Explosive Devices Sent to Clintons, Soros and Obama

[caulfield12]

3 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

1) I think it's impossible to debate the validity of Trump's attacks on the media without accounting for where he directs those attacks.  He says "fake news" but it's not "24-hour reporting is bad and misleading" - it's "reporting of me in a bad light is bad and misleading."

2) I think you would find that Democrats would kindly point to Fox News' reporting on the Obama administration as evidence that aspects of the 24-hour news cycle were throwing out bad and misleading reporting prior to Donald Trump.  If the 24 hours news media is, in fact, partisan, it didn't start with the coverage of Donald Trump.

3) I think we can agree that the 24-hour news cycle is a bad thing generally.  But I'd just be cutting and pasting what bmags said above.

Or go back to the “conservative conspiracy against the Clintons” or further back to the media’s war with Richard Nixon...heck, let’s try the media’s war with LBJ administration over the prosecution of the Vietnam War (see McNamara’s “The Fog of War”).

Didn’t start with Obama and Trump, clearly, but it has to be pretty darned close to the low point since the late 60’s/early 70’s.

[Jenksismyhero]

11 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Even if CNN and MSNBC were 80/20 anti-Trump, they’re cancelled out by Fox and Breitbart.

The majority of political radio talk shows in America are conservative.

The majority of small and medium-sized (distribution and population density served) newspapers tend to be owned by conservative conglomerates.

Most of the financial press (think Forbes, CNBC or Wall Street Journal) is at their heart conservative/fiscal conservative with a social conscience.  Same with Time, Newsweek, US World & News Report, etc.

Sure, you have The NY Times, Washington Post, Yahoo, Huffington Post, Mother Jones, The Onion...still not seeing where this idea of liberal bias is coming from, because we haven’t even touched sites like Gab, QAnon, Alex Jones, Matt Drudge (the entire alt-right media conspiracy infrastructure).

What exactly is the left equivalent of those groups...don’t give me names of groups (BLM, Nation of Islam, La Raza, etc.), let’s hear actual media entities with significant subscriber bases.

I think you're right on the news "media" side of things, however, it's pretty clear Hollywood and entertainment generally is dominated almost exclusively by the left. Talk shows, for example, are exclusively left and attack Trump on a nightly basis. 

Having said that, he deserves 99% of the criticism since he is an awful human being.

 

[BigHurt3515]

1 hour ago, illinilaw08 said:

1) I think it's impossible to debate the validity of Trump's attacks on the media without accounting for where he directs those attacks.  He says "fake news" but it's not "24-hour reporting is bad and misleading" - it's "reporting of me in a bad light is bad and misleading."

2) I think you would find that Democrats would kindly point to Fox News' reporting on the Obama administration as evidence that aspects of the 24-hour news cycle were throwing out bad and misleading reporting prior to Donald Trump.  If the 24 hours news media is, in fact, partisan, it didn't start with the coverage of Donald Trump.

3) I think we can agree that the 24-hour news cycle is a bad thing generally.  But I'd just be cutting and pasting what bmags said above.

I don't remember it being nearly this bad when Obama was in office but every Trump talks about fake news and they are the enemy just puts more fuel on the fire for these big news companies to keep attacking him.

Anyway you look at it a lot of the media today is awful and I have a hard time believing any of them anymore.

[NorthSideSox72]

1 hour ago, Jenksismyhero said:

I think you're right on the news "media" side of things, however, it's pretty clear Hollywood and entertainment generally is dominated almost exclusively by the left. Talk shows, for example, are exclusively left and attack Trump on a nightly basis. 

Having said that, he deserves 99% of the criticism since he is an awful human being.

 

I think this is pretty spot-on. There are plenty of media that get scolded without much reason, but much of the info-tainment garbage on mainstream networks leans left. Not all of course, and not nearly as far as some make it out to be, but it is there.

And also, yeah, it's negative often because the guy is just a train wreck. It wasn't like this with Bush, even on "Fake news" CNN, because while Bush (and Obama and any other President) deserved some criticism, none of them were the abject disasters that Trump is.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

6 minutes ago, BigHurt3515 said:

I don't remember it being nearly this bad when Obama was in office but every Trump talks about fake news and they are the enemy just puts more fuel on the fire for these big news companies to keep attacking him.

Anyway you look at it a lot of the media today is awful and I have a hard time believing any of them anymore.

Just avoid any of the 24-hour crap, especially talking heads. Turn off CNN, MSNBC, Fox, all of that. Read a journalistic source like WaPo or WSJ or NYT or The Economist or heck even the Tribune. You will find it is of much higher quality, and even though each of those can sometimes show bias too, if you leave out their Editorial parts, they are really quite fair.

