American election.

[Immanuel Can]

Yet the middle is increasingly disappearing.

Here's one reason why compromise isn't happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfVonCvvC04

It would be funny if it weren't so terribly tragic.

[tillingborn]

In my view it is not only "liberal-biased organizations" who will play to their bases, it is organisations of all political colours.

As requested...but you could have found it easily yourself. It wasn't hidden.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ri ... dency-2020

Thank you.

Actually, I understand that perfectly.

All it means, though, is this: that the Leftist organizations will never publish facts that will harm Biden, and the conservative media will seek such things out and report them.

Precisely as we see happening.

But what of that? It means that you can trust the Leftist press for nothing, on the subject of Biden, and if there are any negative truths to be told, you will find them only in conservative sources. (It might be the opposite in regards to, say, critiques of President Trump, if what you say about media is true.)

You appear to use "liberal-biased organizations" and "the Leftist press" interchangeably. Don't you make any distinction?

All this, you say, is just normal for news reporting. So the ONLY sources you can expect to find reliable here are conservative ones.

How do you reach that conclusion? No, I expect a spectrum of out and out lies and denial on one side, blending into partisanship, merging into selective reporting, seamlessly passing through a narrow band of complete objectivity and onto favouritism and blatant dishonesty on the far side.

By your own confession, on this matter anyway, the Leftist sources will inevitably simply hide the truth or lie.

My confession? I am simply reporting what I see. Absolutely some leftist sources will conceal facts and lie, the words of mine you quote above say as much.
Again, thank you for the link to the study. The company that conducted the actual survey, with the no nonsense name 'the polling company' was founded by Kellyanne Conway. Some people might be interested to know that the company was dropped by President Trump: "When President Donald Trump’s internal polling suggested he was trailing Democrats in crucial states earlier this year, it did what any campaign would do: tried to bury the bad numbers.

When the findings leaked to the media anyway, an infuriated Trump and his aides first disputed the poll’s existence, then tried to dismiss its importance before finally firing some of the pollsters." https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/news/p ... /39592729/ So, allegedly, a company which lost a contract for not finding the desired results, produces another poll which the president is likely to find more agreeable. Make of that what you will.
What then did the polling company actually ask? Without going through the whole survey, the first four questions give a flavour.
1. "At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that under President Trump's policies the U.S. last year became energy independent – exporting more crude oil than we imported – for the first time in recorded history?"
There are some arguments that it's not necessarily a good thing; I don't think they're very strong and energy independence, in my view, is a real achievement by Trump and the question sets up a favourable tone for Donald Trump, which is good if that is what you want your survey to reflect, but hardly objective.

2. "At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that the Commerce Department reported (on October 29) the best economic growth ever -- an annualized rate of 33.1%?"
On the face of it, a staggering achievement. The survey is a bit short on detail though:
"The US economy expanded by an annualized 33.4% in Q3 2020, slightly higher than 33.1% in the second estimate. It is the biggest expansion ever, following a record 31.4% plunge in Q2, as the economy rebounds from the coronavirus pandemic. The upward revision primarily reflected larger increases in personal consumption expenditures and nonresidential fixed investment. However, GDP is still 3.5% below its pre-pandemic level and although coronavirus vaccination already started, the pandemic is far from controlled." https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

3. "At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that evidence exists, including bank transactions the FBI is currently investigating, that directly links Joe Biden and his family to a corrupt financial arrangement between a Chinese company with connections to the Chinese Communist Party that was secretly intended to provide the Biden family with tens of millions of dollars in profits?"
That is a textbook leading question.

4. "At the time you cast your vote for president, did you know that the president had negotiated three different peace agreements between Arab countries and Israel, something never done before, and for which he’s been nominated for three separate Nobel Peace Prizes?"
This is very misleading. While President Trump should be congratulated for his role in brokering the normalisation of relationships between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain, it is really stretching it to claim that he “negotiated three different peace agreements”, and it is simply not true that “he’s been nominated for three separate Nobel Peace Prizes”. He has been nominated twice, on both occasions by Christian Tybring-Gjedde, “A far-right Norwegian politician.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54092960

Overall, the survey and the outlets that published them are part of the normal right leaning media that reports, and in some cases generates right leaning news for their right leaning audience. Normally, that is no more of a problem than the equally dubious output of the left leaning media, but it is information of this sort which is stoking dangerous self righteousness in people trained to believe everything written by a certain section of media output. The first concern of anyone left of Hitler is that, next time, the people invading the Capitol get their way. The second is that in order to contain dangerous ideas, the normal left and right leaning media will be subject to restrictions which will amount to the end of free speech. Either way, the lunatics win.

[tillingborn]

This is doublespeak. Do you think 1984 was meant as a handbook?

American democrats do

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-BB1crfjs

-Imp

Do you honestly think that is worth caring about?

[Impenitent]

This is doublespeak. Do you think 1984 was meant as a handbook?

American democrats do

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-BB1crfjs

-Imp

Do you honestly think that is worth caring about?

and your love for big brother is touching

finis

-Imp

[tillingborn]

and your love for big brother is touching

finis

-Imp

It is you that uses doublespeak.

[Immanuel Can]

You appear to use "liberal-biased organizations" and "the Leftist press" interchangeably. Don't you make any distinction?

You don't. You say that all you expect from either side is bias. I't's your premise.

All this, you say, is just normal for news reporting. So the ONLY sources you can expect to find reliable here are conservative ones.

