gas prices

[Danzilla31]

So you think Hannity and Tucker are actual journalists/reporters? Mainstream media is welll represented by Faux News

Why do people cherry pick what people say? I said I dislike the mainstream media period. Both sides are trash. Some people are trying to tell me the left mainstream media is better then the right. I disagreed posted links on why I think left mainstream media has issues. Nobody obviously read them and nobody posted links backing up what they were claiming

So if no one will take the time to read what you link and if people just want to cherry pick parts of what you post out of context what's the point of even having a conversation?

 

[SithZedi]

Why do people cherry pick what people say? I said I dislike the mainstream media period. Both sides are trash. Some people are trying to tell me the left mainstream media is better then the right. I disagreed posted links on why I think left mainstream media has issues. Nobody obviously read them and nobody posted links backing up what they were claiming

So if no one will take the time to read what you link and if people just want to cherry pick parts of what you post out of context what's the point of even having a conversation?

You know, there's a syndrome called "Cowbell". I.e. Some will listen to "Don't Fear the Reaper" and only hear the sound of the cowbell. Maybe this fits what you are saying. If not, the following skit is amusing non the less.

 

[Dude#1279435]

There used to be a guy who posted here some years ago who always posted stories from right-wing news sources trying to get people outraged about something that liberals or democrats did or something along those lines. Nearly every single story that he posted was easily debunked, maybe even every single story, and that was something that was easy to do, and something I did when I had more time to indulge in this BS. All I had to do was look for the source of the story- there never was one, or the source was extremely flaky or wildly exaggerated. Conservative news has no credibility for good reasons.

Many of the sources that you think is somehow "leftist" like CNN (insane that CNN could ever be considered leftist) has to meet a much higher standard of journalism than pretty much every conservative news company. Many of their reporters and editorial staff have degrees from Northwestern or Columbia NY or other top journalism schools. They are extensively trained for accurate reporting. There is no corresponding culture for accurate reportage in conservative news. Many of their reporters are communications majors who interned for some republican politician. Some of them at Foxnews are fished out of local networks who were deemed to be "ideologically compatible" i.e., willing to spout BS for a bigger paycheck.

I have my problems with many major news sources, but even a news outlet as trashy as CNN is incomparably more dependable in the raw facts of their story than any conservative news organization. Hell, any article that I write for Audioholics is going to be much more reliable than any conservative news. I bother to get my facts vetted before going to print and make a real effort to ensure that everything I write is correct. I wish I could be as lazy and sloppy as Newsmax or Foxnews. It would be so much easier to just make up BS around something I read in Pravda and never having to worry about anyone attacking my integrity. I would say the reason why conservative "news" don't really have any journalistic ethics is because they know that their target audience don't really care about the truth either. Hence the reason why they think Donald Trump won the 2020 election and COVID vaccines are Chinese mind-control nanobots.

For conservative media it's more about owning the left, lies & conspiracies, fear & hate, and vitriol IMO. There's not a lot of journalism, and often when they do debate on forums it gets vetted by more reliable sources. I'm not going to say they can't because they could, but they chose not to and are not accustomed to doing so. There isn't a whole lot of market for it. And I wonder if the reason conservative news is deemed in the minority because of their own lack of journalism.

 

[Dude#1279435]

There was another column I was reading on. The game plan for conservatives is to flood the "free" news outlets with as little moderation as possible while the liberals' reaction would be to continue to erect paywalls.

Okay, Let’s Talk About Social Media And Allegations Of Anti-Conservative Bias

The charge is playing a role in the antitrust debate, so some context would be nice.

bigtechnology.substack.com

[excerpt]

One way to view social media is as an alternative media. The’s a certain set of topics the institutional media will address, and social media — by nature of its scale — will fill in the gaps. Institutional media, for example, doesn’t spend a lot of time covering gaming. But there are many passionate gaming fans, so gaming content is big on social media.

