You can ignore authors, whether they are producing too much noise or being needlessly provocative, by clicking the yellow unhappy when reading their post.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 3
I missed this...
https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?bid=116Looks like weatherman and onepoorguy are trying to provide a little balance.
Just so you know what you are not missing, here are a couple of snippets from the most rec'd posts:
From LurkerMom, more crap from a questionable source. Her conclusion:
Unbelievable, the once honored FBI is now trash who pander to the democrats. Oh, yes, that bastion of liberalism and woke-ness. LOL. The FBI!
And from WiltonKnight, aka multiple usernames,
I've long said - that the Left - and even some NeoCons - seriously truly want "Hunger Games" for about 70% of America.
This is yet another tiny hint and tiptoe in that direction.
The Progressive Left - wants to meddle in and dictate in every single moment of the average American's day.
Back in the day we used to say that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda "hate our freedoms".
Hardly.
They hated our meddling in the Middle East and exporting of our pop culture.
As far as 'hating our freedoms' - it's the Progressive Left, right here in America.I guess the MAGAs are more comfortable in the bubble. What a surprise.
No. of Recommendations: 1
lol@ges
The board has existed for going on a year and you just now discovered it?
I suppose you’ll be along to polite that board too.
Leave decent folks alone.
No. of Recommendations: 1
meant pollute ges. Nothing polite about you.
No. of Recommendations: 4
lol@ges
The board has existed for going on a year and you just now discovered it?
I suppose you’ll be along to polite that board too.
--------------------------
That hoard died when you came over to the atheists board.
----------------------
Leave decent folks alone.
-----------------
Ges does.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Apparently that board isn't really active. I visited a few times, and realized that as bad as the sourcing is here, it's even worse over there. I think I made a comment about a Star Trek post (life-long Trekkie), but I really don't have much interest in engaging over there. This is more "neutral ground" than there.
Whether "liberal" or "conservative" is in the board title, it's an indication (IMHO) that they want to retreat into a bubble. Sometimes they can get very hostile to an outsider (I experienced that on TMF with both Conservative Fools and Christian Fools...the Muslim Fools just ignored my -respectful- queries). So I tend to avoid boards like that.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Whether "liberal" or "conservative" is in the board title, it's an indication (IMHO) that they want to retreat into a bubble. Sometimes they can get very hostile to an outsider (I experienced that on TMF with both Conservative Fools and Christian Fools. - 1pg
-----------------
I feel quite the opposite. I was a member of a couple of almost pure conservative boards, and frankly they became quite boring. An exclusive stream of examples of liberal malfeasance and funny memes poking at liberals gets old pretty damn fast. To me anyway.
I prefer to be the guy in the minority on a board such as this. It has some life and some fire to it, an energy not present in the monolithic conservative boards. I enjoy the displays of TDS and also enjoy the deeper discussions of policy and the problems facing of the day. And quite honestly being fire-hosed with the liberal perspective here has made me more critical of the news I get from other sources such as the one whose name shall not be spoken.
And really, if the likes of me, Dope, LM, boater, <sorry I am surely leaving out some conservatives, but really there are not that many of us here>, were to suddenly disappear, would you miss us or would you celebrate having finally achieved a pure <but possibly boring> liberal only echo chamber?
No. of Recommendations: 1
There’s no such thing as a “conservative bubble”. I go back to what Drebbin used to say on The Fool: You can’t live in a conservative bubble because they don’t exist. Reason is it’s just not possible to escape the left wing perspective: it permeates the media and popular culture nearly 100%.
I stay here and debate lefties to stay sharp and because it’s more challenging to be in the minority. Anybody can repetitively post the same partisan nonsense day after day…it takes more skill to go up against several posters at once.
No. of Recommendations: 0
And really, if the likes of me, Dope, LM, boater, <sorry I am surely leaving out some conservatives, but really there are not that many of us here>, were to suddenly disappear, would you miss us or would you celebrate having finally achieved a pure <but possibly boring> liberal only echo chamber?
-----------------
We need a Dr Bob to balance things out, and some RINO conservatives on the lines of G Conway too. Maybe someone who can articulate a decent conservative position? Is that too much to ask for?
No. of Recommendations: 1
And really, if the likes of me, Dope, LM, boater, <sorry I am surely leaving out some conservatives, but really there are not that many of us here>, were to suddenly disappear, would you miss us or would you celebrate having finally achieved a pure <but possibly boring> liberal only echo chamber?
