Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The MSM (BBC, ITV, Sky News, virtually all newspapers) seem to have given up actually reporting any news or asking any difficult questions. Universally they have become campaign rags for Establishment and Blob propaganda, whether that's on Ukraine, Net Zero, big government and big tech, COVID, immigration or the economy. The only people who trust the MSM any longer are adherents of Blob orthodoxy. Meanwhile over on Twitter, Tucker Carlson's first mini monologue gets over 78 million views in 24 hours. Surely this kind of decentralised news is the future of current affairs coverage, free of corporate and state control." Do you watch GB news? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The MSM (BBC, ITV, Sky News, virtually all newspapers) seem to have given up actually reporting any news or asking any difficult questions. Universally they have become campaign rags for Establishment and Blob propaganda, whether that's on Ukraine, Net Zero, big government and big tech, COVID, immigration or the economy. The only people who trust the MSM any longer are adherents of Blob orthodoxy. Meanwhile over on Twitter, Tucker Carlson's first mini monologue gets over 78 million views in 24 hours. Surely this kind of decentralised news is the future of current affairs coverage, free of corporate and state control." Tucket Carlson ranting on Twitter is now the "news"? Amazing. What's the blob? People who believe the anti-immigrant propaganda, climate change isn't real, brexit was a good idea, COVID was a conspiracy type people? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The question in my mind is why 78 million people would bother listening to Tucker Carlson. Are there really 78 million hard of thinking Americans who need to be fed on a diet of simpleton conspiracy theories? As has been said many, many times - there are no simple solutions to complex problems, but many ordinary people seem to strive for exactly that and media personalities like Carlson and others on this side of the pond know it and so prey on those people." Do you listen to him? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst everyone focuses on the example of the person given, I do think the OP is on the right track. Most main stream media outlets lean one way or the other so people tune out and look for their own sources, maybe wrongly as this then pushes people towards echo chambers. However, let's face it Carlson (or whoever else you want to choose) is no different from an opinion piece in say The Guardian. Just opposite sides of the same coin." One side of this coin is extremely well funded, slick, promotes hate. The other side is poorly funded, contains bodged reporting and tries sometimes to promote tolerance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst everyone focuses on the example of the person given, I do think the OP is on the right track. Most main stream media outlets lean one way or the other so people tune out and look for their own sources, maybe wrongly as this then pushes people towards echo chambers. However, let's face it Carlson (or whoever else you want to choose) is no different from an opinion piece in say The Guardian. Just opposite sides of the same coin." The difference between the Guardian and Carlson is the Guardian will bow to outside pressures that will impact their advertising revenues, because that is how it makes money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst everyone focuses on the example of the person given, I do think the OP is on the right track. Most main stream media outlets lean one way or the other so people tune out and look for their own sources, maybe wrongly as this then pushes people towards echo chambers. However, let's face it Carlson (or whoever else you want to choose) is no different from an opinion piece in say The Guardian. Just opposite sides of the same coin. One side of this coin is extremely well funded, slick, promotes hate. The other side is poorly funded, contains bodged reporting and tries sometimes to promote tolerance. " I see the 'funding' argument often too and its bollocks. The Scott Trust Endowment Fund is valued at close to 1.3b. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst everyone focuses on the example of the person given, I do think the OP is on the right track. Most main stream media outlets lean one way or the other so people tune out and look for their own sources, maybe wrongly as this then pushes people towards echo chambers. However, let's face it Carlson (or whoever else you want to choose) is no different from an opinion piece in say The Guardian. Just opposite sides of the same coin. One side of this coin is extremely well funded, slick, promotes hate. The other side is poorly funded, contains bodged reporting and tries sometimes to promote tolerance. " Who is funding Calrson? What hate is he promoting? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst everyone focuses on the example of the person given, I do think the OP is on the right track. Most main stream media outlets lean one way or the other so people tune out and look for their own sources, maybe wrongly as this then pushes people towards echo chambers. However, let's face it Carlson (or whoever else you want to choose) is no different from an opinion piece in say The Guardian. Just opposite sides of the same coin. One side of this coin is extremely well funded, slick, promotes hate. The other side is poorly funded, contains bodged reporting and tries sometimes to promote tolerance. Who is funding Calrson? What hate is he promoting?" Like many Republican extremist, he is a Putin apologist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst everyone focuses on the example of the person given, I do think the OP is on the right track. Most