Democratic socialist writer levels with voters: We want to ‘end capitalism’

"The rise of “democratic socialism” has been one of the key developments in the Democratic Party in recent years, first with the popularity of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and more recently Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s primary win over party mainstay Rep. Joe Crowley in New York. 

One of the ways the movement is presented is with the claim that this is not your grandfather’s socialism -- or the socialism of the former Soviet Union, Venezuela or other failed states. It’s more “Scandinavian health care” than overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

But now a democratic socialist writer is leveling with voters, telling them that actually, yes, they want to topple capitalism. 

"I’m a staff writer at the socialist magazine Jacobin and a member of [the Democratic Socialists of America], and here’s the truth: In the long run, democratic socialists want to end capitalism. "



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/02/democratic-socialist-writer-levels-with-voters-want-to-end-capitalism.html
«134

Comments

  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 8,021
    foxnews. 

    Haha. 

    Haha.

    Haha.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,849
    edited August 2
    :lol:



    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 14,727
    More importantly, good luck with that, will never happen. What’s the matter? They don’t have Hillary to kick around anymore?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 18,976
    He he he he hah ha ha ha keep trying the more crap you throw at the wall some is bound to stick keep waiving your Russian flag cause that's who you voted for a bought & paid for candidate of the Kremlin ...
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 13,344
    MSNBC, FOX, Breitbart, won't be credited news sources on here.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,849
    edited August 2
    I mean, forgetting Fox's insane intended twist on this, one thing is true - under democratic socialism, America's capitalist system would certainly be changed into something that works differently ... for the betterment of all. SO SCARY!!
    I'll never understand why Americans are so protective of a version of an economic system that is so clearly a fucking failure, and so scared of a different version of that economic system that has been proven to work better for society. It's very weird.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 8,021
    edited August 2
    MSNBC, FOX, Breitbart, won't be credited news sources on here.



    In what way does MSNBC play fast and loose with facts to the extent to be lumped together with flat out reality-denyers?
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,849
    edited August 2
    ^^ Good question. MSNBC is not even close to the same level. I feel like some people feel obligated to throw in a left-leaning example just to try and not seem biased... But if you're going to do that, throw in something that is actually comparable - a left-learning "news" source that literally makes shit up and twists facts on a regular basis.... I'm unfortunately unable to think of any liberal-leaning news sources that are as bad as Fox and Breitbart though... there certainly aren't any mainstream ones. I'm sure there must be some that aren't mainstream, but that alone makes them incomparable. 
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 8,021
    "Both siding" is an epedemic, in the US atleast. Just watch CNNs panels. 
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 13,344
    MSNBC, FOX, Breitbart, won't be credited news sources on here.



    In what way does MSNBC play fast and loose with facts to the extent to be lumped together with flat out reality-denyers?
    I stopped watching MSNBC because it was so far left leaning. They are a partisan news channel, no?

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,849
    edited August 2
    MSNBC, FOX, Breitbart, won't be credited news sources on here.



    In what way does MSNBC play fast and loose with facts to the extent to be lumped together with flat out reality-denyers?
    I stopped watching MSNBC because it was so far left leaning. They are a partisan news channel, no?

    Well, no. That would mean they literally have aligned themselves with a political party, like Fox and Breitbart have done, which isn't the case. But at any rate, leaning left or right isn't at all the same as making up shit and twisting facts completely or just plain old refusing to report things that don't serve their cause, which is what Fox and Breitbart do constantly. There are no mainstream left wing equivalents as far as I know.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 13,344
    PJ_Soul said:
    MSNBC, FOX, Breitbart, won't be credited news sources on here.



    In what way does MSNBC play fast and loose with facts to the extent to be lumped together with flat out reality-denyers?
    I stopped watching MSNBC because it was so far left leaning. They are a partisan news channel, no?

    Well, no. That would mean they literally have aligned themselves with a political party, which isn't the case.
    Huh?

