|
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1587030)
Well, to be fair, there is a logical answer to that: More and bigger government.
|
Brian Stelter or Anderson Cooper both are part of the "party" if you think like 1984, they're part of the higher class that won't be affected by the disastrous leftist agenda regardless.
|
|
Originally Posted by poormxdad
(Post 1587027)
.
...the idea that some politican like Maxine Waters or Mazie Hirono might be the "Temperature Czar" is laughable. ... |
I thought AL Gore was our temperature czar?
|
|
|
Originally Posted by poormxdad
(Post 1587032)
Sure, but what does Brian Stelter or Anderson Cooper get out of it that makes them such strong adherents to the cause? It seems to me the dims are pushing the idea that the world would be a better place if we were all equally miserable.
https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...ee&oe=5FE3EE9F https://advances.sciencemag.org/cont...Tm26mIPjag5bVs Figure 2 shows the distribution of ideological positions of journalists based on their Twitter interactions. As can be seen, journalists are dominantly liberal and often fall far to the left of Americans. A full 78.1% of journalists are more liberal than the average Twitter user. Moreover, 66% are even more liberal than former President Obama, 62.3% are to the left of the median Senate Democrat (in the 114th Congress), and a full 14.5% are more liberal than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (one of the most liberal members of the House). |
So Pierre Delecto's Twitter interactions place him as a conservative? Interesting. I guess Trump (and I) are in that far right hump.
|
Wonder where taxation is theft fits on that chart.
|
Originally Posted by Bajingo
(Post 1587104)
Wonder where taxation is theft fits on that chart.
|
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1587095)
... especially
Seriously. |
Well, there was that one zoom meeting, when the guy forgot to close out of it (and also unplug the camera and lock it in a safe), before disrobing and fetching some lotion and a tissue. But yeah. |
Serious question for Joe, since you're exposed to the "personalities"... does the subject of "journalism" vs. "punditry" ever even come up with these folks? Has hubris overtaken any pretense of neutrality, or are there those in the ranks that are disturbed by the trend in the 'news' business over the last couple of decades?
|
Originally Posted by Roda
(Post 1587146)
Serious question for Joe, since you're exposed to the "personalities"... does the subject of "journalism" vs. "punditry" ever even come up with these folks? Has hubris overtaken any pretense of neutrality, or are there those in the ranks that are disturbed by the trend in the 'news' business over the last couple of decades?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ral-media-bias https://conservativemedia.com/news/c...iew-not-owned/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...a-liberal.html |
Originally Posted by Roda
(Post 1587146)
Serious question for Joe, since you're exposed to the "personalities"... does the subject of "journalism" vs. "punditry" ever even come up with these folks?
... in certain contexts. When WGN America first started talking about the News Nation show late last year, one of the foremost thoughts was the fact that all of the other major cable networks had lost their way. Long forgotten were the days of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow. In their place, every cable "news" show consisted largely of opinion and editorialism. The producers laid down on day 1 the vision that our show would actually report the news. Like, literally presenting facts to the audience. We actually have a department which, to my knowledge, is unique among all of cable news. Four people, with their own office, whose job it is to ensure objectivity and a lack of bias. Not fact-checkers in the Facebook sense, but neutrality-checkers in the Wikipedia sense. And, in terms of the org chart, they are actually separate from the news department. They report to the GM, not the News Director. That was a big deal early on in the design of the organization. CNN noticed in a big way. Our company had, at the time, been in a license-renewal negotiation with them. Every TV station in the country which has a news department is a CNN affiliate (well, until recently), and both takes footage from them as well as contributing footage to them when local stories of national interest occur, much like our relationship with AP. Yes, even Fox, MSNBC, etc. It's more efficient when we all share resources. On the morning after the first national broadcast of News Nation, they de-authorized every single CNN satellite receiver in the entire Nexstar broadcast group. Without warning. About a thousand receivers, across 197 TV stations. That was not a fun morning. |
On that note. I've wondered how you felt about the big networks working to sink news nation?
|
Originally Posted by Bajingo
(Post 1587176)
On that note. I've wondered how you felt about the big networks working to sink news nation?
The show is profitable (it covers expenses, with a little left over), but is by no means a financial powerhouse at present. And we're going to expand it early next year. This fact is giving me serious heartburn, since I am completely out of rack space in the main equipment room, and a lot of the newer machines we're getting (think enterprise-grade Dell / HPE machines) don't even fit into an old-style 30" deep broadcast rack, meaning I have to tear those racks out and replace them with IT-style 42" racks. Which makes things even harder. (Well, I do like the square holes. IT racks are superior to broadcast racks. I just don't have space for them.) Every viewer we pull in is considered to be a set of eyeballs taken away from Fox, MSNBC or CNN. So there's no question that they'd prefer that we not exist. Do they intend to sink us? That's a concept I'd not previously considered. How might that happen, apart from them deciding to do actual journalism? |
Iirc CNN took a pot shot at you guys after the Trump interview. But I can't find it now.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:13 PM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands