[oregontim]

I hate that chart with the passion of a thousand suns.

"Hyper-partisan left" really means doubling down on social justice/single-payer healthcare, advocating for indigenous land return, treating the poor/mentally ill with humanity, elimination of the carceral state, and reparations.

"Hyper-partisan right" is borderline anti-Semitic, nativist, borderline-white supremacist, ignorant of reality, and blatant monetization of conspiracy theories founded on ignorance and emotional manipulation.

THEY ARE NOT OPPOSITES.

I agree!

Me too, totally agree. And I posted the chart ... in response to a post suggesting that CBS News is as flawed as Fox News; and you can see how it applies to that one. But I totally agree with your point here.

[oregontim]

I hate that chart with the passion of a thousand suns.

"Hyper-partisan left" really means doubling down on social justice/single-payer healthcare, advocating for indigenous land return, treating the poor/mentally ill with humanity, elimination of the carceral state, and reparations.

"Hyper-partisan right" is borderline anti-Semitic, nativist, borderline-white supremacist, ignorant of reality, and blatant monetization of conspiracy theories founded on ignorance and emotional manipulation.

THEY ARE NOT OPPOSITES.

I agree!

Me too, totally agree. And I posted the chart ... in response to a post suggesting that CBS News is as flawed as Fox News; and you can see how it applies to that one. But I totally agree with your point here.

[OutsiderFan]

I hate the way those media bias charts are done too. Here's my assessment of the media landscape.  


I don't think the focus should be on the ideological spectrum as much as whether the information provided is factual, based on high standards of journalism, or opinion based on no standards of journalism.  I also think you need to separate the WSJ and the WSJ Opinion page, because they are totally different. Maybe even Fox News Channel daytime/website news reporting and its nighttime opinion hosts too.

The $ signs are there to demonstrate that fact-finding journalism costs a lot of money and opinion based media is very cheap. So if you buy into the "you get what you pay for" mentality, you'll know most opinion-based stuff should be looked at with a high degree of skepticism in terms of its factualness. The corporate news media mostly operates on a what is happening now, "live" basis. It's easy to report facts about what people are saying or doing in the moment, but facts don't paint the picture of the actual truth unfolding. That's what investigative reporting does. 

My perception is there is no such thing as conservative investigative journalism. All the investigative journalism I ever see is from places like Pro Publica, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Salon, Mother Jones, Newspapers, etc. that are usually reporting on things that appeal to a liberal audience or qualified that way by conservatives. If there are any sources of conservative-oriented investigative journalism, please tell me. Project Veritas doesn't count!

[OutsiderFan]

I hate the way those media bias charts are done too. Here's my assessment of the media landscape.  


I don't think the focus should be on the ideological spectrum as much as whether the information provided is factual, based on high standards of journalism, or opinion based on no standards of journalism.  I also think you need to separate the WSJ and the WSJ Opinion page, because they are totally different. Maybe even Fox News Channel daytime/website news reporting and its nighttime opinion hosts too.

The $ signs are there to demonstrate that fact-finding journalism costs a lot of money and opinion based media is very cheap. So if you buy into the "you get what you pay for" mentality, you'll know most opinion-based stuff should be looked at with a high degree of skepticism in terms of its factualness. The corporate news media mostly operates on a what is happening now, "live" basis. It's easy to report facts about what people are saying or doing in the moment, but facts don't paint the picture of the actual truth unfolding. That's what investigative reporting does. 

My perception is there is no such thing as conservative investigative journalism. All the investigative journalism I ever see is from places like Pro Publica, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Salon, Mother Jones, Newspapers, etc. that are usually reporting on things that appeal to a liberal audience or qualified that way by conservatives. If there are any sources of conservative-oriented investigative journalism, please tell me. Project Veritas doesn't count!

[old spanish trail]

I hate that chart with the passion of a thousand suns.

"Hyper-partisan left" really means doubling down on social justice/single-payer healthcare, advocating for indigenous land return, treating the poor/mentally ill with humanity, elimination of the carceral state, and reparations.