    I don't recall ever hearing them side with a conservative or a conservative view yet.  Maybe I missed the one time that they did agree on one?
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,849
    edited August 2
    PJ_Soul said:
    MSNBC, FOX, Breitbart, won't be credited news sources on here.



    In what way does MSNBC play fast and loose with facts to the extent to be lumped together with flat out reality-denyers?
    I stopped watching MSNBC because it was so far left leaning. They are a partisan news channel, no?

    Well, no. That would mean they literally have aligned themselves with a political party, which isn't the case.
    Huh?

    I don't recall ever hearing them side with a conservative or a conservative view yet.  Maybe I missed the one time that they did agree on one?
    Huh? I didn't mention views. I mentioned political parties. I don't believe I've ever heard of the "Left Party". (I added more to my post btw)

    But also, MSNBC doesn't MAKE SHIT UP or completely ignore facts when it serves their purpose. They still present facts, and then discuss opinions based on those facts, host discussions, etc. That isn't at all the same as what Fox and Breitbart does.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Gtilley8Gtilley8 DetroitPosts: 860
    PJ_Soul said:
    MSNBC, FOX, Breitbart, won't be credited news sources on here.



    In what way does MSNBC play fast and loose with facts to the extent to be lumped together with flat out reality-denyers?
    I stopped watching MSNBC because it was so far left leaning. They are a partisan news channel, no?

    Well, no. That would mean they literally have aligned themselves with a political party, which isn't the case.
    Huh?

    I don't recall ever hearing them side with a conservative or a conservative view yet.  Maybe I missed the one time that they did agree on one?
    One doesn't have to side with a conservative view to be presenting unbiased facts.  I'm interested to know what you consider to be a solid conservative view (ie, major platform talking point), which we could all agree on.  
    2000 - 8/21 - Columbus, OH
    2003 - 6/18 - Chicago, IL
    2006 - 5/22 - Auburn Hills, MI
    2007 - 8/5 - Chicago, IL
    2015 - 9/26 - New York, NY
    2016 - 4/16 - Greenville, SC; 8/20 - Chicago, IL; 8/22 - Chicago, IL

    livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=3045
  • KatKat There's a lot to be said for nowhere.Posts: 3,393
    edited August 2
    MSNBC has so many Republicans giving their cultish opinions that I almost stopped watching. Then a lot of Republicans started seeing truth and they weren't cultists. There's still a lot of GOP but I see reasonable punditry and discussion. I like that there are a lot of legal people and national security people giving opinions too....and Rachel really educates. imho. 

    Post edited by Kat on
    "Well, as far as I know, music makes people happy. I know it makes me happy." -- Fats Domino
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,849
    Gtilley8 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    MSNBC, FOX, Breitbart, won't be credited news sources on here.



    In what way does MSNBC play fast and loose with facts to the extent to be lumped together with flat out reality-denyers?
    I stopped watching MSNBC because it was so far left leaning. They are a partisan news channel, no?

    Well, no. That would mean they literally have aligned themselves with a political party, which isn't the case.
    Huh?

    I don't recall ever hearing them side with a conservative or a conservative view yet.  Maybe I missed the one time that they did agree on one?
    One doesn't have to side with a conservative view to be presenting unbiased facts.  I'm interested to know what you consider to be a solid conservative view (ie, major platform talking point), which we could all agree on.  
    That's a good question... It makes me wonder... do some people expect news outlets not to "take sides" when the side they're against is completely fucked up, constantly lies, and is generally a completely clusterfuck??? It is actually possible to not be biased and still fall to one side just because one side makes fucking sense and the other doesn't. And especially now, it's not like both sides are equal! That's very clear.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 13,344
    Gtilley8 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    MSNBC, FOX, Breitbart, won't be credited news sources on here.



    In what way does MSNBC play fast and loose with facts to the extent to be lumped together with flat out reality-denyers?
    I stopped watching MSNBC because it was so far left leaning. They are a partisan news channel, no?

