Yes that's the article, it's intuitive in itself, the right make money by propagating their rumour, and it helps them sell their own media whilst weakening the only opposition that isn't affected by market forces. That's why you should read Chomsky

Yes I will do I know of him but that's it :/

Why do you think Rupert Murdoch campaigned so heavily for a cut in BBC onlines revenue when the license fee last came up for renegotiation ... and the Labour party probably caved so heavily (agreeing to 25% cuts in the most popular (world wide online news source) due to the 'Sun Wot Won It' headline and the fact that Murdoch owned at the time The Sun, The News Of the World, Sky (inc Sky News) and The Times (inc The Financial Times)

Edited 7/31/2014 23:10:21

I'm back! And obviously because Murdoch is trying to defend independent journalism! What else can he gain from it?

Even BBC News allows the person to speak.

The BBC has to allow everyone to speak, hence that's why they're balanced.

^^ Yeah

"They are mandated to 'allow the other guy to speak' it's part of the deal with the license fee."

Nevermind Arun, he'll get there eventually, he's even going to read Noam :)

@ Monster Raving looney Party ... what is your view on the compulsory serving of asparagus in schools?

I assume all of you watch MSNBC as a "reliable, non-biased" news source?

Hannity is a windbag. Most of Fox 'News' is. I am fine with them being right leaning, we all know MSNBC is the opposite. But Fox News has a habit of ignoring facts all together.

From the second post in this thread Master ARC :)

^yup. I watch Maddow daily, but i know she leans left. At least she presents facts...something fox news does not. You just have to use other sources in conjunction. One big difference is MSNBC does not have the motto "fair and balanced". The biggest joke is Fox News claims to be such.

Darkpie, I wasn't so much directing that comment at Chris, but more so at Kasparov and Arun (mostly Kasparov) for saying that any and all people that watch Fox News are "insane people". I don't want to discuss the legitimacy of certain news sources over others.

I have a very low tolerance for people who speak of others' political views in superlatives, as many people in my community choose to vote for the blue candidate for just that reason. I can get into the nitty-gritty of politics if you want, but there are just as many reflexively-Democrat-voting inner-city folk, if not more, than there are reflexively-Republican-voting southern farmers. In just the same way, there are plenty of educated Republican voters and plenty of educated Democrat voters.

My point is that calling out any single demographic and saying "these people are stupid" or "these people are insane" is ignorant and foolish and demonstrates a real lack of understanding. As you can certainly tell, I'm a Republican (at least fiscally), but I would be just as upset if somebody had said that all MSNBC watchers are ignorant buffoons. I almost never watch Fox News, just for reference, but please let me know if you guys actually believe that Fox viewers are definitively stupid, because I will not converse with people that are so close-minded as those types.

Also I'd like to call out how funny it is that Arun linked a site called "leftfootforward" for his "nonbiased" research results.

btw @Darkpie: Call me just "ARC" please :)

Edited 8/1/2014 06:35:34

Calling fox viewers stupid people is a rather fair adjustment.

Edited 8/9/2014 04:54:46

People who watch TV news & read papers are guaranteed to understand nothing. Not that it matters anyway since you aren't going to do anything about it. Sucker.

Private Eye forever, even though the editorial position on Venezuela is more fascistic than anything I have seen.

You realise private eye is a paper?

In just the same way, there are plenty of educated Republican voters and plenty of educated Democrat voters.

Um, election demographics measure votes against education level. Guess which way it skews.

"Plenty" is a meaningless word and your sentence is meaningless. Two educated Republican voters would be plenty as far as I'm concerned.

You realise private eye is a paper?

It's a magazine. It's printed on paper.

Edited 8/1/2014 09:34:11

Fox news fks news up. Lol don't you just love alliteration ?

"It's a magazine" <-- marketing (The greatest threats to civilization and progress). Its (a) paper. Literally.

mag·a·zine [mag-uh-zeen, mag-uh-zeen] Show IPA


noun

1.

a publication that is issued periodically, usually bound in a paper cover, and typically contains essays, stories, poems, etc., by many writers, and often photographs and drawings, frequently specializing in a particular subject or area, as hobbies, news, or sports.


suck my dick you fucking cunt

the English language is not marketing

dictionary = dogma. Please try to stop judging by emotion when you should be thinking. Just because marketing makes it into the dictionary does not mean you should be swallowing it.

"A newspaper (often just called a paper when the context is clear) is a periodical publication containing news, other informative articles" - wikipedia.

Private eye is a paper. Its just the same as the mirror or whatever other shit you were refering to when you said 'People who watch TV news & read papers are guaranteed to understand nothing'. Those people are you and the papers you read happen to be the private eye, do you understand nothing?

Private eye or Private Eye may refer to:
Private investigator, a hired detective
Private Eye, a British satirical magazine