Trump Allies Have a Plan to Hurt Biden’s Chances: Elevate Outsider Candidates

[JustWinBaby]

(04-14-2024, 01:13 PM)samhain Wrote: You don't see many on the left pretending that they consume fox content, either.  I'd also venture that a great majority on the left watch little to no cable news as opposed to those on the right that devour a great majority of what Fox puts out there. 

I'd wager Fox's audience has a significant number of leftwingers not only looking to be outraged, but report on the propaganda.

Also, Fox's primetime audience is something like 3M.  20M viewers, of all Fox, in a week.  That's maybe 10M unique viewers, more than a few of which I pointed out are liberals.

So, no, a majority of voters "on the right" don't consume cable media any more than the other side, if at all.  Fox's audience has been fairly equal to CNN and MSNBC, combined, for years.  

[JustWinBaby]

(04-14-2024, 11:46 AM)Dill Wrote: But critique of the NYT as "far left" implies that other sources are very much "trusted."

You make the mistake assuming that people's knowledge only comes from news "sources".  There is also education, experience, and research.  Among other things.  One doesn't have to even watch Fox News to be able to refute many NYT stories.

My perspective is slanted toward business, markets and economics, but I've never kept score however I'd guess most sources have an inherent bias on various issues. Anyway, my expertise by which I can measure tells me they're all pretty much garbage.  Not really that surprising when you peg an English major fresh out of college to report on derivatives. [pro tip: FT and WSJ reporting on fringe and developing market trends can be garbage precisely because newbies get thrown onto low-volume topics...and then become the "experts" when those topics unexpectedly take off].

For context I'll just mention The Hill, which according to various ratings is somewhat "balanced" or "moderate", but their editorials are filled with leftwingers and rightwingers.  IMO two opposite partisans don't add up to balanced or informative, not even close.  If you factor in peoples' tendency to dismiss one side or the other - not to mention the inability to filter out the BS - it's not balanced at all.

[Belsnickel]

(04-14-2024, 11:44 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's painful enough to read your posts once.  It was not a knee jerk response - it's accurate and I stand by it.  This isn't some difficult to discover truth, like you pretend it is.  It's only a challenge if you rely on podcasts, editorials and late night talk shows as your news.  You clearly don't read or don't understand financial market analysis.  It's the closest thing to honest news we have left, because money usually trumps politics (at least for the 99.9%)

Joe Rogan has many experts on his podcasts.  Point dunk.

It's accurate and you stand by it, except that I state explicitly that I was already aware of the information because of my reliance on solid news sources and I had not thought about how it may not have permeated into certain segments. But hey, you keep telling yourself you were accurate there, bud.

As for the reliance on financial market analysis, I mean, it is helpful for some things. The problem with the financial markets is that it is almost entirely speculative at this point and not really based in anything solid. Plus, economics can be helpful but it requires a big heaping dose of the other social sciences to really understand anything because humans aren't rational actors. And money doesn't trump politics because money is politics. Everything is politics.

[Dill]

(04-14-2024, 11:37 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: "We", as in you and I or others and I, definitely did not discuss that.

The point - not necessarily of interest, depending on your political leanings - is that voters on both sides believe many things that are less than factual.

LOL sounds like "we" as in me and a lot of other people definitely did--but not you. Or likely you'd have felt no urge to "update" an OP 
about campaign strategy with old news about oil exports--an update you now "stand by."

"Voters on both sides believe many things that are less than factual," which has been true since a free press first appeared in liberal 
democracies, doesn't really sort out the present situation in a way that helps us (as in me and you) understand why tens of millions of voters
still believe that Biden stole the last presidential election from Trump and the role their preferred news sources play in 
maintaining that Big Lie and others--e.g., by under-reporting or failing to report at all about a range of important news stories which would
conflict with Trump's campaign speeches.

Or why tens of millions of said voters "distrust" more accurate and responsible news sources--enough to decide the presidential election.

That's why, as the OP reports, Republicans can devise a campaign strategy which uses accurate reporting against Biden  
without exposing their own base to that reporting.  

[Dill]

(04-15-2024, 12:23 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You make the mistake assuming that people's knowledge only comes from news "sources".  There is also education, experience, and research.  Among other things.  One doesn't have to even watch Fox News to be able to refute many NYT stories.

What's the evidence for my "mistake"? Certainly not my substitution of the word "news" for the more generally encompassing term "sources."

Nor the historical contextualization in follow up posts.

(04-15-2024, 12:23 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: My perspective is slanted toward business, markets and economics, but I've never kept score however I'd guess most sources have an inherent bias on various issues. Anyway, my expertise by which I can measure tells me they're all pretty much garbage.  Not really that surprising when you peg an English major fresh out of college to report on derivatives. [pro tip: FT and WSJ reporting on fringe and developing market trends can be garbage precisely because newbies get thrown onto low-volume topics...and then become the "experts" when those topics unexpectedly take off].

For context I'll just mention The Hill, which according to various ratings is somewhat "balanced" or "moderate", but their editorials are filled with leftwingers and rightwingers.  IMO two opposite partisans don't add up to balanced or informative, not even close.  If you factor in peoples' tendency to dismiss one side or the other - not to mention the inability to filter out the BS - it's not balanced at all.

This might surprise you, Justy, but I actually agree that you know something about financial markets, more than I do for sure, and read your posts carefully about such topics, filtering out the BS (as you put it) about other subjects.

[Dill]

(04-14-2024, 11:51 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'd wager Fox's audience has a significant number of leftwingers not only looking to be outraged, but report on the propaganda.
Also, Fox's primetime audience is something like 3M.  20M viewers, of all Fox, in a week.  That's maybe 10M unique viewers, more than a few of which I pointed out are liberals.
So, no, a majority of voters "on the right" don't consume cable media any more than the other side, if at all.  Fox's audience has been fairly equal to CNN and MSNBC, combined, for years.  

Doesn't the rest of Sam's post #14 make that correction unnecessary? 

(04-14-2024, 01:13 PM)samhain Wrote: There are too many individualized streaming news sources to even gauge things by cable news.  People can pick whatever confirmation bias they like, and most absolutely do.  The Fox/CNN arguments are akin to arguing who voted for Bush vs who voted to John Kerry.  It's point that stopped holding weight likely in the late aughts to early 2010's.