The Right Side of the News

We know what you're saying, and we also know what you're proving true: nothing. You have no data, no information, no research, just a lot of empty denigration and hate. If that's true then you should be able to show it instead of just say it.The reality is that the book is a hack job. From Mark Levin - Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Lloyd Green was critical of the book in The Guardian writing that the book "...is not exactly fan fiction but it can get ahead of itself when discussing the special counsel’s conclusions, ending up sounding like the 'fake news' the author and Trump both purport to abhor." Annalisa Quinn wrote in NPR online that "Along the way, [Levin] looks at The New York Times' inadequate coverage of the Holocaust (full disclosure: I write freelance pieces for the Times), and touches on a handful of clear problems in American media, from the often poor distinction between reporting and opinion to the distorting incentives of the Internet." Quinn continued, "But the book is largely filler. Quotations and paraphrasing make up the majority of the book's central chapters. Lengthy and irrelevant block quotes from historians about, say, colonial printing practices... give the book the air of a padded student essay." Quinn also wrote, "[Levin] conducts no interviews, presents no original research, and visits no newsrooms", and "When Levin does offer his own analysis, it can approach parody."

---

The book has no choice but to be a hack job because the opinions it proffers have no factual support, so Levin is forced to make it up.--Percy

Try the CBC and CTV.

Your critics are leftists. Enough said.

Try "The Economist". And it is very, very well written.

This is political bigotry empty of thought and facts. 'Nuf said.--Percy

That's the point. There is no real news, or you have to go look for it because it isn't what the public gets every day, it's all leftist ideological propaganda, so you can't answer me with the opinions of left-wingers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPhat, : clarification of attributed quotes

quote:

---

That's the point.

---

That your opinions are mindless bigotry? That’s true but it really isn’t a point that helps you.

quote:

---

There is no real news, or you have to go look for it because it isn't what the public gets every day, it's all leftist ideological propaganda...

---

We’ve established that you call real news leftist ideological propaganda - or even news with a hefty dose of right wing bias. What you mean by real news is at best extreme right-wing commentary. Which I suppose reinforces the point, but again it isn’t a point that helps you.

quote:

---

... so you can't answer me with the opinions of left-wingers.

---

Well, yes we can because they are a good deal more trustworthy than your opinions. You have a record of praising awful nonsense, you can’t evaluate arguments and then there’s your political bigotry. Add to that the fact that Levine is a loon who wants to undermine the Constitution and there doesn’t seem a good reason to read the book with the Orwellian title.

What I mean by "real news" is simple straightforward objective neutral reporting of the facts of any situation. If you pay attention you should see that the headlines and the stories of any of the main media contain emotionally tendentious words and concepts that are opinion rather than reporting. In many cases the story itself isn't really newsworthy at all but is published because it suggests something left can use as propaganda against Trump or his supporters. I see it every day, I've shown some examples of it, there is no escaping it, but if you share the opinions you are likely not to notice it and think it IS real news.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It has been my experience that fake news and false "prophets" exist in both the Left and the Right. Personally I fear globalist socialism from the extreme left and I fear Fascism from the extreme Right. Hence why I try to be more moderate.

quote:

---

What I mean by "real news" is simple straightforward objective neutral reporting of the facts of any situation

---

And you insist that all the news - which must include Fox News even if you exclude Breitbart and the like - is leftist propaganda. But Fox News has a right wing bias and quite a strong one. And talk shows - which you call news - do NOT do straightforward objective neutral reporting of the facts.So no. Your claim is disproven by your own words.

quote:

---

If you pay attention you should see that the headlines and the stories of any of the main media contain emotionally tendentious words and concepts that are opinion rather than reporting

---

Yes, I thought you’d go that way, but that hardly proves a left wing bias. Indeed, headlines often have done that for a long, long time because the headline has to sell the story. And your talk shows will be worse, not better.

Hi, Phat. Yeah, I suppose that you can go out and find a leftwing news source that is unreliable. And I imagine that with a little more effort you may find a rightwing news item that is factually accurate. But what of it? But basically, I think we should try to avoid lazy "both sidesism" and ask:Are the sources of news that most self-described conservatives generally reliable? Or are most conservatives extremely uninformed?Are the sources of news that most self-described liberals generally reliable? Or are most liberals extremely uninformed?I'm pretty sure that there may be some bias and "fake news" among "elitist geography" round earthers, but that doesn't mean that round earth geography and flat earth geography are on the same level.In fact, as we've seen from the news that has recently appeared on the humor thread, pretending that flat earth geography is as valid a viewpoint as round earth geography can have tragic consequences.

