Where do you get your news?

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-04-09, 20:27

Im genuinely curious... what is everyone's go to news source? Not just "Twitter" but who or what do you follow for the tweets? Other social media? Is it cable news? Which station? Radio broadcasts (the dude)? Podcasts? Local news? Newspaper? Other?

Further if you want to indulge me, as opposed to news, where do you go to seek opinion/analysis/interpretation? The answer might be the same, it might not be.

One last thing. Please try not to be douchebag fucks in this thread.

by **Death Roe** 2017-04-09, 20:27

News app on my phone.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-04-09, 20:31

You know, one thing I want to clear up...

I realize everyone's answer to the second question in their own head will be "oh I form my own opinion based on all the facts."

What I mean is, there's news: "Trump launches 60 missiles" and there's opinion/analysis/interpretation where it says "trump launches 60 missiles and here's how that will impact things else where and here's what I think this means and here's if I think this is a good or bad thing." I think those are two distinctly different things.

by **Death Roe** 2017-04-09, 20:31

News app on my phone

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-04-09, 20:34

Death Roe wrote:News app on my phone.

Whats the source of the app? Is there anything else supplemental? Or do you just get a notification that says "Trump signs this EO" and that's it?

by **Death Roe** 2017-04-09, 20:36

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Death Roe wrote:News app on my phone.
Whats the source of the app? Is there anything else supplemental? Or do you just get a notification that says "Trump signs this EO" and that's it?

It's a Fox News app, it's easy to use for my simpleton brain. Just gives me notifications and I look at them and move on with life.

It just gave me as Masters notification, too.

Thanks for asking. :)

by **steveschneider** 2017-04-09, 21:00

comment sections and message board forums. cyclops

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-04-09, 21:04

steveschneider wrote:comment sections and message board forums.

I'm gonna be honest with you Steve that's not a good idea

by **DWags** 2017-04-09, 21:09

CNN first and foremost. Local stations in Detroit.

by **xsanguine** 2017-04-09, 21:28

DWags wrote:CNN first and foremost.

That explains a lot. Where do you get your news? 3742235224

I have the BBC, NPR, Fox News, CNN, and Fox 5 NYC in my 'News' section. My most trusted app is The Weather Channel... and I still give it a quizzical eyebrow raise twice a day.

I don't trust any of those guys to give me all of the facts and I expect all of them to lie to me a little bit, too, but you'll get a very general view of an event that took place.

For analysis I'll check out Ben Shapiro or Sam Harris, sometimes they have an interesting perspective I hadn't considered. I also go to Reason or Libertarian Republic for a more conservative perspective. For liberal analysis I just turn on the tv to anything but FNC.

by **Cameron** 2017-04-09, 21:40

Social media and google. I see what people are talking about, and if I haven't heard about it or am unsure about a certain aspect or detail, I google it. I generally like to read stories from a couple different sources to see if there's differing accounts.

For analysis I like the work John Oliver does, they go deep on that show. X mentioned Sam Harris and I'll second that, that guy delivers the goods, and he usually backs up his opinions with lots of numbers and evidence. And I like Dave Rubin, too.

by **DWags** 2017-04-09, 21:45

xsanguine wrote:
DWags wrote:CNN first and foremost.

That explains a lot.

I have the BBC, NPR, Fox News, CNN, and Fox 5 NYC in my 'News' section. My most trusted app is The Weather Channel... and I still give it a quizzical eyebrow raise twice a day.

I don't trust any of those guys to give me all of the facts and I expect all of them to lie to me a little bit, too, but you'll get a very general view of an event that took place.

For analysis I'll check out Ben Shapiro or Sam Harris, sometimes they have an interesting perspective I hadn't considered. I also go to Reason or Libertarian Republic for a more conservative perspective. For liberal analysis I just turn on the tv to anything but FNC.

Where do you get your news from the most. I have serius and my fam deals with me listening to NPR fox et al on trips. At home I hit CNN on tv first then fox.

I was being honest in where I get my news from. I don't have time to peruse all of the stuff you guys do daily. I'd say over 60-65% of my news that I get is CNN.

