Perhaps I am not understanding you, no. I dont see you quoting a debate, I see you involved in one. I see your question to me as a loaded question that demands "agree/disagree" reply, lol, about something that cannot be answered in those terms, and this doesnt work out.Perhaps if you spend less time attacking the person you are talking to and a bit more on the arguments you would be more convincing?If you do actual media research on media (news, entertainment news) that comes out of america, if you are being honesty and scientific in what you see, it is conservative-liberal (yes, they are) to hard rightwing fascist in ideological and political terms. Your question might have come out differently if you did some investigation into this....
[One question for both of you. There is currently a political debate in my country to stop or continue the fact that every TV channel should have an exact representation of all political parties....
[
The argument/example being taken is the US where the equivalent law has been suppressed during Reagan times.
As a result, it is said that now TV channels are very polarised, each showing only one side of a view and as a result it has an impact on the American society being more and more polarised.
Agree, disagree?
These 2 sides hardly disagree, both their parties receive money from the same people and corporations, they both openly violate human rights inside and outside of american soil, and their main disagreements are rhetorical/tone and/or how hard to punish the poor. Our media represent both those main groups, and any "leftists" (you know, socialists, feminists, marxists, etc) are totally alienated from the mainstream.
Plus you didn't read me properly. I am quoting a political debate happening. I am not taking any side.
Statistics: Posted by Milkman — Thu Apr 18, 2024 12:51 am