The MSM is Actively Lying, Censoring, and Spying

[Jdsizzleslice]

So you think a new law is needed. i.e. you think regulation is needed.

Good stuff.

Currently, the companies are regulating speech. I.e., a reform to an existing law would make companies deregulate speech.

Good stuff. Can't say I'm surprised that a communist wouldn't understand anything about personal freedom.

[HitRed]

God says avoid listening to the world.

I come to warn of the dangers that come with listening to the world. There are many pitfalls that await those who listen and then follow the world and its worldly cares. Many find themselves caught up in worldly things.

[mrswdk]

So you think a new law is needed. i.e. you think regulation is needed.

Good stuff.

Currently, the companies are regulating speech. I.e., a reform to an existing law would make companies deregulate speech.

Good stuff. Can't say I'm surprised that a communist wouldn't understand anything about personal freedom.

'It is only through greater regulation that we will ensure greater deregulation'

You sound like a character from a George Orwell novel. Are you sure that I'm the communist here?

[Jdsizzleslice]

'It is only through greater deregulation that we will ensure greater deregulation'

You sound like a character from a George Orwell novel. Are you sure that I'm the communist here?

"You're a communist, not me!" says the individual who praises Communist China and despises Free America.

We can play the insult game all day long but we both know, in the end, freedom always wins and communism implodes.

And oh, BTW, I fixed your quote. You're welcome.

[mrswdk]

Doesn't matter which way you dress it up, your solution is greater government control over/intervention in what MSM companies are allowed to do.

I'm not communist and neither is China, but okay.

[HitRed]

Zhōngguó Gòngchǎndǎng

https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcaf ... nd%C7%8Eng

[Jdsizzleslice]

Doesn't matter which way you dress it up, your solution is greater government control over/intervention in what MSM companies are allowed to do.

No, you are factually incorrect. I'm advocating for putting control in the people's hands to say whatever they want. I gave you a reform that would deregulate, but you call it regulation?

Good stuff.

I'm not communist and neither is China, but okay.

You are a communist. So is Communist China. It's actually very blatant in your rhetoric and the rhetoric of Communist China.

[mrswdk]

Doesn't matter which way you dress it up, your solution is greater government control over/intervention in what MSM companies are allowed to do.

No, you are factually incorrect. I'm advocating for putting control in the people's hands to say whatever they want. I gave you a reform that would deregulate, but you call it regulation?

You gave me a legal reform which the government would use to compel MSM companies to behave differently to how they currently do. I'm not sure which part of that you're struggling with.

I'm not communist and neither is China, but okay.

You are a communist. So is Communist China. It's actually very blatant in your rhetoric and the rhetoric of Communist China.

The rhetoric of the Chinese government is that China's system is 'socialism with Chinese characteristics'. You clearly pay very close attention to Chinese policy briefings and political campaigns though so you might have caught an update or two that I've missed.

[Jdsizzleslice]

You gave me a legal reform which the government would use to compel MSM companies to behave differently to how they currently do. I'm not sure which part of that you're struggling with.

That legal reform is deregulation of MSM companies that can ban speech at will if they "deem" it to be objectionable. I'm not sure how you don't understand that deregulation is not regulation.

The rhetoric of the Chinese government is that China's system is 'socialism with Chinese characteristics'. You clearly pay very close attention to Chinese policy briefings and political campaigns though so you might have caught an update or two that I've missed.

Uh-huh. "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" represents Marxists-Communist ideologies. Beg your pardon, but which party is in control of China right now? The Communist Party? Uh-huh.

Anyways. No more responses to you. Let's bring the topic of discussion back onto the Original Post, which details the MSM's active lying and censoring.

[HitRed]

"I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. Government's support of Ukraine. - Vindman



Now, we don't make policy here, gentlemen. Elected officials, civilians, do that. We are the instruments of that policy. - Viper Top Gun

[jimboston]

I agree systemic and system are two different words. But systemic, by definition, refers to a specific system. I would disagree with the notion that systemic racism/bias/flaws are anything other than the government. Every point you make above is linked more toward the economy than the governmental system. So the way I read your point is that there is a complete economic bias. Correct me if this is not what you are trying to say.