I'd be surprised if anybody is evenly split on political lines. I'm waiting for the liars to tell me I'm wrong. If Dude doesn't say he gets 70% of his shit from Rush, I'll stop reading.

by **xsanguine** 2017-04-09, 21:47

Dave Rubin is good. I like him because he'll give what he thinks his opinion is and gives his guest a chance to either change it or empower it. Never acts like his opinions are bulletproof.

I disagree with Steven Crowder A LOT, but he has some hard to argue with stuff in regards to 2nd amendment analysis and other Libertarian-esque things.

I like when any of these guys go on Joe Rogan's podcast and then yap for 3 1/2 hours about stuff and get really in depth.

by **xsanguine** 2017-04-09, 21:55

DWags wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

That explains a lot.

I have the BBC, NPR, Fox News, CNN, and Fox 5 NYC in my 'News' section. My most trusted app is The Weather Channel... and I still give it a quizzical eyebrow raise twice a day.

I don't trust any of those guys to give me all of the facts and I expect all of them to lie to me a little bit, too, but you'll get a very general view of an event that took place.

For analysis I'll check out Ben Shapiro or Sam Harris, sometimes they have an interesting perspective I hadn't considered. I also go to Reason or Libertarian Republic for a more conservative perspective. For liberal analysis I just turn on the tv to anything but FNC.

Where do you get your news from the most. I have serius and my fam deals with me listening to NPR fox et al on trips. At home I hit CNN on tv first then fox.

I was being honest in where I get my news from. I don't have time to peruse all of the stuff you guys do daily. I'd say over 60-65% of my news that I get is CNN.

I'd be surprised if anybody is evenly split on political lines. I'm waiting for the liars to tell me I'm wrong. If Dude doesn't say he gets 70% of his shit from Rush, I'll stop reading.

Just busting balls. I usually have CNN on TV the most for several reasons; I like their format the best (Fox News has a really good format, too, but CNN edges them out, IMO) and since I canceled cable it's one of the only ones with an app for my FireTV (it is what it is).

I usually will go the internet for more than that 'ticker' style news. For example, I don't expect any of the cable guys to really get into the numbers. I go to any number of political podcasts (Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris, Crowder) or websites (Reason, Libertarian Republican, American Conservative, Lew Rockwell... and on the 'liberal' side NPR, BBC, or PBS).

So I guess, in a tl;dr I think I'm probably exposed to CNN the most (it'll often be on in the background while I try to find more in-depth analysis on one of the mentioned websites). But I'm always switching around... not even consciously, I just get bored easily.

by **DWags** 2017-04-09, 21:59

CNN has the finding Jesus series on now and true believer series. The finding Jesus series uses science to either bolster history or destroy it. The believer series really helps you understand others belief system.

Good stuff.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-04-09, 22:01

To answer my own question, I typically use twitter for quick hit news, like reading the headlines from the New York Times. I don't typically click on stuff unless it seems like it might be super insightful. This is mostly due to a lack of a subscription and limited articles a month.

I'll watch cable news for like an hour a day (I work from home so I'm not exactly staring at it. It's just sort of on in the background for that hour.) CNN or MSNBC, or if there was some bad news for republicans ill turn on fox because I'm curious how they are spinning or straight ignoring. Any cable news- after one or two segments of people's heads in boxes- makes me want to jump off a building so I usually stop at that point.

For analysis lately I've really enjoyed a podcast I mentioned in a different thread hosted by some former obama staffers. Yeah, it's gonna be liberal (which I'm obvi comfortable with) but they do a pretty good job of explaining things. Ex- you could have watched a full day of cable news last week, and after hour after hour of talking about unmasking, no one will have really explained how that process works. These guys, from their experience, do that first. Same thing with healthcare, which was seriously expansive. Sure they could be flat out lying about stuff (and since I used the O word I have no doubt that some would think just that) but there are certain things that are fairly black and white, and I don't think they're just making them up.

by **DWags** 2017-04-09, 22:02

Tonight Reza goes to Israel to study the Haredim and the tensions between that group and secular Jews

by **xsanguine** 2017-04-09, 22:28

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:To answer my own question, I typically use twitter for quick hit news, like reading the headlines from the New York Times. I don't typically click on stuff unless it seems like it might be super insightful. This is mostly due to a lack of a subscription and limited articles a month.

