The “Woke” thread (2 Viewers)

[quick-hands]

Lately we're seeing a rise woke-ism where it has turned the corner and become racist itself in it's effort to be woke. I continue to believe that racism cannot be solved with more racism.

Today's example of this is from Berkley:

Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones

After we published this op-ed by Kenneth Marcus, Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkeley School of Law, sent us a response. You can read it below, followed by a response from Marcus.

jewishjournal.com

Interesting article. It appears that those groups are anti-Israel. Which is certainly a legitimate point of view and not necessarily anti-Semitic. But that article just eliminates the difference between the two.

I’d be interested to know if those law groups will invite speakers who are Jewish but don’t support Israel’s actions. I reckon they would but I don’t know that for sure.

I mean, there is not a lot of air between Jewish and pro-Israel. That's like trying to find the subset of Bostonians that are not pro-America and think we should give it back to the natives.

Basically, it's splitting hairs to say this isn't racist IMO

I disagree strongly with this. I am Jewish and have been a supporter of Israel my entire life until a short time ago. I can no longer support them because I believe their policies towards the Palestinians are inhumane. I don’t believe that criticizing Israel has anything to do with anti-semitism.

Listen, if you do support Israel, you're not welcome on campus to discuss microbiology, ethics, mathematics, or climate science. Given the vast majority of Jewish people support Israel, this is a defacto racist policy. I don't know how else you can see it.

because he agrees with it.

 

[djmich]

I think it’s fair to say that one does not have to look far to find past or current us policies that have been inhumane. Should you be allowed on campus if you support the US?

 

[KarmaPolice]

So if we believe that it’s about equality and not equity, that that is what most want. Why is the headline initiative throughout business and and elsewhere called Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

Why not Equality?

That's a good question.

The concept of equity is a good one imo. The more equitably things are distributed generally the better.

But the idea that equity is an imperfect outcome based on equality of opportunity, which imo is the right model, I think is at risk. I think that’s not good and that there are many people that are much more focused in straight equity, by intentionally disrupting equality.

Case in point I saw a LinkedIn post last week that was ripping on Apple because their executive team was not diverse enough. Now the entire photo wasn’t included because there were more women left off and that was better for the authors point…but that’s secondary to the observation.

All of the comments were basically some variation of “this is in unacceptable” and “Steve jobs and Apple are racist/discriminating and need to do better”. Nobody really asked…do we think Steve Jobs is a racist and did not interview minorities, intentionally even. Is it not important that there was equality in the hiring process…as in the most qualified candidates were considered. Everyone went right to if it’s not equitable it’s wrong. I think people are more focused on equity that you’d like to admit.

I get what you are saying, and of course I could be wrong. It's just not my experience in my 47 years.

My position is that I believe the VAST majority of humans are rational. I think if we sat everyone down at these companies and lay our a couple options:

1. We are hiring only certain groups so we can achieve x% of every type of person.

2. We are taking steps to make sure that we are hiring the best people, and that includes looking at hiring, promoting procedures to make sure we aren't excluding people or options.

How many people at the end of the day do you think truly would want option #1? Maybe your experience is different, but I say hardly anyone.

To me the rest is mostly catchphrases, morphing of terms, SM junk, etc.

I think a just as likely answer to your question is that the people doing these presentations are distracted, lazy, using a popular catch word, whatever. I think that is more likely than that person truly believing in equity.

 

[FairWarning]

It could be both, but we know how the media lives a good story and run with it, now it’s a big deal.

I asked because I don't know. I understand why the media wants to cover the story. It's a "first". I understand why the director wants to hype his movie (it's his movie, duh...).

I don't understand why the director wants to call people out, unless he's going with the "any publicity is good publicity" theory.

I haven't followed the story closely, but to date, I haven't seen the media calling people out. I've seen them publish the director's comments, but there's nothing wrong with the media doing that. If the media calls people out directly, I'd agree that's inappropriate. You seem to be implying that the media is doing so, but I haven't seen that (yet).

I subscribe to your theory that any attention is good attention. Media will run with it though and add some opinion.

 

[Rich Conway]

It could be both, but we know how the media lives a good story and run with it, now it’s a big deal.

I asked because I don't know. I understand why the media wants to cover the story. It's a "first". I understand why the director wants to hype his movie (it's his movie, duh...).

I don't understand why the director wants to call people out, unless he's going with the "any publicity is good publicity" theory.

I haven't followed the story closely, but to date, I haven't seen the media calling people out. I've seen them publish the director's comments, but there's nothing wrong with the media doing that. If the media calls people out directly, I'd agree that's inappropriate. You seem to be implying that the media is doing so, but I haven't seen that (yet).

I subscribe to your theory that any attention is good attention. Media will run with it though and add some opinion.

I think we're on the same page here, except for the last sentence. You seem to be preemptively criticizing the media for something you think they'll do, but for which we haven't seen any evidence yet. It's certainly a possibility, but I'll hold my criticism until it actually happens.

 

[djmich]

So if we believe that it’s about equality and not equity, that that is what most want. Why is the headline initiative throughout business and and elsewhere called Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

Why not Equality?

That's a good question.

The concept of equity is a good one imo. The more equitably things are distributed generally the better.

But the idea that equity is an imperfect outcome based on equality of opportunity, which imo is the right model, I think is at risk. I think that’s not good and that there are many people that are much more focused in straight equity, by intentionally disrupting equality.

Case in point I saw a LinkedIn post last week that was ripping on Apple because their executive team was not diverse enough. Now the entire photo wasn’t included because there were more women left off and that was better for the authors point…but that’s secondary to the observation.

All of the comments were basically some variation of “this is in unacceptable” and “Steve jobs and Apple are racist/discriminating and need to do better”. Nobody really asked…do we think Steve Jobs is a racist and did not interview minorities, intentionally even. Is it not important that there was equality in the hiring process…as in the most qualified candidates were considered. Everyone went right to if it’s not equitable it’s wrong. I think people are more focused on equity that you’d like to admit.

I get what you are saying, and of course I could be wrong. It's just not my experience in my 47 years.

My position is that I believe the VAST majority of humans are rational. I think if we sat everyone down at these companies and lay our a couple options:

1. We are hiring only certain groups so we can achieve x% of every type of person.

2. We are taking steps to make sure that we are hiring the best people, and that includes looking at hiring, promoting procedures to make sure we aren't excluding people or options.

How many people at the end of the day do you think truly would want option #1? Maybe your experience is different, but I say hardly anyone.

To me the rest is mostly catchphrases, morphing of terms, SM junk, etc.

I think a just as likely answer to your question is that the people doing these presentations are distracted, lazy, using a popular catch word, whatever. I think that is more likely than that person truly believing in equity.

I think you are right in that “most” people favor 2vs1.

I think that very many people (not sure if most…yet) when they see the outcomes of #2 they then say if the outcomes don’t look like #1 then there was something inherently racist or discriminatory in the process. Which drives people and businesses to move towards #1…or else be branded a racist.

 

[jon_mx]

Lately we're seeing a rise woke-ism where it has turned the corner and become racist itself in it's effort to be woke. I continue to believe that racism cannot be solved with more racism.

Today's example of this is from Berkley:

Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones

After we published this op-ed by Kenneth Marcus, Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkeley School of Law, sent us a response. You can read it below, followed by a response from Marcus.

jewishjournal.com

The woke movement (and the associated gender ideology, women studies, critical race theory), has always been rooted in racism and tearing down the system that empowers the whites (capitalism). But when they are rallying against the white male conservative hierarchy and spewing hatred, no one on the left cared as white male conservatives deserve to be scorned and shouted down and kicked off campus.

I don't agree with you on these points. I believe for the vast majority it is about equality. For some it might be as you suggest. For some it might just be that they like to virtue signal. But for most, it's simply about all people having equal opportunities.

It is true for people who talk about equity instead of equality. To achieve equity one must use the full force of government to achieve the desired outcome. Equity means tyranny, equality means freedom. Today's leftist demands equity.

I think the bold is where you two disagree, and I believe it's the answer to Hulk's question as to why you guys care about stuff like the movie writer's comments - you think it's far more common on the left and in general than most of the people you are talking to do.

