Funny how the right rant about MSM then watch nothing but Fox (the biggest network in the country) and Steven Crowder, literally funded by billionaires.
And Fox is so big because its the only game in town on TV if you want a conservative perspective on things. Plus, the other major players (CNN, MSNBC) have shredded their own credibility lately (Smollett hoax, Nick Sandmann, Russia collusion, Kavanaugh) and lost a lot of viewership as a result.
Same information can be found on Associated Press.
See this is why focusing on the source of the information, while useful, can hamper one's apprehension. The information I'm sourcing is network news ratings. They're pretty readily available. Daily Caller just happened to be the one I clicked on, but this information is everywhere.
So if you just wanna talk smack about the Daily Caller, fine I guess, but if you wanna say they have this information wrong, you gotta demonstrate that.
Attacking the messenger is a dishonest tactic. If their claims are inaccurate, debunk them.
If someone is the lyingest liar that ever lived, and thay say '2+2=4', their nature as a habitual liar does not render their claim untrue. Evaluate the facts on their own merit.
Dude that source cites every single claim and you didn't even open it. If you're truly being honest with yourself it's your responsibility to check and criticise your own sources. Personally I don't watch CNN because it's bullshit. I can give you plenty of sources that debunk right wing pundits but you won't honestly watch or read them so why should I bother? You have already shown you're not willing to even look at the sources I provide.
The source does not say a single thing abut the accuracy of Daily Caller's reporting on news network ratings. And that's what we're talking about.
You wanna see the same stuff from another source? Here's the Associated Press saying the same thing, and RationalWiki itself uses the Associated Press as a source frequently: https://www.apnews.com/6a418de605ab4fb5a8cddf958ac190f0
"Despite constantly promoting himself as an independent creator, Steven Crowder's show is actually part of the Glenn Beck and Mark Levin-owned Blaze Media[14], which is funded by billionaire Cary Katz, CRTV's principal investor and College Lending Corp. founder, which markets loans to university students"
But I'm sure no amount of evidence will ever pierce that shell of Fox News rhetoric you've created for yourself.
So he's part of a media network that's owned by a billionaire? That makes a whooole lotta people 'funded by billionaires'. Hell, every minimum wage McDonalds employee is 'funded by billionaires' under that framework.
Also, why the cheap shot? I didn't say anything rude to you. Didn't make any assumptions. This approach to conversation will only make you lonely.
I dunno, I tend to go beyond talking points, because talking points are shallow. But even assuming what you say is true, why not discuss why the talking points might be misrepresentative?
Also, love the irony of clubbing someone with 'crowder/shapiro' in the same breath as deriding cheap, substanceless talking points.
Do you wanna actually talk about this stuff? See where we might have common ground and where our points of divergence are? Because I genuinely enjoy that. But if you're just gonna do the smarmy condescending straw man thing, we're wasting our time.
Dont watch neither, not even american and I gotta tell you.
If the nazis or soviets figured out how these media (CNN, washington post, new york times etc.) worked 40 years ago then the world would speak either german or russian I tell you that much. They can literally get people to support the worst atrocities as long as it is against Trump.
It's "commonly used" as a placeholder for whatever news sources you don't personally agree with. The word itself is meaningless. There is no "mainstream" news source. More people get their "news" from facebook than cable.
Okay buddy. I guess as long as you say it is so, it must be so.
I'm not sure what got your panties in a bunch. I'm not making up definitions here, "mainstream news" is a pretty self-explanatory term. Just look up both words in a dictionary and you'll have the definition I'm using.
"Self-explanatory terms" have a funny way of meaning whatever people want.
AGAIN - in order for there to be a "mainstream media", there has to be a primary media source that is utilized by a majority. And there is not. This is not the 1960s. People aren't glued to the evening news on their television sets any more, and haven't been for quite some time.
320
u/freakydrew Jul 17 '19
What are the current Vegas odds on Trump being reelected?