Leftists think they are getting real news. That’s a major problem for America

[rmg_35]

I've posted the link below multiple times that shows truth in media.

https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

Take a good hard look at where you're getting your news from.

Maga claims that news sources that are near the top and center of the chart, which are most truthworthy and factual are radical left.

The news sources that maga followers watch and listen to are not truthful, trustworthy, or reliable, so it keeps them Ill-informed by guzzling down all the propaganda and bullshit.

[Yssup Rider]

Love the way the OP scrapes up a source to support his fantasy and then systematically discredits it.

Always entertaining, bud!

[onawbtngr546]

Why does OP even mention UK news? The heck does that have anything to do with US politics, what with what people in the UK get their news from? I mean, I occasionally read a BBC news story, but fuckall if I know who any other UK news sources are.. none the less trust them more than I can do my own research

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by rmg_35

Take a good hard look at where you're getting your news from.

That is just what Glenn Greenwald did in the original post and concluded Democrats are so easily propagandized.

Why is that?

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

Why does OP even mention UK news?

If you are asking that, I guess you can't understand far left Glenn Greenwald making a comparison of the trust in media between two countries.

Comparisons are made all the time. Most people know and understand them

[eyecu2]

Originally Posted by berryberry

That is just what Glenn Greenwald did in the original post and concluded Democrats are so easily propagandized.

Why is that?

DINO- Greenwald has shifted his alliances from DEMs ideology to support the RINO side more recently.

Perhaps he's feeling a little less supportive of the current administration, and that's ok, but lets not conflate him as being a lefty only.

Similar to Jonathan Turley in that perspective; When you find a bunch of "Left Labelled" folks saying things that only fit the narrative on the right, I'd say they have switched sides....and that's ok, but lets not call them Dems or far left whatever...

[1#Ratt]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

which makes Greenwald a neutral commentator without political bias


thanks for clearing that up

Not a problem, I agree.

[berryberry]

Glenn Greenwald:

That Maddow can look into the camera and with a straight face proclaim that NBC just can't abide disinformation shows what a complete bubble these people live in.

Maddow is the reigning Queen of TV disinformation. NBC is Ground Zero for it

NBC News disseminates so much radical disinformation - which they blindly ingest and then spread from the US security state - that even for someone like me who works to keep track of it, it's so easy to forget some of their worst transgression.

https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1577...360030210?s=20

[tommy156]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Love the way the OP scrapes up a source to support his fantasy and then systematically discredits it.

Always entertaining, bud!

😂😂🤣

[1#Ratt]

Originally Posted by berryberry

No you didn't. Please tell us which of these facts are incorrect and why

"Glenn Greenwald is a outwardly gay, far left journalist. Just because he dislikes mainstream Democrats does not make him any less far-left. He supported Bernie Sanders - you can't get much more far left than that. In addition, Greenwald criticizes a number of entities. He was one of the most powerful critics of the “war on terror” in the Bush era, the US Security state, censorship, etc."

And even if I said you are correct (you aren't) about Greenwald being a centrist, then that would make him an unbiased journalist. So back to the question which you are trying to distract people from:
Why is it that as Glenn Greenwald notes, Democrats are so easily propagandized?

What make him far left because he's gay? So, if a person is Gay they are far left in your thinking? Is it because he criticized republicans? if that's you assumption then I guess he is far right now that he is criticizing democrats. I once voted for trump does that make me far right?
You have a habit of using, to put it politely, exaggerations, to give your post "creditability" are you afraid they can stand on their own?
it appears that way.

[tommy156]

I love that the OP still has the gall to demand answers to his questions, when he literally NEVER answers questions posed to him.

[lustylad]

A year ago, Jeff Gerth published a 4-part series in the Columbia Journalism Review titled "The Press Versus the President".

I would recommend it, but for most of you it's probably above your pay grades and beyond your limited attention spans.

Here's a link and a quote from the intro. Without a proper mea culpa, public trust in the media will never be restored.


https://www.cjr.org/special_report/t...ent-part-1.php


"What follows is the story of Trump, Russia, and the press. Trump’s attacks against media outlets and individual reporters are a well-known theme of his campaigns. But news outlets and watchdogs haven’t been as forthright in examining their own Trump-Russia coverage, which includes serious flaws. Bob Woodward, of the Post, told me that news coverage of the Russia inquiry ”wasn’t handled well” and that he thought viewers and readers had been “cheated.” He urged newsrooms to “walk down the painful road of introspection.”

Over the past two years, I put questions to, and received answers from, Trump, as well as his enemies. The latter include Christopher Steele, the author of the so-called dossier, financed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, that claimed Trump was in service of the Kremlin, and Peter Strzok, the FBI official who opened and led the inquiry into possible collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign before he was fired. I also sought interviews, often unsuccessfully, with scores of journalists—print, broadcast, and online—hoping they would cooperate with the same scrutiny they applied to Trump. And I pored through countless official documents, court records, books, and articles, a daunting task given that, over Mueller’s tenure, there were more than half a million news stories concerning Trump and Russia or Mueller.

On the eve of a new era of intense political coverage, this is a look back at what the press got right, and what it got wrong, about the man who once again wants to be president. So far, few news organizations have reckoned seriously with what transpired between the press and the presidency during this period. That failure will almost certainly shape the coverage of what lies ahead."

[onawbtngr546]

Originally Posted by tommy156

I love that the OP still has the gall to demand answers to his questions, when he literally NEVER answers questions posed to him.

That's because MAGAs follow the 'rules for thee, none for me' rhetoric. That's also why they project so much.
"nuh-uhh we didn't insurrect! You inserruct! You're insurrectioning right now! Look, they blinked! That's a sign to start their insurrection! That's what a REAL insurrection looks like, not what happened before. What happened before? I don't know, but look, they are trying to insurrect the white house!'


That is something I only started to see after Trump started to get his name in the news. It's a tactic that these propaganda news stations have conditioned our fellow brother to believe. Nothing but puppets, who's way of thinking is wholly controlled by the people in charge.



So, how can you trust propaganda news? Even Fox, who was fined 750 million dollars over false election claims? How can you even consider them to be reputable anymore?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

Even Fox, who was fined 750 million dollars over false election claims?

Nobody fined FOX. They settled a lawsuit without going to trial. Just like CNN did with Nick Sandmann.

Get it right, ok? Details matter.

[rmg_35]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Nobody fined FOX. They settled a lawsuit without going to trial. Just like CNN did with Nick Sandmann.

Get it right, ok? Details matter.

You're right. They settled because of the insurrectionist treasonist traitor lies they were broadcasting that they knew were false. Faux has zero integrity. It was all about pleasing the ill-informed radical right-wing extremist maga clowns so they would not lose any viewers.

Even after the 787 million dollar settlement, faux keeps twisting facts, lying, and providing bullshit news to make a profit. Zero journalist integrity, but I guess you don't have to because the idiots and morons keep tuning in and staying dumb, stupid, and ill-informed.