Give up...this person obviously doesn't get it at all. They are too far gone. If you can guess someones political side within the first paragraph of their writing, they are too far gone to be reasoned with.
nope. the difference is that MSNBC, for all its faults, is largely fact-based. Hayes, Maddow, Williams are basically journalists. Hannity and Carlson are not.
nope. no propaganda excused. conservative politics are based today on four lies: climate change is a hoax; taxes for the rich are always the answer; regulations on business are inherently job-killing and the more of them you get rid of the better; and the only racism is anti-white racism. all of these are bullshit. Fox exists to push these ideas. Ergo, Fox must tell lie after lie after lie. there simply is no equivalent in the mainstream left.
Thank you for telling us all about the conservative values you learned from watching MSNBC. lol What you're doing is no different than a conservative saying "The journalists over at Fox told me that all liberals are communists".
Climate change is a hoax! That is: Not climate change per se. Climate changes all the time. Historically a lot more violently then today.
What sure is a hoax is: A) the assumption that science has fully identified all the relevant variables of this complex system and their interactions. B) That science has not only fully understood the workings of the aforementioned complex system but also was able to measure all the relevant variables and define their interactions to such a precise degree that one can simulate"climate" in a computer system. C) That these models are able to foretell the future temperature of "the earth" with a precision range of a few F/C degrees. This in spite of the fact that the very definition of a complex system implies that very minor changes in input variables can lead to very great and different outcomes. D) That today only 1 variable is responsible for future climate changes - all the others might be present but have no influence whatsoever. This story of "climate change" taken as a whole is so absurd it flies in the face of reason.
Awesome comment! I copied this and am going to save it for future discussions, as it eloquently articulates many thoughts I've had recently.
I am 50 years old and a lifelong environmentalist. Remember the 70s? Pollution was terrible! Smog so bad the sky looked brown in most major American cities.
Pollution is still bad, and it's so bad in some cities in China they have to wear gas masks to leave the house. I'm anti-pollution and live my life accordingly.
However, the climate change narrative is bollocks, for the reasons you mention. Thank you!
Where I live, we had horrible winter inversion events that lasted for weeks back in the 70s and 80s. We almost never do now, and they aren't nearly as bad.
Also having changed is the amount of pollution required to generate hysterical screeching about the dirty air, which is now down to "unable to make out detail on the mountains 20 miles away".
I agree with you that any claims by current climate science that they know for sure what will happen, especially this idea of a "tipping point," are spurious for the reasons you state. I will say that I think they are definitely right about one thing, "the very definition of a complex system implies that very minor changes in input variables can lead to very great and different outcomes." Releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere while simultaneously releasing heat energy (5.60 ├Ч 10^20 Joules per year) WILL have a profound impact on our climate.
Now, maybe that will have overall positive benefits for our existence on this planet, maybe we have averted an ice age that would've locked most of North America and Europe under a sheet of ice 100 meters thick (as it was not that long ago in climate time). I agree that we don't know this, yet.
I do not agree, however, that we should just do nothing and hope everything turns out for the best. There are many good and compelling reasons to stop dumping shit into our atmosphere and we really shouldn't need a fully-developed model proving a cascading climate calamity to act on it. For their resistance to this common sense idea, I do blame conservatives.
That would be true if it were costless, but itтАЩs not. The real question is, should we let zero-carbon emission technologies develop to the point where they are market competitive (as solar is quickly becoming given advances in battery/energy storage tech that address the problem of inconsistent energy supply, or should we require people to implement economically uncompetitive solutions because anthropocentric climate change is the larger threat. Personally, I feel we are better off as a species learning to deal with climate change than trying to avert it, since regardless of what we do, the climate will eventually change rapidly due to some large macro event (asteroid strike, Yellowstone supervolcano erupts, we enter a solar minimum/maximum etc.)
"I feel we are better off as a species learning to deal with climate change than trying to avert it, since regardless of what we do, the climate will eventually change rapidly due to some large macro event"
Ask T. Rex. I always like to imagine dinosaur scientists and politicians scrambling to "fix it" in the latter days of the Cretaceous. Some of them have string ties, monocles, top hats.
