Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

[Ibanez]

I do not like national news, period. I watch local news and Maryland Farm and Harvest Report.

I can't stand the new ABC news format. Big stretch with no commercials, then 30 seconds of news sandwiched between 4 minutes of commercial/s at the end... when the have the stories you actually want to see.

Why the Farm and Harvest Report

[Bisonfanatical]

I don't see enough of MSNBC, but I would say CNN and Fox are the same, just diametrically opposed. And CNN was late to the game, any objectivity they had went out on Election night in 2016. I'm not sure Fox has ever been objective.

MSNBC has become the liberal version of Fox. CNN (US) tries to play off like they're neutral, but they're liberal and not fooling anyone. Of the TV networks, PBS/CSPAN/BBC are the most neutral.

I could agree with you mostly on cspan, however, since I disconnected cable I have come to realize that PBS is a very nefarious organization with a horrific liberal/one world agenda.
With a view like theirs, there should be no public funding.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

MSNBC has become the liberal version of Fox. CNN (US) tries to play off like they're neutral, but they're liberal and not fooling anyone. Of the TV networks, PBS/CSPAN/BBC are the most neutral.

I could agree with you mostly on cspan, however, since I disconnected cable I have come to realize that PBS is a very nefarious organization with a horrific liberal/one world agenda.
With a view like theirs, there should be no public funding.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

PBS and “nefarious” don’t really go together


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

I could agree with you mostly on cspan, however, since I disconnected cable I have come to realize that PBS is a very nefarious organization with a horrific liberal/one world agenda.
With a view like theirs, there should be no public funding.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

PBS and “nefarious” don’t really go together

He also doesn't realize that PBS is not a cable channel. And how does one realize it's "very nefarious" after cutting cable when the option to not watch it exists, unless it was the only channel:

[CID1990]

MSNBC has become the liberal version of Fox. CNN (US) tries to play off like they're neutral, but they're liberal and not fooling anyone. Of the TV networks, PBS/CSPAN/BBC are the most neutral.

I could agree with you mostly on cspan, however, since I disconnected cable I have come to realize that PBS is a very nefarious organization with a horrific liberal/one world agenda.
With a view like theirs, there should be no public funding.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

"nefarious" would carry more clout if PBS had a bigger viewership

as it is they are largely a speck in a vacuum

outside of Sesame Street it is over the heads of about 85% of Americans, blue or red


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bisonfanatical]

I could agree with you mostly on cspan, however, since I disconnected cable I have come to realize that PBS is a very nefarious organization with a horrific liberal/one world agenda.
With a view like theirs, there should be no public funding.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

PBS and “nefarious” don’t really go together


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess it depends if you view the world thru liberal eyes or conservative eyes.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

PBS and “nefarious” don’t really go together


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess it depends if you view the world thru liberal eyes or conservative eyes.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Or neither. I’d love to hear how PBS is “nefarious.” It’s probably that goddamn SC business minute or the Austin City Limits. I bet it’s Masterpiece Theater and Downton Abbey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bisonfanatical]

PBS and “nefarious” don’t really go together

He also doesn't realize that PBS is not a cable channel. And how does one realize it's "very nefarious" after cutting cable when the option to not watch it exists, unless it was the only channel:

If you don't have cable, you have a couple major channels and 4PBS channels. You can either watch PBS which includes many programs that are pro global, pro Muslim, pro minority, Anti conservative, or you can watch the other quality programming like Ellen degenerate, gerry springer, etc.

Watching news on PBS is like a continuous recycle of JSO and trump, it will turn you into that GIF you posted.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Bisonfanatical]

I could agree with you mostly on cspan, however, since I disconnected cable I have come to realize that PBS is a very nefarious organization with a horrific liberal/one world agenda.
With a view like theirs, there should be no public funding.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

"nefarious" would carry more clout if PBS had a bigger viewership

as it is they are largely a speck in a vacuum

outside of Sesame Street it is over the heads of about 85% of Americans, blue or red


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They have a definate leftist agenda that rivals main stream media.

It would be nice to view a news program that just covers the news. Some are more subtle than others.

Listening to fox is the right wing channel, and that is ok if you want right wing news. I just want middle of the road, non political news....