If you were telling us the truth, then you should love The Rachel Maddow Show. In her reporting, she takes the actual documentation (usually the courtroom transcript, also the actual letters, actual court briefs, etc) and reads it out loud while displaying it on the screen. Watching her show is like taking a college class in the subject matter. Do any Fake News Network talk shows (eg, Fakes and Friends) do the same? I didn't think so.One example is her reporting last week on what we do know about Trump's finances: "Every Trump Financial Thread Pulled Results In Scandal" (No webpage found at provided URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEuOPcbWoKs). As I recall, she also covers his flagrant corruption including choosing his own resort (Doral) to host next year's G7 meeting and his extensive golf outings to his own resorts which result in federal money being funneled into his own pockets (though she didn't cover the inauguration finances (which last I heard still didn't account for $50 million; also, Ivanka arranged the inaugural ball at Trump's hotel which overcharged her) nor the Trump's campaign's use of Trump properties and services which results in campaign donation money flowing into Trump's pocket (no wonder he filed for re-election as early as possible so that he could keep that cash flow going into his pocket)).For that matter, how much did Fake News Network cover the impeachment? MSNBC showed every minute of it, both the Democrats' very detailed presentation of their case and the Republicans' vacuous and fact-free (and downright lying; eg, repeating their false claim that Republicans were not allowed in the SCIF for the hearings) efforts. Every minute! What I heard is that on Fake News Network they only showed bits and pieces and talked over the videos of the Democrats. Those watching actual news saw and heard both sides, whereas those watching Fake News Network still never heard the actual case. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Fake News Network did not report on several Republican senators who were convinced by the Democrats' case that Trump had indeed broken laws and done wrong, but they still voted to acquit.It would be a good idea to watch The Brainwashing of my Dad (website at No webpage found at provided URL: https://www.thebrainwashingofmydad.com/, also streaming on the Roku Channel, Pluto, Vudu, Amazon Prime). The revocation of the fairness doctrine gave rise to right-wing talk radio. The format of talk radio carried over into Fake News Network where the host raises his voice and becomes angry, thus inducing and feeding anger in his audience. No facts, just a lot of angry noise.If you were telling the truth about wanting straightforward objective reporting of the facts, then you would follow my suggestions above. But of course, you were just lying to us. Yet again. As you always do.

What are you going to do about the slanted headlines I'm talking about? Do you even see them? Do something about that before you tell me what to do."Every financial thread pulled results in scandal?: That's upposed to be objective reporting? Doeswn't she have to prove that, not just assert it? The problem is that she probably doesn't know what the law says about any of it, she just "feels" like there's scandal there, which is the case with much of the Leftist "reporting." OR the legal system itself is corrupted by leftist ideology in the first place, and we know it is.Same with Trump's business dealings. What looks like corruption to you probably is standard business, done all the time by everybody. How would I know? How would you know? I can't take your headlines ande your kneejerk interpretations for gospel truth, but that's all typical of the Left. Everything that the Left tried to make into an impeachable offense was perfectly legal or just plain ordinary stuff, sometimes just a personality style. Address all that, get all that straightened out and you may have a point.I don't see Rachel Maddow at all for whatever reason. But I would ask, what if all that documentation she is displaying is itself ideologically biased? For instance the foreman of the jury and the judge herself in the Roger Stone case were active ideologues against Stone who should not have been allowed to have a part in the trial. What does Maddow do with that kind of information?Of course we're already at odds when you smear the Republican comments in the House and extol the Democrats' when as I heard it, lengthy audio of it, whole speeches here and there, the Democrats had no case at all and the Republicans were brilliant, yes brilliant. They gave me hope for America, but the Democrats, not a single word any of them said deserved any kind of credit.Any idea what to do about the polarization here?Lately all I can do is hope the Rapture comes soon and the Lord will have mercy on me and let me be in it.AbE: Lotta conservatives will be gone, lotta Christians will be gone, there should be a preponderance of leftists, liberals, Democrats in America to run the show before the Tribulation hits. Maybe three or so years. You shuld enjoy that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Indeed. You also seem to have forgotten how to cut-n-paste a nested quote. While there is no real discussion from you, there is plenty of real news. Really? Trump didn't go to India, speak at a rally, and tour the Taj Mahal? The coronavirus isn't causing a great deal of concern as it spreads worldwide? There wasn't a Democratic debate in South Carolina Tuesday night? The House didn't pass an anti-lynching bill? There wasn't a mass shooting in Milwaukee today? Weinstein wasn't found guilty? That's what's been in the news lately. Where is there anything leftist in any of that news? You're still confusing news with opinion.--Percy

When I was younger I definitely fostered a much more antagonistic view about the world. I was much more tribal about my beliefs and viewed the world through an Us vs Them mentality. I learned over time this is a dangerous and destructive view to hold.There are elements of "the Left" that I still find unpalatable. I'm not suggesting you swallow any of it wholesale. But reducing people to the sum of their political affiliations is dehumanizing and leads to fanaticism. Its easy to write off people because they're a Republican or a Democrat but its not helpful either to you or them.