logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Has a left leaning media benefited Democrats?, Media bias and it's effect on the public. (Trump, protest, electio
net2007
post Dec 8 2016, 08:00 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



This thread will surround what this election has meant for what many have seen as a predominately left-wing media. I'll also touch some on how a slanted media can lead to misconception or at worst incite violence.

For years left-wing media bias has been viewed, by some, as a conspiracy theory pushed by conservatives who don't like their ideas challenged. Back in the Bush and Obama years this lead me to seek some form of reliable substantiation for this in polling data, such as with this PewResearch Poll from 2013...

http://www.people-press.org/2013/08/08/ami...ole-stands-out/

QUOTE
Overall, about seven-in-ten (72%) see news organizations in ideological terms. A 46%-plurality says news organizations are best described as liberal, another 26% say they are conservative. Just 19% say news organizations are best described as neither liberal nor conservative.

Most Republicans See a Liberal News MediaThe balance of opinion on this question has changed little in recent years, with a plurality consistently describing news organizations as liberal, and about a quarter saying they are conservative.

Not surprisingly, there are wide partisan divides in perceptions of news organizationsí ideology. By a 65%-17% margin, more Republicans say news organizations are liberal than conservative. By contrast, Democrats are divided: about as many say the press is liberal (36%) as conservative (37%). By about two-to-one (47%-23%), more independents say news organizations are better described as liberal than conservative.


If you deduct the often fixed opinions of the far right and left, you can see here that it was often those undecided independents who held this opinion.

With this election I feel liberal media bias has been exposed to the point that it's an argument that's difficult to counter, this due largely to the media siding with Hillary Clinton and other Democratic nominees all while Donald Trump remained persistent in calling them out in a way that hasn't been done before. In retrospect what good did it do liberals to have a media that speaks to the strength of one candidate so much? According to MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, it gave a false sense of confidence that lead to some Democrats staying home on election night, comfortable with their belief that Hillary Clinton was far ahead.

In his words.... (edited for length)

QUOTE
ďThe Clinton campaign believed until 9 o'clock that they had a lock on this, that they were going to win. The fault of that, actually, lies with the media. There is some self-reflection, Jim Rutenberg today writes a fascinating article where the New York Times editor and others basically come to terms with the fact that they stopped being journalists for the past month, and began being cheerleaders, and began being people who had a conclusion that they reached, and then searched for facts that Hillary was a 92, 93, 99.999 percent chance winner of this campaign...............It was there the entire time, they didnít want to hear it, they didnít want to see it........You were trying to help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump because you thought Donald Trump would be such a malignant cancer on our Constitutional Republic. It was much easier for you to stay in Manhattan and say ďthey're all voting for Trump because they're racists and bigots." If you really do believe that then you believe that over 50 million people are racists and bigots.......The first thing you did was you put liberals and Democrats and independents who thought like you Ė you put them in a position where they were complacent, where they really did believe not only in New York but across America and the world Ė that Hillary Clinton had a 98.99% of being elected president."


If interested watch the full video here....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-8EPmM8Ijk

You also had Michael Moore, who isn't conservative by any stretch, lay out a four-point post-election plan where he's suggesting, more or less, not to trust the media because they weren't acknowledging conservatives and what was really going on. He hasn't turned conservative, my guess is that he's saying this because he thinks the best way to keep the Democratic party strong is for them to acknowledge their opponents and what they really want, he was suggesting that they felt neglected which has been true for the better part of the last 8 years.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-12/l...onest-reporting

For some it may seem redundant to suggest the media is generally left leaning but there are those who don't believe this is accurate so I want to bring it up in the debate questions regardless. The larger purpose of the thread is to talk about what effect this is having. I've mentioned above that I believe it's lead to overconfidence in politicians who are underperforming but I think it goes beyond that. If someone genuinely believes what their news source is telling them, and that news source is telling them that their opponents are racist simpletons, what effect would this have?

For me, it means that someone such as this would be more prone to developing issues of their own. Take the liberal protesting machine, when I look at it, it seems obvious that acts of violence or discrimination are amplified when compared to conservative protest. This will likely be hotly debated because the consensus among Democrats has been the opposite, where for many conservatism is seen as a warning sign for bigotry or problems surrounding racism. To be up front I don't think a political affiliation will define a persons temperament, but when I look at trends, as it stands right now I think Democrats and liberals have a problem they need to address fast.

When I look at this election and the protest that resulted from it I just don't see the same degree of proactive arrogance from the right that I see from the left. I've seen left-wing extremist block up traffic for miles by protesting in the middle of the street, I saw a man sprint at Donald Trump during one of his rallies, he jumped over a barricade and tried to get on stage, bodyguards had to tackle him to stop him. I saw protesters rioting in cities after the election, destroying public property. Then there was this, here you have several people team up on an old man, and this wasn't even at a rally...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9snWgbVt5w

They kick in and punch him in the head while screaming at him for voting for Trump. While I don't think this is a fair representation of all liberals or Democrats, I think this kind of thing is a problem that goes unacknowledged by many. What does all of this have to do with the media? I think discrimination often starts from the top down, you do have these ridiculous things that conservatives say, so there are racist conservatives who don't care. However when you have media pundits who concentrate on this without revealing that this is an issue shared by liberals, and when they fail to reveal the good characteristics of those who think differently then naturally you'll have some who develop a warped view without perspective. I think it starts with our politicians and the media, it then filters down onto parents and college professors who teach a younger generation what others have taught them.

This would be true of conservatives as well, you have media pundits who teach their listeners to distrust or despise their opponents but what I'm looking at here are numbers and percentages. When you have polls coming out that suggest the media is largely left leaning and you have liberal columnist and news organizations acknowledging that it's a problem, the question for me becomes will more people catch on?

So that's my take on it. Regardless of who's at fault more, I see this as an issue that liberals will need to take seriously to move forward. When talking about equality, living by example is the best way to promote that and this election has had a drastic change on how effective it is for prominent Democrats to promote equality if they can't take responsibility for things happening within their own party.

Questions for debate...

1. Does the media favor liberals?
2. What effect do you believe media bias can have on its viewers?
3. Why do you believe Donald Trump was able to win despite the claims of racism and bigotry against him?

Bonus..

4. Share, what you believe to be the worst thing demonstrated by either the Republicans or Democrats (the one you oppose the most), and share something you feel was an act that promotes unity.


This post has been edited by net2007: Dec 8 2016, 08:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  « < 5 6  
Start new topic
Replies (105 - 115)
net2007
post Jun 16 2017, 04:05 AM
Post #106


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(droop224 @ Jun 12 2017, 02:05 PM) *
Net2007

You still have not defined the word liberal. That is my first point. That is really all I want you to do. I want you to prove me wrong and define liberal. I will write some other stuff to address your concerns because I feel like you are at a point where you are going to stop debating, blame it on me, but never ever define the term liberal. I am going to explain why it is important. I am going to attempt to explain why it is not a semantics game.

I'm reading a certain tone in your debate. I don't think the debate is uncivil from you or from me. I think it is contentious. I think I am making a demand that conservatives on this board don't know how to address. There is a good reason for that. Since this country's inception you have had conservatives co opted "liberalism" but they wanted the language, not the actual values. And this is important to understand, because think how confusing it must be to think you are fighting for freedom, liberty, justice, equality, but really you are not fighting for any of that. I made this point earlier on why it is so important for you to define liberal in the debate and I want to restate it

QUOTE(Droop)
Why is this important? Journalism, as I have said before, is a liberal art. The purpose of a free speech and the use of media to speak truth to power is an ideal of "the left", "liberalism", "the liberals" etc etc So depending on how you define "liberal" or "the left" is pertinent because calling something innately left, "bias to the left" as a criticism, makes absolutely no sense.



QUOTE(Net2007)
Whatever we call it the polls and everyday observations reveal a serious problem with the news media and the media in a broader sense of the word. It's a problem that's been obvious to many of us. Perhaps we can say "the left" if that works better for you.
No it doesn't Net. It is not me being playing semantics. I complete understand that the "the left" "left wing" "liberal" are words ebeing used interchangeably through out this debate. I am 100% completely OK with that. If you started saying "the left" then the demand for you to define "the left" would still exist.
QUOTE
I have limited time to work on debating and don't have a cut and paste style, I like to be thorough. For example, what you said below sounded disingenuous but out of fairness I wanted to go back and read your last post again just to be sure, then I doubled up by reading the post behind that. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in regards to your motivations and the overall nature of your debates but you're making it extremely difficult. Perhaps you can explain what you said here....

You said define liberal in the context of liberal media bias not "define liberal" and that's why I tied in the media when giving you the definition. I also kept things short as you requested. You do appear to be moving the goal post and making a simple thing as complicated as you can. You're the one doing that and some of it's on display in the quote above. When you say define liberal in the context of liberal media bias it means the media is a consideration.
How do I address this without offending you, because I want you to remain engaged. You say I didn't say "define liberal" but then you copy two sentences where I say "what do you mean by liberal" and "define liberal". But you say, I didn't say it, because I also said "in the context of liberal media bias". But the sentence reads exactly " In the context of liberal media bias, define liberal. That's all." Its as if you are telling me that by saying "in the context of liberal media bias (comma pause)" negates me saying "define liberal". And its just... weird.

