yeah I believe that, least trusted by Dems..they cant stand to have anything negitive said about their king..and fuck pbs, I spent the last month listening to opb/pbs only, and was spoon fed mush..
What's your "most trusted" news source. I listen mostly to PBS. It's the least biased source I have found. It may be left leaning but at least you'll find stories from both sides of the spectrum (example) CSPAN is may be better (less biased) but I don't watch cable news very often.
I dont trust any of them at this point..I really did just do the PBS thing and felt cheeted out of makeing up my own mind..when they talk about oboma or any of his stuff its all positives, and if their was any difference of opinion, well, they were just stupid and unreasonable... By the same tokin, I have given up on the GOP, I dont think it is right to "change brands" they just needed a better candidate..I guess I have become an I, and I am searching for truth in all of th different forms of media..I still read everything from the NY post, wall street, I will glance the Huff Post, I still listen to PBS, but not exclusive.. just to see how the left views an event , that is if they say anything..the only fox I still catch is Bill O, the guy cracks me up.. I think the most fair news I have seen to this point is from the BBC, they are not afraid to say anything good or bad about the current admin..ad question both sides, not just pick on one..
I actually liked Fox during W's presidency. The news was positive, full of optimism. Stations like MSNBC were hugely negative and whiny, of course. Now that Obama's president, Fox is incredibly negative and whiny. MSNBC is still negative and whiny.
you like to be placated with rainbows and shiny objects too bad the world is a festering heap of genocide, disease, and discarded dance crazes
No. But there is no rule that only really bad news has to be covered. In 1985 when I moved from Chicago to California, WGN news was about house fires and aldermen throwing shoes at one another. 2 years later, we got WGN on cable and the news was slayings and body bags. What changed? I'm not looking for rainbows, etc. there really is good news to be told. Wal-Mart is hiring 100,000 veterans over the next two years. That's news but it's not as important as binders of women or Lance Armstrong.
Yeah, the news should totally be doing Wal-Mart's publicity for them AND continuing to ignore their role in the desiccation of American small (and medium) business.
Or you could be a dismissive douche about it. Wouldn't you say that the news of what Wal-Mart (not to mention monopoly capitalism in general) has done to American communities is pretty bad?
I think there's plenty of news about that. You know about it, after all. As do I. It doesn't change the fact they're hiring 100,000 veterans which is newsworthy.
Providing consumers with lower costs and more selection (ergo higher value) is hurting American communities? Schrumpeter called it "creative destruction". Small retail business are nice, but so are buggy whips. Those firms can compete on service or by specializing. They won't be able to compete on cost. On the whole, WalMart has been a huge wealth creator for this country.
I won't even argue this because I already know it's a fundamental difference in belief between us on whether or not the Progress of American Capitalism is the end-all-be-all measuring stick of society or not. It's not. To quote you, "Agree to disagree."
Perhaps it would be if the old capitalist adage "A rising tide raises all boats" were true. At this point I think it's fairly obvious that large box store operations like Wal-Mart and Target eliminating the majority of their non-mega-corporation competition and then moving the profits out of local economies does not, in fact, "improve overall wealth." It improves the wealth of a few while eliminating competition and replacing actual small business jobs that people once had with service sector wage slavery. Society is suffering while CEOs get rich. Not that that's a bad thing.
