11 months without politics (1 Viewer)

[Chemical X]

Just like the PSF has gone politics free, I CANNOT WAIT until this election is over. I'm starting to miss drug ads and their catchy jingles on my TV

dying for an ozempic dance-a-thon right about now.

 

[Sand]

There are so many places to discuss politics. Twitter, Reddit, Trump’s site, Facebook if you are a boomer you can go anywhere. Why do you need it here?

Not that I'm advocating for it's return, but the discussion in that forum was significantly more erudite than anywhere else I have seen.

 

[JAA]

There are so many places to discuss politics. Twitter, Reddit, Trump’s site, Facebook if you are a boomer you can go anywhere. Why do you need it here?

I left Twitter because it was impossible to wade through the bots and keep my feed clean, plus there are a lot of elements I try to avoid that are too easily accessible on there.

I've never done more than dip my toe into Reddit and feel like it is too Wild West/No Holds Barred territory for what I'm comfortable with.

Never tried Trump's site (Truth Social?) but not interested in an echo chamber.

Facebook is real world and I'm not setting myself up for major arguments with family and friends.

The PSF was ideal for me. Decently moderated and anonymous with a variety of viewpoints. It was gold, Jerry, gold.

I completely agree. The demographic of PSF fits they type of people I want to have these convo's with. Also, a lot of us have iknown each other for a long time and have a reasonable understanding of where folks are coming from. All at the same time being an internet make-believe world. Perfect for me

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The wife has threatened to divorce me if a certain person wins the election. I assume she's half joking but she's not laughing.

The woman I’m in a long distance relationship with presently has said she would end our relationship if I voted for a certain candidate.

I look at it as an easy out if I decide I want to end it.

The candidate is Deez Nuts, isn't it?

 

[djmich]

There are so many places to discuss politics. Twitter, Reddit, Trump’s site, Facebook if you are a boomer you can go anywhere. Why do you need it here?

I left Twitter because it was impossible to wade through the bots and keep my feed clean, plus there are a lot of elements I try to avoid that are too easily accessible on there.

I've never done more than dip my toe into Reddit and feel like it is too Wild West/No Holds Barred territory for what I'm comfortable with.

Never tried Trump's site (Truth Social?) but not interested in an echo chamber.

Facebook is real world and I'm not setting myself up for major arguments with family and friends.

The PSF was ideal for me. Decently moderated and anonymous with a variety of viewpoints. It was gold, Jerry, gold.

Twitter is more an alternative news source, short burst thought platform than an ongoing "debate" platform. Reddit is trashy. The PSF here had its faults, but there is no other place that really comes close to replicating the smaller, known participant environment in a lightly moderated platform. Not revisiting the decision and not mine to revisit...but this is why I participated in the psf.

 

[Willie Neslon]

There are so many places to discuss politics. Twitter, Reddit, Trump’s site, Facebook if you are a boomer you can go anywhere. Why do you need it here?

Because we have a familiarity with one another here. The other places you mentioned mostly feature random comments from unknowns, where comments are posted for strangers to read. Here we can talk with people we've known, in some cases, for decades. That's why we keep coming back. I enjoy reading opinions from most people here, even if I disagree with them. I might be in the minority but I believe the Politics forum was a positive overall for the site. I still think it could have worked if those same few people who always turned the discussion into personal attacks had been banned.

 

[opensourcebeer]

In my 50+ years, I've never seen this country so divided. Politics & media is to blame.
The wife has threatened to divorce me if a certain person wins the election. I assume she's half joking but she's not laughing.
It's kind of laughable that candidates are campaigning for the "undecided" vote. Is that like 2% of the population?
There is no middle ground to the point where both parties make decisions based on what's best for their party and or how to screw the other party ... vs. what's best for the country.
We really need some new blood that isn't so "party loyal" but it would be impossible for those persons to win now.
I don't see this getting better anytime soon.

Neither do I. Now more than ever a large segment of the American population views everything in their life through a partisan political lense. Their identity is tied to their political affiliation. It is bananas to me.

I've got friends on both sides of the political spectrum and it's absolutely crazy to listen to them parrot whatever CNN or Fox is telling them to be angry at or scared of. My belief is the American public is being manipulated on an unbelievable scale at this point.

For myself, I minimize my news and social media consumption. For whatever is consumed, the instant when whatever I'm consuming makes me angry or fearful (especially if it's direct towards other Americans or about stuff that doesn't affect me in the least), I know I'm being manipulated.

 

[JAA]

I am super surprised by the votes.

What is surprising to me is how the PSF was isolated and not part of FFA. Why would anyone vote no when all they had to do was to not look at that entire forum?