Whatever, we can still get through this misunderstanding. Let me explain why I said "in the context of liberal media bias". Words often come with different definitions or even different connotations. So if I were to say "dang, you sure did get you a liberal helping of Mac and Cheese" the context for the word liberal would not be the same as when saying there is a "liberal media bias". So that is all I meant when I was saying "in the context of". I even put down the definitions to let you know that I understand what you mean by "bias" and "media".

Define Liberal. You can say I won't, you can say I can't, or you can just respond with a definition. Either one of these and I will drop the issue. The only burr in my saddle with this Net, is you keep acting like you have.

QUOTE
To address the word liberal alone as a political title, the difference between how you define it and how I do is that you're going to a dictionary and I'm going to the people in which the definition refers too. Perhaps you're doing so for understandable reasons, the movement is not what it used to be. You think I'm addressing the people within the liberal base so that I can put a spin on this of some kind yet I've acknowledged that there are those who try to stick to the word liberal as defined in a dictionary, I've given you that amount of courtesy. For those who believe in individual liberty, that's something that I can appreciate but I'd be blind not to see that all of this gunk has attached itself to the movement, and many have lost their way.
What?!? how can you go to the in which the definition refers to, if you don't think the definition fits them? And even if I could makes sense of that statement, which I can't, how is that defining liberal?? How??

Look you can go to a dictionary, you can go to Wikipedia, you can make it up for all I care. Just define liberal. I'm a liberal\left\believer in liberal politics, etc, so is Kimpossible, so is AuthorMusician, but if you define liberal\left based on our individual political views then you would have three definitions right there. That's why it CAN'T be defined by "going to the people"

QUOTE
I've been willing to elaborate and narrow things down to specific cases of media bias.
aka Cherry Pick. Yes, I know you are capable and willing to narrow down to specific cases while ignoring other factors.

QUOTE
The media often doesn't discriminate when they defend the left. They protect the movement by not covering the less savory sides of it nearly as thoroughly as questionable things that conservatives do and that means they're giving special treatment to multiple subgroups within left-wing America.
The media does not defend the left. I saw destruction of property on the news during Trump inauguration.

QUOTE
‚ÄėWhen Al Gore proposed launching a progressive TV network, a Fox News executive told Advertising Age (10/13/03): "The problem with being associated as liberal is that they wouldn't be going in a direction that advertisers are really interested in.... If you go out and say that you are a liberal network, you are cutting your potential audience, and certainly your potential advertising pool, right off the bat."[27] An internal memo from ABC Radio affiliates in 2006 revealed that powerful sponsors had a "standing order that their commercials never be placed on syndicated Air America programming" that aired on ABC affiliates.[28] The list totaled 90 advertisers and included major corporations such as Wal-Mart, GE, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Bank of America, Fed-Ex, Visa, Allstate, McDonald's, Sony and Johnson & Johnson, and government entities such as the U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Navy.



You keep saying that liberal hasn't been defined but saying that doesn't make it true. Maybe you really aren't understanding how I'm putting it, I've had doubts on that because I'm partially agreeing with you by saying that your definition revealed some of the answer. At minimum you would have been able to acknowledge that much if you were being fair minded. With that said, I believe pointing out the movement as it stands today is important and should be a consideration. The political title of liberal refers to people and addressing them offers a more detailed view.

This back and forth on the word liberal or the phrase liberal media bias is goofy, you did technically say "define liberal" but you didn't isolate that word until now. You didn't say "define liberal" without tieing in the media is what I meant, obviously. Overall I understand elaborating on words or a phrase, context is important, but I did that soooooooo. whistling.gif

Journalism has veered a lot from being a liberal art in the traditional sense of that phrase, to address this....

QUOTE(Droop)
Journalism, as I have said before, is a liberal art. The purpose of a free speech and the use of media to speak truth to power is an ideal of "the left", "liberalism", "the liberals" etc etc So depending on how you define "liberal" or "the left" is pertinent because calling something innately left, "bias to the left" as a criticism, makes absolutely no sense.


From what I know of history, old school media was far more focused on the truth than it is today. Today, while anchors and commentators do have their good moments depending on what they're covering they often do not seek the truth. They seek information to back a scenario, as they're doing with the scenario of Trump colluding with Russia. Sometimes they get it right and they often do share facts, but they mix it up with their opinions, personal feelings, and guess at what might be happening. Watch Rachel Maddow for any extended period of time and tell me she isn't emotional, dramatic, and sharing her personal feelings on her show.

Fair enough when you say our debate was contentious rather than uncivil. I've seen and heard some pretty sick stuff on the web which take things to another level. I'm talking across the board insulting and racist comments going in all directions, I'm sure you know some about being on the receiving end of that as well. Although, I can't help but believe that nasty rhetoric and violence is behavior that's become amplified on the left by comparison to the right.

My debate here came on the eve of the worst politically motivated shooting that I can think of in modern times and this comes in combination with the violent protest, cheap insults galore, death threats, etc etc. While it does come from both sides, something is going on in left-wing America that's different and I've been saying it for years. These events should be eye opening for the left but they're often brushed off as if it's a non-issue or not that bad. Liberals (or more specifically progressives) who are violent or can't communicate like adults aren't helping their situation either. For example, this congressional baseball game would have gotten virtually no coverage if it weren't for what happened yesterday but now House Republicans are being sympathized with nationally as they should be.

One of the larger points behind this thread was to find out why things have gotten as bad as they are for left-wing America. I'm very confident that the media has more bias which favors the left and does a lot of fear mongering in relation to conservatives and the Trump administration, that's hard to dispute. I'm slightly less confident that the media and academia are to blame for the heightened amount of violence and vile rhetoric seen on the left. That's not to say I'm not confident the media and academia are having a negative impact, I just believe there are other factors at play and want to learn more.

I sincerely hope that the left can work this out. I'm not pointing these things out to say "HAHA, the left is in trouble I hope they self-destruct!" I think we'll go forward and progress with the best ideas from both sides. As far as this trade-off between you and I goes, we're cool but don't let that lead you to believe I'll be going soft. tongue.gif I do have to cut back dramatically on these for the immediate future, I was concerned some about maintaining a civil debate but it has more to do with my situation here at home. I'm juggling a debate I have going on elsewhere which I also have to cut back on and taking care of multiple things in my personal life. It's crazy over here at the moment.

This post has been edited by net2007: Jun 16 2017, 04:14 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Jul 4 2017, 02:51 AM
Post #107


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



This will be a long post but bear with me if you're still interested in this topic. I thought about making this post a separate thread but what I'm wanting to share is too relevant to this debate. I want to emphasize the part of the opening post that hasn't been discussed as much.

As some of you may have witnessed Democrats were, to some extent, acknowledging that they need a redirect....

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/politics/nan...rice/index.html

Several prominent Democratic politicians and commentators seem to believe Nancy Pelosi is, in large part, to blame for election losses. In statements where he's acknowledging some of the failures of the Democratic party, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer elaborates by saying the Democrats need "a strong, bold, sharp-edged and common-sense economic agenda". The latter is what I believe is closer to the truth, Nancy Pelosi's time may have passed as someone who can do more than just fundraising but I believe the problems seen within the Democratic party go much deeper.

Something significant is happening on the left, a problem that's gotten progressively worse throughout the course of the last 15 years give or take, my observations are that this started during the Bush administration after things got complicated in the middle east. To be very direct, two things are happening, we're seeing a degradation of classic liberal values which defined the movement when it was in its infancy. Simontainiously that's being replaced by a message that's become increasingly negative and hostile. As I addressed in the opening post, I believe a lot of this has to do with the Media and Academia, but this has more to it than a problem of bias, the impact that the negativity and hostility is having can not be understated.

The Democrats have lost...

1. The Presidency
2. The Senate
3. The House
4. Four Special elections since Trump was elected.
5. The Resist Trump movement itself has lost credibility in crucial areas, to elaborate...

The recent fallout at CNN further substantiates all the polls which point to a problem with how the News Media does its reporting. The favorability polls give a rough idea on the depth of the problem, but it's those daily observations which have been the most revealing. A CNN producer flat out said that the Russia and Trump connection....

QUOTE
Could be bulls**t. I mean it's mostly ****** right now. Like, we don't have any giant proof.

and..

I think the president is probably right to say, like, look you are witch-hunting me. You have no smoking gun. You have no real proof

Link

He also added that given the leaky nature of the Trump administration that they would have known something by now about a Russia Trump collusion. In other words, a senior member on CNN is saying they're pushing a narrative that they believe is false. That, along with other recent events at CNN makes it more obvious each day what the problem is and they're not learning from their mistakes either. As for outlets like MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, they along with others often have a similar message and use similar tactics. These types of continuous hits aren't uncommon coming from ordinary civilians on the left either. It's been a persistent negative message pushed by any means necessary, with little objectivity or balance, by too many people.

I don't want to paint an ugly picture of anyone who considers themselves on the left politically. One thing I can't argue is that most people who are on the left are negative, arrogant, or involved in dishonest smear tactics or violent protest. I also can't argue that conservatives or Republicans haven't been negative or in some cases arrogant or violent. What I am comfortable arguing is that the left has amped this up and taken it to a level that I haven't seen in my lifetime.

When talking about negativity, arrogant/hurtful behavior, or violent behavior I believe there is a difference between the left and the right for a few reasons...

1. The Media (The left has a majority in the media, based on that alone most media negativity comes from the left, and that contributes to problems in other areas.)

2. Academia (Most of the indoctrination comes from liberal educators and that sets up a link of things as well. Educators and students on the left have been responsible for the majority of the vile rhetoric and violent behavior within colleges across America.)

