|
theprof00 said: 1No, fox isn't half the press, but their ratings are higher than every other news show. Secondly, there are plenty of conservatives outlets and media. I don't know how conservatives think the press is mostly liberal when conservatives hold sucha huge presence. |
Because it is very obviously mostly liberal? I mean, the major media outlets are all located in metropolitan areas - Democrat strongholds all - and are overwhelmingly populated by establishment Democrat types. What else would it be but left-leaning?
And there really aren't many conservative outlets at all, which is why Fox News gets such huge ratings. Murdoch has made a career of finding niches that aren't being filled, and filling them. His analysis was that a conservative network as an antidote to the monolithically liberal mainstream of the media would be a huge success, and history has proved him right. MSNBC has tried to attain relevance by being the left-wing answer to Fox, but it doesn't really work because Fox is actually the answer to the rest of the media being biased in the other direction. MSNBC is biased in the same way as the rest of the media, only more so. There just isn't really much of a market there.
| theprof00 said: 2Based on what? The facts we have show they criticize some things and not others. On the other hand we have conservatives who criticize everything. I would conclude that while benghazi and irs is not the pres. fault, maybe the AP is. But will we be able to focus on that? Will we be able to fix it and move on? No. Why? Because apparently, those other things are huge deals that the "biased liberal media" is avoiding, so therefore, it will fall upon conservatives to throw up as much of a stink as possible to make sure we only argue about completely asinine things that should be solved by their specific institutions, and not the pres. This is only going to end in trying to pass legislation to fix the problems and CONSERVATIVES ARE GOING TO BLOCK IT, citing some such liberal agenda. This is what happens every single time. |
Your reading of the situation seems to be that liberals are criticizing Obama on legitimate and reasonable issues because they are reasonable people whereas conservatives are "biased". Not that liberals are biased towards issues that liberals care about, whereas conservatives are biased towards issues that conservatives care about, which is the reality.
Even criticism when it comes to traditionally liberal issues, like drones or wiretapping or cracking down on whistleblowers, has been very muted compared to what it would be if there were a Republican president. Which neatly offsets conservatives bitching about things they would normally never bitch about under a Republican president.
| theprof00 said: 3I don't understand your third point. Is it important or not? You said it was. Now, maybe it is, maybe it isn't? Why the fuck are we arguing about things that we don't even know the importance of? Pick a side and stick with it. |
It's pretty important, sure. It's just arguably not as important as Benghazi (no one died) and perhaps not even as important as the IRS engaging in brazenly politicized behavior. But it will probably be treated as the most important of the three by the media because it's about the media. That is how bias works, see?
| theprof00 said: 4 The way you paint a picture, the majority of Americans (who voted democrat) are uninformed, shills, biased, and probably a whole mess of other things. What's so hard about thinking that the majority of Americans simply agree that Benghazi isn't that important, and what was important was getting the economy back on track, ending the war, and equality? |
I'm pretty sure most Americans didn't vote at all. Given how uninformed they largely are, this is probably a good thing.
Just because Obama won an election doesn't mean Americans don't care about Benghazi, or wouldn't think that it's important if they knew enough about it to have an opinion worth considering. Even if they wouldn't think it's important, that doesn't mean it's not important. Rather than presenting an argument as to why Benghazi isn't important, you point to the media ignoring it as some kind of prima facie evidence that it doesn't matter and then cite resulting general apathy (read: ignorance) about the issue as further proof, which is, needless to say, very circular reasoning.
