thought this was 196 for a second
Washington Examiner - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Washington Examiner:
MBFC: Right - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
why do i feel like harris really doesnt give a shit, but knows orange turd wants the mics hot? a little reverse psychology on the manchild…
Does nobody remember her 2020 debate with Pence?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tXFqTGBty1w
She shut him down like the whining child he is.
Could also be that she’s looking for a chance to say “I’m speaking” again.
Orange turd says he doesn’t care, but cold is what he agreed to with a completely different candidate so Harris should be held to that.
Orange turd’s handlers do not want their manchild anywhere near a live mic.
He may not always be near it. Remember him creepily walking behind Clinton during one of their debates.
I am positive that if trump pushes back, they will happily have closed mics, but then when he’s cut off, and complains, they will blame him.
I also thibinthey are just messing with him when she does not care.
As you said, that agreement was made with someone else, but they tried to hold Trump to the agreement of when and where, based on the same agreement. He just can’t call out double standards as its his only mode of action.
Isn’t Harris the one that wants the mics live? Trump’s handlers want them cut to reduce his stupidity/self-incrimination
“The Washington Examiner is an American conservative news outlet based in Washington, D.C., that consists principally of a website and a weekly printed magazine. It is owned by Philip Anschutz through MediaDC, a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group.”
Not sure what that has to do with the article.
Do you post the history of every news organization that lists pro-democrat articles as well?
You realize that this political news community is not only for posting pro-Democratic Party news, right? Were you under the impression that only pro-democratic party news was allowed?
This community celebrates diversity of thoughts and opinions.
If you feel that this news article, or that the news organization that it comes from, break the rules of this community, please contact the mods and let your thoughts be known.
Pointing out a source’s bias is completely reasonable. There’s literally a bot doing it using MBFC already. I already know that the Washington Examiner is a conservative rag, but others might not. It’s perfectly within bounds to include that in the discussion of the post.
If anything, it’s kind of weird how defensive you got when someone pointed it out.
Pointing out a source’s bias is completely reasonable. There’s literally a bot doing it using MBFC already. I already know that the Washington Examiner is a conservative rag, but others might not. It’s perfectly within bounds to include that in the discussion of the post.
Ok, and do you do that for the pro-democrat articles? I mean, since you are being so fair and all.
If anything, it’s kind of weird how defensive you got when someone pointed it out.
I’m not defensive, as I didn’t write the article, nor do I work for that news org.
It’s just that I noticed that you don’t do it for pro-democrat articles, but maybe i missed where you have.
So have you been doing it for the news orgs that skew pro-democrat bias? Because you do realize that media bias goes both directions, right? You know, since it’s “It’s perfectly within bounds to include that in the discussion” of posts and all.
And again, this is a political news community, not just a pro-democrat/pro-harris political community.
He’s free to discuss this article any way that he thinks is interesting. Just because he found it helpful to point out the bias in this case doesn’t obligate him to do it in any other cases. He doesn’t owe you anything.
Also, responding to someone noting the reputation of your source with what amounts to "ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF BREAKING THE RULES? ARE YOU SAYING CONSERVATIVE LEANING SOURCES ARE ILLEGAL?” is basically the textbook definition of a wildly defensive response lmao.
He’s free to discuss this article any way that he thinks is interesting. Just because he found it helpful to point out the bias in this case
Agreed. He’s totally free to do that.
And I’m free to let him know that I didn’t think it really added to the conversation. Which I did.
So you would you be totally cool with me going down every single pro-harris article and giving a brief history of how that news org leans democrat?
How long do you think I could do that before being accused of being a troll?
Should we list the bias of every news org for every article? Or just the ones you all don’t like? Cuz I’m cool with doing that if you are.
Go for it
K, and I’ll be sure to put links to this conversation so that everyone knows that you thought this was an awesome idea too!
“I’m not defensive…”
Oh yeah, totally can tell from your normal and not weirdly defensive responses. /s
What part of anything I said seemed “weirdly defensive” to you?
I mean …sort of all of it (“Do you post the history of every news organization that lists pro-democrat articles as well?”) and the quantity as well. It’s pretty obvious you have no chill and freak out constantly in the comments. Must be exhausting.
So let me get this straight. A guy decided to post a history of the news org wrote the news article that I posted.
I told him I thought was a strange response. He replied that he felt it was a biased news source and wanted to let everyone know.
And I asked him if he did that for other articles as well. And you think me asking that is “weirdly defensive”?
It’s pretty obvious you have no chill and freak out constantly in the comments
Please show me one “freak out” that I have had? I reply to comments with the same tone that is offered to me. And many times, in a much nicer tone than is offered to me.
Several comments that people have said to me have been removed, while mine have not. Doesn’t sound like the freak out is on my side.
I’m not freak out at all or even upset by commenters on Lemmy. This is zero affect on my real life.
You seem to know an awful lot about my comments and my so-called “freak outs.” Maybe you are reading a bit much into it, friend.
Maybe you mistake my wordiness for freaking out. I type fast because I’m a writer. None of this takes up much of my time, nor troubles me.
Let me guess tho: I’ve been very wordy in my response to you. So this is yet another example of my “weird defensiveness” and “freaking out.” Yes?
