Where can I find unbiased news?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know many many journalists. None of them are pushing an agenda. They do all tend to skew left. Why? Because when you TALK to people all day long about their problems, you start to realize the many many ways that society has failed. You see the human toll of every single headline. Yes, real journalists, who are not doing it for "entertainment" and have a shred of empathy might start unbiased, or in the middle, but they don't stay there.

Progress is GOOD. Being a progressive is a human value. The news covers PEOPLE and people want empathy for their challenges. That alone makes most people, who are not rich white men, lean left.

100% of the worlds problems are directly the fault of cisgender white males.

__CNN

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically when a “conservative” (read: MAGA) says news has a liberal bias, they mean the news isn’t being told (or not told) from the perspective of MAGA. So to them, unless it is MAGA aligned it is biased. This includes both unbiased/accurate/factual news and also liberally biased news (MSNBC, now CNN, and NYT editorial pages).

So MAGA will say Fox News is unbiased (as some posters here do).

But what they mean, for example, is Fox News told the MAGA truth on things like the “stolen “ 2020 election. They’re so deluded that they think that is the truth and if you report anything other than that truth then your biased.

So, when the AP writes a wire story about Trump lying (which is factual) and Rachel Maddow goes on a talking heads tirade and editorializes, they say it’s the same thing.

It is factually accurate to call MAGA an authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement. Those are factual descriptions based on the public statements and actions of the movement’s leaders. This belongs in unbiased reporting - and in fact, simply calling the movement “conservative” is factually inaccurate and biased.

On the other hand, because MAGA opposes abortion, it is not factual to say “MAGA is waging a war on women”. That is an opinion and is subjective and biased.

I think the real problem here is the declining quality of education that didn’t get “fact/opinion” and “objective/subjective” drills repeated enough for students that they could take that critical analysis with them into adulthood.

As an educational post as you seem to be advocating, do you see here how you are showing your bias? Everything is through the lens of conservative = MAGA = bad. Trying doing the same experiment with a liberal, far-leaning left POV and see what you get. My point is it not just the far right doing this. It is far left, as well. There are many of us who have traditionally voted Democrat, and suddenly finding ourselves in a world ruled by social media nut cases on both sides. At this point, if feels very much like Pick Your Poison.

No, I simply said MAGA = authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement.

That is a factual description of the movement.

If you think that’s bad, it’s your opinion.

And I specifically indicated “conservative” is what MAGA identifies as, but calling them conservative is factually inaccurate because MAGA is not an inherently conservative movement.

That must be why so many African Americans are voting for Trump this time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically when a “conservative” (read: MAGA) says news has a liberal bias, they mean the news isn’t being told (or not told) from the perspective of MAGA. So to them, unless it is MAGA aligned it is biased. This includes both unbiased/accurate/factual news and also liberally biased news (MSNBC, now CNN, and NYT editorial pages).

So MAGA will say Fox News is unbiased (as some posters here do).

But what they mean, for example, is Fox News told the MAGA truth on things like the “stolen “ 2020 election. They’re so deluded that they think that is the truth and if you report anything other than that truth then your biased.

So, when the AP writes a wire story about Trump lying (which is factual) and Rachel Maddow goes on a talking heads tirade and editorializes, they say it’s the same thing.

It is factually accurate to call MAGA an authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement. Those are factual descriptions based on the public statements and actions of the movement’s leaders. This belongs in unbiased reporting - and in fact, simply calling the movement “conservative” is factually inaccurate and biased.

On the other hand, because MAGA opposes abortion, it is not factual to say “MAGA is waging a war on women”. That is an opinion and is subjective and biased.

I think the real problem here is the declining quality of education that didn’t get “fact/opinion” and “objective/subjective” drills repeated enough for students that they could take that critical analysis with them into adulthood.