No it’s not all economic.

... and your disagreeing with how the term “systemic bias” is widely used doesn’t mean you’re right and it’s a debatable point.
I am telling you how it’s widely used.

https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/s ... bias/33679

Systemic Bias in the USA does not mean solely institutional bias, institutional bias is a part of it... but it’s bias in SOCIETY and all parts of society... from our businesses, to our educational institutions, to our court systems, and beyond.

I’ve read parts of the Mueller Report, and there is PLENTY of evidence to indict. (Less directly on collusion, but definitely on obstruction.)

Apparently you haven’t read a word of it and are just taking your talking points from Fox.

The ONLY REASON the Mueller and the JD did not indict is because the precedent that the sitting President can not be charged by the JD. Mueller, and others, believe the President must first be removed from office either; by Impeachment, resignation, or expiration of term.

There are people in the JD just sitting and waiting to indict if Trump loses. If however Trump wins, he’ll get another 4 years, and the statute of limitations will apply to Obstruction charges.

Are you assuming again that I only watch Fox News? Here we go again with blanket statements and over-generalizations...

When all your comments mirror Fox, it’s hard to not make this assumption.

There was not technical exoneration, there was not actual exoneration, no figurative exoneration, not even a material exoneration.

You are highly likely to see charges stemming from Mueller in 2021 if Trump loses.

That's fair. However my point is that we have seen no discussion or reports of any possible charges being filed while in office or out of office. If there is a story or report I missed, feel free to enlighten me.

Watch something other than Fox and you would’ve seen all this at the time the Mueller Report was released.

From my point of view, the Democrats tried for three years to pin Russian Collusion on President Trump. When the Mueller Report came out, they abandoned that chase because they knew that there was nothing there to remove him from office. Sure, you can make an argument (I suppose) about obstruction and all that, but I haven't heard a single thing from the Democratic party or the MSM after the report dropped about charges moving forward or charges that could come in the future.

They abandoned nothing. They impeached him.

You don’t apparently understand English. Go back and reread what I wrote about avoiding negative people.

I’ve trying to be happier (just started a new podcast about happiness),
One way to be happier is to disengage from negative people.

I’m not saying I’ll never engage Trolls on here... but I won’t get sucked into extended curricular or one-way conversations either.

I can’t change the world, and if I could the place to launch my crusade wouldn’t be Conquer Club Forums.
I can however be happier by limiting contact to people like you.

You use the phrasing "disengage from negative people" and "limiting contact to people like you" specifically addressed to me. Does the word "avoid" I used in this case not also mean "disengage" or "limit?"

I am limiting my engagement, and will ignore your dumb questions... but continue to point out your factual errors when it suits me.

Nothing came of it?

He was impeached by Congress. Only the 3rd President ever to be impeached.

The idea that “Nothing Came of It” is a complete falsehood, that Fox and the Right keep repeating... hoping that if they say it enough it’ll be true.

It’s now HISTORICAL FACT that Trump is the 3rd President of the USA to be Impeached.

You can’t argue with this.

There is no argument that Trump was impeached. President Trump was impeached for "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" both of which he was acquitted by the Senate for, and both of which are never mentioned in the Mueller Report. The Mueller Investigation and the Impeachment have nothing to do with each other.

Wrong.

[jimboston]

So who do you think the MSM should be accountable to? Given their lying, censoring and spying (your words) clearly shows that the current system is not holding them accountable enough.

They are accountable to the people. Section 230 Reform (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996) needs to happen, A great place to start is making it illegal for private companies/corporations to ban legal speech.

The language in Section 230 states that platforms cannot be sued or are not liable for things that they themselves (meaning third-parties) say in their platforms. It also states they have the right to remove things they "consider to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." This ultimately gives MSM companies the power to ban any speech they "deem" as offensive based off subjective language in Section 230. Facebook does this currently because they "deem" anything to do with President Trump as "objectionable."

