I heard something like that from 2 different ‘news’ sources. One was Fox News and the other was PBS news. The PBS one was a lot less direct, but some rando who knew nothing about him could still take that message away. Zero mention of what he advocated for beyond challenging opinions on college campuses and mentioning he was a right wing influencer. They were playing up the think of the CEO’s family card just like they did with the UHC CEO. Oh and don’t forget the 247 (/s) random politicians who condemn political violence.
don’t forget the 247 (/s) random politicians who condemn political violence.
Okay. That’s just what they feel they have to do for appearances. Even the ones who actively wish for political violence (Trump) say that shit. No one should be surprised there.
Then that would be out of character for the network. No group of people is perfect. Which is seemingly what a lot of lemmings expect. They will always be disappointed.
I’ve been watching PBS, listening and donating to NPR, for decades. I don’t know if it’s me, but it seems in the past couple years they’ve bent over backwards to not seem partisan. Which has made their reporting and coverage somewhat lackluster. Still better than any option out there.
Why do you disbelieve me? Do you think that PBS news wouldn’t focus on the political beliefs of a political activist without actually mentioning what those beliefs are when eulogizing him? They talked about how he was big in the Maga movement and how he was close to trump, but they didn’t mention any of his horrible views that he got flack for. When you don’t mention what his actual horrible views were and instead focus on a bunch of politicians’ generic condemnation of political violence, It’s not exactly a stretch to think that a viewer could think he was killed for his opinions or his political stance. PBS didn’t say that directly, but they don’t have to for people to take that message away.
PBS is a respectable news source that I trust. Some internet rando is not.
Edit: I don’t care if any of you self righteous fake intellectuals hate PBS. But I do take satisfaction in seeing that there were replies from people I blocked in the past. I don’t have to waste my time reading takes designed to hurt my feelings and spread awful ideas.
Sorry to break it to you, but PBS Newshour is not immune to corporate and political bias, just because it is(was? Idk honestly) partially publicly funded. They have sponsors to please and viewers to pander to just like other stations. I do generally think they are better than most broadcast news but they are still biased towards a general pro-corporate sanitized viewpoint. If a CEO (or any important western figurehead) dies they aren’t going to focus on harms they did, they will focus on telling how they were such a great loving family man regardless of if it is true.
You already showed an arrogance and argumentativeness directed at a news source which is far more trustworthy than 99% of those that exist. I’m not arguing with yet another “perfect is the absolute enemy of good” types. You already told me what you believe about PBS and I’m not exerting further mental energy to try and change that. Be wrong, I don’t care.
I get that people only have a limited energy to engage with people they don’t know as our time is limited. Having said that I don’t believe I am wrong, since you’ve not even attempted to engage with what I said, and have instead chosen insults. If you do decide to care in the future, I would be open to conversing.
Edit Response:
I don’t hate PBS and I don’t want to hurt your feelings or spread bad ideas. I simply have the media literacy to understand that PBS is politically biased towards a corporate US ideology that is not above spreading propaganda to mislead viewers. As I said before, I do think it is better run than most broadcast stations, but I am still critical of it’s choices, since it is bad practice to blindly trust even ‘good’ new sources without being aware of their bias.
I heard something like that from 2 different ‘news’ sources. One was Fox News and the other was PBS news. The PBS one was a lot less direct, but some rando who knew nothing about him could still take that message away. Zero mention of what he advocated for beyond challenging opinions on college campuses and mentioning he was a right wing influencer. They were playing up the think of the CEO’s family card just like they did with the UHC CEO. Oh and don’t forget the 247 (/s) random politicians who condemn political violence.
Shocking
No, it wasn’t. Bullshit.
Okay. That’s just what they feel they have to do for appearances. Even the ones who actively wish for political violence (Trump) say that shit. No one should be surprised there.
I watched PBS news tonight as well, and what AndiHutch said was pretty much right on.
Then that would be out of character for the network. No group of people is perfect. Which is seemingly what a lot of lemmings expect. They will always be disappointed.
I’ve been watching PBS, listening and donating to NPR, for decades. I don’t know if it’s me, but it seems in the past couple years they’ve bent over backwards to not seem partisan. Which has made their reporting and coverage somewhat lackluster. Still better than any option out there.
Why do you disbelieve me? Do you think that PBS news wouldn’t focus on the political beliefs of a political activist without actually mentioning what those beliefs are when eulogizing him? They talked about how he was big in the Maga movement and how he was close to trump, but they didn’t mention any of his horrible views that he got flack for. When you don’t mention what his actual horrible views were and instead focus on a bunch of politicians’ generic condemnation of political violence, It’s not exactly a stretch to think that a viewer could think he was killed for his opinions or his political stance. PBS didn’t say that directly, but they don’t have to for people to take that message away.
PBS is a respectable news source that I trust. Some internet rando is not.
Edit: I don’t care if any of you self righteous fake intellectuals hate PBS. But I do take satisfaction in seeing that there were replies from people I blocked in the past. I don’t have to waste my time reading takes designed to hurt my feelings and spread awful ideas.
Sorry to break it to you, but PBS Newshour is not immune to corporate and political bias, just because it is(was? Idk honestly) partially publicly funded. They have sponsors to please and viewers to pander to just like other stations. I do generally think they are better than most broadcast news but they are still biased towards a general pro-corporate sanitized viewpoint. If a CEO (or any important western figurehead) dies they aren’t going to focus on harms they did, they will focus on telling how they were such a great loving family man regardless of if it is true.
Sounds like you don’t know much about PBS but confidently wanna mansplain it to me
If I’m wrong about something let me know instead of throwing out insults. No one knows everything.
You already showed an arrogance and argumentativeness directed at a news source which is far more trustworthy than 99% of those that exist. I’m not arguing with yet another “perfect is the absolute enemy of good” types. You already told me what you believe about PBS and I’m not exerting further mental energy to try and change that. Be wrong, I don’t care.
I get that people only have a limited energy to engage with people they don’t know as our time is limited. Having said that I don’t believe I am wrong, since you’ve not even attempted to engage with what I said, and have instead chosen insults. If you do decide to care in the future, I would be open to conversing.
Edit Response: I don’t hate PBS and I don’t want to hurt your feelings or spread bad ideas. I simply have the media literacy to understand that PBS is politically biased towards a corporate US ideology that is not above spreading propaganda to mislead viewers. As I said before, I do think it is better run than most broadcast stations, but I am still critical of it’s choices, since it is bad practice to blindly trust even ‘good’ new sources without being aware of their bias.
Sounds like a personal failing to me.