As I watch the local news I find it a bit less bias towards one political party over another, but when it comes to National Television I find it hard to find a pro-conservative channel other than Fox News. 

I guess the Democrat party which had tons of Hollywood supporters for decades already finally realized they could send out propaganda over the Television (as they have struggled to do the same in Radio), and the uninformed voters would comply on election day.  I have noticed that a lot of the people whom vote Democrat also seems to be the same people with lower education, they would claim it is the party for the poor (which would explain lower education).  Poor people have been voting Democrat in every election for a century and guess what they are still poor.

In fact during Clinton's reign he had the entire congress & Democrat House passing every agenda and guess what yep the poor are still poor.  It is the same carrot (like the ones the republicans use in regards to stopping abortion yet never get it done either).  I think Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote until they can prove US Citizenship and a basic IQ test.  It is sad that so many ignorant individuals elect, and reelect the same corrupt fools time and time again.


I wonder will we ever see a real journalist again?  You know a person that digs up facts and makes them known to the world without bias commentary?  I realize that people own the news channels and are bias and have an agenda, so maybe the only way we will ever see true non-bias Journalist report a story is on the internet.

---

It's about viewers and ratings. It doesn't matter how they get them, so long as they do. I view most outlets as entertainment as opposed to journalism. 

---

It's true, the media is biased.  It's almost unavoidable.   If reporters report things as they see them, then they will inevitably report through the lens of their own bias.  

 

With that in mind, I think it's very important that you not shut out channels that don't reflect your own bias.   I think you need to sample from all points of view and make up your mind from that.   I know it's more comfortable to just reinforce your own views and not disturb your own opinions with inconvenient facts.   That's why most of us take up a position and search out facts to support it.   Rich people search for reasons why they should get a tax cut.  Poor people search for reasons why rich people should pay higher taxes.   So everyone tends to exist in their own bubble.   That's why people get madder and madder about politics.  They are told one thing and when the other thing happens, they don't understand why.  

 

I think we need to recognize, the truth is elusive.  

---

If I want to watch the real news. Not the left or right bias of CNN, FOX, msnbc... Not the local formulaic microwave version news.. Not the slightly better ABC, CBS or NBC Nightly News.. I go to one source.


I have found only one remaining outlet which truly reminds me of the real journalists of the past like Tom Brokaw, Ted Koppel and that nearly extinct breed. This news channel provides unbiased, unfiltered news coverage with a truly global perspective. No spin. No Twitter trends. Not the same two or three stories on an endless loop. Just straight news stories. Segment after segment. Even their tech and human interest pieces are fantastic. Of course it isn't the easiest to find or the most publicly accessible. Anyone who has DirecTV can find it on channel 347. It's al-Jazeera America. Before you knock it, give it a chance. I was amazed the first time I tuned in at how much it reminded me of the news programs I grew up watching. It is especially valuable as most other networks gloss over or frame what items they cover when it comes to Syria or Israel (just some current examples of hot topics). If this network does a piece on anything, they are elbow deep and direct. No judgment or posturing. Just straight news. Give it a shot. If you don't like it, my follow up questions would be.. what news network do you find to be better and why? I have found no current outlet which comes close to rivaling it if we are talking about journalistic integrity. Much of what they take on other networks don't even cover at all. It's as if these other networks don't know or don't want people to know these things are happening in the world.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

That "debate" was such a joke last night.  Even the Washington Post, a liberal media outlet, called CNBC the loser of the night.  They didn't talk about the substantive issues, they wanted people to fight, and push their agendas.  I think the moderators from now on should be people who will likely vote for that party or group of people in a primary election, so we don't have this clown show again.  It was clearly biased, and I am glad the candidates stuck together.  Ted Cruz had the line of the night in my opinion.  Exposed those people for what they were doing.

---

I have noticed that a lot of the people whom vote Democrat also seems to be the same people with lower education, they would claim it is the party for the poor (which would explain lower education). Poor people have been voting Democrat in every election for a century and guess what they are still poor.

In fact during Clinton's reign he had the entire congress & Democrat House passing every agenda and guess what yep the poor are still poor. It is the same carrot (like the ones the republicans use in regards to stopping abortion yet never get it done either).

Red States have more working poor people, people on welfare, teen pregnancy/single moms and lower education rankings. It's not a coincidence many GOP supporters commonly misspell words on signs they create for rallies. I don't know where you are getting this information from, but it's flat out wrong.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

That "debate" was such a joke last night.  Even the Washington Post, a liberal media outlet, called CNBC the loser of the night.  They didn't talk about the substantive issues, they wanted people to fight, and push their agendas.  I think the moderators from now on should be people who will likely vote for that party or group of people in a primary election, so we don't have this clown show again.  It was clearly biased, and I am glad the candidates stuck together.  Ted Cruz had the line of the night in my opinion.  Exposed those people for what they were doing.

