostly offering you opinion on the matter of fair media coverage. I did a smattering of checking and found where some of the issues you listed were also reported in centrist and leftist media. How it was reported was no doubt reflective of each side's bias.

“There are three sides to every story – yours, mine, and the truth.” Robert Evans

The examples given were not opinion, but factual.

I also didn't say that the left didn't cover them.  There were examples of non-coverage, but also misinformation, biased lack of context, and anti conservative slants.

As stated, it is NOT conservative platforms in danger of losing 230 liability coverage, it is NOT an overwhelmingly conservative press, etc.....

In aggregate, there is more anti-right / pro-left bias in the media.

[Primemuscle]

The examples given were not opinion, but factual.

I also didn't say that the left didn't cover them.  There were examples of non-coverage, but also misinformation, biased lack of context, and anti conservative slants.

As stated, it is NOT conservative platforms in danger of losing 230 liability coverage, it is NOT an overwhelmingly conservative press, etc.....

In aggregate, there is more anti-right / pro-left bias in the media.

“There are three sides to every story – yours, mine, and the truth.” Robert Evans

Why do you suppose much of mainstream media leans left of center? Does mainstream media reflect the views of most people and is that why it is mainstream? In other words, are they reporting what they believe to be the truth or what they think most people want to hear?

[Grape Ape]

“There are three sides to every story – yours, mine, and the truth.” Robert Evans

Why do you suppose much of mainstream media leans left of center? Does mainstream media reflect the views of most people and is that why it is mainstream? In other words, are they reporting what they believe to be the truth or what they think most people want to hear?

I understand the concept of the three sides theory, but what I posted actually happened.

I don't know the answer to the first sentence about why the media is liberal, but it appears constant, even amongst sportswriters, for example.

For the second (does mainstream reflect the mainstream views), I don't think so, given the Election Vote totals showed 70+ million on both sides.  We're pretty split as a country.

As to how we got to such a strong bias, if I was to theorize, I would say most of the united states is more centrist, regardless of party affiliation.  In other words, I'd think most people want fiscal responsibility, strong military and borders, less taxes, but also want racial equity, better healthcare, education reform, etc.

But, I think there was an enormous mindset shift when Trump won. It was inconceivable, so people panicked to figure out why.  Unfortunately, instead of doing an honest introspective and viewing their shortcomings, they went into pure attack mode, blame mode, etc and the thing has snowballed to the point where rationality disappeared and the only thing that mattered was getting rid of Trump.

This has led to the decline of traditional unbiased journalism.

[Primemuscle]

I understand the concept of the three sides theory, but what I posted actually happened.

I don't know the answer to the first sentence about why the media is liberal, but it appears constant, even amongst sportswriters, for example.

For the second (does mainstream reflect the mainstream views), I don't think so, given the Election Vote totals showed 70+ million on both sides.  We're pretty split as a country.

As to how we got to such a strong bias, if I was to theorize, I would say most of the united states is more centrist, regardless of party affiliation.  In other words, I'd think most people want fiscal responsibility, strong military and borders, less taxes, but also want racial equity, better healthcare, education reform, etc.

But, I think there was an enormous mindset shift when Trump won. It was inconceivable, so people panicked to figure out why.  Unfortunately, instead of doing an honest introspective and viewing their shortcomings, they went into pure attack mode, blame mode, etc and the thing has snowballed to the point where rationality disappeared and the only thing that mattered was getting rid of Trump.

This has led to the decline of traditional unbiased journalism.

Yes. Biden only got 7,000,000 more votes than Trump. Considering the total number of votes, some might see a 10% difference as being almost evenly split.

The media, regardless of type, is a business. They rely on having a large audience to survive. Therefore they give the people what they want at least in terms of bias. If conservatives and liberals are evenly split wouldn't it follow that media's bias would be too? I agree that media should be more centrist and they'd probably do okay because like you mentioned most people fall somewhere in the middle between left and right values. I think I am pretty centrist based on your description.

