Elections Majority of Democrat- & Republican voters feel that media divides ppl along racial & gender lines

[EradiatedHaggis]

Lol @ your "INDEPENDENT media watch group." All you did was cite to a user survey from an ultra-conservative outlet. I realize that you probably can't spell, let alone understand, methodological error and I know absolutely that you don't know who Reed Irvine even is, but you aren't helping your case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58852-2004Nov17.html?noredirect=on

Second time you had to dismiss evidence to try to remain correct and even moved the goalpost after I made fun of you about to do it...linking to something from 2004. I know, how about you pull up an article from 1953 to show New York Times is trusty-worthy TODAY...your idiocy. LOL. Wow.

The A.C.L.U. Needs to Rethink Free Speech
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/aclu-first-amendment-trump-charlottesville.html

Come on, give us a 3rd time before you run away like always.

 

[Trotsky]

Second time you had to dismiss evidence to try to remain correct and even moved the goalpost after I made fun of you about to do it...linking to something from 2004. I know, how about you pull up an article from 1953 to show New York Times is trusty-worthy TODAY...your idiocy. LOL. Wow.

The A.C.L.U. Needs to Rethink Free Speech
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/aclu-first-amendment-trump-charlottesville.html

Come on, give us a 3rd time before you run away like always.

How stupid are you? The 2004 article had nothing to do with the New York Times: it was a profile on the founder of the outlet you were citing, who happened to be a right-wing hack and a conspiracy theory nutter.

And, once again, there is nothing about what you just posted that reflects bad journalism. You posted an editorial opinion on the advocacy of a nonprofit and on the state of First Amendment law. There is nothing untrustworthy about that.

 

[HereticBD]

How stupid are you? The 2004 article had nothing to do with the New York Times: it was a profile on the founder of the outlet you were citing, who happened to be a right-wing hack and a conspiracy theory nutter.

And, once again, there is nothing about what you just posted that reflects bad journalism. You posted an editorial opinion on the advocacy of a nonprofit and on the state of First Amendment law. There is nothing untrustworthy about that.

Quick question, do you believe that the mere hiring of a racist with a history of hate towards white people, is not a divisive move?

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

How stupid are you? The 2004 article had nothing to do with the New York Times: it was a profile on the founder of the outlet you were citing, who happened to be a right-wing hack and a conspiracy theory nutter.

And, once again, there is nothing about what you just posted that reflects bad journalism. You posted an editorial opinion on the advocacy of a nonprofit and on the state of First Amendment law. There is nothing untrustworthy about that.

Hello, My name is Trotsky and I am going to make a statement and then continually act as if anything that goes against it doesnt matter.

Media outlets, that print racist articles, opinion pieces that undermine American values, hire outright racists and print articles that target races directly are clearly trustworthy and non-divisive, even when almost 1000 polls taken show a low approval rating because...conservative ties.

Oh look, the Washington Examiner..."48 percent believe the media biggies — CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post -- are untrustworthy while 45 percent said they could trust them. The rest were unsure."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-most-dont-trust-abc-cbs-nbc-nyt-wapo-lat

New York Times, Hillary has an 85% chance to win...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

Clearly, trustworthy. Your failure is laughable and shows you are nothing more than a kool-aid drinker of the highest order.

 

[shockaholic12]

The “media” is such a broad term that polls like this mean nothing.

But in this overly broad example the “media” only puts out what society is asking for. It’s a mirror. People are divided so it reflects that. If they weren’t it wouldn’t. Scapegoating it is just denying responsibility.

 

[all caps]

Should've just listened to me

We arent even arguing topics. We argue about arguing. While the news becomes the news. The fuck are we doing?

This thread is a great example of this post <Lmaoo>

 

[Trotsky]

Quick question, do you believe that the mere hiring of a racist with a history of hate towards white people, is not a divisive move?

I don't take that characterization as being accurate. But, even if I did, I still wouldn't necessarily take that as dispositive on whether the outlet is divisive or otherwise disreputable. The major American newspapers have employed plenty of virulent racists over the years who happened to also be accomplished journalists.

Hello, My name is Trotsky and I am going to make a statement and then continually act as if anything that goes against it doesnt matter.

Media outlets, that print racist articles, opinion pieces that undermine American values, hire outright racists and print articles that target races directly are clearly trustworthy and non-divisive, even when almost 1000 polls taken show a low approval rating because...conservative ties.

Oh look, the Washington Examiner..."48 percent believe the media biggies — CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post -- are untrustworthy while 45 percent said they could trust them. The rest were unsure."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-most-dont-trust-abc-cbs-nbc-nyt-wapo-lat

New York Times, Hillary has an 85% chance to win...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

Clearly, trustworthy. Your failure is laughable and shows you are nothing more than a kool-aid drinker of the highest order.

