Submitted for your consideration...

[The Cat]

Less than 10 years...​

 

[SensEye]

They did do it for ratings. The new head of CNN has said as much, it's also why they have fired nearly all their long time staff. They want Tucker lite. They think the $$ is in right wing politics and it probably is. Sensible doesn't get ratings or ad dollars so there is no point in it. The best people can do is look for independent investigative journalism to stay informed. But as far as moderate politics and politicians - that ain't gonna work. The GOP has pulled things so far right, you need progressives and more left leaning to bring it back to center.

All news networks do what they do for ratings. That does not make it wrong. Trump (as likely Republican nominee) is newsworthy. I would consider it a journalist failure to not report on him so the public can see his position/character.

So I continue to disagree with critics who say CNN was wrong to do the townhall. I mean, if you really can't stand hearing opinions you don't like you didn't have to watch.

I also disagree with your two wrongs make a right sentiment. IE. That to counter balance right wing media the left wing media has to swing hard left. That approach just gives all the airtime to the extremist whack jobs on both sides. Terrible idea. I'd prefer a fair and balanced approach. I would like think over time, people would gravitate to such a network and that would be reflected in the ratings. However, I realize there ain't no cure for stupid (see: social media) so I admit a fair and balanced approach, being primarily fact based vs opinion based, would not rile up people emotionally and as such, may fail to gain traction.

 

[ceecee]

All news networks do what they do for ratings. That does not make it wrong. Trump (as likely Republican nominee) is newsworthy. I would consider it a journalist failure to not report on him so the public can see his position/character.

So I continue to disagree with critics who say CNN was wrong to do the townhall. I mean, if you really can't stand hearing opinions you don't like you didn't have to watch.

I also disagree with your two wrongs make a right sentiment. IE. That to counter balance right wing media the left wing media has to swing hard left. That approach just gives all the airtime to the extremist whack jobs on both sides. Terrible idea. I'd prefer a fair and balanced approach. I would like think over time, people would gravitate to such a network and that would be reflected in the ratings. However, I realize there ain't no cure for stupid (see: social media) so I admit a fair and balanced approach, being primarily fact based vs opinion based, would not rile up people emotionally and as such, may fail to gain traction.

I wasn't referring to media. I was talking about politics in general in the US. There will never be a such thing as left wing corporate media. As far as what CNN (or other MSM) do as far as Trump or others running for office is up to them, I personally haven't watched any media in several years but I find it telling they didn't seem to have the time to provide a platform and audience for any other candidate.

The idea of anyone still needing to see Trump's position/character made me laugh out loud though.

 

[The Cat]

"...Being objective doesn't mean you say oh check out this relatable young fascist over here his ideas have worth just the same as a normal person, a person who wants people to have freedom. Both sidesing that, treating that as equal that's not being objective, that's not being impartial, that is showing favoritism to something that is objectively bad; treating it as an equal when its not. Yeah I'm sure my coverage doesn't seem neutral when it comes to the political parties, but that wasn't my choice; one party adopted a political platform and demonstrated through their actions that their route, the way they're headed is objectively bad..."​

 

[The Cat]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

All news networks do what they do for ratings. That does not make it wrong. Trump (as likely Republican nominee) is newsworthy. I would consider it a journalist failure to not report on him so the public can see his position/character.

So I continue to disagree with critics who say CNN was wrong to do the townhall. I mean, if you really can't stand hearing opinions you don't like you didn't have to watch.

I also disagree with your two wrongs make a right sentiment. IE. That to counter balance right wing media the left wing media has to swing hard left. That approach just gives all the airtime to the extremist whack jobs on both sides. Terrible idea. I'd prefer a fair and balanced approach. I would like think over time, people would gravitate to such a network and that would be reflected in the ratings. However, I realize there ain't no cure for stupid (see: social media) so I admit a fair and balanced approach, being primarily fact based vs opinion based, would not rile up people emotionally and as such, may fail to gain traction.

Your error is in asserting the two sides are equal. I was once a believer in horseshoe theory, but I think the year 2020 in general killed whatever scraps were remaining. I don't remember anarchists or keyboard tankies going ahead and doing that kind of stuff after Trump won. Promoting vaccine/corona denialism is also pretty bad; no one on "the far left" (by which I mean people who I would consider too extreme) echoing it.

Given all these data points (and many more!), promoting an approach of balance actually creates imbalance in the system because it encourages the platforming of bad behavior. The result would be only allowing right extremism to spread (since that would drive ratings). Meanwhile, the acceptable moderate center that you hope for will inevitably get drowned out by the right extremism, since that drives ratings.

 

[The Cat]

The Alt-Right Playbook: How to Radicalize a Normie​

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

There's three ways off a merry go round. You either jump or you let it slow down, there's three ways off of every merry go round. And if you can't put your foot down, then you just burn it to the ground, and then you dissapear real slow, back into the crowd.​

 

[The Cat]

 

[Stigmata]

It's one thing to be an all out authoritarian/fash in Florida. It's another to try to put it on the country. He also has no charisma whatsoever - Trump has lots. Trump also has incredibly violent and gullible supporters that like to cry about imaginary grievances. People are also finally discovering that the GOP is not a coalition party - it doesn't matter if it's a Republican mayor in a small town or a US Senator. The platform is identical.

That's why the "Trump without the drama" formula is destined to fail -- the base championed him BECAUSE of the drama. The qualities that made Trump a successful reality TV star is also the qualities that his base loves about him, and for them he brings that aura of unpredictability and mayhem that keeps them glued to his every action. If you go back and watch the 2016 Republican primaries, it becomes obvious to see how he won the nomination -- he looks, acts like, and talks like the voting base, in contrast to the rest of the candidates, without also having that hyped-religious zealot quality that made some of the other candidates come across too weird for mainstream American.

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

 

[SensEye]

I've always thought that rule that children get the nationality of the country they are born in is stupid. And many countries do that, not just the US.

But to Beau's point, the proper way to address this is too amend the constitution to change that convention. Probably impossible to pass, but a bold president would give it a try.

 

[The Cat]

Free Birdseed. Wow. That seems genuine and not bait at all...​

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]