Right, so to me the relevant question is whether it will cost more to wait until carbon-free energy is economically competitive, or whether we make people use economically uncompetitive solutions through government action. Given that solar + battery is already competitive for home use, and given that weтАЩve been hearing predictions of environmental catastrophe since the тАШ60s (and my personal view that climate change in general is not
something we should try to avert since we canтАЩt, but rather should learn to adapt to in order to build resilience overall for our species), I am fine with waiting for the tech to mature. Your mileage (so to speak) may vary of course.
Answer this: How often does MSNBC remind you that we do not need to raise taxes to pay for a national health insurance program like Medicare for All? Now, how often do they quote, or even assert, that taxes must be raised on the middle class in order to pay for such a program? When was the last time you saw people on MSNBC questioning leaders who talk about how we "don't have the money" or "can't pay for" needed programs? Do they point out that of course we have the money and can pay for it easily? Do they ask politicians why they keep claiming we "can't pay for" things we obviously can pay for?
And how many shows did you see on MSNBC pointing out that the financial crisis was caused by people in the financial industry who broke numerous clear laws that they could easily have been prosecuted for - and in fact, were being prosecuted for by state Attorneys General all over the country until Obama made a deal with them to let them off the hook, even though they committed fraud, forgery, and perjury to steal millions of homes? Did you see anyone on MSNBC refute Hillary Clinton's claim that we couldn't prosecute them because they hadn't really broken any laws?
How many MSNBC hosts and fact-checkers pointed out that Joe Biden lied numerous times during his debate with Bernie Sanders, denying documented facts about his own long and revealing career? Did they ever critque that career? Did they talk about the damage his bankruptcy bill, his crime bill, and other career highlights had done to Americans?
I used to just be disgusted with Fox and disgusted with the right-wing bent of most cable shows, including MSNBC, but I never wanted to see one of them turn into the Democrats' version of Fox. But in many ways that's just what it is. It's partisan for the Dems instead of the GOP, but a Democratic Party partisanship that obscures the truth is no more useful than Republican Party partisanship that does the same.
It's ironic, but some of us still remember that only one person was allowed to be on TV opposing the invasion of Iraq, and that was Janeane Garofolo, who was allowed on Fox because she was just an actress and they could mock her for being out of her lane instead of having to take her seriously. But at the same time, MSNBC fired one of their most popular hosts, Phil Donahue, because *no one* was allowed on their network who opposed the invasion.
National Public Radio (NPR) posted a tweet Saturday urging every reader to begin "decolonizing your bookshelf." According to NPR, "white voices have dominated what has been considered canon for eons." The public broadcaster advises fans to begin "decolonizing your bookshelf" by removing the works of white authors. White man bad - replace with anything else. They could have said ADD to your book shelf. Next step CENSORSHIP. RACISM at it's BEST!
Deck Stacked:
Larry Sanger, of Wikipedia, blog post this "neutral point of view" policy is "dead" due to the rampant left-wing bias of the site.
This person must be a bot, because no rational thinking human would write such a thing in an article which they are making the point is correct. This must be some kind of AI bot gone bad.
So is Maddow - Rachel Maddow has seen her monthly ratings drop more than 800,000 viewers since the beginning of 2019.
Fox News will finish the year again at top of the news channels in primetime, with an average of 3.6 million viewers, up 45% from the same period the previous year. MSNBC averaged 2.2 million, a boost of 24%. CNN saw an even greater increase, as it was up 85% to average 1.8 million.
This person is too far gone too. Nothing you can say to this person will make them understand they have been mind controlled by "their side." They are low information people who believe one side or the other absolutely. They see the other side as evil. Total fanatics with no ability to reason properly. Cannot even read an article and come away with the basic premise of the article. Their response shows the rational among us that Matt is absolutely correct. How people can be so mind controlled is outrageous. I am guessing that about 30% of the people are mind controlled by MSNBC and CNN, and about 30% by Fox and the right wingers. About 40% of us are rational and do not allow the left or right to mind control us.
