Fake News

[RiverDog]

In 1984, 10 voted for Democrat Walter Mondale, zero for Ronald Reagan.

One of the largest electoral landslides in history for REAGAN and ZERO voted for him. That just about says it all doesn't it?

And nearly 59% of the popular vote, which hasn't been close to being matched since then. Even Eisenhower, an extremely popular war hero, never matched Reagan's '84 popular vote.

If it were just one election, I could see it as an anomaly. But it's an obvious trend.

[idhawkman]

I guess it is bad timing to defend the fake MSM today since Jill Abrahmson just came out criticizing her old paper (New York Times). Remember, she was the first female editor for the Times. I know most of you won't read this link but it does cut both ways and is more fair pro and con regarding the fake news than I've seen in a while. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-n-y-times-editor-rips-trump-coverage-as-biased

Maybe there is hope for a new press that is fair and balanced and only reports facts without spin. It won't come from the outlets that are out there now though.

[idhawkman]

And nearly 59% of the popular vote, which hasn't been close to being matched since then. Even Eisenhower, an extremely popular war hero, never matched Reagan's '84 popular vote.

If it were just one election, I could see it as an anomaly. But it's an obvious trend.

Yep. Just dumbfounding isn't it?

[RiverDog]

I guess it is bad timing to defend the fake MSM today since Jill Abrahmson just came out criticizing her old paper (New York Times). Remember, she was the first female editor for the Times. I know most of you won't read this link but it does cut both ways and is more fair pro and con regarding the fake news than I've seen in a while. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-n-y-times-editor-rips-trump-coverage-as-biased

Maybe there is hope for a new press that is fair and balanced and only reports facts without spin. It won't come from the outlets that are out there now though.

That's why I've said that you have to get your news from multiple sources. If you swear off one news source or another because you think they're biased, you're subjecting yourself to a singular POV.

I get most of my news over the news feed I've selected on my tablet. I have over a dozen sources on my news feed, from CNN to Fox, from NPR to the National Review. It's not a fool proof method, but it sure beats listening to one POV like Fox or CNN.

[idhawkman]

That's why I've said that you have to get your news from multiple sources. If you swear off one news source or another because you think they're biased, you're subjecting yourself to a singular POV.

I get most of my news over the news feed I've selected on my tablet. I have over a dozen sources on my news feed, from CNN to Fox, from NPR to the National Review. It's not a fool proof method, but it sure beats listening to one POV like Fox or CNN.

Just to be clear you mean FoxNews right? Fox affiliate local stations are often times reflective of the city they are located in as to political bent.

Its good to get other points of view but if all of them are tainted its hard to really get the true story. Thta's probably why you mentioned that it isn't fool proof. I remember seeing a video on Youtube once where they had like 50 news broadcasts all from separate sources but they all said the same thing - VERBATIM. It was unreal and they mashed it up so that it was like a chorus. IN a case like that, no matter how many sources you have, you are only getting one story and the political bent of whoever planted it. Comey's dossier story is a good example of that, too.

[RiverDog]

That's why I've said that you have to get your news from multiple sources. If you swear off one news source or another because you think they're biased, you're subjecting yourself to a singular POV.

I get most of my news over the news feed I've selected on my tablet. I have over a dozen sources on my news feed, from CNN to Fox, from NPR to the National Review. It's not a fool proof method, but it sure beats listening to one POV like Fox or CNN.

Just to be clear you mean FoxNews right?

Yes, Fox News. I was speaking of my internet feed, not the TV channel so I didn't think it necessary to differentiate. The only time I consistently watch TV news is on those occasions at my gym during my 45 minutes or so aerobic exercises when I'm not watching a sporting event, in which case I'll split my time between Fox News and MSNBC, two polar opposite POV's.

Its good to get other points of view but if all of them are tainted its hard to really get the true story. Thta's probably why you mentioned that it isn't fool proof. I remember seeing a video on Youtube once where they had like 50 news broadcasts all from separate sources but they all said the same thing - VERBATIM. It was unreal and they mashed it up so that it was like a chorus. IN a case like that, no matter how many sources you have, you are only getting one story and the political bent of whoever planted it. Comey's dossier story is a good example of that, too.

