I recently spoke on the changes in American media during the Trump years. While I continue to be critical of Donald Trump attacks on the media, I also criticized what I view as consistently biased reporting on some networks. CNN was a focus of some of those criticism even though I have many friends at the network and view some of its reporters to be extraordinary journalists. As I was about to fly home, however, I saw a program that summed up my concerns in journalism in the age of echo-chamber news. It was part of John Avlon’s Reality Check series which looked at the elimination of the deduction for the state and local (SALT) taxes under the recent the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA). Not once in the segment did CNN mention the long-standing economic and policy objections to the SALT deductions. Instead, the entire segment framed the change as penalizing states and voters who did not support Trump. It was wildly unfair and incomplete on the issue and seemed calculated to enrage rather than inform.
The distorted account was set up from the first line of introduction with CNN host Ana Cabrera saying “The old saying goes only two things are certain in life, death and taxes. But you can add a third certainty to that list. Blue states that did not vote for Trump are going to pay more in taxes.”
Avlon then stated “we can expect the tax code to be fair. This year, not so much. Because whether you see your taxes go up or down will depend if you live in a red state or blue state. That’s by design.” He explained correctly that many blue states that did not vote for Trump were hit hard by the elimination of SALT – an issue that we previously discussed. However, rather than noting that many economists and experts were critical of the SALT deduction as effectively subsidizing the high taxes in states like New York, CNN portrayed the change as nothing but vindictive and petty politics.
Avlon then declared:
“AVLON: Guess who does even better under Trump’s tax code? Trump’s own commercial real estate industry. The same industry that Jared Kushner’s company bought a white-elephant of a building at a record price before the market crashed, nearly defaulted on a $1 billion loan and is still worth around $300 million and paid little or no federal income taxes for at least seven years. The loopholes are wider and shelter income easier than ever before. As for the rest of us? Only 17 percent of taxpayers say they expect to see a tax cut this year.
President Nixon said never make this popular but we can make it fair. But with a politically weaponized tax code that punishes blue states, President Trump seems to have failed at both.”
The fact is that some of us who were hardest hit by the elimination of SALT have long recognized the arguments against it as good-faith objections to an effective federal subsidy for high tax states. Texas, California, and other jurisdiction continued to raise taxes while noting that their citizens should simply reduce their federal taxes by the same amount. It became funny money and effectively required low tax states to subsidize the programs and budgets of high-tax states.
State and local taxes have been deductible since the inception of the federal income tax in 1913. CNN did not mention that less than one-third of tax filers itemized deductions on their federal income tax returns and most of the beneficiaries are in the wealthier brackets. Moreover, not surprising, those states with low or lean budgets ended up subsidizing the high tax states. For example, only 17 percent in South Dakota filed for such deductions while 46 percent did so in Maryland in 2016.
So what happened with the elimination? Suddenly New York politicians had to justify their budgets and cut programs for lack of state funds. In other words, rather than support their budgets themselves, states like New York cut programs when the full and true burden was shouldered by the state.
One can honestly object to the elimination of SALT. I have read some compelling arguments against the change and I respect those views. Indeed, it would have been interesting to see a fair segment that explored the debate over tax policy. However, this a long-standing debate with economics not politics at its core. The timing before tax day seemed calculated to trigger animus against Trump and, stripped of its context and history, most would be outraged by the use of tax policy for raw political retaliation.
There was a time when such a one-sided and distorted account would have raised objections from journalistic figures or groups. Now, it is merely par for the course as journalism becomes raw advocacy.
I hold no brief for Trump, who I have regularly criticized. However, the media at times seems eager to fulfill the stereotype that he has painted of a political agenda in the media. That does not justify his attacks but the raw biased shown in such segments only strengthen the arguments of Trump supporters that American media is “fake news” or that media figures have become active players in the “resistance movement.”
61 thoughts on “This is CNN? Coverage Of Tax Change Highlights New Advocacy Journalism”
I don’t know that this qualifies as new, professor; Lockheed, Raytheon, BAE,et al don’t run ads on cable news networks because they want to sell you a bomber. There isn’t a single person on Earth who isn’t already aware that boner pills exist. When CNN pushes war, defense contractors buy ads. Same thing happens with health care issues & the relevant companies.
Everyone involved will deny it’s a quid pro quo, and it’d be next to impossible to prove a connection, but they’re payoffs and everyone knows it. Cable news networks are voter-lobbying firms. They push whichever option benefits their biggest advertisers.
