I can't say that I've ever listened to Fox News Radio much before...

[Futbol Phan]

... but driving cross-country means that there have been numerous times when the only radio station with a signal is Fox. So I have been taking it in.

What unabashed cheerleading for the Stable Genius. 24/7. At the rally yesterday in Orlando the reported kept telling us how absolutely thrilled she was to be there, how exciting it was, and how there were "hundreds of thousands" of people there who shared her view. And how alive the POTUS seemed; what a contrast with that sleepy, low-energy Joe Biden... Hearing them defending Hope Hicks' zippermouth today was hilarious; they had at least a half-dozen justifications for her refusal to answer questions as simple as :"where was your office in the WH?".

And the ads-- Trump this, Trump that. Commemorative coins, hats (KEEP AMERICA GREAT!), photos, you name it, they've got it.

And to think that the right has made biased reporting one of their main harping points. LMFAO.

[Irish Ranger]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 8:00:01 PM UTC-4, Futbol Phan wrote:
> ... but driving cross-country means that there have been numerous times when the only radio station with a signal is Fox. So I have been taking it in.
>
> What unabashed cheerleading for the Stable Genius. 24/7.

And yet Fox News are rank amateurs compared to the MSNBC left
wing Democrat propaganda machine. And they ran their radical
left wing rubbish non-stop for two and a half straight years!
Mueller! Mueller! Mueller! Then poof! Mueller turned into a
big nothing-burger and the eft wingers went hysterical
and totally collapsed - along with their viewer ratings!

Irish Mike

[michael anderson]

it's the job of fox news to serve as a mostly propaganda piece for their audience(which are a lot of trump supporters) so that they will keep their audience.

their job, just like with any entertainment product, is to attract as many viewers as possible. More viewers means higher fees paid to them by cable companies down the line(this is more important than advertising; a lot of people don't understand this).

CNN and MSNBC have the same basic job- to provide a product that their audience wants to watch which will lead to revenue.

Now striking the news vs entertainment vs how much bias is the key question for everyone. You have to get the right balance to maximize revenues. If viewers feel that it is soo sensationalistic, too phony, too bias, etc they may tune in less which leads to a decrease in revenue. If viewers feel that it is too dry/bland/'just the facts maam' they may tune in less which leads to a decrease in revenue. So you gotta strike the perfect mix....and they seem to be doing a good job.

The job of these clowns on tv(on both sides) a long long long time ago stopped having anything to do with journalism or whatever. Anyone who views it that way also probably believes the cute stripper who walks up to their table really has a genuine interest in how their day is going....

[btpag...@gmail.com]

I’m glad to see you wiser up on that last part Mia. Good progress.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:59:59 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>And to think that the right has made biased reporting one of their main har=
>ping points. LMFAO.

When you laugh it all off you will disappear.

Hugh

[jim brown]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 7:00:01 PM UTC-5, Futbol Phan wrote:
> ... but driving cross-country means that there have been numerous times when the only radio station with a signal is Fox. So I have been taking it in.
>
> What unabashed cheerleading for the Stable Genius. 24/7. At the rally yesterday in Orlando the reported kept telling us how absolutely thrilled she was to be there, how exciting it was, and how there were "hundreds of thousands" of people there who shared her view. And how alive the POTUS seemed;

This is exactly what the MSM did for 8 years of Obama and most of the 8 years of Clinton, excepted for when Starr threw the chum in the water.

People like me have said this for years...both sides are basically mirror images of each other, and its sadly hilarious when folks are so entrenched in their own side trying to live vicariously through them.

[Prussian Troll]

What exactly is the “mainstream media” in 2019? I’ve asked this question several times and no one gives an answer. People seem to throw around this phrase without really thinking about what it means. Similar to how people like to use the words “socialist” and “fascist”. Is CNN really the “mainstream media”? Do families still gather around the television in the evening to watch the national network news? If we want to accurately call something the “mainstream media”, should it be Facebook or twitter?

[michael anderson]

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 11:46:49 PM UTC-5, Prussian Troll wrote:
> What exactly is the “mainstream media” in 2019? I’ve asked this question several times and no one gives an answer. People seem to throw around this phrase without really thinking about what it means. Similar to how people like to use the words “socialist” and “fascist”. Is CNN really the “mainstream media”? Do families still gather around the television in the evening to watch the national network news? If we want to accurately call something the “mainstream media”, should it be Facebook or twitter?

no but if you take *all* the non-fox outlets together and combine them that still makes up a large segment of where people(often passively unfortunately) get their news...all the news divisions from nbc, abc, cbs, cnn in addition to things like NPR. Even the AP. These all come together to still form the most powerful voice in 'news'(I hate even calling it that) and the mindset is all very similar....

