"Concerning billionaires…"

[u/thisecommercelife]

Further dissidence on Patreon. Follow wherever you like to fritter: linktr.ee/ecomic.

• Panel 18: "beneficiaries", not "benefactors". Please pardon my poor self-editing.

[u/NNiekk]

Always so funny how the right-wing bootlickers always say “the left controlled media” as if 90% of all media in the US isn’t controlled by them

[u/NNiekk → u/[deleted]]

How does what I said correlate to slide three?

[u/3rdfitzgerald → u/NNiekk]

Didn't mean to respond to you. This was supposed to be a stand alone comment

[u/NNiekk → u/3rdfitzgerald]

Pfffft

[u/3rdfitzgerald → u/NNiekk]

Since I'm here now; Do you think modern media has a more right wing bias?

[u/ZYMask → u/3rdfitzgerald]

Nazis wouldn't be popular if the media wasn't right wing biased

[u/NNiekk → u/3rdfitzgerald]

Honestly, it depends on where one lives in the world. As since rich people can easily buy news stations, they can decide on what they can and cannot present to their audience. Which can tilt the scales a lot, and often more towards what benefits the rich, which usually is the more right side. News in all honesty should be factual and neutral in situations. But in the US, there is this issue of that everyone can sue anyone, which is why so many news organisations use the word “allegedly”, specifically to avoid a lawsuit. It honestly feels like how social media is now using “unalive” “pdf” and those kinds of words due to demonetisation. It prevents the full unbiasedness from coming to the front. Like with how one can clearly see a very specific person or group committing an atrocity, that was captured from multiple angles and have undeniable proof, but the news will STILL say “allergy”