Liberal indoctrination in universities?

CORE · May 16, 2019

Those Russians are at it again meddling with this thread.

SG854 · May 16, 2019

Foxi4 said:
It really depends on the university and the professors, but on the whole I would say that yes, universities are left-leaning, especially when it comes to humanities. It does colour their judgement and the way the professors teach - being on the left is considered enlightened and progressive, being on the right is considered close-minded and regressive. Many universities cave to the dumbest of requests of their student body, others have actually been infiltrated by people obsessed with PC culture. Would I call it indoctrination? Perhaps, only if you're too weak to resist it, I suppose. As far as I'm concerned, you should be doing whatever it takes to get the degree and the grades you need. From what I've observed, universities do try to accommodate the demands of right-wing students by inviting right-wing speakers, however it's also clear to me that being right-wing, particularly on campus, is demonised and the "threat" of allowing a different ideology to be discussed is grossly exaggerated.

Having overwhelming liberal people in college probably isn’t a good idea. There are many things in the world we don’t know about that isn’t as clear cut as earth is not flat.

Fiscal policy, foreign policy, some parts of domestic policy, if affirmative action (maybe) is a good idea, or if the death penalty a good idea, or other issues like these.

There are types of issues that are not as black and white, here is scientific evidence to show you what’s better. You can’t provide scientific evidence to say death penalty is bad or not bad, or at least not to the same extent as evidence for evolution. This is where conservatives and liberal personalities come in to bring different perspectives. And both can have good arguments for issues we don’t have research and facts for. For people to say more liberals in college because liberals are smarter sounds like arrogance and then overstating how much they know about the world.

osaka35 · May 16, 2019

Maluma said:
My qualm with progressives is that they teach principles that they don't follow.California universities are filled with rich Californians that live in predominantly white enclaves yet they preach diversity when they themselves don't live in diverse areas.I can't respect people that tell YOU to do something,when they themselves do the complete opposite.It screams of utter hypocrisy.Rich liberals say to bring in all the illegals,just don't bring them into their neighborhoods.It's a ridiculous ideology to have if you ask me.

I mean, you're not wrong. Though I would suggest they're saying the right things, but are aholes for not following through. I'm guessing you aren't suggesting most liberals are rich white kids lol. Your argument seems more against those who just say they're progressive while not actually being progressive.

Foxi4 · May 16, 2019

SG854 said:
Having overwhelming liberal people in college probably isn’t a good idea. There are many things in the world we don’t know about that isn’t as clear cut as earth is not flat.

Fiscal policy, foreign policy, some parts of domestic policy, if affirmative action (maybe) is a good idea, or if the death penalty a good idea, or other issues like these.

There are types of issues that are not as black and white, here is scientific evidence to show you what’s better. You can’t provide scientific evidence to say death penalty is bad or not bad, or at least not to the same extent as evidence for evolution. This is where conservatives and liberal personalities come in to bring different perspectives. And both can have good arguments for issues we don’t have research and facts for. For people to say more liberals in college because liberals are smarter sounds like arrogance and then overstating how much they know about the world.

Social sciences are definitely an area where the left and the right should be debating the pros and cons of policy at all times, which is how things used to work. I do find issue with your post in the sense that you "can't provide scientific evidence" for the efficacy of the death penalty, or in any other fringe issue - you absolutely can. You can look at recidivism rates, for instance - how many prisoners who served 25 years end up in the prison system again? The death penalty gives you a recidivism rate of 0% - the convict is executed. On the flip side, you have to look at how many innocents die in the process, only to be found not guilty upon further investigation. What is the cost of life imprisonment versus the death penalty? There are certainly figures that can be discussed besides the moral argument, which is the whole reason why having diverse opinions among the students and the staff is important in the first place. If these issues could not be supported by figures, all social sciences could be conflated to philosophy, which is obviously not the case.

notimp · May 16, 2019

Maluma said:
My qualm with progressives is that they teach principles that they don't follow.California universities are filled with rich Californians that live in predominantly white enclaves yet they preach diversity when they themselves don't live in diverse areas.I can't respect people that tell YOU to do something,when they themselves do the complete opposite.It screams of utter hypocrisy.Rich liberals say to bring in all the illegals,just don't bring them into their neighborhoods.It's a ridiculous ideology to have if you ask me.