As an educational post as you seem to be advocating, do you see here how you are showing your bias? Everything is through the lens of conservative = MAGA = bad. Trying doing the same experiment with a liberal, far-leaning left POV and see what you get. My point is it not just the far right doing this. It is far left, as well. There are many of us who have traditionally voted Democrat, and suddenly finding ourselves in a world ruled by social media nut cases on both sides. At this point, if feels very much like Pick Your Poison.

No, I simply said MAGA = authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement.

That is a factual description of the movement.
.

Fascinating that you really believe that. Shows how programming and propaganda can work on the susceptible.

Uh. No. I’ve studied history and political science for my career.

You confuse indoctrination with education.

Lol ok, champ.

MAGA is an authoritarian movement, which is a statement that can be readily backed up by *primary* (statements of their leaders).

Their policy positions place them to the far right, near fascist, end of the spectrum. Their tactics and rhetoric resemble closely the fascist movements of the past - including, but not limited to, the American Nazi Party. This again can be substantiated by comparing primary sources and seeing the similarities.

Anyone who watched the events live on January 6 can provide primary source material to substantiate that it was a MAGA aligned mob attacking police, attempting to reach elected officials, with the stated purpose of overturning an election.

Anyone who checks the court filings can easily say that judge after judge said the Trump campaign court filings were filled with lies created to try to subvert the elections.

This is objective analysis, you simply don’t like it.

You’re joking right? The Nazi party is about racism and white nationalism. Meanwhile Trump and MAGA is making huge inroads with black and Latino voters. Are you even paying attention?

I'm not that poster but you're blind
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/america-first-ku-klux-klan-slogan/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically when a “conservative” (read: MAGA) says news has a liberal bias, they mean the news isn’t being told (or not told) from the perspective of MAGA. So to them, unless it is MAGA aligned it is biased. This includes both unbiased/accurate/factual news and also liberally biased news (MSNBC, now CNN, and NYT editorial pages).

So MAGA will say Fox News is unbiased (as some posters here do).

How many of the Palestine protesters who stormed the capitol are facing hard time? You aren’t serious

But what they mean, for example, is Fox News told the MAGA truth on things like the “stolen “ 2020 election. They’re so deluded that they think that is the truth and if you report anything other than that truth then your biased.

So, when the AP writes a wire story about Trump lying (which is factual) and Rachel Maddow goes on a talking heads tirade and editorializes, they say it’s the same thing.

It is factually accurate to call MAGA an authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement. Those are factual descriptions based on the public statements and actions of the movement’s leaders. This belongs in unbiased reporting - and in fact, simply calling the movement “conservative” is factually inaccurate and biased.

On the other hand, because MAGA opposes abortion, it is not factual to say “MAGA is waging a war on women”. That is an opinion and is subjective and biased.

I think the real problem here is the declining quality of education that didn’t get “fact/opinion” and “objective/subjective” drills repeated enough for students that they could take that critical analysis with them into adulthood.

As an educational post as you seem to be advocating, do you see here how you are showing your bias? Everything is through the lens of conservative = MAGA = bad. Trying doing the same experiment with a liberal, far-leaning left POV and see what you get. My point is it not just the far right doing this. It is far left, as well. There are many of us who have traditionally voted Democrat, and suddenly finding ourselves in a world ruled by social media nut cases on both sides. At this point, if feels very much like Pick Your Poison.

No, I simply said MAGA = authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement.

That is a factual description of the movement.
.

Fascinating that you really believe that. Shows how programming and propaganda can work on the susceptible.

And take the MAGA leadership statements at face value instead of concocting alternate facts about what they “really meant”.

Let me guess, to you, Jan 6 were tourists visiting the Capitol and now they’re political prisoners?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it exists. The WSJ, WaPo, NYT, BBC, NPR. In spite of rightwing fantasies about mainstream media being "leftist," all these publications publish the news. Stay away from the editorial pages, and you are getting...news.