I'll watch cable news for like an hour a day (I work from home so I'm not exactly staring at it. It's just sort of on in the background for that hour.) CNN or MSNBC, or if there was some bad news for republicans ill turn on fox because I'm curious how they are spinning or straight ignoring. Any cable news- after one or two segments of people's heads in boxes- makes me want to jump off a building so I usually stop at that point.

For analysis lately I've really enjoyed a podcast I mentioned in a different thread hosted by some former obama staffers. Yeah, it's gonna be liberal (which I'm obvi comfortable with) but they do a pretty good job of explaining things. Ex- you could have watched a full day of cable news last week, and after hour after hour of talking about unmasking, no one will have really explained how that process works. These guys, from their experience, do that first. Same thing with healthcare, which was seriously expansive. Sure they could be flat out lying about stuff (and since I used the O word I have no doubt that some would think just that) but there are certain things that are fairly black and white, and I don't think they're just making them up.

One of my favorite things to do is watch counter-analysis. So I'll see how someone analyzed a situation, usually from a liberal source like NPR or BBC. Then I'll watch a political podcast counter-analyze what's going on. Then sometimes another political podcaster will counter analyze the counter-analysis and sometimes another individual will get involved to analyze the counter-counter-analysis. It keeps me engaged on the topic and constantly challenges my instincts towards the original news story.

Most the time it ends with me throwing up my hands and saying "the hell with it, I have no idea", so then I argue on message boards and see how that instinct plus podcast perspectives holds up, etc.. But for a lot of stories, especially those that happen overseas, that's about as familiar as I'm really going to get with regards to the dynamic on the ground, the cultural sensitivities, etc. There's so many variables that it just becomes the same type of entertainment as analyzing Dantonio's gameplan in the 3rd quarter against Wisconsin or something.

I f'in love debates. Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro participate in so many debates where their opponents are capable of holding their own, too. Sam is an intellectual black belt and I've never seen Shapiro stumped.

Probably why I default to philosophical ideology rather than try to unpack a situation within the current (what I view) paradigm. I am jaded.

by AnomanderRake 2017-04-09, 23:01

I read Reddit's political sub-reddits for a lot of my political/world news. People there link to all sorts of different news sources that I end up reading.

Reddit.com/r/politics is way too left leaning so you just get 99% Trump hate spam there so I balance it out by reading reddit.com/r/neutralpolitics and a few of the Republican subs as well. The smaller subs have much higher discussion quality and virtually no spam/bots.

I also have an app called News 360 that allows you to pick your desired news sources and it generates a custom feed for you from your selected sources. It's pretty fucking awesome.

by **GRR Spartan** 2017-04-10, 04:41

Internet "print" media NYT, DetNews, Freep, USA Today, Washington Post, Chicago Trib and LA Times

Internet. Reuters, CNN, BBC Google News, Bloomberg

TV Reuters and Bloomberg

Radio NPR

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-04-10, 08:02

I have BBC, CNN, Fox, & ABC news on my phone. BBC seems to be the most unbiased.

Other papers I will read: WaPo, LA Times, NY Times, Freep, Lansing Urinal for local stuff.

by Guest 2017-04-10, 08:09

Talking Points Memo, Mother Jones, DailyKos and tSwillBin - I find them all to be equally unbiased.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-04-10, 08:29

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
One last thing. Please try not to be douchebag fucks in this thread.

LooseGoose wrote:Talking Points Memo, Mother Jones, DailyKos and tSwillBin - I find them all to be equally unbiased.

I'm SHOCKED that you were the one that had to be a douchebag. God you suck.

Btw we already know that the answer is hotair.blogspot.livejoirnal.org so you don't really need to post in this one.

by AnomanderRake 2017-04-10, 08:50

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
One last thing. Please try not to be douchebag fucks in this thread.
LooseGoose wrote:Talking Points Memo, Mother Jones, DailyKos and tSwillBin - I find them all to be equally unbiased.
I'm SHOCKED that you were the one that had to be a douchebag. God you suck.

Btw we already know that the answer is hotair.blogspot.livejoirnal.org so you don't really need to post in this one.