The left at the old PA became more and more bold with their nasty retorts and personal attacks. Needless to say why many conservatives left the PA and becoming the minority posting there.
Most likely it’s why conservatives turn to conservatives style boards where they can discuss topics in peace.
No. of Recommendations: 1
LM.....
I *as usual* have a contrarian view or two - not anti conservative, but what I see as helping Conservatism in the long run (sorta like I used to say on immigration and trade 20 years ago on TMF)
Is it ok with you if I write it there? I don't want to be like these Liberals and disrupt the board hence I'm asking.
No. of Recommendations: 3
No. of Recommendations: 4
Maybe someone who can articulate a decent conservative position?
Yes, please.
How many of these so-called conservatives are going to vote for Trump? That is not conservatism, it is something entirely different.
No. of Recommendations: 3
lol@ges
The board has existed for going on a year and you just now discovered it?
Existed for a year......with a total of 23 posts. With no activity between September and March. You guys sure have a lot to say.
No. of Recommendations: 1
meant pollute ges. Nothing polite about you.
I had simply assumed your use of "polite" was dripping with sarcasm.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I think my implication was pretty clear that I do not like bubbles, and regard boards with names like "Liberal Fools" or "Conservative Fools" are just invitations for echo chambers. And, in fact, those echo chambers can be quite hostile. I never received a "ploink" until I visited CF and XF, and then I got a bunch of them. Even though I was very polite, they just assumed I was a troll and either yelled at me, or ploinked me, or both. One guy on CF spoke to me, but was very condescending; and two or three on XF would engage me honestly (one was a preacher by profession).
I agree with you that it is good to other perspectives. That's why I don't go to bubble chamber boards. As you said, they can get quite boring.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Is it ok with you if I write it there? I don't want to be like these Liberals and disrupt the board hence I'm asking.
Every one is welcome. I have no say so on the matter.
My only concern is a poster attack the content of a post if not agreeing with it or give their pov, not attacking or throwing their spit balls at the poster one is replying to.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I wonder if that's true (i.e. you are a minority here). Maybe. It seems more or less balanced, with acknowledgment that a few posters I can't quite figure out...so they may be true centrists, or just really good at hiding their bias. There are about a dozen regular posters here, and roughly half of them are "righties".
Though the "lefties" do seem a bit more prolific in their posting, which may give the illusion that the "right" is in the minority.
As for the media, that's BS. It's not our fault that facts and truth are regarded as "liberal" by some (e.g. in TX they may be regarded as such, in NY or Europe not so much). Not that _both_ sides don't have their bubble rags (like Gateway Pundit). But the mainstream is more concerned with beating other outlets to a story, than catering to one particular point of view.
You might want to check
https://ground.newsThey assess bias on the news they are reporting. They also feature "blindspots" when stories are underreported by either liberal or conservative sources. I've been considering subscribing to them, but some folks I have respect for are using them.
No. of Recommendations: 1
As for the media, that's BS. It's not our fault that facts and truth are regarded as "liberal" by some (e.g. in TX they may be regarded as such, in NY or Europe not so much). Not that _both_ sides don't have their bubble rags (like Gateway Pundit). But the mainstream is more concerned with beating other outlets to a story, than catering to one particular point of view.
Interesting. The "Bloodbath" episode and the many other instances of the media running dnc talking points would point in the other direction.
But let's explore this. Which outlets do you consider to be mainstream media? Let's start there.
No. of Recommendations: 5
The NYT is a good one. They report negative stuff no matter which party it is. If there's something there, they stick with it. If not, they move on. NPR is excellent. I find the Guardian pretty reliable. Surprisingly, Al Jazeera (English version) is generally accurate (with an understandable slant towards Middle Eastern affairs). WashPo is reasonably good. If something is particularly noteworthy, I'll check multiple sources to get any different angles that might be present to give me a better picture. For business/financial, Fox Business is pretty good (they don't mess around when it comes to money...no 'rah-rah Trump', or anything like that). Some local sources can be good, also, when a story doesn't make the cut at -for example- NYT (i.e. despite their motto "all the news that is fit to print", they really can't do all the news). If an outlet that I've never heard of hits my feed, I'll often check its affiliations and biases (if they aren't obvious by the article itself, which sometimes they are).