"Hyper-partisan right" is borderline anti-Semitic, nativist, borderline-white supremacist, ignorant of reality, and blatant monetization of conspiracy theories founded on ignorance and emotional manipulation.

THEY ARE NOT OPPOSITES.

I agree!

Me too

[old spanish trail]

I hate that chart with the passion of a thousand suns.

"Hyper-partisan left" really means doubling down on social justice/single-payer healthcare, advocating for indigenous land return, treating the poor/mentally ill with humanity, elimination of the carceral state, and reparations.

"Hyper-partisan right" is borderline anti-Semitic, nativist, borderline-white supremacist, ignorant of reality, and blatant monetization of conspiracy theories founded on ignorance and emotional manipulation.

THEY ARE NOT OPPOSITES.

I agree!

Me too

[teejers1]

I hate that chart with the passion of a thousand suns.

"Hyper-partisan left" really means doubling down on social justice/single-payer healthcare, advocating for indigenous land return, treating the poor/mentally ill with humanity, elimination of the carceral state, and reparations.

"Hyper-partisan right" is borderline anti-Semitic, nativist, borderline-white supremacist, ignorant of reality, and blatant monetization of conspiracy theories founded on ignorance and emotional manipulation.

THEY ARE NOT OPPOSITES.

I agree!

Me too

Just posting to note that you have a great handle.  (I Googled it, too . . . interesting).

[teejers1]

I hate that chart with the passion of a thousand suns.

"Hyper-partisan left" really means doubling down on social justice/single-payer healthcare, advocating for indigenous land return, treating the poor/mentally ill with humanity, elimination of the carceral state, and reparations.

"Hyper-partisan right" is borderline anti-Semitic, nativist, borderline-white supremacist, ignorant of reality, and blatant monetization of conspiracy theories founded on ignorance and emotional manipulation.

THEY ARE NOT OPPOSITES.

I agree!

Me too

Just posting to note that you have a great handle.  (I Googled it, too . . . interesting).

[M T]

Just posting to note that you have a great handle.  (I Googled it, too . . . interesting).

As one can see at Google, there are two OSTs: a trade route named by Fremont in 1844 and an auto trail (FL - CA) in the early 1900s (set up 1915-1920; later became US 80 & 90; later Interstate 10).  I knew OST as the name of a major road in Houston.

[M T]

Just posting to note that you have a great handle.  (I Googled it, too . . . interesting).

As one can see at Google, there are two OSTs: a trade route named by Fremont in 1844 and an auto trail (FL - CA) in the early 1900s (set up 1915-1920; later became US 80 & 90; later Interstate 10).  I knew OST as the name of a major road in Houston.

[oregontim]

I hate the way those media bias charts are done too. Here's my assessment of the media landscape.  


I don't think the focus should be on the ideological spectrum as much as whether the information provided is factual, based on high standards of journalism, or opinion based on no standards of journalism.  I also think you need to separate the WSJ and the WSJ Opinion page, because they are totally different. Maybe even Fox News Channel daytime/website news reporting and its nighttime opinion hosts too.

The $ signs are there to demonstrate that fact-finding journalism costs a lot of money and opinion based media is very cheap. So if you buy into the "you get what you pay for" mentality, you'll know most opinion-based stuff should be looked at with a high degree of skepticism in terms of its factualness. The corporate news media mostly operates on a what is happening now, "live" basis. It's easy to report facts about what people are saying or doing in the moment, but facts don't paint the picture of the actual truth unfolding. That's what investigative reporting does. 

My perception is there is no such thing as conservative investigative journalism. All the investigative journalism I ever see is from places like Pro Publica, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Salon, Mother Jones, Newspapers, etc. that are usually reporting on things that appeal to a liberal audience or qualified that way by conservatives. If there are any sources of conservative-oriented investigative journalism, please tell me. Project Veritas doesn't count!

+1 really interesting analysis ... I care a lot about this subject and follow it closely. Well done.

[oregontim]

I hate the way those media bias charts are done too. Here's my assessment of the media landscape.  