Goose spams us with enough links to triangulate the source of his news. Seems to be located somewhere in the heart of Moscow.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-04-10, 08:59

AnomanderRake wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I'm SHOCKED that you were the one that had to be a douchebag. God you suck.

Btw we already know that the answer is hotair.blogspot.livejoirnal.org so you don't really need to post in this one.

Goose spams us with enough links to triangulate the source of his news. Seems to be located somewhere in the heart of Moscow.

Goose can never be truthful on this board. It's pretty obvious.

by **xsanguine** 2017-04-10, 12:25

Much of what everyone is posting as their go-to news sources are as expected given the opinions they espouse. I haven't seen anything out of character... the people that vote Dem/left all have liberal sources... the people that vote GOP/right all have conservative sources.

The RCMB and Swill are too small a group to rely upon but the bigger message boards are a great place to stay up on current events; the sources are varied and analysis/counter-analysis is immediate. Anomander touched on Reddit, which is a good place for that. I'm always on Joerogan.net and they're always posting current event articles far in advance of mainstream picking it up. High traffic message boards are just better at getting it out there. The other benefit to message boards is they are willing to cover events that the major outfits choose to ignore to avoid changing their narrative. Social media has been useful in forcing major networks to cover current events they would otherwise try to bury... which is good, even when those major networks then choose to misinform on that issue. But goign with that, social media has also been the ones outing the networks that choose to creatively edit or outright lie about a given event. That alone has made me revisit some previous opinions held and ponder just how often they got away with it before.

Unfortunately, despite all of those safeguards, it's just impossible to ever be sure what you're being told.

by Guest 2017-04-10, 12:31

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
One last thing. Please try not to be douchebag fucks in this thread.
LooseGoose wrote:Talking Points Memo, Mother Jones, DailyKos and tSwillBin - I find them all to be equally unbiased.
I'm SHOCKED that you were the one that had to be a douchebag. God you suck.

Btw we already know that the answer is hotair.blogspot.livejoirnal.org so you don't really need to post in this one.

LOL...god you're testy. And you know what? My member number at Kos is in 5 digits, that's the big deal there is how low your # is. I've been a posting member there for over a decade. I do read Mother Jones and TPM with some regularity. If you don't read and try to understand the other side of an issue you end up like most of the slugs in this forum that have no idea of why conservatives believe what they do. Since they don't understand us they call us names. See this thread for examples.

I start my day with the local papers then go from there. DetNews, Freep & MLive. Then scan HotAir, InstaPundit and RealClear.
As time permits then I hit Drudge, theFederalist and Memeorandum. Washington Post, New York Times, Politico, The New Yorker, Reason and others if someone links a good article on twitter.

by Guest 2017-04-10, 12:33

AnomanderRake wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I'm SHOCKED that you were the one that had to be a douchebag. God you suck.

Btw we already know that the answer is hotair.blogspot.livejoirnal.org so you don't really need to post in this one.

Goose spams us with enough links to triangulate the source of his news. Seems to be located somewhere in the heart of Moscow.

LMAO....and just yesterday Cameron was bitching when I didn't link.

So once again damned if I do, damned if I don't.

by **steveschneider** 2017-04-10, 12:37

NYT, WSJ and Washington Post works for me.

I've also been enjoying the Atlantic for some thoughtful commentary.

by **GRR Spartan** 2017-04-10, 13:12

When did d the NYT become a "liberal" source?
They have a clear delineation between their opinion writers and editorial opinions and what is reported. They dragged their feet on Watergate and were slow to blow the whistle on their own reporter Judith Wilson. She wrote what turned out to be highly inaccurate stories about Iraq and used White House insider sources to cover the Plame mess where the administration outed her as a CIA undercover agent while failing to tell her she'd been reassigned.

The Times fired her and now Millier works for the Manhatten Institute a conservative think tank and contributes to Newsmax.

The NY Times also printed The Pentagon Papers. Is that liberal or informing Americans of what their government was doing.
Wahognton Post did a lot of work and n Watergate

by **GRR Spartan** 2017-04-10, 13:12

GRR Spartan wrote:When did d the NYT become a "liberal" source?
They have a clear delineation between their opinion writers and editorial opinions and what is reported. They dragged their feet on Watergate and were slow to blow the whistle on their own reporter Judith Wilson. She wrote what turned out to be highly inaccurate stories about Iraq and used White House insider sources to cover the Plame mess where the administration outed her as a CIA undercover agent while failing to tell her she'd been reassigned.