 

I agree that most of the early question were not substantive.   Asking Rubio about his 401k, for example.   I agree with whoever it was that said it was like the moderators were using opposition research for their questions.   Just a bunch of gotcha questions, or questions designed to spark a candidate food fight.   I don't think it was an example of media bias as much as it was just a poor choice of moderators.   Plus, way too many candidates.   "Give me your entire economic platform in 30 seconds."  

 

By the way, the Washington Post is not a liberal media outlet.   Their opinion page is very diverse politically.  

---

 I have noticed that a lot of the people whom vote Democrat also seems to be the same people with lower education,

 

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a...filiation/

 

"Democrats lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees. The Democrats’ edge is narrower among those with college degrees or some post-graduate experience (49%-42%), and those with less education (47%-39%).  Across all educational categories, women are more likely than men to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. The Democrats’ advantage is 35 points (64%-29%) among women with post-graduate degrees, but only eight points (50%-42%) among post-grad men."

 

So it seems that the Democrats have the edge among the better-educated.  

 

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statem...endencies/

 

"Sabato said that "the higher the education level, the more likely [voters] are to vote Democratic." Sabato bases his claim on 2008 exit polls showing this national trend. Several polls and analysis done on data from presidential elections dating back at least a decade support Sabato’s claim."

 

---

I agree that most of the early question were not substantive.   Asking Rubio about his 401k, for example.   I agree with whoever it was that said it was like the moderators were using opposition research for their questions.   Just a bunch of gotcha questions, or questions designed to spark a candidate food fight.   I don't think it was an example of media bias as much as it was just a poor choice of moderators.   Plus, way too many candidates.   "Give me your entire economic platform in 30 seconds."  

 

By the way, the Washington Post is not a liberal media outlet.   Their opinion page is very diverse politically.  

Check point 3 last sentence: "The Washington Post and The New York Times all tend to be more liberal"

 

The above statement came straight from the Washington Post.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...audiences/

---

Check point 3 last sentence: "The Washington Post and The New York Times all tend to be more liberal"

 

The above statement came straight from the Washington Post.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...audiences/

 

Saying liberals like to read the Washington Post isn't the same as saying the Washington Post is liberal.   Maybe liberals just like reading a great newspaper.   If you look at what gets printed in the Washington Post Editorial Page, at least half of it comes from conservative pundits like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Jennifer Rubin, Charles Lane.   You won't find their liberal counterparts on Foxnews.com.  

---

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a...filiation/

 

"Democrats lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees. The Democrats’ edge is narrower among those with college degrees or some post-graduate experience (49%-42%), and those with less education (47%-39%).  Across all educational categories, women are more likely than men to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. The Democrats’ advantage is 35 points (64%-29%) among women with post-graduate degrees, but only eight points (50%-42%) among post-grad men."

 

So it seems that the Democrats have the edge among the better-educated.  

 

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statem...endencies/

 

"Sabato said that "the higher the education level, the more likely [voters] are to vote Democratic." Sabato bases his claim on 2008 exit polls showing this national trend. Several polls and analysis done on data from presidential elections dating back at least a decade support Sabato’s claim."

 

While that may be true it does not tell the whole story.  The flip side:

 

http://rare.us/story/81-of-people-receiv...t-iceberg/

 

I think this fits the original posters view and stated opinion.  I know you could easily find another article that counters this one and we could go back and forth all day long which I think proves your first response.  Many of us here on this board do research points and views of the media and other posters.  If only every voter did the same.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Rare.us is a 2 yr old viral news outlet with a libertarian-conservative angle. So what you're saying is... what The Real Marty said may be true, but here are some random notes which muddy the water which I found on a site aimed to refute the facts sites like politifact show.


So basically.. if you don't like the news you get, change the channel to one which shows what you'd more like to see.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Rare.us is a 2 yr old viral news outlet with a libertarian-conservative angle. So what you're saying is... what The Real Marty said may be true, but here are some random notes which muddy the water which I found on a site aimed to refute the facts sites like politifact show.


So basically.. if you don't like the news you get, change the channel to one which shows what you'd more like to see.

So let me guess, you disagree with the link?  Riddle me this, cannot both the link Marty posted and the one I posted not be true?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

As I watch the local news I find it a bit less bias towards one political party over another, but when it comes to National Television I find it hard to find a pro-conservative channel other than Fox News. 

I guess the Democrat party which had tons of Hollywood supporters for decades already finally realized they could send out propaganda over the Television (as they have struggled to do the same in Radio), and the uninformed voters would comply on election day.  I have noticed that a lot of the people whom vote Democrat also seems to be the same people with lower education, they would claim it is the party for the poor (which would explain lower education).  Poor people have been voting Democrat in every election for a century and guess what they are still poor.

In fact during Clinton's reign he had the entire congress & Democrat House passing every agenda and guess what yep the poor are still poor.  It is the same carrot (like the ones the republicans use in regards to stopping abortion yet never get it done either).  I think Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote until they can prove US Citizenship and a basic IQ test.  It is sad that so many ignorant individuals elect, and reelect the same corrupt fools time and time again.