Left wing extremists all of them

Serious question, what does “left-wing extremists” mean to you? You do realize that on a global scale, the US Democratic Party is considered centrist to center-right. The fringe wing of the Democratic Party (which is not dominant, no matter what Fox News tells you) is really just putting out there “be nice to different people, and help those who can’t help themselves”. I wonder who else said that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it exists. The WSJ, WaPo, NYT, BBC, NPR. In spite of rightwing fantasies about mainstream media being "leftist," all these publications publish the news. Stay away from the editorial pages, and you are getting...news.

Left wing extremists all of them

Serious question, what does “left-wing extremists” mean to you? You do realize that on a global scale, the US Democratic Party is considered centrist to center-right. The fringe wing of the Democratic Party (which is not dominant, no matter what Fox News tells you) is really just putting out there “be nice to different people, and help those who can’t help themselves”. I wonder who else said that.

Inconsistent hypocrisy to sum it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically when a “conservative” (read: MAGA) says news has a liberal bias, they mean the news isn’t being told (or not told) from the perspective of MAGA. So to them, unless it is MAGA aligned it is biased. This includes both unbiased/accurate/factual news and also liberally biased news (MSNBC, now CNN, and NYT editorial pages).

So MAGA will say Fox News is unbiased (as some posters here do).

But what they mean, for example, is Fox News told the MAGA truth on things like the “stolen “ 2020 election. They’re so deluded that they think that is the truth and if you report anything other than that truth then your biased.

So, when the AP writes a wire story about Trump lying (which is factual) and Rachel Maddow goes on a talking heads tirade and editorializes, they say it’s the same thing.

It is factually accurate to call MAGA an authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement. Those are factual descriptions based on the public statements and actions of the movement’s leaders. This belongs in unbiased reporting - and in fact, simply calling the movement “conservative” is factually inaccurate and biased.

On the other hand, because MAGA opposes abortion, it is not factual to say “MAGA is waging a war on women”. That is an opinion and is subjective and biased.

I think the real problem here is the declining quality of education that didn’t get “fact/opinion” and “objective/subjective” drills repeated enough for students that they could take that critical analysis with them into adulthood.

As an educational post as you seem to be advocating, do you see here how you are showing your bias? Everything is through the lens of conservative = MAGA = bad. Trying doing the same experiment with a liberal, far-leaning left POV and see what you get. My point is it not just the far right doing this. It is far left, as well. There are many of us who have traditionally voted Democrat, and suddenly finding ourselves in a world ruled by social media nut cases on both sides. At this point, if feels very much like Pick Your Poison.

No, I simply said MAGA = authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement.

That is a factual description of the movement.
.

Fascinating that you really believe that. Shows how programming and propaganda can work on the susceptible.

Uh. No. I’ve studied history and political science for my career.

You confuse indoctrination with education.

Lol ok, champ.

MAGA is an authoritarian movement, which is a statement that can be readily backed up by *primary* (statements of their leaders).

Their policy positions place them to the far right, near fascist, end of the spectrum. Their tactics and rhetoric resemble closely the fascist movements of the past - including, but not limited to, the American Nazi Party. This again can be substantiated by comparing primary sources and seeing the similarities.

Anyone who watched the events live on January 6 can provide primary source material to substantiate that it was a MAGA aligned mob attacking police, attempting to reach elected officials, with the stated purpose of overturning an election.

Anyone who checks the court filings can easily say that judge after judge said the Trump campaign court filings were filled with lies created to try to subvert the elections.

This is objective analysis, you simply don’t like it.

You’re joking right? The Nazi party is about racism and white nationalism. Meanwhile Trump and MAGA is making huge inroads with black and Latino voters. Are you even paying attention?

The whole "Nazi" "racist" rhetoric is fake news and has been debunked. It's so tired and fake. We're all moving on from it now so should most of this board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I analyze media for a living and there are some issues with most US media. The most reliable and fact -checked of the widely available media is the NYT. The Post is fact checked, but they can be a bit more selective on how they present those facts. CNN is also way more biased than it used to be.

