2 ms·

>So yes, I was foolish enough to think the pundits (which represented their respective mainstream media outlets) were actually basing their opinions on polls an

>So yes, I was foolish enough to think the pundits (which represented their respective mainstream media outlets) were actually basing their opinions on polls and reasonable data instead of lying No, you simply are making up nonsense still. Polls changed quickly near the election, as did lots of the pundits. That you are completely ignorant of what I just showed you is because you drank right wing kool aid for so long that your only reply about media accuracy is one event pulled nearly 8 years ago. That's sad. And for discounting the pundits, so far every one of your claims and talking points is straight out of right wing pundit land: and after the Dominion lawsuit pulled all the internal memos out of Fox news where the pundits were calling your type ignorant, stupid, needing to hear stories that confirm their beliefs or they'll go to other networks that feed them the lies they want - it's completely clear all that path was and is simply lies, known to be lies to those spreading them, simply to keep people like you eating the slop. And eat it you did. So far all you've demonstrated is a lack of knowledge about media accuracy, an inability to grasp it when fed to you in data you can check yourself, and are unable to present even a single place you claim is more accurate. Yet somehow you still cling to the belief that you cannot present evidence for. That's the outcome every time I discuss media accuracy with anyone that has your style of comments. Not a one has any ability to figure out how to measure quality. If you want to adapt your world view to facts, instead of the other way around, start feeding your brain info from a place that is at least accurate on claims when checked. If you're still unable to present a single media source you claim is more accurate than "mainstream media", then admit you must consume what we'll have to simply call the "inaccurate fringestream media," and I'm done with this thread.

HKH2 3y ago
> No, you simply are making up nonsense still. Nope, I remember what I saw. They convinced me that Trump was an idiot that didn't know what he was doing, and up until election night, that he had no hope of winning. I'm not a Fox viewer either, despite what you believe. > nearly 8 years ago. That outlier impressed me quite a bit. I'm not going to go through each instance of pundits lying, because it would take too long, and I'm worried you might run out of insinuations. > If you're still unable to present a single media source you claim is more accurate than "mainstream media", then admit you must consume what we'll have to simply call the "inaccurate fringestream media," I don't trust any single media source. I take your point that polls are more trustworthy than I thought though. > and I'm done with this thread. Okay, bye. Thanks for the chat.

HKH2 3y ago

> No, you simply are making up nonsense still. Nope, I remember what I saw. They convinced me that Trump was an idiot that didn't know what he was doing, and up until election night, that he had no hope of winning. I'm not a Fox viewer either, despite what you believe. > nearly 8 years ago. That outlier impressed me quite a bit. I'm not going to go through each instance of pundits lying, because it would take too long, and I'm worried you might run out of insinuations. > If you're still unable to present a single media source you claim is more accurate than "mainstream media", then admit you must consume what we'll have to simply call the "inaccurate fringestream media," I don't trust any single media source. I take your point that polls are more trustworthy than I thought though. > and I'm done with this thread. Okay, bye. Thanks for the chat.