    Well, no. That would mean they literally have aligned themselves with a political party, which isn't the case.
    Huh?

    I don't recall ever hearing them side with a conservative or a conservative view yet.  Maybe I missed the one time that they did agree on one?
    One doesn't have to side with a conservative view to be presenting unbiased facts.  I'm interested to know what you consider to be a solid conservative view (ie, major platform talking point), which we could all agree on.  
    Immigration reform?

    That seems to be one that both sides want but can't seem to agree on.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,849
    edited August 2
    Gtilley8 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    MSNBC, FOX, Breitbart, won't be credited news sources on here.



    In what way does MSNBC play fast and loose with facts to the extent to be lumped together with flat out reality-denyers?
    I stopped watching MSNBC because it was so far left leaning. They are a partisan news channel, no?

    Well, no. That would mean they literally have aligned themselves with a political party, which isn't the case.
    Huh?

    I don't recall ever hearing them side with a conservative or a conservative view yet.  Maybe I missed the one time that they did agree on one?
    One doesn't have to side with a conservative view to be presenting unbiased facts.  I'm interested to know what you consider to be a solid conservative view (ie, major platform talking point), which we could all agree on.  
    Immigration reform?

    That seems to be one that both sides want but can't seem to agree on.
    Yeah... and the right has most recently handled that by fanning the flames of racism in America and kidnapping kids and putting them in cages, and most of the right (and Fox, et al) have largely worked to defend such things in various crafty ways, so I'm not too surprised that MSNBC has leaned to one side on that one. ;) I would not consider that bias in the context that you mean... you know?
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 13,344
    PJ_Soul said:
    Gtilley8 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    MSNBC, FOX, Breitbart, won't be credited news sources on here.



    In what way does MSNBC play fast and loose with facts to the extent to be lumped together with flat out reality-denyers?
    I stopped watching MSNBC because it was so far left leaning. They are a partisan news channel, no?

    Well, no. That would mean they literally have aligned themselves with a political party, which isn't the case.
    Huh?

    I don't recall ever hearing them side with a conservative or a conservative view yet.  Maybe I missed the one time that they did agree on one?
    One doesn't have to side with a conservative view to be presenting unbiased facts.  I'm interested to know what you consider to be a solid conservative view (ie, major platform talking point), which we could all agree on.  
    Immigration reform?

    That seems to be one that both sides want but can't seem to agree on.
    Yeah... and the right has most recently handled that by fanning the flames of racism in America and kidnapping kids and putting them in cages, and most of the right (and Fox, et al) have largely worked to defend such things in various crafty ways, so I'm not too surprised that MSNBC has leaned to one side on that one. ;) I would not consider that bias in the context that you mean... you know?
    No that wasn't my angle on that at all.

    Conservative view was to have a better vetting process and stop the influx of border crossings NOT what is happening now.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,849
    edited August 2
    PJ_Soul said:
    Gtilley8 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    MSNBC, FOX, Breitbart, won't be credited news sources on here.



    In what way does MSNBC play fast and loose with facts to the extent to be lumped together with flat out reality-denyers?
    I stopped watching MSNBC because it was so far left leaning. They are a partisan news channel, no?

    Well, no. That would mean they literally have aligned themselves with a political party, which isn't the case.
    Huh?

    I don't recall ever hearing them side with a conservative or a conservative view yet.  Maybe I missed the one time that they did agree on one?
    One doesn't have to side with a conservative view to be presenting unbiased facts.  I'm interested to know what you consider to be a solid conservative view (ie, major platform talking point), which we could all agree on.  
    Immigration reform?

    That seems to be one that both sides want but can't seem to agree on.
    Yeah... and the right has most recently handled that by fanning the flames of racism in America and kidnapping kids and putting them in cages, and most of the right (and Fox, et al) have largely worked to defend such things in various crafty ways, so I'm not too surprised that MSNBC has leaned to one side on that one. ;) I would not consider that bias in the context that you mean... you know?
    No that wasn't my angle on that at all.