 

[Capella]

Because we have a familiarity with one another here.

That’s the reason not to have politics here. Why learn to hate people you like. Go to Reddit and argue with some anonymous 20 year old incels.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Just like the PSF has gone politics free, I CANNOT WAIT until this election is over. I'm starting to miss drug ads and their catchy jingles on my TV

dying for an ozempic dance-a-thon right about now.

Drugged people are happy people.

 

[The Gator]

I am super surprised by the votes.

What is surprising to me is how the PSF was isolated and not part of FFA. Why would anyone vote no when all they had to do was to not look at that entire forum?

Because the bad eggs on both sides didn’t leave their differences in the PSF. It spilled into other forums

 

[JAA]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

 

[the moops]

Feel like we have this discussion every month or so. It's not coming back guys. Let it go

 

[KarmaPolice]

As far as why people get angry about our politics...I mean, there is some life/death stuff going on with it so there are some legitimate reasons to be angry.

Yes, there can be reasons for anger, as you say the "issues" have life and death consequences.

My problem in 2024 is that people can't even get to that point in the discussion. Now all people seem to need to know about you to determine your thinking and character is the person you vote for. Disagreeing with me about some of those life and death issues is what makes this country great, as long as we don't lose sight that we are all largely just trying to do what's best or ourselves and our families. Far more common now is just to jump to the name calling and assumptions. The conversations either go to people being pedos/racists/fascists/bootlickers/whatever for voting a certain way, or I am told I believe x, y, and z because of how I voted.

I like to blame most on social media and the our "news", but at some point we have to take ownership. I am surprised at how many people have gotten sucked into this stuff and turned so hard on people they interact with every day.

 

[titusbramble]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

IMO there is no perfect one stop shopping, and I do similar to you. Along with sites like Reuters and BBC you listed above, I like to throw in podcasts that at least attempt to have multiple perspectives. Also, I think people try too hard to avoid bias. To me that is not the issue, factual reporting and being honest about your bias is important.

 

[beer 30]

argue with some anonymous 20 year old incels

Wait, you're saying that's not what's happening here?

 

[KarmaPolice]

There are so many places to discuss politics. Twitter, Reddit, Trump’s site, Facebook if you are a boomer you can go anywhere. Why do you need it here?

A big reason I liked to talk politics here is because through the decades many of us have been around I came to realize what a quality group of intelligent, caring people we had on the boards. You get a built in good group of people to talk to without the risk of having to deal with Betty at work or crazy Uncle Joe. I thought it was a great resource for different POVs, articles, and ideas. Too bad in the last couple decades we have collectively lost our minds and can't talk like grown ups about politics.

ETA: Sorry, I see 3-4 people posted basically the same.

 

[dgreen]

I am super surprised by the votes.

What is surprising to me is how the PSF was isolated and not part of FFA. Why would anyone vote no when all they had to do was to not look at that entire forum?

Because the bad eggs on both sides didn’t leave their differences in the PSF. It spilled into other forums

I believe there were a few bad eggs who were intentional in what they did. There were others whose main problem was self control. To suggest "all they had to do was not look at the entire forum" is to rely on self control. We could also suggest "all they had to do was read and not comment" or "all they had to do was comment in a way that is being excellent to each other", but neither of those could happen. Obviously it wasn't everyone. Quite a few were capable of engaging in conversation while being excellent. They had that kind of self control. I'm sure many read the forum but didn't comment much. They had that self control. And then I remember some people who would "quit" the PSF and not look at the entire forum, showing their own self control. However, that still left quite a few people who lacked the self control.

We, as a community, lacked self control so Joe took that temptation away from us.

ETA: We even lack the self control to put someone on ignore. The ignore feature was suggested about 100 times before the plug was pulled on the PSF. But many people refused.

 

[massraider]

When grown adults can't resist flinging poo, they get treated like kindergarteners. The psf brought out the poo flingers.

I get it, people like their safe spaces.

Exactly! Just like that. Excellent example of what he was talking about!

 

[massraider]

argue with some anonymous 20 year old incels

Wait, you're saying that's not what's happening here?

That's Reddit

 

[Sand]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

Breaking Points on Youtube is pretty good and is reasonably neutral (and has gotten pretty large because of it).

 

[KarmaPolice]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

Breaking Points on Youtube is pretty good and is reasonably neutral (and has gotten pretty large because of it).

I like it better when Ryan and Emily are on, but that is a pod I listen to. One thing I started following was the service that Ryan and Jeremy Scahill started.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I am super surprised by the votes.