[Brian]

I don't watch any Cable News unless something big happens. I have an uncle who loves Fox News and an aunt who loves MSNBC. I just couldn't watch all that stuff and bias.

[southsider2k5]

Sadly when the bombs were being mailed out I used the phrase kristallnacht on social media and was laughed at by a portion of people. 

Then this happened. 

[Jack Parkman]

I blame Ronald Reagan. He got rid of the regulation on news, which used to be non-partisan, but became partisan after he repealed the Fair and Balanced News Act. 

I think that Network news, for the most part is centrist outside of MSNBC and Fox News, which are clearly partisan. 

However, the thing that nobody talks about is CTR, or conservative talk radio. I think it has a far greater impact on political discourse in America than Network TV news. 

There are states where if you wanted a left-wing radio station it doesn't exist. Most of the existing progressive talking heads have to sell subscriptions to their podcasts in order to keep themselves on the air. 

Reagan still giving the USA the shaft even from the grave. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[bmags]

7 minutes ago, Brian said:

I don't watch any Cable News unless something big happens. I have an uncle who loves Fox News and an aunt who loves MSNBC. I just couldn't watch all that stuff and bias.

I think Chris Hayes has a really good faith show and is funny and smart. But the reality is if you only watched 24 hour cable news for information you would probably have the worst perspective of the world's events (skewed toward sensationalism, with the best example being the missing Malaysian Air flight).

Newspaper or radio news (your NPR/WGNs etcs) best, and network news probably a good jump below.

[BigHurt3515]

35 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

Just avoid any of the 24-hour crap, especially talking heads. Turn off CNN, MSNBC, Fox, all of that. Read a journalistic source like WaPo or WSJ or NYT or The Economist or heck even the Tribune. You will find it is of much higher quality, and even though each of those can sometimes show bias too, if you leave out their Editorial parts, they are really quite fair.

You don't see that as a problem though? The younger generation including me don't really want to have to read newspapers or articles online. There aren't a lot of people that are seeking out those publications to read articles unless they see a catchy headline on Twitter/Facebook. Short videos/TV are where it is at if you actually want most of the younger generation to learn about what is going on in the country/world.

[NorthSideSox72]

1 minute ago, BigHurt3515 said:

You don't see that as a problem though? The younger generation including me don't really want to have to read newspapers or articles online. There aren't a lot of people that are seeking out those publications to read articles unless they see a catchy headline on Twitter/Facebook. Short videos/TV are where it is at if you actually want most of the younger generation to learn about what is going on in the country/world.

I mean, that's your choice. You can watch sound bites and never understand the issues, or you can choose to dig in and learn something. Short videos are not going to get into the depth to tell a real story, much of the time. And honestly I get the impression that TV is much more watched by the older generations, not the younger ones who get their info online.

Also, how is reading an article on WaPo or WSJ different technologically than reading a CNN or Fox or MSNBC article? They are online the exact same ways. One group is just higher quality and greater depth in most cases.

[illinilaw08]

Just now, BigHurt3515 said:

You don't see that as a problem though? The younger generation including me don't really want to have to read newspapers or articles online. There aren't a lot of people that are seeking out those publications to read articles unless they see a catchy headline on Twitter/Facebook. Short videos/TV are where it is at if you actually want most of the younger generation to learn about what is going on in the country/world.

Short videos/TV can't possibly actually inform you on issues though.  The economy and world events are complicated and nuanced.  You can't actually understand an issue via a short video.  You can't both complain about headline journalism and then ask for journalism to be distilled into short videos...

[illinilaw08]

2 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

I mean, that's your choice. You can watch sound bites and never understand the issues, or you can choose to dig in and learn something. Short videos are not going to get into the depth to tell a real story, much of the time. And honestly I get the impression that TV is much more watched by the older generations, not the younger ones who get their info online.

Also, how is reading an article on WaPo or WSJ different technologically than reading a CNN or Fox or MSNBC article? They are online the exact same ways. One group is just higher quality and greater depth in most cases.

I obviously lean left, but in addition to NPR, WaPo, NYT and WSJ, I read about policy on Vox as well.  They usually do (IMO) a pretty good job of explaining the basis for policy in relatively concise articles.  Not sure what the Conservative version of that would be.

[BigHurt3515]

7 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

I mean, that's your choice. You can watch sound bites and never understand the issues, or you can choose to dig in and learn something. Short videos are not going to get into the depth to tell a real story, much of the time. And honestly I get the impression that TV is much more watched by the older generations, not the younger ones who get their info online.