Fox is nothing more than a propaganda machine designed to incite fear. They keep certain themes front and center that are little more than rumors and they put nothing into any kind of perspective. The best example I have ever seen was last year when Republicans were still having debates. There was one where Chris Christie called out Trump hard. I saw that live. So I went over to Fox to see how they covered those remarks. First, I had to scroll way down on the main page to find a mention that the debate happened. Then, not only did Fox not cover Christie’s remarks, they did not even mention him by name as being present. They listed all the other participants. The picture of the debate participants had been cropped in such a way to cut him out. So if you were a Fox viewer, you would not have had access to the information that might give you context. CNN and MSNBC certainly were somewhat hysterical in the coverage of what the Republican candidates said, but they didn’t cut out the existence of the participants. NYT was a bit more boring and simply fact checked the statements and called BS.

Most people leave their TVs on a station of choice. During a crisis, make a conscious decision to spend half an hour on a variety of networks and see what is presented to you. It’s eye opening. It not bias to call out misstatements disproportionately if one candidate disproportionately spews out untruths.

Your whole post is bias. You call out fox on a long winded rant then a *tiny* blurb about cnn.

Ok Becky. We see you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it exists. The WSJ, WaPo, NYT, BBC, NPR. In spite of rightwing fantasies about mainstream media being "leftist," all these publications publish the news. Stay away from the editorial pages, and you are getting...news.

Seriously? NPR and WaPo ??

You are making a joke, right?

I challenge you right now. Go the front pages of NPR and WaPo, read the headlines and articles, and show me the bias.

I bet you can't, but I'll check back in to see.

NP here.
Both of those outlets hate Trump and hate the modern Republicans party.
I do to… but this media bias is not hidden by any stretch.

What was it 98% of the media shows trump in a bad light? It was close to 100%.

[Anonymous]

There is no unbiased news. There is only YOU.

You need to read and/or watch center-left and center-right sources of news and opinions. You need to distinguish between the newsroom, the editorial board and the opinion columns - and their equivalent onscreen. I subscribe to WSJ, NYT and WaPo, and I look at BBC News online and some European and Asian news sites.

And you need to have enough common sense and a basic knowledge of world history to not fall into jingoistic and nationalist traps. As an international who has lived in many countries on different continents, I cannot emphasize this enough. A lot of people only perceive what goes on in their area of their country and do not think about or understand how the rest of the world works. They are particularly vulnerable to populist demagogues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically when a “conservative” (read: MAGA) says news has a liberal bias, they mean the news isn’t being told (or not told) from the perspective of MAGA. So to them, unless it is MAGA aligned it is biased. This includes both unbiased/accurate/factual news and also liberally biased news (MSNBC, now CNN, and NYT editorial pages).

So MAGA will say Fox News is unbiased (as some posters here do).

But what they mean, for example, is Fox News told the MAGA truth on things like the “stolen “ 2020 election. They’re so deluded that they think that is the truth and if you report anything other than that truth then your biased.

So, when the AP writes a wire story about Trump lying (which is factual) and Rachel Maddow goes on a talking heads tirade and editorializes, they say it’s the same thing.

It is factually accurate to call MAGA an authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement. Those are factual descriptions based on the public statements and actions of the movement’s leaders. This belongs in unbiased reporting - and in fact, simply calling the movement “conservative” is factually inaccurate and biased.

On the other hand, because MAGA opposes abortion, it is not factual to say “MAGA is waging a war on women”. That is an opinion and is subjective and biased.

I think the real problem here is the declining quality of education that didn’t get “fact/opinion” and “objective/subjective” drills repeated enough for students that they could take that critical analysis with them into adulthood.

As an educational post as you seem to be advocating, do you see here how you are showing your bias? Everything is through the lens of conservative = MAGA = bad. Trying doing the same experiment with a liberal, far-leaning left POV and see what you get. My point is it not just the far right doing this. It is far left, as well. There are many of us who have traditionally voted Democrat, and suddenly finding ourselves in a world ruled by social media nut cases on both sides. At this point, if feels very much like Pick Your Poison.