Whether or not you agree with the Conservative viewpoint, the value to freedom of speech should be protected. Right now, Conservatives have the stance that our speech is being censored and that we do not have a fair platform to discuss our ideas. Reforming Section 230 will ensure that we have equal free speech on social media platforms for every person under the law.

So he doesn’t understand the difference between accountability and regulation!

Not when he’s trying to achieve accountability through regulation anyway.

Hahahahaha.

[jimboston]

So who do you think the MSM should be accountable to? Given their lying, censoring and spying (your words) clearly shows that the current system is not holding them accountable enough.

They are accountable to the people. Section 230 Reform (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996) needs to happen, A great place to start is making it illegal for private companies/corporations to ban legal speech.

So you think a new law is needed. i.e. you think regulation is needed.

Good stuff.

Sorry mrswdk...

I thought he was gonna say “we the people need to hold MSM accountable by refusing to watch / support them.

Clearly he doesn’t understand the difference between accountability and regulation!

[jimboston]

So you think a new law is needed. i.e. you think regulation is needed.

Good stuff.

Currently, the companies are regulating speech. I.e., a reform to an existing law would make companies deregulate speech.

Good stuff. Can't say I'm surprised that a communist wouldn't understand anything about personal freedom.

New law, reforming existing law, actually enforcing law.... this is all regulation by the Government.

[jonesthecurl]

God says avoid listening to the world.

I come to warn of the dangers that come with listening to the world. There are many pitfalls that await those who listen and then follow the world and its worldly cares. Many find themselves caught up in worldly things.

So the voices in your head are now telling you not to listen to anyone else, huh?

[Jdsizzleslice]

No it’s not all economic.

... and your disagreeing with how the term “systemic bias” is widely used doesn’t mean you’re right and it’s a debatable point.
I am telling you how it’s widely used.

https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/s ... bias/33679

Systemic Bias in the USA does not mean solely institutional bias, institutional bias is a part of it... but it’s bias in SOCIETY and all parts of society... from our businesses, to our educational institutions, to our court systems, and beyond.

Ok, bud. Your very own definition doesn't cite which institutions or systems are claimed to be biased. Meaning an institution not this institution. Your claim is that everything in our society is biased and therefore racist. You're basically saying how the economy works is also racist. And I 100% disagree. But I guess that makes me wrong just 'cuz u said so (even though you never previously backed up your claim).

When all your comments mirror Fox, it’s hard to not make this assumption.

Watch something other than Fox and you would’ve seen all this at the time the Mueller Report was released.

I don't speak for Fox News, and Fox News doesn't speak for me. I don't watch Fox News a whole lot, I look at a lot of different sources to help shape my opinions on the world. Maybe you would actually have fruitful conversations with people instead of assuming things and attributing the worst characteristics to them. Maybe if you treated people as a human being instead of like a pile of trash you would actually have good conversations with people whom you disagree.

They abandoned nothing. They impeached him.

The two have nothing to do with each other.

I am limiting my engagement, and will ignore your dumb questions... but continue to point out your factual errors when it suits me.

So you're limiting your engagement of talking to me, while simultaneously responding to all of my posts. Seems to me like you aren't limiting yourself at all. Suit yourself if that's what you want to think.

Wrong.

How am I wrong? I just am 'cuz u said so? Or will you ignore this question too and, yet again, fail to make an argument with evidence as to why you think I am wrong?

So he doesn’t understand the difference between accountability and regulation!

Not when he’s trying to achieve accountability through regulation anyway.

Hahahahaha.

As previously stated, the reform would be deregulation of free speech.

Sorry mrswdk...

I thought he was gonna say “we the people need to hold MSM accountable by refusing to watch / support them.

Clearly he doesn’t understand the difference between accountability and regulation!

Wouldn't hurt to not watch/support MSM organizations that actively lie and censor. I would be in favor of that, and I do this currently with several corporations who support the MSM's lying and censoring.

New law, reforming existing law, actually enforcing law.... this is all regulation by the Government.

This is not correct. New laws/reforms/enforcements that are passed can either be regulatory or deregulatory, by the nature of the bill.