    Conservative view was to have a better vetting process and stop the influx of border crossings NOT what is happening now.
    Sure, it WAS, back when conservative politicians and supporters were sane. But the conservative view has warped into "make policy based on racism and xenophobia, build a wall that we'll now try to pay for by sneaking it into important bills about other things, and also ZERO TOLERANCE! Jail the kids and traumatize them! Also, the left wants open borders, didn'tcha know??? They want to let the rapists and terrorists in!" Plus, "FAKE NEWS!!!" (real news is fake news, fake news is real news in the new conservative government).
    It's kind of impossible to be balanced when one whole side has gone completely off the rails - while the only party that represents it is completely imploding and literally acting fucking insane.


    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • RoleModelsinBlood31RoleModelsinBlood31 Austin TXPosts: 3,906
    MSNBC is definitely not as bad as fox, but they’ve sure shown their stance. They’ve fucked up a handful of times with fake news and photoshopped bullshit.  There’s a whole Wikipedia page on it.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies


    I had a false belief I thought I came here to stay. We're all just visitors.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,849
    edited August 2
    MSNBC is definitely not as bad as fox, but they’ve sure shown their stance. They’ve fucked up a handful of times with fake news and photoshopped bullshit.  There’s a whole Wikipedia page on it.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies


    Just a note: there was one photoshopped photo of Palin that they didn't know was photoshopped at the time, and they apologized, and there was never any intentional fake news (fyi, reporting something wrong due to misinformation is NOT fake news). But look, all news outlets are going to have some errors here and there - normally they are corrected. That obviously isn't comparable to deliberately disseminating false or misleading information on a daily basis. Again, I still can't think of a left-leaning media outlet that does this, while the only mainstream right leaning ones have pretty much made it their mandate, and seem to be serving the WH.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • RoleModelsinBlood31RoleModelsinBlood31 Austin TXPosts: 3,906
    PJ_Soul said:
    MSNBC is definitely not as bad as fox, but they’ve sure shown their stance. They’ve fucked up a handful of times with fake news and photoshopped bullshit.  There’s a whole Wikipedia page on it.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies


    Just a note: there was one photoshopped photo of Palin that they didn't know was photoshopped at the time, and they apologized, and there was never any intentional fake news (fyi, reporting something wrong due to misinformation is NOT fake news).
    But didn’t you say they don’t make shit up? This one’s great.  Maybe they just accidentally cut out the 3 minutes of important video on this one?:

    Anchorwoman Andrea Mitchell was caught showing a doctored video clip of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney at a rally in Pennsylvania. The edited version features Romney saying how amazing it is to get a custom made sandwich, using a touch screen ordering device at a Wawa convenience store. What viewers didn't see or hear was nearly three minutes of Romney discussing the extensive amount of paperwork faced by an optometrist he'd talked to in trying to get the post office to change his address. He expressed mock amazement at Wawa's efficiency to underscore how the private sector is often more efficient than Government.[38][39]
    I had a false belief I thought I came here to stay. We're all just visitors.
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 7,211
    MSNBC is definitely not as bad as fox, but they’ve sure shown their stance. They’ve fucked up a handful of times with fake news and photoshopped bullshit.  There’s a whole Wikipedia page on it.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies


    There's a whole page on Fox News' fake (or bastardized beyond recognition) news too.

    Here's the link: http://www.foxnews.com


    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 15,216
  • RoleModelsinBlood31RoleModelsinBlood31 Austin TXPosts: 3,906
    benjs said:
    MSNBC is definitely not as bad as fox, but they’ve sure shown their stance. They’ve fucked up a handful of times with fake news and photoshopped bullshit.  There’s a whole Wikipedia page on it.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies


    There's a whole page on Fox News' fake (or bastardized beyond recognition) news too.