[walstib77]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 8:00:01 PM UTC-4, Futbol Phan wrote:

Propaganda, pure and simple.

Definitely pure propaganda.

And.... given the target audience, definitely simple.

[michael anderson]

ummmm yes, whats the matter with that? They are running a business. What should their interest be?

[Eric Ramon]

reporting the news, maybe.

In your worldview the pursuit of money is most important which means *everything* else is less important, including honesty. If you like living in a dystopia then all is well, I guess.

[michael anderson]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 3:08:28 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
> On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 8:07:18 AM UTC-7, michael anderson wrote:
> > On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 9:58:52 AM UTC-5, walstib77 wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 8:00:01 PM UTC-4, Futbol Phan wrote:
> > > > ... but driving cross-country means that there have been numerous times when the only radio station with a signal is Fox. So I have been taking it in.
> > > >
> > > > What unabashed cheerleading for the Stable Genius. 24/7. At the rally yesterday in Orlando the reported kept telling us how absolutely thrilled she was to be there, how exciting it was, and how there were "hundreds of thousands" of people there who shared her view. And how alive the POTUS seemed; what a contrast with that sleepy, low-energy Joe Biden... Hearing them defending Hope Hicks' zippermouth today was hilarious; they had at least a half-dozen justifications for her refusal to answer questions as simple as :"where was your office in the WH?".
> > > >
> > > > And the ads-- Trump this, Trump that. Commemorative coins, hats (KEEP AMERICA GREAT!), photos, you name it, they've got it.
> > > >
> > > > And to think that the right has made biased reporting one of their main harping points. LMFAO.
> > >
> > > Propaganda, pure and simple.
> > >
> >
> > ummmm yes, whats the matter with that? They are running a business. What should their interest be?
>
> reporting the news, maybe.

and if there is a market for this, it will or has developed. The market always wins. There is *some* reporting of the news now from foxnews, MSNBC, etc....it's just through a filter of what their customers demand(which is a combination of news and propaganda/cheerleading)

>
> In your worldview the pursuit of money is most important

this is not true at all. How I regard *a business* says little about my worldview. All it says is that I believe the fundamental purpose of a business is to generate profits and make money.

this concept of journalism as a career. We need to consider that there isn't a viable career path and market for this. In pure form at least or the way you are describing.

if nobody wants to consume a product( unbiased reporting of news without cheerleading or propaganda), then that's not a viable career path.

it appears that there is a market for cheerleading and propaganda *with* a foundation in news/journalism. So that is the product. The market defines what the product shall be, not some idea of what academia or colleges or grad school think the market should be.

[Eric Ramon]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 5:40:02 PM UTC-7, michael anderson wrote:

>
> it appears that there is a market for cheerleading and propaganda *with* a foundation in news/journalism. So that is the product. The market defines what the product shall be, not some idea of what academia or colleges or grad school think the market should be.

that's my point. You talk of the "market" while some people believe in public service. Are you too young to remember when radio stations *had* to have 5 minutes of straight news every hour?

[michael anderson]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 8:19:00 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
> On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 5:40:02 PM UTC-7, michael anderson wrote:
>
> >
> > it appears that there is a market for cheerleading and propaganda *with* a foundation in news/journalism. So that is the product. The market defines what the product shall be, not some idea of what academia or colleges or grad school think the market should be.
>
> that's my point. You talk of the "market" while some people believe in public service.

huh? I'm not opposed to that. If someone wants to start a news division devoted to 'just the facts maam' and frame it as a public service thing then more power to them. The problems as I see it:

-who is going to fund it?
-keeping it straight and unbias

[xyzzy]

It already exists.

Propublica.org

[walstib77]

And this is why thinking every fucking thing is better when chasing a profit is a fucked up worldview

[michael anderson]

well all their 'exposes' seem to be aimed at pursuing the usual liberal causes. I certainly wouldn't say they are unbias. Henry Louis Gates is on their board for example...

