Curious, what research non-right wing cra...I mean sites would you recommend? You know, somewhere down the middle, that doesn't lean either way? What would that be? And the other question is are you capable of answering a question without calling someone a name like some internet tough guy (or your hero DJT)? Just curious, since I'm a ************ and all.
Serious Question
- Thread starter Sarge
- Start date
Curious, what research non-right wing cra...I mean sites would you recommend? You know, somewhere down the middle, that doesn't lean either way? What would that be? And the other question is are you capable of answering a question without calling someone a name like some internet tough guy (or your hero DJT)? Just curious, since I'm a ************ and all.
I thought Blitzburgh was the montherfucker. Oh well.
hey, hey, hey, language, please! They are children on this site(and in this thread).
Yep and quite a few at that. But hey, I was christened that name in his very first post to me by "superman", so I'm gonna wear it like a badge proudly.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
The following are pretty middle of the road, some more traditionally conservative (ie reasonable) news sources:
The Hill http://thehill.com/
National Review https://www.nationalreview.com/
Business Insider http://www.businessinsider.com/
Chatham House https://www.chathamhouse.org/
The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/world/
I also happen to think the New York Times and Washington Post are legitimate, credible news organizations. Of course the Trump fanatics will disagree, since their dear leader considers EVERYTHING outside of FoxNews & Breibart to be fake news and part of a worldwide conspiracy against him.
i'll retract my issuing the "************" label to you.
though anyone who agrees with elf on issues is pretty much a POS.
you're obviously left-leaning, but not quite the *** that Elf is.
I reserve the right to call people names on this board who have done the same. You want to suggest you've lurked for years, but refuse to see that this has been a natural occurrence since the board's inception.
Whoever made that chart is a liberal whacko. It's not even close to being accurate. For example, just look where Bloomberg, NBC and CNN are.
it's a start.
dailywire can be out there, but ...
dailywire can be out there, but ...
i'll retract my issuing the "************" label to you.
though anyone who agrees with elf on issues is pretty much a POS.
you're obviously left-leaning, but not quite the *** that Elf is.
I reserve the right to call people names on this board who have done the same. You want to suggest you've lurked for years, but refuse to see that this has been a natural occurrence since the board's inception.
Ok, fair enough. I think I block out a lot of name calling just cause I try to read the substance of the post without reading any insults. And I openly admit I'm more than left leaning, I'm left, but one who is a moderate dem. Sometimes more left than I even think I am, but I try to look at both sides. That's not always easy, but I try. Which is why I asked an honest question about which site would be right down the middle, not too left and not too right.
I read the Hill a lot. They do have authors from both sides. And like you, and definitely not popular with the right, I love the NYT and WAPO. You know what's funny, I never looked at things from a right/left perspective before. I just watched the news. I watch local news for local stories and national news for things going on in the world. Never saw any bias in anything before, and I still really don't. Of course unless that's just me looking at the world through my rose colored glasses.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
No, it just means you're not part of an isolated, extreme group on the fringes that gets their news from FoxNews and Breitbart (and worse), who agree with the President that there's a huge conspiracy in the media (and the DOJ, and the FBI and the intelligence services) plotting against him 24/7. Unlike them, you care about and trust journalistic integrity, you read multiple sources to verify information and dismiss out of hand wacky conspiracy theories that the Trump orbit feeds off of. Don't let them tell you otherwise.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
I've been reading WAPO for decades, since I lived in DC for a time in my 20s. It's not obvious, Breitbart level bias but it's gotten progressively more left leaning over the years in what stories it chooses to pursue and what it ignores or minimizes. Easy on the Clintons and Obamas, scrounging around for every negative shred they can find on W and Trump.
Yeah, I have somewhat of a problem with the bolded (which evidently didn't bold), but about the media, DOJ, FBI...etc. I was around 8 when Nixon resigned, so naturally I don't remember anything other than history class and listening to my parents. But the paranoia sounds very Nixon-like. Wasn't Comey someone he loved when he reopened the (1,000th) email investigation on Hillary? Now I voted for Hillary and didn't really have an opinion on who was conducting what investigation. I just let it play its course. I didn't hold any hatred towards anyone who was looking into anything. Just figured it was their job and it is what it is. That's just one (of a very long list) of the issues I have with him. He attacks anyone who's doing the job they were put in place to do. If you have nothing to worry about, nothing's gonna come of anything, then just let it play out and quit attacking everyone you don't like. And I've learned long ago not to listen to his fake news cries. It's just rhetoric at this point and somewhat sad.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
Very condescending Tibs.