The only thing that I might want to add there is, that for social groups to wait for issues to be solved by other social groups, is kind of something that might not work.

Whats oddly funny in that regard is, that SJWs discovered minority groups that are so small - that they by themselves would have a hard time striving for societal recognition - and started to play amplifiers for them. To look good.

Benefits both of them I guess. And in the end no one can complain, if the other side didnt follow through.

My point being - kind of dont depend on other social groups to change things for your own, if you can do something about it yourselves.

Empowerment message.

JaapDaniels · May 16, 2019

Maluma said:
There's no use in talking politics on libtemp.People just don't li

So because Europe is extremely liberal that means that American universities are conservatives?Look at the mess Europe has become in certain countries.In Europe the gender roles are completely reversed,the men are submissive while the women are dominant.Is this really something you want to see happen in America?

i see you never visited europe?

osaka35 · May 16, 2019

Having a diverse opinions is important, but it's not a diversity thing if someone is only contributing bad information into the pool. Folks have got to be open to correcting their bad information, or else they just hide behind "but my opinion!". If it's a you vs them thing, then you've already lost. It's got to be a "what're the problems, what're the goals, how do we measure success, and what are our options for getting there together" or we're boned. "Informed diversity" is far more important than "all voices are equal, regardless of the how factual they are".

Foxi4 said:
Social sciences are definitely an area where the left and the right should be debating the pros and cons of policy at all times, which is how things used to work. I do find issue with your post in the sense that you "can't provide scientific evidence" for the efficacy of the death penalty, or in any other fringe issue - you absolutely can. You can look at recidivism rates, for instance - how many prisoners who served 25 years end up in the prison system again? The death penalty gives you a recidivism rate of 0% - the convict is executed. On the flip side, you have to look at how many innocents die in the process, only to be found not guilty upon further investigation. What is the cost of life imprisonment versus the death penalty? There are certainly figures that can be discussed besides the moral argument, which is the whole reason why having diverse opinions among the students and the staff is important in the first place. If these issues could not be supported by figures, all social sciences could be conflated to philosophy, which is obviously not the case.

When it comes to the legal system, beyond just wanting to inflict harm, we measure the usefulness of the punishment in how effective it is as a deterrent to similar actions/changing of behaviour. Recidivism is one of the tools used to measure this effectiveness, it's not the measurement itself. Obviously you can't use recidivism as proof of usefulness if you aren't using it to measure for usefulness. We want to measure usefulness and cost, as well as morally investigate new methods that may prove more useful and less costly.

notimp · May 16, 2019

osaka35 said:
Having a diverse opinions is important, but it's not a diversity thing if someone is only contributing bad information into the pool. Folks have got to be open to correcting their bad information, or else they just hide behind "but my opinion!". "Informed diversity" is far more important than "all voices are equal, regardless of the how factual they are".

^
This.

And yes, I see the irony in that i entirely agree.

SG854 · May 16, 2019

Foxi4 said:
Social sciences are definitely an area where the left and the right should be debating the pros and cons of policy at all times, which is how things used to work. I do find issue with your post in the sense that you "can't provide scientific evidence" for the efficacy of the death penalty, or in any other fringe issue - you absolutely can. You can look at recidivism rates, for instance - how many prisoners who served 25 years end up in the prison system again? The death penalty gives you a recidivism rate of 0% - the convict is executed. On the flip side, you have to look at how many innocents die in the process, only to be found not guilty upon further investigation. What is the cost of life imprisonment versus the death penalty? There are certainly figures that can be discussed besides the moral argument, which is the whole reason why having diverse opinions among the students and the staff is important in the first place. If these issues could not be supported by figures, all social sciences could be conflated to philosophy, which is obviously not the case.

I’ll agree with you on that one.

I was more saying evidence not to the same extent. Like is earth flat or not, this is a clear cut yes or no answer. The death penalty while you can provide evidence, it isn’t as clear cut with the points you listed. And diversity of thought is needed.