How do you reach that conclusion?

Easy. If both sides are biased (a fact you not only insist on, but regard as natural) then the Leftist press is inevitably biased Left. We will then not have any reasonable expectation it will publish that which hurts its cause. But the conservative press might.

Overall, the survey and the outlets that published them are part of the normal right leaning media that reports, and in some cases generates right leaning news for their right leaning audience.

So? If you're right, then it's going to be willing to publish things the Leftist press simply won't. And that is exactly what we find here.

Hey, it's your theory of the media.

[tillingborn]

You appear to use "liberal-biased organizations" and "the Leftist press" interchangeably. Don't you make any distinction?

You don't. You say that all you expect from either side is bias. I't's your premise.

It isn't. I spelled out exactly what I expect:

No, I expect a spectrum of out and out lies and denial on one side, blending into partisanship, merging into selective reporting, seamlessly passing through a narrow band of complete objectivity and onto favouritism and blatant dishonesty on the far side.

All this, you say, is just normal for news reporting. So the ONLY sources you can expect to find reliable here are conservative ones.

How do you reach that conclusion?

Easy. If both sides are biased (a fact you not only insist on, but regard as natural) then the Leftist press is inevitably biased Left. We will then not have any reasonable expectation it will publish that which hurts its cause. But the conservative press might.

Perhaps having read again what I clearly said I expect, you might appreciate that I do not see it simply as left and right in the way you apparently do. You might also reach a more accurate conclusion that if there is only one source of reliable information, it is in the 'narrow band of complete objectivity'. Even that is simplifying my position.

Overall, the survey and the outlets that published them are part of the normal right leaning media that reports, and in some cases generates right leaning news for their right leaning audience.

So? If you're right, then it's going to be willing to publish things the Leftist press simply won't. And that is exactly what we find here.

Hey, it's your theory of the media.

You mean that if I am right, then what we would find "is exactly what we find here". Frankly, I don't take any credit for a "theory of the media" which is common knowledge. We discussed at length how you think the media should behave; none of which makes the slightest difference to the way that the media actually behaves. You may not like a lot of what is reported, but if you switch off your critical faculties every time you hear something you approve of, you are making yourself ripe for exploitation.

[Gary Childress]

Yet the middle is increasingly disappearing.

Here's one reason why compromise isn't happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfVonCvvC04

It would be funny if it weren't so terribly tragic.

Interesting video. What would be "compromises" on universal healthcare, environmental protection and abortion that would be acceptable to conservatives?

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps having read again what I clearly said I expect, you might appreciate that I do not see it simply as left and right in the way you apparently do.

Yeah, okay.

[Immanuel Can]

Compromise?

How about healthcare that is sustainable and reasonable, environmental management measures that don't destroy the environment AND cripple the economy the way so many present "green" measures do, and a general policy of not killing children? Those don't seem to be too much to ask, and there's a fair bit of room to discuss how we might get them each done.

[Gary Childress]

Compromise?

How about healthcare that is sustainable and reasonable, environmental management measures that don't destroy the environment AND cripple the economy the way so many present "green" measures do, and a general policy of not killing children? Those don't seem to be too much to ask, and there's a fair bit of room to discuss how we might get them each done.

Do you think universal healthcare could be made sustainable and reasonable--like medicare for all?

Would you grant allowing abortion up to a certain point in pregnancy, perhaps the first 4 months or something like that or is abortion of any kind at any point a no go?

As far as environmental management that destroys the environment, I don't think any of us want that, although bringing coal back online doesn't sound very smart at first glance. Would you agree to discontinue coal plants and replace them with more efficient and/or sustainable types?

[Walker]

and your love for big brother is touching

finis

-Imp

It is you that uses doublespeak.

The evidence suggests not.

Definition of doublespeak
: language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth

Based on what the word actually means:

- Imp’s language does not deceive.
- Nor is it intended to deceive.
- It reveals truth.
- That you can’t see the truth is your affair.
- But don't feel special for being blind.
- Sometimes the truth is really Big, and folks still can’t see it.

[tillingborn]

Definition of doublespeak
: language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth

The irony of a definition of doublespeak is lost on you, isn't it Walker?

[tillingborn]

Perhaps having read again what I clearly said I expect, you might appreciate that I do not see it simply as left and right in the way you apparently do.

Yeah, okay.

Just for context, here it is again:

No, I expect a spectrum of out and out lies and denial on one side, blending into partisanship, merging into selective reporting, seamlessly passing through a narrow band of complete objectivity and onto favouritism and blatant dishonesty on the far side.

The reason I expect that is because that is precisely what demonstrably has been the case. Whether it is desirable makes no difference to the reality; it is glaringly obvious that there are provocateurs in the media, at both ends of the political spectrum, who intend to incite violent protest. If you stop distinguishing between different opinions, such as "liberal-biased organizations" and "the Leftist press", all that remains are the violent extremes. The situation in the US right now is that 147 Republicans gambled on Wednesday night that the violence isn't over, and that the Trumpists will prevail, knowing full well that if the rioters they supported fail, their careers are effectively over; precisely because there are only two sides to the current issue.

[Skepdick]

If you stop distinguishing between different opinions, such as "liberal-biased organizations" and "the Leftist press", all that remains are the violent extremes.

So you don't see it simply as left vs right.

You see it simply as extremists vs non-extremists (centrists?).