3. Protestors (The left wing protesting machine has evolved into a movement which has caused more problems than any protesting group in modern America. Although there are peaceful protests, I've seen a larger amount of violent demonstrations and dangerous or hurtful statements coming from this group.)

As always I'm willing to substantiate any one of these claims.

In large part, these have been discussed here, but I welcome comments on the effect of the negative message itself. Personally, I've seen and heard things coming from the general public which also reveals a difference in how the left and right are behaving. The worst and most obvious thing would probably be the recent assassination attempt on Republican members of Congress, that got the attention of the nation for a short period but a LOT of things go unnoticed. The worst thing I had seen up to that point was a mentally disabled teen who was kidnaped and tortured. The aggressors responsible made repeated references to Donald Trump, forcing the young man to denounce him.

I don't think an incident like that is a fair representation of the left or Trump critics, more accurately I think it's linked to some of the scare tactics and repeated negative hits made on both Trump supporters and conservatives in general. When looking at the often negative nature of Trump critics and the Democratic party, I don't believe there's been much in the way of positive results.

There's been continuous talk about the Trump presidency being in crisis, or that he'll be impeached. I've watched reports coming from networks like MSNBC as recently as the last couple days painting this doomsday picture of his presidency as if surely it'll fall apart tomorrow. Not only have I come to believe this is inaccurate, I believe the tide turned when James Comey confirmed there's no evidence Trump colluded with Russia. If things continue like they are I don't think his presidency will fall apart, I'm predicting Trump will be reelected and possibly even win the popular vote as Bush Jr. did the second time around.

The left is emphasizing every misstep or snag in the Trump administration but upon closer examination, he's managing to get a lot done, including the recently pushed through travel ban. His tweets don't help him, when he takes it too far with the media it doesn't help him, but because there's been so many negative hits made on him and vulgar or violent demonstrations from his opposition, many people are able to put that into perspective. If history is any indicator of what's to come, I think he'll push through.

In short, I believe negativity in too many areas has contributed to some of the failures of the Democratic party, though I'm open to hearing other ideas of why the Democrats have suffered such losses.

This post has been edited by net2007: Jul 4 2017, 01:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Jul 5 2017, 03:26 AM
Post #108


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,816
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



I swear ad.gif Gods do not want us posting here sometimes... luckily I only lost 10 minutes of typing.

Net

Its been too long and I've been too busy. My apologies! Now, let's get to it.
QUOTE
You keep saying that liberal hasn't been defined but saying that doesn't make it true.
Correct. The fact that you (nor any other conservatives) have done so is what makes it true.
QUOTE
This back and forth on the word liberal or the phrase liberal media bias is goofy, you did technically say "define liberal" but you didn't isolate that word until now. You didn't say "define liberal" without tieing in the media is what I meant, obviously.
And yet, you still haven't done it. For many posts and many weeks now I've asked you in a single post with nothing else define Liberalism or the left wing. All you ever had to do is say "Liberal\liberalism\left wing means _______" No more needed be added to the post. Now you say ".. you did technically say"...lol LOL "Technically". Brother this is not some "technicality" I have been literally trying to get you all to define "liberal" . Now lets talk about what you have done.

Have you posted examples of what you feel is left wing media bias? Yes you have.

Have you provided OPINION polls showing American distrust of the media or even OPINION polls that showed a substantial number of people think the media is bias to the left? Yes you have.

Have you shown video of people stating their OPINION on what they feel is wrong with liberalism or their feeling even on liberalism and media? Yes you have.

Have you defined liberalism\liberal\left wing? No. In the context of media bias? No. You just keep doing this dodge of saying you did and saying or implying I am missing it or unfairly pretending not to see it. But I asked OVER and OVER and OVER again to just do that definition in one post. You haven't. You likely won't. But here is the good news... I'm done asking!! flowers.gif thumbsup.gif If you could have done it, you would have done it. At any time, feel free to ACTUALLY define liberalism, but I'm no longer asking or holding my breath.

QUOTE
Journalism has veered a lot from being a liberal art in the traditional sense of that phrase, to address this....
True true... but not for the reasons you say. But it is still there, there are good journalist, liberal journalist speaking truth to power. I just happened to look at an interesting documentary that I thought I would share on Netflix "Nobody Speak: Trials of a free press". Take your time to understand liberalism and press.

You can't define it because you are conservative and... lets talk about that for a minute. Today on facebook there were these two clowns with an entertaining video and they were yelling about "What freedom is.." And according to them "many of us don't know what freedom means.." Now here is the irony... they start talking about how the founders let it all on the line for freedom. The irony is in the fact a person can think a slave owner (many of the founders) and people that fight for nation with legal slavery is actually fighting for freedom and think they have a better understanding of freedom. But such is the nature of controlling "the narrative" of any Nation of any time, not just present day America.

Why does this belief or meme of "liberal media bias" exist? Well it goes back to the psych of a person that identifies as a conservative. It also ties closely to a current ad.gif debate dealing with "staying friends with Trump supporters" (which I have a hard time deciding what to post "what" where). One thing I think we all have is what is called and earlier stated by people on both sides "confirmation bias" But saying we all have it does not mean both the left psyche and the right psyche have it to the same degree. We are all hypocrits, but that doesn't mean we are hypocritical to the same degree. We can all be violent, but that doesn't mean we are all violent to the same degree.

I posit that confirmation bias is far more prevalent and necessary in right wing politics and the right winger psyche. Like the 'Murikans on the Facebook post you need to believe in struggle of meaning that you all don't fight for.

QUOTE
The Democrats have lost...

1. The Presidency
2. The Senate
3. The House
4. Four Special elections since Trump was elected.
5. The Resist Trump movement itself has lost credibility in crucial areas, to elaborate...


And as you have said. Republicans are winning! Don't forget at the State level. But what are the masses of people winning Net? What are you struggling for? Smaller government? Yeah right. Fiscal Discipline?? Too busy looking for some boogey man in some resource rich country to actually achieve that.

What do conservatives struggle for? Because the answer to this is, in great part, IMO, why it is so necessary for conservatism to believe that AAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL the media, except for a very small portion, is out to get them. You don't like the narrative, you don't like how you are portrayed by the media, you don't like how your country is portrayed. But you don't want to change the action that make you look a certain way, you all just want to change the narrative. Again back to the facebook freedom loving 'Murikans and those that think like them. It doesn't matter that many of the founder had slaves. You all just PRETEND that it was a different time where they were incapable of understanding their slaves were human, so you can a more palatable narrative of you fighting for freedom. What about the civil rights era. Well the same in principle, but different conditions in play. Same thing change the narrative.

So I ask again, Net, I acknowledge Republicans are winning, barely, but what are Americans winning with Republicans winning. We've had the strongest Military since WW2, but #45 has sold you all that we have a weak military. I mean it is both quantifiably and qualifiedly incorrect, but Republicans consistently buy into the idea that under right wing leadership we are going to make the strongest military in the world... the strongestER military in the world(no I didn't unintentionally write that wrong). Is it an absurd statement, maybe, but not if you change the narrative. Not if you get people to believe that the STRONGEST MILITARY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD is actually pretty weak because of Democrats.

Well facts and media reporting facts, messes up that narrative doesn't it. So you don't want to change your behavior so again you make up anew narrative that the media because of liberal bias is not correctly reporting the media.

Mrs P. you out there? Tell Net, between me and you who, love our government keeping secrets more? flowers.gif It's just one of those things with conservatives saying they love "limited government" but that government can keep all those secrets on what its doing in foreign lands and to Americans. See the love of "limited government" is just another narrative that doesn't actually exist, but it often repeated by Conservatives.

AS a liberal, I don't feel I need to pretend I need "limited government" per se, we just need to limit government in power to what they can make legal. Conservatives don't seem to be fighting for that limitation they are to busy fending off some destructive terrorist group that are killing Americans at some staggering .0000001% rate. Yeah you guys are over there with the hard struggle of getting silencers on AR-15s. yeah yeah... the struggle of the modern day conservative, really important.

WHAT are you winning, what are you struggling for as a conservative? Don't give me a banal platitude, "I want my country back" "we fight for freedom" what is the actual conservative struggle?

Here is my opinion, you all fight for the status quo and power. And that narrative, is unacceptable. But that's what the "left wing media" keeps presenting, right?




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Jul 6 2017, 05:17 PM
Post #109


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



No worries on how long it took to reply.

No pun intended towards you, but personally, I think AD Gods would frown upon an unsubstantiated and hasty response before they would one which took too long. I'll be about 3 days give or take before I finish my next one, I need to pull in some resource links on this one, and have little time to do so with how busy it is here, as usual. However, it won't be near as long as the month I was out for sure.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Jul 14 2017, 05:09 PM
Post #110


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Droop
QUOTE
I swear ad.gif Gods do not want us posting here sometimes... luckily I only lost 10 minutes of typing.

Net

Its been too long and I've been too busy. My apologies! Now, let's get to it.
QUOTE
You keep saying that liberal hasn't been defined but saying that doesn't make it true.
Correct. The fact that you (nor any other conservatives) have done so is what makes it true.
QUOTE
This back and forth on the word liberal or the phrase liberal media bias is goofy, you did technically say "define liberal" but you didn't isolate that word until now. You didn't say "define liberal" without tieing in the media is what I meant, obviously.
And yet, you still haven't done it. For many posts and many weeks now I've asked you in a single post with nothing else define Liberalism or the left wing. All you ever had to do is say "Liberal\liberalism\left wing means _______" No more needed be added to the post. Now you say ".. you did technically say"...lol LOL "Technically". Brother this is not some "technicality" I have been literally trying to get you all to define "liberal" . Now lets talk about what you have done.