I view that as more of a vanity project funded by rich leftists to jumo start invegative reporting on issues that may embarrass conservatives and conservative causes for it. They pour a lot of money into it they know they won't get back(since there is no market for what they are doing)….and I also don't think it is unbias when looking at their history of the people making it up

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 09:34:16 -0700 (PDT), walstib77
<mark.al...@gmail.com> wrote:


>And this is why thinking every fucking thing is better when chasing a profi=

>t is a fucked up worldview

fucked up

That should be your sig.

Hugh

[michael anderson]

it's not about it being better....it's just about it being what is.

If there is no market for something, then it either has to be subsidized or it won't exist. We already have some groups subsidizing these sorts of things there is no market for.

[xyzzy]

Even if you’re right, which I question because when went to their site I
saw plenty of stories critical of officials in liberal cities like
Chicago.... it’s kind of the point too that when all that’s left of
journalism is vanity projects you won’t like the results.

[michael anderson]

yes but they are basically saying the liberal cities aren't doing well enough
to ensure their liberal policies are well implemented(or liberal enough). IOW the victims of these liberal cities mismanagement are liberal causes.

I'm already predisposed to be negative towards them because one of the surgeons I eat with in the lounge and talk college football with said they came out with some investigative report measuring surgical and surgeon quality and they didn't know what the heck they were talking about. He didn't even score poorly by the report so it wasn't even personal he just didn't like to see such a report where people act like they know what they are talking about but don't.

[walstib77]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 8:40:02 PM UTC-4, michael anderson wrote:
> On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 3:08:28 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
> > On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 8:07:18 AM UTC-7, michael anderson wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 9:58:52 AM UTC-5, walstib77 wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 8:00:01 PM UTC-4, Futbol Phan wrote:
> > > > > ... but driving cross-country means that there have been numerous times when the only radio station with a signal is Fox. So I have been taking it in.
> > > > >
> > > > > What unabashed cheerleading for the Stable Genius. 24/7. At the rally yesterday in Orlando the reported kept telling us how absolutely thrilled she was to be there, how exciting it was, and how there were "hundreds of thousands" of people there who shared her view. And how alive the POTUS seemed; what a contrast with that sleepy, low-energy Joe Biden... Hearing them defending Hope Hicks' zippermouth today was hilarious; they had at least a half-dozen justifications for her refusal to answer questions as simple as :"where was your office in the WH?".
> > > > >
> > > > > And the ads-- Trump this, Trump that. Commemorative coins, hats (KEEP AMERICA GREAT!), photos, you name it, they've got it.
> > > > >
> > > > > And to think that the right has made biased reporting one of their main harping points. LMFAO.
> > > >
> > > > Propaganda, pure and simple.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ummmm yes, whats the matter with that? They are running a business. What should their interest be?
> >
> > reporting the news, maybe.
>
> and if there is a market for this, it will or has developed. The market always wins.

That is blatantly untrue. Every time markets are left to their own, they fail. EVERY. TIME. because sooner or later, the market falls under the control of the person finding the most effective shortcut to profit and control of the market. Markets are incapable of fending of predators.

And, clearly, the market doesn't always win. Adam Smith made this clear in Wealth of Nations, yet libertarians ignore it while bludgeoning anyone they can with "invisible hand." Because they don't understand it.

People tend to do what they are incentivized to do. Your error is in assuming that money is the only viable incentive. It's clearly not. We all do things all the time for other incentives.

If the market always wins, we'd only sleep with whores.

> it appears that there is a market for cheerleading and propaganda *with* a > foundation in news/journalism. So that is the product. The market defines > what the product shall be, not some idea of what academia or colleges or
> grad school think the market should be.

And there it is. The truth is no longer discernible; it's product.

And you are incapable of seeing how the financial dynamic of this Pandora's Box plays itself out.

And the disdain of academics and learning is at the core of your argument.

We need dumber people more motivated by self-affirming comfort than understanding and reason.

But hey, It's Got Electrolytes!

[walstib77]

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 4:02:16 PM UTC-4, michael anderson wrote:

> I view that as more of a vanity project funded by rich leftists to jumo start > invegative reporting on issues that may embarrass conservatives

I am not familiar with the site you are debating but...

Reality is, the truth tends to embarrass conservatives. That's why y'all rail about debt then drive it up, you espouses Mises and Hayek until your deregulation tanks the economy, then pivot 180 to Uberkeynesians. It's why you have so many moral posers proselytizing about how the gay community needs to come to Jesus, then getting busted soliciting blowjobs under bathroom stall walls in airports.