You skip right over the bolded part of his post, post about what is true about leftists. You two probably agree 100% about what they need to achieve equity - I would just be very suprised if you two would be close at all if I asked you to post your opinions on what % of people want to achieve that vs. want equal opportunity.

This desire for equity (equal outcomes) visual equality (equal opportunity) is the current drilling force behind the political divide. If you don't understand that this desire for gender ideology, feminists, and BLM/CRT is driven by the desire for equity and tearing down the white male western hierarchy including the basic concepts of capitalism, you are are not paying attention and it is very much a major part of modern leftist politicals and the Democratic platform. And I realize most Democrats may not even realize it. But this neo-marxist movement is real and is thousands of time bigger and more influential than some boogeyman white supremacy non-sense which is relegated to a handful of kooks playing in the woods.

 

[(HULK)]

"“Do you guys remember straight people?” a character quips in the new trailer for the Billy Eichner co-written and starring rom-com ‘Bros’. “Yeah, they had a nice run,” agrees another."

Yeah, I don't think insulting a majority of people is a way to market your movie and then cry when no one goes to see it. You're basically telling them not to see it.

Now imagine if another movie had said that about gay people? What do you think the reaction would have been? Squistion would have been in here immediately claiming that the racist boogeyman is not only around every corner, but in everybody's house and closet.

Bigotry is a two way street.

Can I ask why any of you care what Billy Eichner is saying to promote a movie he made.

If Kevin Sorbo made a movie and said, "You'll love it if you're not a fascist Antifa loving Marxist commie-Nazi" I'd just ignore and move on with my life and not see the movie or even care if anyone does.

So, why do you care about this?


//also, I have zero interest in seeing this movie. I guess if it was the inflight movie option I'd watch it and give it a chance, but romance and romantic comedies are not typically the type of movies I seek out.

ETA: End of the day, I don't have any cares left over for "whatever Billy Eichner" thinks. Much like I don't care what the bee thinks when I spray the stupid clover that keeps invading my lawn.

Because you are on a message board where the topic is "woke."

I guess I just consider him a ridiculous cartoon much like Sorbo is. Why bother being bothered by him?

Why bother being bothered by people bothered?

I'm not. I'm asking them a question. Why do they care what this like F list celebrity says about his movie he's promoting? It's not an insult or meant to be dismissive. I do not understand why it bothers them. When I think of similar things they just simply don't register for me as anything I care about in the slightest. They do and I'm curious at to why. Make sense?

Probably a better question is why is the media covering his thoughts? If it were not a gay movie, they wouldn’t.

You're most likely correct. No one covers Kevin Sorbo's flops.

 

[(HULK)]

Lately we're seeing a rise woke-ism where it has turned the corner and become racist itself in it's effort to be woke. I continue to believe that racism cannot be solved with more racism.

Today's example of this is from Berkley:

Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones

After we published this op-ed by Kenneth Marcus, Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkeley School of Law, sent us a response. You can read it below, followed by a response from Marcus.

jewishjournal.com

The woke movement (and the associated gender ideology, women studies, critical race theory), has always been rooted in racism and tearing down the system that empowers the whites (capitalism). But when they are rallying against the white male conservative hierarchy and spewing hatred, no one on the left cared as white male conservatives deserve to be scorned and shouted down and kicked off campus.

I don't agree with you on these points. I believe for the vast majority it is about equality. For some it might be as you suggest. For some it might just be that they like to virtue signal. But for most, it's simply about all people having equal opportunities.

It is true for people who talk about equity instead of equality. To achieve equity one must use the full force of government to achieve the desired outcome. Equity means tyranny, equality means freedom. Today's leftist demands equity.

I think the bold is where you two disagree, and I believe it's the answer to Hulk's question as to why you guys care about stuff like the movie writer's comments - you think it's far more common on the left and in general than most of the people you are talking to do.

You skip right over the bolded part of his post, post about what is true about leftists. You two probably agree 100% about what they need to achieve equity - I would just be very suprised if you two would be close at all if I asked you to post your opinions on what % of people want to achieve that vs. want equal opportunity.

To put my thoughts on this as succinctly as possible: I think we should aggressively pursue equality of opportunity and aggressively ignore equality of outcome.

 

[(HULK)]

Probably a better question is why is the media covering his thoughts? If it were not a gay movie, they wouldn’t.

Isn't this the first "major movie release" of a gay rom-com? Like it or not, the media has always been focused on "firsts". First female referee, first female NFL coach, first black QB, first gay...

I have no idea, I usually don't try and see rom-coms... only see them due to the wife.

I did see Brokeback Mountain and honestly, it was a good movie. Also it helped that Anne Hathaway got topless.

 

[Boston]

"“Do you guys remember straight people?” a character quips in the new trailer for the Billy Eichner co-written and starring rom-com ‘Bros’. “Yeah, they had a nice run,” agrees another."

Yeah, I don't think insulting a majority of people is a way to market your movie and then cry when no one goes to see it. You're basically telling them not to see it.

Now imagine if another movie had said that about gay people? What do you think the reaction would have been? Squistion would have been in here immediately claiming that the racist boogeyman is not only around every corner, but in everybody's house and closet.

Bigotry is a two way street.

Can I ask why any of you care what Billy Eichner is saying to promote a movie he made.

If Kevin Sorbo made a movie and said, "You'll love it if you're not a fascist Antifa loving Marxist commie-Nazi" I'd just ignore and move on with my life and not see the movie or even care if anyone does.

So, why do you care about this?


//also, I have zero interest in seeing this movie. I guess if it was the inflight movie option I'd watch it and give it a chance, but romance and romantic comedies are not typically the type of movies I seek out.

ETA: End of the day, I don't have any cares left over for "whatever Billy Eichner" thinks. Much like I don't care what the bee thinks when I spray the stupid clover that keeps invading my lawn.

Because you are on a message board where the topic is "woke."

I guess I just consider him a ridiculous cartoon much like Sorbo is. Why bother being bothered by him?

Why bother being bothered by people bothered?

I'm not. I'm asking them a question. Why do they care what this like F list celebrity says about his movie he's promoting? It's not an insult or meant to be dismissive. I do not understand why it bothers them. When I think of similar things they just simply don't register for me as anything I care about in the slightest. They do and I'm curious at to why. Make sense?

Probably a better question is why is the media covering his thoughts? If it were not a gay movie, they wouldn’t.

You're most likely correct. No one covers Kevin Sorbo's flops.

You seem to be focused in on Kevin Sorbo...big Hercules fan?

 

[(HULK)]

So if we believe that it’s about equality and not equity, that that is what most want. Why is the headline initiative throughout business and and elsewhere called Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

Why not Equality?

Someone is going to have to explain the hairs being split between equality and equity to me.

Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.
Equality: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.

I don't have a problem with either in a vacuum. I like to phrase this as "equality of opportunity" vs "equality of outcome" because that makes a clear delineation in what I'm talking about.

 

[(HULK)]

Is it any different than SNL who couldn’t wait to announce that they hired a gender-neutral comic. Do people really care? If yes, it goes both ways. They want the recognition but any thing negative must mean that we’re a homophone/racist/whatever.

They did? They should re-boot Pat.

 

[(HULK)]

"“Do you guys remember straight people?” a character quips in the new trailer for the Billy Eichner co-written and starring rom-com ‘Bros’. “Yeah, they had a nice run,” agrees another."

Yeah, I don't think insulting a majority of people is a way to market your movie and then cry when no one goes to see it. You're basically telling them not to see it.

Now imagine if another movie had said that about gay people? What do you think the reaction would have been? Squistion would have been in here immediately claiming that the racist boogeyman is not only around every corner, but in everybody's house and closet.

Bigotry is a two way street.

Can I ask why any of you care what Billy Eichner is saying to promote a movie he made.

If Kevin Sorbo made a movie and said, "You'll love it if you're not a fascist Antifa loving Marxist commie-Nazi" I'd just ignore and move on with my life and not see the movie or even care if anyone does.

So, why do you care about this?


//also, I have zero interest in seeing this movie. I guess if it was the inflight movie option I'd watch it and give it a chance, but romance and romantic comedies are not typically the type of movies I seek out.