Also, how is reading an article on WaPo or WSJ different technologically than reading a CNN or Fox or MSNBC article? They are online the exact same ways. One group is just higher quality and greater depth in most cases.

That is not my choice, it is the reality of the younger generation. They aren't going to watch the big media outlets or go out and read articles on their own, there are some but they are in the minority. They do get their info online but it isn't by going to news websites to read long articles with words that are over their head and if they do it is a link from a social media site after reading a misleading headline.

7 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

Short videos/TV can't possibly actually inform you on issues though.  The economy and world events are complicated and nuanced.  You can't actually understand an issue via a short video.  You can't both complain about headline journalism and then ask for journalism to be distilled into short videos...

Short videos meaning under 5 minutes. Headline journalism is skewing the younger generation who aren't really into politics but are being told to vote IMO.  

[NorthSideSox72]

5 minutes ago, BigHurt3515 said:

That is not my choice, it is the reality of the younger generation. They aren't going to watch the big media outlets or go out and read articles on their own, there are some but they are in the minority. They do get their info online but it isn't by going to news websites to read long articles with words that are over their head and if they do it is a link from a social media site after reading a misleading headline.

Short videos meaning under 5 minutes. Headline journalism is skewing the younger generation who aren't really into politics but are being told to vote IMO.  

This post just makes me very sad. If it is true that many in younger generations really see it this way - that they just aren't interested in actually finding out what is going on, and feel like they are "being told to vote" - then they are assigning away the power of their rights to others. That's scary, and the fault rests entirely with those people who feel that way.

 

[BigHurt3515]

5 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

This post just makes me very sad. If it is true that many in younger generations really see it this way - that they just aren't interested in actually finding out what is going on, and feel like they are "being told to vote" - then they are assigning away the power of their rights to others. That's scary, and the fault rests entirely with those people who feel that way.

 

My brother is 19 (almost 20) and he does not care about politics at all (neither do I really but I have a little more interest now) but I guarantee he either won't vote or vote because family or just because he can.

I agree it is very sad but the Gen Z or younger millennials don't get their news the same way as Gen X and up do. Plus they are growing up in this shitty political time with the media bias that is out there so that won't help them find their own voice/beliefs. Don't get me wrong, there are some younger people who are very interested and want to make change but I am cautious to where their views came from and if they are just spewing out what they here their parents or the media are saying.

[Soxbadger]

5 minutes ago, BigHurt3515 said:

My brother is 19 (almost 20) and he does not care about politics at all (neither do I really but I have a little more interest now) but I guarantee he either won't vote or vote because family or just because he can.

I agree it is very sad but the Gen Z or younger millennials don't get their news the same way as Gen X and up do. Plus they are growing up in this shitty political time with the media bias that is out there so that won't help them find their own voice/beliefs. Don't get me wrong, there are some younger people who are very interested and want to make change but I am cautious to where their views came from and if they are just spewing out what they here their parents or the media are saying.

This isnt really something new. Many moons ago people found information on the internet unreliable and felt you had to go to a library and get the information from a book. Access to information is always changing and 19/20 year olds often dont really care about politics because they dont see how it impacts them. 

Its hard to believe its been this long, but 20 years ago people were complaining about media bias on internet forums. Im sure that 20 years before that they were complaining about it too, just in a different place. Instead of worry about the noise, try and figure out what you want to believe in yourself. If anything growing up in a shitty political time, should be the exact reason why people who are 18-20 should be more involved. They are the ones who are going to have to live longest with the consequences of what happens. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Soxbadger

[illinilaw08]

17 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

This isnt really something new. Many moons ago people found information on the internet unreliable and felt you had to go to a library and get the information from a book. Access to information is always changing and 19/20 year olds often dont really care about politics because they dont see how it impacts them. 

Its hard to believe its been this long, but 20 years ago people were complaining about media bias on internet forums. Im sure that 20 years before that they were complaining about it too, just in a different place. Instead of worry about the noise, try and figure out what you want to believe in yourself. If anything growing up in a shitty political time, should be the exact reason why people who are 18-20 should be more involved. They are the ones who are going to have to live longest with the consequences of what happens. 

The bolded is very true.  As of 10/24 in Colorado, there were 115,168 early ballots cast by people 71 and older.  And 16,790 from people 18-25.  People in that age range are really in their careers, or still in high school and college.  For most of those kids, life hasn't happened yet. 