It's why your arguments against climate action start with "it's not happening" and morph into "it is but we aren't the cause."

The Democrats are pretty fucked up too. and ironically, the depravity in both parties can be traced to one common root:

They're driven exclusively by concentrations of corrupting wealth coerced through the subversion of markets.

[michael anderson]

gosh we've got a hard core Marxist on our hands here.....the only rsfcer who looked at what vlad lenin was doing in Russia and thought the problem was he wasn't leftist on economics enough

[walstib77]

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 7:38:35 PM UTC-4, michael anderson wrote:
> gosh we've got a hard core Marxist on our hands here.....the only rsfcer who looked at what vlad lenin was doing in Russia and thought the problem was he wasn't leftist on economics enough

From your perch atop Ayn Rand's rotting corpse, everyone looks like a Marxist.

I've read Marx. Studied him. It's part of earning an economics degree. I'm not a Marxist. But I am capable of understanding his writing.

That makes one of us.

[michael anderson]

you are right that I don't understand marx. Well I understand enough to know it's bad and not the direction we need to go, but past that couldn't tell you much. I am anti-intellectual in a proud way;
you aren't dnrapp are you? because I blocked him a while ago and wouldn't know if he still posts here, but I don't recall your name as being here long.

[walstib77]

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 9:54:41 PM UTC-4, michael anderson wrote:
> On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 8:02:10 PM UTC-5, walstib77 wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 7:38:35 PM UTC-4, michael anderson wrote:
> > > gosh we've got a hard core Marxist on our hands here.....the only rsfcer who looked at what vlad lenin was doing in Russia and thought the problem was he wasn't leftist on economics enough
> >
> > From your perch atop Ayn Rand's rotting corpse, everyone looks like a Marxist.
> >
> > I've read Marx. Studied him. It's part of earning an economics degree. I'm not a Marxist. But I am capable of understanding his writing.
> >
> > That makes one of us.
>
> you are right that I don't understand marx. Well I understand enough to
> know it's bad and not the direction we need to go,

You're trapped in a false dichotomy.

Let me know when you understand what I mean.

> but past that couldn't tell you much. I am anti-intellectual in a proud way;

Yes. Pride. It will carry you through. Especially when you're proud of being ignorant.

> you aren't dnrapp are you? because I blocked him a while ago and wouldn't know if he still posts here, but I don't recall your name as being here long.

I've been here longer than you. And no, I don't know your rapper.

But here's the dealio, Emelio: You're stuck on the ism schism.

You don;t feel comfortable discussing the mechanics of economics, or the function of policy.

Your theatre is based on assigning labels, and then dismissing or accepting the label. Which is predetermined.

Broad sweeping generalization manifested in platitudes like "markets always win" provide you your security blanket.

You can't even comprehend what it means when I point out that Adam Smith disagrees with you.

[michael anderson]

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 9:52:27 PM UTC-5, walstib77 wrote:
> On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 9:54:41 PM UTC-4, michael anderson wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 8:02:10 PM UTC-5, walstib77 wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 7:38:35 PM UTC-4, michael anderson wrote:
> > > > gosh we've got a hard core Marxist on our hands here.....the only rsfcer who looked at what vlad lenin was doing in Russia and thought the problem was he wasn't leftist on economics enough
> > >
> > > From your perch atop Ayn Rand's rotting corpse, everyone looks like a Marxist.
> > >
> > > I've read Marx. Studied him. It's part of earning an economics degree. I'm not a Marxist. But I am capable of understanding his writing.
> > >
> > > That makes one of us.
> >
> > you are right that I don't understand marx. Well I understand enough to
> > know it's bad and not the direction we need to go,
>
> You're trapped in a false dichotomy.
>
> Let me know when you understand what I mean.

im going to have to pass on that. you managed to talk down to me on three separate occasions in one short post; calling me stupid and such essentially.

also, for all your talk of isms you yourself just parrot every far leftist talking point on economic matters.

[walstib77]

LOL

Because your characterization to which I was replying merited so much respect, I do apologize for agreeing with you that you are proud being proud of being anti-intellectual.

As for "parroting," that is hilarious. I've argued that markets are incapable of delivering necessities, and I've explained my perspective on that based on the supply and demand curve, and the requirement of scarcity for establishing a profitable price equilibrium.

And you call that "parroting the far left."

Anti-intellectual, indeed.