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Bisonfanatical]

I guess it depends if you view the world thru liberal eyes or conservative eyes.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Or neither. I’d love to hear how PBS is “nefarious.” It’s probably that goddamn SC business minute or the Austin City Limits. I bet it’s Masterpiece Theater and Downton Abbey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your posts show if you do or don't have a political view ... spin it your way

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[kalm]

"nefarious" would carry more clout if PBS had a bigger viewership

as it is they are largely a speck in a vacuum

outside of Sesame Street it is over the heads of about 85% of Americans, blue or red


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They have a definate leftist agenda that rivals main stream media.

It would be nice to view a news program that just covers the news. Some are more subtle than others.

Listening to fox is the right wing channel, and that is ok if you want right wing news. I just want middle of the road, non political news....

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Do they still air the BBC World News? IIRC that seemed dry and straight forward.

I’d also recommend Democracy Now.

[Ivytalk]

They have a definate leftist agenda that rivals main stream media.

It would be nice to view a news program that just covers the news. Some are more subtle than others.

Listening to fox is the right wing channel, and that is ok if you want right wing news. I just want middle of the road, non political news....

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Do they still air the BBC World News? IIRC that seemed dry and straight forward.

I’d also recommend Democracy Now.

I listen to BBC World News frequently. Great way to hear some young Oxford toff inform us of the latest political developments in East Bacchanalia, and the mating habits of the 3-toed sloth. Very entertaining.

[Ibanez]

Or neither. I’d love to hear how PBS is “nefarious.” It’s probably that goddamn SC business minute or the Austin City Limits. I bet it’s Masterpiece Theater and Downton Abbey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your posts show if you do or don't have a political view ... spin it your way

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Come on, buddy. You made the claim now back it up. I believe I've stated that there is a slight left lean to their reporting, but that 1) doesn't make it "nefarious" and; 2) doesn't make PBS rival anything mainstream.

So what the fuck is it? Can you defend your claim that PBS is on par with CNN Or MSNBC?

Or is this your own, biased research where you ignore anything that doesn't conform to your views?

You report, I'll decide.

[Ibanez]

"nefarious" would carry more clout if PBS had a bigger viewership

as it is they are largely a speck in a vacuum

outside of Sesame Street it is over the heads of about 85% of Americans, blue or red


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They have a definate leftist agenda that rivals main stream media.

It would be nice to view a news program that just covers the news. Some are more subtle than others.

Listening to fox is the right wing channel, and that is ok if you want right wing news. I just want middle of the road, non political news....

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

So...who do you listen to? Every media outlet has a bias. Even those close to the center...like PBS or Reuters.

[Ibanez]

I could agree with you mostly on cspan, however, since I disconnected cable I have come to realize that PBS is a very nefarious organization with a horrific liberal/one world agenda.
With a view like theirs, there should be no public funding.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

"nefarious" would carry more clout if PBS had a bigger viewership

as it is they are largely a speck in a vacuum

outside of Sesame Street it is over the heads of about 85% of Americans, blue or red


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pbs-news-hour/

I think Nefarious is on the outer edges..

[∞∞∞]

Why are we tiptoeing around?

Stations are partially funded by the federal government, thus BF finds it "nefarious."

[Bisonfanatical]

Your posts show if you do or don't have a political view ... spin it your way

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Come on, buddy. You made the claim now back it up. I believe I've stated that there is a slight left lean to their reporting, but that 1) doesn't make it "nefarious" and; 2) doesn't make PBS rival anything mainstream.

So what the **** is it? Can you defend your claim that PBS is on par with CNN Or MSNBC?

Or is this your own, biased research where you ignore anything that doesn't conform to your views?

You report, I'll decide.

https://www​.merriam-webster.com/.../...
Villainous applies to any evil, depraved, or vile conduct or characteristic, while nefarious (which derives from the Latin noun nefas, meaning "crime") suggests flagrant breaching of time-honored laws and traditions of conduct.

As you can see, it depends on what your political view is, pro Muslim, pro gay, pro trans, pro socislist, pro left, Anti right, to you is slightly left, to a conservative in his 60s, as defined by the definition pasted above ... it is nefarious.