Have you posted examples of what you feel is left wing media bias? Yes you have.

Have you provided OPINION polls showing American distrust of the media or even OPINION polls that showed a substantial number of people think the media is bias to the left? Yes you have.

Have you shown video of people stating their OPINION on what they feel is wrong with liberalism or their feeling even on liberalism and media? Yes you have.

Have you defined liberalism\liberal\left wing? No. In the context of media bias? No.
You just keep doing this dodge of saying you did and saying or implying I am missing it or unfairly pretending not to see it. But I asked OVER and OVER and OVER again to just do that definition in one post. You haven't. You likely won't. But here is the good news... I'm done asking!! flowers.gif thumbsup.gif If you could have done it, you would have done it. At any time, feel free to ACTUALLY define liberalism, but I'm no longer asking or holding my breath.


If you're done with this part that's cool, but for the record, I've been saying you're mischaracterizing because you are. Given that the textbook definition of liberal from a dictionary (which you provided) was something I agreed to as the technical definition, along with explaining that the word liberal refers to people who should be factored in, comments like this seem nonsensical.... "Have you defined liberalism\liberal\left wing? No." Again, at minimum you would have acknowledged that I agreed, in part, if you were being at all fair minded.

As for the rest, mentioning that the movement has changed and that self-identified liberals are doing and saying things that don't fit the definition isn't subjective. It isn't "whatever I think the movement is doing" It's what they've made it. We can debate how much the movement has changed and debate individual cases and how far certain people have veered, but not that a transformation hasn't taken place.

If those who have veered from the textbook definition of liberal still self-identify as a liberal, and still consider themselves part of the liberal base as a movement then I'll consider them part of that movement. By your request, I've explained the word liberal in as little as 3 short sentences and went on from there to explain the medias role, I've given you both the long and short version.

As for this go around, I had more but I'm okay to agree to disagree on this. Though if you choose to mischaracterize this in the future...... (again)......., I will address it by simply repeating the shorter version since this has been discussed so much. As usual, my time here is limited, I just landed a job which came unexpectedly to boot. I feel like I'm not doing ad.gif justice with week long replies, so I've been considering stepping down for some time untill things change.

Further down, I'm going to address some of the good points I feel you're making. The back and forth on terminology I've felt has been diversionary semantics and although you generalize about conservatives and say condescending things frequently I've tried to look past it. Arriving at some kind of middle ground is something that I'm aiming for where possible and I do see good aspects in some of your arguing points....

QUOTE
QUOTE
Journalism has veered a lot from being a liberal art in the traditional sense of that phrase, to address this....

True true... but not for the reasons you say. But it is still there, there are good journalist, liberal journalist speaking truth to power. I just happened to look at an interesting documentary that I thought I would share on Netflix "Nobody Speak: Trials of a free press". Take your time to understand liberalism and press.

You can't define it because you are conservative and... lets talk about that for a minute. Today on facebook there were these two clowns with an entertaining video and they were yelling about "What freedom is.." And according to them "many of us don't know what freedom means.." Now here is the irony... they start talking about how the founders let it all on the line for freedom. The irony is in the fact a person can think a slave owner (many of the founders) and people that fight for nation with legal slavery is actually fighting for freedom and think they have a better understanding of freedom. But such is the nature of controlling "the narrative" of any Nation of any time, not just present day America.

Why does this belief or meme of "liberal media bias" exist? Well it goes back to the psych of a person that identifies as a conservative. It also ties closely to a current ad.gif debate dealing with "staying friends with Trump supporters" (which I have a hard time deciding what to post "what" where). One thing I think we all have is what is called and earlier stated by people on both sides "confirmation bias" But saying we all have it does not mean both the left psyche and the right psyche have it to the same degree. We are all hypocrits, but that doesn't mean we are hypocritical to the same degree. We can all be violent, but that doesn't mean we are all violent to the same degree.

I posit that confirmation bias is far more prevalent and necessary in right wing politics and the right winger psyche. Like the 'Murikans on the Facebook post you need to believe in struggle of meaning that you all don't fight for.


To address the bold parts, I'd add the crucial fact that most independents also view the media as having more liberal bias. The only political groups I know of with a majority who believe this isn't a fact are liberals and the Democratic party (because of that liberal majority). I'd refer you to the opening post for that, then continue from there for more.

The thread you're referring to was done by a member who slammed half of the members of ad.gif and didn't demonstrate that conservatives are responsible for dwindling participation, even a liberal member who replied didn't take the bait on that one.

As for the rest of what you're saying here, we all have some degree of bias and there's violence from both sides, I very much agree with you on that but when the frequency of such events is considered within colleges, within the media, and with protesters, It's not hard to see that the problem has developed into being a larger one on the left. The atmosphere that's developed on the left is one of the primary topics of this thread but thus far you haven't addressed it outside of a brief comment or two. The severity of the problem is something that many liberals either block out or don't want to touch.

With that said, I've been trying to emphasize that it's not an inherent left-wing problem and that trends change. We'll see how it goes, hopefully, both sides will tone it back some. Many Americans who don't get involved with sharing ideas, or keeping up with current political events, don't do so because too many people talk past one another, or worse. The irony with that is this group consist of some of the smartest among us, and many of those who go unnoticed are helping to sustain a very divided nation.

As everyone bickers about their political preferences, those in the background are the scientist who care more about solving problems, the farmers who sustain our food supply, and the construction workers who establish the places where political extremist reside. That's not to say that there aren't farmers who are involved in discussing politics, but the true silent majority are those who are respectful and concentrated on actually getting something done.

QUOTE
QUOTE
The Democrats have lost...

1. The Presidency
2. The Senate
3. The House
4. Four Special elections since Trump was elected.
5. The Resist Trump movement itself has lost credibility in crucial areas, to elaborate...


And as you have said. Republicans are winning! Don't forget at the State level. But what are the masses of people winning Net? What are you struggling for? Smaller government? Yeah right. Fiscal Discipline?? Too busy looking for some boogey man in some resource rich country to actually achieve that.

What do conservatives struggle for? Because the answer to this is, in great part, IMO, why it is so necessary for conservatism to believe that AAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL the media, except for a very small portion, is out to get them. You don't like the narrative, you don't like how you are portrayed by the media, you don't like how your country is portrayed. But you don't want to change the action that make you look a certain way, you all just want to change the narrative. Again back to the facebook freedom loving 'Murikans and those that think like them. It doesn't matter that many of the founder had slaves. You all just PRETEND that it was a different time where they were incapable of understanding their slaves were human, so you can a more palatable narrative of you fighting for freedom. What about the civil rights era. Well the same in principle, but different conditions in play. Same thing change the narrative.

So I ask again, Net, I acknowledge Republicans are winning, barely, but what are Americans winning with Republicans winning. We've had the strongest Military since WW2, but #45 has sold you all that we have a weak military. I mean it is both quantifiably and qualifiedly incorrect, but Republicans consistently buy into the idea that under right wing leadership we are going to make the strongest military in the world... the strongestER military in the world(no I didn't unintentionally write that wrong). Is it an absurd statement, maybe, but not if you change the narrative. Not if you get people to believe that the STRONGEST MILITARY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD is actually pretty weak because of Democrats.

Well facts and media reporting facts, messes up that narrative doesn't it. So you don't want to change your behavior so again you make up anew narrative that the media because of liberal bias is not correctly reporting the media.

Mrs P. you out there? Tell Net, between me and you who, love our government keeping secrets more? flowers.gif It's just one of those things with conservatives saying they love "limited government" but that government can keep all those secrets on what its doing in foreign lands and to Americans. See the love of "limited government" is just another narrative that doesn't actually exist, but it often repeated by Conservatives.

AS a liberal, I don't feel I need to pretend I need "limited government" per se, we just need to limit government in power to what they can make legal. Conservatives don't seem to be fighting for that limitation they are to busy fending off some destructive terrorist group that are killing Americans at some staggering .0000001% rate. Yeah you guys are over there with the hard struggle of getting silencers on AR-15s. yeah yeah... the struggle of the modern day conservative, really important.

WHAT are you winning, what are you struggling for as a conservative? Don't give me a banal platitude, "I want my country back" "we fight for freedom" what is the actual conservative struggle?

Here is my opinion, you all fight for the status quo and power. And that narrative, is unacceptable. But that's what the "left wing media" keeps presenting, right?


Here I think you made a fair point...

"And as you have said. Republicans are winning! Don't forget at the State level."

I don't agree with all of your follow up to that but it's fair to point out that special elections are wins at a state level first and foremost. I'd add a few things to that, it's not a secret that a large chunk of people are viewing those wins as a referendum on Trumps presidency, just as many were trying to do if the Republicans had lost even one of those.

Although I believe the connection is often over emphasized, I don't believe there isn't a connection to some degree. I'd also add that the Democrats spent more on the last special election than any of that type in American history, and I'd add that these are all consecutive wins for Republicans as well. It's not as if the Republicans "barely" pulled off one fluke election, it keeps happening and I'd say that accounts for something.

