*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[TheSpoonald]

But, you can find sources that aren't openly biased.

Not "openly" bias huh? Sounds totally legit.

I'd much rather have the bias in the open, than hidden or obscured. Wouldn't you?


If you're trying to tell me that UN-biased sources exist....then I call bullshit.

[Poopadoop]

I'd much rather have the bias in the open, than hidden or obscured. Wouldn't you?

I already answered that and I already told you why. Go back two posts and read it again. Consult a dictionary if you need to.

If you're trying to tell me that UN-biased sources exist....then I call bullshit.

Of course you do.

[Poopadoop]

Also it's not that their bias is 'open', as in they come out and say 'here's a biased report, enjoy' it's just blatant. There are plenty of people who can't see blatant bias if it smacks them in the face. There's others who see it and since it matches their own bias, it doesn't register as bias.

Having a 'hiidden bias' is much more difficult to accomplish, which is why it's very rare. A bias almost always makes itself visible.

[TheSpoonald]

Also it's not that their bias is 'open', as in they come out and say 'here's a biased report, enjoy' it's just blatant.

Not sure what you're watching, but I see Fox acknowledge it's conservative tilt all the time. MSNBC clearly knows what it is. So does Vox. So does Ben Shapiro. So does Breitbart. NYT and WaPo pretty much admit to be tabloids now.

CNN, for a while to be the "objective" news sources. But it didn't work. Everyone knows what they are too.

[Poopadoop]

The whole point of propaganda is to try to present the information as if its credible. You don't do that by being open about what your bias is. If you preface a report with 'fyi, this is a real biased line of shit we're about to feed you here', no-one is going to believe it.

Nonetheless, one can assess bias by recognizing where facts are being distorted/changed into lies, or various rhetorical tricks are being used or where the presenter is giving an editorial. I don't care what Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow (or you for that matter) think the Mueller Report means; I ignore that. I look for reports of what the substance of the report is, and what the underlying laws are. Then I reach my own conclusions. That doesn't mean they're the correct ones, and I'm aware of that. But they are mine and they aren't reached because I watched two different people give polar opposite bullshit interpretations, and then pick the bullshit I prefer.

[TheSpoonald]

I don't care what Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow (or you for that matter) think the Mueller Report means;

There's a difference between 'not caring' and deliberately being contrary because of your compulsive oppositional defiance disorder.

I ignore that.

No you don't

I look for reports of what the substance of the report is, and what the underlying laws are. Then I reach my own conclusions.

No, you clearly don't give a fuck what the law is. Don't try to play that game. And you're not looking at the substance of the report. You're cherry picking confirmation bias to support the conclusions you inferred in the beginning. For example, you keep saying that Trump "tried" to fire Mueller. That's not in the report man.

That doesn't mean they're the correct ones, and I'm aware of that. But they are mine and they aren't reached because I watched two different people give polar opposite bullshit interpretations, and then pick the bullshit I prefer.

That's not how I reach my conclusions either. The point of consuming polar opposite news sources is because you can conclude that anywhere they overlap, are facts.

[Poopadoop]

There's a difference between 'not caring' and deliberately being contrary because of your compulsive oppositional defiance disorder.

This sounds more like you than anyone I know, frankly.

No you don't

You're right. I laugh at it. That's not the same as believing it though.

ONG-ANA.jpg

(I have no reason to take any of that rant seriously.)

That's not how I reach my conclusions either. The point of consuming polar opposite news sources is because you can conclude that anywhere they overlap, are facts.

Well great, all you need to do is find that 1% of the time they overlap and you now know 1% of the facts while exposing yourself to 99% bullshit. But I guess if you believe 50% of that bullshit then I can see why you'd do it.

[TheSpoonald]

(I have no reason to take any of that rant seriously.)

"shut up" he explained

Well great, all you need to do is find that 1% of the time they overlap and you now know 1% of the facts while exposing yourself to 99% bullshit.

Is it really 99 to 1? Citation needed.

And you're just dodging the question. How are you getting unbiased news? Where is this magic fountain of facts?