The Times fired her and now Millier works for the Manhatten Institute a conservative think tank and contributes to Newsmax.

The NY Times also printed The Pentagon Papers. Is that liberal or informing Americans of what their government was doing.
Washington Post did a lot of work and n Watergate

by AnomanderRake 2017-04-10, 13:16

LooseGoose wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:

Goose spams us with enough links to triangulate the source of his news. Seems to be located somewhere in the heart of Moscow.

LMAO....and just yesterday Cameron was bitching when I didn't link.

So once again damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Ah come on Goose I'm just messing around. Many of your linked articles are alright, some of them are really bad though.

by Guest 2017-04-10, 13:20

GRR Spartan wrote:When did d the NYT become a "liberal" source?
They have a clear delineation between their opinion writers and editorial opinions and what is reported. They dragged their feet on Watergate and were slow to blow the whistle on their own reporter Judith Wilson. She wrote what turned out to be highly inaccurate stories about Iraq and used White House insider sources to cover the Plame mess where the administration outed her as a CIA undercover agent while failing to tell her she'd been reassigned.

The Times fired her and now Millier works for the Manhatten Institute a conservative think tank and contributes to Newsmax.

The NY Times also printed The Pentagon Papers. Is that liberal or informing Americans of what their government was doing.
Wahognton Post did a lot of work and n Watergate

If you don't think the NYT has a liberal slant than you're blinded by partisanship.

Most papers lean one way or the other and always have. In Detroit the Freep was always more liberal than the News. In Boston the Herald is the Conservative paper, the Globe the liberal organ. In NY the Times and Daily News are more liberal, the Post and the WSJ more conservative. Etc, etc,.

by **steveschneider** 2017-04-10, 13:59

I don't pick up on the bias in the WSJ or NYT when it is a reported article. You hand me two articles from either paper, without the headline or author and I wouldn't be able to tell which is which.

by **xsanguine** 2017-04-10, 14:01

GRR Spartan wrote:When did d the NYT become a "liberal" source?
They have a clear delineation between their opinion writers and editorial opinions and what is reported. They dragged their feet on Watergate and were slow to blow the whistle on their own reporter Judith Wilson. She wrote what turned out to be highly inaccurate stories about Iraq and used White House insider sources to cover the Plame mess where the administration outed her as a CIA undercover agent while failing to tell her she'd been reassigned.

The Times fired her and now Millier works for the Manhatten Institute a conservative think tank and contributes to Newsmax.

The NY Times also printed The Pentagon Papers. Is that liberal or informing Americans of what their government was doing.
Wahognton Post did a lot of work and n Watergate

It's been that way for awhile. In fact one of the editors even lamented that they need to work on eliminating their bias.

If you follow their journalists and editors on twitter... it becomes even more obvious they are not in any danger of being accused of conservative bias any time soon.

In all fairness, I consider NYT to be one of those "good" liberal news sources. It's not like CNN, Vox, or Salon or something of that nature. I'm comfortable with bias but just have to be cognizant of the fact they are going to report on a story from that perspective. That includes providing certain facts and leaving out others. With some stories it's impossible to touch on every facet of the story so they have to whittle it down to something printable and this is where the bias will come in.

by **steveschneider** 2017-04-10, 14:06

xsanguine wrote:
GRR Spartan wrote:When did d the NYT become a "liberal" source?
They have a clear delineation between their opinion writers and editorial opinions and what is reported. They dragged their feet on Watergate and were slow to blow the whistle on their own reporter Judith Wilson. She wrote what turned out to be highly inaccurate stories about Iraq and used White House insider sources to cover the Plame mess where the administration outed her as a CIA undercover agent while failing to tell her she'd been reassigned.

The Times fired her and now Millier works for the Manhatten Institute a conservative think tank and contributes to Newsmax.

The NY Times also printed The Pentagon Papers. Is that liberal or informing Americans of what their government was doing.
Wahognton Post did a lot of work and n Watergate

It's been that way for awhile. In fact one of the editors even lamented that they need to work on eliminating their bias.

