(I'm thinking about filing a copyright claim against boomer for his thread title; his nickname has for many years been "bubbles", in recognition of his ability to ignore blatantly obvious facts, while embracing unsupported nonsense in their place. Boomer is the original 'boy in the bubble')
All of these observations are correct, Mr. Crow. But let me add this:
One of reasons that traditional, mainstream classic "good journalism" appears to have a leftist slant is because, to make a sweeping generalization, leftists tend to build their positions and arguments the same way that good journalists do; that is, they are data driven, and build up from the facts.
Increasingly, the right wing has established positions which are completely divorced from the facts (anti climate change being one example) or which use either unprovable arguments, or arguments where the facts are in contrast ("tax cuts pay for themselves" would be an example). My personal favorite is "Tax cuts for the wealthy will make everyone wealthy", while the data shows the inverse; tax cuts for the wealthy merely take money away from everyone else.
Clever positioning (or not, depending on how you think things will work out long term); if you follow the data, you must be a leftist. That pretty much allows you to claim a leftist bias of anyone who rejects your self serving storytelling in favor of the data.
Return to Odd
Reply to message