Eegore wrote on 10/05/18 at 08:36:33:
Do you have any sources regarding news percentages and content? I ask because where I live it depends entirely on what channel you tune to, or what websites you visit. There's a ton of Pro-Trump activity where I am.
Do you have any sources regarding news percentages and content?What is that statement, so often said by a certain person, about ‘looking something up’ ?
The 80/20 was quoted on here by members,
where ’neutral’ web/news said it.
And their was a UL site that, basically was bragging about it.
I just don’t have the time, or the funds, to go back through all the posts and find it.
(It’s going to stop raining out shortly, so will be going back outside)
As to searching on the Web.
The Liberal sights say no, the conservative sights say yes.
Their are more Liberal pages/places than Conservative pages/places.
Their are very conflicting statements of both.
In 1971, Edith Efron outlined the pervasive bias of liberalism in the news media in her book The News Twisters.
According to FiveThirtyEight, (Which has a slight Left Leaning),
”… ideological clustering in top newsrooms led to groupthink. “As of 2013, only 7 percent of [journalists] identified as Republicans,” Nate Silver wrote in March, chiding the press for its political homogeneity. The same piece also specifies that two-thirds of all TV anchors lean left, and that 96 percent of media outlet political donations in 2016 went to Clinton…” Another point, Mitt Romney said he had,
‘… “binders full of women” that he was looking at appointing to key positions …”The, ’news’, totally LIED about it. The, ‘News, said:
“…he had admitted that he reduced women to objects…” The, ’News’, portrayed him as a,
“… anti-woman extremist…”. Yep the, ’news’, was a POS. But the correction, could have been, Romney standing up and saying”:
“That, ’NEWS’, IS a Piece of Lying $hit”.
Was the start in 1969 when Vice President Spiro Agnew said:
“…A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen anchormen, commentators, and executive producers, settle upon the 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that’s to reach the public. … A small and unelected elite [are responsible for] a narrow and distorted picture of America….”This is some of the best:
“…“As of 2013, only 7 percent of [journalists] identified as Republicans,” Silver wrote in March, chiding the press for its political homogeneity. Just after the election, presidential strategist Steve Bannon savaged the press on the same point but with a heartier vocabulary. “The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what’s wrong with this country,” Bannon said. “It’s just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no frcking idea what’s going on.”…”And this:
“…Clinton ran the table in urban America, while Trump ran it in the ruralities. And as you might suspect, Clinton dominated where internet publishing jobs abound. Nearly 90 percent of all internet publishing employees work in a county where Clinton won, and 75 percent of them work in a county that she won by more than 30 percentage points. When you add in the shrinking number of newspaper jobs, 72 percent of all internet publishing or newspaper employees work in a county that Clinton won. By this measure, of course, Clinton was the national media’s candidate….” “…People in big media cities aren’t just more liberal, they’re also richer: …”From a, VERY UL, site:
“…A 2014 study of the “American journalist” found that 28% of US journalists claimed to be Democrats versus 7% who claimed to be Republican….”
This is old hat, but still very relevant:
“…most media experts predicted a crushing victory for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. … including but certainly not limited to the New York Times, FiveThirtyEight, and the Huffington Post,…”
“…Is it possible that a bias against Trump within the media was so influential, that it corrupted the minds of thousands of experts and let their own personal political vendettas affect their professional predictions? The answer is undeniably yes….”
Then:
“…It is now widely acknowledged that through various web platforms such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, a particular string of ideas or individuals are not especially welcome. …”I like this:
“…Not only is this a disgrace in regards to the interdiction of a specific opinion and the censorship of diversity of thought, but it is very clearly politically-motivated. As the famed writer Christopher Hitchens once said: "Every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something.” …”
WOW:
“…after Watergate and in the midst of the Reagan administration and liberals’ contempt for him, organizations like the Media Research Center began cataloguing the myriad examples of biased coverage, both large and small. And there was a lot to catalogue, from opinion pages heavily weighted in favor of liberals to reportage and analysis that looks a lot more like the opinion of the writers than unbiased coverage….”So it’s stopped raining.
Ya want to search, look up web sights, Do as tt has often said.
Now tell me why, (when it’s the same story)
The CNN and FOX version, one would never know it was the same story.
Now dig, and DIG DEEP, to find out the truth.
Then see how many places repeat, which story, with which, ’Spin’.
Pages: 1