    Here's the link: http://www.foxnews.com


    Oh I know, there’s no denying their bias, I wasn’t going to try to defend them, as I said above. Msnbc isn’t as bad as fox but it’s not possible to claim they’re unbiased or that they haven’t had their share of issues.
    I had a false belief I thought I came here to stay. We're all just visitors.
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 15,216
    edited August 2
    msnbc vs fox:
    https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/is-msnbc-worse-than-fox-news-179175

    Is MSNBC worse than Fox News?

    By DYLAN BYERS

     12/09/2013 12:34 PM EST

    This is the quickest way to turn a pleasant dinner party into a shouting match: Posit that MSNBC is not as bad as Fox News, but rather worse than Fox News.

    "How can you say that!? Fox News is practically an arm of the Republican party! Biased as MSNBC may be, it doesn't try to take an active role in presidential elections! It doesn't live in a choose-your-own-reality cocoon where the facts don't matter!"

    The effort to defend MSNBC against comparisons to Fox News is always telling, because there was a time before MSNBC when liberals recoiled at the notion of agenda-driven programming in general. The acceptance of MSNBC was, like the acceptance of Super PACs, an acknowledgement that the rules on the ground had changed.

    "I know it's biased, but how else to combat the misinformation on Fox!"... which is funny, because that's how Fox News started, as a counterbalance against perceived liberal biases in the mainstream media.

    But here's the thing, and I hope it doesn't ruin your dinner: MSNBC is certainly as bad as Fox News, in terms of presenting ideologically biased information and demonizing the opposition. If you want to console yourself with the fact that Phil Griffin never tried to get someone to run for president, fine, you can have it.


    In March, a Pew Research Center study -- yes, Pew -- found that 85 percent of MSNBC's programming is dedicated to "opinion," versus 15 percent that is dedicated to "news." Fox News dedicated just 55 percent of its programming to "opinion" and 45 percent to "news." (CNN dedicates 46 percent to "opinion" and 54 percent to "news.") During the 2012 election, the ratio of unfavorable to favorable treatment in stories on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on MSNBC “was roughly 23-to-1; the negative-to-positive ratio on Fox News was 8-to-1.”

    Ok, fine. But MSNBC's opinions are rooted in fact, whereas the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys willingly peddle misinformation!

    But see, that's the thing. Many of MSNBC's opinions aren't rooted in fact. Many of them are rooted in unfounded speculation. Melissa Harris-Perry's recent claimthat Obamacare is a racially loaded term conceived of "by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man" is based on... what? The fact that the term was first used by a woman? The fact that, from Reaganomics to Hillarycare, we've always ascribed names to signature policies and legislation?

    And that's just the tip of the iceberg. In a new essay for The National Review, Charles C. W. Cooke explains how MSNBC routinely demonizes the opposition to the point of absurdity:


    For a display in extreme verbal calisthenics, ask an MSNBC type to defend these remarks. What you will witness is a slow crumbling of intellectual integrity, a defense that would never be offered on behalf of someone from the other side who practiced a similar flawed logic.

    (WATCH - On Media: MSNBC leans backwards)

    And that's the other thing: By now, an MSNBC defender reading this piece surely assumes I'm a pro-Fox News conservative. Because if you actually see America as America I and America II -- if you actually believe that every action taken against Obama's policies is inherently racist -- then you probably believe that I'm part of America II. Because, despite what Obama said in Boston in 2004, there are only two Americas: there's us and there's them, which leaves little room for independents.

    One of the great media stories of the 21st century is the rise of MSNBC as a counterbalance to Fox News and a powerful platform for the progressive agenda -- an evolution that has done many great things for the Democratic party. The lesser told story is how the network, in a bid for ratings, repeatedly tempts its base away from the thing they had always prided themselves on when looking across the chasm at the conservative echo-chamber: facts.