For example, California has a bill that will be voted on in November to repeal Proposition 209 from their State Constitution. They are repealing their Civil Rights proposition. This really scares someone like me, because if this passes, legally, you may be able to discriminate against someone based on Race, Sex, etc. and not face criminal action in the State of California. Regardless on your viewpoint on the matter, they are deregulating the Civil Rights Law that says you can't discriminate.

In the same sense, a reform to Section 230 would warrant a deregulation on speech in a legal sense from where it currently stands with these media companies that can ban speech for whatever reason they deem to be objectionable.

Look Jim, you don't have to like me or agree with my viewpoints. But don't resort to blanket statements, assumptions, or name calling. The freedom to speak one's mind doesn't mean that they aren't being a huge dick whenever they are doing so. I would encourage you to try and keep things civil. I apologize if you feel I have been uncivil from your perspective. I hope you would also extend the same olive branch.

[mrswdk]

So who do you think the MSM should be accountable to? Given their lying, censoring and spying (your words) clearly shows that the current system is not holding them accountable enough.

They are accountable to the people. Section 230 Reform (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996) needs to happen, A great place to start is making it illegal for private companies/corporations to ban legal speech.

So you think a new law is needed. i.e. you think regulation is needed.

Good stuff.

Sorry mrswdk...

I thought he was gonna say “we the people need to hold MSM accountable by refusing to watch / support them.

Clearly he doesn’t understand the difference between accountability and regulation!

Right from the screechy OP jizzle looked destined to piss his pants in public. The trick is to just give him a little encouragement without getting in his way.

No apology needed, just remember to #VoteWDK for the newest member of the mod team

[mookiemcgee]

Prob 16 in CA 2020 election only applies to state/gov't institutions, not the private sector. It's targeted at CA public universities admission policy. No one is 'facing criminal action' or going to jail, that's crazy talk.

It supporters (of which I am not one) want public universities to be able to consider race in admissions, in an effort to ensure schools fairly represent the racial mix of it's population. After this bill (the one 16 would repeal) went into effect (1996?) the top CA public universities saw drops in blacks and hispanics getting admitted in the UC system and many many many more asians in it's top caliber school system (caucasian numbers were the least changed).

My personal feeling is that the ideal admission policy would be "the smartest people get into the best schools" with almost nothing else really taken into consideration. regardless if this bill passes or fails, that isn't what they are going to do anyway. They can really use almost any basis they want now for admissions... except race/sex. I'll be voting no, but it's hyperbolic and false to claim 'CA is doing away with it's civil rights laws', as federal laws already prohibit most of what you are suggesting you are scared of.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Prob 16 in CA 2020 election only applies to state/gov't institutions, not the private sector. It's targeted at CA public universities admission policy. No one is 'facing criminal action' or going to jail, that's crazy talk.

It supporters (of which I am not one) want public universities to be able to consider race in admissions, in an effort to ensure schools fairly represent the racial mix of it's population. After this bill (the one 16 would repeal) went into effect (1996?) the top CA public universities saw drops in blacks and hispanics getting admitted in the UC system and many many many more asians in it's top caliber school system (caucasian numbers were the least changed).

My personal feeling is that the ideal admission policy would be "the smartest people get into the best schools" with almost nothing else really taken into consideration. regardless if this bill passes or fails, that isn't what they are going to do anyway. They can really use almost any basis they want now for admissions... except race/sex. I'll be voting no, but it's hyperbolic and false to claim 'CA is doing away with it's civil rights laws', as federal laws already prohibit most of what you are suggesting you are scared of.

It could apply currently to only State Institutions today, but the repeal strikes out all of the Civil Rights language in the State Constitution. It opens the door for a case that could be made in the future to say that discrimination is legal in all aspects of California Law. The Federal Law will not apply in State Institutions or California-only companies/corporations. That's my concern. If they wanted to add language to fairly represent certain ethnicities, why remove the current Civil Rights language? Why not just add a reform with a statement and keep the current language intact? I am honestly confused about the methodology here.

And I agree, the smartest people should get into schools regardless of ethnicity.