Again, you've provided absolutely nothing to show the New York Times is untrustworthy or less trustworthy than the average high-level journalistic institution. I'm sorry that you're incapable of supporting your position with anything else other than showing that other dumb people have the same opinion. At one time, two-thirds of Republicans thought Obama was not a natural citizen. The fact that many stupid people believed it didn't make it a credible proposition.

Keep vomiting up rage posts and pasting irrelevant links and graphics. It will help you manage, surely.

 

[n...not crazy]

The NYT sucks. They've gone bonkers like so many others. They print some cringe level shit, Idk how that can be defended. You cannot seriously read that Walking Down the Street article and tell me that's sanity in journalism. Yeah let's just stereotype the shit out of everyone and print it. Sure, whatever.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Again, you've provided absolutely nothing to show the New York Times is untrustworthy or less trustworthy than the average high-level journalistic institution.

Keep ignoring reality for your "opinion". It will take you far in life. And no, I do not expect you to understand the photo, that would require some learning on your part. Have fun remaining ignorant.

For everyone else though, here is more of the New York Times lack of divisiveness and more proof of how trustworthy they are.

Only moral decent white people feel guilty for being white.


Black people have it so bad.


All white people are racist, muh feelings say so.


Cartoon frog really is a Nazi symbol, 4chan is a serious place and anyone that disagrees is an actual Nazi trying to deflect...surest sign of legit media right here overflowing with being trustworthy.


America is filled with racist white people, get with the times...literally.


Trotsky will dismiss this, because he cant form an actual argument to defend what he says. Do this to him every time folks because he always has nothing but his own uninformed opinion and nothing tangible.

 

[Seano]

I don't get how anyone could deny this.

 

[second sight]

...

 

[Trotsky]

Keep ignoring reality for your "opinion". It will take you far in life. And no, I do not expect you to understand the photo, that would require some learning on your part. Have fun remaining ignorant.

For everyone else though, here is more of the New York Times lack of divisiveness and more proof of how trustworthy they are.

Only moral decent white people feel guilty for being white.


Black people have it so bad.


All white people are racist, muh feelings say so.


Cartoon frog really is a Nazi symbol, 4chan is a serious place and anyone that disagrees is an actual Nazi trying to deflect...surest sign of legit media right here overflowing with being trustworthy.


America is filled with racist white people, get with the times...literally.


Trotsky will dismiss this, because he cant form an actual argument to defend what he says. Do this to him every time folks because he always has nothing but his own uninformed opinion and nothing tangible.

I've defended what I said. It is on you to show that the New York Times is untrustworthy. You're simply spamming videos and pretending that, because they have opinion pieces talking about racism and that (in your idiotic universe) racism does not exist, they are making some sort of nefarious misrepresentation.

Your feelings are not evidence of anything other than your insecurity and stupidity.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I think it's true without a doubt.
The headlines always make sure that if a man is shot by another man in this country, we know the shot man's race, if he's black and the shooter was white.

The way Mike Brown was elevated to a "gentle giant" in the general media was insane.

 

[HereticBD]

I don't take that characterization as being accurate.

By what measure? Can't be racist against white people?

But, even if I did, I still wouldn't necessarily take that as dispositive on whether the outlet is divisive or otherwise disreputable. The major American newspapers have employed plenty of virulent racists over the years who happened to also be accomplished journalists.

We're in a different era. I doubt MSM outlets would be hiring folks with a history of social media posts wishing for black genocide, or how shitty black people are. I also HIGHLY doubt you'd be cool with it, and excusing it with their journalistic credentials.

 

[trac209]

"The New York Times announced Monday it hired left-wing writer Sarah Jeong, who has a long history of racist tweets"
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/...k=2de6991596de775b26e54ed3bcb552d7-1542294185

How dare white women not ceed the sidewalk to black men...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/...=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&referer

Dear white America...
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/dear-white-america/

Yikes and I thought liberals in Canada were bad. Yours take it to a level I can’t fathom.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

I've defended what I said. It is on you to show that the New York Times is untrustworthy.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Yikes and I thought liberals in Canada were bad. Yours take it to a level I can’t fathom.

Now look at the other stuff I have posted and be floored. Its hard to imagine that the NYTs fell so far in about 5 years. Went from being right at the top in quality to being complete garbage that only kool-aid drinkers like Trotsky can trust.

 

[Pessimystic]

Our newsmedia is poison, and as I have articulated in the past, one of the biggest problems in the country.

 

[cincymma79]

If your definition of divisiveness requires that we ignore that races exist, that racism exists, and that insights and truths can be extracted from racial interaction to improve our society and the lives of our citizens, then yeah every single journalistic institution ever is divisive.

Also, the New Hampshire one is just factual: New Hampshire is trying to make itself more appealing to nonwhite citizens so that it doesn't suffer population/economic loss and can compete with more diverse states where racial minorities feel more welcomed. It's completely logical that a state whose demography is very different from the country at large would want to make itself as enticing as other states that are more representative.

I think you might want to check north vs south states before going with this argument

 

[Trotsky]

I think you might want to check north vs south states before going with this argument

What?