I don't think the focus should be on the ideological spectrum as much as whether the information provided is factual, based on high standards of journalism, or opinion based on no standards of journalism.  I also think you need to separate the WSJ and the WSJ Opinion page, because they are totally different. Maybe even Fox News Channel daytime/website news reporting and its nighttime opinion hosts too.

The $ signs are there to demonstrate that fact-finding journalism costs a lot of money and opinion based media is very cheap. So if you buy into the "you get what you pay for" mentality, you'll know most opinion-based stuff should be looked at with a high degree of skepticism in terms of its factualness. The corporate news media mostly operates on a what is happening now, "live" basis. It's easy to report facts about what people are saying or doing in the moment, but facts don't paint the picture of the actual truth unfolding. That's what investigative reporting does. 

My perception is there is no such thing as conservative investigative journalism. All the investigative journalism I ever see is from places like Pro Publica, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Salon, Mother Jones, Newspapers, etc. that are usually reporting on things that appeal to a liberal audience or qualified that way by conservatives. If there are any sources of conservative-oriented investigative journalism, please tell me. Project Veritas doesn't count!

+1 really interesting analysis ... I care a lot about this subject and follow it closely. Well done.

[OutsiderFan]

I recently finished watching the American Experience documentary about women's suffrage. Never have I been more impressed with how long, hard, and determined a fight to win rights was, as it was for women to secure the right to vote. At the same time, I was never more pissed that this lesson about winning rights was not emphasized in U.S. history classes.

The sad fact is the women's right to vote was a partisan political issue, blocked mostly by Democrats upholding white supremacy in the South because it was seen as a slippery slope to Blacks winning the right to vote as well.  So as much as you would like to think granting women the right to vote was a bi-partisan initiative, it wasn't.  In fact, Republicans were responsible for the 19th Amendment (that was suppose to be the 16th) passing the Congress, not because they were women's rights warriors, but because they were trying to win more power in Congress. 

At the same time, when we considered a law that would expand health care coverage to millions more Americans, and try to get cost down, it too wasn't seen as an opportunity to come together to do the right thing, it was also a partisan game to win votes more than it was to look out for the American people. Precious few elected representatives actually do what is right and just, without making calculations about their own interest.

I say all this, not to argue who's position is or isn't right, but to illustrate how as a country, our two party political system that relies on there being opposite sides, continues to fail us, as it has for a long time.  One of my answers to "fix this" is to do away with political parties and install term limits, but this is way easier said than done.

[OutsiderFan]

I recently finished watching the American Experience documentary about women's suffrage. Never have I been more impressed with how long, hard, and determined a fight to win rights was, as it was for women to secure the right to vote. At the same time, I was never more pissed that this lesson about winning rights was not emphasized in U.S. history classes.

The sad fact is the women's right to vote was a partisan political issue, blocked mostly by Democrats upholding white supremacy in the South because it was seen as a slippery slope to Blacks winning the right to vote as well.  So as much as you would like to think granting women the right to vote was a bi-partisan initiative, it wasn't.  In fact, Republicans were responsible for the 19th Amendment (that was suppose to be the 16th) passing the Congress, not because they were women's rights warriors, but because they were trying to win more power in Congress. 

At the same time, when we considered a law that would expand health care coverage to millions more Americans, and try to get cost down, it too wasn't seen as an opportunity to come together to do the right thing, it was also a partisan game to win votes more than it was to look out for the American people. Precious few elected representatives actually do what is right and just, without making calculations about their own interest.

I say all this, not to argue who's position is or isn't right, but to illustrate how as a country, our two party political system that relies on there being opposite sides, continues to fail us, as it has for a long time.  One of my answers to "fix this" is to do away with political parties and install term limits, but this is way easier said than done.

[Mick]

I say all this, not to argue who's position is or isn't right, but to illustrate how as a country, our two party political system that relies on there being opposite sides, continues to fail us, as it has for a long time.  One of my answers to "fix this" is to do away with political parties and install term limits, but this is way easier said than done.

So what would you do that would be so much better?