It’s impossible to defend national media such as CNN from charges of being “fake news” when they manipulate their viewers as nakedly as Russian bots.
The right response to accusations of being “fake news” is the prove the accusations wrong, not double down on partisan advocacy.
Every time it seems CNN has hit bottom in objectivity and journalistic ethics, it descends to new, unexplored depths.
California Agricultural Production Statistics
2017 Crop Year — Top 10 Commodities for California Agriculture
In 2017, California’s farms and ranches received over $50 billion in cash receipts for their output. This represents an increase of almost 6 percent compared to 2016 1.
California’s agricultural abundance includes more than 400 commodities. Over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts are grown in California. California is the leading US state for cash farm receipts, accounting for over 13 percent of the nation’s total agricultural value.
The top producing commodities for 2017 include:
* Dairy Products, Milk — $6.56 billion
* Grapes — $5.79 billion
* Almonds — $5.60 billion
* Strawberries — $3.10 billion
* Cattle and Calves — $2.53 billion
* Lettuce — $2.41 billion
* Walnuts — $1.59 billion
* Tomatoes — $1.05 billion
* Pistachios — $1.01 billion
* Broilers — $939 million
California agricultural exports totaled $20.56 billion for 2017. Top commodities for export in 2017 included almonds, dairy and dairy products, pistachios, wine and walnuts. Export statistics are produced by the University of California, Davis, Agricultural Issues Center.
Note: For most recent agricultural statistics, please use the links on the right side of this page to query the USDA Economic Research Service data as well as the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. For detailed county-level data please follow the links on the right or visit the CDFA County Liaison pages.
Please click on an annual crop year report cover below to view the full report.
Good for them, pay your taxes like every other state.
Jim, look above. It seems that ‘ Dennis Hanna’ is answering your question.
No, Dennis Hanna is posting random production data.
Hi Dennis – I am not clear why you posted about CA agriculture without explanation? Were you going to discuss the water wars? The war against Almond Growers? Moves to tax bovine flatulence? Capping farmers wells for some crops while allowing pot cultivation?
You forgot to include garlic, which is big in CA.
I have friends and family who are farmers and ranchers. It is not clear what you are getting at…
Might also talk about plans to divert the Colorado River to make all that abundance possible, something that makes actual drought-stricken Coloradans understandably concerned.
This! Is CNN!!!!
CNN’s Sam Vinograd: Yes, Obama also separated families at the border, but when he did it, it was “for their own protection.” pic.twitter.com/q9ZGailOX3
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) April 9, 2019
CABLE NETWORKS ARE NOT GOOD SOURCES OF NEWS
Anyone expecting cable news networks to adequately cover every aspect of an issue is going to be disappointed. For this one reason I get NONE of my news from cable. In the world of cable news, commercial breaks come first. There’s never enough time to thoroughly dissect an issue.
And anyone who thinks empty states like South Dakota have the same needs as the most densely populated states is not connected to reality. America’s economic productivity is disproportionately based in major metro areas. To argue that residents of those areas were getting ‘breaks’ at the expense of empty states is turning logic on its head.
Peter, do you know where food comes from?
All states should pay the taxes they set up. It’s pretty simple. Complicating by using deductions is the problem. It NY wants to build a big city, they should fund it, no one else.
“And anyone who thinks empty states like South Dakota have the same needs as the most densely populated states is not connected to reality.”
Who said South Dakota would have exactly the same needs as any other state? The entire premise behind the Electoral College is so disparate states have a say in the Presidential election.
Are you saying that South Dakota should support SALT because a lot of people live in CA and NY, and because they voluntarily enact higher taxes? That is taxation without representation.
CA and NY have access to Medicare/Medical and Social Security benefits for their retirees. They are not denied anything they are entitled to. When a hurricane hit NY and New Jersey, they received FEMA aid just like the midwest will receive now. The poor in CA and NY receive Welfare benefits, just as they would anywhere else.
That is what you do not understand. There are no benefits that CA and NY are denied. Their citizens are entitled to the same federal benefits as those who reside in any other state. Also, as explained below, when you divide federal spending on a per capita basis, then blue states actually receive more federal funding.
None of this matters, however, if blue states receive more funding, if it’s FEMA, or Medicare, or any of the other programs that are available to all. You seem to be repeating a talking point that you do not fully understand.
