Well, perhaps. Maybe, maybe not, hard to be sure. That’s Heisenberg, I think. Pretty sure…
Look, here’s the big difference between Fox “News” and mainstream media news sources.
Right-wingers go to Fox News because it tells them what they want to hear, and other “news” sources do not. That is to say, they want validation of their political opinions.
Everyone else goes to the other, mainstream media sources because they want news. Validation of political opinions is not on the agenda. Personally, I even prefer opinion pages that challenge my opinions, not pander to them. I certainly don’t need to go to a news source to confirm my ideas about which party is most often correct.
No one subscribed to or read the Seattle PI because it was telling them what they wanted. The Seattle PI provided decent writing and as objective journalism as anyone with a brain could reasonably hope for. People read the PI for its news. There were people who didn’t read because they don’t like its editorial board’s opinions, but conflating the editorial page with the rest of the paper is just stupid.
Any actual lefty looking in the Seattle PI for what they wanted to read would be sorely disappointed, by the editorials as well as the news content.
I don’t see why this should be. Gloating about a newspaper’s demise is not inherently bad. The newspaper might deserve to go out of business.
Yeah, like the time you claimed (implied actually) that “Hispanic” was never used synonymously with “Latin American” and I was unable to cite a dictionary definition showing you were wrong. You really handed my ass to me there. :rolleyes:
How do you know that? Personally I have met people who read the New York Times because it caters to their liberal world view. In any event, even assuming it’s true, are you claiming that there is no liberal bias with many mainstream news sources?
In any event, I’ll take a page from shodan’s book:
Do you believe that Fox News has a conservative slant? If so, what evidence is competent to demonstrate this fact?
There is none, of course. It’s frankly ludicrous to even suggest that a network headlining such diverse commentary as that of Brit Hume, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, the late Tony Snow, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes… oh, he did? Well, notwithstanding, a true marketplace of ideas…
Ah, one of your veritable master classes in equivocation and moving the goal posts. To be fair, I wasn’t the only one who handed you a beating in that thread. A lot of people were in on it. Let’s link to it for everyone to read. For those playing along at home, the stupidity starts at post 17, and just keeps going! Plus bonus racism!
Oh, I forgot to mention the false dilemmas, your favorite debate tactic!
“You must only give me yes or no answers! Anything else will be deemed a non-answer, and I will win the internet and get to wear my papier-mâché crown for the rest of the day!”
That’s nonsense. Sometimes yes or no questions have answers besides “yes” or “no.” However, in your case, you were simply evading a simple yes or no question.
That’s nonsense too. Please either QUOTE me where I moved goalposts or apologize and admit I did no such thing. Your choice.
Dude, what color is the sky in your world? You claimed – in effect – that “Hispanic” is not used synonymously with “Latin American.” I linked to a dictinary definition showing that you were dead wrong.
If there is no competent evidence which shows that Fox has a conservative slant, then presumably anyone who was to gloat about (hypothetical) problems at Fox would be unreasonable. Right?
Going for the hypothetical victory because it’s all you’ve got left, I see.
I don’t understand your point. My main point in this thread has been hypothetical, in a sense.
Imagine you see somebody yelling on the telephone at a customer service representative. Does the yeller deserve to be pitted? Not necessarily, since it’s possible the CSR deserves to be screamed at. Hypothetical, but true.
Yeah, that’s what happened.
I’ve ridden that merry-go-round before (as have many others). I’ll pass. If it helps you though, you can assume I admitted I was wrong, how 'bout that? Get the crown ready!
Sure you did.
pats brazil84’s head
Thank you.
That’s correct, and you refused to acknowledge the plain truth. The thread speaks for itself.
Sorry, but I don’t engage with people who strawman me, i.e. people who misrepresent any position I have taken. In this case, you have falsely (as far as I can tell) claimed that I had engaged in goalpost shifting. Since you won’t substantiate your claim or retract it, I will no longer engage with you.
Bye.
Standard Response #26. I expected nothing less. Should we call this slinking or skulking?
I don’t know anything about brazil84, but assuming he’s a lobster, he should be boiled alive and served with lemon and chive butter.
And assuming you are a lobster, I hope you are not served to anyone who would prefer to keep kosher. 
Nod. And this is OK. A little bit of cynicism can be a good thing. It’s what makes us consider the source, and lets us recognize that people can and will tend to “color” even the most mundane things without even wanting to. It could be the choice of which story they report, how they report it, whether it is on the front page or somewhere in the back.