I grew up in solidly Republican Virginia in the 1990s (even my “liberal” Northern VA county voted against Clinton both times) and we certainly didn’t learn the “Daughters of the Confederacy” version. When we visited Monticello, slavery was discussed at length. Teachers have discretion so maybe some kids are still learning this stuff, but it’s a huge lie to say it’s “most” kids today.

Folks like Reid are massively gaslighting people by making it seem like the opposition to CRT is opposition to “teaching kids about slavery.” Conservatives in Virginia weren’t up in arms complaining about that when I was a kid almost 30 years ago, so it’s hard to imagine that’s what they’re doing. The opposition, instead, is to people like Reid who are trying to normalize racism against white people. It’s opposition to people who want to turn slavery into the entire narrative, such as the 1619 Project, which asserted that “nearly everything exceptional about America grew out of slavery”: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/year-zero

> Out of slavery — and the anti-black racism it required — grew nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional: its economic might, its industrial power, its electoral system, its diet and popular music.

I routinely read Fox News online. I do not think they have moderated over the last 2 years - there was perhaps some moderation 4 years ago, but no longer.

CNN has swung leftward, I don't think MSNBC has substantially changed.

And Reid said “most” kids, not just those in the South.

They moved slightly back from Trumpism back toward their earlier pre-Trump far-rightism late in the Trump period (not abandoning the former, just not going in whole hog on it), which might be seen as moderation from a tribal/partisan viewpoint (as pre-Trump far-rightism currently lacking a major party home, to the extent many anti-Trump-but-far-right voices advocated voting for Democrats over Republicans despite ideological issues with Democrats in 2020 as essential to the defeat of Trumpism), but is not moderation ideologically.

While the D-R partisan split is not independent of left-right ideology, its not the same thing.

CNN/MSNBC the Democrats.

Democracy Now is essentially the American grassroots left. Not generally fans of either party.

Anyways it's kind of pointless to argue what the "opposite" of Fox is as it's really ill-defined. i think it's fair to say CNN and Fox are similar to being opposites.

Ok, I'm going to do it:

> Presidents usually get too much blame when the economy is doing badly, since downturns are often caused by outside shocks or cyclical factors, but that also gives them a chance to crow when things are going full steam ahead. Trump is not the kind of person to pass that up.

> The strong growth number gives the White House a significant boost after days of grim headlines, and its failure to move on from the President’s humiliating summit performance with Russian President Vladimir Putin nearly two weeks ago.

> It also offers some personal respite for Trump, given that he must feel that legal walls are closing around him, following news that one of his most important confidants, Allen Weisselberg, has been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors investigating his former lawyer Michael Cohen.

> The New York Times reported on Thursday that special counsel Robert Mueller is examining Trump’s tweets, potentially to see whether they can help him build a case that the President acted with malicious intent when he sacked former FBI Director James Comey.

> Trump is forever trying to change the subject. With the current state of the economy, he may have some ammunition.

> Often, the President’s hyperbolic assessment of his own performance is at odds with the facts

> but he [Trump] often has only himself to blame for it getting overlooked, given the daily political turmoil he creates.

> Trump’s end zone dance might come across as a little premature.

It just goes on and on. I'm practically quoting the whole article. Just the language alone: "humiliating", "walls closing in", etc. Then they quote one poll, presumably the one what makes him look as bad as possible. It's just ridiculous. I don't know how you can say this article is "positive" for Trump. The headline is relatively positive (though even then I can feel CNN begrudgingly wrote some credit).

Biden's not the opposite of Trump either. Biden pleases some conservatives, which is why he got the nomination over Sanders, so that he'd stand a chance of winning over "undecided" (ie. right wing, but not extreme right wing) voters in battleground states. Many neocons are also fans of Biden, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to find support of him on FOX.

Now I'd be surprised to find any positive coverage of Sanders on FOX.. not to mention people who are really on the left like Noam Chomsky.

Right, which is why this is kind of a pointless thing. What the hell does it mean for one media organization to be the opposite of another anyway?

I agree I did kind of start it with my earlier comment though.