[southsider2k5]

57 minutes ago, BigHurt3515 said:

My brother is 19 (almost 20) and he does not care about politics at all (neither do I really but I have a little more interest now) but I guarantee he either won't vote or vote because family or just because he can.

I agree it is very sad but the Gen Z or younger millennials don't get their news the same way as Gen X and up do. Plus they are growing up in this shitty political time with the media bias that is out there so that won't help them find their own voice/beliefs. Don't get me wrong, there are some younger people who are very interested and want to make change but I am cautious to where their views came from and if they are just spewing out what they here their parents or the media are saying.

This is frankly so short-sighted.  Because you can't get information in the format you want, you are giving away your political power and influence to those who are willing to exercise it.  This is basically cutting off your penis because you don't have kids.

[caulfield12]

18 hours ago, Jenksismyhero said:

I think you're right on the news "media" side of things, however, it's pretty clear Hollywood and entertainment generally is dominated almost exclusively by the left. Talk shows, for example, are exclusively left and attack Trump on a nightly basis. 

Having said that, he deserves 99% of the criticism since he is an awful human being.

 

Well, the real question is who is influencing the 30-40% in the middle?

The people who watch Colbert, Kimmel, Fallon or SNL...they’re unlikely to vote for Trump, by and large.Their minds were already made up a long time ago.

https://filmschoolwtf.com/best-christian-movies/

I wouldn’t underestimate the growing power of the Christian films movement.  God’s Not Dead, I Can Only Imagine, all the Dinesh D’Sousa films, Left Behind, anything from Kirk Cameron and his wife, the movies about the Promise Keepers, the Mitch Albom books turned into movies, The Blind Side, Soul Surfer, Heaven is for Real...they had a lot more impact than Michael Moore films over the last decade.  It’s not even close.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think the 30-40% are influenced by those talk shows and other "progressive" influenced tv shows and movies more than a few select religious movies made for a specific group of people. I'm not saying there isn't a sizeable conservative base, there clearly is, but on a "coverage" standpoint the "media" is overwhelmingly left. 

And I think there's a cumulative affect with those talk shows, just like with 24/7 cable tv news networks. You don't get facts, you don't get a deep analysis, you get a few minutes of commentary and jokes. And unless you're invested in the topic you're not going to go look up the actual facts or look up the arguments for/against a given issue. 

 

[Soxbadger]

12 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

I think the 30-40% are influenced by those talk shows and other "progressive" influenced tv shows and movies more than a few select religious movies made for a specific group of people. I'm not saying there isn't a sizeable conservative base, there clearly is, but on a "coverage" standpoint the "media" is overwhelmingly left. 

And I think there's a cumulative affect with those talk shows, just like with 24/7 cable tv news networks. You don't get facts, you don't get a deep analysis, you get a few minutes of commentary and jokes. And unless you're invested in the topic you're not going to go look up the actual facts or look up the arguments for/against a given issue. 

 

Late Night comedy talk shows and movies are about ratings and money. They have no obligation to present fair or unbiased opinions. For the most part they report to shareholders. 

Hollywood is dominated by money.

[Dick Allen]

1 hour ago, Jenksismyhero said:

I think the 30-40% are influenced by those talk shows and other "progressive" influenced tv shows and movies more than a few select religious movies made for a specific group of people. I'm not saying there isn't a sizeable conservative base, there clearly is, but on a "coverage" standpoint the "media" is overwhelmingly left. 

And I think there's a cumulative affect with those talk shows, just like with 24/7 cable tv news networks. You don't get facts, you don't get a deep analysis, you get a few minutes of commentary and jokes. And unless you're invested in the topic you're not going to go look up the actual facts or look up the arguments for/against a given issue. 

 

If late night TV is so influential,  how was Trump elected? It's a great spin, but that is exactly what it is. Spin.

What POTUS says has no effect.  What does is what Jimmy Kimmel or Cobert say after most people are sleeping.  Silly.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Dick Allen

[pettie4sox]

21 hours ago, BigHurt3515 said:

I don't remember it being nearly this bad when Obama was in office but every Trump talks about fake news and they are the enemy just puts more fuel on the fire for these big news companies to keep attacking him.

Anyway you look at it a lot of the media today is awful and I have a hard time believing any of them anymore.

Mustard.  Arugula.  Tan suit. 

I'm not surprised you don't remember.

[Jenksismyhero]

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

If late night TV is so influential,  how was Trump elected? It's a great spin, but that is exactly what it is. Spin.

What POTUS says has no effect.  What does is what Jimmy Kimmel or Cobert say after most people are sleeping.  Silly.

Where did I say that?