More important than a Trump and state level connection, these losses demonstrate failures within the Democratic party. I agree with Chuck Schumer when he says the Democrats need to work on messaging, but I'd follow that up by specifying that part of the problem is the constant negative tone of the progressive movement within the party. The party has become increasingly united around far left policies and work on smear tactics too often. I think a party should be united around trying to find common ground. That doesn't mean simply saying you want to work together then going back and resisting every policy and comment made by the opposing party, it has to be genuine.

This applies to the Republican party as well, "making America great again" has generally meant making it great for those who have conservative or traditional values, though I'll give the Republicans credit for, at minimum, making an effort to moderate their health care bill. I could be wrong on this one but I haven't seen anything coming from the Democrats where they're offering anything Republicans want.

Finally, just as with the word liberal, if you want to understand who conservatives are you need to address them directly. Keep the textbook definition of conservative in mind but observe the people within the movement to get a clearer picture. To make this work you'd have to consider the smart, honest, and civil people within the movement. Look at the people who have positive traits and take them seriously. You don't have to agree with every decision they're making, but if you're to pick out every fault or mistake within the movement, naturally you'll have contempt for the movement as you've made clear you do.

When debating a topic like this I need to acknowledge that there are exceptions when speaking about the media. I actually don't believe the majority of the arguments coming from liberals in the media are out of line, or inaccurate. I think it's a problem on the rise though, a problem which happens daily, and one which goes unacknowledged by some. The larger problem is that it's confirmation bias at its finest. They're seeking things to reinforce their beliefs, and while much of it is accurate information, that's different than seeking the truth.

As for my beliefs as a conservative, I explained a couple times that I'm very moderate and shared with you what some of my beliefs are, do you not remember this?

This post has been edited by net2007: Jul 14 2017, 05:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Jul 31 2017, 04:31 AM
Post #111


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,816
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Net2007)
If you're done with this part that's cool, but for the record, I've been saying you're mischaracterizing because you are. Given that the textbook definition of liberal from a dictionary (which you provided) was something I agreed to as the technical definition, along with explaining that the word liberal refers to people who should be factored in, comments like this seem nonsensical.... "Have you defined liberalism\liberal\left wing? No." Again, at minimum you would have acknowledged that I agreed, in part, if you were being at all fair minded.

I wouldn't say i am done with it, as much as i am done asking you to do something you obviously wouldn't.... or simply couldn't. In this modern age of conservatism, who can tell the difference? So often conservatives say they won't do something just because they simply aren't capable of it. I mean they are the anti-education anti-science party which just leaves them with a crap load of con artistry, slight of hand, and bravado. So "TO BE CLEAR" i am always willing to read a post of from you that solely has "your definition of liberal" in a post with nothing else. But i will address your comments, because you seem to think that me saying i can move on if you are incapable and twisted into something else.

Net I am fair minded. I'm liberal. Yes that is a dig at conservatism and its understanding of "fair". What i acknowledge is that you are stuck in some cyclic argument that allows you to speak out of both sides of your mouth. Case and point. You agreed the definition i provided was "technically" right. Do you truly not grasp what it means when you say "you are technically right"? Its like a huge "BUT....". I agree you have acknowledged the proper way to define liberal only to go on to say that Liberals aren't really "liberal" while still arguing that the the media has a liberal bias, but not a bias based on the "technical" definition of "liberal", but rather the media has "liberal bias" based on this STILL UNDEFINED non-"technical" definition of liberal. Did i correctly sum you position up? Please correct me.

Now lets address the next part... "cherry picking"

QUOTE
As for the rest, mentioning that the movement has changed and that self-identified liberals are doing and saying things that don't fit the definition isn't subjective. It isn't "whatever I think the movement is doing" It's what they've made it. We can debate how much the movement has changed and debate individual cases and how far certain people have veered, but not that a transformation hasn't taken place.
LOL if its your opinion it is subjective. If you are the one deciding how to perceive things, than it is subjective. Do we have to define subjective? Subjective: "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" See you can say I am "technically" correct again thumbsup.gif

TO BE CLEAR... In our own individual live we don't live by some political platform. A liberal, just like a conservative, actually do the same things. Liberals can say something sexist and\or racist. Conservative can be generous and compassionate. Liberals can be violent, Conservatives can be peaceful. Being liberal or conservative relays where we stand in our political views, not necessarily our individual positions. Political views are our views on policy, laws, and governance. I'm not saying that our personalities don't inform and influence our political views, only that regardless of our political views we DO all kinds of things.

So if we all DO all things... then what is it that "liberals" "do" that you are basing your definition on (that you still haven't supplied). Well the answer is: Whatever you choose pick out and say "that's what liberals do". And for the record again, i'm not denying that they are doing whatever it is you are seeing, i'm just denying the following: 1: that is all liberals are doing and 2: that it has anything whatsoever to do with the definition of liberal. Now if you want to debate something i am saying, debate that in the bold. My guess is that you won't.

QUOTE
By your request, I've explained the word liberal in as little as 3 short sentences and went on from there to explain the medias role, I've given you both the long and short version.
Sorry, I have to do this. NO YOU DIDN"T!!! What is wrong here that you keep telling yourself you are doing things you clearly are not. This is what you wrote

QUOTE
To explain a phrase like "liberal media bias", given we're referring to people with the word "liberal" we have to reveal who the media is defending and encouraging. From what I see, it's been a combination of those who follow the word "liberal" as defined in a dictionary and those who identify with liberalism but have veered away from some of those core principals. If they side with the left on most issues, vote primarily for liberal politicians or policies, and associate with other self-proclaimed liberals they're more likely to get special treatment and I think saying liberal is fair if you're willing to go further and acknowledge that there are differences between each person.


You in no way explained the word liberal... you really just talked in circles. "..it's been a combination of those who follow the word "liberal" as defined in a dictionary and those who identify with liberalism but have veered away from some of those core principals" What does this mean?!?!!? I don't know. Let me try it. Net how do you like this. Conservatives are people that follow the traditional values of conservatism as well as those people who identify as conservatives but have veered away from what conservatism really is. Does that really make sense to you??? Really??
QUOTE
To address the bold parts, I'd add the crucial fact that most independents also view the media as having more liberal bias. The only political groups I know of with a majority who believe this isn't a fact are liberals and the Democratic party (because of that liberal majority). I'd refer you to the opening post for that, then continue from there for more.
Well, I'd argue that not so much
QUOTE
The survey found that 43% believe the media tries to report the news without bias, up from 23% in 2016 and 24% in 2015.
Conservatives are especially prone to believe the media is biased. While 62% of liberals and 44% of moderates believe the news media tries to be unbiased, only 27% of conservatives hold the same view.

Now the article doesn't say how people think the media is bias and as such, I believe that you are incorrect and that most moderates don't think that the media has a liberal bias. but whether they mostly do or almost mostly do think the media has liberal bias makes no difference to me. As we can see by this opinion poll, opinions are very whimsical things, that because they are not FACTS, nor do they support statements of facts, unless the that statement is one of opinion. Something i continue to try to explain to you. You can at anytime tell me that whether Americans THINK their media has a liberal bias, i won't argue. I've said that to you. I'm arguing the actual FACT vs a bunch of opinions. What facts do you have that the media has a liberal bias, well one "fact" is an OPINION poll (I'm not sure why you can't see how silly that it is). The other fact presented is generally some type of political demographics in media showing that most people in the media identify somewhere to the left. Again leaving you all with the long leap of logic (no disrespect to the logical athleticism and flexibility of conservatives on this debate board allowing themselves to logically contort and make great leaps of logic) of saying that the media is full of left leaning people thus it must be biased to the left. At the same time, never really defining left\liberal\left-wing.

But here is a FACT we can see As we move through the political spectrum from left to right we see that the further right we go the more likely you believe there is a media bias, presumably a left or liberal media bias? Why do you think that is? What is it about conservatives that makes them so attuned to liberal media bias.

Is it their higher levels of education? Naw i don't think so. Is their plural and diverse demographics of conservatism giving them this insight? Yeah, right. Here is my belief. I think it is quite simple. The more you listed to conservative media the more you are bombarded with a message that the AAAAALLLLLLLL the media except for right wing media is bias to the left.

Look i'm a liberal and i sometimes enjoy listening to right wing news. But i see it they constantly are acting like they are this bastion of truth in a sea of left wing media bias. They just keep reinforcing the idea over and over and over and over again. So what happens when you repeat something over and over and over and over and over again unchallenged by any one? You get what psychologists call "the illusion of truth"
QUOTE
This is what psychologists call the illusion of truth effect and it arises at least partly because familiarity breeds liking. As we are exposed to a message again and again, it becomes more familiar. Because of the way our minds work, what is familiar is also true. Familiar things require less effort to process and that feeling of ease unconsciously signals truth (this is called cognitive fluency).

As every politician knows, thereís not much difference between actual truth and the illusion of truth. Since illusions are often easier to produce, why bother with the truth?

This debate you have a topic premised on the idea that the media is biased left. I continue to challenge that premise as i believe it is a falsehood. As evidence i submit the actual failure or poor ratings of media that actually is biased to wards the left. I provided links which i am happy to provide again how Air America, an actual left wing radio station was black balled by major corporations with advertisements. But there is plenty and i mean plenty of other evidence that a corporate run media would not tolerate a true left wing media.

Haven't you heard the principals of the left don't do well with monopolies and conglomerates. The flaws of our media are not due to any left wing bias but rather as i said before it is a problem of them wanting to be the first to report which is directly tied to business and corporate interests along with individual personalities desires of notoriety.