Similar dynamics, albeit to a lesser extent, apply to conservative content on social media. There are a few big, right-leaning news organizations (See: Fox News), but much of the institutional media tends to sympathize with the left. When you combine that with a sustained campaign by Republican leaders to discredit institutional media overall, you get a base that gravitates to social media to fill in the gaps.

That’s why the @FacebooksTop10 Twitter account is something of a Rorschach test for liberals and conservatives. Run by The New York Times’ Kevin Roose, the account posts the ten best-performing link posts on Facebook daily. Almost every day, most of those links are from conservatives.

When liberals see the account’s tweets, they see clear evidence that Facebook isn’t biased against conservatives (look at how well they’re doing!). When conservatives see the tweets, they see social media filling in the gaps and delivering natural reach. @FacebooksTop10, to conservatives, distracts from content moderation, which they see as the real issue. Conservative posts performing well does not mean social media companies aren’t aggressively moderating conservative content, they say.

There’s a fallacy that social media platforms are open, or the “modern town squares,” as they tend to put it. Everyone moderates. Social media platforms included. And the difference is where they draw the line.

Institutional media moderates vigorously, through editors, and is selective about which voices it grants space on its platforms. Mainstream social media is much more permissive. It’s open to everyone, and will mostly let you say whatever you want, until you hit its looser — but still present — boundaries. Message boards like 4chan and 8chan take it one step further, allowing users to push beyond the boundaries of civility. But even they moderate. 8kun (formerly 8chan) emerged, in part, because its founder Fredrick Brennan believed 4chan’s moderation was too onerous. But even 8kun removes some content.

To reiterate, no matter which platform you use, you run the risk of getting moderated. And on mainstream social media, the incentives encourage you to find the boundaries. For political movements, this makes these platforms extremely turbulent places to operate.

Social media, after all, is a game upon which people compete for status. You obtain that status via shares and retweets, which grant you reach and followers. The best way to earn retweets and shares is to play to tribes, confirm their biases, and, more often than not, spark outrage. So, the most extreme voices tend to rise to the top.

As social media has flourished as an alternative media for conservatives, the allure of reach and status enticed many within the movement to push the boundaries. The platforms pushed, and then they pulled: They pushed out conservative content, and then they pulled back when people followed the incentives to their natural conclusion.

I suspect this feeling of uneasiness — one where platforms as massive as Facebook, Apple, or Amazon can remove your party’s leader or its new favorite app — is behind several Republican representatives throwing their support behind the antitrust bills in Congress today. If successful, the bills wouldn’t address the content moderation issue. But they would address the platforms’ size and power, something brands and publishers have experienced for years, and political parties are only recently starting to feel.

 

[highfigh]

Because stupidity is rampant in the US? The largest selling newspaper traditionally has been the supermarket tabloids like National Enquirer, Star, Weekly World News et al....look how many still support tv evangelists and all that nonsense, look how many republicans still suck drumph titty.

Ever watch a car crash because you couldn't look away? Why do you think demo derbies exist? Because people like to watch things crash- I would bet that there aren't many rocket surgeons in those crowds.

Televangelists deserve to be put in their own little place and the planet is dotted with them- many are active right now.

 

[highfigh]

Lol, the bastard child. I have never even looked at 89. Still not sure why it even exists since it serves no purpose at all. Would only save a couple of bucks in the end so not really worth it. Is like $60 to fill them up, but I only have to fill them up every few weeks because I don't drive a whole lot.

It costs about $60 to fill my van at $3.25 (local price for 87) but if I need to go a bit to the West, I can save over 30 cents/gallon by just barely entering the next county. It's 8 miles form my house and now that I know about the gas prices, I go there more frequently since the distributors of AV equipment all have their warehouses in that county, so it's not a big deal to top off the tank when I go there.

Have you looked for 90 Octane?