It’s like debating what basketball player is better. You’ll never get a definitive answer. Because not only is score points involved, there’s rebounds, assists, blocks, steals and so on. It’s not just who scores the most points, and while there is obvious bad and good players (like in VG there’s ET Atari vs Legend of Zelda OOT, ET being obviously bad in comparison) among good players/good games you won’t get the same response on who/which is better. It’s never a settled issue. I find topics like the death penalty in that same boat. Is it worth it for this, or is it worthy it sacrificing innocent to stop criminals. Morality plays a huge role in this and isn’t entirely fact based. There some that think any death penalty is bad no matter how bad the person is. Religion is also involved too. It’s not like the Earth where we have evidence for and it’s a matter of denial or not.

Superbronx · May 16, 2019

Just thinking, in this forum, as well as all across the internet and all across the world, the debate rages between conservative and liberal. Who is right, who is wrong? Although the conservatives think they know what drives the liberal and vice versa and I'm sure much of our preconception about the other group has merit, also both sides are proceeding on many misconceptions.

Consider the main sources for most of us around the world. Mainstream media and social media.
Here in America, even though most people implicitly believe what the major news outlets tell them, the mainstream media always paint the conservative in a negative light. Not just that a conservative is a country, uneducated buffoon but in recent years they have added that some are extreme radicals.

What does this tell us about the mainstream media? An intelligent eye can deduce that they are left leaning and we can infer then that they are biased. Except maybe fox news but I have issue with them which I will not persue at this time.

Then there's social media where untold numbers of people get their information. My wife, God bless her soul, is among them. I do not partake in social media. If social media is a main source of news and information for most, then again you will see the conservative painted in a negative light because just like on the average internet forum the liberal voice greatly outweighs and outnumbers the conservative.

I am a conservative and I was not forced to join this community, I came of my own free will. So there is no one to blame but myself if I am outnumbered. But if I may, if you would allow me, I would like to explain to you a small portion of my background and what it truly means to me to be a conservative.

I was born and raised in a small southern town out in the country. We were not a wealthy family, I guess we were closer to poor but we considered ourselves to be middle class. Both my dad and my mom worked very hard to make sure we had it better than they did growing up. Dad worked so hard at his manual labor job that it took a heavy toll on his body. He's had many surgeries after his retirement but he still lives with daily back pain. My parents were not perfect, they had their faults but we all do.

In the small house and small town I grew up in, I and my siblings were raised with love and care. We were taught to help each other. We were taught to help our family members when they needed us and really even when they didn't. We were taught to help our friends. We were taught to help our neighbors. We were even taught to help a stranger in need. We were taught to love one another. We were taught to be kind to each other.

Really our whole community were like family to us. It was common to give a friendly smile and wave to the random person we met on the street. My dad, many times after a hard day's work, before dinner or sometimes after bedtime would answer the call to help a neighbor in need. Even though he was tired and needed to rise early for work.

So that's a little of my background.

What is my definition of a conservative? He loves his neighbor. He values his freedom. He has no thoughts of malice towards others. He isn't planning violence at all unless his family or freedom or country is threatened. He only resorts to violence if those things are placed in jeopardy.

notimp · May 16, 2019

Ssuperbronx said:
What does this tell us about the mainstream media? An intelligent eye can deduce that they are left leaning and we can infer then that they are biased.

Out of interest, what makes an eye intelligent?

Ok, media has a liberal bias. Correct. Liberal is the stark opposite of conservative. Somewhat right.

Which means that media has a leftwing bias. Somewhat wrong.
Which means that conservative views are underrepresented in mainstream media. Wrong.

(I'm not touching social media.)

Ok - there is a liberal right. It even is important. Please read up on it.

There is conservative media. Outside Fox news, because - if you want to go down to the argument level, you have to read newspapers anyhow (sorry), or listen to non pundit ("person centered") radio programming.

"Real" journalism tries to take the person of the journalist out of the reporting. Is it still biased? Good journalism tries actively not to be, but sure. Thats why you resort to either read journalism of both sides to get a somewhat varied picture - or you resort to certain thinktanks and ngo's for context. But the same idea of "look at both sides" applies.

What does journalism do to try get a balanced story? Well, in the olden days - balance out your reporting, by getting a voice from both sides of an issue - and if you are reporting on something just breaking, get at least two independent sources for a story. Also - dont mix commentary and reporting.

What happend in the field though, is that they lost adverising, because ad buyers found that facebook could offer them much more disected and grouped braindead consumers, and they went there. Together with a shift, of people finding, that they liked to read idiotic clickbait that made them have feels, much more readily than anything else, together with the industry being driven by "whoever is first on a story - gets all the clicks" together with social media marketing is soooo much more efficient to get stories to propagate...