That's probably true of the major networks, less true of the newspapers and magazines.

It's impossible not to read or watch ANY biased news, so the best you can hope for is to watch two different biases in the hope that the truth is somewhere in the middle. But it's infinitely better than what we had 30 years ago when 3 or 4 networks dominated news reporting.

[Aseahawkfan]

Asea, I'd correct you on this, but it's so wrong I'm not sure it needs correcting.

It doesn't need correcting because once again the evidence speaks for itself. He won the popular vote by an insane amount. He won the electoral college by a huge margin as well. He had some hiccups when he first ran, but once he hit his second term the nation was firmly behind him as much as America can be behind anyone. Reagan was one of the most popular presidents during that time period. Maybe the stations you listened to didn't like him, but I've heard plenty on both sides of the political spectrum that felt Reagan represented the nation well. His biggest hit was the Iran-Contra Scandal which they tried to pillory him on and he was reviled by the black community. I don't recall what counted as the mainstream media attacking him like they do nowadays. The back and forth bias absent any attempt at objective journalism came with the rise of biased media for profit.

It's well documented that Limbaugh, and later Fox News, were a *reaction* to an overly-liberal media, not a cause of it.

You likely know more than I do about this one. I was young when the rise of media bias for profit started.

[idhawkman]

Yes, Fox News. I was speaking of my internet feed, not the TV channel so I didn't think it necessary to differentiate. The only time I consistently watch TV news is on those occasions at my gym during my 45 minutes or so aerobic exercises when I'm not watching a sporting event, in which case I'll split my time between Fox News and MSNBC, two polar opposite POV's.

Boy, you got that right.

That's probably true of the major networks, less true of the newspapers and magazines.

I don't know, there's fashion mags and other off topic mags that are going down the political road. E.g. Vogue's constant bashing of the first lady while fawning over Michelle and Hilliary.

It's impossible not to read or watch ANY biased news, so the best you can hope for is to watch two different biases in the hope that the truth is somewhere in the middle. But it's infinitely better than what we had 30 years ago when 3 or 4 networks dominated news reporting.[/quote]
That's true. That said, the book by Jill Abramson has admitted that the stories are now written more as a publicist to promote a story for clicks than it is to report the news.

[Aseahawkfan]

That's probably true of the major networks, less true of the newspapers and magazines.

It's impossible not to read or watch ANY biased news, so the best you can hope for is to watch two different biases in the hope that the truth is somewhere in the middle. But it's infinitely better than what we had 30 years ago when 3 or 4 networks dominated news reporting.

Or you could research the issue in question using news stories as merely a starting point. You could include foreign news sources from within the nation. Research the people involved. Read the history of the situation here and there. Compare it to our values including our Constitution. You can do a whole lot more than read the news. If all you're doing is reading the news and listening to people talk about a subject rather than researching it yourself to understand it, you're likely to be hornswaggled. It's the main reason why folks at the top can do so much BS, while we don't find out until the scumbaggery is complete. The masses who are supposed to be governing this nation with their vote are asleep at the wheel.

I understand it. I was asleep at the wheel for so long. You're just working, living your life, dealing with all the problems humans deal with all day, while scumbags are using the tax money and wealth they gain to pursue interests that are not in line with anything the American people would remotely support if they had an option. All in the name of ensuring American business interests that have the influence to push Washington.

Some of this is the global game of powermongering. If we don't do it Russia or China or some other scumbag will. At the same time we have become so embroiled in this game that we don't know when to stop. We need a president and leadership that will slow down and adjust. We don't need to be as good a friends with Saudi Arabia any longer. Russia has shrunk and continues to shrink. China is fighting economically, not militarily and can't afford to any longer. We can start disentangling our interests from scumbag Middle East nations, let them work out their affairs, and maybe the people there will take their nations in an unexpected direction without us interfering in that region of the world.

It made sense in the past given Russia and China were vying for world control. It doesn't make much sense any longer. No one can afford war on a mass scale. That's why we have this terrorism and garbage brush wars in 3rd world cesspools. It's like fighting over the scraps because the meat and potatoes has been eaten. We need to work on getting our house in order, not go into the houses of others and muck it up.