Williams is not a journalist IMO but a news reader. Maddow lost credibility with her breathless Russia coverage drawing conclusions based on some rather disparate parts. Chris Matthews called Bernie supporters brow shirts, Joy Ann Reid brought in a body language expert; neither of those can be called bastion of truth. Chris Hayes seem ok.
Martin, who owns Fox, MsNBC, CNN? Who are their most lucrative sponsors on their channels? Once you understand the answers to these questions, the line between commentators and journalists goes right out the window. Owners decide what gets published or broadcasted - them the facts.
Its profits over people in the media business. That is so apparent as to be weird I have to mention it. Russiagate, Elizabeth Warren accusing Bernie of sexism, and the manipulation of the Iowa caucuses strike me as fertile places to examine DNC propaganda.
I agree there's no truly objective news source. Everything has varying degrees and types of bias. That doesn't mean there aren't facts to be gleaned from reading the news that aligns with your own bias and also the others. Just take it all with a grain of salt.
Attorney General William BarrтАЩs letter summarizing MuellerтАЩs report was released on March 24 -- the final week of the quarter -- indicating that a Trump campaign-Russia conspiracy didnтАЩt exist, contradicting MaddowтАЩs nightly narrative, and that was that.
You can only fool some the people some the time:
MaddowтАЩs performance in May was even more alarming among the key demographic of adults age 25-54, where she averaged 455,000 viewers to finish tied for No. 7 in cable news, behind five different Fox News shows and even one program on MSNBCтАЩs fellow liberal network CNN.
Really: US citizens don't lose jobs to immigration:
Construction in Los Angeles has shifted from a heavily unionized labor force that was two-thirds white to a largely non-union one that is 70% Latino and heavily immigrant. .American construction workers today make $5 an hour less than they did 40 years ago after adjusting for inflation.
You're joking right? And just because someone is a journalist (which dont really exist anymore in the traditional sense), doesnt mean they're going by facts. I think the last 4 years has been pretty clear on how counterfactual reporting has become.
MSNBC isn't fact-based, it just chooses different facts and distortions than Fox does. MSNBC cancelled Phil Donahue's popular show because they didn't want anyone on the air who opposed the invasion of Iraq. They highlight every charge of "Russian hacking", no matter how tenuous, and never bother to take note when those charges fall apart. For some reason they were unable to recognize the coup in Bolivia for what it was. They haven't exactly stood up against the anti-Venezuelan propaganda, either. Like Fox, they refrain from showing us data or scholars who hold positions that depart from their own narratives. Very often they dovetail with each other in their efforts to hide the truth we need to see.
The only difference between Fox and MSNBC is that MSNBC is telling you what you want to hear. They are confirming your biases.
Give up...this person obviously doesn't get it at all. They are too far gone. If you can guess someones political side within the first paragraph of their writing, they are too far gone to be reasoned with.
nope. the difference is that MSNBC, for all its faults, is largely fact-based. Hayes, Maddow, Williams are basically journalists. Hannity and Carlson are not.
Propaganda from the right viewed. Propaganda from the left excused away
nope. no propaganda excused. conservative politics are based today on four lies: climate change is a hoax; taxes for the rich are always the answer; regulations on business are inherently job-killing and the more of them you get rid of the better; and the only racism is anti-white racism. all of these are bullshit. Fox exists to push these ideas. Ergo, Fox must tell lie after lie after lie. there simply is no equivalent in the mainstream left.
Thank you for telling us all about the conservative values you learned from watching MSNBC. lol What you're doing is no different than a conservative saying "The journalists over at Fox told me that all liberals are communists".
I learned those conservative values from conservatives. Friends, relatives, political leaders, Fox, the WSJ.
Is it possible that you are making assumptions that are incorrect?
In my experience, MSNBC is as fond of hyperbole as CNN or Fox. You will get zero objectivity.
Many times, the conversation has advanced beyond restating agreed upon starting points.
Wow, you are a target that left all the lights on and the bombers are having a field day. MSNBC is fact-based? Now that there is just plain funny.
Climate change is a hoax! That is: Not climate change per se. Climate changes all the time. Historically a lot more violently then today.