What is surprising to me is how the PSF was isolated and not part of FFA. Why would anyone vote no when all they had to do was to not look at that entire forum?

Because the bad eggs on both sides didn’t leave their differences in the PSF. It spilled into other forums

I believe there were a few bad eggs who were intentional in what they did. There were others whose main problem was self control. To suggest "all they had to do was not look at the entire forum" is to rely on self control. We could also suggest "all they had to do was read and not comment" or "all they had to do was comment in a way that is being excellent to each other", but neither of those could happen. Obviously it wasn't everyone. Quite a few were capable of engaging in conversation while being excellent. They had that kind of self control. I'm sure many read the forum but didn't comment much. They had that self control. And then I remember some people who would "quit" the PSF and not look at the entire forum, showing their own self control. However, that still left quite a few people who lacked the self control.

We, as a community, lacked self control so Joe took that temptation away from us.

ETA: We even lack the self control to put someone on ignore. The ignore feature was suggested about 100 times before the plug was pulled on the PSF. But many people refused.

I agree. People are overstating the percentage of posters that acted in good faith in the PSF. People keep referring to the bad actors as if it were a couple of people, but the reality is that the good faith discussions were a minority, and the forum was filled with the same kind of click baity misleading headlines on both sides that you see scrolling on social media. And then those posts would show up on the "latest posts" section right on the front page of the forums and suck people in with the salacious titles.

 

[Joe Bryant]

There are so many places to discuss politics. Twitter, Reddit, Trump’s site, Facebook if you are a boomer you can go anywhere. Why do you need it here?

I left Twitter because it was impossible to wade through the bots and keep my feed clean, plus there are a lot of elements I try to avoid that are too easily accessible on there.

I've never done more than dip my toe into Reddit and feel like it is too Wild West/No Holds Barred territory for what I'm comfortable with.

Never tried Trump's site (Truth Social?) but not interested in an echo chamber.

Facebook is real world and I'm not setting myself up for major arguments with family and friends.

The PSF was ideal for me. Decently moderated and anonymous with a variety of viewpoints. It was gold, Jerry, gold.

I would suggest Reddit. It's the closest thing to what we had and that will be your best bet.

 

[djmich]

I am super surprised by the votes.

What is surprising to me is how the PSF was isolated and not part of FFA. Why would anyone vote no when all they had to do was to not look at that entire forum?

Because the bad eggs on both sides didn’t leave their differences in the PSF. It spilled into other forums

I believe there were a few bad eggs who were intentional in what they did. There were others whose main problem was self control. To suggest "all they had to do was not look at the entire forum" is to rely on self control. We could also suggest "all they had to do was read and not comment" or "all they had to do was comment in a way that is being excellent to each other", but neither of those could happen. Obviously it wasn't everyone. Quite a few were capable of engaging in conversation while being excellent. They had that kind of self control. I'm sure many read the forum but didn't comment much. They had that self control. And then I remember some people who would "quit" the PSF and not look at the entire forum, showing their own self control. However, that still left quite a few people who lacked the self control.

We, as a community, lacked self control so Joe took that temptation away from us.

ETA: We even lack the self control to put someone on ignore. The ignore feature was suggested about 100 times before the plug was pulled on the PSF. But many people refused.

I agree. People are overstating the percentage of posters that acted in good faith in the PSF. People keep referring to the bad actors as if it were a couple of people, but the reality is that the good faith discussions were a minority, and the forum was filled with the same kind of click baity misleading headlines on both sides that you see scrolling on social media. And then those posts would show up on the "latest posts" section right on the front page of the forums and suck people in with the salacious titles.

This is true. There were great posters and posts, but almost always the threads were littered with trash. I think I have an usually high threshold for and ability to ignore trash to get to pearls, most don't.

 

[Chemical X]

until this country has more than 2 parties, what’s the point? seriously, what is the point? there is no choice….

 

[djmich]

There are so many places to discuss politics. Twitter, Reddit, Trump’s site, Facebook if you are a boomer you can go anywhere. Why do you need it here?

Why do you need to discuss music, bourbon, vacations, or anything besides football, on a football site?

 

[JAA]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

 

[djmich]

Feel like we have this discussion every month or so. It's not coming back guys. Let it go

About half the threads on page one are more than 5yrs old lol, the forum is essentially re-hashing the same conversations lol.

 

[djmich]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

No, you're not, if you only follow one chamber. Like KP said, bias is fine (its healthy even), if you can identify it.

 

[Sand]

I would suggest Reddit. It's the closest thing to what we had and that will be your best bet.