ETA: End of the day, I don't have any cares left over for "whatever Billy Eichner" thinks. Much like I don't care what the bee thinks when I spray the stupid clover that keeps invading my lawn.

Because you are on a message board where the topic is "woke."

I guess I just consider him a ridiculous cartoon much like Sorbo is. Why bother being bothered by him?

Why bother being bothered by people bothered?

I'm not. I'm asking them a question. Why do they care what this like F list celebrity says about his movie he's promoting? It's not an insult or meant to be dismissive. I do not understand why it bothers them. When I think of similar things they just simply don't register for me as anything I care about in the slightest. They do and I'm curious at to why. Make sense?

Probably a better question is why is the media covering his thoughts? If it were not a gay movie, they wouldn’t.

You're most likely correct. No one covers Kevin Sorbo's flops.

You seem to be focused in on Kevin Sorbo...big Hercules fan?

He's just the right win equivalent of this Billy Eichner guy. F-list celeb who makes crummy movies.

 

[jon_mx]

Lately we're seeing a rise woke-ism where it has turned the corner and become racist itself in it's effort to be woke. I continue to believe that racism cannot be solved with more racism.

Today's example of this is from Berkley:

Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones

After we published this op-ed by Kenneth Marcus, Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkeley School of Law, sent us a response. You can read it below, followed by a response from Marcus.

jewishjournal.com

The woke movement (and the associated gender ideology, women studies, critical race theory), has always been rooted in racism and tearing down the system that empowers the whites (capitalism). But when they are rallying against the white male conservative hierarchy and spewing hatred, no one on the left cared as white male conservatives deserve to be scorned and shouted down and kicked off campus.

I don't agree with you on these points. I believe for the vast majority it is about equality. For some it might be as you suggest. For some it might just be that they like to virtue signal. But for most, it's simply about all people having equal opportunities.

It is true for people who talk about equity instead of equality. To achieve equity one must use the full force of government to achieve the desired outcome. Equity means tyranny, equality means freedom. Today's leftist demands equity.

I think the bold is where you two disagree, and I believe it's the answer to Hulk's question as to why you guys care about stuff like the movie writer's comments - you think it's far more common on the left and in general than most of the people you are talking to do.

You skip right over the bolded part of his post, post about what is true about leftists. You two probably agree 100% about what they need to achieve equity - I would just be very suprised if you two would be close at all if I asked you to post your opinions on what % of people want to achieve that vs. want equal opportunity.

To put my thoughts on this as succinctly as possible: I think we should aggressively pursue equality of opportunity and aggressively ignore equality of outcome.

You should never vote for Democrats if you believe in equality because they are all about achieving equity and creating equal outcomes.

 

[(HULK)]

Lately we're seeing a rise woke-ism where it has turned the corner and become racist itself in it's effort to be woke. I continue to believe that racism cannot be solved with more racism.

Today's example of this is from Berkley:

Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones

After we published this op-ed by Kenneth Marcus, Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkeley School of Law, sent us a response. You can read it below, followed by a response from Marcus.

jewishjournal.com

The woke movement (and the associated gender ideology, women studies, critical race theory), has always been rooted in racism and tearing down the system that empowers the whites (capitalism). But when they are rallying against the white male conservative hierarchy and spewing hatred, no one on the left cared as white male conservatives deserve to be scorned and shouted down and kicked off campus.

I don't agree with you on these points. I believe for the vast majority it is about equality. For some it might be as you suggest. For some it might just be that they like to virtue signal. But for most, it's simply about all people having equal opportunities.

It is true for people who talk about equity instead of equality. To achieve equity one must use the full force of government to achieve the desired outcome. Equity means tyranny, equality means freedom. Today's leftist demands equity.

I think the bold is where you two disagree, and I believe it's the answer to Hulk's question as to why you guys care about stuff like the movie writer's comments - you think it's far more common on the left and in general than most of the people you are talking to do.

You skip right over the bolded part of his post, post about what is true about leftists. You two probably agree 100% about what they need to achieve equity - I would just be very suprised if you two would be close at all if I asked you to post your opinions on what % of people want to achieve that vs. want equal opportunity.

To put my thoughts on this as succinctly as possible: I think we should aggressively pursue equality of opportunity and aggressively ignore equality of outcome.

You should never vote for Democrats if you believe in equality because they are all about achieving equity and creating equal outcomes.

I find that you typically paint with an incredibly broad brush and that results in you being incorrect more often than not.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Lately we're seeing a rise woke-ism where it has turned the corner and become racist itself in it's effort to be woke. I continue to believe that racism cannot be solved with more racism.

Today's example of this is from Berkley:

Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones

After we published this op-ed by Kenneth Marcus, Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkeley School of Law, sent us a response. You can read it below, followed by a response from Marcus.

jewishjournal.com

The woke movement (and the associated gender ideology, women studies, critical race theory), has always been rooted in racism and tearing down the system that empowers the whites (capitalism). But when they are rallying against the white male conservative hierarchy and spewing hatred, no one on the left cared as white male conservatives deserve to be scorned and shouted down and kicked off campus.

I don't agree with you on these points. I believe for the vast majority it is about equality. For some it might be as you suggest. For some it might just be that they like to virtue signal. But for most, it's simply about all people having equal opportunities.

It is true for people who talk about equity instead of equality. To achieve equity one must use the full force of government to achieve the desired outcome. Equity means tyranny, equality means freedom. Today's leftist demands equity.

I think the bold is where you two disagree, and I believe it's the answer to Hulk's question as to why you guys care about stuff like the movie writer's comments - you think it's far more common on the left and in general than most of the people you are talking to do.

You skip right over the bolded part of his post, post about what is true about leftists. You two probably agree 100% about what they need to achieve equity - I would just be very suprised if you two would be close at all if I asked you to post your opinions on what % of people want to achieve that vs. want equal opportunity.

To put my thoughts on this as succinctly as possible: I think we should aggressively pursue equality of opportunity and aggressively ignore equality of outcome.

I agree with the sentiment, and again I believe the VAST majority of people you would meet would agree with this.

I don't quite agree with the last part, but not sure how to phrase my thoughts.

 

[Boston]

"“Do you guys remember straight people?” a character quips in the new trailer for the Billy Eichner co-written and starring rom-com ‘Bros’. “Yeah, they had a nice run,” agrees another."

Yeah, I don't think insulting a majority of people is a way to market your movie and then cry when no one goes to see it. You're basically telling them not to see it.

Now imagine if another movie had said that about gay people? What do you think the reaction would have been? Squistion would have been in here immediately claiming that the racist boogeyman is not only around every corner, but in everybody's house and closet.

Bigotry is a two way street.

Can I ask why any of you care what Billy Eichner is saying to promote a movie he made.

If Kevin Sorbo made a movie and said, "You'll love it if you're not a fascist Antifa loving Marxist commie-Nazi" I'd just ignore and move on with my life and not see the movie or even care if anyone does.

So, why do you care about this?


//also, I have zero interest in seeing this movie. I guess if it was the inflight movie option I'd watch it and give it a chance, but romance and romantic comedies are not typically the type of movies I seek out.

ETA: End of the day, I don't have any cares left over for "whatever Billy Eichner" thinks. Much like I don't care what the bee thinks when I spray the stupid clover that keeps invading my lawn.

Because you are on a message board where the topic is "woke."

I guess I just consider him a ridiculous cartoon much like Sorbo is. Why bother being bothered by him?

Why bother being bothered by people bothered?

I'm not. I'm asking them a question. Why do they care what this like F list celebrity says about his movie he's promoting? It's not an insult or meant to be dismissive. I do not understand why it bothers them. When I think of similar things they just simply don't register for me as anything I care about in the slightest. They do and I'm curious at to why. Make sense?

Probably a better question is why is the media covering his thoughts? If it were not a gay movie, they wouldn’t.

You're most likely correct. No one covers Kevin Sorbo's flops.

You seem to be focused in on Kevin Sorbo...big Hercules fan?

He's just the right win equivalent of this Billy Eichner guy. F-list celeb who makes crummy movies.

Does Sorbo blame his failures on some type of "phobia"?