This = Crisis of journalism.

So if you kindly would stop bashing anything that isnt your brand of radio shock jock that tells you your "believe imprint for the day" - and in which you believe because he's so personable, and plays just the country tunes you like (I'm overdrawing the image here). And accept one simple truth.

That the world hasnt got the "one" trusted news anker that tells you how the world works anymore - is entirely your fault. He wont be back. (Because from some more fringe perspectives, he may have never existed. And lets face it, you are not stopping to use facebook, or instagram for 'news' consumption) And its now on you as a news consumer - to finally get media literate.

Of course in this thread alone at least three people like to shout "conspiracy" and "the russians are coming" and this is something that you have to deal with.

Have fun. And none of this is the medias fault. Facebook, consumers - certainly. Do you give them the money to do at least two days of factchecking on every "twitter story" the blog you are reading instead breaks? No - then live with the consequences.

The media landscape hasnt been so blatently pandering to ideologies in ages, and its entirely the consumers fault - because its that shit, that you all click on and share.

Facebook gave us the metrics now everyone is producing that.

Heck, Americas most popular talkshow host cant talk to people, and made his career out of doing idiotic trump impressions for the better part of two years instead. You all clap. Your problem.

Oh yes, and please educate yourself on the fact, that there is a liberal right - even in the us. The tea party, you all like so much, isnt it though.

Foxi4 · May 16, 2019

osaka35 said:
When it comes to the legal system, beyond just wanting to inflict harm, we measure the usefulness of the punishment in how effective it is as a deterrent to similar actions/changing of behaviour. Recidivism is one of the tools used to measure this effectiveness, it's not the measurement itself. Obviously you can't use recidivism as proof of usefulness if you aren't using it to measure for usefulness. We want to measure usefulness and cost, as well as morally investigate new methods that may prove more useful and less costly.

Your mileage may vary depending on where you're from, but that's not exactly true. The entire point of incarceration is reform - if long-term imprisonment does not lead to a person reforming then the system has failed. Recidivism is the primary tool in measuring whether or not the system is working. There are other measurements, but this isn't a thread specifically about this. In certain states, like Sweden, the total cost of imprisonment is basically considered immaterial as there is a general consensus that prisoners deserve to have all their needs satisfied and that's the only way to reform them. I don't necessarily agree with that train if thought as I don't think everyone deserves a second chance, but it seems to be working there.

Superbronx · May 16, 2019

notimp said:
Out of interest, what makes an eye intelligent?

Ok, media has a liberal bias. Correct. Liberal is the stark opposite of conservative. Somewhat right.

Which means that media has a leftwing bias. Somewhat wrong.
Which means that conservative views are underrepresented in mainstream media. Wrong.

(I'm not touching social media.)

Ok - there is a liberal right. It even is important. Please read up on it.

There is conservative media. Outside Fox news, because - if you want to go down to the argument level, you have to read newspapers anyhow (sorry), or listen to non pundit ("person centered") radio programming.

"Real" journalism tries to take the person of the journalist out of the reporting. Is it still biased? Good journalism tries actively not to be, but sure. Thats why you resort to either read journalism of both sides to get a somewhat varied picture - or you resort to certain thinktanks and ngo's for context. But the same idea of "look at both sides" applies.

What does journalism do to try get a balanced story? Well, in the olden days - balance out your reporting, by getting a voice from both sides of an issue - and if you are reporting on something just breaking, get at least two independent sources for a story. Also - dont mix commentary and reporting.

What happend in the field though, is that they lost adverising, because ad buyers found that facebook could offer them much more disected and grouped braindead consumers, and they went there. Together with a shift, of people finding, that they liked to read idiotic clickbait that made them have feels, much more readily than anything else, together with the industry being driven by "whoever is first on a story - gets all the clicks" together with social media marketing is soooo much more efficient to get stories to propagate...

This = Crisis of journalism.

So if you kindly would stop bashing anything that isnt your brand of radio shock jock that tells you your "believe imprint for the day" - and in which you believe because he's so personable, and plays just the country tunes you like (I'm overdrawing the image here). And accept one simple truth.