 

[highfigh]

For conservative media it's more about owning the left, lies & conspiracies, fear & hate, and vitriol IMO. There's not a lot of journalism, and often when they do debate on forums it gets vetted by more reliable sources. I'm not going to say they can't because they could, but they chose not to and are not accustomed to doing so. There isn't a whole lot of market for it. And I wonder if the reason conservative news is deemed in the minority because of their own lack of journalism.

Alex Jones skews everything to the far right- just an example of what happens when something like that survives.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Alex Jones skews everything to the far right- just an example of what happens when something like that survives.

I wouldn't exactly say he's the entire problem though. People basically know his template is conspiracies. His audience is to the fringe right. Tucker's the bigger issue because he presents himself as news but is the furthest thing from. He's right in Alex Jones propaganda but has a mainstream audience. The largest on cable tv.

 

[SithZedi]

For conservative media it's more about owning the left, lies & conspiracies, fear & hate, and vitriol IMO. There's not a lot of journalism, and often when they do debate on forums it gets vetted by more reliable sources. I'm not going to say they can't because they could, but they chose not to and are not accustomed to doing so. There isn't a whole lot of market for it. And I wonder if the reason conservative news is deemed in the minority because of their own lack of journalism.

So glad you explained the conservative media warts and all. Maybe just change the channel and watch something else that fits your worldview and you might live longer.

Too bad shows like "Crossfire" are off the air. The Buckley vs Chomsky, Left vs. conservative view debated face to face and viewers could make up there own mind. Shows like that do not exist anymore. Fox tried a few but they were versions of the Donahue show, i.e., entertainment vs intelligence, idiocracy at it's finest. If there a debate show anywhere in the rest of the media where both views are argued in a respectful manner, please let me know and I will give it a look. The rest is just biased fluff.

There is a famous university not far from me that graduates many in the field of journalism. If you trust the source, the make up your own mind about the possibility of the biases of universities and their students.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/columbia-university/totals?id=D000021927

 

[highfigh]

So glad you explained the conservative media warts and all. Maybe just change the channel and watch something else that fits your worldview and you might live longer.

Too bad shows like "Crossfire" are off the air. The Buckley vs Chomsky, Left vs. conservative view debated face to face and viewers could make up there own mind. Shows like that do not exist anymore. Fox tried a few but they were versions of the Donahue show, i.e., entertainment vs intelligence, idiocracy at it's finest. If there a debate show anywhere in the rest of the media where both views are argued in a respectful manner, please let me know and I will give it a look. The rest is just biased fluff.

There is a famous university not far from me that graduates many in the field of journalism. If you trust the source, the make up your own mind about the possibility of the biases of universities and their students.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/columbia-university/totals?id=D000021927

Why would people want to watch programming that makes them think?

 

[Dude#1279435]

So glad you explained the conservative media warts and all. Maybe just change the channel and watch something else that fits your worldview and you might live longer.

Too bad shows like "Crossfire" are off the air. The Buckley vs Chomsky, Left vs. conservative view debated face to face and viewers could make up there own mind. Shows like that do not exist anymore. Fox tried a few but they were versions of the Donahue show, i.e., entertainment vs intelligence, idiocracy at it's finest. If there a debate show anywhere in the rest of the media where both views are argued in a respectful manner, please let me know and I will give it a look. The rest is just biased fluff.

There is a famous university not far from me that graduates many in the field of journalism. If you trust the source, the make up your own mind about the possibility of the biases of universities and their students.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/columbia-university/totals?id=D000021927

That's the point: it doesn't exist. Therefore provide more solutions on your side, less propaganda, more journalism and policy-driven ideas. Maybe with that you'll have a greater share of the news market.

 

[SithZedi]

That's the point: it doesn't exist. Therefore provide more solutions on your side, less propaganda, more journalism and policy-driven ideas. Maybe with that you'll have a greater share of the news market.

The elite want the population to be stupid to protect and enrich themselves. That's the point. That's why it doesn't exist. And again, you are not recognizing the same issues and bias on the left side of the equation.

Just out of curiosity, put on your investigative journalist hat for a moment and analyze the following: Link provided earlier.

