2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch... Still

[MavCarter]

Just wondering is CNN MSNBC etc exempt to this?

CNN And MSNBC do have their bias as well and they should not be your sole place for information.

This is why when finding sources, you don't just look at one link. For example, look for information from the AP, Reuters, BBC, NPR, or even scholarly journals, for example, to see if they can corroborate.

But CNN and MSNBC are nowhere close to Fox in terms of bias, let alone Breitbart or OAN

There is no equivalent to Fox News on the left, and the closest thing to OAN or Breitbart is probably TYT

Every news source has a bias, but not every source is equally biased. It's really not that hard to understand, but some people feel the need to oversimplify this stuff so they can "but both sides" to make themselves feel superior.

CNN and MSNBC not being as bad as Fox news is the most hilarious thing i've ever heard. You may not see the bias when you agree with the rhetoric being spewed all day but they're all equally bad

[Clyde_Style]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

let's play a game is the above from Jared racist or just plain stupid.........

Jared is not very bright. His main attribute is he will do anything to get what he wants

[Clyde_Style]

CNN And MSNBC do have their bias as well and they should not be your sole place for information.

This is why when finding sources, you don't just look at one link. For example, look for information from the AP, Reuters, BBC, NPR, or even scholarly journals, for example, to see if they can corroborate.

But CNN and MSNBC are nowhere close to Fox in terms of bias, let alone Breitbart or OAN

There is no equivalent to Fox News on the left, and the closest thing to OAN or Breitbart is probably TYT

Every news source has a bias, but not every source is equally biased. It's really not that hard to understand, but some people feel the need to oversimplify this stuff so they can "but both sides" to make themselves feel superior.

CNN and MSNBC not being as bad as Fox news is the most hilarious thing i've ever heard. You may not see the bias when you agree with the rhetoric being spewed all day but they're all equally bad

You're hilarious

And ignored

[DOT]

CNN And MSNBC do have their bias as well and they should not be your sole place for information.

This is why when finding sources, you don't just look at one link. For example, look for information from the AP, Reuters, BBC, NPR, or even scholarly journals, for example, to see if they can corroborate.

But CNN and MSNBC are nowhere close to Fox in terms of bias, let alone Breitbart or OAN

There is no equivalent to Fox News on the left, and the closest thing to OAN or Breitbart is probably TYT

Every news source has a bias, but not every source is equally biased. It's really not that hard to understand, but some people feel the need to oversimplify this stuff so they can "but both sides" to make themselves feel superior.

CNN and MSNBC not being as bad as Fox news is the most hilarious thing i've ever heard. You may not see the bias when you agree with the rhetoric being spewed all day but they're all equally bad

Like I said

Some people feel the need to oversimplify this stuff so they can "but both sides" to make themselves feel superior

In reality, any objective viewing of these programs would find that Fox is by far more biased than CNN or MSNBC, but "both sides" -ism is a religion, and therefore arguing with someone who believes in it is like showing a flat-earther proof the earth is round. No matter how much evidence you have, they won't believe it because they've already reached their conclusion, and reject anything that doesn't agree with them. Which is, in fact, the opposite of being unbiased, ironically enough.

[MavCarter]

“Jeff Zucker, basically president of CNN, has a personal vendetta against Trump,” said a man identified as Nick Neville, media coordinator for CNN in Washington, D.C., adding, “It’s not going to be positive for Trump. He [Zucker] hates him. He’s going to be negative.”

This is from a left leaning newspaper btw

[bigfnjoe96]

Another Trump talking point getting killed. Stock Market. Markets taking a huge dump today, my 401K getting hammered, and these fools can't even get a stimulus deal out the door.

Meadows tells the world, "We can't control Covid, so were focusing on Treatment and a Vaccine"

F mandating mask, mandating social distancing, and F the states who have to deal with sick...

Whatta joke.... Do you know Mexico is averaging 44 new covid cases in the last 7 days, while we've been averaging over 45,000 per day.

