Most of the population doesn’t live in a swing state

Guess it’s “Mostly True”

Nothing. But a good portion of the electorate did get to learn about the power of marketing and the difference between liberalism and socialism

deleted by creator

I don’t necessarily disagree and have retirement accounts myself.

But how do we draw the line between this and buying property to rent to others? Is being a landlord acceptable as a communist if we realize we are forced to participate in the system and need the extra income?

Yeah, some people work. Have you read Manufacturing Consent?

Either way, the summary is pretty accurate after watching. He devoted 30 seconds to recognizing that anti communism was a major pillar of the news media back then, at least. But that is a major reflection of exactly how they weren’t “unbiased” and basically shows how the regulations and fairness doctrine did very little to expose Americans to ideas outside those accepted by the elites who owned and ran NBC, CBS, ABC, and NYT/WaPo. So to claim that it’s mostly true that they were “unbiased” back then is still a bit ridiculous after such an acknowledgement. “They were mostly unbiased unless you count mainstream, elite American opinion of the 50s/60s as a type of bias”…

Again, no look at the structure of the news media and how they treated the US government’s and major corporations’ words as a major form of sourcing, the importance and influence of advertising, etc.

He has a handful of chosen examples. Manufacturing Consent has case studies documenting coverage of specific events from these media sources.

The populace wasn’t more educated when everyone got their news from the same 5 sources (and a more educated populace is what we should want from our news media.)

They just all mostly agreed and said the same things. There was still bias, it just wasn’t as partisan and people were less likely to disagree because there wasn’t anyone saying otherwise. The faux neutrality was a facade.

If that’s the summary, then the video is overly simplistic and doesn’t understand the actual concept of media bias. The news was biased then too, especially foreign coverage, and it was biased before then. I mean, this goes all the way back to the USS Maine at the very least.

Anyone who wants to talk about media bias and hasn’t read Manufacturing Consent or other similar work needs to be banned from the topic. Learn about the propaganda model. Maybe also read about the Committee on Public Information and Edward Bernays while you’re at it.

I can’t take anyone seriously who really thinks the overall news landscape was less biased when there were only a handful of networks determining news on TV and less alternatives in the print media as well.

Edit: Longer, but better

I thought it was the New Yorker from the headline and byline styling. A British conservative magazine isn’t quite as funny, though still a little funny.

You’re being pedantic. The dominant ideology of the Democratic party is neoliberalism. Democrats continued neoliberal policies following Reagan, like NAFTA and others. They will consistently defer to the market based solutions and “free enterprise” as opposed to actual socialism. The dominant political user on these platforms (especially .world) are capital D Democrats and liberals. You see this on Reddit a lot in /r/neoliberal.

This user likely isn’t wrong when using this description as a generalization.

^ This is a decently accurate account of how neoliberalism grew to become the dominant economic ideology in the US and Western Europe. Though it was really just a description of Reaganism and Thatcherism at first. Read David Harvey if you disagree.

I realized people can poison their own brains by pumping out propaganda nonsense every day. And the easiest person to deceive is yourself.

The initial reactions in the comments on the .world news comms really show this. People didn’t want to believe there was even an actual shooter.

These people really have no understanding of reality do they? I mean, maybe I’m wrong myself, but to not even entertain the possibility of him gaining politically from this event…?

Do you remember 9/11? The war in Iraq? Are you aware of what happened with the assassination attempt against Reagan? Do you remember how those affected the approval ratings of politicians?

You don’t even necessarily have to flip people. You just have to get them to come out and mobilize.

It’s not a sure thing, but a lot of y’all are coming across as coping. Political violence has often united this country around figures and policies.

Isn’t Biden already polling poorly?

An antended at the rally and the shooter were killed per the AP

It’s incredible people are down voting you because they don’t like this thought. Y’all know how America is right? If this is all real, his approval numbers likely grow and his base gets fired up. Reagan got a bump back in the day.

You don’t have to like that, but it’s not misinformation to speculate on how this plays out. These images will be used for the rest of this race.

Yeah because language barriers, cultural differences, and time zones don’t matter

I’m sorry but this isn’t “world news” to me. Random drunken tragedies are hardly something useful to keep me informed on what is happening in the world.

No, you see:

1. I was drunk when I replied because I do have a social life
2. Mocking you wasn’t part of my argument. I made that in the first paragraph (about context and similarly). I just mocked you because I didn’t like you. As you know, Professor Logician, an insult being included in an argument doesn’t necessarily make the argument an ad hominem.

The original user didn’t reply to my disagreement like a maladjusted prick, unlike you. So they got a civil disagreement back.

Unlike them, I do hope you get “attacked” by a 5 year old with a water gun this summer. 🤓

Because your analogy is ignoring both the volume of water involved and the context that surrounds both actions, one being actual bullying.

There is a world of difference in the psychological impact of a bullied child being soaked with a bucket of water by their peers and strangers being squirt with water guns by locals as a form of protest.

In the former, I would be dealing with peers and the feelings of social exclusion that come from bullying and unacceptance. People in my peer group would likely have been there pointing and laughing. There would be fear of having to run into my bullies on a daily basis who would be specifically targeting me as a single individual for no other reason but aggression or to assert dominance or whatever reasons a bully would have. The bullying period would likely have no definite end in sight.

In the later, I would at worst feel a bit of embarrassment and maybe some annoyance. Maybe I’d worry about running into the protestors again. But then my trip would end and I would be home. The protesters also are unlikely to be following me and my family around as specific people to harass and will instead be protesting generally.

And yeah this just comes off as Internet debate stuff to me. I said “it’s water” instead of specifically “it was a water gun squirt”. “hmm, having you ever considered tidal waves though. Water can be violent”. Wow. Thanks.

And again, my response was to demean the overdramatic use of the word “attacked”.

If someone jumped out of a bush and squirt you with a water gun a few times then ran away, would you call emergency services and tell them you were “attacked” by someone? If so, you really think that would be a good use of your local police force’s time and wouldn’t be exaggerating the situation?

It’s incredibly soft to describe being shot at with a water gun as “attacked”. Sorry. I hope a 5 year old doesn’t “attack” any of y’all this summer.

The point is idiotic and ignores all context between the two acts. It literally does compare the two acts or it’s irrelevant to bring up. That’s what an analogy does.

Except for dumb as shit Internet debater assholes who base their usernames on mid tier novelists, I guess.