As for my research, words have meanings an I am going to challange people who are rooted in ideologies. Whether it is religious or political, people need to think for themselves and not just be someone's political or religious shill, parroting nonsense instead of promoting their own well thought out ideas.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Bisonfanatical]

They have a definate leftist agenda that rivals main stream media.

It would be nice to view a news program that just covers the news. Some are more subtle than others.

Listening to fox is the right wing channel, and that is ok if you want right wing news. I just want middle of the road, non political news....

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

So...who do you listen to? Every media outlet has a bias. Even those close to the center...like PBS or Reuters.

I listen to the same outlets as you I am sure, for as long as I can stand the views. Sometimes they promote news and I listen, sometimes they promote views and I flip the channel.

PBS programing is better in the evening than it is through the day. I am recovering from a surgery and have been watching PBS programming thru the day that I rarely see at night. It leaves a lot to be desired.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Do they still air the BBC World News? IIRC that seemed dry and straight forward.

I’d also recommend Democracy Now.

I listen to BBC World News frequently. Great way to hear some young Oxford toff inform us of the latest political developments in East Bacchanalia, and the mating habits of the 3-toed sloth. Very entertaining.

IT you might be the only other person I've known to use 3-toed sloth in a statement.

[Bisonfanatical]

Why are we tiptoeing around?

Stations are partially funded by the federal government, thus BF finds it "nefarious."

Speaking of well thought out and researched views.

Lmao

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Do they still air the BBC World News? IIRC that seemed dry and straight forward.

I’d also recommend Democracy Now.

I listen to BBC World News frequently. Great way to hear some young Oxford toff inform us of the latest political developments in East Bacchanalia, and the mating habits of the 3-toed sloth. Very entertaining.

Hi Ivy! There is way to little smarm around this place when you're not here.

[kalm]

Ivytalk wrote:

* too

Yes!

[Ibanez]

Come on, buddy. You made the claim now back it up. I believe I've stated that there is a slight left lean to their reporting, but that 1) doesn't make it "nefarious" and; 2) doesn't make PBS rival anything mainstream.

So what the **** is it? Can you defend your claim that PBS is on par with CNN Or MSNBC?

Or is this your own, biased research where you ignore anything that doesn't conform to your views?

You report, I'll decide.

https://www​.merriam-webster.com/.../...
Villainous applies to any evil, depraved, or vile conduct or characteristic, while nefarious (which derives from the Latin noun nefas, meaning "crime") suggests flagrant breaching of time-honored laws and traditions of conduct.

As you can see, it depends on what your political view is, pro Muslim, pro gay, pro trans, pro socislist, pro left, Anti right, to you is slightly left, to a conservative in his 60s, as defined by the definition pasted above ... it is nefarious.

As for my research, words have meanings an I am going to challange people who are rooted in ideologies. Whether it is religious or political, people need to think for themselves and not just be someone's political or religious shill, parroting nonsense instead of promoting their own well thought out ideas.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

It's obvious that you are too biased to be objective. We learned this in the religion thread. PBS is hardly "nefarious"...


And i'm right of center if anything.


But you didn't answer the question - who or what news agency do you listen to? I'm sure they're nefarious in their own right.

[kalm]

https://www​.merriam-webster.com/.../...
Villainous applies to any evil, depraved, or vile conduct or characteristic, while nefarious (which derives from the Latin noun nefas, meaning "crime") suggests flagrant breaching of time-honored laws and traditions of conduct.

As you can see, it depends on what your political view is, pro Muslim, pro gay, pro trans, pro socislist, pro left, Anti right, to you is slightly left, to a conservative in his 60s, as defined by the definition pasted above ... it is nefarious.

No it isn't. It's the wrong word.

I hope the muslims, gays, trans, socialists all do well and improve as human beings. You should too, after all there are literally billions of them and we're probably going to have to continue sharing the planet with them.



You got caught and can't admit it.

[∞∞∞]

Why are we tiptoeing around?

Stations are partially funded by the federal government, thus BF finds it "nefarious."

Speaking of well thought out and researched views.

You're a con which hates leftist-ideologies and espouses some odd shit about being a non-conformist. You pretend to value facts, yet when facts don't fit your world-view, they become an issue.

So stop pretending to have some grand outsider's perspective of the world. You're a conservative; I'm a liberal; others here are moderates. The rest of this BSing around is unnecessary.