Probably because it was hypocritical. Conservative media is 99% ragebait, and when it comes to illegal immigration it's 99.9 ragebait, as are many public statements by the administration. Consider, for example, the regular claims that the US is being 'invaded' as if this were some military emergency.
Understandable preference, but it's hard to be blind to it to the point of never even seeing headlines on news or social media sites. It also seems foolish to completely ignore the media diet consumed by about 1/3 of the population.
I often hear complaints from centrists about 'liberal echo chambers' (eg a spate of recent articles about Bluesky), but few of them seem to appreciate the scope and scale of the conservative media ecosystem, or its sheer cynicism. Consider this example, from an interview conducted 20 years ago: https://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/Weekly_Standard_M...
Back then, conservative media played the role of an upstart alternative to the staid and often smug mainstream establishment. 2 decades later, what used to be a cottage industry has become dominant in its sector. Media Matters is a left-leaning outlet, but this recent report of theirs is largely quantitive and its claims seem well-founded in empirical research: https://www.mediamatters.org/google/right-dominates-online-m...
i guess i mispoke in my previous comment. Didn't know Joe Rogan was part of "conservative media" . I do listen to joe rogan sometimes because i do have lots of common interests like mma, ancient history , fitness ect ( although i am kind of bored of his repetitive takes like mma should happen in a basketball court )
I guess what is the equivalent left/democrat podcast to joe rogan ? I tried to listen to erza klien but that podcast always puts me in bad mood and the host indeed is "smug" . I never heard him admit to any of his bad qualities or his own selfishness like joe rogan. even his pious and fake intonation is so irritating to me.
I'm the wrong person to ask, I don't listen to podcasts at all and don't like TV or radio either, I prefer reading my news. I've been interested in this topic for a long time because it's interesting to map the social/ownership networks of influencers and moral entrepreneurs.
> And my own comment above is downvoted for some reason.
Perhaps because you're defending, and assuming good faith behavior, from an organization which is committing violations against your fellow man on a daily basis?
Right, it means at a new level which has never been seen before.
Which is accurate. The headline didn’t claim illegal nor nefarious. The headline is accurate in a literal sense.