Leaving The Left, My #WalkAway Story

I can see you're trying to make some kind of point. Keep at it....you'll get there someday.

 

So you left out any mention of the young, idealistic group, with no comprehension of what life holds down the road, everything is a party and why worry about the future, who over time, understand what working for their money means, what understanding supporting a family means, and what a Charlie-fox trot the government is, that in their older age, just wants you to stay the hell off their lawn that they nurtured?

Your statement also makes no mention of the 'stronger ones', while not greedy, not dependent on others for their survival, wish to keep what is theirs that they have worked for? Why is that?

 

Proof?

 

Lol...The stronger ones like Bill Gates or Buffett? They know that greed is a cancer and act accordingly. Stronger people are generally more compassionate and and inclusive.
Weak, greedy, stupid and frightened people are the ones who see the world as an 'us against them' game. Strong people know that we are all in it together.

 

So strong you need other people's stuff

 

Actually, that is not true. They don't view it as a 'us against them', that's how YOU view it. It's interesting you do not see the flaws in your statement, where YOU pit people against each other… and those who are wealthy, are not sharing it with all the ones 'in it together'.

 

Where did Surfer Joe say HE needed other people's stuff?

 

Do you not understand the logical fallacy - Why would you discount good information on the basis of the messenger ? This makes no sense.

Do you discount a message for no good reason - and in the second part of your post you complain that a message is not being heard enough (perhaps because is being discounted for no good reason).

Do you see what I am getting a here ?

 

I disagree with your conclusions and question the veracity of liberal “facts” from time to time

 

What does that have to do with demonization of the source regardless of the veracity of the facts ? You are answering to a different issue/question than the one that was put forward.

I was not discussing the veracity of any information in particular. I was discussing you discounting information (regardless of the quality of that information) on the basis of the source rather than the veracity of that information.

 

The lib news media has been outed as partisan and dishonest

Once you lose trust its not easy to get it back

 

Do you believe FOX news is truly 100% "fair and balanced"?

For the record I don't believe ANY news media is fair and balanced. I think they all lean left or right depending on the outlet

 

Fox News does not deliberately lie

The lib news media does

 

Not what I asked you. Let me try this again...do you believe FOX news is truly 100% "fair and balanced"?

 

Yes

 

https://www.salon.com/2018/07/09/ru...k-on-democrats-is-a-likely-kremlin-operation/

 

Oh please...no media outlet is 100% fair and balanced.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/
Fox News typically looks at the issues from a conservative perspective and also has a number of on air personalities that are strong supporters of Trump, such as Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Tomi Lahren. FNC typically skews conservative as there is less criticism of Trump, therefore the majority of stories are pro-Trump.

In review, FNC publishes stories with emotionally loaded headlines such as “’They Wanted It to Blow Up’: Limbaugh Says Success of Trump-Kim Summit Caught Media Off Guard” and “Tucker: 2016 Russia Collusion ‘Witch Hunt’ Now Extends to Jill Stein.” When it comes to sourcing they typically utilize pro-Trump pundits such as Rush Limbaugh who has a very poor record with fact checkers, as well as credible sources such as the Wall Street Journal. Fox News is also known to publish right wing conspiracy theories, although after being sued they retracted the story. FNC has also been deemed the least accurate cable news source according to Politifact.

Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to wording and story selection that favors the right and Mixed factually based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies

Studies of reporting bias[edit]
In a 2006 academic content analysis of election news, Rasmussen Reports showed that coverage at ABC, CBS, and NBC was more favorable toward Kerry than Bush, while coverage at Fox News Channel were more favorable toward Bush.[48]

In a 2010 study of the news coverage of the 2004 political party conventions, Morris and Francia found that Fox News' reporting was more negative toward the Democratic Convention and gave Republicans more opportunity to voice their message than the other networks. The study also found that viewers who relied on Fox News' coverage exhibited attitude change toward both candidates, but particularly a lowering opinions toward John Kerry. In contrast the study found that CNN's coverage was more fair and balanced.[49]

