Luc1fer
Peasant
- 80
- 183
I agree on Fox News, but what's your point, that there are no right wing news organizations? What about Daily Wire?
- 1
BB.com Misc Refugee Thread
- Thread starter Masakari
- Start date
- 48,254
- 283,325
pysek
It Didn't Happen, It Should've, and It Will.
- 17,451
- 108,079
- 4
- 10,502
- 54,160
Daily Wire is controlled/approved opposition. If they weren't approved, they'd be canceled. Next.
And to answer your question, yes. The point I'm making is ALL organized news is either controlled, fake, or evil. Or some combination of those. The whole 'news organization' model is outdated from a function and business standpoint anyway.
-From a function standpoint, they are pointless. Back in the pre-internet days, you needed actual physical platforms to get your message out at all. Air time was expensive, and there was limited airwave space due to the limitations of the EM broadcast spectrum. Print was expensive because it took infrastructure to get the paper, print it, and distribute it. These costs have been steadily eroding over time as tech has progressed. Nowadays, all you need is an internet connection which is near universal, and a camera for video, which is also near universal and cheap. All the rest like a fancy studio, a pretty airhead to read your copy, and flashy graphics is mere window dressing, sauce, flavor. All of that flavor is unnecessary to the fundaments of what a free press as guaranteed by the 1A is all about: conveying information without hindrance from government (and I'd argue corporate as well) authority. Or if you like, investigative journalism defined as: information that someone somewhere doesn't want you to know. Especially the powerful who are out there screwing everyone and fucking things up.
-From a business standpoint, news orgs are MASSIVE money sinks. Their only value is in the 'brand value' of their name. Billionaires like Bezos (WAPO) and Carlos Slim (NYTimes, tho not sure if that's current), didn't buy those companies because they wanted to make money, they bought them to lend their opinions (and those of their lackeys) credibility. They wanted to wear those companies' reputations from yesteryear as a skinsuit while they could to convince both the people and -more importantly- the managerial class rulers of what is moral and good. As long as they didn't lose TOOOO much money in the process it was worth it to them as a loss leader for their other enterprises.
Want proof it's not about money? Tucker Carlson's firing. Carlson was far and away the most successful news host on cable news for years and years. His audience numbers were greater than the next 10 hosts' shows COMBINED. And yet Fox News dumped him over nothing, costing them a VERY large chunk of ratings, money, and credibility. "But we're trying to make money via the popularity and thus ratings of our shows! Honest, rubes!"
Give me a break.
Now that a critical mass of people are onto this game ALL of these news orgs are dying out, and platforms that are nothing more than platforms such as (god help us) Twitter/X and Substack and Telegram are where you can find actual happenings in real time from both biased and potentially unbiased sources. ALL of the news orgs you listed there are a dying breed who have shot whatever credibility they might have had to kingdom come, and their deaths can't come soon enough and are currently ongoing as evidenced by the massive layoffs occurring throughout the rank and file of their
- 10
Sanrith Descartes
Veteran of a thousand threadban wars
- 41,471
- 107,525
The beauty of this post is all the newcomers in the future will never know of past
Bubbles
greatness. They will only see the the Alinity score of today and think "man this guy really blows".- 2
Headturner1
Misc Refugee
- 116
- 174
You’re only as good as your last post my man.The beauty of this post is all the newcomers in the future will never know of past
And let’s face it, we don’t have much to go on so that score means a lot.
- 1
Luc1fer
Peasant
- 80
- 183
I think we might be operating with different definitions of "left" and "right". Daily Wire (which I'm not a fan of) may be controlled, and certainly has an agenda, but I would classify them as right-wing conservative.
From a business standpoint, they're obsessed with making profit (Shapiro and the crew are clearly greedy for $). My impression of DW is it's almost purely motivated by profit, and obviously to continue profiting, they bend over and take it up the ass to adhere to Google's and other big tech institution's speech rules.
- 3
- 2
Bubbles
2022 Asshat Award Winner
- 44,592
- -32,309
- 1
- 1
- 1
- 10,502
- 54,160
They are only Right from the perspective of normies, boomers, and clueless lefties, aka the morons who don't know shit and whose opinions don't matter because they are the ones who got us to this point and refuse to fix anything. They think Trump is right wing. Trump is a 90's Democrat. He only looks right wing now because the Overton window has been moving left at flank speed since then.
A guy who was actually right wing in the 90's like say Buchanan is now considered far far beyond the pale, while back then his views were routinely allowed on mainstream talk shows and were no big deal.
And if you think DW is about profit, you need to do some ACTUAL research. Shapiro is and always has been completely subsidized by rich patrons.
This is all obvious shit btw. It's like Clown World 101 shit that we've been talking about here for years and years.
- 4
- 1
Lanx
<Prior Amod>
- 60,680
- 132,861
i like how beanie boy is 1 rant away from being alex jones
all these worthless podcasts and they don't bother to list jre? jre probably ='s the viewship of all these podcasts combined
lulz at npr
- 2
Lanx
<Prior Amod>
- 60,680
- 132,861
the daily jew is a left leaning rag
you cannot be consided "right" and not support trump
- 1
Chris
Potato del Grande
- 18,219
- -325
This is great and all true, I agree 100%...
...but then going onto Telegram for news like it's any better with it's bot upvoted disguised state media is no better.
If you can say that telegram has biased/unbiased sources and you are prepared to judge what is worthwhile, then why can't other people do that with Daily Wire or BBC or whatever?
Ossoi
Tranny Chaser
- 15,863
- 7,869
Intellectual dishonesty again along with straw man
You originally posted the chart as examples of "far right" news sites
Are you bodhy?
- 2
- 1
- 10,502
- 54,160
It's a question of what is a thing's nature. In the case of a particular telegram channel in your example, if it's disguised state
In the case of DW or BBC, we already know their purpose: to spread dis/mis-info in service of who pays their checks. They have no other purpose. If there is any truth value to be found in these sources it's only because it happens to serve their paymasters' purpose temporarily.
But you know this. It's been explained to you ad nauseum, and now you expect me to believe you're listening? Pah. GTFO of here troll.
- 2
Rude
Potato del Grande
- 3,566
- 11,295
Not the biggest fan of Dice but his Shapiro hatred is pretty funny. Almost as funny as the dude saying Israel First Wire is right wing. It's an astroturfed Bush-site propaganda tank. I'm hoping the fallout from Candice Owens wrecks their brand.
- 2
Luc1fer
Peasant
- 80
- 183
joz123
Potato del Grande
- 6,561
- 9,207
Chris
Potato del Grande
- 18,219
- -325
No it's a genuine question and I like your answer, thank you.
I think we will disagree on exactly how compromised some organisations are. Obviously CNN or Guardian are 100% globohomo, BBC and Daily Wire I think are much less so and do have some good content.
I'm not actually trolling 24/7 and I've taken to heart that some people don't take me seriously, so I'm reigning in the flippant devils advocate stuff.