"after he basically called the intelligence agency stupid" I assume he is now monitored every second in video and sound from every agency
One slip and he will be star featured in Wikileaks

Trump will operate in a simple way.

The individual or group with the largest umm, bag full of something gets the yes vote from him and those he controls.

He should do just fine...

And it will allow the show to continue in the same direction, without so much as a hiccup.

Surely trumps picks for the top slots makes it obvious to all that things wont change. (Enter the village idiots)

I think the top US elite are seriously considering pulling the rug right out from under the ruling chinese families. And dont come back with legal drivel about how it wont work because of this and that. The kings own the game, make the rules and break them if need be. Bloody simple.

1,700 posts on this? Omg correction, 1200.

__________________
England and America are two countries separated by a common language. George Shaw 1856-1950

Since nobody has answered this for you. NBC and CNN are pretty close to being center, with a slightly more democratic-supporting slant on it. I tend to view them are pretty reliable, although sometimes jumping the gun and helping to spread misinformation, or making a bigger deal out of something while having no information (mostly CNN in order to drive ratings). However, stations like Fox News and MSNBC tend to just try to spin whatever suits their side, conservative and liberal respectively, as best as they can by either downplaying bad things, or exaggerating good things. But, CNN and NBC aren't as bad or rated as lowly as Trump says, its just they disagree with him, and are therefore terrible.

I saw this come up on FB, not sure how accurate it is, but I guess useful for those who feel that they can't trust the news and don't know what to do.

That's actually pretty accurate, I would probably put CNN and USA today up a little higher as putting them on the same tier as Breitbart and Occupy Democrats isn't fair. And, it actually makes it easier to illustrate the issue with voters in the US and why Trump was able to get elected. Many, many people get most of their news from social media (Trump included based on one of his interviews with Bill O'Reilly). I can't tell you how many people I know were citing Infowars, Breitbart, and Red State with articles with no citations, and mostly without fact, yet they argued that it was vehemently true. A large portion of the voter base got misinformation from these sites, but because they confirmed their personal belief, they touted it as fact and buried their heads in the sand to information that said otherwise. Trump did an amazing job at harnessing that.

Very true on both sides. I found the anti-Trump support on social media mostly referenced John Stewart, memes, and other comedic filler. Countless times, even on EF, misinformation was posted in this fashion and a couple times when called out with the actual facts comments along the lines of "I'm not a student, I don't care about citing and references". I feel this also led to the shock and disbelief many had when Trump won.

From a UK perspective, the BBC has a definite left-leaning agenda and the Guardian can often stretch way out to the left at times too. If the Daily Fail were on there, it would occupy a similar space to Fox news, but probably more concentrated to the lower right, whereas the Telegraph would occupy a similar space to the The Fiscal Times and the Hill (neither of which I'm familiar with), with a tendency to stretch out to the right at times.

Being comedy or satyre doesn't make it wrong
Lumping that together with misinformation tells more about you than it does make an argument.

It also doesn't make it right.
It should be used for entertainment purpose first and foremost. If one wants to use the information from the comedy/satire, for serious opinions and discussion, then use the actual source that the entertainment uses.


(here's an idea, read my point on referencing and citing facts)

I disagree.

Even most of the stuff on Infowars etc is true in the basic sense that it actually happened. But the reason most consider it more a source of entertainment than of news is that the context is often left out or twisted or that unconnected facts are reported in such a way as to project an artificial context.

Infowars may be comedic in an involunatry manner, and the Daily Show is tring to be funny (but not always succeeding) but both are essentially using the truith to twist the truth.

In a way, the Daily Show is Infowars for intellectuals.

But that doesn't make it right.

Comedy is Ok, but comedy shouldn't become a primary source of news.

The Guardian is ultimately more liberal than left but I wouldn't argue against your view there. However to describe the strictly fair and impartial BBC broadcasting on behalf of the Conservative Party as "Left-leaning"? No. Right-leaning and becoming more so over the last few years imo.

the question is, is complex necessarily better than basic?

is my cooking better the more ingredients i use?

This holds true, but for me it heavily depends on the methodology of it happening. The Daily Show (with Jon Stewart) and the Colbert Report I felt did a pretty good job typically at using their topics in context, or explaining the context prior to showing the clip they were satirizing. Same thing with Last Week Tonight, which is ultimately a comedy show, but Oliver does a pretty good job of fully explaining the details surrounding topics most of the time. Colbert and Daily Show I feel typically ran into time constraints, so they had to do quick summaries, rather than in depth analysis. They were good for getting doses of news in a humorous way. Although, I'm also a viewer who usually read about the story first, then looked forward to how Colbert or Stewart were going to tackle the subject, so I may be biased in that I knew the context before the show came on, and therefore felt that their recaps were enough.

Funny how Alex Jones will subscribe to just about any conspiracy theory going; chemtrails, vaccines and autism, Big Pharma and the FDA, false flag operations, Sandy Hook etc, but not when the Intelligence agencies are investigating possible Russian interference into the election. Oh that's right, it doesn't suit his agenda.

Talking of John Olver, he did quite a good piece on how the Democrats stealing the primaries from Bernie Sanders is just another conspiracy; can't see how that has liberal bias.

All possibly true. But I know a lot of people who say things like "it must be true because I saw it on the Daily Show", and don't bother to check other news sources.

If you're doing satire but a portion of your viewers don't realize its satire, then essentially you are part of the fake news problem.

No, not always. You want a simple takeaway message that people will keep top of mind.

Basic messages are easier to bias, and use half truths, but complex messages are sometimes too difficult to grasp. The Burger King "where's the beef" message comes to mind.

I only watched Stewart on social media, but paid more attention to Jonathan Mann's 'Political Mann'. Where would he fit into all this?

i thought a basic message would be more difficult to bias. because easier to refute.

you can either report a bare fact (basic), or you can report a fact in the context of lots of other facts that may or may not be connected properly (complex). this connecting of facts is where the bias is, but it looks like neutral nuance.

if people are barely grasping something, they might be inclined to simply take the authors word for it. on the other hand, if it looks low effort people might think it's too dumb and the source is dismissed.

i guess the bias is either in choosing to report something or not (basic), or choosing the context in which to report something (complex).

lets just assume everything and everyone is biased. show your colors so the people can decide for themselves. i dont believe people that scream they are objective. same way im going to presume that the person stressing he is not a liar is the biggest liar of all.

Given that what's being reported is indeed fact.

Here's a fun game. I give a quote and you all guess what publication (serious or satire) the headline might come out as:

1. New stringent controls for foreigners.
2. Heightened security at borders.
3. Immigrants to be treated like pets and undergo veterinary examinations
4. Longer wait times for green cards
5. New migrants must join military and partake in active duty
6. add your own!