The “break” you are referring to is the reduction of the federal tax due by an equal amount of state tax. That is a deduction. It is not fair that wealthy elites subsidize their state tax at the expense of the federal government.
Karen, that deduction was crucial to single digit millionaires. People worth $2 million, for instance. They are the upper middle class of big blue state cities.
Technically they’re millionaires but they still have to work. And they spend huge amounts of money on their children’s education.
Big blue state cities have an interest in maintaining upper middle class professionals. And one could argue the whole country benefits. We don’t want our biggest cities having gaps in wealth.
With no upper-middle class our cites could rot. That’s no benefit to America. We don’t want New York and Washington going back to the 70’s in terms of urban blight. But that is a possible consequence of these deductions being discarded.
It’s just Trump being petty and vindictive. Turning on the city that subsidized his career. If Trump turns on New York City he’ll turn on anyone.
P Hill – so, basically, you are arguing that there are dire consequences for high taxes It could destroy the upper middle class, as you say.
That is exactly the reason why I have argued against the high taxes of CA. However, Gov Brown and Newsom have both argued that the exodus from CA has nothing to do with high taxes. They have promoted the idea that people do not change their behavior when taxes go up or the cost of living goes up. The golden goose will just continue to lay.
I am in complete agreement with you that high taxes hurt the lower echelons of the rich the most. The rich are not my enemy.
CA politicians’ thirst for more taxpayer money to spend seems insatiable. The slow speed vacation train to San Francisco is projected to cost upwards of $75 billion, and will have such a low ridership that it will need to be subsidized into perpetuity. The waste of taxpayer money is absolutely breathtaking. Nothing seems to get through to the politicians in power, however.
And yet, the same people who have a limitless capacity to raise taxes and gas taxes, and even a drinking water tax, are shocked…gobsmacked…that Trump would dare take away a federal deduction for the rich and upper middle class to write off state taxes. In effect, it softens the blow of their high taxes. While engaging in class warfare, using the rhetoric that the rich don’t pay their fare share, they on the other hand acknowledge that it would be highly detrimental to damage the upper middle class and the rich. That is because CA hangs by a thread from the very people despised in political rhetoric.
The solution is to lower taxes, and triage spending to needs, and then wants with what is left over. Taxpayer money does not grow on a money tree to shake harder when you need more money.
On the one hand, Democrat polititicians howl if there is ever any tax relief suggested for the rich. But they howled when Trump took away a deduction for the rich. They do seem a bit conflicted.
Karen, you’re going broad. I’m talking about cities here. You’re talking about states. You’re talking about California in particular; seeking to make a general rant against ‘big spending liberals’.
But again I am talking cities; some of our biggest Metro areas. New York, L.A. Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, Boston, Denver, Seattle and San Francisco to name of few. Most are in blue states or blue-leaning states.
Those cities in particular are known for expensive housing. Even small time millionaires are making big investments. We want an urban middle class inhabiting those cities. That’s common sense.
Most of those cities suffered big declines in the postwar era. Those declines were driven by a middle class exodus. For years the downtowns in those cities were plagued by urban blight.
But there came a point, in the 1990’s, when those cities made robust comebacks. And those comebacks were largely driven by educated professionals. They were re-habbing old houses and converting loft spaces. All that investment was good for the cities.
All that investment was good for Donald Trump. New York achieved an amazing comeback in the 1990’s and 2000’s. That comeback made Donald Trump richer than his father ever was.
So this idea that we need to bleed those urban professionals is stupid and vindictive. Like Donald Trump! It’s a spiteful, polarizing mentality. Like we have to make politics as mean as possible.
As though our biggest cities have no greater needs than empty states on the prairie.
Peter – believe me, I know the high cost of living in areas of CA.
When you raise taxes, you reduce income available for rent. CA on the one hand has passed multiple gas taxes, road diets that deliberately cause hours’ long traffic congestion, and therefor exponentially increases pollution and gas usage, is contemplating a drinking water tax, and has consistently raised taxes.
CA politicians are outraged at the removal of a tax deduction for state taxes, by Trump, for the rich and upper middle class.
Meanwhile, there are more high taxes in the pipeline.
You would think if they were concerned about the loss of a tax deduction, they would stop increasing taxes. Live within their means. Triage spending. Or, even lower taxes, so that people would have an easier time staring and running a business.
But no, they complain about the impact of high taxes, while passing more of them.
It makes no sense.