What's wrong with this picture

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[MavCarter]

But CNN and MSNBC are nowhere close to Fox in terms of bias, let alone Breitbart or OAN

There is no equivalent to Fox News on the left, and the closest thing to OAN or Breitbart is probably TYT

Every news source has a bias, but not every source is equally biased. It's really not that hard to understand, but some people feel the need to oversimplify this stuff so they can "but both sides" to make themselves feel superior.

CNN and MSNBC not being as bad as Fox news is the most hilarious thing i've ever heard. You may not see the bias when you agree with the rhetoric being spewed all day but they're all equally bad

You're hilarious

And ignored

Lol what exactly did i do to you?

[MavCarter]

Another Trump talking point getting killed. Stock Market. Markets taking a huge dump today, my 401K getting hammered, and these fools can't even get a stimulus deal out the door.

Meadows tells the world, "We can't control Covid, so were focusing on Treatment and a Vaccine"

F mandating mask, mandating social distancing, and F the states who have to deal with sick...

Whatta joke.... Do you know Mexico is averaging 44 new covid cases in the last 7 days, while we've been averaging over 45,000 per day.

What's wrong with this picture

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Yes 1 day of the s&p 500/dow should be used to judge stock market performance under trump

[GONYK]

“Jeff Zucker, basically president of CNN, has a personal vendetta against Trump,” said a man identified as Nick Neville, media coordinator for CNN in Washington, D.C., adding, “It’s not going to be positive for Trump. He [Zucker] hates him. He’s going to be negative.”

This is from a left leaning newspaper btw

Post the link. An out of context quote doesn't say much.

[DOT]

“Jeff Zucker, basically president of CNN, has a personal vendetta against Trump,” said a man identified as Nick Neville, media coordinator for CNN in Washington, D.C., adding, “It’s not going to be positive for Trump. He [Zucker] hates him. He’s going to be negative.”

This is from a left leaning newspaper btw

Post the link. An out of context quote doesn't say much.

It's from Project Veritas lol.

[bigfnjoe96]

Another Trump talking point getting killed. Stock Market. Markets taking a huge dump today, my 401K getting hammered, and these fools can't even get a stimulus deal out the door.

Meadows tells the world, "We can't control Covid, so were focusing on Treatment and a Vaccine"

F mandating mask, mandating social distancing, and F the states who have to deal with sick...

Whatta joke.... Do you know Mexico is averaging 44 new covid cases in the last 7 days, while we've been averaging over 45,000 per day.

What's wrong with this picture

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Yes 1 day of the s&p 500/dow should be used to judge stock market performance under trump

The market has survived for the last 6 months largely due to the Fed. All Trump had to do was deal with the pandemic, and he **** the bed. Get money to people who need it, and he couldn't even do that correctly. So yeah, this so called "great economy and stock market" he touts as an accomplishment has been a disaster and if the Fed would have stayed on the sidelines we would be in a super depression right now.

[MavCarter]

“Jeff Zucker, basically president of CNN, has a personal vendetta against Trump,” said a man identified as Nick Neville, media coordinator for CNN in Washington, D.C., adding, “It’s not going to be positive for Trump. He [Zucker] hates him. He’s going to be negative.”

This is from a left leaning newspaper btw

Post the link. An out of context quote doesn't say much.

It's from Project Veritas lol.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/14/cnns-zucker-accused-by-staffer-of-personal-vendett/

[MavCarter]

Another Trump talking point getting killed. Stock Market. Markets taking a huge dump today, my 401K getting hammered, and these fools can't even get a stimulus deal out the door.

Meadows tells the world, "We can't control Covid, so were focusing on Treatment and a Vaccine"

F mandating mask, mandating social distancing, and F the states who have to deal with sick...

Whatta joke.... Do you know Mexico is averaging 44 new covid cases in the last 7 days, while we've been averaging over 45,000 per day.

What's wrong with this picture

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Yes 1 day of the s&p 500/dow should be used to judge stock market performance under trump

The market has survived for the last 6 months largely due to the Fed. All Trump had to do was deal with the pandemic, and he **** the bed. Get money to people who need it, and he couldn't even do that correctly. So yeah, this so called "great economy and stock market" he touts as an accomplishment has been a disaster and if the Fed would have stayed on the sidelines we would be in a super depression right now.