No, I simply said MAGA = authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement.

That is a factual description of the movement.
.

Fascinating that you really believe that. Shows how programming and propaganda can work on the susceptible.

Uh. No. I’ve studied history and political science for my career.

You confuse indoctrination with education.

Lol ok, champ.

MAGA is an authoritarian movement, which is a statement that can be readily backed up by *primary* (statements of their leaders).

Their policy positions place them to the far right, near fascist, end of the spectrum. Their tactics and rhetoric resemble closely the fascist movements of the past - including, but not limited to, the American Nazi Party. This again can be substantiated by comparing primary sources and seeing the similarities.

Anyone who watched the events live on January 6 can provide primary source material to substantiate that it was a MAGA aligned mob attacking police, attempting to reach elected officials, with the stated purpose of overturning an election.

Anyone who checks the court filings can easily say that judge after judge said the Trump campaign court filings were filled with lies created to try to subvert the elections.

This is objective analysis, you simply don’t like it.

You’re joking right? The Nazi party is about racism and white nationalism. Meanwhile Trump and MAGA is making huge inroads with black and Latino voters. Are you even paying attention?

You are continuing to demonstrate the shortcomings in contemporary political dialogue and the lack of critical thinking.

The American Nazi Party platform historically included racist and white nationalist - but not exclusively. That is why I said their tactics and rhetoric closely resembled each other, I didn’t say their ideology or their policy goals were 100% aligned (I was actually silent on this fact). In addition, I characterized MAGA being “near fascist” on the political spectrum by making a comparison to the American Nazi Party, but specifically said that wasn’t the only appropriate comparison to fascist movements.

As for inroads with minority populations, I purposefully did not say MAGA is “racist” since MAGA hasn’t made objectively racist statements (though it is an objective statement to say elements of the coalition supporting MAGA are racist). I also didn’t say MAGA is “sexist” because this isn’t an objective fact supported by primary sources of their leaders (though subjectively, many do conclude MAGA is sexist).

But, for the record, as a hypothetical if more and more black people supported the KKK, it wouldn’t make the KKK any less racist. But, in this case, since I didn’t allege MAGA is racist, noting that more blank people are supporting MAGA is superfluous.

As for Latinos increasingly supporting MAGA, I did call MAGA xenophobic. Objectively, xenophobia has been demonstrated to be a major part of the MAGA platform. And, I would only note that the Latinos who support MAGA could be doing so specifically because of the xenophobic elements of the party platform. Perhaps some are doing so because they like increased tariffs on China or because they like MAHA/RFK Jr. But just because Latinos support it, it doesn’t erase the primary source material indicating that MAGA is in fact xenophobic.

My opinion is that Democrats have long misunderstood minority communities (seemingly treating them monolithically) and have unsuccessfully played identity politics. It’s my observation that minority groups appear to select their votes based on a much more complicated matrix of values/considerations than a single litmus test of who is more/less racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically when a “conservative” (read: MAGA) says news has a liberal bias, they mean the news isn’t being told (or not told) from the perspective of MAGA. So to them, unless it is MAGA aligned it is biased. This includes both unbiased/accurate/factual news and also liberally biased news (MSNBC, now CNN, and NYT editorial pages).

So MAGA will say Fox News is unbiased (as some posters here do).

But what they mean, for example, is Fox News told the MAGA truth on things like the “stolen “ 2020 election. They’re so deluded that they think that is the truth and if you report anything other than that truth then your biased.

So, when the AP writes a wire story about Trump lying (which is factual) and Rachel Maddow goes on a talking heads tirade and editorializes, they say it’s the same thing.

It is factually accurate to call MAGA an authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement. Those are factual descriptions based on the public statements and actions of the movement’s leaders. This belongs in unbiased reporting - and in fact, simply calling the movement “conservative” is factually inaccurate and biased.