Reddit doesn't hold a candle. Totally elitist here, but there is a wide gulf of difference.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I agree. People are overstating the percentage of posters that acted in good faith in the PSF. People keep referring to the bad actors as if it were a couple of people, but the reality is that the good faith discussions were a minority, and the forum was filled with the same kind of click baity misleading headlines you see scrolling on social media. And then they'd show up on the "latest posts" section right on the front page of the forums and suck people in with the salacious titles.

This happened to me a lot. I'd make it a point to not go in the PSF, but then I'd see one of those headlines and click it and read the thread trying to figure out how close the crazy title was to the truth.

It's easy to say "well just don't click" but harder in practice. I found the easier way to avoid that trap was to just not come to the forums at all.

 

[JAA]

I would suggest Reddit. It's the closest thing to what we had and that will be your best bet.

Reddit doesn't hold a candle. Totally elitist here, but there is a wide gulf of difference.

My experience on reddit is detail is very thin. Yes, you often see some interesting questions and answers. However, most of the time its a solid question, some snarky remarks, maybe 1 response, then closed thread.

 

[fatness]

People are overstating the percentage of posters that acted in good faith in the PSF. People keep referring to the bad actors as if it were a couple of people, but the reality is that the good faith discussions were a minority, and the forum was filled with the same kind of click baity misleading headlines on both sides that you see scrolling on social media.

I agree. There was more desire to fight and win in the PSF than desire to engage in honest discussion.

 

[Desert_Power]

I am super surprised by the votes.

What is surprising to me is how the PSF was isolated and not part of FFA. Why would anyone vote no when all they had to do was to not look at that entire forum?

Because the bad eggs on both sides didn’t leave their differences in the PSF. It spilled into other forums

I believe there were a few bad eggs who were intentional in what they did. There were others whose main problem was self control. To suggest "all they had to do was not look at the entire forum" is to rely on self control. We could also suggest "all they had to do was read and not comment" or "all they had to do was comment in a way that is being excellent to each other", but neither of those could happen. Obviously it wasn't everyone. Quite a few were capable of engaging in conversation while being excellent. They had that kind of self control. I'm sure many read the forum but didn't comment much. They had that self control. And then I remember some people who would "quit" the PSF and not look at the entire forum, showing their own self control. However, that still left quite a few people who lacked the self control.

We, as a community, lacked self control so Joe took that temptation away from us.

ETA: We even lack the self control to put someone on ignore. The ignore feature was suggested about 100 times before the plug was pulled on the PSF. But many people refused.

The ignore feature got really good with one of the board upgrades too. Was probably too far gone to save at that point.

 

[titusbramble]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

Yes. The point is that with independent, individual reporting, they have no bias dictated to from above, and anything that is said can be freely challenged and debated and, if found to be clear bollocks, community noted. Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

 

[Chemical X]

I am super surprised by the votes.

What is surprising to me is how the PSF was isolated and not part of FFA. Why would anyone vote no when all they had to do was to not look at that entire forum?

Because the bad eggs on both sides didn’t leave their differences in the PSF. It spilled into other forums

I believe there were a few bad eggs who were intentional in what they did. There were others whose main problem was self control. To suggest "all they had to do was not look at the entire forum" is to rely on self control. We could also suggest "all they had to do was read and not comment" or "all they had to do was comment in a way that is being excellent to each other", but neither of those could happen. Obviously it wasn't everyone. Quite a few were capable of engaging in conversation while being excellent. They had that kind of self control. I'm sure many read the forum but didn't comment much. They had that self control. And then I remember some people who would "quit" the PSF and not look at the entire forum, showing their own self control. However, that still left quite a few people who lacked the self control.

We, as a community, lacked self control so Joe took that temptation away from us.

ETA: We even lack the self control to put someone on ignore. The ignore feature was suggested about 100 times before the plug was pulled on the PSF. But many people refused.

The ignore feature got really good with one of the board upgrades too. Was probably too far gone to save at that point.

i love the ignore feature. it’s underutilized IMO. best part is that it hides threads started by ignored posters!

 

[The General]

I miss that place!

 

[Eephus]

Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

You could probably find a better example

 

[djmich]

Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

You could probably find a better example

The only thing that should be changed is that he “tells it likes he sees it” rather than “Telling it like it is”. Like it is implies there’s only one viewpoint and Carlsons is always correct.

 

[titusbramble]

Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

You could probably find a better example

Define better?

 

[opensourcebeer]

Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

You could probably find a better example

The only thing that should be changed is that he “tells it likes he sees it” rather than “Telling it like it is”. Like it is implies there’s only one viewpoint and Carlsons is always correct.

Trying to classify Tucker as providing news to the American public is just silly. His commentary is a mechanism to make people afraid and angry.