I said earlier, I've been considering subscribing to Ground News. I like the feature that they rate the bias of almost every story, and also -presumably based on your article selection- identify "blindspots" for you the reader. I'm certain none of us are immune to blindspots, so that could be useful. They also highlight how stories are headlined; the choice of phrasing to convey different meaning.
I do not do the talking heads on any of the "cable" (not really cable anymore!) news channels.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 2
Kudos for checking the sources. I have used AllSides. MediaBiasFactCheck is more widely cited. Both are somewhat subjective, as Mike pointed out a few months ago. AllSides was founded by Republican political operative. MediaBiasFactCheck (IMHO) uses a better (though NOT perfect) methodology in determining their ratings.
The Hill, which you linked, is reasonably good. Centrist, and reasonably factual ("high" credibility). I read some of their stuff when it hits my feed.
NPR is one of the best. In terms of factual reporting, they are very difficult to beat.
Yes, Guardian is probably the shakiest of my sources ("medium" credibility). I almost always check another source to confirm what they say. They have "mixed" accuracy, and are left-leaning. But sometimes I am alerted to something by the Guardian, and then go check it out. Or, sometimes, it's something as simple as "Amelia Earhart's Plane Found?", which I may not check out further because it isn't THAT important. Al Jazeera is another one I confirm with other sources, though I've found them to be reasonably reliable AND they often cover stories that western media is slow to cover (still rated "medium" credibility).
I forgot to mention the BBC. High accuracy. Mostly left-leaning, except when it comes to the Royals (they are pro-Royal...I'm anti-Royal, but don't have a dog in that fight since I'm not British).
I used to read the Huffington Post, but they were clearly extreme left (not a problem for me...I'm a big boy and can sort out bias), and had shaky credibility (a BIG problem for me). So I stopped.
The problem with your sources
isn't that they are right-leaning, but that they are consistently questionable factually. There is always bias in story selection, and even wording. Ground News will actually show you different headlines of the same story that give entirely different framing to the story (yeah, I'm really talking myself into subscribing to them). But if they get the facts wrong, then they are useless. And your sources usually either get the facts completely wrong (as has been exposed to you several times), or they cherry-pick out of context facts to lead you to an erroneous conclusion.
Also, I'm not interested in opinion pieces from any outlet. So if the NYT opinion was rated "left", I don't care. I read the factual stories to form my own opinions. I don't need someone to give my opinion to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllSideshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Chec...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_NewsI don't think anyone has a lock on great sources. But yours are demonstrably, consistently, faulty (except for The Hill...that one is reasonably good). Hopefully you don't stop reading The Hill because I said it was credible. :-)
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't think anyone has a lock on great sources. But yours are demonstrably, consistently, faulty (except for The Hill...that one is reasonably good). Hopefully you don't stop reading The Hill because I said it was credible. :-)
The articles I post are mainly accurate but admitting probably with a right slant discription that certainly irks some posters here. So shrug.
Main Stream Media will suppress news or not report on it at all if it not favorable to Biden.
I will still stay with news sources of my choosing and will ignore any complaints on it.
No. of Recommendations: 3
You say "Main Stream Media" as if it is a monolith. But it really isn't. It's like saying "All Christians". They aren't monolithic either, and often have vehement disagreements amongst the various sects (e.g. I once heard a Baptist refer to Catholics as "Mary-worshiping heretics").
MSM is a diverse collection of outlets, all competing with each other to break the big news story (and, occasionally, win Pulitzers). I exclude television programming because they are interested in eyeballs, and Murdoch (in particular) figured out how to get a lot of eyeballs by catering to the fears and loathings of a large segment of the population. Good for him, but bad for the truth/facts.
You are certainly free to stay with news sources of your choosing. There is no thought police. But if you truly value facts and accuracy, you may want to consider some changes. For me, I value the truth. Even if I don't like it, I want to hear it. If I don't know the facts, I will almost certainly reach a bad conclusion, and make bad decisions. As will anyone.**
**I don't know why I associate that with Wile E Coyote...if you don't have the facts about parachutes, you might think you can jump off a cliff with an umbrella and survive. I tried it from a slide on a playground when I was about 6, it didn't really work (and I was all of maybe 50 lbs, if that).
