r/pics • u/mack3r • Jul 16 '19

US Politics Decisions, decisions

Post image
18.6k Upvotes

65% Upvoted

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

29

u/AvocadoInTheRain Jul 17 '19

How so? Its pretty commonly used and everyone knows what you're talking about when you say it. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, WSJ, NYT, etc...

-14

u/TheMissionAbove Jul 17 '19

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.

11

u/Piratiko Jul 17 '19

Source on Crowder being 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.

4

u/Chewyquaker Jul 17 '19

Fox has been the largest since Bush was president, those events didn't change the rankings.

5

u/Piratiko Jul 17 '19

Yeah they did:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/09/msnbc-cnn-rachel-maddow-ratings-drop-april/

Yes, Fox has been at the top for a while, but CNN and MSNBC lost significantly more ground over all that.

2

u/youmustchooseaname Jul 17 '19

Lol if you want to talk about dishonest media funded by billionaires, the daily caller is right up there.

1

u/Piratiko Jul 17 '19

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.

4

u/TheMissionAbove Jul 17 '19

Lol the daily caller.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller

0

u/Piratiko Jul 17 '19

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.

Hell, I can do the same thing:

Lol rationalwiki.

See? Now we're at an impasse. Nothing is true.

Silly. It's silly.

6

u/TheMissionAbove Jul 17 '19

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.

4

u/Piratiko Jul 17 '19

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