AngmarsKing701
Member
The liberal media is so unbiased. Believe me. - Trump
Yeah but look at who endorsed trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...16#Newspapers.2C_magazines.2C_and_other_media
Apologies, then. My internet sarcasm meter is broken.I was being sarcastic.
The success of the Marvel movies have actually pretty well immasculated Perlmutter as it has led to the MCU and Feige moving under direct Disney control, removing the real power property in the Marvel brand from Perlmutter's control.Are people going to boycott Marvel movies since Isaac Perlmutter supports Trump?
Trump cabinet meetings be like
He does?But who has the National Enquirer endorsement hmm.
Meathead, addict and whores.
/nuff said.
Wtf? Rent is too damn high party endorses Trump? His black ass wouldn't be able to get a place in a Trump owned property even if the rent were free.Yeah but look at who endorsed trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...16#Newspapers.2C_magazines.2C_and_other_media
I disagree. I think the press has a responsibility to be the steward of the public, and coming out with official endorsements with strong reasons why helps the public become more informed.
It's also more transparent. VIrtually all press boards will have some editorial bent to them, and so I think it's worse when they pretend to be fair and balanced, or neutral, not taking sides, but then every article is bent in a particular way.
Mike Tyson what the fuck
I am so disappointed in James Woods.
That's funny.A compiled list of deplorables. Love it
Nice to see the NYT actually getting off the bench.NYT does not endorse Trump.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/o...ol-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region
i know it's been done forever, but press outlets endorsing presidential candidates is weird
Please be respectful of Mike Tyson, a man who probably has brain damage.What the fuck Mike Tyson
There's no he could be still endorsing him now... right?
News outlets shouldn't endorse politicians. They should provide an unbiased fact-based reporting of the news. Canada is a bit bad for that too.
.
Too bad that never happens.100% agreed.
Too bad that never happens.
What's the difference between officially endorsing, like this, and lying about being "Fair and Balanced"?
You can tell who here has ever picked up a newspaper and who hasn't.
I'd argue that a fact doesn't have a liberal bias, a fact has no intent or deeper meaning at all. A fact is simply true. You could argue that someone favouring facts over opinions has a bias, but by it's very nature I'd argue a fact to be bias-less, it doesn't show inclination towards to truth or towards learning, it simply is, existing as truth without human interference or conception. It's our usage of facts that constitutes a bias."Newspapers should be unbiased."
"Newspapers should be reporting facts and not endorsing political candidates."
These two statements are kind of hard to reconcile when facts tend to have a liberal bias. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that liberalism tends to have a factual bias. Either way, if a newspaper was only reporting on the facts, then it would more or less be an illicit endorsement of the liberal candidate anyway. Mr. Pants On Fire would be ineligible for consideration by anyone who considers facts a priority in their voting habits.
Times supported the Iraq War as well, no wonder it supports her
NYT said:"Her vote in favor of the Iraq war is a black mark, but to her credit, she has explained her thinking rather than trying to rewrite that history."