Seriously... do your OWN research. If you want to learn, don't ask someone who you already feel is NOT on your side of the political spectrum. This BS of constantly asking, "sources" is tiresome.

edot - I am pretty sure that Trump, especially in this case, was talking about the fake news outlets being the "enemy of the people." Now, who are the "fake news" sources? That might be a bit vague, but CNN/Acosta is probably his most recent target!

Except that there are very few journalists anymore who report. I cannot name a single one from any side that I think is unbiased. My wife has her MS from the top journalism school in the USA and we talk about this on a daily basis.

Not as tiresome as the BS of people being unable to substantiate their own wild claims and then get unpleasant when challenged.

When I want to do my own research I will certainly spend my limited time on topics that interest me and not go on wild goose chases looking for things that do not exist

Seriously, my recommendation is that if you want objective opinions you need to cast your net wider.

Except you are wrong... No surprise, considering your usual slant. Fox was launched in 1996. US media was dominated by the BIG 3; ABC, NBC and CBS since the dawn of TV. There was nothing else. Most pundits would say that the bias to the left started in the '70s, following the Vietnam War.

In any case, Fox was launched with a definite agenda and I don't think anyone would argue this. Rupert Murdoch wanted to go up against the US "lefty" MSM. No question that Fox is a lot different the the other networks.

lol... you spend more of your "limited time" on the EF than just about any other member. IMO, it is ridiculous to constantly ask for sources... It is similar to statistics; I can always find a source or a survey to support my opinion or yours.

Fox News host lobs ‘fake news’ tweet at . . . another Fox News host

Source

Oh, so I'm wrong that Fox's bias is toward Trump, and that that's the reason he excepts Fox News from the "enemy of the people" epithet? Clearly I misunderstood.

Isn't it amazing that no president on either side of the political spectrum has had a major issue with any media outlet... until Trump? Why might that be?

Once there was a guy called Nixon.....

Excellent parallel.

Well, I also went to one of the best....was working on a PhD, but then life. My area was more in the realm of teaching journalists to appreciate quantitative data...and some fairly esoteric framing research as well as health communication.

Anyway, i‘m not just talking about TV....i know folks who write for newspapers, do report the news, and what‘s even more instructive, provide stories rather than horse race coverage.

I‘m sure when Trump calls the press the enemy of the people he has his targets. But I don‘t think many people see this subtlety. And I think it‘s simply inappropriate behavior, as well as BS. Fox News?

I‘m tired of people making excuses for his boorish behavior. I recognize not everyone finds him a boor, however. Personally, I long for the next Woodward/Bernstein. I hope they are out there.

I do think that msm are complicit in Trump‘s election, however. Every time he farted, it made news....and the amount of free coverage his campaign obtained was ridiculous. And they just don‘t stop. Cut off his oxygen.

Anyway, this topic makes me too frustrated. I admit to huge bias on my part. I think he‘s an ass and he’s let the Republican Congress lay waste to so much in the US. Dems aren‘t much better, though. Trump’s cabinet picks are a disgrace! DeVos? Carson? Pruitt and the new one? Ugh. I admit to great cynicism and disgust.

From the link I posted earlier "At a Saturday night rally, President Trump called them the “guys we love.”

Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Steve Doocy, Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo — all anchors on Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network and are mostly, perhaps all, commentators or opinion leaders rather than journalists in Shep Smith's team.

Anyway seems watching cable news is an old people thing!

According to Nielsen Live +7-day data, in 2017 CNN’s median age was 60, while the median age of the Fox News and MSNBC viewer was 65.

The good news for CNN and Fox News: they each aged down one year, from 2016 when CNN’s median age was 61 and Fox News’s was 66.

Source

Link does not give an explanation of why the median age fell in 2017, maybe they picked up more younger people or maybe more older people died.
Possibly the latter is more relevant as "US life expectancy drops for second year in a row" Source.

LOL, whom else will I ask if I want to widen my perspective? Those who will tell me the same I already know? Those who will only repeat the opinion I've already reached at this stage? Of course I need to ask the ones who do NOT share my opinion.

As to sources and "do your own research". I noticed you not only don't give sources, you even refuse to do so. I conclude from that, you just want us/me to take your word for what ever you write. I don't know who you are, I don't know whether you're just a babbler or an interesting discussion partner. You could be a bot. Or Trump (he doesn't like sources much either). Or you could be a reliable politics-expert ... which ever it is, you must admit I'd need to be batshit crazy to base any opinion-building on your posts.

Sources help me - not reliably but at least minimal - to see who' and what information you use to get to your conclusions and opinions. Plus you might provide sources I've never heard of.

__________________
It's all a matter or perspective.
So move your butt and look at it from the other side

See, this is the problem. People nowadays are too lazy to educate themselves. They want it in links, preferably to short articles that don't take much thinking. Perish the thought that somebody might have learnt something from actual books! It's a bit difficult to link to those, and if anybody thinks I'm going to sit and type up a reading list, they can bugger off.

A couple of years ago, I was invited to vote in a once-in-a-lifetime referendum. I could have come onto EF and asked for links, but I didn't. I got off my arse and went looking for the information I needed. I didn't whine about a lack of sources - I found my own. The result? I went into the referendum better informed and less swayed by bullshit than I might have been had I only relied on the goodwill of random nutters on the internet.

But back on topic: I'm still shaking my head at the notion that any reasonably informed anglophone adult could have lived his whole life without knowing anything about Chicago's long and notorious reputation for electoral fraud. To be so ignorant, and then demand that random strangers on the internet go out of their way to educate him, well... it pretty much sums up what's wrong with the world these days.

Ah you sweet old fashioned thing.

I am sure I have a writing slate in the attic somewhere I can send you to facilitate your return to the good old days.

You know an objective of an internet forum is to stimulate members intercommunication, not to dispatch them to their monk's cells to study in purdah.

This is the problem with own research; challenges to one's own ideas only come from others.

Edit: As DB proved by coming to the wrong decision about Brexit

Are books better than the internet then? I'll make a note of that in Google Keep.

I agree.

hate to break it to you but you are not doing that; You are the other side of the coin from KK, esto, et.al .


you might be doing it unwittingly, but I think the nutriding of a particular topic is a common occurrance in both them and you. (I am avoiding judgment other than the fervor to keep posting on 1 subject)

And this is coming from a guy who truly hopes Trump gets in enough hot water to be forced to resign.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