I wonder will we ever see a real journalist again?  You know a person that digs up facts and makes them known to the world without bias commentary?  I realize that people own the news channels and are bias and have an agenda, so maybe the only way we will ever see true non-bias Journalist report a story is on the internet.

 

lol ... I'm sure you have no biases whatsoever. I'm sure you are hoping for a return of the poll tax. If all those "low education voters" were as enlightened as you.

 

Sounding pompous and superior is a sure way to continue to lose election after election. A real man of the people, eh?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

So let me guess, you disagree with the link? Riddle me this, cannot both the link Marty posted and the one I posted not be true?

What I am saying is you have to consider the source.. This source is basically a blog. There are two hyperlinks above this table provided. One goes to another story from this same blog which can no longer be found. The other goes to a different blog which can no longer be found.


This blogger is pulling data (which he can not even properly cite) from the Maxwell Poll conducted by Syracuse University between 2004-2007, 6 Years before this site even existed.. It is a reach to provide data which supports a contrasting point of view.


Aside from that.. the content is unrelated to TRM's post which has to do with educational backgrounds and likelihood to vote for a party, the evidence being, the more education you have, the more likely you are to vote Democrat.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

What I am saying is you have to consider the source.. This source is basically a blog. There are two hyperlinks above this table provided. One goes to another story from this same blog which can no longer be found. The other goes to a different blog which can no longer be found.


This blogger is pulling data (which he can not even properly cite) from the Maxwell Poll conducted by Syracuse University between 2004-2007, 6 Years before this site even existed.. It is a reach to provide data which supports a contrasting point of view from what they currently see.


Aside from that.. the content is unrelated to TRM's post which has to do with educational backgrounds and likelihood to vote for a party, the evidence being, the more education you have, the more likely you are to vote Democrat.

And I don't refute that fact that what Marty posted being true.  It is also a fact that a majority of the lesser educated people vote overwhelmingly for democrats.  So again I ask can not both points be valid and true?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

How can you know if something is true or not if you do not even know the source? It's not a historically reputable site, so forgive me for not just taking their word on the data they provide. It provides no link to show where it pulled the data from. I do know it is dredging up an outdated poll it cannot even cite. How can anyone know from this link if it is accurate?


I would not be surprised to find out that people who received some sort of government assistance are more likely Democrats than Republicans, but the numbers in that table look pretty extreme. I have read more recent studies from Pew that have a bit more even disbursement of government assistance recipients with a slight edge leaning towards those who vote Democrat. Certainly not as drastic as those numbers imply.


What is fact, however, is that the states which are commonly red states rank lower in median income and education level and much higher in teen pregnancy and single parent households than traditionally blue states.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

And I don't refute that fact that what Marty posted being true.  It is also a fact that a majority of the lesser educated people vote overwhelmingly for democrats.  So again I ask can not both points be valid and true?

 

Yes, they can both be true.  I realized after I make my post that I was not actually refuting the original point.   Perhaps I was refuting the implication.  

 

Yes, both better educated and under-educated people can skew Democrat.    With the people of average education skewing Republican.   Like a barbell.  

---

Yes, they can both be true. I realized after I make my post that I was not actually refuting the original point. Perhaps I was refuting the implication.


Yes, both better educated and under-educated people can skew Democrat. With the people of average education skewing Republican. Like a barbell.

This is all well and good, but the link provided says nothing about education. Not disputing the possibility of a bell curve of education level and voting tendencies. Just that I have not seen any evidence to support this theory.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

If I want to watch the real news. Not the left or right bias of CNN, FOX, msnbc... Not the local formulaic microwave version news.. Not the slightly better ABC, CBS or NBC Nightly News.. I go to one source.


I have found only one remaining outlet which truly reminds me of the real journalists of the past like Tom Brokaw, Ted Koppel and that nearly extinct breed. This news channel provides unbiased, unfiltered news coverage with a truly global perspective. No spin. No Twitter trends. Not the same two or three stories on an endless loop. Just straight news stories. Segment after segment. Even their tech and human interest pieces are fantastic. Of course it isn't the easiest to find or the most publicly accessible. Anyone who has DirecTV can find it on channel 347. It's al-Jazeera America. Before you knock it, give it a chance. I was amazed the first time I tuned in at how much it reminded me of the news programs I grew up watching. It is especially valuable as most other networks gloss over or frame what items they cover when it comes to Syria or Israel (just some current examples of hot topics). If this network does a piece on anything, they are elbow deep and direct. No judgment or posturing. Just straight news. Give it a shot. If you don't like it, my follow up questions would be.. what news network do you find to be better and why? I have found no current outlet which comes close to rivaling it if we are talking about journalistic integrity. Much of what they take on other networks don't even cover at all. It's as if these other networks don't know or don't want people to know these things are happening in the world.

al-Jazeera America does some solid stuff. I agree it is just straight news.

---

“It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.”
― Albert Camus