    Post edited by mcgruff10 on
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • flywallyflyflywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    edited August 2
    mcgruff10 said:
    Another link for the article WRITTEN by DSA for those who believe Fox is "fake news" ??

    I’m a staff writer at the socialist magazine Jacobin and a member of DSA, and here’s the truth: In the long run, democratic socialists want to end capitalism. 
    https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/8/1/17637028/bernie-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-cynthia-nixon-democratic-socialism-jacobin-dsa
    Post edited by flywallyfly on
  • RoleModelsinBlood31RoleModelsinBlood31 Austin TXPosts: 3,906
    mcgruff10 said:
    msnbc vs fox:
    https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/is-msnbc-worse-than-fox-news-179175

    Is MSNBC worse than Fox News?

    By DYLAN BYERS

     12/09/2013 12:34 PM EST

    This is the quickest way to turn a pleasant dinner party into a shouting match: Posit that MSNBC is not as bad as Fox News, but rather worse than Fox News.

    "How can you say that!? Fox News is practically an arm of the Republican party! Biased as MSNBC may be, it doesn't try to take an active role in presidential elections! It doesn't live in a choose-your-own-reality cocoon where the facts don't matter!"

    The effort to defend MSNBC against comparisons to Fox News is always telling, because there was a time before MSNBC when liberals recoiled at the notion of agenda-driven programming in general. The acceptance of MSNBC was, like the acceptance of Super PACs, an acknowledgement that the rules on the ground had changed.

    "I know it's biased, but how else to combat the misinformation on Fox!"... which is funny, because that's how Fox News started, as a counterbalance against perceived liberal biases in the mainstream media.

    But here's the thing, and I hope it doesn't ruin your dinner: MSNBC is certainly as bad as Fox News, in terms of presenting ideologically biased information and demonizing the opposition. If you want to console yourself with the fact that Phil Griffin never tried to get someone to run for president, fine, you can have it.


    In March, a Pew Research Center study -- yes, Pew -- found that 85 percent of MSNBC's programming is dedicated to "opinion," versus 15 percent that is dedicated to "news." Fox News dedicated just 55 percent of its programming to "opinion" and 45 percent to "news." (CNN dedicates 46 percent to "opinion" and 54 percent to "news.") During the 2012 election, the ratio of unfavorable to favorable treatment in stories on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on MSNBC “was roughly 23-to-1; the negative-to-positive ratio on Fox News was 8-to-1.”

    Ok, fine. But MSNBC's opinions are rooted in fact, whereas the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys willingly peddle misinformation!

    But see, that's the thing. Many of MSNBC's opinions aren't rooted in fact. Many of them are rooted in unfounded speculation. Melissa Harris-Perry's recent claimthat Obamacare is a racially loaded term conceived of "by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man" is based on... what? The fact that the term was first used by a woman? The fact that, from Reaganomics to Hillarycare, we've always ascribed names to signature policies and legislation?

    And that's just the tip of the iceberg. In a new essay for The National Review, Charles C. W. Cooke explains how MSNBC routinely demonizes the opposition to the point of absurdity:


    For a display in extreme verbal calisthenics, ask an MSNBC type to defend these remarks. What you will witness is a slow crumbling of intellectual integrity, a defense that would never be offered on behalf of someone from the other side who practiced a similar flawed logic.

    (WATCH - On Media: MSNBC leans backwards)

    And that's the other thing: By now, an MSNBC defender reading this piece surely assumes I'm a pro-Fox News conservative. Because if you actually see America as America I and America II -- if you actually believe that every action taken against Obama's policies is inherently racist -- then you probably believe that I'm part of America II. Because, despite what Obama said in Boston in 2004, there are only two Americas: there's us and there's them, which leaves little room for independents.