QUOTE
As for the rest of what you're saying here, we all have some degree of bias and there's violence from both sides, I very much agree with you on that but when the frequency of such events is considered within colleges, within the media, and with protesters, It's not hard to see that the problem has developed into being a larger one on the left. The atmosphere that's developed on the left is one of the primary topics of this thread but thus far you haven't addressed it outside of a brief comment or two. The severity of the problem is something that many liberals either block out or don't want to touch.
Oh so when you consider violence in these limited terms.... you can see it is a problem on left. Do you see how that works? Do any of you conservatives see how that works? You want to shape the argument of violence in a certain way and then once you have shaped the parameters of the argument you can pretend tha t"liberals are acting way more violent".

Not with me. I'm not buying it. It terms of policy and politics conservatives have always and will always be greater advocates of violence, DEADLY violence. Whether that violence comes from the home, police interactions with civilians, constant proponents of war... i could go on, but whats the point. And here is the huge difference at my morality vs that of many conservatives. When i see a couple of young Black men beating the crap out of old men i don go.... hmmm but we don't know the whole story.

I've watched conservatives on this very board pontificate why it was alright for a grown man to chase a kid behind building and kill him and then justify why the grown man who chased a kid and killed him had the right to self defense. Individually conservative have just as much morals as any other group of people, as a collective, just look what you all stand for in terms of "violence". You, yourself was excited about bombing another nation. If i recall you think bombing people is good and we kick booty and Trump looks like a man of action. Trust you aren't alone, common conservative talk.

The bigger point is to show you that in terms of policy there is no group in America as violent as conservatives. You only get to paint liberal as violent by shaping the discussion in such a way that we don't talk about the violence consistently advocated by conservatives. Cherry Picking!
QUOTE
This applies to the Republican party as well, "making America great again" has generally meant making it great for those who have conservative or traditional values, though I'll give the Republicans credit for, at minimum, making an effort to moderate their health care bill. I could be wrong on this one but I haven't seen anything coming from the Democrats where they're offering anything Republicans want.
ROFL I know this is not fair, but agian it speaks to your ability as a conservative to see ANYTHING objectively and then blame liberals for that flaw in your character. The bill passed by the Senate was so bad for Americans that 5 (maybe 4) senators including McCain and Graham cam on TV and said... "This bill is trash!!" Then they voted for it (except McCain). Democrats have said and continue to say lets repair ACA. But conservative politicians have a huge problem, they have to deal with conservative voters.

QUOTE
Finally, just as with the word liberal, if you want to understand who conservatives are you need to address them directly. Keep the textbook definition of conservative in mind but observe the people within the movement to get a clearer picture. To make this work you'd have to consider the smart, honest, and civil people within the movement. Look at the people who have positive traits and take them seriously. You don't have to agree with every decision they're making, but if you're to pick out every fault or mistake within the movement, naturally you'll have contempt for the movement as you've made clear you do.

i am addressing you all directly. I do understand who you are. Doesn't help that you all don't. I state that based on many reactions when your actions are characterized in a way you don't like. There is ALWAYS some justification for why you want to hurt people; why its alright to kill another human being when you are not in immediate threat of death yourself; why its OK to masses suffer to appease powerful interests of a few wealthy individuals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Aug 13 2017, 10:39 PM
Post #112


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 31 2017, 12:31 AM) *
QUOTE(Net2007)
If you're done with this part that's cool, but for the record, I've been saying you're mischaracterizing because you are. Given that the textbook definition of liberal from a dictionary (which you provided) was something I agreed to as the technical definition, along with explaining that the word liberal refers to people who should be factored in, comments like this seem nonsensical.... "Have you defined liberalism\liberal\left wing? No." Again, at minimum you would have acknowledged that I agreed, in part, if you were being at all fair minded.

I wouldn't say i am done with it, as much as i am done asking you to do something you obviously wouldn't.... or simply couldn't. In this modern age of conservatism, who can tell the difference? So often conservatives say they won't do something just because they simply aren't capable of it. I mean they are the anti-education anti-science party which just leaves them with a crap load of con artistry, slight of hand, and bravado. So "TO BE CLEAR" i am always willing to read a post of from you that solely has "your definition of liberal" in a post with nothing else. But i will address your comments, because you seem to think that me saying i can move on if you are incapable and twisted into something else.

Net I am fair minded. I'm liberal. Yes that is a dig at conservatism and its understanding of "fair". What i acknowledge is that you are stuck in some cyclic argument that allows you to speak out of both sides of your mouth. Case and point. You agreed the definition i provided was "technically" right. Do you truly not grasp what it means when you say "you are technically right"? Its like a huge "BUT....". I agree you have acknowledged the proper way to define liberal only to go on to say that Liberals aren't really "liberal" while still arguing that the the media has a liberal bias, but not a bias based on the "technical" definition of "liberal", but rather the media has "liberal bias" based on this STILL UNDEFINED non-"technical" definition of liberal. Did i correctly sum you position up? Please correct me.

Now lets address the next part... "cherry picking"

QUOTE
As for the rest, mentioning that the movement has changed and that self-identified liberals are doing and saying things that don't fit the definition isn't subjective. It isn't "whatever I think the movement is doing" It's what they've made it. We can debate how much the movement has changed and debate individual cases and how far certain people have veered, but not that a transformation hasn't taken place.
LOL if its your opinion it is subjective. If you are the one deciding how to perceive things, than it is subjective. Do we have to define subjective? Subjective: "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" See you can say I am "technically" correct again thumbsup.gif

TO BE CLEAR... In our own individual live we don't live by some political platform. A liberal, just like a conservative, actually do the same things. Liberals can say something sexist and\or racist. Conservative can be generous and compassionate. Liberals can be violent, Conservatives can be peaceful. Being liberal or conservative relays where we stand in our political views, not necessarily our individual positions. Political views are our views on policy, laws, and governance. I'm not saying that our personalities don't inform and influence our political views, only that regardless of our political views we DO all kinds of things.

So if we all DO all things... then what is it that "liberals" "do" that you are basing your definition on (that you still haven't supplied). Well the answer is: Whatever you choose pick out and say "that's what liberals do". And for the record again, i'm not denying that they are doing whatever it is you are seeing, i'm just denying the following: 1: that is all liberals are doing and 2: that it has anything whatsoever to do with the definition of liberal. Now if you want to debate something i am saying, debate that in the bold. My guess is that you won't.

QUOTE
By your request, I've explained the word liberal in as little as 3 short sentences and went on from there to explain the medias role, I've given you both the long and short version.
Sorry, I have to do this. NO YOU DIDN"T!!! What is wrong here that you keep telling yourself you are doing things you clearly are not. This is what you wrote

QUOTE
To explain a phrase like "liberal media bias", given we're referring to people with the word "liberal" we have to reveal who the media is defending and encouraging. From what I see, it's been a combination of those who follow the word "liberal" as defined in a dictionary and those who identify with liberalism but have veered away from some of those core principals. If they side with the left on most issues, vote primarily for liberal politicians or policies, and associate with other self-proclaimed liberals they're more likely to get special treatment and I think saying liberal is fair if you're willing to go further and acknowledge that there are differences between each person.


You in no way explained the word liberal... you really just talked in circles. "..it's been a combination of those who follow the word "liberal" as defined in a dictionary and those who identify with liberalism but have veered away from some of those core principals" What does this mean?!?!!? I don't know. Let me try it. Net how do you like this. Conservatives are people that follow the traditional values of conservatism as well as those people who identify as conservatives but have veered away from what conservatism really is. Does that really make sense to you??? Really??
QUOTE
To address the bold parts, I'd add the crucial fact that most independents also view the media as having more liberal bias. The only political groups I know of with a majority who believe this isn't a fact are liberals and the Democratic party (because of that liberal majority). I'd refer you to the opening post for that, then continue from there for more.
Well, I'd argue that not so much
QUOTE
The survey found that 43% believe the media tries to report the news without bias, up from 23% in 2016 and 24% in 2015.
Conservatives are especially prone to believe the media is biased. While 62% of liberals and 44% of moderates believe the news media tries to be unbiased, only 27% of conservatives hold the same view.

Now the article doesn't say how people think the media is bias and as such, I believe that you are incorrect and that most moderates don't think that the media has a liberal bias. but whether they mostly do or almost mostly do think the media has liberal bias makes no difference to me. As we can see by this opinion poll, opinions are very whimsical things, that because they are not FACTS, nor do they support statements of facts, unless the that statement is one of opinion. Something i continue to try to explain to you. You can at anytime tell me that whether Americans THINK their media has a liberal bias, i won't argue. I've said that to you. I'm arguing the actual FACT vs a bunch of opinions. What facts do you have that the media has a liberal bias, well one "fact" is an OPINION poll (I'm not sure why you can't see how silly that it is). The other fact presented is generally some type of political demographics in media showing that most people in the media identify somewhere to the left. Again leaving you all with the long leap of logic (no disrespect to the logical athleticism and flexibility of conservatives on this debate board allowing themselves to logically contort and make great leaps of logic) of saying that the media is full of left leaning people thus it must be biased to the left. At the same time, never really defining left\liberal\left-wing.

But here is a FACT we can see As we move through the political spectrum from left to right we see that the further right we go the more likely you believe there is a media bias, presumably a left or liberal media bias? Why do you think that is? What is it about conservatives that makes them so attuned to liberal media bias.

