Enjoy your bucketloads of logical fallacies, I am outta here.
This place is gross. I need a shower.
The fact is nearly all media had the same conclusion as it happened - left, right, unbiased, foreign, fact based - the mob was trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power so Trump could retain power.
And "without weapons" is an outright lie. Go watch the videos. Go read the court transcripts. Go check the actual evidence instead of spouting nonsense and irrelevant talking points.
It was only later the right ring media (also known as liars - see the numerous lawsuits they lost and the evidence pulled from them - especially Fox News, and soon OANN and others will face the same legal standards and will fold) started to change their tune.
And they do it because it works on enough people not able to understand or accept reality - as your comment illustrates.
People that have a hard time accepting reality or evidence use the term "mainstream media" derisively in order to preserve a world view formed by eating conspiracies and nonsense. The actors selling lies to people that flit from conspiracy to conspiracy love the term "mainstream media" because it helps them grift money from people.
Fine, makeshift weapons that you wouldn't use to overthrow a country. No weapons that Antifa wouldn't have anyway, and they were less coordinated than an Antifa riot (Oh whoops Antifa is not a thing according to your trustworthy sources).
When all media outles actually face the consequences of their lies (not just right wing ones), then maybe you'll have a leg to stand on. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but anyone still stumping for the mainstream media is utterly naive, and yes Fox and OANN are also mainstream.
Anyone silly enough to lump all such things together given the vast array of different outlets is utterly simplistic. The name is simply used to discount reality conspiracy people don't like.
I'm not stumping for anything other than things which have the best track record of reporting accurately, as evidenced by outcomes.
A simple subset of this can be checked by polls before an event measured against outcomes. You can get historical datasets of polls from pretty much all outlets, then compare against actual outcomes. For example, 538 posts a crapton of historical data from lots of outlets along many axes at https://data.fivethirtyeight.com/
Guess what - mainstream media far outclasses other outlets. This is science, not opinion.
Now do the same for other datasets, which you can also do - from finance, to political events, to science claims, to pretty much anything that has basis in reality.
There - I gave you an empirical method to measure accuracy of a news source. Please show me something not mainstream that outscores the median of mainstream places on one of these empirical tests. I have analyzed data on many of these things, which is how I know the answer you're going to find. Good luck.
Of course, people enamored with silly labels rarely actually check evidence in a principled manner, which is how they get to using silly labels.
> Guess what - mainstream media...
I've already asked you for another term. You seem comfortable using silly labels yourself.
> A simple subset of this can be checked by polls before an event measured against outcomes.
Oh you mean like in November 2016?
I hoped you'd pick that. The type of person that picks an outlier event that supports a preconceived world view while ignoring the mass of evidence against it is the type that bends facts, ignores facts, and creates lies to maintain a pre-conceived worldview rather than makes a world view that is based on facts. This is the kind of person that uses the term "mainstream media" derisively, because they want to hold some conspiracy/martyr/superiority out of ignorance beliefs.
Do you understand how evidence works? You don't post pick an event supporting a world view and say "see!". You pick all data, analyze it, then form a world view. Your type always has the same invalid reasoning methods, cherry picks events while ignoring the mass of evidence, deflects and cannot stay on a topic to demonstrate facts correctly, which is how you get the beliefs you do.
It also takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to ignore the actual odds presented by mainstream media the few days before the election, and pretend there is some huge upset. Here's the actual data (which I suspect you both don't know and are unable to process), as you can check at Real Clear Politics: Bloomberg 44% Clinton, 41% Trump. Economist 45-41. ABC News 47-43. Fox 48-44. Monmouth 50-44. NBC 44-40. NBC 44-40. Reuters 42-39. Rasmussen 42-39. And so on. All of these were very close, and the if you look at the actual polls (all can be found on RCP) the difference was within the margin of error. It was a toss-up and people like you keep bringing it up because you both don't understand the actual evidence and you want to discredit accurate information sources that point out your ignorance on how the world works. Bet you didn't realize these were so close, probably because you consumed nonsense content that told you otherwise. You certainly whipped it out on cue.
Not so magical huh?
Now, if you can learn how to do actual evidence, show me the non-mainstream media site that has a better track record than, say, 538.
Even better yet - find a place the predicted Trump to win 2016 and tell me how they have done on a larger dataset.
Oh that's right, you cannot. You prefer info that is crap to accurate ones.
For the record, guess what the "main stream news" had as odds for 2020 and guess what happened?
If you cannot present even a single non-mainstream news site you think is accurate, then I have proven my point. Mainstream media is more accurate because you cannot put up a single contender.
So, either put up a contender or admit you have none. This discussion always goes the same direction with your type.
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.
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.