No one here talks about a huge conspiracy. But when studies show media coverage that is 93% negative against someone you have to start thinking something's amiss. As you know I'm not a Trump fan but most of the media seizes on everything negative and stubbornly refuses to report on any positive developments. There is plenty not to like about him but there is also no question that some of what is reported about him and his family is made up, overblown, exaggerated and would never, ever be even be looked into if it was the Obamas or the Clintons.
You make it sound like we think it's some kind of plot, but it isn't. It's very liberal people, educated in very liberal colleges in very liberal cities who run most of the media. You don't have to be some paranoid right-winger to recognize that.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
Good God, I stopped reading right there. You must have 90% of the regulars here on ignore.
The conspiracy is the witch hunt, a lefty issue.
Fox News & Breitbart are conservative mouthpieces (like CNN & MSNBC are liberal mouthpieces), but you paint them as the mouthpiece for isolated, extremist groups on the fringe? Good lord. CNN celebrates with wine parties for crooked Hillary and Rachel Maddow thinks a missile strike orchestrated by 3 different countries is a cover for domestic woes for Trump and they basically go unchecked -- yet the conservative outlets are the wacky ones. And journalistic integrity? That's long gone. I really hope you didn't type that with a straight face.
Amen.
I've tried reading some Politico stuff and The Hill which are kinda equal opposites. Some good writing there which helps to broaden the opinion somewhat.
In order to gain more perspective and look at the US from the outside in, do try some foreign news services really. There's a lot of perspective both pro and con to be had. I'm finding that looking at the same news day after day which are based on my own predispositions is really rotting my brain and my soul. And America's too.
Oh and Fox news sucks.
We disagree because they are not legitimate. This isn't "feelings" or conjecture. They are proven, biased, Leftist organizations with political agendas.
For example, an objective news source would, prior to an election, put hypothetically ten reporters to look into the Democratic candidate, and ten reporters on looking into the Republican candidate. In the 2016 Election, the Washington post put over 20 reporters dedicated full time into digging up dirt on Trump. They put exactly ZERO into looking for dirt on Hillary Rodham Clinton.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3CHbka81WA
Washington Post assigns army of 20 to dig into 'every phase' of Trump's life
That isn't legitimate Tibs and for you to argue otherwise is you being obtuse. They have a political agenda and they used their position as a major media organization to try to influence an election in favor of the candidate they WANTED to win.
The Gray Lady ADMITS to being biased. Self Admitted: New York Times editor admits paper is very, very (very) biased
You note above that The Hill is pretty middle of the road. They even skewer the NYT: Defending the indefensible: Bias at the New York Times
Or this gem: The New York Times Finally Admits It’s Just A Democrat Super PAC
They are legitimate...to you. Because they preach what you want to hear. Because they are political activists for your side.
They are both incredibly biased organizations.
After arguing with a number of people on The Hill, I've concluded that many of them are Federal employees living in the Virginia/Maryland/D.C. area where there is never a recession.
Pie is a comedian and not a real news guy, kind of in the mold of Jon Stewart, but I love his stuff. *Profanity Alert*
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
Well, you stopped reading before I explained myself but then liberals tend to stick their fingers in their ears a lot.
A lot of the mainstream media is run by admitted liberals. It's not some right wing conspiracy fantasy,, it's just the way it is. I think most liberals even admit that. Maybe you've been out of the country a little too long. Seriously, think about ABC, NBC,CBS,CNN, MSNBC, NPR news shows...morning noon and night. Name one major anchor of any of them who you can say is not a solid liberal (Joe Scarborough used to be a bit of an exception, but he's flipped.)
Go ahead, we'll wait.
You all scream about Fox News 24/7 but you have every single other TV news outlet in your corner.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/11/meet-the-liberal-press/
From your article. I laugh when people like Tibs and the Left say "It's a great big fat conspiracy, the media isn't out to get Trump. Or conservatives." Yeah, about that.
And
And this opinion, which is spot on
This is why it's best to read the AP wire or Reuters...