Is it their higher levels of education? Naw i don't think so. Is their plural and diverse demographics of conservatism giving them this insight? Yeah, right. Here is my belief. I think it is quite simple. The more you listed to conservative media the more you are bombarded with a message that the AAAAALLLLLLLL the media except for right wing media is bias to the left.

Look i'm a liberal and i sometimes enjoy listening to right wing news. But i see it they constantly are acting like they are this bastion of truth in a sea of left wing media bias. They just keep reinforcing the idea over and over and over and over again. So what happens when you repeat something over and over and over and over and over again unchallenged by any one? You get what psychologists call "the illusion of truth"
QUOTE
This is what psychologists call the illusion of truth effect and it arises at least partly because familiarity breeds liking. As we are exposed to a message again and again, it becomes more familiar. Because of the way our minds work, what is familiar is also true. Familiar things require less effort to process and that feeling of ease unconsciously signals truth (this is called cognitive fluency).

As every politician knows, there‚‚‚‚‚Äö¨Ň°¨‚‚‚‚Äö¨ŇĺĘs not much difference between actual truth and the illusion of truth. Since illusions are often easier to produce, why bother with the truth?

This debate you have a topic premised on the idea that the media is biased left. I continue to challenge that premise as i believe it is a falsehood. As evidence i submit the actual failure or poor ratings of media that actually is biased to wards the left. I provided links which i am happy to provide again how Air America, an actual left wing radio station was black balled by major corporations with advertisements. But there is plenty and i mean plenty of other evidence that a corporate run media would not tolerate a true left wing media.

Haven't you heard the principals of the left don't do well with monopolies and conglomerates. The flaws of our media are not due to any left wing bias but rather as i said before it is a problem of them wanting to be the first to report which is directly tied to business and corporate interests along with individual personalities desires of notoriety.

QUOTE
As for the rest of what you're saying here, we all have some degree of bias and there's violence from both sides, I very much agree with you on that but when the frequency of such events is considered within colleges, within the media, and with protesters, It's not hard to see that the problem has developed into being a larger one on the left. The atmosphere that's developed on the left is one of the primary topics of this thread but thus far you haven't addressed it outside of a brief comment or two. The severity of the problem is something that many liberals either block out or don't want to touch.
Oh so when you consider violence in these limited terms.... you can see it is a problem on left. Do you see how that works? Do any of you conservatives see how that works? You want to shape the argument of violence in a certain way and then once you have shaped the parameters of the argument you can pretend tha t"liberals are acting way more violent".

Not with me. I'm not buying it. It terms of policy and politics conservatives have always and will always be greater advocates of violence, DEADLY violence. Whether that violence comes from the home, police interactions with civilians, constant proponents of war... i could go on, but whats the point. And here is the huge difference at my morality vs that of many conservatives. When i see a couple of young Black men beating the crap out of old men i don go.... hmmm but we don't know the whole story.

I've watched conservatives on this very board pontificate why it was alright for a grown man to chase a kid behind building and kill him and then justify why the grown man who chased a kid and killed him had the right to self defense. Individually conservative have just as much morals as any other group of people, as a collective, just look what you all stand for in terms of "violence". You, yourself was excited about bombing another nation. If i recall you think bombing people is good and we kick booty and Trump looks like a man of action. Trust you aren't alone, common conservative talk.

The bigger point is to show you that in terms of policy there is no group in America as violent as conservatives. You only get to paint liberal as violent by shaping the discussion in such a way that we don't talk about the violence consistently advocated by conservatives. Cherry Picking!
QUOTE
This applies to the Republican party as well, "making America great again" has generally meant making it great for those who have conservative or traditional values, though I'll give the Republicans credit for, at minimum, making an effort to moderate their health care bill. I could be wrong on this one but I haven't seen anything coming from the Democrats where they're offering anything Republicans want.
ROFL I know this is not fair, but agian it speaks to your ability as a conservative to see ANYTHING objectively and then blame liberals for that flaw in your character. The bill passed by the Senate was so bad for Americans that 5 (maybe 4) senators including McCain and Graham cam on TV and said... "This bill is trash!!" Then they voted for it (except McCain). Democrats have said and continue to say lets repair ACA. But conservative politicians have a huge problem, they have to deal with conservative voters.

QUOTE
Finally, just as with the word liberal, if you want to understand who conservatives are you need to address them directly. Keep the textbook definition of conservative in mind but observe the people within the movement to get a clearer picture. To make this work you'd have to consider the smart, honest, and civil people within the movement. Look at the people who have positive traits and take them seriously. You don't have to agree with every decision they're making, but if you're to pick out every fault or mistake within the movement, naturally you'll have contempt for the movement as you've made clear you do.

i am addressing you all directly. I do understand who you are. Doesn't help that you all don't. I state that based on many reactions when your actions are characterized in a way you don't like. There is ALWAYS some justification for why you want to hurt people; why its alright to kill another human being when you are not in immediate threat of death yourself; why its OK to masses suffer to appease powerful interests of a few wealthy individuals.


I'm going to get to what I can with this. Early in your reply, on the topic of whether or not I've defined liberal media bias, this stuck out...

"Net I am fair minded. I'm liberal. Yes that is a dig at conservatism and its understanding of "fair"."

Narrowing fairness down to a political title in such general terms demonstrates how far on the fringe you are. In three short sentences, you've suggested you're fair and proved that you're not.

Liberal or conservative, it's very easy to give special treatment to those who think and look like we do which is why people who are genuinely fair have become increasingly hard to find on both sides. Being a liberal doesn't make a person fair. Some do just the opposite and create a moral hierarchy, where their beliefs and way of life are seen as superior and those who are like minded are valued and protected.

Going to the media, I'm sure you still haven't looked into Rachel Maddow beyond the link I shared pages back. She's a self-proclaimed liberal, and like many others in her business is more prone to being defensive of groups who identify with the left and she's attracted a liberal dominate audience because of it. Additionally, she speculates a LOT, gets emotional when reporting, and is sloppy enough to make the kinds of mistakes that a professional shouldn't. Usually by jumping too early on information that could potentially be damning to Trump or conservatives, then having it bite her in the rear later. Fair is not a word I'd choose to describe any of that.

As far as you're concerned, I don't believe you have been fair, at times you haven't been in the ballpark of being fair. You've often rephrased things I (and others) have said then conveniently debate the rephrased version, you pull things out of context, contrary to what you said you do move the goal post, and push double standards as well. For example, two replies ago, after pages of debating definitions, you shift gears and say this in reference to me, liberalism, and the press...

"You can't define it because you are conservative and... lets talk about that for a minute."

For starters, you didn't pay attention when I explained to you where I stand on politics, and secondly, that sounds a lot like an argument of convenience. If I were to listen to that, everything I say in regards liberal bias in the press would be a moot point given I have some conservative beliefs while your points would be more valuable by default. It sounds even more like an argument of convenience when, in the very next post (your last one), you say....

"I do understand who you are. Doesn't help that you all don't."

You were suggesting you understand who conservatives are which you clearly don't. Not because you have to be a conservative to understand conservatives, I disagree with that premise, but because you tend to listen only to the things which help to reinforce a negative stereotype of conservatives. I'd go as far to say that, in some respects, you have to be part of a certain group, to know how it feels to be a member of that group but not to "define" or "know" the group or members within it.

What you've said here is far from fair, not only because you're suggesting that I can't offer you a definition (because of my political beliefs), but you're not even following your own rule. You identify as being "very liberal" and claim to know who conservatives are, but I as a conservative can't know who liberals are, or what liberal media bias is. A clear double standard which, in your mind, puts you in a strong position in this debate.

If your argument on this was a strong one, you wouldn't have to prop it up using tricks which would only work with a novice debater. What you've done with sneaky stuff like that hasn't helped you, it's backfired. According to you, I shouldn't be expected to be fair, but you as the liberal should be fair, yet it's easy to show that you often haven't been on multiple topics, with multiple debaters, or with the conservative movement you generalize about as a whole.

I'll agree with you, as I did before, that this debate isn't to the degree of being uncivil, but it's often been unproductive, especially on certain subtopics that you've initiated, (like whether or not I've defined liberal media bias).

To delve deeper, I want to look at this part from above...

QUOTE
QUOTE
By your request, I've explained the word liberal in as little as 3 short sentences and went on from there to explain the medias role, I've given you both the long and short version.


Sorry, I have to do this.

NO YOU DIDN"T!!! What is wrong here that you keep telling yourself you are doing things you clearly are not. This is what you wrote


I think the descriptions I've given you have been fine. I think you've been projecting your own personal problems onto others which is a shame because you're able to make intelligent arguments. So you think I've been talking out both sides of my mouth? I've actually been consistent and have given you descriptions like the one you quoted in your last reply throughout this debate. The very simple point here has been that political titles like liberal refer to people and if you want to understand them you have to look beyond a dictionary.

Let's think back, post #68 is when you first presented four definitions then asked "Which one of these definitions of liberal do you want to say that the media is bias towards?" I went along with all of those definitions, in part, by saying "I think in some cases the media aims to protect classical liberalism....". In simple terms that means all of your definitions explain a portion of who the media is biased towards. However, your multiple choice question was incomplete and if I followed it strictly I'd have to submit to your narrative. Perhaps you did it because it would have forced an answer which makes both liberals and the media appear benign. Either way, it was another unfair thing you tried to do. A debate isn't about having someone choose from your list of answers. Here are two of the definitions you provided....