[Mick]

I say all this, not to argue who's position is or isn't right, but to illustrate how as a country, our two party political system that relies on there being opposite sides, continues to fail us, as it has for a long time.  One of my answers to "fix this" is to do away with political parties and install term limits, but this is way easier said than done.

So what would you do that would be so much better?

[OutsiderFan]

I say all this, not to argue who's position is or isn't right, but to illustrate how as a country, our two party political system that relies on there being opposite sides, continues to fail us, as it has for a long time.  One of my answers to "fix this" is to do away with political parties and install term limits, but this is way easier said than done.

So what would you do that would be so much better?

Didn't I say eliminate political parties and have term limits? You don't need a political party to tell you what to be supporting so you can stay in their good graces. Everyone running for office should be able to figure out what will serve the interests of their constituency without a political party telling them what that should be. And I believe we should reinforce the idea that elected office holders are there for others, not themselves, and that this can be done with term limits.

[OutsiderFan]

I say all this, not to argue who's position is or isn't right, but to illustrate how as a country, our two party political system that relies on there being opposite sides, continues to fail us, as it has for a long time.  One of my answers to "fix this" is to do away with political parties and install term limits, but this is way easier said than done.

So what would you do that would be so much better?

Didn't I say eliminate political parties and have term limits? You don't need a political party to tell you what to be supporting so you can stay in their good graces. Everyone running for office should be able to figure out what will serve the interests of their constituency without a political party telling them what that should be. And I believe we should reinforce the idea that elected office holders are there for others, not themselves, and that this can be done with term limits.

[BostonCard]

Doing away with political parties would violate the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of association.  It is a non-starter.  Some things that could help:

Ranked choice voting, which would allow third parties to not be penalized as “throw-away votes”.  It would still be an uphill climb, but a strong third party challenge could gain traction, and as long as they survived to the top two, they have a decent chance of winning by attracting folks who will vote for anyone but the other major party opposition.  Also it would generally discourage pushing the extremes, as a winner would have to be broadly acceptable to 50% + 1 voters, rather than a plurality.  This is especially useful in primaries.

Expand the House.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says the House has to have 438 members, and it used to be de rigeur to increase the size of the House as the population increased.  If the average house district were much smaller, district representatives would represent more local and idiosyncratic interests that may not be captured by larger district.  Bonus, it is harder to gerrymander smaller districts.

More controversially, allow multi-member districts (say three to five representatives per district).  I know full well that in some ways this goes against the other two, but it would require more of a change to require.  The big advantages are that it would provide better representation for minorities in a district and would make gerrymandering nearly impossible, since a district designed to give a narrow majority to one party (say but constructing it to give that party ~60% of the vote), would likely result in a 3-2 apportionment of their congress members, and even “safe” districts would probably go 4-1 except in the most extreme cases.  And because every district will likely feature at least one or two that were competitive, that would require parties to be responsive to their districts.

Here’s an editorial from a NY conservative on multi member districts.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014...tions.html

BC

[BostonCard]

Doing away with political parties would violate the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of association.  It is a non-starter.  Some things that could help:

Ranked choice voting, which would allow third parties to not be penalized as “throw-away votes”.  It would still be an uphill climb, but a strong third party challenge could gain traction, and as long as they survived to the top two, they have a decent chance of winning by attracting folks who will vote for anyone but the other major party opposition.  Also it would generally discourage pushing the extremes, as a winner would have to be broadly acceptable to 50% + 1 voters, rather than a plurality.  This is especially useful in primaries.

Expand the House.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says the House has to have 438 members, and it used to be de rigeur to increase the size of the House as the population increased.  If the average house district were much smaller, district representatives would represent more local and idiosyncratic interests that may not be captured by larger district.  Bonus, it is harder to gerrymander smaller districts.

More controversially, allow multi-member districts (say three to five representatives per district).  I know full well that in some ways this goes against the other two, but it would require more of a change to require.  The big advantages are that it would provide better representation for minorities in a district and would make gerrymandering nearly impossible, since a district designed to give a narrow majority to one party (say but constructing it to give that party ~60% of the vote), would likely result in a 3-2 apportionment of their congress members, and even “safe” districts would probably go 4-1 except in the most extreme cases.  And because every district will likely feature at least one or two that were competitive, that would require parties to be responsive to their districts.