That the world hasnt got the "one" trusted news anker that tells you how the world works anymore - is entirely your fault. He wont be back. (Because from some more fringe perspectives, he may have never existed. And lets face it, you are not stopping to use facebook, or instagram for 'news' consumption) And its now on you as a news consumer - to finally get media literate.

Of course in this thread alone at least three people like to shout "conspiracy" and "the russians are coming" and this is something that you have to deal with.

Have fun. And none of this is the medias fault. Facebook, consumers - certainly. Do you give them the money to do at least two days of factchecking on every "twitter story" the blog you are reading instead breaks? No - then live with the consequences.

The media landscape hasnt been so blatently pandering to ideologies in ages, and its entirely the consumers fault - because its that shit, that you all click on and share.

Facebook gave us the metrics now everyone is producing that.

Hack, Americas most popular talkshow host cant talk to people, and made his career out of doing idiotic trump impressions for the better part of two years instead. You all clap. Your problem.

Oh yes, and please educate yourself on the fact, that there is a liberal right. The tea party, you all like so much, isnt it though.

Yes real journalism would try actively not to be biased but there are no real journalists remaining. If they are, they are so rare as to be non existent. At least I have not uncovered any.

As to my assertion that media is left leaning, I would like to add that once not so long ago, every American procured daily news in one of 3 major ways. Television, Newspaper and radio. And even further back telegram and word of mouth. In those days when we only had 3 major news resources, people sat down in front of their TV in the evening and took what the reporter said at face value for fair, balanced and unbiased reporting.
Fast forward to today and a large percentage of our population still watches or reads it and still takes it at face value because they were raised in a time when the evening local and world news anchor man was the ultimate word in local, national and world news.

But no matter whose fault it is that they no longer practice good, fair honest journalism, many people still implicitly believe them. Do I think the conservative view is under represented? If you take every modern news source as a whole (podcasts, social media, papers, TV, radio, internet live stream, etc.) then no they are not. However if you only include the major news networks in America which is still the main source for a large percentage of our population, then yes conservative views are majorly under represented. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC and MSNBC are all left leaning. The only one that could be considered right leaning is fox and as I stated, I have issues with them. Bad thing is a significant portion of our population do not seek alternate news sources. They do not look for non pundit radio programming, podcasts, internet streaming nor any other type because they are not even aware of the necessity.
They still think everything they watch on CNN is fact.

So where do you think people get the idea that conservatives are radical, right wing nuts? As I stated earlier it's because of their news sources.

Have you actually ever spent time with conservatives to see if they are truly the way they are portrayed? Or do you only proceed on 3rd party information?

notimp · May 16, 2019

If you seek alternate news sources, make it (quality) newspapers first. Meaning those with headlines that arent there to first and foremost sell them.

Simply because they are still more likely to come from a "journalistic integrity" tradition.

If you resort to social media in general you are lost already. Not because they arent neutral (they arent, they form bubbles), but because, the metric they are going by is "attention". So the more outrageous, the better. Thats the stuff that ends up in your feeds, thats the stuff, that has everyone talking, because its dumb, emotional, baity - and written in a way, that everyone can voice an opinion about it.

Newspapers and radio programming also are a little bit cheaper to produce than national TV (if you are not talking about the big 3), so there is still variation there.

Its on the way out though - becaue people arent leaving their screens anymore, and newspaper distribution on digital - is a joke compared to "look its free (ad financed), I get it from facebook - everybody does it".

Apple at one point,this or last year, offered print media conglomerates a new buy in into - their newsstand app, at I believe about 40% revenue share. Which at this point is higher than they demand it from any other form of media. People interpreted that as "they do it, because they can" (so "unpopular", so out of touch in terms of presentation, that they dont fear successful free market competition in the app space. Again, thats interpretation.)

edit: One more thing (please double check) the last thing I heard about how facebook handles the 'fake news crisis' (please dont even...) is that they only push (US) news stories now after one of the big I believe 8 or 10 newspaper networks in the US have picked them up. Which gave them a push but has reduced variety of opinion.

Also topical for this thread.