 

[Boston]

Wokeness continuing to make its way up the food chain of the government:

Pentagon has 30 days to probe diversity chief accused of anti-White social media posts

A Pentagon diversity chief, Kelisa Wing, is under a one-month probe over anti-White Twitter posts uncovered by Fox News Digital.

www.foxnews.com

 

[(HULK)]

"“Do you guys remember straight people?” a character quips in the new trailer for the Billy Eichner co-written and starring rom-com ‘Bros’. “Yeah, they had a nice run,” agrees another."

Yeah, I don't think insulting a majority of people is a way to market your movie and then cry when no one goes to see it. You're basically telling them not to see it.

Now imagine if another movie had said that about gay people? What do you think the reaction would have been? Squistion would have been in here immediately claiming that the racist boogeyman is not only around every corner, but in everybody's house and closet.

Bigotry is a two way street.

Can I ask why any of you care what Billy Eichner is saying to promote a movie he made.

If Kevin Sorbo made a movie and said, "You'll love it if you're not a fascist Antifa loving Marxist commie-Nazi" I'd just ignore and move on with my life and not see the movie or even care if anyone does.

So, why do you care about this?


//also, I have zero interest in seeing this movie. I guess if it was the inflight movie option I'd watch it and give it a chance, but romance and romantic comedies are not typically the type of movies I seek out.

ETA: End of the day, I don't have any cares left over for "whatever Billy Eichner" thinks. Much like I don't care what the bee thinks when I spray the stupid clover that keeps invading my lawn.

Because you are on a message board where the topic is "woke."

I guess I just consider him a ridiculous cartoon much like Sorbo is. Why bother being bothered by him?

Why bother being bothered by people bothered?

I'm not. I'm asking them a question. Why do they care what this like F list celebrity says about his movie he's promoting? It's not an insult or meant to be dismissive. I do not understand why it bothers them. When I think of similar things they just simply don't register for me as anything I care about in the slightest. They do and I'm curious at to why. Make sense?

Probably a better question is why is the media covering his thoughts? If it were not a gay movie, they wouldn’t.

You're most likely correct. No one covers Kevin Sorbo's flops.

You seem to be focused in on Kevin Sorbo...big Hercules fan?

He's just the right win equivalent of this Billy Eichner guy. F-list celeb who makes crummy movies.

Does Sorbo blame his failures on some type of "phobia"?

Honestly, I have a vague recollection of something like that, being shut down by the woke mafia or something, but I don't think I wasted the brain cells trying to retain whatever it was.

 

[(HULK)]

Wokeness continuing to make its way up the food chain of the government:

Pentagon has 30 days to probe diversity chief accused of anti-White social media posts

A Pentagon diversity chief, Kelisa Wing, is under a one-month probe over anti-White Twitter posts uncovered by Fox News Digital.

www.foxnews.com

She shouldn't hold her position.

 

[Max Power]

Wokeness continuing to make its way up the food chain of the government:

Pentagon has 30 days to probe diversity chief accused of anti-White social media posts

A Pentagon diversity chief, Kelisa Wing, is under a one-month probe over anti-White Twitter posts uncovered by Fox News Digital.

www.foxnews.com

I'm going to wager nothing happens. We had our extremism in the military training where they outlined BLM as positive ideology. This was before Biden pushed the pro-Trumpers = threats angle though.

 

[djmich]

Wokeness continuing to make its way up the food chain of the government:

Pentagon has 30 days to probe diversity chief accused of anti-White social media posts

A Pentagon diversity chief, Kelisa Wing, is under a one-month probe over anti-White Twitter posts uncovered by Fox News Digital.

www.foxnews.com

She shouldn't hold her position.

True, but again people keep trying to say these folks are the outliers…sure are a lot of outliers even in what should be well vetted government positions.

Better question is should the position even exist.

 

[(HULK)]

Wokeness continuing to make its way up the food chain of the government:

Pentagon has 30 days to probe diversity chief accused of anti-White social media posts

A Pentagon diversity chief, Kelisa Wing, is under a one-month probe over anti-White Twitter posts uncovered by Fox News Digital.

www.foxnews.com

She shouldn't hold her position.

True, but again people keep trying to say these folks are the outliers…sure are a lot of outliers even in what should be well vetted government positions.

Better question is should the position even exist.

I think the position existing is fine and maybe needed. But you don't put someone who tweets racist concepts regularly in that role.

 

[FairWarning]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

 

[Max Power]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

 

[GordonGekko]

Wokeness continuing to make its way up the food chain of the government:

Pentagon has 30 days to probe diversity chief accused of anti-White social media posts

A Pentagon diversity chief, Kelisa Wing, is under a one-month probe over anti-White Twitter posts uncovered by Fox News Digital.

www.foxnews.com

Just wanted to stop in and say you've been doing a great job, Boston, of consistently bringing up current critical discussion points with sourcing in the forums. You are doing heavy lifting to help raise the level of discourse.

You make this place better.

Carry on, my friend

 

[KarmaPolice]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

 

[Max Power]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

 

[KarmaPolice]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

"Non-establishment media". Exactly my point.

 

[Boston]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

"Non-establishment media". Exactly my point.

What is that point? You may not like conservative media but they are usually upfront about being conservative and if it weren't for them there would be a monoploy on who the media serves...the issue so many on the right has is the MSM does not admit what they are...the issue with the left is they simply hate conservative media.

 

[Max Power]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

"Non-establishment media". Exactly my point.

I guess I missed the point... You only acknowledge establishment media?

 

[KarmaPolice]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

"Non-establishment media". Exactly my point.

I guess I missed the point... You only acknowledge establishment media?

We probably disagree on the chart, what outlets to use, etc. It's OK, and it's been done to desth- nobody cares around or are going to change.

When I read "non-establishment" it is usually tied to wildly biased crap like OAN and the like. You know- the "real" truth. Apologies if that is not what you are referring to, just seen enough of the above in these threads.

 

[Max Power]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

"Non-establishment media". Exactly my point.

I guess I missed the point... You only acknowledge establishment media?

We probably disagree on the chart, what outlets to use, etc. It's OK, and it's been done to desth- nobody cares around or are going to change.

When I read "non-establishment" it is usually tied to wildly biased crap like OAN and the like. You know- the "real" truth. Apologies if that is not what you are referring to, just seen enough of the above in these threads.

This summary is pretty close to what I think when I say establishment media. There is plenty outside of the establishment media that is absolute trash, but there are plenty of reputable sources who offer the news as facts and can actually discuss both sides of an issue without being compromised.

What Is Establishment Media?​

The media industry is an integral aspect of any economy's structure. For businesses, media exposure and the control of media outlets can result in an ability to influence public opinion in important ways. When people talk about the establishment media, they usually do so to reference a perceived media cadre of sorts, which they claim harbors certain long-standing biases and promotes an existing system of governance and thought at the expense of new or objective perspectives.

Assumption of Bipartisanship​

1. A central aspect of the concept of the existence of an establishment media is the idea that the major media outlets all assume a perennial and pervasive situation of bipartisanship, or strict division between two political parties and philosophies. Those who complain about the major media outlets may even claim that they actively attempt to protract and maintain such party-related divisions.

Agenda Promotion​

1. An implicit aspect of the idea of an establishment media is the argument that major media outlets tend to promote specific political or social agendas. For instance, some critics argue that the majority of television news coverage has a liberal bias, while others argue that the majority of political talk shows on the radio have a conservative bias. Examples of bias may lie in the news issues that they choose to cover and the specific aspects of those issues that they choose to focus on.

Corporate Ties​

1. A large part of the establishment media argument lies in the fact that most of the major media outlets are owned by large corporations. Since corporations exist for the purpose of earning a profit, critics contend that these media outlets are intrinsically biased, in that they conceivably do not report issues or convey opinions that could harm their bottom line, however relevant such issues or opinions may be.

 

[KarmaPolice]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

"Non-establishment media". Exactly my point.

I guess I missed the point... You only acknowledge establishment media?

We probably disagree on the chart, what outlets to use, etc. It's OK, and it's been done to desth- nobody cares around or are going to change.

When I read "non-establishment" it is usually tied to wildly biased crap like OAN and the like. You know- the "real" truth. Apologies if that is not what you are referring to, just seen enough of the above in these threads.

