Are CNN and FOX making passengers crazy?
05-21-2017 | 06:16 AM
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Likes: 0
Let me ask you an honest question. I'll respect your answer. If the Koch brothers bought the rights to run the ATL airport concession and decided to swap CNN with Fox News. And you personally knew many Delta customers that were offended by the partisan nature of Fox.
Your position would be: Well, that's just the way it is. You fly in ATL you're just gonna have to sit through some Fox. ?
People don't have any say in the matter?
Your position would be: Well, that's just the way it is. You fly in ATL you're just gonna have to sit through some Fox. ?
People don't have any say in the matter?
05-21-2017 | 06:36 AM
#83
Banned
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
05-21-2017 | 07:36 AM
#84
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Here's what I'm thinking. Half the country voted for Trump. I would guess about half the country consumes conservative media. (Fox, talk radio, drudge)
I imagine the people that voted for Trump and consume conservative media, probably feel about CNN the same way liberals feel about Fox. (Because, as the Harvard study shows, the CNN coverage of Trump is overwhelmingly negative)
They are either sitting there not caring or for some reason they are not compelled to complain about it.
05-21-2017 | 09:39 AM
#85
On Reserve
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
That's a fair answer. I'll bet many people feel the same way about CNN that you feel about Fox.
I agree with you about objective truth. I'm not here to defend Fox or CNN. I also agree with your point about the influence of money.
My question is this: In the hypothetical in which you would be sitting there disappointed and hoping people would complain to change it, I would ask why.
Why should a paying passenger have to ensure ideological propoganda just because airport management thinks it's a good idea?
Why would we knowingly subject either half of the people that make our jobs possible to the propoganda of the other half?
I agree with you about objective truth. I'm not here to defend Fox or CNN. I also agree with your point about the influence of money.
My question is this: In the hypothetical in which you would be sitting there disappointed and hoping people would complain to change it, I would ask why.
Why should a paying passenger have to ensure ideological propoganda just because airport management thinks it's a good idea?
Why would we knowingly subject either half of the people that make our jobs possible to the propoganda of the other half?
Is this reasonable?
05-21-2017 | 09:49 AM
#86
On Reserve
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Well, if nobody complains, they wouldn't have changed it back to CNN.. It must be important to some people
Here's what I'm thinking. Half the country voted for Trump. I would guess about half the country consumes conservative media. (Fox, talk radio, drudge)
I imagine the people that voted for Trump and consume conservative media, probably feel about CNN the same way liberals feel about Fox. (Because, as the Harvard study shows, the CNN coverage of Trump is overwhelmingly negative)
They are either sitting there not caring or for some reason they are not compelled to complain about it.
Here's what I'm thinking. Half the country voted for Trump. I would guess about half the country consumes conservative media. (Fox, talk radio, drudge)
I imagine the people that voted for Trump and consume conservative media, probably feel about CNN the same way liberals feel about Fox. (Because, as the Harvard study shows, the CNN coverage of Trump is overwhelmingly negative)
They are either sitting there not caring or for some reason they are not compelled to complain about it.
Based on Trump's honestly, behavior, and promises versus accomplishments in his first 100 days, I think you might agree that it might be entirely possible that his 'grade' compared to past presidents, both Democratic and Republican, is far far lower, warranting only 20% positive coverage.
05-21-2017 | 01:09 PM
#87
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
There is a basic logic problem with your thought on the Harvard study though: negative coverage does not necessarily mean bias. You would agree, I think, that Kim Kardashian deserved 80% negative coverage, and that media isn't being unfair to her.
Based on Trump's honestly, behavior, and promises versus accomplishments in his first 100 days, I think you might agree that it might be entirely possible that his 'grade' compared to past presidents, both Democratic and Republican, is far far lower, warranting only 20% positive coverage.
Based on Trump's honestly, behavior, and promises versus accomplishments in his first 100 days, I think you might agree that it might be entirely possible that his 'grade' compared to past presidents, both Democratic and Republican, is far far lower, warranting only 20% positive coverage.
I understand if you didn't vote for him and think he's the worst president ever. Based on some traditional metrics, maybe you've got a strong case.
But, there's probably a reason why people voted for him, despite his non-standard tactics.
I respect the opinion of people that voted for Hillary Clinton. I get why they voted for her.
I also believe the people that voted for Trump are not stupid or ill informed. I believe they were underserved under past administrations and they feel Trump is delivering exactly what they expected.
05-21-2017 | 01:33 PM
#88
Banned
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
There is a basic logic problem with your thought on the Harvard study though: negative coverage does not necessarily mean bias. You would agree, I think, that Kim Kardashian deserved 80% negative coverage, and that media isn't being unfair to her.
Based on Trump's honestly, behavior, and promises versus accomplishments in his first 100 days, I think you might agree that it might be entirely possible that his 'grade' compared to past presidents, both Democratic and Republican, is far far lower, warranting only 20% positive coverage.
Based on Trump's honestly, behavior, and promises versus accomplishments in his first 100 days, I think you might agree that it might be entirely possible that his 'grade' compared to past presidents, both Democratic and Republican, is far far lower, warranting only 20% positive coverage.
05-21-2017 | 01:55 PM
#89
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
True. That's why there's a disconnect and the charges of bias and propaganda.
05-21-2017 | 03:07 PM
#90
On Reserve
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
And I guess I have to ask, what particular specific action would he have to take for you to no longer support him? Maybe it's the case that there is nothing he could do to make you stop supporting him? I'm just trying to understand the thought process.