main stream media outlets lean one way or the other so people tune out and look for their own sources, maybe wrongly as this then pushes people towards echo chambers. However, let's face it Carlson (or whoever else you want to choose) is no different from an opinion piece in say The Guardian. Just opposite sides of the same coin. One side of this coin is extremely well funded, slick, promotes hate. The other side is poorly funded, contains bodged reporting and tries sometimes to promote tolerance. Who is funding Calrson? What hate is he promoting?" Feel free to browse his long illustrious history of promoting hate towards women, LGBTQ community, non-white people. I wouldn't know where to start. I know you will ask again and again to fill up the thread. But really, just have a Google. Fuck knows who is funding him now, probably the same people who have always been. Back to the point. His bizarre rants are now considered to be the "news" by some people. Welcome to 2023. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst everyone focuses on the example of the person given, I do think the OP is on the right track. Most main stream media outlets lean one way or the other so people tune out and look for their own sources, maybe wrongly as this then pushes people towards echo chambers. However, let's face it Carlson (or whoever else you want to choose) is no different from an opinion piece in say The Guardian. Just opposite sides of the same coin. One side of this coin is extremely well funded, slick, promotes hate. The other side is poorly funded, contains bodged reporting and tries sometimes to promote tolerance. Who is funding Calrson? What hate is he promoting? Feel free to browse his long illustrious history of promoting hate towards women, LGBTQ community, non-white people. I wouldn't know where to start. I know you will ask again and again to fill up the thread. But really, just have a Google. Fuck knows who is funding him now, probably the same people who have always been. Back to the point. His bizarre rants are now considered to be the "news" by some people. Welcome to 2023." But that is the point of the thread isn't it, that MSM have lost their way and individuals are now filling the gaps. People only want to hear what they believe in! This forum is a perfect example of that, ask a question or appear to be supporting a different view and the content of what has been posted is ignored until someone comes along that supports their view. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst everyone focuses on the example of the person given, I do think the OP is on the right track. Most main stream media outlets lean one way or the other so people tune out and look for their own sources, maybe wrongly as this then pushes people towards echo chambers. However, let's face it Carlson (or whoever else you want to choose) is no different from an opinion piece in say The Guardian. Just opposite sides of the same coin. One side of this coin is extremely well funded, slick, promotes hate. The other side is poorly funded, contains bodged reporting and tries sometimes to promote tolerance. Who is funding Calrson? What hate is he promoting? Feel free to browse his long illustrious history of promoting hate towards women, LGBTQ community, non-white people. I wouldn't know where to start. I know you will ask again and again to fill up the thread. But really, just have a Google. Fuck knows who is funding him now, probably the same people who have always been. Back to the point. His bizarre rants are now considered to be the "news" by some people. Welcome to 2023. But that is the point of the thread isn't it, that MSM have lost their way and individuals are now filling the gaps. People only want to hear what they believe in! This forum is a perfect example of that, ask a question or appear to be supporting a different view and the content of what has been posted is ignored until someone comes along that supports their view. " Individuals aren't "filling the gaps", they're feeding nonsense on social media to people who don't have the skills to analyse information they receive. I agree with you on this forum. And this is how the media has always worked. People who think brown foreigners cause all their problems watch GB news and read the Daily Mail. People who think we should scrap money and barter our way through life with home grown veggies read the Morning Star. The only differences are that now is that any Tom Dick or Harry can start a social media account, or a YouTube channel. And people seem to have lost the ability to be critical about analysing the "news" they receive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst everyone focuses on the example of the person given, I do think the OP is on the right track. Most main stream media outlets lean one way or the other so people tune out and look for their own sources, maybe wrongly as this then pushes people towards echo chambers. However, let's face it Carlson (or whoever else you want to choose) is no different from an opinion piece in say The Guardian. Just opposite sides of the same coin. One side of this coin is extremely well funded, slick, promotes hate. The other side is poorly funded, contains bodged reporting and tries sometimes to promote tolerance. Who is funding Calrson? What hate is he promoting? Feel free to browse his long illustrious history of promoting hate towards women, LGBTQ community, non-white people. I wouldn't know where to start. I know you will ask again and again to fill up the thread. But really, just have a Google. Fuck knows who is funding him now, probably the same people who have always been. Back to the point. His bizarre rants are now considered to be the "news" by some people. Welcome to 2023. But that is the point of the thread isn't it, that MSM have lost