What does the fact that over 97% of Columbia University's donations to politicians in 2020 gave to Democrats say to you about possible bias?
In 2016, it was 97%. Before you throw up Trump as the issue, in 2012 it was 90% (Romney). In 2008, it was 91% (McCain).

Next question, could this 90% bias to Dems have an impact in a university classroom? The course material, on society, after they graduate? In places where they go to work?

Indulge me and write your story.

 

[Dude#1279435]

The elite want the population to be stupid to protect and enrich themselves. That's the point. That's why it doesn't exist. And again, you are not recognizing the same issues and bias on the left side of the equation.

Just out of curiosity, put on your investigative journalist hat for a moment and analyze the following: Link provided earlier.

What does the fact that over 97% of Columbia University's donations to politicians in 2020 gave to Democrats say to you about possible bias?
In 2016, it was 97%. Before you throw up Trump as the issue, in 2012 it was 90% (Romney). In 2008, it was 91% (McCain).

Next question, could this 90% bias to Dems have an impact in a university classroom? The course material, on society, after they graduate? In places where they go to work?

Indulge me and write your story.

Oh I dunno because Trump lost the election himself and lost all branches because he was a pivotal figure in all of it. Things like climate, tone, election fraud, things that can't be analyzed by a number or campaign percentage. You may also ask your self why it exists that way in the university's and maybe think on the lack of conservative philosophy, owning the libs, and come to the realization that maybe some of it is the inability to articulate a difference between the two party's. Ot worse you can't articulate a philosophy and make distinctions. I thought I once jokingly made a classroom scenario where the child understood better what the conservatives stand for than themselves. And no, it's not my fucking job to.spell it out for you peeps.

Edit: you really ought to quit romanticizing Trump and realize comparing him to Romney and McCain is silly. Trump is the golden example of behavior problems. Instead you might want to isolate him from the two and make your point.

Ok, so Columbia is very liberal. You might better attempt a natl example to prove your point.

 

[SithZedi]

Right I figured you'd punt. Other's have said it better.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Right I figured you'd punt. Other's have said it better.

Again you have to give me details on why my response is dumb. Just saying it's dumb in.a video doesn't impress me it is. What makes Columbia distinct that transcends across the nation? All I see is a very liberal university who set even higher campaign records against Trump. Again, you're providing ONE school as your thesis. You need to provide a national, geographical example and less assumption. Merely telling me to put on my journalistic cap while you provide a single example doesn't say to me your being journalistic. You still have to provide evidence beyond Columbia. It very well could be true but it's not impressing upon a liberal it is.

 

[Danzilla31]

Again you have to give me details on why my response is dumb. Just saying it's dumb in.a video doesn't impress me it is. What makes Columbia distinct that transcends across the nation? All I see is a very liberal university who set even higher campaign records against Trump. Again, you're providing ONE school as your thesis. You need to provide a national, geographical example and less assumption. Merely telling me to put on my journalistic cap while you provide a single example doesn't say to me your being journalistic. You still have to provide evidence beyond Columbia. It very well could be true but it's not impressing upon a liberal it is.

I think it's time for you to provide the data. Your asserting that leftwing mainstream media is better and doesn't have any of the problems the right-wing media has. Some of us have felt different posting links and explaining why we feel the way we do. Now either post links debunking the links we sent and especially post links validating what your claiming. I think some of us have been patient enough about this

And if you can't understand the point he's making in his last links and data I don't know what to tell you.

I'll ask you this. Over 90% of journalists now have university degrees. Whether media is left or right can you see the problem in this statistic? If you can't then I don't know if there's any point continuing this conversation.

 

[SithZedi]

Again you have to give me details on why my response is dumb. Just saying it's dumb in.a video doesn't impress me it is. What makes Columbia distinct that transcends across the nation? All I see is a very liberal university who set even higher campaign records against Trump. Again, you're providing ONE school as your thesis. You need to provide a national, geographical example and less assumption. Merely telling me to put on my journalistic cap while you provide a single example doesn't say to me your being journalistic. You still have to provide evidence beyond Columbia. It very well could be true but it's not impressing upon a liberal it is.

