Why is it left wing/liberal political parties don't seem able to get a media company formed to push their agenda successfully in the same way conservatives do? (ie through the likes of Fox News (USA) / Sky News (Australia) & similar elsewhere)
It’s easy: propaganda isn’t the preferred tool of the left-wing. Most would prefer that the truth speaks for itself.If it’s any help, you should take into account that, at least from the perspective of the US political spectrum, the vast majority of the world (and therefore the media companies that exist there) are all considerably more left-wing than even the US Democratic Party.Groups like Fox News stand as outliers: minority companies that have significant name-recognition, but are also extremely well known as right-wing propaganda tools that cannot be taken seriously, and with their news reporting held in a position of extreme skepticism, precisely because their purpose is to push a political agenda. That’s acceptable to them because it gets them sufficient viewers in the US, but they won’t get any outside that.They’re pretty quickly dismissed, because their intent is to pander to a very specific audience, and in a fashion that the rest would reject.It’s not true to say that there aren’t similar platforms on the left-wing, but they’re largely dismissed as well, partly because they’re singing to the choir (again, note that much of the world stands far-left of the US spectrum), and partly because there’s very little purpose to doing so.Remember, when you’re looking at Fox News and similar brands, you’re seeing a platform that is trying to persuade people of something that isn’t true, to push an agenda that isn’t reflective of reality. With more liberal news channels, that’s not the case, because many of the developed nations of the world already enact liberal policies. They don’t have a need to push them, because people already want them, and governments have implemented them. Universal healthcare, effective labour rights, living wages…you know, all those things you can’t get in the US because the right-wing doesn’t want you to have them.There’s no need for the left to spout propaganda in the same vein: they’re not pushing a regressive policy set that aims to counteract reality by taking your country back to some mythical ‘golden age’. All they’re doing is encouraging change that’s already happened in much of the world, and that the US simply doesn’t get to benefit from.
Do you believe the media has a liberal slant and, whatever your answer, do you think journalists should be doing something differently?
This is a very unusual election, in that the usual liberal/conservative breakdown doesn’t really apply. Mitt Romney was conservative, in the sense that we had come to accept it. Trump is leading the same party, but he holds wildly different views from Romney on a variety of subjects. So the old charge of “liberal bias” has become more of a personalized charge, that we are biased against Trump and his supporters.I can’t defend the whole media, of course. But, as for myself, I’ve tried to remain open to all possible outcomes, and all sources of information. When i get suggestions from Trump or Trump reporters, I chase ‘em.One last thing about bias. If I’d told you, last June, that the Washington Post would assign a reporter to cover only Donald Trump’s giving to charity, for all of 2016, you would have said we were deep in the tank for Trump. What makes Trump unhappy, in my case, is not what I went looking for — but what I found.
Is George Zimmerman guilty or not guilty?
Not guilty. He had multiple head injuries, and Trayvon had no injuries except on the knuckles, and the gunshot wound. Knuckle injuries are the result of punching. The back of Zimmerman's clothes were wet too, from lying in the wet grass. Witnesses saw Trayvon straddling Zimmerman and striking him. Clearly, Zimmerman could not escape. Head injuries can be deadly. His only option was to shoot.
Isn't this Proof that George Zimmerman defended himself? see video?
Mike I also think that your wrong about have to be near death to use deadly force. all states have different laws. If you had a wife and your wife is getting rapped. say she has a gun she can shoot that person to kill. she don't have to shoot them in the leg for fear of killing them and that is perfectly acceptable to almost everyone you talk to except for people that support criminals and I'm not implying that Trayvon was a rapist but he definitely is no defenseless child. If he was shot there was a reason and it wasn't over just words. Being that it's apparent that trayvon was smashing his head into the concrete that justifies him being shot where ever he can shoot him. If he shoots him in the heart so be it. you wouldn't really have to be thinking about well i better shoot this guy in the leg if when your head is being pounded into the pavement. You probably will never see my point unless your put in that situation but your likely to get killed if your
Why do Republicans / Conservatives Hate Barack Obama?
I hear this all the time. -- they think the Health Care Bill was (is) a massive overreaching of government authority which will hurt business interests and drive up health care costs for everyone -- they think his economic recovery efforts have inflated the national deficit without being effective at turning around the economy -- they think that not extending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans will stifle growth and economic recovery -- they think his response to the Gulf oil spill was weak and ineffective Also Because he's a communist. Because he supports terrorism. Because he wants to destroy small businesses with taxes and government red tape. Because he doesn't understand ordinary Americans. The Thing about this, these types of statements are being made by an American News Network about a sitting United States President. I forgot to mention they called the President Elect a Racist for saying some cops acted stupidly.. Because No Conservative would be upset if he had been arrested at his front door for breaking into his own home, they would be proud to get carted off to jail. I've tried to follow the Republican claim that Bush was treated worst.. Having done some research last night, I've come to the conclusion that statement is wildly false. Sure there were people who didn't agree with Bush or the Iraq war, there hasn't been a single War that didn't have protesters... But the difference between Bush and Obama is the Democrats didn't try to Obstruct Bush.. Bush practically got everything he wanted. Even in 2006 when Bush lost the house , the democrats didn't obstruct a single bill he wanted.. Everything Bush did was met with some Bi Partisan Support.. So This is the first time in History, where one party has literally attempted to block almost every bill passed by a sitting President.. This is the first time in history, a Party has literally attempted to Obstruct every position of the Sitting President.
Agree or Disagree: (overheard) Every time there is a mass shooting like the one in Colorado, the media...?
No, the media turns it into a political issue because the republicans favor the Constitution and the 2nd ammendment instead of big government and gun control. It is a well known fact that the media is very liberal with the exception of a few such as Fox news. The reason white males are targeted by the media is because off of the shootings are done by whate males. Columbine was two white males. The shooting in Arizona where Congresswoman Giffords was shot, white male. Colorado this time around was a white male, and the Martin case doesnt count, because Mr Zimmermann is a hispanic male. Oh yeah, Virginia Tech Asian male, LA shootout in the early 2000's where the gunmen were robbing banks and walking down the street shooting up everyone, they were white males. There is a slight pattern going :( If the shooter were a black male, Reverand Al would start a crusade against the evil white people for defending themselves, and a female shooter? yeah, no press coverage at all.