Here’s an editorial from a NY conservative on multi member districts.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014...tions.html

BC

[fanofourforebears]

This morning I saw Ali Velshi interview a former country health officer who resigned her position after threats, including to her family.  You might ask why this didn't get put in the health officials under threat thread, but that's not what the thrust of this post is about.



She said - and this is the first time I have heard this - there are some people sick with Covid, even about to be put on ventilators who won't accept they have Covid-19 because they think it is a hoax.  I just about spit out my Cheerios.  It's one thing to claim something is a hoax when you aren't personally experiencing it. It's quite another to deny you have it when you do.  I mean this is like being on fire and saying you aren't on fire.

So, would you rather the patient who does not want to get killed by being put on a ventilator if this might be the wrong treatment, shut up, believe they have Covid-19 and allow themselves to be put out and maybe killed while they are in their sleep?

---

I hate the way those media bias charts are done too. Here's my assessment of the media landscape.  


I don't think the focus should be on the ideological spectrum as much as whether the information provided is factual, based on high standards of journalism, or opinion based on no standards of journalism.  I also think you need to separate the WSJ and the WSJ Opinion page, because they are totally different. Maybe even Fox News Channel daytime/website news reporting and its nighttime opinion hosts too.

The $ signs are there to demonstrate that fact-finding journalism costs a lot of money and opinion based media is very cheap. So if you buy into the "you get what you pay for" mentality, you'll know most opinion-based stuff should be looked at with a high degree of skepticism in terms of its factualness. The corporate news media mostly operates on a what is happening now, "live" basis. It's easy to report facts about what people are saying or doing in the moment, but facts don't paint the picture of the actual truth unfolding. That's what investigative reporting does. 

My perception is there is no such thing as conservative investigative journalism. All the investigative journalism I ever see is from places like Pro Publica, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Salon, Mother Jones, Newspapers, etc. that are usually reporting on things that appeal to a liberal audience or qualified that way by conservatives. If there are any sources of conservative-oriented investigative journalism, please tell me. Project Veritas doesn't count!

Yeah, go ahead and violate the Terry rule.. Slam anyone who might be regressive or conservative and claim only those of your political worldview have truth.

[fanofourforebears]

This morning I saw Ali Velshi interview a former country health officer who resigned her position after threats, including to her family.  You might ask why this didn't get put in the health officials under threat thread, but that's not what the thrust of this post is about.



She said - and this is the first time I have heard this - there are some people sick with Covid, even about to be put on ventilators who won't accept they have Covid-19 because they think it is a hoax.  I just about spit out my Cheerios.  It's one thing to claim something is a hoax when you aren't personally experiencing it. It's quite another to deny you have it when you do.  I mean this is like being on fire and saying you aren't on fire.

So, would you rather the patient who does not want to get killed by being put on a ventilator if this might be the wrong treatment, shut up, believe they have Covid-19 and allow themselves to be put out and maybe killed while they are in their sleep?

---

I hate the way those media bias charts are done too. Here's my assessment of the media landscape.  


I don't think the focus should be on the ideological spectrum as much as whether the information provided is factual, based on high standards of journalism, or opinion based on no standards of journalism.  I also think you need to separate the WSJ and the WSJ Opinion page, because they are totally different. Maybe even Fox News Channel daytime/website news reporting and its nighttime opinion hosts too.

The $ signs are there to demonstrate that fact-finding journalism costs a lot of money and opinion based media is very cheap. So if you buy into the "you get what you pay for" mentality, you'll know most opinion-based stuff should be looked at with a high degree of skepticism in terms of its factualness. The corporate news media mostly operates on a what is happening now, "live" basis. It's easy to report facts about what people are saying or doing in the moment, but facts don't paint the picture of the actual truth unfolding. That's what investigative reporting does. 

