We would classify the the Village Voice as a very liberal paper, but send it to someone in Nebraska and they'll tell you it's pornography.
Political ideals may draw on universal principles, but the line of scrimmage is different in every district. Murdoch is a businessman first, and he likes to own news companies. He happens to prefer to play one side of the line of scrimmage. The combination means his mouthpieces say different things in different areas. In some areas they endorse Hillary Clinton for re-election to the senate...
I tried to sidestep this criticism, but I was wrong to even sound the terms. The point is that the NYPost doesn't usually run articles like this---otherwise I wouldn't have read it. This tidbit is so salacious it even got my attention.
>He happens to prefer to play one side of the line of scrimmage.
Or at least prefers to play on the side he feels is an underserved market.
Most people want a news source that agrees with them. If a fact doesn't support your views, it must be a lie, right?
In the TV news market, this means that left wing types are split between CNN, CBS, NBC, etc. Murdoch figured this out, and right wing types all watch Fox.
If you're going to impeach what you believe to a a secondary source of questionable veracity, it might behoove you to use something other than baldfaced assertions yourself.
We would classify the the Village Voice as a very liberal paper, but send it to someone in Nebraska and they'll tell you it's pornography.
Political ideals may draw on universal principles, but the line of scrimmage is different in every district. Murdoch is a businessman first, and he likes to own news companies. He happens to prefer to play one side of the line of scrimmage. The combination means his mouthpieces say different things in different areas. In some areas they endorse Hillary Clinton for re-election to the senate...
I tried to sidestep this criticism, but I was wrong to even sound the terms. The point is that the NYPost doesn't usually run articles like this---otherwise I wouldn't have read it. This tidbit is so salacious it even got my attention.
> Wikipedia
Wikipedia indeed.