Here's a thought. When there's an issue that is likely to create strong feelings and division, folks become more interested in the media, which is financially good for the industry. One danger is that people get bored when everything is as expected. For example, you know what you're going to get when you watch FOX News and the same is true for MSNBC and CNN. I watch less and less cable news lately. 10 minutes in and I've heard everything they have to say. Don Lemon is always going to act like Don Lemon and Tucker Carlson will always be Tucker Carlson, until people stop tuning in to them because they've become a big yawn. The first time I watched Rachel Maddow I thought she was as sharp as a tack firing off one zinger after another. Then, she started to annoy me. She didn't change. I just got tired of her routine.

This is speculation, but I think the country began it's divide when Obama was elected. Look back through Getbig posts to the years he was President and you'll read a lot of angry posts about him. Granted, most folks here lean to the right, some more so than others. So, anti Obama posts are expected. People either loved him or hated him. The same is true for Trump. If there's a middle ground, the people in it don't express it very often.

Even if I thought Trump's policies were right on target, I still wouldn't like him as a person. I never have. To me, his values are off and he's an egomaniac....always has been. That's one of the reasons I never watched his reality show....maybe I saw one episode or just part of one because I couldn't make it all the way through the show without having to change the channel.

[chaos]

The examples given were not opinion, but factual.

I also didn't say that the left didn't cover them.  There were examples of non-coverage, but also misinformation, biased lack of context, and anti conservative slants.

As stated, it is NOT conservative platforms in danger of losing 230 liability coverage, it is NOT an overwhelmingly conservative press, etc.....

In aggregate, there is more anti-right / pro-left bias in the media.

You'll give yourself a headache.

[Primemuscle]

You'll give yourself a headache.

He's already given me a headache. We have been talking in circles about something that probably won't ever change or at least neither he nor I will change it.

Grape does love to use the word aggregate.

Isn't that what Getbig is all about...futile disagreements?  back at you.

[Grape Ape]

Yes. Biden only got 7,000,000 more votes than Trump. Considering the total number of votes, some might see a 10% difference as being almost evenly split.

The media, regardless of type, is a business. They rely on having a large audience to survive. Therefore they give the people what they want at least in terms of bias. If conservatives and liberals are evenly split wouldn't it follow that media's bias would be too? I agree that media should be more centrist and they'd probably do okay because like you mentioned most people fall somewhere in the middle between left and right values. I think I am pretty centrist based on your description.

Here's a thought. When there's an issue that is likely to create strong feelings and division, folks become more interested in the media, which is financially good for the industry. One danger is that people get bored when everything is as expected. For example, you know what you're going to get when you watch FOX News and the same is true for MSNBC and CNN. I watch less and less cable news lately. 10 minutes in and I've heard everything they have to say. Don Lemon is always going to act like Don Lemon and Tucker Carlson will always be Tucker Carlson, until people stop tuning in to them because they've become a big yawn. The first time I watched Rachel Maddow I thought she was as sharp as a tack firing off one zinger after another. Then, she started to annoy me. She didn't change. I just got tired of her routine.

This is speculation, but I think the country began it's divide when Obama was elected. Look back through Getbig posts to the years he was President and you'll read a lot of angry posts about him. Granted, most folks here lean to the right, some more so than others. So, anti Obama posts are expected. People either loved him or hated him. The same is true for Trump. If there's a middle ground, the people in it don't express it very often.

Even if I thought Trump's policies were right on target, I still wouldn't like him as a person. I never have. To me, his values are off and he's an egomaniac....always has been. That's one of the reasons I never watched his reality show....maybe I saw one episode or just part of one because I couldn't make it all the way through the show without having to change the channel.

Exactly.  The country DID begin to divide under Obama.  Which is precisely how we ended up with Trump.

But the left did not try to understand why we divided under Obama.  They were quick to categorize Trump supporters as brainless simpletons, easily manipulated by a con artist.

