You mean the missions of Fox News and MSNBC? Yes, I agree: not the same.
One of those two networks, that are roughly the same, has a host who is a silent partner in the administration.
I mean really!?!?!??
At this point you have to say no. Fox is a special animal. Unless you are Putin, or share Putins world view.
Not only “different” but fox has become the voice of a contemptuous antidemocratic presidency. The two operations don’t belong in the same civics conversation.
To pretend, assuming a mock ‘straight face,’ that Fox News is a non-partisan, fair-and-balanced source of news, is absolutely the sort of mischief in which Putin delights.
Too bad for the world he didn’t go into the acting profession.
OMG did you just hear that oath. Kennedy added in a clause about not doing “stupid stuff like last week”
If you rephrase statements 9 and 10, I get all 10.
-
When your side loses, it is always because the other side cheated because they are anti-democracy.
-
Your side has no extremists.
I don’t really align well with a “side” but if, for the sake of simplicity and argument, I pick the one of the two parties I’m closest to to side with I roughly agree with two of the statements, disagree with four and violently disagree with four.
I think he is handsome in a ‘business suit he-man’ sort of way.
I think he died way too early, and his song “Wake Me Up” wasn’t terrible.
I approve of the idea here, but I don’t think the quiz is that great. Even the first question has a problem: even if the difference is small, one side must be more ruthless and one side must be more organized. They are comparative statements. So all it takes is believing both are the same and not your party for that to be true.
And I say that even though I am one who thinks Republicans are more ruthless (shutting down governments, Trump) but Democrats are better organized, given how difficult it is for Republicans to pass things even among themselves.
Question 2 bothers me, too. It isn’t limited to pundit shows, but any cable news, for one thing. Why couldn’t I find a cable news show that is decently accurate? But even if I limit it to those pundit shows, nothing in the question says anything about them being your only source of news. No one should ever trust a single source of news, and one should take biases into account.
Questions 3 and 4 do work as criteria, but I can’t see Question 3 working as a test: if we bring it up, of course we think the issue is not minor. I also question who would admit to Question 4, but I can at least believe it could happen.
Question 5 gets into the “both sides are the same” stuff. One must believe that both sides are majority sincere or both sides are majority insincere. I think I disagree, but I could easily see someone I would not consider biased agreeing with that. This would not ordinarily be the case, but we are in some weird times.
Question 6 works, I guess, but it gets close. The Tea Party was largely bolstered by rich people, even if the actual protesters are entirely real. And there was a ton of Russian meddling creating fake grassroots situations.
The rest work. Though number 8 can happen with reasonable people just when they are angry, and they regret it later.
I get a score of 1, BTW–because of what I said about Question 2. My score might actually be 2: I don’t specifically remember it, but I definitely could have used an insulting term for Republicans at some point due to being angry at them–though definitely not “rethuglicans”: It’s rather unwieldy, and I’m not big on the word “thug” due to it often having racial connotations. I may, however, have said that the GOP stands for something bad.
Never heard of him until you mentioned him previously. Looking him up, I don’t get why you consider him a political thing. Your explanation for disliking him wasn’t political, just that you thought he took on sleazy cases.
Only if you assume that the Democrats are also majority acting in bad faith. Republicans largely don’t admit to what you said, particularly the last part, so that would mean they are acting in bad faith.
The problem with your quiz is that some of the things you call partisan are arguably true.
I like the idea of such a quiz, but I think it needs more work.
Right. The wording of a few of the items could be amended to inquire about HOW people think rather than what they think.
Additional amendment to #1: The other side is motivated by resentment and hate, while my side thinks only of bettering mankind.