their way and individuals are now filling the gaps. People only want to hear what they believe in! This forum is a perfect example of that, ask a question or appear to be supporting a different view and the content of what has been posted is ignored until someone comes along that supports their view. Individuals aren't "filling the gaps", they're feeding nonsense on social media to people who don't have the skills to analyse information they receive. I agree with you on this forum. And this is how the media has always worked. People who think brown foreigners cause all their problems watch GB news and read the Daily Mail. People who think we should scrap money and barter our way through life with home grown veggies read the Morning Star. The only differences are that now is that any Tom Dick or Harry can start a social media account, or a YouTube channel. And people seem to have lost the ability to be critical about analysing the "news" they receive. " They have filled the gaps in what people want to hear. People don't want the people they listen to canceled so will flip to new platforms to hear what they have to say. Allowing people to have real time interactions with those creating content is better in my opinion that absorbing the news through a one way channel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why is that people who appear to be on the left speak of left wing media not being well funded and accuse people on the right of not being critical thinking? It's almost as if there always needs to be excuses." Because they want state run news sources to fit their narrative. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The core of this OP is correct in my opinion, MSM is no longer a viable source of information for many things, it leans in a direction based on its editorial stance or political leanings. As an example if you type into google Andrew Tate, you will find the BBC pop up with news article after news article all different and all about Andrew Tate. So much time an space given to him, more than any other outlet... It begs the question why, when so many other things are happening in the world, what is the particular interest from the BBC. This is not unique to the BBC, and is why high profile individuals on their own platforms are becoming more popular. The popularity of this new source of information is clear indicator of public opinions, and can be measured like Tucker Carlson and his reach. He will not be everyones choice for information and opinion, but his opinions are demanding those millions of interactions. This has been rumbling along for a while now and what is interesting is how cancel culture has encouraged its growth, in particular the rise of people like Tucker Carlson who having all his eggs in the corporate world was easy to cancel, moving to his own platform removed that threat. I guess the real story here is how suppressing opinions created a sterile environment that lost a lot of trust." Twas ever thus. Only difference is the internet has seen an explosion of sources for information with very wide ranging levels of quality control. Go back to the pre-internet age and whatever newspaper, TV news or radio news you consumed, you were subject to the editorial stance required by the proprietor. Nothing has changed in that respect! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst everyone focuses on the example of the person given, I do think the OP is on the right track. Most main stream media outlets lean one way or the other so people tune out and look for their own sources, maybe wrongly as this then pushes people towards echo chambers. However, let's face it Carlson (or whoever else you want to choose) is no different from an opinion piece in say The Guardian. Just opposite sides of the same coin. One side of this coin is extremely well funded, slick, promotes hate. The other side is poorly funded, contains bodged reporting and tries sometimes to promote tolerance. Who is funding Calrson? What hate is he promoting? Feel free to browse his long illustrious history of promoting hate towards women, LGBTQ community, non-white people. I wouldn't know where to start. I know you will ask again and again to fill up the thread. But really, just have a Google. Fuck knows who is funding him now, probably the same people who have always been. Back to the point. His bizarre rants are now considered to be the "news" by some people. Welcome to 2023. But that is the point of the thread isn't it, that MSM have lost their way and individuals are now filling the gaps. People only want to hear what they believe in! This forum is a perfect example of that, ask a question or appear to be supporting a different view and the content of what has been posted is ignored until someone comes along that supports their view. Individuals aren't "filling the gaps", they're feeding nonsense on social media to people who don't have the skills to analyse information they receive. I agree with you on this forum. And this is how the media has always worked. People who think brown foreigners cause all their problems watch GB news and read the Daily Mail. People who think we should scrap money and barter our way through life with home grown veggies read the Morning Star. The only differences are that now is that any Tom Dick or Harry can start a social media account, or a YouTube channel. And people seem to have lost the ability to be critical about analysing the "news" they receive. They have filled the gaps in what people want to hear. People don't want the people they listen to canceled so will flip to new platforms to hear what they have to say. Allowing people to have real time interactions with those creating content is better in my opinion that absorbing the news through a one way channel. " The/A key point was made by Feisty...echo chambers. I have bias and I know it. However, I do try to be open to what all ends of the spectrum say on most things. Even in a two way conversation with another person on any topic there will be some level of personal agenda at play. Most important thing is to recognise that in others and ourselves (I regularly fail at that) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fox news still the number one news source. I guess all those viewers are not critical thinkers. Right?" No  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fox news still the number one news source. I guess all those viewers are not critical thinkers. Right? No "Thats the accusation that's often levelled  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fox news still the number one news source. I guess all those viewers are not critical thinkers. Right? No