A study published in November 2005 by Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science at UCLA, scoring political bias from twenty mainstream news reporting outlets, concluded that all "except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress." In particular, Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume had an Americans for Democratic Action rating that was right of the political center. Groseclose's model used the number of times a host cited a particular think tank on his or her program and compared it with the number of times a member of the U.S. Congress cited a think tank, correlating that with the politician's Americans for Democratic Action rating.[50][51]

Geoff Nunberg, a professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley and a National Public Radio commentator, criticized the methodology of the study and labeled its conclusions invalid.[52] He pointed to what he saw as a Groseclose's reliance on interpretations of facts and data that were taken from sources that were not, in his view, credible. Groseclose and Professor Jeff Milyo rebutted, saying Nunberg "shows a gross misunderstanding [of] our statistical method and the actual assumptions upon which it relies."[53] Mark Liberman (a professor of Computer Science and the director of Linguistic Data Consortium at the University of Pennsylvania), who helped post Groseclose and Milyo's rebuttal, later posted how the statistical methods used to calculate this bias pose faults.[54][55] Mark concluded "that many if not most of the complaints directed against G&M are motivated in part by ideological disagreement — just as much of the praise for their work is motivated by ideological agreement. It would be nice if there were a less politically fraught body of data on which such modeling exercises could be explored."[54]

A December 2007 study/examination by Robert Lichter of a self-described nonpartisan media watchdog group, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that Fox News's evaluations of all of the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates combined was 51% positive and 49% negative, while the network's evaluations of the Republican presidential candidates 51% negative and 49% positive. The study, however, did find that Fox's coverage was less negative toward Republican candidates than the coverage of broadcast networks.[56]

A study by Media Matters for America found that between August 1 and October 1, 2013, on Fox News "69 percent of guests and 75 percent of mentions cast doubt on climate science," compared to "[half] of those quoted in The Wall Street Journal ... about 29 percent in The Los Angeles Times, about 17 percent in the Washington Post and about 12 percent in Bloomberg News."[57][58] Fox News' argument against criticism that it disproportionately represents the views of climate change deniers was to itself deny the factual figures which indicate that 97% of climate science experts worldwide hold the consensus view of human-caused global warming.[59] A 2012 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that, in the entire 2013, 70% of global warmingcoverage by Fox News was misleading. The report put the figure significantly lower—81 percent—for the Wall Street Journal. The misleading statements identified in the report included "... dismissals of human-caused climate change, disparaging comments about individual scientists, rejections of climate science as a body of knowledge, and cherry picking of data."[60][61] A similar 2013 report, also conducted by Union of Concerned Scientists, found that 28% of global warming coverage by Fox News was accurate, a nine-fold increase from the aforementioned report but still significantly behind CNN and MSNBC respectively (70% and 92%).[62]

Croft concluded that Fox News coverage glorified the Iraq War and its reporting framed the discussion in such a way as to drown out critics.[2] He quotes Christiane Amanpour as stating that there was a culture of self-censorship created by "the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News".[2]

A May 2017 study conducted by Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy examined coverage of U.S. President Donald Trump's first 100 days in office by several major mainstream media outlets including Fox.[63] It found that, altogether, Trump received 80% negative coverage from the media, and that he received the least negative coverage on Fox – 52% negative and 48% positive.[64]

 

That meets the test of fair and balanced for me

Particularly when compared to the liberal media

 

Hahahaha...your bias is showing. You cherry pick one thing and think that supports your opinion. Wow.

 

The cherry I picked pretty much destroys the rest of your argument

 

No...it really doesn’t. But you keep on with your biased ways and I’ll keep on believe ALL media is biased one way or the other.

 

100% agree - this however has nothing to do with discounting information on the basis of where someone happens to be born.

Further - that CNN has lost trust does not mean that every piece of information coming out of CNN is false.

 

Ignoring the source for the moment, this is their headline: Russian bots are back: #WalkAway attack on Democrats is a likely Kremlin operation

You stated it as an absolute.... your source didn't even have the chutzpah to do that.....

 

It depends on the information and what their connection - if any - is

 

LOL. Brandon Straka, a gay New York hairstylist, is a Russian bot. You're funny.