[mookiemcgee]

Prob 16 in CA 2020 election only applies to state/gov't institutions, not the private sector. It's targeted at CA public universities admission policy. No one is 'facing criminal action' or going to jail, that's crazy talk.

It supporters (of which I am not one) want public universities to be able to consider race in admissions, in an effort to ensure schools fairly represent the racial mix of it's population. After this bill (the one 16 would repeal) went into effect (1996?) the top CA public universities saw drops in blacks and hispanics getting admitted in the UC system and many many many more asians in it's top caliber school system (caucasian numbers were the least changed).

My personal feeling is that the ideal admission policy would be "the smartest people get into the best schools" with almost nothing else really taken into consideration. regardless if this bill passes or fails, that isn't what they are going to do anyway. They can really use almost any basis they want now for admissions... except race/sex. I'll be voting no, but it's hyperbolic and false to claim 'CA is doing away with it's civil rights laws', as federal laws already prohibit most of what you are suggesting you are scared of.

It could apply currently to only State Institutions today, but the repeal strikes out all of the Civil Rights language in the State Constitution. The Federal Law will not apply in State Institutions or California-only companies/corporations. That's my concern. If they wanted to add language to fairly represent certain ethnicities, why remove the current Civil Rights language? Why not just add a reform with a statement and keep the current language intact? I am honestly confused about the methodology here.

Ok first of all the only civil rights language that was ever in the CA state constitution, ONLY affected public (not private) operations. So literately no standard would change, or could be changed in regards to private business in regards to Prop 16 passing. Does that ease your concern that the sky is falling?

Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution has one important line, and then a bunch of legal disclaimers.

"The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.""

Regardless, California has LOTS other laws that prevent discrimination in the private sector, you're being alarmist and clearly really underinformed. Are you getting this from some crazy on Youtube or something? CA literally created a civil rights dept many many years before Article I Section 31 was even in the constitution. Here is their website - https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/

If you want to look into discrimination law in CA, start with the The California Fair Employment and Housing Act and don't get hung up on this red herring.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Ok first of all the only civil rights language that was ever in the CA state constitution, ONLY affected public (not private) operations. So literately no standard would change, or could be changed in regards to private business in regards to Prop 16 passing. Does that ease your concern that the sky is falling?

This doesn't erase my concern. All I'm saying is that this opens the door for discrimination to be legally protected based on what is being repealed.

Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution has one important line, and then a bunch of legal disclaimers.

"The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.""

They also strike through what they define the "State" to be:

"(f) For the purposes of this section, "State" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State."

Regardless, California has LOTS other laws that prevent discrimination in the private sector, you're being alarmist and clearly really underinformed. Are you getting this from some crazy on Youtube or something? CA literally created a civil rights dept many many years before Article I Section 31 was even in the constitution. Here is their website - https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/

If you want to look into discrimination law in CA, start with the The California Fair Employment and Housing Act and don't get hung up on this red herring.

I suppose you could call this being "alarmist" but for good reason. I would like to think I'm very informed but that's subjective, no?

I'm not really trying to debate specific Civil Rights laws that have or have not been enacted (as a whole). All I'm trying to say is that the repeal of Prop. 209 is very alarming to me because it opens the doors for someone to claim discrimination is legal under California Law.

I'm not making a claim that with the repeal of this will mean that discrimination will be automatically legal. I'm saying that maybe not now, maybe not 10 years from now, but eventually someone will try to use this repeal as a crutch to claim discrimination is legal in a court of law. That's my concern.

[mookiemcgee]

Ok first of all the only civil rights language that was ever in the CA state constitution, ONLY affected public (not private) operations. So literately no standard would change, or could be changed in regards to private business in regards to Prop 16 passing. Does that ease your concern that the sky is falling?

This doesn't erase my concern. All I'm saying is that this opens the door for discrimination to be legally protected based on what is being repealed.

Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution has one important line, and then a bunch of legal disclaimers.

"The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.""

They also strike through what they define the "State" to be:

"(f) For the purposes of this section, "State" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State."