QUOTE
"-favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
"liberal citizenship laws"

- (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform."


Liberalism, as it's often practiced today, does not fit those descriptions in a number of ways. I've heard some pretty cruel and bizarre stuff coming from self-identified liberals, not only things that are disrespectful of individual rights and freedoms but dangerous rhetoric and threats to those who choose another path.

Also, some of the policies supported by self-proclaimed liberals are not supportive of individual rights and freedoms, so this goes beyond disrespectful rhetoric. As examples, stances that are often taken regarding religious freedoms, school choice, or gun control to name a few. Gun control as a left wing issue seemed to pick up momentum under the Clinton administration with the passing of The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, so the left has undergone a transformation in both tone and core beliefs, therefore I think the distinction needs to be made between classical liberalism and modern liberalism. In short, I think the definition you provided is outdated and to elaborate we're seeing a paradigm shift between the left and right, where in certain areas self-proclaimed liberals are becoming less about individual liberties than conservatives.

If this sounds absurd, major paradigm and political party shifts have occurred throughout American history. To address the Democratic party, what's happening now isn't surprising. Its ties to intolerant policies and behaviors run much deeper and farther back in history than the Republican party. These two videos will give you the basics...

The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party

Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican

There are couple thing's I'd state differently than what's stated in these, and as was applicable to you, short descriptions like the ones in these videos are missing details and some of it is open to interpretation but by and large, they're informative.

You're not going to get an answer that's as narrow as what you want to hear, but you'll get one that's fair and accurate. Liberals are more diverse than the descriptions you're going to read in a dictionary. I'd say that's a good starting point to learn some baseline beliefs of classical liberals, but the movement has evolved a great deal, with some straying from classical liberal values more than others. On temperament, most liberals I've encountered, I believe to be well intended and decent people, and because I am trying to be fair I emphasize that often. However, there's a very corrupt, dishonest, and disrespectful minority within the movement which is picking up momentum, yet they still call themselves liberal, support liberal politicians, or do still have some classical liberal values they follow.

Of the above, which types are the media biased towards? All of them are more prone to being favored or protected than conservative groups are, especially conservative Republicans who support Trump. I've gone on to explain what I believe their reasons are, as well as having simplified it for you in posts like Post #101.

As you've suggested, words like left and liberal are often used interchangeably but whatever word you choose to use to describe the movement the media is backing, it's there and the people behind that label remain the same. Gray Seal, uses the word progressive to explain the movement that the media is biased towards, and former TYT commentator Dave Rubin uses the word Regressive to explain the current Progressive movement, which I think are fair distinctions. Again, whatever word you choose to use to describe the movement the media is biased towards, this problem is there in plain sight. Most people can see it but I'm not saying you have to believe it.

For the rest, throughout this thread more polls and substantiation was presented to demonstrate the media has a left wing bias than what was in the opening post, it's why I said start at the opening post and "continue from there". As with many topics, I use cumulative knowledge to develop opinions or decipher truth from untruth. Also, although I've addressed it some already, I'll address the media and its corporate ties more, but, for now, I want to see if you continue on the same path with the spin and condescension. I may end this exchange with you beyond copies and paste or short descriptions to correct mischaracterizations.

Take a look at the following if you want to, it was very informative for me and it's stuff like this which, over the years, has helped to show me I'm not as conservative as I once thought, because I actually very much agree with a perspective that's coming from a liberal person. Having said that, he's one who's not going in the direction that the movement as a whole is, he's a classical liberal. As I told you a while back, my opinions are mixed, I agree with the right on roughly 10% more issues than the left, one survey I took corrected me and said it was 2%. I've explained this to you before but you seem to continue with the same narrative with me.

At any rate, this video may help give you some perspective as well, (in a different way)...

Dave Rubin's Political Awakening

To wrap this up, at a minimum, you're willing to say things like the following which has kept me around longer than I would have been otherwise...

QUOTE
"TO BE CLEAR... In our own individual live we don't live by some political platform. A liberal, just like a conservative, actually do the same things. Liberals can say something sexist and\or racist. Conservative can be generous and compassionate. Liberals can be violent, Conservatives can be peaceful."


But it doesn't take long for you to fall back onto one liners like this...

QUOTE
"Net I am fair minded. I'm liberal. Yes that is a dig at conservatism and its understanding of "fair"."


So I've questioned your sincerity. Not only have you suggested conservatism as a mindset is unfair, you've referenced those within the movement as a collective and have made some pretty harsh and all encompassing claims. So, you say you take "all" conservatives "as seriously as teenagers with guns" and suggest that you're a fair minded person who believes there's diversity within the conservative movement as demonstrated above. That's my idea of talking out both sides of your mouth.

Somewhere in there, I think you get it, perhaps it's emotion and things like "contempt" which overcome you. I hope you use the smarts you have to redirect some but if you're to continue on this path, what's my motivation for continuing an exchange with you?

This post has been edited by net2007: Aug 13 2017, 11:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Aug 21 2017, 11:01 AM
Post #113


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,194
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Does the media favor liberals?

I turned to America's Debate to post the following story because, while it likely contains a typo, our local Congressman is generally unwilling to meet with liberals waving protest signs:

QUOTE
Congressman Huizenga to host town hall in Muskegon
MUSKEGON, Mich. ó Congressman Bill Huizenga is planning to meet with voters in West Michigan next week.
Heís holding a town hall Wednesday, August 23 in Muskegon as part of his Listening Tour.
Huizenga is expected to touch on topics including President Trumpís administration in addition to the failed healthcare repeal, and job creation.
The event is set for Wednesday at Orchard View High School..
Doors open at 6:30 p.m. and the event should start at 7 a.m.

Apparently he is willing to speak with anyone willing to wait 12-1/2 hours in a school building waiting to see what he can say before the doors open for the students in the morning...

THE RELEASE WAS FROM FOX NEWS HOWEVER AND THEY REPORTEDLY LEAN TO THE FAR RIGHT!

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Aug 21 2017, 11:22 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Aug 21 2017, 11:20 AM
Post #114


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,330
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Aug 21 2017, 06:01 AM) *
Does the media favor liberals?

I turned to America's Debate to post the following story because, while it likely contains a typo, our local Congressman is generally unwilling to meet with liberals waving protest signs:

QUOTE
Congressman Huizenga to host town hall in Muskegon
MUSKEGON, Mich. ó Congressman Bill Huizenga is planning to meet with voters in West Michigan next week.
Heís holding a town hall Wednesday, August 23 in Muskegon as part of his Listening Tour.
Huizenga is expected to touch on topics including President Trumpís administration in addition to the failed healthcare repeal, and job creation.
The event is set for Wednesday at Orchard View High School..
Doors open at 6:30 p.m. and the event should start at 7 a.m.

Apparently he is willing to speak with anyone willing to wait 12-1/2 hours in a school building waiting to see what he can say before the doors open for the students in the morning...

THE RELEASE WAS FROM FOX NEWS HOWEVER AND THEY REPORTEDLY LEAN TO THE FAR RIGHT!


It was a typo, Curm.
The meeting is at 7 pm.
from 7 p.m.-8:30 p.m

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Aug 21 2017, 11:20 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Aug 21 2017, 11:42 AM
Post #115


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,194
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 21 2017, 07:20 AM) *
It was a typo, Curm.
The meeting is at 7 pm.
from 7 p.m.-8:30 p.m

That was readily apparent, but Fox News has a reputation for supporting the far right agenda. Our local Reps tend to avoid public meetings. Holly Hughes, for instance, has a habit of tweeting that she intends to hold a "town hall" meeting in a restaurant in an hour or two. When I have arrived at the restaurants, having been e-mailed by friends, I have usually found that the staff was unaware of her plans and unprepared.

I just noticed the time, I need to grab some sleep if I'm going to wake up in time for the eclipse...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Aug 21 2017, 02:38 PM
Post #116


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Aug 21 2017, 07:42 AM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 21 2017, 07:20 AM) *
It was a typo, Curm.
The meeting is at 7 pm.
from 7 p.m.-8:30 p.m

That was readily apparent, but Fox News has a reputation for supporting the far right agenda. Our local Reps tend to avoid public meetings. Holly Hughes, for instance, has a habit of tweeting that she intends to hold a "town hall" meeting in a restaurant in an hour or two. When I have arrived at the restaurants, having been e-mailed by friends, I have usually found that the staff was unaware of her plans and unprepared.

I just noticed the time, I need to grab some sleep if I'm going to wake up in time for the eclipse...


I can't argue against that, though I think Fox News has moderated some, especially since the departure of Bill O'Reilly. I've seen an increasing amount of critical viewpoints directed at the right, particularly before the night-time shows come on. Overall I think they still favor conservatives (as you're suggesting) but according to recent ratings they're no longer holding the number 1 spot. They've fallen behind MSNBC for the first time in decades, so I think some of the conservative viewers are departing. Fox News is in a bit of trouble, perhaps it has some to do with the sexual harassment charges against them too. Either way, if they moderate more than they have conservatives will have no major network that favors the right overall.

With the eclipse, in Asheville NC we're getting 99.2% coverage. They're saying it'll get dark enough to see planets and for street lights to come on, but something tells me that the left has tried to spin this issue with their sun bias. I think it'll be dark enough to see stars as well but time will tell. tongue.gif

This post has been edited by net2007: Aug 21 2017, 02:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 5 6
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: September 19th, 2018 - 08:39 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.