Also, please understand that the Electoral College is fair to all states. They all get a say, regardless of the size of their state budget. I hope one day you really think about this, and understand the consequences of disenfranchising 48 states. Can you imagine what woudl happen to those Other 48? A President could dump anything he wanted there, and it wouldn’t matter to him or his re-election chances. It woudl be tyranny.
-Let’s say a middle income (for California) family of 4 owns a modest ( for California) $300,000 house.
And the family income is $100,000 a year.
Can you give a rough estimate of the total amount that family would pay a year in property taxes and State Income taxes?
Would they be impacted by not being able to deduct more than the $10,000 of proper/CA.state income taxes from their federal taxes?
Comparison of property taxes in Los Angeles counties:
Explanation of SALT cap:
People with incomes over $100,000 will be affected. How much depends upon their itemized deductions.
Entering married, $100,000, zip code 91303 (Canoga Park) = no, they would not be affected. They would fall under the $10,000 cap.
You can enter various incomes for a general idea of taxes. It is a ballpark – the real figure depends upon deductions.
If you earn $1 million in wages, then your effective tax rate is 42.36%, and you would be affected by the $10,000 cap. Your state taxes would be $93,907, and you could only write off $10,000.
There is very little journalistic integrity nowadays.
Activist journalists are blatantly trying to affect voting behavior with misleading or biased reporting.
What a croc.
Turley is factually wrong when he claims other states were subsidizing California, New York, New Jersey, etc. Those states are and have been net federal tax givers subsidizing many tax taking red states. The taxes which had been deducted largely went to services these red states ignore while relying on the feds to make up.
No state should be deducting the taxes. It’s quite simple.
I guess he resents that retirees and Snowbirds in FL collect the Social Security and Medicare they paid into over a lifetime? Or maybe he resents the poor in West Virginia being on Welfare?
Or perhaps he expects the farmers and ranchers currently underwater in Nebraska, digging dead calves out of snowbanks and fetid pools to subsidize the high taxes of Hollywood.
After the massive flooding in Nebraska, a lot of ranchers are just done. There has never been a high profit margin. People who expect their food to be available in wondrous variety in the grocery store don’t understand the thread by which farms operate. All it takes is a run of bad weather or drought, and your year’s income is wiped out.
States are responsible for the consequences of their own state taxes. It is not the rest of the country’s problem. Insisting that the rest of the country subsidize high taxes in NY and CA is essentially taxation without representation. I think the nation already made its feelings known quite clearly on this matter.
NY and CA are federal tax givers, not takers, which are mostly red states. No one is subsidizing them.
Thanks for the talking points. It’s been an education.
But you can’t prove that statement without fudging the figures. California for example does not count the federal funds used to fight forest fires and collpasing dams.
Or to fund the slow speed vacation train to San Francisco…
Anon – we’ve been through this.
Retirees leave high tax states, like CA, and go to FL. FL should not be considered a “taker” because it receives more Social Security and Medicare funding. CA should not be considered a tax giver, because its coastal elites are wealthy and pay more income taxes than, say, the struggling farmers of the Midwest.
The Midwest agriculture belt benefits from farm subsidies. One can argue for or against farm subsidies, but unless you want to plow under all those million dollar mansions in CA and use the land to feed the country, then don’t blame the Midwest for having less population density because they are feeding the country with their farms and ranches. No kidding, there are less people, and therefore less federal revenue, in Montana, Wyoming, and Kansas.
Unless you want to do away with a progressive tax, and have the poor pay more total dollar amount in taxes than the rich, then states with elite colonies in Hollywood and Silicon Valley will pay more in income tax.
In addition, this oft-repeated, misleading meme fails to take into account CA still trying to ram through a $75 billion boondoggle vacation train to San Francisco, which will consume quite a bit of federal tax dollars.
When CA eventually chases Silicon Valley and Hollywood out of the state with high taxes, then the extreme poverty in the rest of the state’s population will overwhelm taxpayers, and then CA, according to the Left, will finally get it’s fair share and be a net taker.
The whole tax giver or taker is a nonsensical argument used for propaganda. CA is not entitled to force retirees in FL or farmers in Nebraska subsidize the high taxes they keep voting for. If CA wants to waste taxpayer money and figure the sky’s the limit on taxing, that’s their problem, not those in Kansas making ends meet.
The SS money sent to Florida is spent in that states economy and provides an economic boost. I understand that it is uncomfortable to your narrative to admit that the bluest states prop up the most of the red states with federal taxes, but that is not a meme, it’s a fact.
