{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/6/2015 2:26:59 PM
37
CNN is liberal?
Damn, didn't know that. They always seemed neutral to me.
English
-
The vast majority of the news media is liberal.
-
They are more neutral than liberal but yeah
-
I just never liked them because of trying so damn hard to be cool with their holograms and shit. It is freaking news it doest need excitement!
-
They don't bash the views they disagree with. They refuse to present them entirely. It may not be as noticeable, but it very well might be worse.
-
Not showing something is worse then flat out insulting something to you?
-
When you're supposed to be a news source, yes. If you present something, then people become aware of it, whether you bash it or not. The viewers may do independent research and form their own opinion on it. If it's never presented at all, then the viewers never become aware of an issue at all.
-
Yeah, but can't the viewed be swayed by the insulting because the truth gets lost in the story?
-
It can be disguised and twisted, but it's still there. I never said that bashing it isn't bad, but an absolute refusal to show it at all is worse. It's like aggressive vs. passive aggressive people. Both are bad. But passive aggressive people can be more difficult to deal with.
-
Pros and Cons yes. But that's like covering your kids eyes from something horrid. Sometimes it's just a preference.
-
But when it's an actual event, a serious problem, and a [i]news source[/i] refuses to report it in any way...
-
They choose what to air. Just like other stations choose to air something just for the sake of degrading it. Both are equally bad, no worse then the other. Trying to pick the lesser of the two evils is impossible, because they're the same.
-
The major difference is one is less easily spotted than the other, and is therefore more misleading to viewers. It has to do with effects of the method, not the questionability of the method itself.
-
Basically just means one side is smarter then the other at going about what they do. Welcome to america
-
Edited by Thanatos: 3/6/2015 5:14:02 PMFinding more efficient methods of manipulating people, while commendable as intelligent, is still a bad thing.
-
Don Lemon, need I say more?
-
That's like pointing out Bill O Riley for fox lol
-
Edited by Jones Burr: 3/6/2015 4:09:18 PMWhy does everyone say O'Riely? He's a California moderate. He's not even the most conservative voice on FOX, but I'll take your O'Riely and raise you a Piers Morgan.
-
I don't even like that guy. UK journalist. He usually just basis everything off his own moral stand point. I think he represents himself as independent
-
Yeah, it seems no one liked that guy. Probably why he got cancelled.
-
Ha what? They have yet throughout President Obama's entire career to report on anything negative.
-
It is a little more in depth than you are saying. The issues I speak of are the types of people president Obama is friends with. Namely William ahers, Reverend jeremiah wright, ect ect. No on on CNN or MSNBC reported these links to his character. Many have no idea the type of person obama is. He is completely anti-America. He believes we need to give up our freedoms to make up for the "bad" we did.
-
Wait, because they side with the president makes them liberal?
-
Edited by SaintHills_: 3/6/2015 2:57:28 PMTechnically yes. A neutral source would report both good and bad points to the level each deserve. A bad network focuses on one or balances the two out too much.
-
I guess I never catch CNN at the right time then.
-
Possibly. I don't live in America so I wouldn't know. Although I've researched Obama and I see no issue with what he's trying to do. It's mostly just his opponents that block all his attempts at keeping his promises.