This summary is pretty close to what I think when I say establishment media. There is plenty outside of the establishment media that is absolute trash, but there are plenty of reputable sources who offer the news as facts and can actually discuss both sides of an issue without being compromised.

What Is Establishment Media?​

The media industry is an integral aspect of any economy's structure. For businesses, media exposure and the control of media outlets can result in an ability to influence public opinion in important ways. When people talk about the establishment media, they usually do so to reference a perceived media cadre of sorts, which they claim harbors certain long-standing biases and promotes an existing system of governance and thought at the expense of new or objective perspectives.

Assumption of Bipartisanship​

1. A central aspect of the concept of the existence of an establishment media is the idea that the major media outlets all assume a perennial and pervasive situation of bipartisanship, or strict division between two political parties and philosophies. Those who complain about the major media outlets may even claim that they actively attempt to protract and maintain such party-related divisions.

Agenda Promotion​

1. An implicit aspect of the idea of an establishment media is the argument that major media outlets tend to promote specific political or social agendas. For instance, some critics argue that the majority of television news coverage has a liberal bias, while others argue that the majority of political talk shows on the radio have a conservative bias. Examples of bias may lie in the news issues that they choose to cover and the specific aspects of those issues that they choose to focus on.

Corporate Ties​

1. A large part of the establishment media argument lies in the fact that most of the major media outlets are owned by large corporations. Since corporations exist for the purpose of earning a profit, critics contend that these media outlets are intrinsically biased, in that they conceivably do not report issues or convey opinions that could harm their bottom line, however relevant such issues or opinions may be.

Care to list the sources you consider outside the establishment and great sources of info?

 

[Max Power]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

"Non-establishment media". Exactly my point.

I guess I missed the point... You only acknowledge establishment media?

We probably disagree on the chart, what outlets to use, etc. It's OK, and it's been done to desth- nobody cares around or are going to change.

When I read "non-establishment" it is usually tied to wildly biased crap like OAN and the like. You know- the "real" truth. Apologies if that is not what you are referring to, just seen enough of the above in these threads.

This summary is pretty close to what I think when I say establishment media. There is plenty outside of the establishment media that is absolute trash, but there are plenty of reputable sources who offer the news as facts and can actually discuss both sides of an issue without being compromised.

What Is Establishment Media?​

The media industry is an integral aspect of any economy's structure. For businesses, media exposure and the control of media outlets can result in an ability to influence public opinion in important ways. When people talk about the establishment media, they usually do so to reference a perceived media cadre of sorts, which they claim harbors certain long-standing biases and promotes an existing system of governance and thought at the expense of new or objective perspectives.

Assumption of Bipartisanship​

1. A central aspect of the concept of the existence of an establishment media is the idea that the major media outlets all assume a perennial and pervasive situation of bipartisanship, or strict division between two political parties and philosophies. Those who complain about the major media outlets may even claim that they actively attempt to protract and maintain such party-related divisions.

Agenda Promotion​

1. An implicit aspect of the idea of an establishment media is the argument that major media outlets tend to promote specific political or social agendas. For instance, some critics argue that the majority of television news coverage has a liberal bias, while others argue that the majority of political talk shows on the radio have a conservative bias. Examples of bias may lie in the news issues that they choose to cover and the specific aspects of those issues that they choose to focus on.

Corporate Ties​

1. A large part of the establishment media argument lies in the fact that most of the major media outlets are owned by large corporations. Since corporations exist for the purpose of earning a profit, critics contend that these media outlets are intrinsically biased, in that they conceivably do not report issues or convey opinions that could harm their bottom line, however relevant such issues or opinions may be.

Care to list the sources you consider outside the establishment and great sources of info?

For facts I like stories from AP, BBC, Al Jazzera.

For content with discussion I like Breaking Points, Rising, Tim Pool, Glen Greenwald

 

[KarmaPolice]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

"Non-establishment media". Exactly my point.

I guess I missed the point... You only acknowledge establishment media?

We probably disagree on the chart, what outlets to use, etc. It's OK, and it's been done to desth- nobody cares around or are going to change.

When I read "non-establishment" it is usually tied to wildly biased crap like OAN and the like. You know- the "real" truth. Apologies if that is not what you are referring to, just seen enough of the above in these threads.

This summary is pretty close to what I think when I say establishment media. There is plenty outside of the establishment media that is absolute trash, but there are plenty of reputable sources who offer the news as facts and can actually discuss both sides of an issue without being compromised.

What Is Establishment Media?​

The media industry is an integral aspect of any economy's structure. For businesses, media exposure and the control of media outlets can result in an ability to influence public opinion in important ways. When people talk about the establishment media, they usually do so to reference a perceived media cadre of sorts, which they claim harbors certain long-standing biases and promotes an existing system of governance and thought at the expense of new or objective perspectives.

Assumption of Bipartisanship​

1. A central aspect of the concept of the existence of an establishment media is the idea that the major media outlets all assume a perennial and pervasive situation of bipartisanship, or strict division between two political parties and philosophies. Those who complain about the major media outlets may even claim that they actively attempt to protract and maintain such party-related divisions.

Agenda Promotion​

1. An implicit aspect of the idea of an establishment media is the argument that major media outlets tend to promote specific political or social agendas. For instance, some critics argue that the majority of television news coverage has a liberal bias, while others argue that the majority of political talk shows on the radio have a conservative bias. Examples of bias may lie in the news issues that they choose to cover and the specific aspects of those issues that they choose to focus on.

Corporate Ties​

1. A large part of the establishment media argument lies in the fact that most of the major media outlets are owned by large corporations. Since corporations exist for the purpose of earning a profit, critics contend that these media outlets are intrinsically biased, in that they conceivably do not report issues or convey opinions that could harm their bottom line, however relevant such issues or opinions may be.

Care to list the sources you consider outside the establishment and great sources of info?

For facts I like stories from AP, BBC, Al Jazzera.

For content with discussion I like Breaking Points, Rising, Tim Pool, Glen Greenwald

So we are on the same page, and basically use the same stuff. Really wish more of you that lean right would be bigger advocates for using those sources around here.

Thanks for clarifying- like I said most of the time around here your wording means kooky hard right sites.

 

[Boston]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

"Non-establishment media". Exactly my point.

I guess I missed the point... You only acknowledge establishment media?

We probably disagree on the chart, what outlets to use, etc. It's OK, and it's been done to desth- nobody cares around or are going to change.

When I read "non-establishment" it is usually tied to wildly biased crap like OAN and the like. You know- the "real" truth. Apologies if that is not what you are referring to, just seen enough of the above in these threads.

This summary is pretty close to what I think when I say establishment media. There is plenty outside of the establishment media that is absolute trash, but there are plenty of reputable sources who offer the news as facts and can actually discuss both sides of an issue without being compromised.

What Is Establishment Media?​

The media industry is an integral aspect of any economy's structure. For businesses, media exposure and the control of media outlets can result in an ability to influence public opinion in important ways. When people talk about the establishment media, they usually do so to reference a perceived media cadre of sorts, which they claim harbors certain long-standing biases and promotes an existing system of governance and thought at the expense of new or objective perspectives.

Assumption of Bipartisanship​

1. A central aspect of the concept of the existence of an establishment media is the idea that the major media outlets all assume a perennial and pervasive situation of bipartisanship, or strict division between two political parties and philosophies. Those who complain about the major media outlets may even claim that they actively attempt to protract and maintain such party-related divisions.

Agenda Promotion​

1. An implicit aspect of the idea of an establishment media is the argument that major media outlets tend to promote specific political or social agendas. For instance, some critics argue that the majority of television news coverage has a liberal bias, while others argue that the majority of political talk shows on the radio have a conservative bias. Examples of bias may lie in the news issues that they choose to cover and the specific aspects of those issues that they choose to focus on.

Corporate Ties​

1. A large part of the establishment media argument lies in the fact that most of the major media outlets are owned by large corporations. Since corporations exist for the purpose of earning a profit, critics contend that these media outlets are intrinsically biased, in that they conceivably do not report issues or convey opinions that could harm their bottom line, however relevant such issues or opinions may be.

Care to list the sources you consider outside the establishment and great sources of info?

For facts I like stories from AP, BBC, Al Jazzera.