Bullet trains and other state and local issues are irrelevant unless they change that fact.
Care to address any of my points?
Retirees pay into Social Security their entire lives. Since it is a bit of a Ponzi Scheme, it relies on current payments to pay benefits for retirees. However, those retirees paid into that system for the entirety of their working career. They are in no way “propped up” by CA and NY. They are withdrawing the benefits that they paid for.
Are you also implying that when people have money, such as retirees with their SS checks, they spend it and boost the economy? I thought you subscribed to the propaganda criticizing such economic movement as “Trickle Down Economics”? That sounds a lot like an argument for lower taxes.
The red state takers, blue state givers, is very misleading, as it requires a comparison of the percentage of a state’s budget. Blue states budgets are quite a bit larger than that of red states, amplifying the result.
When you compare federal spending per capita, the results are reversed. Blue states are actually takers, and red states are givers.
“Of the ten states with the lowest percentage of funds coming from Washington, three are red, six are blue, and one is purple. The state with by far the lowest level of federal subsidization was the deeply red state of North Dakota. The highest ten included eight red states, but also two blue states: Oregon and New Mexico. (DC and Puerto Rico are excluded from these calculations because their relationships with the federal government are different than if they were states.)”
“A problem with this metric is that although federal funds make up a larger percentage of red states’ state budgets, the budgets in those states are generally lower overall than those of the free-spending blue states. If, instead of comparing federal funds to state budgets, we look at how much the federal government spends in intergovernmental grants per resident of a state, the results are turned on their heads.
Against a national average of $1,935 in intergovernmental spending per American, red states receive just $1,879. Blue states get considerably more, at $2,124 per resident. Purple states see the least of their money returned to them per capita, at just $1,770. Measured in this way, the blue states are getting quite a bit more than the red or purple.”
Funny. In his acrobatics to counter an inconvenient truth for “conservatives”, he de-connects federal taxes collected from those spent in the various states, which of course is the definition of givers and takers.
State budgets are immaterial to how much in federal taxes each state pays and collects, and SS money is mostly spent in the state where they are mailed. Hate to wake you up, but the amounts paid out are on average more than those withheld from recipients.
That is why spending was broken down per capita, while your assertion is based on the state budget.
“State budgets” have nothing to do with measuring what states are federal tax donors and which are federal tax sinks.
And yet, the figure you keep repeating is based off of a comparison of state budgets. Were you not aware?
When you compare per capita, then blue states are “takers” and red states are “givers.”
Turley wrote: It was wildly unfair and incomplete on the issue and seemed calculated to enrage rather than inform.”
This is CNN’s current business model.
Will CNN still have an audience after Trump is out of office? Hmmm….
This is fair comment, but does fail to recognize a couple of points. First, the GOP made no bones about the fact that by limiting SALT deductions they would (gleefully) be sticking it to Blue states. Second, the proponents of the tax bill fail to recognize or appreciate an uncomfortable fact: many of the Red states’ representatives who are happy to add burdens to Blue state taxpayers are aso happy to accept the much higher return on their Federal tax dollar than is paid in, when compared to New York, California, New Jersey, etc. There has long been a reverse federal benefits subsidy in place benefiting the lower income, traditionally GOP dominated states. Third, the higher taxed Blue states take better care of their own citizens heath and education better than do the lower-taxed Red states, explaining why the Red states are more dependent on Federal benefits than are the Blue states.
are happy to add burdens to Blue state taxpayers are aso happy to accept the much higher return on their Federal tax dollar than is paid in, when compared to New York, California, New Jersey, etc.
They’re also happy to accept the dubious accounting and even more dubious conceptual thinking which goes into talking points like this.
CNN isn’t news; it’s Democrat propaganda and, as such, should not enjoy the unearned privilege of protection under the 1st Amendment.
Frankly, the majority of CNN’s employees should be arrested for Seditious Conspiracy and the courts allowed to determine if their rhetoric qualified as conspiring to the use of force.
Prof Turley is no doubt sharper then I in many areas.
Aside from that I would like to know how much these old media properties like CNN have or are currently receiving from the US Taxpayer to spread BS political Propaganda.
Also how much money or inkind consideration, if any, has Prof Turley received?
CNN & some of these other old media outfits should be forced to register as Foreign Agents & constantly forced to remind the gen. public of their status as such.