Thats the accusation that's often levelled "There will of course be outliers. There may well be a few smart ones. But most will be thick as mince. Being right wing doesn’t make you thick but if you are right wing and smart you won’t be consuming Fox! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst everyone focuses on the example of the person given, I do think the OP is on the right track. Most main stream media outlets lean one way or the other so people tune out and look for their own sources, maybe wrongly as this then pushes people towards echo chambers. However, let's face it Carlson (or whoever else you want to choose) is no different from an opinion piece in say The Guardian. Just opposite sides of the same coin. One side of this coin is extremely well funded, slick, promotes hate. The other side is poorly funded, contains bodged reporting and tries sometimes to promote tolerance. Who is funding Calrson? What hate is he promoting? Feel free to browse his long illustrious history of promoting hate towards women, LGBTQ community, non-white people. I wouldn't know where to start. I know you will ask again and again to fill up the thread. But really, just have a Google. Fuck knows who is funding him now, probably the same people who have always been. Back to the point. His bizarre rants are now considered to be the "news" by some people. Welcome to 2023. But that is the point of the thread isn't it, that MSM have lost their way and individuals are now filling the gaps. People only want to hear what they believe in! This forum is a perfect example of that, ask a question or appear to be supporting a different view and the content of what has been posted is ignored until someone comes along that supports their view. Individuals aren't "filling the gaps", they're feeding nonsense on social media to people who don't have the skills to analyse information they receive. I agree with you on this forum. And this is how the media has always worked. People who think brown foreigners cause all their problems watch GB news and read the Daily Mail. People who think we should scrap money and barter our way through life with home grown veggies read the Morning Star. The only differences are that now is that any Tom Dick or Harry can start a social media account, or a YouTube channel. And people seem to have lost the ability to be critical about analysing the "news" they receive. They have filled the gaps in what people want to hear. People don't want the people they listen to canceled so will flip to new platforms to hear what they have to say. Allowing people to have real time interactions with those creating content is better in my opinion that absorbing the news through a one way channel. " Okay they're filling the "gap" in terms of what people might want to hear. But they're not providing "news". Which was the theme of the thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fox news still the number one news source. I guess all those viewers are not critical thinkers. Right? No
Thats the accusation that's often levelled
There will of course be outliers. There may well be a few smart ones. But most will be thick as mince. Being right wing doesn’t make you thick but if you are right wing and smart you won’t be consuming Fox!"I'm really struggling to take you seriously at the minute, especially since you adopted that phrase from someone who is as 'thick as mince' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mass media is there to control and jot to inform. You only have to look at the interview techniqies of repeating narratives as they question. It's the most basic form of mind control. Keep repeating a message over and over." Very much. It's been a long time since the national media held the government to account. Remember how local radio hosts savaged Liz Truss when she went on. That's what the national news reporters should be doing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fox news still the number one news source. I guess all those viewers are not critical thinkers. Right? No
Thats the accusation that's often levelled
There will of course be outliers. There may well be a few smart ones. But most will be thick as mince. Being right wing doesn’t make you thick but if you are right wing and smart you won’t be consuming Fox!
I'm really struggling to take you seriously at the minute, especially since you adopted that phrase from someone who is as 'thick as mince' "So are you saying people who consume Fox News are high order critical thinkers? It is about as newsworthy as the Daily Sport! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fox news still the number one news source. I guess all those viewers are not critical thinkers. Right? No
Thats the accusation that's often levelled
There will of course be outliers. There may well be a few smart ones. But most will be thick as mince. Being right wing doesn’t make you thick but if you are right wing and smart you won’t be consuming Fox!