If you follow their journalists and editors on twitter... it becomes even more obvious they are not in any danger of being accused of conservative bias any time soon.

In all fairness, I consider NYT to be one of those "good" liberal news sources. It's not like CNN, Vox, or Salon or something of that nature. I'm comfortable with bias but just have to be cognizant of the fact they are going to report on a story from that perspective. That includes providing certain facts and leaving out others. With some stories it's impossible to touch on every facet of the story so they have to whittle it down to something printable and this is where the bias will come in.

Just watched that, just one of the reporters seemed over the line.

Jared Kushner's qualifications is a valid question don't you think?

by **Cameron** 2017-04-10, 14:10

LooseGoose wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:

Goose spams us with enough links to triangulate the source of his news. Seems to be located somewhere in the heart of Moscow.

LMAO....and just yesterday Cameron was bitching when I didn't link.

So once again damned if I do, damned if I don't.

That's true, I was bitching about that.

You'd probably get singled out less if there were another consistently conservative poster around here worth talking to. Aside from you, it's just a lot of people agreeing with each other on most issues, with lebowski and blanch saying something stupid every once in a while to break up the circle jerks.

by **xsanguine** 2017-04-10, 14:37

steveschneider wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

It's been that way for awhile. In fact one of the editors even lamented that they need to work on eliminating their bias.

If you follow their journalists and editors on twitter... it becomes even more obvious they are not in any danger of being accused of conservative bias any time soon.

In all fairness, I consider NYT to be one of those "good" liberal news sources. It's not like CNN, Vox, or Salon or something of that nature. I'm comfortable with bias but just have to be cognizant of the fact they are going to report on a story from that perspective. That includes providing certain facts and leaving out others. With some stories it's impossible to touch on every facet of the story so they have to whittle it down to something printable and this is where the bias will come in.

Just watched that, just one of the reporters seemed over the line.

Jared Kushner's qualifications is a valid question don't you think?

It is a valid question but in my view journalism is the practice of presenting all of the facts without the intention of leading readers to a specific outcome.

When you, as a journalist, and most of your colleagues are constantly presenting stories with the intent of leading readers towards a particular opinion, then you're a biased news outlet. When that opinion that the reporters are constantly pushing consistently falls on a particular "side" of the political persuasion, then you're going to be viewed as that persuasion.

Being a reporter is a tough job because it's difficult to remain unbiased all the time.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-04-10, 14:46

xsanguine wrote:
steveschneider wrote:

Just watched that, just one of the reporters seemed over the line.

Jared Kushner's qualifications is a valid question don't you think?

It is a valid question but in my view journalism is the practice of presenting all of the facts without the intention of leading readers to a specific outcome.

When you, as a journalist, and most of your colleagues are constantly presenting stories with the intent of leading readers towards a particular opinion, then you're a biased news outlet. When that opinion that the reporters are constantly pushing consistently falls on a particular "side" of the political persuasion, then you're going to be viewed as that persuasion.

Being a reporter is a tough job because it's difficult to remain unbiased all the time.

That's the problem with modern media. That used to be how things were done. But to get ratings you need analysts spoon feeding you what to think now. That gets you clicks and viewership. You buy into the ideology and you'll have them coming back for more. It even works for people that don't believe in what you're selling. They're just hate watching/reading.

It is what it is.

by **xsanguine** 2017-04-10, 14:48

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

It is a valid question but in my view journalism is the practice of presenting all of the facts without the intention of leading readers to a specific outcome.

When you, as a journalist, and most of your colleagues are constantly presenting stories with the intent of leading readers towards a particular opinion, then you're a biased news outlet. When that opinion that the reporters are constantly pushing consistently falls on a particular "side" of the political persuasion, then you're going to be viewed as that persuasion.

Being a reporter is a tough job because it's difficult to remain unbiased all the time.

That's the problem with modern media. That used to be how things were done. But to get ratings you need analysts spoon feeding you what to think now. That gets you clicks and viewership. You buy into the ideology and you'll have them coming back for more. It even works for people that don't believe in what you're selling. They're just hate watching/reading.

It is what it is.

Yup, that's a great point, Pylon. It is what it unfortunately is.

by Sponsored content