    One of the great media stories of the 21st century is the rise of MSNBC as a counterbalance to Fox News and a powerful platform for the progressive agenda -- an evolution that has done many great things for the Democratic party. The lesser told story is how the network, in a bid for ratings, repeatedly tempts its base away from the thing they had always prided themselves on when looking across the chasm at the conservative echo-chamber: facts.


    Welp, that just about settles that debate.
    I had a false belief I thought I came here to stay. We're all just visitors.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 7,964
    mcgruff10 said:
    msnbc vs fox:
    https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/is-msnbc-worse-than-fox-news-179175

    Is MSNBC worse than Fox News?

    By DYLAN BYERS

     12/09/2013 12:34 PM EST

    This is the quickest way to turn a pleasant dinner party into a shouting match: Posit that MSNBC is not as bad as Fox News, but rather worse than Fox News.

    "How can you say that!? Fox News is practically an arm of the Republican party! Biased as MSNBC may be, it doesn't try to take an active role in presidential elections! It doesn't live in a choose-your-own-reality cocoon where the facts don't matter!"

    The effort to defend MSNBC against comparisons to Fox News is always telling, because there was a time before MSNBC when liberals recoiled at the notion of agenda-driven programming in general. The acceptance of MSNBC was, like the acceptance of Super PACs, an acknowledgement that the rules on the ground had changed.

    "I know it's biased, but how else to combat the misinformation on Fox!"... which is funny, because that's how Fox News started, as a counterbalance against perceived liberal biases in the mainstream media.

    But here's the thing, and I hope it doesn't ruin your dinner: MSNBC is certainly as bad as Fox News, in terms of presenting ideologically biased information and demonizing the opposition. If you want to console yourself with the fact that Phil Griffin never tried to get someone to run for president, fine, you can have it.


    In March, a Pew Research Center study -- yes, Pew -- found that 85 percent of MSNBC's programming is dedicated to "opinion," versus 15 percent that is dedicated to "news." Fox News dedicated just 55 percent of its programming to "opinion" and 45 percent to "news." (CNN dedicates 46 percent to "opinion" and 54 percent to "news.") During the 2012 election, the ratio of unfavorable to favorable treatment in stories on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on MSNBC “was roughly 23-to-1; the negative-to-positive ratio on Fox News was 8-to-1.”

    Ok, fine. But MSNBC's opinions are rooted in fact, whereas the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys willingly peddle misinformation!

    But see, that's the thing. Many of MSNBC's opinions aren't rooted in fact. Many of them are rooted in unfounded speculation. Melissa Harris-Perry's recent claimthat Obamacare is a racially loaded term conceived of "by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man" is based on... what? The fact that the term was first used by a woman? The fact that, from Reaganomics to Hillarycare, we've always ascribed names to signature policies and legislation?

    And that's just the tip of the iceberg. In a new essay for The National Review, Charles C. W. Cooke explains how MSNBC routinely demonizes the opposition to the point of absurdity:


    For a display in extreme verbal calisthenics, ask an MSNBC type to defend these remarks. What you will witness is a slow crumbling of intellectual integrity, a defense that would never be offered on behalf of someone from the other side who practiced a similar flawed logic.

    (WATCH - On Media: MSNBC leans backwards)

    And that's the other thing: By now, an MSNBC defender reading this piece surely assumes I'm a pro-Fox News conservative. Because if you actually see America as America I and America II -- if you actually believe that every action taken against Obama's policies is inherently racist -- then you probably believe that I'm part of America II. Because, despite what Obama said in Boston in 2004, there are only two Americas: there's us and there's them, which leaves little room for independents.

    One of the great media stories of the 21st century is the rise of MSNBC as a counterbalance to Fox News and a powerful platform for the progressive agenda -- an evolution that has done many great things for the Democratic party. The lesser told story is how the network, in a bid for ratings, repeatedly tempts its base away from the thing they had always prided themselves on when looking across the chasm at the conservative echo-chamber: facts.

    article 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
«134
Sign In or Register to comment.