For content with discussion I like Breaking Points, Rising, Tim Pool, Glen Greenwald

So we are on the same page, and basically use the same stuff. Really wish more of you that lean right would be bigger advocates for using those sources around here.

Thanks for clarifying- like I said most of the time around here your wording means kooky hard right sites.

You got your shot in on the right...what about the left?

 

[BladeRunner]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

"Non-establishment media". Exactly my point.

I guess I missed the point... You only acknowledge establishment media?

We probably disagree on the chart, what outlets to use, etc. It's OK, and it's been done to desth- nobody cares around or are going to change.

When I read "non-establishment" it is usually tied to wildly biased crap like OAN and the like. You know- the "real" truth. Apologies if that is not what you are referring to, just seen enough of the above in these threads.

This summary is pretty close to what I think when I say establishment media. There is plenty outside of the establishment media that is absolute trash, but there are plenty of reputable sources who offer the news as facts and can actually discuss both sides of an issue without being compromised.

What Is Establishment Media?​

The media industry is an integral aspect of any economy's structure. For businesses, media exposure and the control of media outlets can result in an ability to influence public opinion in important ways. When people talk about the establishment media, they usually do so to reference a perceived media cadre of sorts, which they claim harbors certain long-standing biases and promotes an existing system of governance and thought at the expense of new or objective perspectives.

Assumption of Bipartisanship​

1. A central aspect of the concept of the existence of an establishment media is the idea that the major media outlets all assume a perennial and pervasive situation of bipartisanship, or strict division between two political parties and philosophies. Those who complain about the major media outlets may even claim that they actively attempt to protract and maintain such party-related divisions.

Agenda Promotion​

1. An implicit aspect of the idea of an establishment media is the argument that major media outlets tend to promote specific political or social agendas. For instance, some critics argue that the majority of television news coverage has a liberal bias, while others argue that the majority of political talk shows on the radio have a conservative bias. Examples of bias may lie in the news issues that they choose to cover and the specific aspects of those issues that they choose to focus on.

Corporate Ties​

1. A large part of the establishment media argument lies in the fact that most of the major media outlets are owned by large corporations. Since corporations exist for the purpose of earning a profit, critics contend that these media outlets are intrinsically biased, in that they conceivably do not report issues or convey opinions that could harm their bottom line, however relevant such issues or opinions may be.

Care to list the sources you consider outside the establishment and great sources of info?

For facts I like stories from AP, BBC, Al Jazzera.

For content with discussion I like Breaking Points, Rising, Tim Pool, Glen Greenwald

So we are on the same page, and basically use the same stuff. Really wish more of you that lean right would be bigger advocates for using those sources around here.

Thanks for clarifying- like I said most of the time around here your wording means kooky hard right sites.

You got your shot in on the right...what about the left?

PSF Independent™, that why.

 

[Max Power]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

"Non-establishment media". Exactly my point.

I guess I missed the point... You only acknowledge establishment media?

We probably disagree on the chart, what outlets to use, etc. It's OK, and it's been done to desth- nobody cares around or are going to change.

When I read "non-establishment" it is usually tied to wildly biased crap like OAN and the like. You know- the "real" truth. Apologies if that is not what you are referring to, just seen enough of the above in these threads.

This summary is pretty close to what I think when I say establishment media. There is plenty outside of the establishment media that is absolute trash, but there are plenty of reputable sources who offer the news as facts and can actually discuss both sides of an issue without being compromised.

What Is Establishment Media?​

The media industry is an integral aspect of any economy's structure. For businesses, media exposure and the control of media outlets can result in an ability to influence public opinion in important ways. When people talk about the establishment media, they usually do so to reference a perceived media cadre of sorts, which they claim harbors certain long-standing biases and promotes an existing system of governance and thought at the expense of new or objective perspectives.

Assumption of Bipartisanship​

1. A central aspect of the concept of the existence of an establishment media is the idea that the major media outlets all assume a perennial and pervasive situation of bipartisanship, or strict division between two political parties and philosophies. Those who complain about the major media outlets may even claim that they actively attempt to protract and maintain such party-related divisions.

Agenda Promotion​

1. An implicit aspect of the idea of an establishment media is the argument that major media outlets tend to promote specific political or social agendas. For instance, some critics argue that the majority of television news coverage has a liberal bias, while others argue that the majority of political talk shows on the radio have a conservative bias. Examples of bias may lie in the news issues that they choose to cover and the specific aspects of those issues that they choose to focus on.

Corporate Ties​

1. A large part of the establishment media argument lies in the fact that most of the major media outlets are owned by large corporations. Since corporations exist for the purpose of earning a profit, critics contend that these media outlets are intrinsically biased, in that they conceivably do not report issues or convey opinions that could harm their bottom line, however relevant such issues or opinions may be.

Care to list the sources you consider outside the establishment and great sources of info?

For facts I like stories from AP, BBC, Al Jazzera.

For content with discussion I like Breaking Points, Rising, Tim Pool, Glen Greenwald

So we are on the same page, and basically use the same stuff. Really wish more of you that lean right would be bigger advocates for using those sources around here.

Thanks for clarifying- like I said most of the time around here your wording means kooky hard right sites.

That doesn't mean I don't also listen to and read hard right sources who have an angle to it. I will say I have been burned before by not walking them back to source claim and removing bias, but I think that is a problem with media in general. Things get lost or skewed in translation.

I'll also add that just because an off brand site runs a story, doesn't mean the story is untrue because the MSM failed to cover it.

 

[Boston]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

"Non-establishment media". Exactly my point.

I guess I missed the point... You only acknowledge establishment media?

We probably disagree on the chart, what outlets to use, etc. It's OK, and it's been done to desth- nobody cares around or are going to change.

When I read "non-establishment" it is usually tied to wildly biased crap like OAN and the like. You know- the "real" truth. Apologies if that is not what you are referring to, just seen enough of the above in these threads.

This summary is pretty close to what I think when I say establishment media. There is plenty outside of the establishment media that is absolute trash, but there are plenty of reputable sources who offer the news as facts and can actually discuss both sides of an issue without being compromised.

What Is Establishment Media?​

The media industry is an integral aspect of any economy's structure. For businesses, media exposure and the control of media outlets can result in an ability to influence public opinion in important ways. When people talk about the establishment media, they usually do so to reference a perceived media cadre of sorts, which they claim harbors certain long-standing biases and promotes an existing system of governance and thought at the expense of new or objective perspectives.

Assumption of Bipartisanship​

1. A central aspect of the concept of the existence of an establishment media is the idea that the major media outlets all assume a perennial and pervasive situation of bipartisanship, or strict division between two political parties and philosophies. Those who complain about the major media outlets may even claim that they actively attempt to protract and maintain such party-related divisions.

Agenda Promotion​

1. An implicit aspect of the idea of an establishment media is the argument that major media outlets tend to promote specific political or social agendas. For instance, some critics argue that the majority of television news coverage has a liberal bias, while others argue that the majority of political talk shows on the radio have a conservative bias. Examples of bias may lie in the news issues that they choose to cover and the specific aspects of those issues that they choose to focus on.

Corporate Ties​

1. A large part of the establishment media argument lies in the fact that most of the major media outlets are owned by large corporations. Since corporations exist for the purpose of earning a profit, critics contend that these media outlets are intrinsically biased, in that they conceivably do not report issues or convey opinions that could harm their bottom line, however relevant such issues or opinions may be.

Care to list the sources you consider outside the establishment and great sources of info?

For facts I like stories from AP, BBC, Al Jazzera.

For content with discussion I like Breaking Points, Rising, Tim Pool, Glen Greenwald

So we are on the same page, and basically use the same stuff. Really wish more of you that lean right would be bigger advocates for using those sources around here.

Thanks for clarifying- like I said most of the time around here your wording means kooky hard right sites.

That doesn't mean I don't also listen to and read hard right sources who have an angle to it. I will say I have been burned before by not walking them back to source claim and removing bias, but I think that is a problem with media in general. Things get lost or skewed in translation.

I'll also add that just because an off brand site runs a story, doesn't mean the story is untrue because the MSM failed to cover it.