I'm really struggling to take you seriously at the minute, especially since you adopted that phrase from someone who is as 'thick as mince'
So are you saying people who consume Fox News are high order critical thinkers? It is about as newsworthy as the Daily Sport!"Not I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is someone who consumes Fox may also consume multiple other outlets, the fact that they consume some Fox doesn't automatically make them thick. Yet, its what we hear often, almost as if the left aren't very tolerant of people's choices. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fox news still the number one news source. I guess all those viewers are not critical thinkers. Right? No
Thats the accusation that's often levelled
There will of course be outliers. There may well be a few smart ones. But most will be thick as mince. Being right wing doesn’t make you thick but if you are right wing and smart you won’t be consuming Fox!
I'm really struggling to take you seriously at the minute, especially since you adopted that phrase from someone who is as 'thick as mince'
So are you saying people who consume Fox News are high order critical thinkers? It is about as newsworthy as the Daily Sport!
Not I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is someone who consumes Fox may also consume multiple other outlets, the fact that they consume some Fox doesn't automatically make them thick. Yet, its what we hear often, almost as if the left aren't very tolerant of people's choices."Ah so I get that SOME people will watch/read different news sources to attempt to get a more balanced view. I would say they WERE more likely to be higher order critical thinkers. But let’s be honest, I expect the vast majority of that 70m ONLY watch Fox! As I said, there will be outliers, but the majority will be thick as mince  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fox news still the number one news source. I guess all those viewers are not critical thinkers. Right? No
Thats the accusation that's often levelled
There will of course be outliers. There may well be a few smart ones. But most will be thick as mince. Being right wing doesn’t make you thick but if you are right wing and smart you won’t be consuming Fox!
I'm really struggling to take you seriously at the minute, especially since you adopted that phrase from someone who is as 'thick as mince'
So are you saying people who consume Fox News are high order critical thinkers? It is about as newsworthy as the Daily Sport!
Not I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is someone who consumes Fox may also consume multiple other outlets, the fact that they consume some Fox doesn't automatically make them thick. Yet, its what we hear often, almost as if the left aren't very tolerant of people's choices.
Ah so I get that SOME people will watch/read different news sources to attempt to get a more balanced view. I would say they WERE more likely to be higher order critical thinkers. But let’s be honest, I expect the vast majority of that 70m ONLY watch Fox! As I said, there will be outliers, but the majority will be thick as mince "That was supposed to be | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not close to Us politics or is MSM but in the spirit of answering this thread and various comments I'd need to know Did TC say anything on twitter that was different to that when he was in Fox ? What did he say while on Fox that was simply him saying what he is paid to say? And what views got him cancelled ?" Wasn’t it Tucker Carlson who clearly lied on air about things like the last US election? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fox news still the number one news source. I guess all those viewers are not critical thinkers. Right? No
Thats the accusation that's often levelled
There will of course be outliers. There may well be a few smart ones. But most will be thick as mince. Being right wing doesn’t make you thick but if you are right wing and smart you won’t be consuming Fox!
I'm really struggling to take you seriously at the minute, especially since you adopted that phrase from someone who is as 'thick as mince'
So are you saying people who consume Fox News are high order critical thinkers? It is about as newsworthy as the Daily Sport!
Not I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is someone who consumes Fox may also consume multiple other outlets, the fact that they consume some Fox doesn't automatically make them thick. Yet, its what we hear often, almost as if the left aren't very tolerant of people's choices.
Ah so I get that SOME people will watch/read different news sources to attempt to get a more balanced view. I would say they WERE more likely to be higher order critical thinkers. But let’s be honest, I expect the vast majority of that 70m ONLY watch Fox! As I said, there will be outliers, but the majority will be thick as mince "Maybe you're right, maybe I'm just bored of blanket labelling whilst trying to sit upon a higher horse (not you personally but as a general rule). BTW, you're turning into Fabtastic, not a good look | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fox news still the number one news source. I guess all those viewers are not critical thinkers. Right? No
Thats the accusation that's often levelled
There will of course be outliers. There may well be a few smart ones. But most will be thick as mince. Being right wing doesn’t make you thick but if you are right wing and smart you won’t be consuming Fox!
I'm really struggling to take you seriously at the minute, especially since you adopted that phrase from someone who is as 'thick as mince'
So are you saying people who consume Fox News are high order critical thinkers? It is about as newsworthy as the Daily Sport!