( Just one piece to the US govt propaganda system below)
But on the topic of Taxes,
I would’ve thought on 4/15 a Constitutional Lawyer Professor would have spent his time better explaining why the 1913 Income Tax system of Direct Taxes is Unconstitutional.
How was it the USA survived from 1776 to 1913 without this current IRS system?
How is it this govt continues to be allowed, by the people, use this IRS system to violate most every one of the first 10 Amendments to the USC?
AKA: No free speech, stealing the people’s property/papers/threatening their freedom, no 5th Amendment…….etc…
A song sung on Fox about CNN:
“… we got no neck oil men in Texas…
Good old boys from Tennessee…
Down here we’re too retarded to realize…
Trump has set the media free!
We’re Rednecks, Rednecks!
We don’t our arse from a hole in the ground…
C N N, C N N.. we are keeping the real truth down!”
You’re fast becoming a hero of the Tr-mp right. Congrats. SALT deduction (not a credit) has been around for over 100 years. Republicans explicitly admitted they were aiming its elimination at blue states. Apparently, you have no problem weaponizing the tax code and further dividing the country.
Apparently, you have no problem weaponizing the tax code and further dividing the country.
Apparently, you have had no problem with the tax code having been weaponized for the last 100 years, dividing this country.
The federal government has been subsidizing taxpayers who live in high tax state and local municipalities. This has allowed those states and cities to tax and spend at will knowing their constituents won’t feel the impact of irresponsible policies and programs in the same way they would if they saw an impact in their households.
So now SALT has limits that force politicians to stop dangling subsidies (freebies) for votes. Oh, what a horror for these politicians that have been thrust into having to actually consider the financial impact of state and local policies and programs.
Correct, and I live in NY. As much as I dislike AOC, I have to agree with her a little on the Amazon thing, I don’t believe in giving tax breaks to some business’. This to me is where the feds should step in and tell the states, your tax rate is your tax rate for everyone.
I agree as well.
I find the hypocrisy from the Left and Liberals indicative only of their lack of intelligence. Democrats yell everyday to TAX the RICH. Democrats everyday say they want HIGHER TAXES. Democrats everyday vote for HIGHER TAXES. SALT taxes are paid by the RICH. SALT taxes are exactly what Democrats want so why complain about what you every day say are the moral and right thing to do.
The good Professor Turley is going to lose his liberal card if he keeps this up.
Certain states have been taking a free ride circumventing Congressial allocation of federal funds by raising taxes to be deducted from federal income taxes and some people think that this gaming of the federal taxation system is OK.
This is another of areas that should have been analyzed and changed a long ago except for spineless politicians more interested in reelection than managing limited resources.
Do I like Trump’s style, heck no. But is he working to fix long over due problems, heck yes.
Mr. Turley, unfortunately you may “lose your liberal card” because you take a liberal, common sensical approach to issues. We need more people who think in government trying to solve problems, not liberal nor conservative automatons.
It seems to me that his card is libertarian, and has been right along.
While Professor Turley continues to be “critical of Donald Trump attacks on the media” I find nothing in the US Constitution that requires any president to be a punching bag and remain silent in the face of false reporting. Look up the definition of “false” in Black’s Dictionary and see if it doesn’t mirror much of the reportage of CNN and MSNBC.
“However, the media at times seems eager to fulfill the stereotype that he has painted of a political agenda in the media. That does not justify his attacks but the raw biased shown in such segments only strengthen the arguments of Trump supporters that American media is “fake news” or that media figures have become active players in the “resistance movement.”
In professor-speak that means: Trump is right about the fake news media!
best to get a variety of sources and average out the truth which will lie somewhere between the extremes. Now that is just common sense. Anyone who just swears by one side or the other is a fool and a partisan.
All media is biased to promote their respective viewpoints while downplaying opposing positions. As a consumer viewing the big three cable news outlets simultaneously, they are all culpable of the same practices.
mass media is biased because it sells more advertising
mass media companies are billion dollar companies with their own corporate agendas
they have their own pet candidates who also buy tons of political advertising. the policy differences are often not that significant, it sometimes just comes down to which group of customers is being catered to at the moment as part of a profit maximizing strategy.
but the phony leftists that play Dem shill fail to grasp that which perhaps we all might agrees, as I phrased the proposition, would be a Marxist observation.
Hence, they are like Mensheviks. There is a reason why the Bolsheviks whipped the tar out of the Mensheviks in Russia. a lot of reasons actually.
Comments are closed.