My perception is there is no such thing as conservative investigative journalism. All the investigative journalism I ever see is from places like Pro Publica, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Salon, Mother Jones, Newspapers, etc. that are usually reporting on things that appeal to a liberal audience or qualified that way by conservatives. If there are any sources of conservative-oriented investigative journalism, please tell me. Project Veritas doesn't count!

Yeah, go ahead and violate the Terry rule.. Slam anyone who might be regressive or conservative and claim only those of your political worldview have truth.

[OutsiderFan]

Yeah, go ahead and violate the Terry rule.. Slam anyone who might be regressive or conservative and claim only those of your political worldview have truth.

I'm sorry, is that what I said? Is that what the chart that reflects MY perception of the media landscape, does? Your words are making your own projection on yourself.  It's defensive, weak, intellectually vacuous, and agenda-driven trolling. You might have gained a little more credibility for yourself if you answered the question I asked about there being any conservative investigative journalism. But given you've managed a -10 rating on this board, it doesn't seem credibility is what you seek.

And the comment about wanting to refuse a ventilator... Do you have any clue how medical directives work? Everyone has power to decide their own medical treatments affirmatively if conscious, and depending on if they have a written health care directive, when unconscious.

[OutsiderFan]

Yeah, go ahead and violate the Terry rule.. Slam anyone who might be regressive or conservative and claim only those of your political worldview have truth.

I'm sorry, is that what I said? Is that what the chart that reflects MY perception of the media landscape, does? Your words are making your own projection on yourself.  It's defensive, weak, intellectually vacuous, and agenda-driven trolling. You might have gained a little more credibility for yourself if you answered the question I asked about there being any conservative investigative journalism. But given you've managed a -10 rating on this board, it doesn't seem credibility is what you seek.

And the comment about wanting to refuse a ventilator... Do you have any clue how medical directives work? Everyone has power to decide their own medical treatments affirmatively if conscious, and depending on if they have a written health care directive, when unconscious.

[Genuine Realist]

Yeah, go ahead and violate the Terry rule.. Slam anyone who might be regressive or conservative and claim only those of your political worldview have truth.

I'm sorry, is that what I said? Is that what the chart that reflects MY perception of the media landscape, does? Your words are making your own projection on yourself.  It's defensive, weak, intellectually vacuous, and agenda-driven trolling. You might have gained a little more credibility for yourself if you answered the question I asked about there being any conservative investigative journalism. But given you've managed a -10 rating on this board, it doesn't seem credibility is what you seek.

And the comment about wanting to refuse a ventilator... Do you have any clue how medical directives work? Everyone has power to decide their own medical treatments affirmatively if conscious, and depending on if they have a written health care directive, when unconscious.

The notion that this nation, the curator of an idealism that has transformed the world, the creator of a material prosperity that is the envy of almost all other human beings, conscientious enough to elevate minority populations to prominence, possessed of a population that is aging in such good health that it is blowing out centuries old actuarial truisms, while at the same time advancing a technological revolution that occurs at a speed that is too fast to comprehend, is in any sense failing, would be laughable if so many people didn't take it seriously. The unfortunate consequence of all this success is that a great many people who should know better are afflicted with a severe case of utopianism, and have forgotten all about real human frailty and fallibility - the natural condition of the world.

That said, in terms of reform within ordinary parameters, there is a great deal to be done, as there is always. A real concern is the tendency of legislatures to polarize into ideological blocs. It's hardly new. In the US, it began with Hamilton and Jefferson in Washington's first term. The Civil War was in one sense a legislative failure over several decades. But it is hardly a phenomenon restricted to this nation. By 1900, British Conservatives and Liberals were so frozen in place and so equally divided that a small minority of Parliament - in this case, the Irish faction led by John Redmond - actually had effective control of Parliament and were able to negotiate towards an Irish Free State. I understand that the same phenomenon applied to the Israeli Parliament in recent years - minority parties had effective control of the legislature. More ominously, the Weimar Republic was governed by emergency decrees for the four years preceding the disastrous appointment of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor. The competing parties could not agree on anything.