What sure is a hoax is: A) the assumption that science has fully identified all the relevant variables of this complex system and their interactions. B) That science has not only fully understood the workings of the aforementioned complex system but also was able to measure all the relevant variables and define their interactions to such a precise degree that one can simulate"climate" in a computer system. C) That these models are able to foretell the future temperature of "the earth" with a precision range of a few F/C degrees. This in spite of the fact that the very definition of a complex system implies that very minor changes in input variables can lead to very great and different outcomes. D) That today only 1 variable is responsible for future climate changes - all the others might be present but have no influence whatsoever. This story of "climate change" taken as a whole is so absurd it flies in the face of reason.
Awesome comment! I copied this and am going to save it for future discussions, as it eloquently articulates many thoughts I've had recently.
I am 50 years old and a lifelong environmentalist. Remember the 70s? Pollution was terrible! Smog so bad the sky looked brown in most major American cities.
Pollution is still bad, and it's so bad in some cities in China they have to wear gas masks to leave the house. I'm anti-pollution and live my life accordingly.
However, the climate change narrative is bollocks, for the reasons you mention. Thank you!
Where I live, we had horrible winter inversion events that lasted for weeks back in the 70s and 80s. We almost never do now, and they aren't nearly as bad.
Also having changed is the amount of pollution required to generate hysterical screeching about the dirty air, which is now down to "unable to make out detail on the mountains 20 miles away".
I agree with you that any claims by current climate science that they know for sure what will happen, especially this idea of a "tipping point," are spurious for the reasons you state. I will say that I think they are definitely right about one thing, "the very definition of a complex system implies that very minor changes in input variables can lead to very great and different outcomes." Releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere while simultaneously releasing heat energy (5.60 ├Ч 10^20 Joules per year) WILL have a profound impact on our climate.
Now, maybe that will have overall positive benefits for our existence on this planet, maybe we have averted an ice age that would've locked most of North America and Europe under a sheet of ice 100 meters thick (as it was not that long ago in climate time). I agree that we don't know this, yet.
I do not agree, however, that we should just do nothing and hope everything turns out for the best. There are many good and compelling reasons to stop dumping shit into our atmosphere and we really shouldn't need a fully-developed model proving a cascading climate calamity to act on it. For their resistance to this common sense idea, I do blame conservatives.
That would be true if it were costless, but itтАЩs not. The real question is, should we let zero-carbon emission technologies develop to the point where they are market competitive (as solar is quickly becoming given advances in battery/energy storage tech that address the problem of inconsistent energy supply, or should we require people to implement economically uncompetitive solutions because anthropocentric climate change is the larger threat. Personally, I feel we are better off as a species learning to deal with climate change than trying to avert it, since regardless of what we do, the climate will eventually change rapidly due to some large macro event (asteroid strike, Yellowstone supervolcano erupts, we enter a solar minimum/maximum etc.)
"I feel we are better off as a species learning to deal with climate change than trying to avert it, since regardless of what we do, the climate will eventually change rapidly due to some large macro event"
Ask T. Rex. I always like to imagine dinosaur scientists and politicians scrambling to "fix it" in the latter days of the Cretaceous. Some of them have string ties, monocles, top hats.
and pocket protectors, horn-rimmed glasses. and the dinosaur press was running around like bambiraptors with their heads cut off.
"Bambiraptors" needs to go viral as a derogatory term for groupthink journalists.
Didn't say it was costless, but I will say that we still pay a cost for polluting the atmosphere whether the sky is falling or not.
Right, so to me the relevant question is whether it will cost more to wait until carbon-free energy is economically competitive, or whether we make people use economically uncompetitive solutions through government action. Given that solar + battery is already competitive for home use, and given that weтАЩve been hearing predictions of environmental catastrophe since the тАШ60s (and my personal view that climate change in general is not
something we should try to avert since we canтАЩt, but rather should learn to adapt to in order to build resilience overall for our species), I am fine with waiting for the tech to mature. Your mileage (so to speak) may vary of course.