 

[Gatorade]

In my 50+ years, I've never seen this country so divided. Politics & media is to blame.
The wife has threatened to divorce me if a certain person wins the election. I assume she's half joking but she's not laughing.
It's kind of laughable that candidates are campaigning for the "undecided" vote. Is that like 2% of the population?
There is no middle ground to the point where both parties make decisions based on what's best for their party and or how to screw the other party ... vs. what's best for the country.
We really need some new blood that isn't so "party loyal" but it would be impossible for those persons to win now.
I don't see this getting better anytime soon.

Lots of people threatened to leave the country in a recent election. They did not. Hopefully your wife will do the sensible thing and stay put.

 

[Eephus]

Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

You could probably find a better example

Define better?

There are lots of independent voices on Twitter who haven't been accused of connections with RT by the Prime Minister of Canada

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

You could probably find a better example

The only thing that should be changed is that he “tells it likes he sees it” rather than “Telling it like it is”. Like it is implies there’s only one viewpoint and Carlsons is always correct.

Trying to classify Tucker as providing news to the American public is just silly. His commentary is a mechanism to make people afraid and angry.

Didn't he literally testify under oath that he didn't actually believe many of the things he reported, as well as have many texts leaked saying the same?

And perhaps even worse, didn't Fox successfully defend Tucker in a slander lawsuit years ago by saying that he doesn't actually report news, but rather "non-literal commentary" so he shouldn't be held to the standards of news reporting?

Like probably the single worst example that could be brought up to prove the point at hand, lol.

 

[djmich]

Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

You could probably find a better example

The only thing that should be changed is that he “tells it likes he sees it” rather than “Telling it like it is”. Like it is implies there’s only one viewpoint and Carlsons is always correct.

Trying to classify Tucker as providing news to the American public is just silly. His commentary is a mechanism to make people afraid and angry.

Didn't he literally testify under oath that he didn't actually believe many of the things he reported, as well as have many texts leaked saying the same?

And perhaps even worse, didn't Fox successfully defend Tucker in a slander lawsuit years ago by saying that he doesn't actually report news, but rather "non-literal commentary" so he shouldn't be held to the standards of news reporting?

Like probably the single worst example that could be brought up to prove the point at hand, lol.

I'm confused. I'd consider Tucker opinion more than news reporting. DId titus say he was a news reporter?

He was brought up by titus as someone who specifically is now independent and not beholden to what his network wants him to tell. So providing examples of him not reporting the news and not believing things he reported while working for Fox would seem to support that argument.

I'm not a Tucker fan, but trying to focus on the facts around why he was referenced.

 

[Mookie]

Can't see this thread lasting if it stays on current topic. Let it go.

Not my forum and not my rules, but eliminating the PSF really watered things down IMO. My reaction is meh. I don't miss the trolling or the whining, but it was a great place for up to date information and viewpoints. It's a lot more boring around here now, which was probably the intended result.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

You could probably find a better example

The only thing that should be changed is that he “tells it likes he sees it” rather than “Telling it like it is”. Like it is implies there’s only one viewpoint and Carlsons is always correct.

Trying to classify Tucker as providing news to the American public is just silly. His commentary is a mechanism to make people afraid and angry.

Didn't he literally testify under oath that he didn't actually believe many of the things he reported, as well as have many texts leaked saying the same?

And perhaps even worse, didn't Fox successfully defend Tucker in a slander lawsuit years ago by saying that he doesn't actually report news, but rather "non-literal commentary" so he shouldn't be held to the standards of news reporting?

Like probably the single worst example that could be brought up to prove the point at hand, lol.

I'm confused. I'd consider Tucker opinion more than news reporting. DId titus say he was a news reporter?

He was brought up by titus as someone who specifically is now independent and not beholden to what his network wants him to tell. So providing examples of him not reporting the news and not believing things he reported while working for Fox would seem to support that argument.

I'm not a Tucker fan, but trying to focus on the facts around why he was referenced.

Well that specific rhetoric/topic is the same topic/rhetoric he still "reports" now independently, even after texts and testimony came out that it's not actually what he believes.

Also I was being generous with the "non literal commentary" mention. The entire quote from the judge was

"“Fox persuasively argues . . . that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism about the statements he makes." and continues that, via his own defense's framing, "exaggeration, non-literal commentary, simply bloviating for his audience, and as such are not actionable [as slander]".

 

[titusbramble]

Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

You could probably find a better example

Define better?

There are lots of independent voices on Twitter who haven't been accused of connections with RT by the Prime Minister of Canada

Unsure if bait or serious. Either way, this reply is why we can't discuss politics