Not I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is someone who consumes Fox may also consume multiple other outlets, the fact that they consume some Fox doesn't automatically make them thick. Yet, its what we hear often, almost as if the left aren't very tolerant of people's choices.
Ah so I get that SOME people will watch/read different news sources to attempt to get a more balanced view. I would say they WERE more likely to be higher order critical thinkers. But let’s be honest, I expect the vast majority of that 70m ONLY watch Fox! As I said, there will be outliers, but the majority will be thick as mince
Maybe you're right, maybe I'm just bored of blanket labelling whilst trying to sit upon a higher horse (not you personally but as a general rule).
BTW, you're turning into Fabtastic, not a good look "I’m having a fab day | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Chris Cuomo - Fired Don Lemon - Fired Tucker Carlson - Fired. So what news source is the correct one to view? People are going to view according to their values. Not just because someone else says you should watch something else or else." Fox News - out of court settlement for $600million for lying and enabling/allowing lying! Great values! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fox news still the number one news source. I guess all those viewers are not critical thinkers. Right? No
Thats the accusation that's often levelled
There will of course be outliers. There may well be a few smart ones. But most will be thick as mince. Being right wing doesn’t make you thick but if you are right wing and smart you won’t be consuming Fox!
I'm really struggling to take you seriously at the minute, especially since you adopted that phrase from someone who is as 'thick as mince'
So are you saying people who consume Fox News are high order critical thinkers? It is about as newsworthy as the Daily Sport!
Not I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is someone who consumes Fox may also consume multiple other outlets, the fact that they consume some Fox doesn't automatically make them thick. Yet, its what we hear often, almost as if the left aren't very tolerant of people's choices.
Ah so I get that SOME people will watch/read different news sources to attempt to get a more balanced view. I would say they WERE more likely to be higher order critical thinkers. But let’s be honest, I expect the vast majority of that 70m ONLY watch Fox! As I said, there will be outliers, but the majority will be thick as mince
Maybe you're right, maybe I'm just bored of blanket labelling whilst trying to sit upon a higher horse (not you personally but as a general rule).
BTW, you're turning into Fabtastic, not a good look
I’m having a fab day " Touchè | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fox news still the number one news source. I guess all those viewers are not critical thinkers. Right? No
Thats the accusation that's often levelled
There will of course be outliers. There may well be a few smart ones. But most will be thick as mince. Being right wing doesn’t make you thick but if you are right wing and smart you won’t be consuming Fox!
I'm really struggling to take you seriously at the minute, especially since you adopted that phrase from someone who is as 'thick as mince'
So are you saying people who consume Fox News are high order critical thinkers? It is about as newsworthy as the Daily Sport!
Not I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is someone who consumes Fox may also consume multiple other outlets, the fact that they consume some Fox doesn't automatically make them thick. Yet, its what we hear often, almost as if the left aren't very tolerant of people's choices.
Ah so I get that SOME people will watch/read different news sources to attempt to get a more balanced view. I would say they WERE more likely to be higher order critical thinkers. But let’s be honest, I expect the vast majority of that 70m ONLY watch Fox! As I said, there will be outliers, but the majority will be thick as mince
Maybe you're right, maybe I'm just bored of blanket labelling whilst trying to sit upon a higher horse (not you personally but as a general rule).
BTW, you're turning into Fabtastic, not a good look
I’m having a fab day
Touchè"I’m not touchy at all 
Touchy feely given the chance (sounds creepy but this is a swinging community)  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fox news still the number one news source. I guess all those viewers are not critical thinkers. Right? No
Thats the accusation that's often levelled
There will of course be outliers. There may well be a few smart ones. But most will be thick as mince. Being right wing doesn’t make you thick but if you are right wing and smart you won’t be consuming Fox!
I'm really struggling to take you seriously at the minute, especially since you adopted that phrase from someone who is as 'thick as mince'
So are you saying people who consume Fox News are high order critical thinkers? It is about as newsworthy as the Daily Sport!
Not I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is someone who consumes Fox may also consume multiple other outlets, the fact that they consume some Fox doesn't automatically make them thick. Yet, its what we hear often, almost as if the left aren't very tolerant of people's choices.
