The 2024 presidential campaign’s home stretch kicks off with a mixed outlook across six key battlegrounds, according to new CNN polls conducted by SSRS in each state. Vice President Kamala Harris holds an advantage over former President Donald Trump among likely voters in Wisconsin and Michigan, while Trump has the edge in Arizona. The two split likely voters almost evenly in Georgia, Nevada and Pennsylvania, the state with the largest electoral vote prize that’s widely seen as up for grabs.
Why shouldn’t we downvote horse-race bullshit that accomplishes nothing but to give credibility to and normalize a group that is no longer a legitimate political party, but is now a fascist criminal conspiracy/cult/terrorist organization instead?
The correct reporting on this is “too many Americans still suffering mass delusion while traitor to the United States inexplicably remains out of jail.” This shit is not politics as usual!
Because it is reporting reality as it is now. The reality is America is still polling a certain way. You see is as bad. Which allows you to take rhe actions and feel the feelings you are feeling.
It’s a data point. A wise person once told me, news is news.
I suggest treating it as data.
Now I don’t like that climate change is happening and rapidly so. But I don’t also ignore or down vote the weather report because I don’t like it. It’s happening and I can take action or whatever else but it’s the weather.
News is news.
It’s okay to down vote opinion pieces (looking at you Murdoch media) but news is news.
CNN changed ownership a while back and it’s had a clear impact on their bias and reporting standards. Giving a voice to the “far right” was a final straw of my “trust but verify” stance I had with them before that change.
Obviously I don’t trust Fox, OAN (do they still exist?), InfoWars or any of the similar ilk at all. Thats not to say that I write off everything right wing, but there isnt many that pass muster in the US ATM.
There’s also a handful of “left” publications that I dismiss offhand due to a history of sensationalism and bad perspectives.
The majority of news is a “trust but verify” stance with me (using a secondary media outlet). It’s not a straight “this news source is credible” stance, but whether or not they have a history of news that is overtly biased, sensationalized, or mis-reporting. And then there’s the individual article itself.
Please don’t down vote news
Why shouldn’t we downvote horse-race bullshit that accomplishes nothing but to give credibility to and normalize a group that is no longer a legitimate political party, but is now a fascist criminal conspiracy/cult/terrorist organization instead?
The correct reporting on this is “too many Americans still suffering mass delusion while traitor to the United States inexplicably remains out of jail.” This shit is not politics as usual!
Because it is reporting reality as it is now. The reality is America is still polling a certain way. You see is as bad. Which allows you to take rhe actions and feel the feelings you are feeling.
It’s a data point. A wise person once told me, news is news.
I suggest treating it as data.
Now I don’t like that climate change is happening and rapidly so. But I don’t also ignore or down vote the weather report because I don’t like it. It’s happening and I can take action or whatever else but it’s the weather.
News is news.
It’s okay to down vote opinion pieces (looking at you Murdoch media) but news is news.
I down vote the source. CNN is a down vote from me every time. Same with a handful of others.
Which news sources do you consider reputable?
CNN changed ownership a while back and it’s had a clear impact on their bias and reporting standards. Giving a voice to the “far right” was a final straw of my “trust but verify” stance I had with them before that change.
Obviously I don’t trust Fox, OAN (do they still exist?), InfoWars or any of the similar ilk at all. Thats not to say that I write off everything right wing, but there isnt many that pass muster in the US ATM.
There’s also a handful of “left” publications that I dismiss offhand due to a history of sensationalism and bad perspectives.
The majority of news is a “trust but verify” stance with me (using a secondary media outlet). It’s not a straight “this news source is credible” stance, but whether or not they have a history of news that is overtly biased, sensationalized, or mis-reporting. And then there’s the individual article itself.