"Today my 401k is getting hammered all because of trump but when markets were booming pre-covid it was all the fed!!!"

[GONYK]

Post the link. An out of context quote doesn't say much.

It's from Project Veritas lol.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/14/cnns-zucker-accused-by-staffer-of-personal-vendett/

Washington Times is left leaning?

You might as well have just stick with Project Veritas being the source.

[MavCarter]

It's from Project Veritas lol.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/14/cnns-zucker-accused-by-staffer-of-personal-vendett/

Washington Times is left leaning?

You might as well have just stick with Project Veritas being the source.

Yeah you're right. I read both the NY times and NY post so mixing up the washington times as left leaning is admittedly my fault. Either way is there anything to disprove this?

[GONYK]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/14/cnns-zucker-accused-by-staffer-of-personal-vendett/

Washington Times is left leaning?

You might as well have just stick with Project Veritas being the source.

Yeah you're right. I read both the NY times and NY post so mixing up the washington times as left leaning is admittedly my fault. Either way is there anything to disprove this?

There is nothing to disprove. Project Veritas, which is not credible, is just citing one random guy's opinion.

[omerome]

CNN And MSNBC do have their bias as well and they should not be your sole place for information.

This is why when finding sources, you don't just look at one link. For example, look for information from the AP, Reuters, BBC, NPR, or even scholarly journals, for example, to see if they can corroborate.

But CNN and MSNBC are nowhere close to Fox in terms of bias, let alone Breitbart or OAN

There is no equivalent to Fox News on the left, and the closest thing to OAN or Breitbart is probably TYT

Every news source has a bias, but not every source is equally biased. It's really not that hard to understand, but some people feel the need to oversimplify this stuff so they can "but both sides" to make themselves feel superior.

CNN and MSNBC not being as bad as Fox news is the most hilarious thing i've ever heard. You may not see the bias when you agree with the rhetoric being spewed all day but they're all equally bad

Stop it. That's simply not true. Fox doesn't even try to be anything else other than terrible. Nope. There's "no both" sides here.

In this unusual case, Fox's own lawyers even state that you can't take what Tucker Carlson says seriously. Plenty of people believe his rhetoric which he's obviously a lying liar who lies.

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

There is no equal to talking heads like Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson, and Sean Hannity who spew garbage on a daily basis. Their job is essentially to create a constant state of fear and lies to keep their viewers stupid.

Here's an article which states that people who watch Fox News are actually less informed compared to people who don't watch the news at all. They call it the "Fox News Effect".

In 2012, a Fairleigh Dickinson University survey reported that Fox News viewers were less informed about current events than people who didn't follow the news at all. The survey had asked current events questions like "Which party has the most seats in the House of Representatives?" and also asked what source of news people followed. The Fox viewers' current events scores were in the basement. This finding was immediately trumpeted by the liberal media—by Fox, not so much—and has since become known as the Fox News effect. It conjures the image of Fox News as a black hole that sucks facts out of viewers' heads.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#18391e3812ab

Here's another survey that was done by Poynter Institute with similar claims about Fox News and their lack of facts to their viewership:

People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category.

The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly for a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only The Daily Show with Jon Stewart could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2012/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/

There's actually plenty of more information in that article which I would encourage you and anyone else to read. But my point stands. Fox News is not a good source of information. You would be better off getting your politics from the Onion. Less harm would be done.

[BKlutch]

I dare you to watch this and not start singing it!

Watch on YouTube

[MavCarter]

But CNN and MSNBC are nowhere close to Fox in terms of bias, let alone Breitbart or OAN

There is no equivalent to Fox News on the left, and the closest thing to OAN or Breitbart is probably TYT

Every news source has a bias, but not every source is equally biased. It's really not that hard to understand, but some people feel the need to oversimplify this stuff so they can "but both sides" to make themselves feel superior.

CNN and MSNBC not being as bad as Fox news is the most hilarious thing i've ever heard. You may not see the bias when you agree with the rhetoric being spewed all day but they're all equally bad

Stop it. That's simply not true. Fox doesn't even try to be anything else other than terrible. Nope. There's "no both" sides here.