On the other hand, because MAGA opposes abortion, it is not factual to say “MAGA is waging a war on women”. That is an opinion and is subjective and biased.

I think the real problem here is the declining quality of education that didn’t get “fact/opinion” and “objective/subjective” drills repeated enough for students that they could take that critical analysis with them into adulthood.

As an educational post as you seem to be advocating, do you see here how you are showing your bias? Everything is through the lens of conservative = MAGA = bad. Trying doing the same experiment with a liberal, far-leaning left POV and see what you get. My point is it not just the far right doing this. It is far left, as well. There are many of us who have traditionally voted Democrat, and suddenly finding ourselves in a world ruled by social media nut cases on both sides. At this point, if feels very much like Pick Your Poison.

No, I simply said MAGA = authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement.

That is a factual description of the movement.

If you think that’s bad, it’s your opinion.

And I specifically indicated “conservative” is what MAGA identifies as, but calling them conservative is factually inaccurate because MAGA is not an inherently conservative movement.

That must be why so many African Americans are voting for Trump this time

African Americans can be fascist, authoritarian, nativist, xenophobic, and populist. In fact, many of them are very conspicuously so. Many others may simply not care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically when a “conservative” (read: MAGA) says news has a liberal bias, they mean the news isn’t being told (or not told) from the perspective of MAGA. So to them, unless it is MAGA aligned it is biased. This includes both unbiased/accurate/factual news and also liberally biased news (MSNBC, now CNN, and NYT editorial pages).

So MAGA will say Fox News is unbiased (as some posters here do).

But what they mean, for example, is Fox News told the MAGA truth on things like the “stolen “ 2020 election. They’re so deluded that they think that is the truth and if you report anything other than that truth then your biased.

So, when the AP writes a wire story about Trump lying (which is factual) and Rachel Maddow goes on a talking heads tirade and editorializes, they say it’s the same thing.

It is factually accurate to call MAGA an authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement. Those are factual descriptions based on the public statements and actions of the movement’s leaders. This belongs in unbiased reporting - and in fact, simply calling the movement “conservative” is factually inaccurate and biased.

On the other hand, because MAGA opposes abortion, it is not factual to say “MAGA is waging a war on women”. That is an opinion and is subjective and biased.

I think the real problem here is the declining quality of education that didn’t get “fact/opinion” and “objective/subjective” drills repeated enough for students that they could take that critical analysis with them into adulthood.

As an educational post as you seem to be advocating, do you see here how you are showing your bias? Everything is through the lens of conservative = MAGA = bad. Trying doing the same experiment with a liberal, far-leaning left POV and see what you get. My point is it not just the far right doing this. It is far left, as well. There are many of us who have traditionally voted Democrat, and suddenly finding ourselves in a world ruled by social media nut cases on both sides. At this point, if feels very much like Pick Your Poison.

No, I simply said MAGA = authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement.

That is a factual description of the movement.
.

Fascinating that you really believe that. Shows how programming and propaganda can work on the susceptible.

Uh. No. I’ve studied history and political science for my career.

You confuse indoctrination with education.

Lol ok, champ.

MAGA is an authoritarian movement, which is a statement that can be readily backed up by *primary* (statements of their leaders).

Their policy positions place them to the far right, near fascist, end of the spectrum. Their tactics and rhetoric resemble closely the fascist movements of the past - including, but not limited to, the American Nazi Party. This again can be substantiated by comparing primary sources and seeing the similarities.

Anyone who watched the events live on January 6 can provide primary source material to substantiate that it was a MAGA aligned mob attacking police, attempting to reach elected officials, with the stated purpose of overturning an election.

Anyone who checks the court filings can easily say that judge after judge said the Trump campaign court filings were filled with lies created to try to subvert the elections.

This is objective analysis, you simply don’t like it.

You’re joking right? The Nazi party is about racism and white nationalism. Meanwhile Trump and MAGA is making huge inroads with black and Latino voters. Are you even paying attention?