The National Enquirer proved that long ago...IMO (and I mentioned it above) is being honest with who you are...if you are a conservative or liberal source just admit it so we know where you are coming from...the issue is trying to pretend you are non-biased when it is obvious you aren't...that is and always has been the right's beef with the MSM.

 

[KarmaPolice]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

"Non-establishment media". Exactly my point.

I guess I missed the point... You only acknowledge establishment media?

We probably disagree on the chart, what outlets to use, etc. It's OK, and it's been done to desth- nobody cares around or are going to change.

When I read "non-establishment" it is usually tied to wildly biased crap like OAN and the like. You know- the "real" truth. Apologies if that is not what you are referring to, just seen enough of the above in these threads.

This summary is pretty close to what I think when I say establishment media. There is plenty outside of the establishment media that is absolute trash, but there are plenty of reputable sources who offer the news as facts and can actually discuss both sides of an issue without being compromised.

What Is Establishment Media?​

The media industry is an integral aspect of any economy's structure. For businesses, media exposure and the control of media outlets can result in an ability to influence public opinion in important ways. When people talk about the establishment media, they usually do so to reference a perceived media cadre of sorts, which they claim harbors certain long-standing biases and promotes an existing system of governance and thought at the expense of new or objective perspectives.

Assumption of Bipartisanship​

1. A central aspect of the concept of the existence of an establishment media is the idea that the major media outlets all assume a perennial and pervasive situation of bipartisanship, or strict division between two political parties and philosophies. Those who complain about the major media outlets may even claim that they actively attempt to protract and maintain such party-related divisions.

Agenda Promotion​

1. An implicit aspect of the idea of an establishment media is the argument that major media outlets tend to promote specific political or social agendas. For instance, some critics argue that the majority of television news coverage has a liberal bias, while others argue that the majority of political talk shows on the radio have a conservative bias. Examples of bias may lie in the news issues that they choose to cover and the specific aspects of those issues that they choose to focus on.

Corporate Ties​

1. A large part of the establishment media argument lies in the fact that most of the major media outlets are owned by large corporations. Since corporations exist for the purpose of earning a profit, critics contend that these media outlets are intrinsically biased, in that they conceivably do not report issues or convey opinions that could harm their bottom line, however relevant such issues or opinions may be.

Care to list the sources you consider outside the establishment and great sources of info?

For facts I like stories from AP, BBC, Al Jazzera.

For content with discussion I like Breaking Points, Rising, Tim Pool, Glen Greenwald

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

"Non-establishment media". Exactly my point.

I guess I missed the point... You only acknowledge establishment media?

We probably disagree on the chart, what outlets to use, etc. It's OK, and it's been done to desth- nobody cares around or are going to change.

When I read "non-establishment" it is usually tied to wildly biased crap like OAN and the like. You know- the "real" truth. Apologies if that is not what you are referring to, just seen enough of the above in these threads.

This summary is pretty close to what I think when I say establishment media. There is plenty outside of the establishment media that is absolute trash, but there are plenty of reputable sources who offer the news as facts and can actually discuss both sides of an issue without being compromised.

What Is Establishment Media?​

The media industry is an integral aspect of any economy's structure. For businesses, media exposure and the control of media outlets can result in an ability to influence public opinion in important ways. When people talk about the establishment media, they usually do so to reference a perceived media cadre of sorts, which they claim harbors certain long-standing biases and promotes an existing system of governance and thought at the expense of new or objective perspectives.

Assumption of Bipartisanship​

1. A central aspect of the concept of the existence of an establishment media is the idea that the major media outlets all assume a perennial and pervasive situation of bipartisanship, or strict division between two political parties and philosophies. Those who complain about the major media outlets may even claim that they actively attempt to protract and maintain such party-related divisions.

Agenda Promotion​

1. An implicit aspect of the idea of an establishment media is the argument that major media outlets tend to promote specific political or social agendas. For instance, some critics argue that the majority of television news coverage has a liberal bias, while others argue that the majority of political talk shows on the radio have a conservative bias. Examples of bias may lie in the news issues that they choose to cover and the specific aspects of those issues that they choose to focus on.

Corporate Ties​

1. A large part of the establishment media argument lies in the fact that most of the major media outlets are owned by large corporations. Since corporations exist for the purpose of earning a profit, critics contend that these media outlets are intrinsically biased, in that they conceivably do not report issues or convey opinions that could harm their bottom line, however relevant such issues or opinions may be.

Care to list the sources you consider outside the establishment and great sources of info?

For facts I like stories from AP, BBC, Al Jazzera.

For content with discussion I like Breaking Points, Rising, Tim Pool, Glen Greenwald

So we are on the same page, and basically use the same stuff. Really wish more of you that lean right would be bigger advocates for using those sources around here.

Thanks for clarifying- like I said most of the time around here your wording means kooky hard right sites.

You got your shot in on the right...what about the left?

What about the left?

IF you largely trust what the media chart is getting at- I see all kinds of links to daily mail and the like, but can't remember seeing a link to a left equivalent - ie Daily Kos, etc. That's what my point was.

 

[Max Power]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

"Non-establishment media". Exactly my point.

I guess I missed the point... You only acknowledge establishment media?

We probably disagree on the chart, what outlets to use, etc. It's OK, and it's been done to desth- nobody cares around or are going to change.

When I read "non-establishment" it is usually tied to wildly biased crap like OAN and the like. You know- the "real" truth. Apologies if that is not what you are referring to, just seen enough of the above in these threads.

This summary is pretty close to what I think when I say establishment media. There is plenty outside of the establishment media that is absolute trash, but there are plenty of reputable sources who offer the news as facts and can actually discuss both sides of an issue without being compromised.

What Is Establishment Media?​

The media industry is an integral aspect of any economy's structure. For businesses, media exposure and the control of media outlets can result in an ability to influence public opinion in important ways. When people talk about the establishment media, they usually do so to reference a perceived media cadre of sorts, which they claim harbors certain long-standing biases and promotes an existing system of governance and thought at the expense of new or objective perspectives.

Assumption of Bipartisanship​

1. A central aspect of the concept of the existence of an establishment media is the idea that the major media outlets all assume a perennial and pervasive situation of bipartisanship, or strict division between two political parties and philosophies. Those who complain about the major media outlets may even claim that they actively attempt to protract and maintain such party-related divisions.

Agenda Promotion​

1. An implicit aspect of the idea of an establishment media is the argument that major media outlets tend to promote specific political or social agendas. For instance, some critics argue that the majority of television news coverage has a liberal bias, while others argue that the majority of political talk shows on the radio have a conservative bias. Examples of bias may lie in the news issues that they choose to cover and the specific aspects of those issues that they choose to focus on.

Corporate Ties​

1. A large part of the establishment media argument lies in the fact that most of the major media outlets are owned by large corporations. Since corporations exist for the purpose of earning a profit, critics contend that these media outlets are intrinsically biased, in that they conceivably do not report issues or convey opinions that could harm their bottom line, however relevant such issues or opinions may be.

Care to list the sources you consider outside the establishment and great sources of info?

For facts I like stories from AP, BBC, Al Jazzera.

For content with discussion I like Breaking Points, Rising, Tim Pool, Glen Greenwald

So we are on the same page, and basically use the same stuff. Really wish more of you that lean right would be bigger advocates for using those sources around here.

Thanks for clarifying- like I said most of the time around here your wording means kooky hard right sites.

That doesn't mean I don't also listen to and read hard right sources who have an angle to it. I will say I have been burned before by not walking them back to source claim and removing bias, but I think that is a problem with media in general. Things get lost or skewed in translation.

I'll also add that just because an off brand site runs a story, doesn't mean the story is untrue because the MSM failed to cover it.

The National Enquirer proved that long ago...IMO (and I mentioned it above) is being honest with who you are...if you are a conservative or liberal source just admit it so we know where you are coming from...the issue is trying to pretend you are non-biased when it is obvious you aren't...that is and always has been the right's beef with the MSM.

I agree. All three sources I listed that I view as outside of the establishment media still lean left in their reporting by using influencing wording.

What scares me going forward is what we consider "factual" these days, but that's an issue for the MSM Hate thread.

 

[Boston]

This is the hard hitting news that CNN is now reporting, lol

https://apple.news/A-IGStKZERrKQtMkdYZ6dDw

To be fair, they know what their target readers care about.

