How the news treats Trump's diarrhea of the mouth vs. Gary Johnson's "aleppo moment"

I thought it was Chris Matthews, not Barnacle.<<<<

You're probably correct, I don't have "tv" ... so not up on the news "personalities".

No wake & bake for me these days unless it's a powder day & even then it's rare.

Mainstream media is corporate and most corporations tend to be conservative so the mainstream therefore must be at least slightly conservative<<<

There is certainly a truth to this in so far as how "corporate culture" by its very nature might permeate the "content" of said corporate activity.

However, are there not at least two significant different "political ideological markets" that demand "news"?

Interesting how you reach "conclusions" ned!

Can't I watch YouTube clips of the "news" without having to "subscribe" to a cable service?

I like your OCD diner threads better<<<

Speaking of which, I ate lunch at a resturant that placed silverware wrapped in a napkin in big container on the table.  I only needed a fork and already had a napkin, so I pulled the fork out of the bundle ... yet had to touch the knife in order to retrieve the fork from the entire "assembly" (which I placed back into the container on the table).  Would it be OK for the restaurant to simply "add" a new fork to the deficient silverware bundle, or would they be required to start from scratch (re-wash the knife and dispose of the napkin)?

Likewise, next time you use bulk silverware left on the table, think about "what could be".

Perhaps this is where my use of "linguistic descriptivism" via scare quotes wasn't "grounded" sufficiently to provide a conclusive interpretation.

Re: the delivery method, unfortunately I'm still on satellite internet ... so while I do consume media to an extent, it is not very extensive given that I can only download 15GB of data per month (and also rely on same connection for work).

In light of this, is it possible I'm a bit less "desensitized" to embedded biases than those who receive more regular exposure to the "news" (video)?  Maybe those who get their daily regular dose have become akin to frogs boiling in water on this count; whereas the incremental "drift" is more apparent to me?  Chris Matthews' "performance" with Gary Johnson seemed akin to a modern version of "A Current Affair".

If what I'm generally alluding re: media bias has even a small grain of truth, will net nuetrality getting steam rolled only serve to amplify the "messages" that special interests might be indirectly paying for?

I think Trump is one of the biggest con men of all time and part of the reason he rose to power is due to his ability to assess the political landscape very well.  I vehemently disagree with the notion that "news" is the enemy and believe his recent statements are entirely self serving, but at the same time I think he's on to something much more profound.   Strange how he's been able to flush out a lot of the undercurrents ... if only he applied his abilities in a positive / constructive manner for the collective.

Are you suggesting that they should have suppressed or not reported Gary Johnson's duh moment, or have been happy to get "the story"?<<<

I'm suggesting the interviewer (Chris Matthews) was antagonistic toward Gary Johnson (or any third party candidate that might serve as a "spoiler") from the get go.  Likewise, most of the major "news" outlets were ready and willing to run with the manufactured "caricature" they had managed to elicit / provoke.

Were "facts" important when Gary Johnson was asked to name his "favorite foreign leader", yet the resultant published "stories" -- widely circulated and parroted by millions -- was that Gary Johnson was "unable to name a foreign leader".  How does a bias toward conservatism or liberalism misconstrue fundamental understandings of the English language?  There was clearly a "pile on" mentality at play if you take step back and look at the facts.

I believe Gary Johnson (and Jill Stein) present an interesting "test case / study" re: how the press did or did not engage election stories with bias given the nearly unprecedented level of partisan bickering between the two major parties.  As you've alluded to, there's going to be naturally occurring inherent bias of one flavor or another from any given media source; however, what does it say when said source creates and turns on targets other than their "natural mortal enemies"?  IMO, it's because they've REALLY "dug in" for their team.

I'm hardly saying Gary Johnson would've been a great President (although would've been light years ahead of Trump), but in my estimation the "press" clearly had it out for him (and Jill Stein) and it was exhibited in a most palpable manner to those who weren't "invested" in their pick of the "lesser of two evils" ,,.. yet it went over the heads of most people because of the severe entrenchment (on either side).

I'd go so far as to say that media bias might have the potential to be more insidious than super pac's ... at least in so far as issues of "dependencies" go.  Even in spite of unfavorable SCOTUS rulings, it's possible we still might be able pull off meaningful campaign finance reform and eliminate specific blocks of funding by special interests, but the "mouthpiece" will always be operational given the nature of our culture.

I don't claim to have "super powers" -- any more than anyone else, but rather have simply had a chance to allow the "Matrix" to lose its power over me a bit here and there.  We all hold this "power".

((( take the red pill )))

maybe you should start with high speed internet?

i wouldn't want u to hurt yourself <<<<

I'm on our local broadband committee.  We've been at it for several years and would be more than happy to accept donations!