It's never too early! That was David Carradine's best role!

How about, just don't go nuts when everyone says something you consider bigoted? Since every single person has different standards for what is offensive and what isn't, criticizing someone for something that you find offensive is an exercise in futility. The person who said it clearly didn't find it offensive, and…

Well of course you did, you're a cat! Your attention spans are horrible!

The great thing about the First Amendment is that everyone - of every race, gender, and orientation - has the right to say whatever they want. You don't have to "earn" it. And if you think it's offensive, you don't have to watch. How cool is that?

Oh, shit, it doesn't exist anymore? I didn't know Sanders won the election and instituted a socialist utopia. CNN keeps saying Trump won! Fake news! Sad!

Wow, the narrative sure has changed the last few years. It used to be, "You don't like Obama? You're obviously racist." Now it's, "You voted for Obama, but not for Clinton? You're obviously racist."

Except, ironically, most Democrats are now saying that it is.

Couldn't agree more. I'm just so sick of that phrase - people aren't saying, "Oh yeah, well your side did the exact same thing!" They're saying, "Well, your side did something that was also morally questionable!" That's what a comparison is, it's comparing two similar, but not identical ("equivalent") things.

Yeah, they're just employed by them, and told what they can and can't report on by them. My mistake.

Fox lost a shitload of viewers when people like Megyn Kelly refused to kiss Trump's ass in the leadup to the election. They're just now managing to get some of them back by having Hannity and Carlson suck up to him regularly. Still, most of the die-hard Trumpers are getting their "news" from Brietbart and The Blaze.

So, basically, your theory is that journalists have an insatiable hunger for profit which drives them to do shitty reporting. But if we just gave them money, they would suddenly become virtuous and only report in the best interests of the public.

Yeah, apparently all those counties in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that went for Obama in 2012 and then Trump for years later. They just hated the idea of a black President!

So when they end up getting federal money, regardless of how good their reporting is, do you think that will give them more of an incentive to do serious stories? Or less?

Except… Obama basically said outright that Russian belligerence was NOT a problem geopolitically. "Mitt, the 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back." Remember that sick burn?

If you can't see the slippery slope here, I don't know what to tell you. Generally, people don't have a huge motivation to expose corruption in the people who can put them out of a job.

If I'm saying William Randolph Hearst was motivated by money… well, yes, yes he obviously freaking was.

That's true; I voted for Romney and refused to vote for The Orange One for that very reason (and many, many other reasons).

You've seriously never heard of William Randolph Hearst?

What's your solution, exactly? You're saying that the media should be "free from a profit motive". How will they be supported? Some state funding doesn't mean state-run, but 100% state funding does. They control the cash flow, they control what gets on the air. Watch RT sometime and tell me how impartial they are.

If you want "freedom from a profit motive", then you're advocating state-run media. What could possibly go wrong?