People who enjoy seeing themselves represented in their favorite shows and movies? The horror!!



But you are right - these places know 100% who they are catering too. It's just funny when people only think that it's the other side that it's happening to - they are the freethinkers who are getting 100% unbiased info.

My privilege blinds me to the cartoon issue.

FoxNews knows their audience as well. I like to read/listen to the non-establishment media outlets. I also hate the double standard that if a small outlet gets news wrong, it was misinformation or disinformation. When establishment companies with 100X the resources get stories wrong, it was just an honest mistake. The media bias charts and fact checking outlets are some of the worst contributors to this.

"Non-establishment media". Exactly my point.

I guess I missed the point... You only acknowledge establishment media?

We probably disagree on the chart, what outlets to use, etc. It's OK, and it's been done to desth- nobody cares around or are going to change.

When I read "non-establishment" it is usually tied to wildly biased crap like OAN and the like. You know- the "real" truth. Apologies if that is not what you are referring to, just seen enough of the above in these threads.

This summary is pretty close to what I think when I say establishment media. There is plenty outside of the establishment media that is absolute trash, but there are plenty of reputable sources who offer the news as facts and can actually discuss both sides of an issue without being compromised.

What Is Establishment Media?​

The media industry is an integral aspect of any economy's structure. For businesses, media exposure and the control of media outlets can result in an ability to influence public opinion in important ways. When people talk about the establishment media, they usually do so to reference a perceived media cadre of sorts, which they claim harbors certain long-standing biases and promotes an existing system of governance and thought at the expense of new or objective perspectives.

Assumption of Bipartisanship​

1. A central aspect of the concept of the existence of an establishment media is the idea that the major media outlets all assume a perennial and pervasive situation of bipartisanship, or strict division between two political parties and philosophies. Those who complain about the major media outlets may even claim that they actively attempt to protract and maintain such party-related divisions.

Agenda Promotion​

1. An implicit aspect of the idea of an establishment media is the argument that major media outlets tend to promote specific political or social agendas. For instance, some critics argue that the majority of television news coverage has a liberal bias, while others argue that the majority of political talk shows on the radio have a conservative bias. Examples of bias may lie in the news issues that they choose to cover and the specific aspects of those issues that they choose to focus on.

Corporate Ties​

1. A large part of the establishment media argument lies in the fact that most of the major media outlets are owned by large corporations. Since corporations exist for the purpose of earning a profit, critics contend that these media outlets are intrinsically biased, in that they conceivably do not report issues or convey opinions that could harm their bottom line, however relevant such issues or opinions may be.

Care to list the sources you consider outside the establishment and great sources of info?

For facts I like stories from AP, BBC, Al Jazzera.

For content with discussion I like Breaking Points, Rising, Tim Pool, Glen Greenwald

So we are on the same page, and basically use the same stuff. Really wish more of you that lean right would be bigger advocates for using those sources around here.

Thanks for clarifying- like I said most of the time around here your wording means kooky hard right sites.

That doesn't mean I don't also listen to and read hard right sources who have an angle to it. I will say I have been burned before by not walking them back to source claim and removing bias, but I think that is a problem with media in general. Things get lost or skewed in translation.

I'll also add that just because an off brand site runs a story, doesn't mean the story is untrue because the MSM failed to cover it.

The National Enquirer proved that long ago...IMO (and I mentioned it above) is being honest with who you are...if you are a conservative or liberal source just admit it so we know where you are coming from...the issue is trying to pretend you are non-biased when it is obvious you aren't...that is and always has been the right's beef with the MSM.

I agree. All three sources I listed that I view as outside of the establishment media still lean left in their reporting by using influencing wording.

What scares me going forward is what we consider "factual" these days, but that's an issue for the MSM Hate thread.

That and how "breaking news" gets handled (this is a social media thing as well)...does it get suppressed or green-lighted...no consistency there whatsoever.

 

[sho nuff]

And see...I would not consider AP and BBC or even Al Jazeera outside the establishment media. They aren't the MSM...but outside the establishment to me is stuff like OAN, Breitbart, Redstate, American Thinker, Daily Kos, Vox, GatewayPundit...

Which are we more often to see from the right or left...seems far more often we see those far right sources than we do the far left. Bias is one thing...being that far to either side and have a terrible track record for factual accuracy is another.
Bias on its own isn't a huge issue IMO in either direction. But when you get into just being dead wrong and often knowing you aren't reporting facts...that is another story.

 

[Boston]

And see...I would not consider AP and BBC or even Al Jazeera outside the establishment media. They aren't the MSM...but outside the establishment to me is stuff like OAN, Breitbart, Redstate, American Thinker, Daily Kos, Vox, GatewayPundit...

Which are we more often to see from the right or left...seems far more often we see those far right sources than we do the far left. Bias is one thing...being that far to either side and have a terrible track record for factual accuracy is another.
Bias on its own isn't a huge issue IMO in either direction. But when you get into just being dead wrong and often knowing you aren't reporting facts...that is another story.

Bias is an issue when you pretend to not be biased!

 

[KarmaPolice]

And see...I would not consider AP and BBC or even Al Jazeera outside the establishment media. They aren't the MSM...but outside the establishment to me is stuff like OAN, Breitbart, Redstate, American Thinker, Daily Kos, Vox, GatewayPundit...

Which are we more often to see from the right or left...seems far more often we see those far right sources than we do the far left. Bias is one thing...being that far to either side and have a terrible track record for factual accuracy is another.
Bias on its own isn't a huge issue IMO in either direction. But when you get into just being dead wrong and often knowing you aren't reporting facts...that is another story.

I wouldn't use those terms for those sites either, which I why I asked Max to clarify with examples.

I think too much focus is on bias, and not enough on facts in these discussions.

 

[Boston]

And see...I would not consider AP and BBC or even Al Jazeera outside the establishment media. They aren't the MSM...but outside the establishment to me is stuff like OAN, Breitbart, Redstate, American Thinker, Daily Kos, Vox, GatewayPundit...

Which are we more often to see from the right or left...seems far more often we see those far right sources than we do the far left. Bias is one thing...being that far to either side and have a terrible track record for factual accuracy is another.
Bias on its own isn't a huge issue IMO in either direction. But when you get into just being dead wrong and often knowing you aren't reporting facts...that is another story.

I wouldn't use those terms for those sites either, which I why I asked Max to clarify with examples.

I think too much focus is on bias, and not enough on facts in these discussions.

I include the bias of a reporter as part of the fact...if they do not tell you they are approaching it with a bias you are not getting a completely factual article but more propaganda.

 

[KarmaPolice]

And see...I would not consider AP and BBC or even Al Jazeera outside the establishment media. They aren't the MSM...but outside the establishment to me is stuff like OAN, Breitbart, Redstate, American Thinker, Daily Kos, Vox, GatewayPundit...

Which are we more often to see from the right or left...seems far more often we see those far right sources than we do the far left. Bias is one thing...being that far to either side and have a terrible track record for factual accuracy is another.
Bias on its own isn't a huge issue IMO in either direction. But when you get into just being dead wrong and often knowing you aren't reporting facts...that is another story.

Bias is an issue when you pretend to not be biased!

Lol. Just about all of them do this though. It's an issue when the readers can't tell the difference or if people only use a highly biased source.

 

[Boston]

And see...I would not consider AP and BBC or even Al Jazeera outside the establishment media. They aren't the MSM...but outside the establishment to me is stuff like OAN, Breitbart, Redstate, American Thinker, Daily Kos, Vox, GatewayPundit...

Which are we more often to see from the right or left...seems far more often we see those far right sources than we do the far left. Bias is one thing...being that far to either side and have a terrible track record for factual accuracy is another.
Bias on its own isn't a huge issue IMO in either direction. But when you get into just being dead wrong and often knowing you aren't reporting facts...that is another story.

Bias is an issue when you pretend to not be biased!

Lol. Just about all of them do this though. It's an issue when the readers can't tell the difference or if people only use a highly biased source.

The issue is when you pretend to be non-biased but aren't...I guess when your side has controlled the news media for the past 50 years or so you may not realize it goes on.