(Question for Republicans only) Do you really think the "MSM" is as bias as Fox?

[ApatheticAustrian]

Yes. Lawrence O Donnel implied that Trump should be executed for treason.

we talk about MSM....which ofc means the information programs of POLITICO/BLOOMBERG/NBC/CNN/WAPO/WSJ/NYT.

[ApatheticAustrian]

i am never going to understand how conservatives or - more specific - trump voters could be angry about CNN.

no one else, not even FOX, gave so much room and air to the most ludicrous voices from the pro-trump punditry.

they employed mothereffing lewandowski, while sacking donna, and literally tried to befriend donald by association.

think what you want about tapper, cooper and blitzer but they are some of the most neutral voices in all of mainstream television.

but well...since megyn was driven out of FOX for being too mean to Big Donnie, i guess we can stop the charade of "neutrality".

no one wants neutrality.....just even more biased pundits to counter all enemies.

[ApatheticAustrian]

War of words. Look at media articles from before Trump won that said "Trump has killed the GOP." while saying how Hillary's campaign was perfect. The media is afraid of losing power because of Trumps challenge to them.

if "the media" loses "power", this is bad for all of us.

smart conservatives have said since years, that the MSM are more likely to warn democrats of real problems than the conservative media bubble is to warn republicans of their own risks.

[ApatheticAustrian]

The answer to this question is yes. However, too often people don't notice it because this type of bias, liberal bias, is the standard, and people confuse that with neutrality and objectivity.

i am pretty sure if you only read/hear about a topic in the WSJ/the WAPO ....OR...only on Fox/BB you are going to be pretty knowledgeable anyway...but.....the number of used angles in the WSJ/WAPO are obviously more numerous and would give you an easy advantage.

even if, as a constructionist i am pretty liberal in that area, even the most neutral and well-meaning person coming from a specific social background is going to report on a topic more from a liberal angle than a conservative angle....you would still learm more from him than from paid pundits who are paid to be pundits.

[ApatheticAustrian]

The media's bias is not so much in favor of the Democrats as it is toward a sort of milquetoast cosmopolitan social liberalism in line with the delicate sensibilities of their idealized moderate upscale suburban swing voter. They would gladly be fair to the Republicans if the Republicans were all running as Bill Weld. This is, in part, why Republicans outside of the acela-inspired corridor despise them. In the media's mind they are being perfectly fair, as they are unable to recognize their own philosophical assumptions. It is not so much an issue of reporting untrue facts but of reporting certain facts at the expense of others and reporting more narrative than fact.

this sounds like a good start for a real debate.....less "they are mean", more "there are reasons for XYZ".

once again:

CNN has tried to tackel that prop through radical switching of classical conservative george-will-types with neo-trumpian radicals.

[ApatheticAustrian]

btw media bias....


Conflict Over Trump Forces Out an Opinion Editor at The Wall Street Journal
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/conflict-over-trump-forces-out-an-opinion-editor-at-the-wall-street-journal/516318/


anti-trump, small-government conservatives forced to leave former safe Murdoch haven...interesting times.


i guess we are all socialists now and you must write TP....trumpically correct.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Of course MSNBC is baised towards the Democrats.

more towards liberal policies and nobody doubts that.