In this unusual case, Fox's own lawyers even state that you can't take what Tucker Carlson says seriously. And yet, we are supposed to believe that they are a source of good information?

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

There is no equal to talking heads like Laura Ingram, Tucker Carlson, and Sean Hannity who spew garbage on a daily basis. Their job is essentially to create a constant state of fear and lies to keep their viewers stupid.

Here's an article which states that people who watch Fox News are actually less informed compared to people who don't watch the news at all. They call it the "Fox News Effect".

In 2012, a Fairleigh Dickinson University survey reported that Fox News viewers were less informed about current events than people who didn't follow the news at all. The survey had asked current events questions like "Which party has the most seats in the House of Representatives?" and also asked what source of news people followed. The Fox viewers' current events scores were in the basement. This finding was immediately trumpeted by the liberal media—by Fox, not so much—and has since become known as the Fox News effect. It conjures the image of Fox News as a black hole that sucks facts out of viewers' heads.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#18391e3812ab

Here's another survey that was done by Poynter Institute with similar claims about Fox News and their lack of infirmity to their viewership:

People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category.

The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly for a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only The Daily Show with Jon Stewart could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.

'

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2012/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/

There's actually plenty of more information in that article which I would encourage you and anyone else to read. But my point stands. Fox News is not a good source of information. You would be better off getting your politics from the Onion. Less harm would be done.

I agree that tucker laura and hannity are biased garbage but fox labels them as opinion hosts vs anchors. There was even a rift at fox https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-shepard-smith-trump-news-coverage-2019-9. Are any of cnns anchors labeled correctly?. Also im a news junkie so i tend to watch networks even more on the weekend and fox's trump coverage is contrasting on the weekend shows . I cant name one CNN show that doesn't spew the same opinion as all the others

[omerome]

CNN and MSNBC not being as bad as Fox news is the most hilarious thing i've ever heard. You may not see the bias when you agree with the rhetoric being spewed all day but they're all equally bad

Stop it. That's simply not true. Fox doesn't even try to be anything else other than terrible. Nope. There's "no both" sides here.

In this unusual case, Fox's own lawyers even state that you can't take what Tucker Carlson says seriously. And yet, we are supposed to believe that they are a source of good information?

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

There is no equal to talking heads like Laura Ingram, Tucker Carlson, and Sean Hannity who spew garbage on a daily basis. Their job is essentially to create a constant state of fear and lies to keep their viewers stupid.

Here's an article which states that people who watch Fox News are actually less informed compared to people who don't watch the news at all. They call it the "Fox News Effect".

In 2012, a Fairleigh Dickinson University survey reported that Fox News viewers were less informed about current events than people who didn't follow the news at all. The survey had asked current events questions like "Which party has the most seats in the House of Representatives?" and also asked what source of news people followed. The Fox viewers' current events scores were in the basement. This finding was immediately trumpeted by the liberal media—by Fox, not so much—and has since become known as the Fox News effect. It conjures the image of Fox News as a black hole that sucks facts out of viewers' heads.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#18391e3812ab

Here's another survey that was done by Poynter Institute with similar claims about Fox News and their lack of infirmity to their viewership:

People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category.

The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly for a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only The Daily Show with Jon Stewart could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.

'

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2012/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/

There's actually plenty of more information in that article which I would encourage you and anyone else to read. But my point stands. Fox News is not a good source of information. You would be better off getting your politics from the Onion. Less harm would be done.

I agree the tucker laura and hannity are biased garbage but fox labels them as opinion hosts vs anchors. There was even a rift at fox https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-shepard-smith-trump-news-coverage-2019-9. Are any of cnns anchors labeled correctly?

Whatever Fox labels their people, there's a reason why they have high ratings. Apparently watching garbage is popular - especially if it aligns with your own views. The problem is, this isn't like watching the Real Housewives of Random City where it's harmless.

People like Laura, Tucker, and Hannity scare people on a daily basis, get them riled up, and in some cases, results in people causing harm to others. Listening to those people gives their viewers a false reality which they then take to the polls and vote. And then they also teach these things to their children and the cycle continues.

As that study I linked showed, there is no equivalent to this when you look at CNN anchors. Unless I missed something.