You are continuing to demonstrate the shortcomings in contemporary political dialogue and the lack of critical thinking.

The American Nazi Party platform historically included racist and white nationalist - but not exclusively. That is why I said their tactics and rhetoric closely resembled each other, I didn’t say their ideology or their policy goals were 100% aligned (I was actually silent on this fact). In addition, I characterized MAGA being “near fascist” on the political spectrum by making a comparison to the American Nazi Party, but specifically said that wasn’t the only appropriate comparison to fascist movements.

As for inroads with minority populations, I purposefully did not say MAGA is “racist” since MAGA hasn’t made objectively racist statements (though it is an objective statement to say elements of the coalition supporting MAGA are racist). I also didn’t say MAGA is “sexist” because this isn’t an objective fact supported by primary sources of their leaders (though subjectively, many do conclude MAGA is sexist).

But, for the record, as a hypothetical if more and more black people supported the KKK, it wouldn’t make the KKK any less racist. But, in this case, since I didn’t allege MAGA is racist, noting that more blank people are supporting MAGA is superfluous.

As for Latinos increasingly supporting MAGA, I did call MAGA xenophobic. Objectively, xenophobia has been demonstrated to be a major part of the MAGA platform. And, I would only note that the Latinos who support MAGA could be doing so specifically because of the xenophobic elements of the party platform. Perhaps some are doing so because they like increased tariffs on China or because they like MAHA/RFK Jr. But just because Latinos support it, it doesn’t erase the primary source material indicating that MAGA is in fact xenophobic.

My opinion is that Democrats have long misunderstood minority communities (seemingly treating them monolithically) and have unsuccessfully played identity politics. It’s my observation that minority groups appear to select their votes based on a much more complicated matrix of values/considerations than a single litmus test of who is more/less racist.

“ I said their tactics and rhetoric closely resembled each other, I didn’t say their ideology or their policy goals were 100% aligned “

A perfect example of why regular people are ditching the Dem party of elite know it alls like you.

You intentionally compared MAGAs to Nazis for impact and now are walking it back on semantics. It’s slimy and normal people hate it.

I have a masters degree and have years of experience being around well-educated fools who believe everything the NYT tells them.

OP should read the NYT only if they also read the WSJ. To be truly unbiased you need to consider materials coming from across the political spectrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically when a “conservative” (read: MAGA) says news has a liberal bias, they mean the news isn’t being told (or not told) from the perspective of MAGA. So to them, unless it is MAGA aligned it is biased. This includes both unbiased/accurate/factual news and also liberally biased news (MSNBC, now CNN, and NYT editorial pages).

So MAGA will say Fox News is unbiased (as some posters here do).

But what they mean, for example, is Fox News told the MAGA truth on things like the “stolen “ 2020 election. They’re so deluded that they think that is the truth and if you report anything other than that truth then your biased.

So, when the AP writes a wire story about Trump lying (which is factual) and Rachel Maddow goes on a talking heads tirade and editorializes, they say it’s the same thing.

It is factually accurate to call MAGA an authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement. Those are factual descriptions based on the public statements and actions of the movement’s leaders. This belongs in unbiased reporting - and in fact, simply calling the movement “conservative” is factually inaccurate and biased.

On the other hand, because MAGA opposes abortion, it is not factual to say “MAGA is waging a war on women”. That is an opinion and is subjective and biased.

I think the real problem here is the declining quality of education that didn’t get “fact/opinion” and “objective/subjective” drills repeated enough for students that they could take that critical analysis with them into adulthood.

As an educational post as you seem to be advocating, do you see here how you are showing your bias? Everything is through the lens of conservative = MAGA = bad. Trying doing the same experiment with a liberal, far-leaning left POV and see what you get. My point is it not just the far right doing this. It is far left, as well. There are many of us who have traditionally voted Democrat, and suddenly finding ourselves in a world ruled by social media nut cases on both sides. At this point, if feels very much like Pick Your Poison.