What they should have done was look at the reasons WHY people may have wanted to elect a non-politician, or a disruptor.

[Primemuscle]

Exactly.  The country DID begin to divide under Obama.  Which is precisely how we ended up with Trump.

But the left did not try to understand why we divided under Obama.  They were quick to categorize Trump supporters as brainless simpletons, easily manipulated by a con artist.

What they should have done was look at the reasons WHY people may have wanted to elect a non-politician, or a disruptor.

Time will tell. I don't believe Trump supporters are all brainless simpletons, but it is looking more and more everyday like a lot of folks have been manipulated by a con artist extraordinaire.

BTW, where is the disruptor now? Well, he's in Palm Beach at Mar-a-Largo either tweeting the night away or getting his 'beauty sleep' in preparation for a few rounds of golf while Congress tries to figure out the mess he's left behind; a vetoed annual defense policy bill which included a military pay raise and he leaves Washington in limbo with the relief veto threat. So much for supporting the military or helping the folks with the greatest need as a result of the pandemic.



This is the face of a man who feels no empathy for anyone but himself.

[Grape Ape]

Time will tell. I don't believe Trump supporters are all brainless simpletons, but it is looking more and more everyday like a lot of folks have been manipulated by a con artist extraordinaire.

BTW, where is the disruptor now? Well, he's in Palm Beach at Mar-a-Largo either tweeting the night away or getting his 'beauty sleep' in preparation for a few rounds of golf while Congress tries to figure out the mess he's left behind; a vetoed annual defense policy bill which included a military pay raise and he leaves Washington in limbo with the relief veto threat. So much for supporting the military or helping the folks with the greatest need as a result of the pandemic.



This is the face of a man who feels no empathy for anyone but himself.

Providing examples, rather than broad generalizations would help understand your point.  What were people conned out of?

"The disruptor" recently told Congress their Covid bill was full of pork to other countries and that the average American was getting ripped off, and told them to increase the $ to them.

And you don't give reasons why he vetoed the military bill.  Context is always key in evaluating these things.

Otherwise, they're just statements.

[Primemuscle]

Providing examples, rather than broad generalizations would help understand your point.  What were people conned out of?

"The disruptor" recently told Congress their Covid bill was full of pork to other countries and that the average American was getting ripped off, and told them to increase the $ to them.

And you don't give reasons why he vetoed the military bill.  Context is always key in evaluating these things.

Otherwise, they're just statements.

Good advice. Do you know why he vetoed the military bill?
Could it be this?
President Donald Trump on Wednesday vetoed the annual military spending bill because it did not modify a law that provides liability protections to tech companies and would have authorized the renaming of military bases named for Confederate generals.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-vetoes-military-spending-bill-setting-standoff-gop-lawmakers-n1252281

Trump said he vetoed the annual National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, because it “fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and our military’s history, and contradicts efforts by my administration to put America first in our national security and foreign policy actions”.

A key measure in the NDAA to which Trump objects is the move to rename US military bases currently named for leaders of the Confederacy, which seceded from the union over slavery, leading to the civil war of 1861 to 1865.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/23/trump-vetoes-us-defense-spending-bill-congress-override

That the Covid bill is "full of pork to other countries" is interesting because House Republicans on Thursday blocked a bill by Democrats to provide direct checks of $2,000 to individuals on Thursday, after President Trump called on Congress to amend a newly passed coronavirus relief bill to increase direct payments to $2,000, with $4,000 for a couple. House Republicans blocked the proposal, which Democrats tried to pass by unanimous consent, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi said there will be a full House vote on the measure next week.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stimulus-check-2000-dollar-direct-payments-democrats/

Pelosi urges Trump to press Republicans to back $2,000 stimulus checks ... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged swift action on new legislation

https://fortune.com/2020/12/23/us-covid-relief-stimulus-checks-pelosi-trump/