Politicians frequently complain about the media, specifically about how liberal they are.  The media is typically all obsessed with so-called “facts” and “data.”  Well let me tell you about cherry-picking.  Cherry-picking is where you go find the “facts” and “data” to support your opinion.  What are you going to believe?  Some kind of “facts” and “data” on Wikipedia or email from a close relative you know and love?  I’m telling you, I’m going with the person I know and trust, so help me God.

The $$$ connection

To understand the media liberal bias, as with many other things, you just have to follow the money.  Sure, it’s true the media outlets are all pretty much owned by just six big conglomerates, and so you might expect they’d be more conservative.  Let me lay it out for you.

  1. So the “media” needs page views or viewers or whatever the appropriate metric is.
  2. Nothing is more popular than articles about Hollywood types like Justin Bieber or the Kardashians.
  3. The Hollywood studios themselves are probably conservative because they are smart and want to make money
  4. But their so-called “stars” who’ve never worked a day in their lives are mostly libtards.
  5. So if you want Tim Allen or Mel Gibson to be on your side, you’ve got to put on appearances of being a libtard
  6. Ergo, they’re doing it just so the fodder for their high-traffic articles will play ball.

It’s blindingly obvious when you see it, isn’t it?

Anecdotes versus data

Another popular quote I’ve seen is the old “the plural of anecdotes is not data.”  I think that’s supposed to mean that just because you know one thing, it doesn’t make it true across the board.  That may be the case, but I think we all know dozens of such anecdotes, and if that’s not trending towards being data, then you can have my winnings at the track for Afternoon Delight (and let me tell you that was a choice pick.)

Liberal news is exciting!

Nothing sells more than sensationalism and let’s face it, conservative viewpoints which are based on real facts are not sensational enough to sell.  So when the media, in their never ending quest for page views or viewership, needs to pump up the volume, they do it by finding some apparent social wrong and making it sound like the government is out to get the common man.  Well, actually the government is out to get the common man, but… hmm, I lost my train of thought.

About those supposed “fact checkers”

The fact checkers are themselves the most bald faced liars. I believe they like the phrase “pants on fire.”  They like to apply it to stuff like Trump’s video of illegal immigrants swarming across the border.  He never said that was footage from the U.S. border, but the ostensible “fact checkers” were quick to point out that footage was from Morocco or someplace else in China, not here.  And then they made the leap to saying Trump was lying “pants on fire.”  Trump of course was merely showing how the border will look if we don’t do something.  So you see, it’s all in the perspective.  God bless Donald for telling it like it is.

Or take Carly Fiona saying that Obamacare is bad.  The supposed “fact checkers” were all over that.  When she said it isn’t helping “anyone”, she was of course being broadly metaphorical.  You can make the case that it has probably helped someone out there, but by saying “anyone” she didn’t mean “anyone” she meant “everyone.”  So you see how they play their little word games, those fact checkers.

I could go on and on, the fact checkers just drive me nuts.

Let me just end with a prayer

God, give me grace to accept with serenity

the things that cannot be changed,

Courage to change the things

which should be changed,

and the Wisdom to vote GOP.