Ah so I get that SOME people will watch/read different news sources to attempt to get a more balanced view. I would say they WERE more likely to be higher order critical thinkers. But let’s be honest, I expect the vast majority of that 70m ONLY watch Fox! As I said, there will be outliers, but the majority will be thick as mince
Maybe you're right, maybe I'm just bored of blanket labelling whilst trying to sit upon a higher horse (not you personally but as a general rule).
BTW, you're turning into Fabtastic, not a good look
I’m having a fab day
Touchè
I’m not touchy at all
Touchy feely given the chance (sounds creepy but this is a swinging community) "Sorry, I'm straight as a die | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fox news still the number one news source. I guess all those viewers are not critical thinkers. Right? No
Thats the accusation that's often levelled
There will of course be outliers. There may well be a few smart ones. But most will be thick as mince. Being right wing doesn’t make you thick but if you are right wing and smart you won’t be consuming Fox!
I'm really struggling to take you seriously at the minute, especially since you adopted that phrase from someone who is as 'thick as mince'
So are you saying people who consume Fox News are high order critical thinkers? It is about as newsworthy as the Daily Sport!
Not I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is someone who consumes Fox may also consume multiple other outlets, the fact that they consume some Fox doesn't automatically make them thick. Yet, its what we hear often, almost as if the left aren't very tolerant of people's choices.
Ah so I get that SOME people will watch/read different news sources to attempt to get a more balanced view. I would say they WERE more likely to be higher order critical thinkers. But let’s be honest, I expect the vast majority of that 70m ONLY watch Fox! As I said, there will be outliers, but the majority will be thick as mince
Maybe you're right, maybe I'm just bored of blanket labelling whilst trying to sit upon a higher horse (not you personally but as a general rule).
BTW, you're turning into Fabtastic, not a good look
I’m having a fab day
Touchè
I’m not touchy at all
Touchy feely given the chance (sounds creepy but this is a swinging community)
Sorry, I'm straight as a die "Lol me too. Mrs is a straight as wet spaghetti though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fox news still the number one news source. I guess all those viewers are not critical thinkers. Right? No
Thats the accusation that's often levelled
There will of course be outliers. There may well be a few smart ones. But most will be thick as mince. Being right wing doesn’t make you thick but if you are right wing and smart you won’t be consuming Fox!
I'm really struggling to take you seriously at the minute, especially since you adopted that phrase from someone who is as 'thick as mince'
So are you saying people who consume Fox News are high order critical thinkers? It is about as newsworthy as the Daily Sport!
Not I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is someone who consumes Fox may also consume multiple other outlets, the fact that they consume some Fox doesn't automatically make them thick. Yet, its what we hear often, almost as if the left aren't very tolerant of people's choices.
Ah so I get that SOME people will watch/read different news sources to attempt to get a more balanced view. I would say they WERE more likely to be higher order critical thinkers. But let’s be honest, I expect the vast majority of that 70m ONLY watch Fox! As I said, there will be outliers, but the majority will be thick as mince
Maybe you're right, maybe I'm just bored of blanket labelling whilst trying to sit upon a higher horse (not you personally but as a general rule).
BTW, you're turning into Fabtastic, not a good look
I’m having a fab day
Touchè
I’m not touchy at all
Touchy feely given the chance (sounds creepy but this is a swinging community)
Sorry, I'm straight as a die
Lol me too. Mrs is a straight as wet spaghetti though " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The MSM (BBC, ITV, Sky News, virtually all newspapers) seem to have given up actually reporting any news or asking any difficult questions. Universally they have become campaign rags for Establishment and Blob propaganda, whether that's on Ukraine, Net Zero, big government and big tech, COVID, immigration or the economy. The only people who trust the MSM any longer are adherents of Blob orthodoxy. Meanwhile over on Twitter, Tucker Carlson's first mini monologue gets over 78 million views in 24 hours. Surely this kind of decentralised news is the future of current affairs coverage, free of corporate and state control." There is a difference between news and opinion. Most news organisations make some attempt to conduct journalism. Provide some balance of opinion and conduct some longer investigations with the assembly of some evidence. Do you equate the opinions of one individual whom you agree with as news? TikTok acts get higher viewing figures than Carlson. Is that news or entertainment? What is "blob orthodoxy"? Is it opinions that you disagree with? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
