^^^^^In addition, there are a lot of stories on FOX News that get no coverage (or very dang little) on some of the other networks.^^^^^
So, couple fun things jam packed in there ---
1. I never said MSNBC comes to mind as a first network news source, just that from what I've seen I find their coverage "less" slanted that the other major network alternatives.
2. How can I be disrespecting "Fox or any other right-leaning source" in this case when I'm really just lumping them in with everyone else?
3. The comment you are likely referred to be as disrespecting has to be seen in the context of OP's one a few posts up "Ah yes because I’m sure the media and law enforcement-both of which are covering for Bolshevik lives matter, would truthfully report his politics." after I called out that OP was calling BS on his own article. So it's ironic at minimum that OP would post something and then call his own source into question without posting what they consider a reputable source.
4. Any news source will be biased, but some try to work towards neutrality more than others. Especially if they don't have the same skin in the game which is why foreign media tends to cover stories with more neutrality than local will.
5. And then comes the big point --- most people I would say, are comfortable with a news source that matches their opinions. That's a very polarizing thing in the internet age, and not just as a subject of this discussion. Out of the 6 billion people in the world in the 90's (or whatever the count was in the 90s) maybe there were 1000 that really like some weird screwed up thing. That 1.66e-10 percent of the population can now think "I'm not weird for liking this weird thing, there's 1000's of us!" The internet allows them to connect and echo chamber each other with some fuzzy idea that their weird thing is totally normal, so they become more set in it. (Conversely that "I'm not alone" thing can be positive and vital to those with something like a rare medical condition, so it's not all bad). They lose the ability to question it because it is so seemingly correct. Same thing happens when a belief is held strongly --- the brain wires itself around that and it becomes very hard to change.
The more we hear what we want, the more we believe it. That's why all the major network have steadily dripped that drug of "you're our smart audience" into everyone's cup of coffee over the years because it wires them to only trust network "X" so that network "X" can sell all the ads that they want. Fox, IMHO, is the best at this tactic. They're strategy has been a chorus of "other networks don't cover this" or "other networks won't tell you that" in a coordinated effort to say "Hey viewer/listener --- thank God you discovered the truth, we're glad you made it over here where we are right" when really they are catering to and enforcing an existing sense of being right. People that lean right, tend to believe Fox, so they actively reinforce that belief.
Really, the only defense is actively seeking out multiple conflicting viewpoints
I agree with your last sentence. Absolutely.
I also believe you may still not get at the "truth".
I'm convinced that people see the world thru so many different lenses, all of which can be true, that there is no absolute truth of any given situation.
The following video shows 3 different police dash cam views; you have to watch the entire 5 minute video; it's views from 3 different LEO dash cams of the same incident that could easily lead to opposite conclusions about whether the cops were justified in shooting.
The end of the video has some pro-cop text, you might be offended.
The point being; not even video can always provide the truth of what happened. And testimony from witnesses can be completely at odds, and both can be telling the truth of what they saw. (embedding doesn't work, click the link to watch on youtube)
You know, I didn't disagree with that in the slightest, that was kind of my point. You did have me going thinking it was a nice discussion until the seemingly snide like about I might be offended. Were I to be easily offended this board would not be a good choice of leisure activities. I don't know why you might have felt the need to include that.
Come on --- did you read the posts or just the parts you wanted to make a reply to? I know we're not here auditioning for a debate team, but if that's all you got, then you're part of the reason I tend to withhold on discussions like this because it's a waste of time to not have a discussion without half the parties reading for comprehension rather than reading for contradiction.
But tell you what --- since questioning people choices in news is game in this thread, and you're off the persuasion to mistakenly interpret my comments, I'd be curious if you want to list your top 5 sources. Then I'd be further curious if you want to justify them as presenting a single point of view, multiple points of view, a well rounded point of view or some other point of view.
I'll own up to that snark, I did it based on the image I have formed of you from reading your posts, and where you've said you get your news.
I apologize if it doesn't fit.
Just FYI, I appreciate you posting the vid of the defense lawyer being arrested for resisting arrest. It adds to the whole picture in my head.
I read the posts, and I'm still astonished that those are your "go to" news sources. And you think MSNBC is not slanted pretty much tells the story to me.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point of view.
Well OK if you like it, then it's OK with me. I know all I need to know, and pretty much already knew.