Clydefrosch · May 16, 2019

journalists have never been neutral.
just saying.

the difference between todays journalist and past journalists is, that they weren't all under pressure to sell papers every single day at every single time. also there used to be more people filling one paper, now fewer people have to fill that same space. and there used to be pieces that were in the works for weeks too. now no matter how huge the incident may be, you need to have something out within minutes. so you throw 3 sentences on a website and keep expanding from there.

but that doesn't change that they were always biased one way or another. because no one is not biased. no one can be neutral. no text has ever been written neutrally. it's literally impossible.

things might feel more biased today, but I kinda feel like that's more of a readers problem. todays papers are filled with opinion-pieces, very clearly so, but a lot of the readers don't get what that means. they take opinion pieces as facts, as reporting. when those are obviously the most biased parts of any paper.

the only difference between news consumption today and back then also is the amount.
you have unlimited news now. and instead of just watching the news on the channel that agreed with your bias from the getgo once a day, you now can do that 24/7.
instead of having your bias reinforced once a day with time inbetween, you can get that reinforcement all day and most do. and not just on a superficial level, in general terms.
someone agreeing with your quasi-individual, specific worldview is only one google search away.

the repetition is what does it.
that's why fox news doesn't just have one analyst criticizing like the green new deal plan, they have 30 randos doing it all day long, all week long.
and they keep repeating the same buzzwords while they do it. it doesn't matter that they're literally making up stuff, because they know you won't be looking through the actual text. they tell you it demands ending cow farts and outlawing cars and you buy it.

and you also believe that it's entirely fair that they keep on slinging literal objective lies as absolute facts, because you feel that the other side is lying even more all the time.
which, and call me a libtard if you want, isn't the reality.
and you wouldn't know it, because from what i gather, all you know about the liberal, left-leaning media, is whatever you read (let's not kid ourselves, whatever you heard) about it in the right-leaning media.

also, you don't want neutrality anyways. and you don't want to support whomever shows both sides of an argument.
you know which side of the media keeps shooting their own feet by actively employing writers that lean the other way in an attempt to combat the other sides endless and unfounded whining about them not being neutral enough? it's not the right.

Superbronx · May 16, 2019

Clydefrosch said:
journalists have never been neutral.
just saying.

the difference between todays journalist and past journalists is, that they weren't all under pressure to sell papers every single day at every single time. also there used to be more people filling one paper, now fewer people have to fill that same space. and there used to be pieces that were in the works for weeks too. now no matter how huge the incident may be, you need to have something out within minutes. so you throw 3 sentences on a website and keep expanding from there.

but that doesn't change that they were always biased one way or another. because no one is not biased. no one can be neutral. no text has ever been written neutrally. it's literally impossible.

things might feel more biased today, but I kinda feel like that's more of a readers problem. todays papers are filled with opinion-pieces, very clearly so, but a lot of the readers don't get what that means. they take opinion pieces as facts, as reporting. when those are obviously the most biased parts of any paper.

the only difference between news consumption today and back then also is the amount.
you have unlimited news now. and instead of just watching the news on the channel that agreed with your bias from the getgo once a day, you now can do that 24/7.
instead of having your bias reinforced once a day with time inbetween, you can get that reinforcement all day and most do. and not just on a superficial level, in general terms.
someone agreeing with your quasi-individual, specific worldview is only one google search away.

the repetition is what does it.
that's why fox news doesn't just have one analyst criticizing like the green new deal plan, they have 30 randos doing it all day long, all week long.
and they keep repeating the same buzzwords while they do it. it doesn't matter that they're literally making up stuff, because they know you won't be looking through the actual text. they tell you it demands ending cow farts and outlawing cars and you buy it.

and you also believe that it's entirely fair that they keep on slinging literal objective lies as absolute facts, because you feel that the other side is lying even more all the time.
which, and call me a libtard if you want, isn't the reality.
and you wouldn't know it, because from what i gather, all you know about the liberal, left-leaning media, is whatever you read (let's not kid ourselves, whatever you heard) about it in the right-leaning media.

also, you don't want neutrality anyways. and you don't want to support whomever shows both sides of an argument.
you know which side of the media keeps shooting their own feet by actively employing writers that lean the other way in an attempt to combat the other sides endless and unfounded whining about them not being neutral enough? it's not the right.

If I may offer a rebuttal on choosing the source that most aligned with your bias. Back in the day, as I recall from watching the only 3 news sources we had. It's not really like you had an alternative to suit your bias because the big 3, ABC, NBC and CBS all reported the news exactly the same. (CNN wasn't around yet.)In the same dull boring manner. All 3 pretty much had identical top stories and you could actually get confused as to which network you were watching if you just happened to walk in the room with the report already halfway over.