No, I simply said MAGA = authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement.

That is a factual description of the movement.
.

Fascinating that you really believe that. Shows how programming and propaganda can work on the susceptible.

Uh. No. I’ve studied history and political science for my career.

You confuse indoctrination with education.

Lol ok, champ.

MAGA is an authoritarian movement, which is a statement that can be readily backed up by *primary* (statements of their leaders).

Their policy positions place them to the far right, near fascist, end of the spectrum. Their tactics and rhetoric resemble closely the fascist movements of the past - including, but not limited to, the American Nazi Party. This again can be substantiated by comparing primary sources and seeing the similarities.

Anyone who watched the events live on January 6 can provide primary source material to substantiate that it was a MAGA aligned mob attacking police, attempting to reach elected officials, with the stated purpose of overturning an election.

Anyone who checks the court filings can easily say that judge after judge said the Trump campaign court filings were filled with lies created to try to subvert the elections.

This is objective analysis, you simply don’t like it.

You’re joking right? The Nazi party is about racism and white nationalism. Meanwhile Trump and MAGA is making huge inroads with black and Latino voters. Are you even paying attention?

You are continuing to demonstrate the shortcomings in contemporary political dialogue and the lack of critical thinking.

The American Nazi Party platform historically included racist and white nationalist - but not exclusively. That is why I said their tactics and rhetoric closely resembled each other, I didn’t say their ideology or their policy goals were 100% aligned (I was actually silent on this fact). In addition, I characterized MAGA being “near fascist” on the political spectrum by making a comparison to the American Nazi Party, but specifically said that wasn’t the only appropriate comparison to fascist movements.

As for inroads with minority populations, I purposefully did not say MAGA is “racist” since MAGA hasn’t made objectively racist statements (though it is an objective statement to say elements of the coalition supporting MAGA are racist). I also didn’t say MAGA is “sexist” because this isn’t an objective fact supported by primary sources of their leaders (though subjectively, many do conclude MAGA is sexist).

But, for the record, as a hypothetical if more and more black people supported the KKK, it wouldn’t make the KKK any less racist. But, in this case, since I didn’t allege MAGA is racist, noting that more blank people are supporting MAGA is superfluous.

As for Latinos increasingly supporting MAGA, I did call MAGA xenophobic. Objectively, xenophobia has been demonstrated to be a major part of the MAGA platform. And, I would only note that the Latinos who support MAGA could be doing so specifically because of the xenophobic elements of the party platform. Perhaps some are doing so because they like increased tariffs on China or because they like MAHA/RFK Jr. But just because Latinos support it, it doesn’t erase the primary source material indicating that MAGA is in fact xenophobic.

My opinion is that Democrats have long misunderstood minority communities (seemingly treating them monolithically) and have unsuccessfully played identity politics. It’s my observation that minority groups appear to select their votes based on a much more complicated matrix of values/considerations than a single litmus test of who is more/less racist.

“ I said their tactics and rhetoric closely resembled each other, I didn’t say their ideology or their policy goals were 100% aligned “

A perfect example of why regular people are ditching the Dem party of elite know it alls like you.

You intentionally compared MAGAs to Nazis for impact and now are walking it back on semantics. It’s slimy and normal people hate it.

I have a masters degree and have years of experience being around well-educated fools who believe everything the NYT tells them.

OP should read the NYT only if they also read the WSJ. To be truly unbiased you need to consider materials coming from across the political spectrum.

I made the comparison because there is a factual comparison to be made. I get that you don’t like the truth, but that’s the truth. For example, noting that Nazis and MAGA both refer to their scapegoated demographic as “vermin” is inconvenient if you want to pretend like MAGA doesn’t use fascist rhetoric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here

https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news

There is also a chart showing how far sources lean. I usually look at foxnews, nytimes and bbc and then call it a day.

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

If you look at fox you are stupid