Ex CBS reporter Lara Logan praises Breitbart and Fox News

Can't disagree, but I think that's one thing -- besides the bias -- that turns me off the MSM news. It has a vanilla/bland/normie quality to it that I find increasingly off putting. They often don't get to the heart of news story; they talk about issues in a very superficial manner.

For example, I used to be in love with the Sunday morning political/current events shows. Now I find them to be a cure for insomnia.

 

Now that's a darn good question.

 

One of the things that has been happening, that has not been remarked much upon, is how MSM is increasingly catering to its readers/viewers.

To me, the NYT is the best/worst example.

When the internet began to have an effect, reducing business demand for print ads, publications like the NYT turned to their readers to make up the shortfall in revenue by charging more for subscriptions, putting content behind paywalls, putting more emphasis on getting new subscriptions.

When a critic of the NYT says "your print ad revenues are down" (thus saying the market is abandoning their publication due to its editorial content), the NYT will reply "our subscriptions are way up."

The significance of this is that publications (and perhaps TV news too) are increasingly pandering to their reader/viewer base. The result of that is that their news is increasingly biased and slanted.

The Atlantic is another example. I used to subscribe to it for many years. It was a middle of the road, pretty centrist, east coast-oriented publication.

Now, it's an "Orange Man bad" publication. (and I have not renewed)

The interesting thing about this trend is that these media publications are in a sense doing the smart thing. Every business should know who its customers are, and what they want; and work to provide them with those things. And of course they need to bring in revenue.

But, I think much of the outrage about media bias comes from the fact that say, with the example of the NYT, one day they were seen as the newspaper of record (and mostly objective); and then, seemingly out of nowhere, they became very partisan and biased.

And they (the NYT) never came out and said: "Hey, we're changing what we do."

So people expected from the NYT what they had always received from the NYT -- (mostly) objective reporting. But then, one day -- seemingly out of the blue -- they became a partisan publication.

And the people said verily "WTF". And they began to look for alternatives....

 

Just one of my many amazing capabilities.

 

Perhaps, but it has lost any claim to objectivity.

 

I might agree about the headline being sneaky; I don't agree that "Orange Man bad" is a centrist position.

I think there are probably plenty of people that like Trump's economy, tax cuts and wall-building efforts, who might not like his style, bloviating etc.

 

The 538 poll is showing 53.3% approval rating (?) Isn't that pretty darn good? Unless I am misreading something ....

 

Hmmm. You do seem to be correct, at least about what the poll says.

Still, I'm not sure why he would have a 53% disapproval rating. According to me, he's just doing just fine.

 

Dude, I glanced at it while I was at work; and then, realizing my error, I made a joke (or attempted to).

Being sincere, I don't see why his disapproval is that high, but eh...........

 

And, as I said at that time, it's their -interpretation- of that bill. You can't say it's wrong or a lie -- it's their characterization of the bill. They believe that that bill will lead to an open borders policy. Time will tell.

If I asked you if the color chartreuse was lovely or garish; and then you picked "lovely" (or "garish"); and then I said "that's incorrect" ....wouldn't that be ridiculous of me?

CNN spins things, Breitbart spins things -- pretty much everyone does. The question then is whether you think the spin/interpretation is accurate.

I think this is how some people think Trump is a "liar" on so many things -- they don't agree with his spin.