CNN is NOT Biased.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I love watching partisans scurry about. Both sides are being seen for what they are and now it's defend, defend, defend. Lol. It's hilarious. The crack in the ground is getting larger. Hope you can do the splits.

CNN is the top of the pyramid of propaganda bias. What is the Op even? It's just like saying Fox news is truly fair and balanced when it caters to a partisan side.
So, because Bruce Thorton has been critical of the Obama Administration, his opine here dismisses that it sides with the past Administration, HRC and DNC?

originally posted by: muSSang

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: muSSang

In other news, rainbows spout unicorns, and North Korea landed on the sun.

Any contribution? Or just a deflection? Typical.

When you call CNN unbiased, a smartass response is the ONLY option.

CNN is about as unbiased as Trump is black.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
If it's people's honestly held beliefs, is that a propaganda type bias or something far less sinister??

Beliefs don't mean anything when the name of the game is reporting facts. Once you start bringing beliefs (generally nurtured through ideology) into the world of journalism, it is no longer journalism or news, it is televised op-eds, even if not all are done with some sinister ill intent.

The thing with the right wing news stuff is it is all logical fallacies with no legit points mixed in...

This generalization in and of itself is a logical fallacy.

I'm a white Guy who has lived in mississippi the vast majority of my life where all media is right wing. So it makes up the majority of my political intake.

I grew up (race doesn't matter) in California for 19 years of my life, so I was inundated with liberalism my entire formative years. Then I moved to TN, then KY, and got a dose of hard right-wing stuff since moving.

I said all of that to make this point--what does that have to do with anything?

I'll hear one sides point , then go check the other sides rebuttal, and RARELY is it the non conservative media who is using logical fallacies...

We'll agree to agree with half of your point. I do the same checking (and triple and quadruple checking, too), and it's apparent to me that both sides have their favored logical fallacies that are reused time and time again. They are both massively guilty...but to return to my previous point, if all that the news media would do is report the facts instead of turning everything into an op-ed piece, logical fallacies wouldn't exist in the world of journalism.

"I shouldnt have to pay for that", when there are countless things tax dollars pay for that we don't even know about... like you personally are paying for whatever homeless persons healthcare...

Logical fallacy--conservatives can claim that they shouldn't have to have taxes taken to pay for anything that they want to complain about. Just because there are unknowns about where some of our tax dollars go doesn't negate their argument.

"Government is the problem" when everything from ownership to police and fire re all 100% based on government.

No, they are all regulated or mandated by government, but that's not a defense to say that we can't criticize the way government works in all of the aspects in which it asserts its control. This, again, is a logical fallacy argument.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but it's not that Islam doesn't kill people , people kill people. You can't have that both ways..

Hypocrisy...both sides are massively guilty of it. Hell, even the Libertarian Party has hypocrisy in its platform as well--nothing is ever immune from it. But to be fair, you're making a false comparison--a gun doesn't provide teachings and morals and direction on how to live one's life like Islam does, therefore even though people misconstrue some of Islam's teachings and act violently as a result, the same cannot be said for the inanimate gun.

I literally cannot think of any right wing taking point that isn't a logical fallacy...

They you are literally letting your own ideological bias govern your reasoning. There are plenty of GOP stances that make absolute logical sense.

Maybe that democrats don't care about immigration just about securing votes, but even that is a gross over generalization.

But you just grossly over-generalized all right-wing talking points. Do you see your own hypocrisy on this topic? Your own failed logic?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Fox News and the GOP began preaching that "all the world's media, scientists, mathematicians , college professors, teachers, unions and anyone else not conservative enough, were all in a vast interconnected conspiracy trying to make republicans look bad and discredit Jesus!!!"

EXACTLY

Thanks, Josh. So glad you're here on ATS.
Memories are kinda short round about these here parts.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

These are all EXCELLENT POINTS, Slap. Fantastic post. I do my level best....I relax my jaw and spine and shoulders, take a calming breath, and read some from each side. If it gets too horrible, I stop until I am ready to come back later.

There are some good GOP talking points. Today I caught Spicer talking about State's Rights regards the transgender thing. Fine. I am fine with that. Federal government has better things to do.

But then, regulations are removed that ENSURE OUR AIR AND WATER QUALITY. That is NOT State's Rights. No.

The Federal Govt SHOULD and MUST make sure no rogue state feels they can poison their land and the water and air included in their boundaries. NO.
That is "NOT" a state's right. That is a FEDERAL matter.
So is the postal service.
So is EDUCATION.

lol yeah nobody has anything invested lol

Where is Kellyanne? Doesn't she need to be talking to us?

lol


*smh*

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: SlapMonkey

If it gets too horrible, I stop until I am ready to come back later.

This must be why I haven't seen you around much, lately

But then, regulations are removed that ENSURE OUR AIR AND WATER QUALITY. That is NOT State's Rights. No.

There's a lot more to the Stream Protection Act than just "ensur[ing] our air and water quality," and I think that's why it was negated by Trump. You never know--it may come back in a different form later, but to be fair, the Stream Protection Act wasn't enacted until January 19 of THIS YEAR, so there has be zero appreciable policy enactments from it that a repeal from Trump affects. All of the concerns over it have been based on hyperbole, from what I've gathered.

Did you know that Bush updated the Stream Protection Act in the last months of his presidency, but that Obama didn't fully agree with it, so he simply chose to not implement any of its guidelines? It took (I believe) six years to be formally struck down (on a technicality), but was ignored for six years. This means that we have not had an properly enforced update on the Stream Protection act since Reagan passed an update in the early 80s ('83, I think).

Like I said, nothing has changed because he struck that down, and nothing says that he won't produce his own version in the future, but we'll have to see.

The Federal Govt SHOULD and MUST make sure no rogue state feels they can poison their land and the water and air included in their boundaries. NO.
That is "NOT" a state's right. That is a FEDERAL matter.
So is the postal service.
So is EDUCATION.

We'll agree to disagree on a few of those--I'll give you the postal service, but even then, I think that private companies do a MUCH better job in everywhere but rural areas. The EPA and the Dept. of Education may have a place--MAY--at the federal level, but they have been provided too much power with lackluster results for me to deem them worthy of much necessity in the future unless they do an overhaul.

We may get that in both, coming up--the question is, will they be good overhauls, or bad ones. Again, this is one of those wait-and-see scenarios.