A contributing factor, maybe the major factor, is the absolute unwillingness of the MSM to consider and publicize competing narratives about major events - and, to be sure, I hold the major 'mainstream' media players responsible for this. Their bias takes the form of a refusal to publicize these.The great gigantic sacred cow, the double Alpha is Vietnam. I am NOT going to get into what that narrative was and is - suffice it to say that it is large, credible, and established by 1977 at the latest. But it has never been discussed and never will be during my lifetime. Boomers do not want to consider it. These days BLM has become another sacred cow. There is a considerable difference of opinion, and many that believe that the movement is actually hostile to the real needs of the African-American community. But you are not going to read that kind of measured criticism in the New York Times - not now, for sure, not until it has all become history.

I actually believe most legislators are fairly conscientious, and far more aware of the nuances in public policy than they let on. The easiest problems to solve are someone else's. Most journalists, steeped in an aura of know-it-all-ism, have forgotten that. It leads to a situation in which the opposition becomes demonized, and compromise,difficult or impossible.

[Genuine Realist]

Yeah, go ahead and violate the Terry rule.. Slam anyone who might be regressive or conservative and claim only those of your political worldview have truth.

I'm sorry, is that what I said? Is that what the chart that reflects MY perception of the media landscape, does? Your words are making your own projection on yourself.  It's defensive, weak, intellectually vacuous, and agenda-driven trolling. You might have gained a little more credibility for yourself if you answered the question I asked about there being any conservative investigative journalism. But given you've managed a -10 rating on this board, it doesn't seem credibility is what you seek.

And the comment about wanting to refuse a ventilator... Do you have any clue how medical directives work? Everyone has power to decide their own medical treatments affirmatively if conscious, and depending on if they have a written health care directive, when unconscious.

The notion that this nation, the curator of an idealism that has transformed the world, the creator of a material prosperity that is the envy of almost all other human beings, conscientious enough to elevate minority populations to prominence, possessed of a population that is aging in such good health that it is blowing out centuries old actuarial truisms, while at the same time advancing a technological revolution that occurs at a speed that is too fast to comprehend, is in any sense failing, would be laughable if so many people didn't take it seriously. The unfortunate consequence of all this success is that a great many people who should know better are afflicted with a severe case of utopianism, and have forgotten all about real human frailty and fallibility - the natural condition of the world.

That said, in terms of reform within ordinary parameters, there is a great deal to be done, as there is always. A real concern is the tendency of legislatures to polarize into ideological blocs. It's hardly new. In the US, it began with Hamilton and Jefferson in Washington's first term. The Civil War was in one sense a legislative failure over several decades. But it is hardly a phenomenon restricted to this nation. By 1900, British Conservatives and Liberals were so frozen in place and so equally divided that a small minority of Parliament - in this case, the Irish faction led by John Redmond - actually had effective control of Parliament and were able to negotiate towards an Irish Free State. I understand that the same phenomenon applied to the Israeli Parliament in recent years - minority parties had effective control of the legislature. More ominously, the Weimar Republic was governed by emergency decrees for the four years preceding the disastrous appointment of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor. The competing parties could not agree on anything.

A contributing factor, maybe the major factor, is the absolute unwillingness of the MSM to consider and publicize competing narratives about major events - and, to be sure, I hold the major 'mainstream' media players responsible for this. Their bias takes the form of a refusal to publicize these.The great gigantic sacred cow, the double Alpha is Vietnam. I am NOT going to get into what that narrative was and is - suffice it to say that it is large, credible, and established by 1977 at the latest. But it has never been discussed and never will be during my lifetime. Boomers do not want to consider it. These days BLM has become another sacred cow. There is a considerable difference of opinion, and many that believe that the movement is actually hostile to the real needs of the African-American community. But you are not going to read that kind of measured criticism in the New York Times - not now, for sure, not until it has all become history.

I actually believe most legislators are fairly conscientious, and far more aware of the nuances in public policy than they let on. The easiest problems to solve are someone else's. Most journalists, steeped in an aura of know-it-all-ism, have forgotten that. It leads to a situation in which the opposition becomes demonized, and compromise,difficult or impossible.