I do hope you are charging Trump rent for living in your head.
When or if you bother to do your homework on the earlier questions, you will see the same pattern at ALL the IVY leagues and large schools. Isn't that interesting at all to you? Does that motivate you in the least bit to get the answer for yourself or do others have do the work for you. Do you work for the government?

Merely telling me to put on my journalistic cap while you provide a single example doesn't say to me your being journalistic.

While you are at it, can you please translate or rephrase the above to me in English. It's not my first language but I am fairly fluent in it.

Also must I remind you yet again that the three branches of the US government are Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The Repubs did not lose the Supreme Court in 2020.

 

[shadyJ]

The elite want the population to be stupid to protect and enrich themselves. That's the point. That's why it doesn't exist. And again, you are not recognizing the same issues and bias on the left side of the equation.

Just out of curiosity, put on your investigative journalist hat for a moment and analyze the following: Link provided earlier.

What does the fact that over 97% of Columbia University's donations to politicians in 2020 gave to Democrats say to you about possible bias?
In 2016, it was 97%. Before you throw up Trump as the issue, in 2012 it was 90% (Romney). In 2008, it was 91% (McCain).

Next question, could this 90% bias to Dems have an impact in a university classroom? The course material, on society, after they graduate? In places where they go to work?

Indulge me and write your story.

The more educated you are, the more likely you are to lean left. The school you go to doesn't matter, nor does the type of degree that you get. Is all of academia a bunch of commies intent on brainwashing the naive minds of our nation's youth? Or perhaps the more knowledge you gain, the more you recognize that not everything is a black-and-white decision the way that conservatives frame every issue? To put it another way, you can be a conspiracy theory loon or perhaps see that the world doesn't conform to the fantastically stupid and simplistic layout of a conservative mindset.

 

[Danzilla31]

The more educated you are, the more likely you are to lean left. The school you go to doesn't matter, nor does the type of degree that you get. Is all of academia a bunch of commies intent on brainwashing the naive minds of our nation's youth? Or perhaps the more knowledge you gain, the more you recognize that not everything is a black-and-white decision the way that conservatives frame every issue? To put it another way, you can be a conspiracy theory loon or perhaps see that the world doesn't conform to the fantastically stupid and simplistic layout of a conservative mindset.

This is getting ridiculous for someone who says so much why do you always end up saying so little?

How about you post links PROVING on how conservatives only say everything is black or white?

Post links PROVING how conservatives are simplistic or fantastically stupid?

What's amusing is you just validated the first link I posted.

In her first link I posted Shady she talks about what you just said as being exactly the problem. How having a college degree is a big part of the issue for both the left and right journalists. Your statement completely validated what she said.

I'd spell it out for you but I want a response from a previous poster on why that is a problem. Besides it's obvious your to busy being stuck in your liberal bubble to consider anything outside of your perspective anyway

Here I have a link that perfectly describes you and your take on education

 

[Danzilla31]

The more educated you are, the more likely you are to lean left. The school you go to doesn't matter, nor does the type of degree that you get. Is all of academia a bunch of commies intent on brainwashing the naive minds of our nation's youth? Or perhaps the more knowledge you gain, the more you recognize that not everything is a black-and-white decision the way that conservatives frame every issue? To put it another way, you can be a conspiracy theory loon or perhaps see that the world doesn't conform to the fantastically stupid and simplistic layout of a conservative mindset.

Here you go Shady

Pop quiz. Which individual do I think you and a lot of left minded politically minded individuals are? Especially thanks to your so called degrees. Which clearly I mean we should all just see it, I mean its so obvious these degrees give you and other liberals the right to talk down to and get government to tell the rest of us clearly how we should be living our lives?

Especially since we're sooooooo dumb and racist and you and your political parties outlook is sooooooooo clearly superior?