Regardless, California has LOTS other laws that prevent discrimination in the private sector, you're being alarmist and clearly really underinformed. Are you getting this from some crazy on Youtube or something? CA literally created a civil rights dept many many years before Article I Section 31 was even in the constitution. Here is their website - https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/

If you want to look into discrimination law in CA, start with the The California Fair Employment and Housing Act and don't get hung up on this red herring.

I suppose you could call this being "alarmist" but for good reason. I would like to think I'm very informed but that's subjective, no?

I'm not really trying to debate specific Civil Rights laws that have or have not been enacted (as a whole). All I'm trying to say is that the repeal of Prop. 209 is very alarming to me because it opens the doors for someone to claim discrimination is legal under California Law.

I'm not making a claim that with the repeal of this will mean that discrimination will be automatically legal. I'm saying that maybe not now, maybe not 10 years from now, but eventually someone will try to use this repeal as a crutch to claim discrimination is legal in a court of law. That's my concern.

I'm sorry but before no one is claiming discrimination would be legal in CA (but you), it's crazy talk bro.

Discrimination in the workplace is illegal under CA law, nothing about prop 209 changes that in any way. Students on either side of this are probably already preparing discrimination lawsuits regardless of how it goes, and they have been filing discrimination suits for 30 years since prop 209 was passed in the 90's, there is nothing new or particularly scary about that. It's a red herring, and wherever you got this, they are either lying and/or grossly exaggerating what this would mean. It's just about school admission policy, 'affirmative action' if you will. And if your against that just say that, but don't go claiming discrimination would be legal in CA, because it wouldn't and that is NOT subjective.

Hell you can even argue about the definition of discrimination, and who is being discriminated against and deserves protection. CA law itself is crystal clear, however you define it it's illegal.

[jimboston]

This is not correct. New laws/reforms/enforcements that are passed can either be regulatory or deregulatory, by the nature of the bill.

For example, California has a bill that will be voted on in November to repeal Proposition 209 from their State Constitution. They are repealing their Civil Rights proposition. This really scares someone like me, because if this passes, legally, you may be able to discriminate against someone based on Race, Sex, etc. and not face criminal action in the State of California. Regardless on your viewpoint on the matter, they are deregulating the Civil Rights Law that says you can't discriminate.

In the same sense, a reform to Section 230 would warrant a deregulation on speech in a legal sense from where it currently stands with these media companies that can ban speech for whatever reason they deem to be objectionable.

Completely removing or striking down a law is definitely deregulation.

Modifying an existing law might result in a less regulated outcome... but the act itself is regulation. You are defining/modifying the field in which companies must operate... that is regulation.

I’m not saying regulation in and of itself is good or bad.... I definitely believe we need regulations in society. It;s all about where and how they are applied.

Look Jim, you don't have to like me or agree with my viewpoints. But don't resort to blanket statements, assumptions, or name calling. The freedom to speak one's mind doesn't mean that they aren't being a huge dick whenever they are doing so. I would encourage you to try and keep things civil. I apologize if you feel I have been uncivil from your perspective. I hope you would also extend the same olive branch.

Please point to where I have resorted to name calling.

When your talking points mirror Fox and other Right-Wing MSM sources, it’s not a big leap for me to assume that’s where you get your info.

I contend that we all get our news from MSM, at least in part, and that you just don’t like Liberal MSM.

MSM is biased... biased to make money. That bias leads these companies to develop a niche and following, which accentuates / perpetuates / magnifies the bias politically. All you complaints flow from that. There’s no secret cabal of MSM leaders working together to control how we think.

Alls, lumping Tik Tok into the category of MSM is a stretch.

[mrswdk]

Also, jdizzle has yet to justify his assertion that TIk Tok refusing to comply with a Chinese government law is proof that Tik Tok is a pawn of the Chinese government.

Deregulation via regulation!

Compliance via non-compliance!

Peace via war!

[hotfire]

According to the linked page below, Fox News IS the biggest of the MSM. You don't suppose that could mean they are the biggest offender?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-network-viewership-usa/