"conservative politics are based today on four lies: ... taxes for the rich are always the answer"
whoa wait what? sign me up for this conservative politics
Answer this: How often does MSNBC remind you that we do not need to raise taxes to pay for a national health insurance program like Medicare for All? Now, how often do they quote, or even assert, that taxes must be raised on the middle class in order to pay for such a program? When was the last time you saw people on MSNBC questioning leaders who talk about how we "don't have the money" or "can't pay for" needed programs? Do they point out that of course we have the money and can pay for it easily? Do they ask politicians why they keep claiming we "can't pay for" things we obviously can pay for?
And how many shows did you see on MSNBC pointing out that the financial crisis was caused by people in the financial industry who broke numerous clear laws that they could easily have been prosecuted for - and in fact, were being prosecuted for by state Attorneys General all over the country until Obama made a deal with them to let them off the hook, even though they committed fraud, forgery, and perjury to steal millions of homes? Did you see anyone on MSNBC refute Hillary Clinton's claim that we couldn't prosecute them because they hadn't really broken any laws?
How many MSNBC hosts and fact-checkers pointed out that Joe Biden lied numerous times during his debate with Bernie Sanders, denying documented facts about his own long and revealing career? Did they ever critque that career? Did they talk about the damage his bankruptcy bill, his crime bill, and other career highlights had done to Americans?
I used to just be disgusted with Fox and disgusted with the right-wing bent of most cable shows, including MSNBC, but I never wanted to see one of them turn into the Democrats' version of Fox. But in many ways that's just what it is. It's partisan for the Dems instead of the GOP, but a Democratic Party partisanship that obscures the truth is no more useful than Republican Party partisanship that does the same.
To be fair, Fox has improved beyond OтАЩReilly, who never found a negative development he couldnтАЩt link back to Obama
It's ironic, but some of us still remember that only one person was allowed to be on TV opposing the invasion of Iraq, and that was Janeane Garofolo, who was allowed on Fox because she was just an actress and they could mock her for being out of her lane instead of having to take her seriously. But at the same time, MSNBC fired one of their most popular hosts, Phil Donahue, because *no one* was allowed on their network who opposed the invasion.
preach it
National Public Radio (NPR) posted a tweet Saturday urging every reader to begin "decolonizing your bookshelf." According to NPR, "white voices have dominated what has been considered canon for eons." The public broadcaster advises fans to begin "decolonizing your bookshelf" by removing the works of white authors. White man bad - replace with anything else. They could have said ADD to your book shelf. Next step CENSORSHIP. RACISM at it's BEST!
Deck Stacked:
Larry Sanger, of Wikipedia, blog post this "neutral point of view" policy is "dead" due to the rampant left-wing bias of the site.
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
Well, that just makes me want to read more Carl Hiaasen books.
Interesting. I was wondering why I felt NPR should join the ACLU and Wikipedia on my "used to donate to" list.
"Please keep my name out yo mouth. It don't make you sound as smart as you hope."
Sincerely,
Ergo
You are blind.
This person must be a bot, because no rational thinking human would write such a thing in an article which they are making the point is correct. This must be some kind of AI bot gone bad.
I agree with your summary.
"caricatures of conservative views by a liberal critic" is quite standard fare nowadays.
Like, in Dubya's heyday, was largely so in the other direction.
I feel like I went through the looking glass, am on Earth-2, Bizarro World, etc.
Not always: Larry Sanger, of Wikipedia, blog post this "neutral point of view" policy is "dead" due to the rampant left-wing bias of the site.
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
So is Maddow - Rachel Maddow has seen her monthly ratings drop more than 800,000 viewers since the beginning of 2019.
Fox News will finish the year again at top of the news channels in primetime, with an average of 3.6 million viewers, up 45% from the same period the previous year. MSNBC averaged 2.2 million, a boost of 24%. CNN saw an even greater increase, as it was up 85% to average 1.8 million.
The 2020 year.
lol..."basically journalists"
Well, there appears to be a new definition of "journalism"
To Matt's point.