You are correct about the 24/7,the repetition and the buzzwords. It's a never ending game to them.
As opposed to the old days, today it's blatant, in your face bias, whereas back then no one at least not average citizens were aware of it and there were no other sources out there to refute what the big 3 reported.

Also in many households today unfortunately it's not much different. They still trust mainstream media and therefore do not seek to refute.

By the way, if you research you will find that the owners of mainstream media are not conservative.

Xzi · May 17, 2019

kevin corms said:
what planet are you on? Most kids are just going because thats what they think they need to do for a job.

Yeah...and? You can't have any sort of political leanings in the process of getting training/education for a job? What I said is not incorrect, younger people have always been more left-leaning than the older populace.

SG854 · May 17, 2019

Xzi said:
Yeah...and? You can't have any sort of political leanings in the process of getting training/education for a job? What I said is not incorrect, younger people have always been more left-leaning than the older populace.

It looks like that’s changing. 59% of elderly disapprove of Trump. While Trump is winning over the College Educated, Millennials, Minorities (Blacks 27%, Hispanics 45%), and the Western Region.

Zogby Pool has him at 51% approval higher then the what Obama had at the same point in time.

Now every poll will give you different numbers depending on how they collect data. Conservatives will use the Zogby poll to prop him up, while Dems will use the MCNBC poll to show him doing a bad job. So it’s better to look at the aggregates of all the polls combined taken from different sources and news outlets.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

And while his aggregate isn’t at 51% Trumps approval is the highest it’s ever been in relation to himself. And his aggregate approval has been going up. More and more people are approving his job performance. The Muller Report gave him a boost and the Economy gave him a boost.

This isn’t to discuss whether or not Economy is going to tank later on as it’s the doomsday message Dems say. This is about what people see at the moment and so far people are starting to approve of Trump more and more.

Xzi · May 17, 2019

SG854 said:
It looks like that’s changing. 59% of elderly disapprove of Trump. While Trump is winning over College Educated, Millennials, Minorities (Blacks 27%, Hispanics 45%), and the Western Region.

The 2018 midterm election showed that Trump is losing support near-universally, among all age groups. It's the tariffs that are really killing his support in the Midwest more than anything. Young people flocked to Bernie Sanders in 2016, and much the same seems to be happening now.

notimp · May 17, 2019

Ssuperbronx said:
By the way, if you research you will find that the owners of mainstream media are not conservative.

But they are, I dont know what might have happened in the US there, but the owners of much of the newspapers in my part of the world are conservatives, the owners of many if not most weekly political newspapers are as well. So to infer, that there is no conservative media out there ("we dont get to read breitbart on outside of breitbart?"), to me is just insane.
(And thats a bias that usually trickles down through corporate culture - so there is something to it there.)

I mean, the newspaper business has sucked as a business venture for years, so most owners tried to diversify as much as possible - and papers were dying left and right, and they are consolidated, and they now are under insane pressures. (I mean do you realize what it means, to have to file a story in half an hour instead of one or two days?). Maybe most conservative media owners simply exited the business? I dont know, you tell me. Its not an issue, where I am from.

Now, if you are insane enough to actually look for something like breitbart in conventional news, I'd say that you are a freaking victim. And if you dont trust media anymore, because a channel makes fun of your president, you are stil a dumb backwards, fool without an ability to differentiate, so tell me - which one is it.

There is still Bloomberg, the Economist is still out there, the Wall street journal certainly isnt left leaning. NBC afaik at least historically was center right.

Do some research for fracks sake - maybe start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Conservative_bias

And if you are still complaining, that you dont hear breitbart stories on TV, the problem is you.

Now that said - if most of newsmedia is reporting on trending topics, and "whats popular with people" you can scratch that - because, thats low effort readings stuff off a newsfeed. Thats not even reporting, thats childplay - but then, the entire landscape has shiftet that way, because of time pressures (whose first on a story gets all the click money) - and thats the consumers fault.

Most newspapers never took you for the idiotic fools, that you actually are. You will be surprised to find out the 10 shocking reasons.

Liberal indoctrination in universities?

3:16

Hail Mary

Instructional Designer

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Instructional Designer

Well-Known Member

Hail Mary

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Hail Mary

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum