The average reader of a right-side blog is better informed than the average viewer of television news
There was this in the comments on the previous thread that quite caught my eye:
#2335836, posted on March 24, 2017 at 7:17 pm (Edit)
One of the biggest stories on earth right now – the illegal surveillance of a president-elect by a sitting president in the USA – is being totally ignored by the ABC. No mention at all. Quite incredible.
And you know what, he’s right. One of the genuinely astonishing parts about discussing politics with most people is that the only things they know about are what they find on the news or in the papers, which means everything that might in any way contradict their leftwards worldview is kept from them by every means possible. This is what their ABC does. They either do not report, or distort what they do report or misstate the significance of what they report or just outright lie. But as an example of the way in which the community is mis-informed, just as Mr Wallace said, it really is incredible that no one who depends on the ABC is aware of this: OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE: Obama INVOLVED in “Wiretapping”. They might be told that Trump has said as much, but they would never ever have an inkling that any of it might be true, or that these are issues they might wish to weigh up for themselves. Instead, the story, even where it is reported, is bundled up for their viewers so that not only are they told what the right view on each and every issue is, but the proper response is provided as well.
For us over here, we get an almost lethal dose of the ABC and friends’ pre-digested news, since how could we not, even if we tried. But for ABC types, they are kept in their safety zones to prevent their ever having to come across news that might disturb their peace of mind, even if that peace of mind requires an almost complete ignorance of what is going on in the world.
Yet you do have to wonder how this will be kept from going through the roof. From Drudge, right now:
So we shall see if it is still news come Monday, whether the don’t-want-to-know crowd will get their wish and end up not knowing.
UPDATE: I just don’t think it comes across exactly what we are dealing with. Let me take you to the words of that last story linked above. This is from the story:
Nunes said he was alarmed by what he saw in several dozen intelligence reports that include transcripts of communications, including communications directly from Trump. The reports were based on a foreign electronic spying operation between November and January. They were revealed by an intelligence community insider who alerted Nunes.
Nunes said on CNN that after reading the reports he was confident the Obama White House and numerous agencies “had a pretty good idea of what President-elect Trump was up to and what his transition team was up to and who they were meeting with.” . . .
The intelligence reports, which number in the dozens, suggest that the names of Trump and his advisers were not properly “minimized” in the foreign intelligence reports, as required under intelligence rules protecting the privacy rights of Americans.
“We don’t have the full scope of all the intelligence reports that were produced, or who ordered the unmasking of additional names, and we’re hoping to get that,” Nunes said.
The transcripts appeared to be the result of legal intelligence collection against a foreign target. The problem, Nunes said, was that someone in government ordered the names of the Americans to be unmasked and the reports to be distributed to government agencies. . . .
The explosive reports uncovered by Nunes contradict public testimony Monday by FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers.
Comey and Rogers stated during an intelligence committee hearing that they had no information to support Trump’s claims in a series of tweets that he had been placed under electronic surveillance by President Obama. . . .
Asked if he could rule out that Obama was personally involved in the surveillance, Nunes said “No, I cannot.”