This person is too far gone too. Nothing you can say to this person will make them understand they have been mind controlled by "their side." They are low information people who believe one side or the other absolutely. They see the other side as evil. Total fanatics with no ability to reason properly. Cannot even read an article and come away with the basic premise of the article. Their response shows the rational among us that Matt is absolutely correct. How people can be so mind controlled is outrageous. I am guessing that about 30% of the people are mind controlled by MSNBC and CNN, and about 30% by Fox and the right wingers. About 40% of us are rational and do not allow the left or right to mind control us.
I have hope. After all, vinegar hill is posting here. This could be his/her first exposure to an alternative viewpoint.
I suspect your speculation there is well-founded.
Williams is not a journalist IMO but a news reader. Maddow lost credibility with her breathless Russia coverage drawing conclusions based on some rather disparate parts. Chris Matthews called Bernie supporters brow shirts, Joy Ann Reid brought in a body language expert; neither of those can be called bastion of truth. Chris Hayes seem ok.
Brown shirts
Those people are all commentators right? Both Fox and MSNBC have journalists doing fact based news as well.
Martin, who owns Fox, MsNBC, CNN? Who are their most lucrative sponsors on their channels? Once you understand the answers to these questions, the line between commentators and journalists goes right out the window. Owners decide what gets published or broadcasted - them the facts.
Its profits over people in the media business. That is so apparent as to be weird I have to mention it. Russiagate, Elizabeth Warren accusing Bernie of sexism, and the manipulation of the Iowa caucuses strike me as fertile places to examine DNC propaganda.
I agree there's no truly objective news source. Everything has varying degrees and types of bias. That doesn't mean there aren't facts to be gleaned from reading the news that aligns with your own bias and also the others. Just take it all with a grain of salt.
LOL Maddow is a journalist?! That's hilarious, truly.
https://nypost.com/2020/09/18/rachel-maddow-uses-obama-era-images-of-immigrant-kids-to-blast-trump/
Attorney General William BarrтАЩs letter summarizing MuellerтАЩs report was released on March 24 -- the final week of the quarter -- indicating that a Trump campaign-Russia conspiracy didnтАЩt exist, contradicting MaddowтАЩs nightly narrative, and that was that.
You can only fool some the people some the time:
MaddowтАЩs performance in May was even more alarming among the key demographic of adults age 25-54, where she averaged 455,000 viewers to finish tied for No. 7 in cable news, behind five different Fox News shows and even one program on MSNBCтАЩs fellow liberal network CNN.
She is one big OP ED!
So Trump WAS a Russian plant.
Got it.
See, I thought they were saying he was a "Russian PLANET". I was like, "Yeah, he's fat, but c'mon..."
Really: US citizens don't lose jobs to immigration:
Construction in Los Angeles has shifted from a heavily unionized labor force that was two-thirds white to a largely non-union one that is 70% Latino and heavily immigrant. .American construction workers today make $5 an hour less than they did 40 years ago after adjusting for inflation.
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-construction-trump/
change in employment was about 8.8 million. Of that, the number of
foreign-born workers grew about 6.2 million jobs for 13% of the population
native-born, the number was 2.6 million for 87% of the population
Get the picture? MSNBC is the biggest FAKE NEWS site of all propaganda+
Immigrants are not on welfare? 63% Of Non-Citizens Are On Welfare
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/non-citizens-uninsured-welfare-census-data/
You're joking right? And just because someone is a journalist (which dont really exist anymore in the traditional sense), doesnt mean they're going by facts. I think the last 4 years has been pretty clear on how counterfactual reporting has become.
That is my impression as well. Again, I could be proved wrong.
It isn't. Go take a look on media fact check.
MSNBC isn't fact-based, it just chooses different facts and distortions than Fox does. MSNBC cancelled Phil Donahue's popular show because they didn't want anyone on the air who opposed the invasion of Iraq. They highlight every charge of "Russian hacking", no matter how tenuous, and never bother to take note when those charges fall apart. For some reason they were unable to recognize the coup in Bolivia for what it was. They haven't exactly stood up against the anti-Venezuelan propaganda, either. Like Fox, they refrain from showing us data or scholars who hold positions that depart from their own narratives. Very often they dovetail with each other in their efforts to hide the truth we need to see.
lol - I just spit Pepsi all over my keyboard!