Jump to content

Media behaving badly

Politics   (82,583 Views 875 Comments)
18,440 Visitors; 2,281 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 46 of Media behaving badly. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

2 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

Particulary laughable now that we know (actually many of us already knew) that the anti-Trumpers have been overdosing on and regurgitating on a daily basis the propaganda coming from the WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc. for the last two years.

Wasn't it you that said just because it comes from a source you don't like doesn't mean it isn't true.  

Those sources the last two years were reporting what was happening...an investigation into possible Russian interference into our election and did the Trump campaign know about it.  That might be "propaganda" to you, but it was what was news at the time.   Even Fox News reported it.  Despite what the right would like to believe these charges weren't dreamt up by the media to take down Trump.  Maybe some stations over reported and over reacted more than others, just like some downplayed.  But it's too juicy a story to ignore.  Like I said in another thread, it's investigation lead to several arrests and jail time, so it's time well spent.

Edited by Tweety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You only know what Barr has told us in a summary and what the president has said. Of course, the president is a liar and Barr told us that he wouldn't support obstruction in his previous writings and his Senate confirmation hearings. The reality is that past precedent would require the AG to give the report and evidence to the House. It is interesting that Barr apparently is going to follow a much different pathway.

Your opinion isn't surprising, though. 

Nice try.  This whole thing is about collusion.  My post is about the propaganda liberals have been fed and regurgitated for over two years about the supposed overwhelming evidence of collusion.  At the same time, they mock and redicule fellow citizens on the right side of the aisle.  

As the issue relates to this particular thread, maybe it would be prudent for liberals to have a bit less of a pompous and condescending attitude torward those who have a different perspective on things and who pay attention to different news and opinion sources then they might.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tweety said:

Wasn't it you that said just because it comes from a source you don't like doesn't mean it isn't true.  

Those sources the last two years were reporting what was happening...an investigation into possible Russian interference into our election and did the Trump campaign know about it.  That might be "propaganda" to you, but it was what was news at the time.   Even Fox News reported it.  Despite what the right would like to believe these charges weren't dreamt up by the media to take down Trump.  Maybe some stations over reported and over reacted more than others, just like some downplayed.  But it's too juicy a story to ignore.  Like I said in another thread, it's investigation lead to several arrests and jail time, so it's time well spent.

Reporting a story from a neutral point of view is not what the media spent their time doing.  

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/25/montage_mainstream_media_hype_about_russia_collusion.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, SC_RNDude said:

Nice try.  This whole thing is about collusion.  My post is about the propaganda liberals have been fed and regurgitated for over two years about the supposed overwhelming evidence of collusion.  At the same time, they mock and redicule fellow citizens on the right side of the aisle.  

As the issue relates to this particular thread, maybe it would be prudent for liberals to have a bit less of a pompous and condescending attitude torward those who have a different perspective on things and who pay attention to different news and opinion sources then they might.  

 

 

You are mistaken.  The entire Mueller investigation was NOT about collusion. That is Trump's spin. It was about how Russia interfered in our election and who aided them either wittingly or unwittingly. You are also mistaking reporting on facts as propaganda, somehow believing that every news agency which reports in ways that are unflattering to Trump as FAKE NEWS and propaganda. I would challenge you to make a credible argument for that in another post. 

 It remains interesting that multiple members of Trump's campaign had meetings, conversations or contact with Russians which they lied about at every turn. Every person lied multiple times.  Trump himself lied about having a potential business deal in Moscow, multiple times. Trump's campaign manager shared polling data with Russians for some reason. It looks pretty suspicious. So none of them are prosecuted for conspiracy, there are still many unanswered questions. 

Most posters here do not mock or ridicule anyone while simultaneously not tolerating posting of incorrect or spun information. As well, it is not mocking to question why people would be interested enough to participate in an online discussion but would prefer to ignore factual reporting or evidence, presumably to maintain a belief. I'm certain that you have experienced this and it has made you uncomfortable. It is never comfortable to be confronted with contradictions to our beliefs. More than one of us have admitted error in these threads.

As it to this thread, it might be prudent to seek a less pompous and condescending tone when you don't know what the Mueller report contains beyond Barr's summary. Trump is nit exonerated. It really is not necessary to be habitually combative and aggressive with other posters because you disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

Reporting a story from a neutral point of view is not what the media spent their time doing.  

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/25/montage_mainstream_media_hype_about_russia_collusion.html

Just like the site you post above whose today's top 17 stories are anti-media, anti-democrat, anti-liberal stories doesn't spend their time from a neutral stance.  

Even CNN, WaPo, and NYT and other sources people tend to use here aren't that bad.   

But that's not even the point, the point is that the story was indeed news and the story wasn't made up by the media.   Like it or not, it was a news story.  

I've said many times before that I agree that news organizations get on a story and hype it up.  

Edited by Tweety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

Nice try.  This whole thing is about collusion.  My post is about the propaganda liberals have been fed and regurgitated for over two years about the supposed overwhelming evidence of collusion.  At the same time, they mock and redicule fellow citizens on the right side of the aisle.  

As the issue relates to this particular thread, maybe it would be prudent for liberals to have a bit less of a pompous and condescending attitude torward those who have a different perspective on things and who pay attention to different news and opinion sources then they might.  

 

 

Are you going to take your own advice, dude?

Your post contains a lot of pompous statements, written by you.

If you want to come out, unsolicited advice on prudence, maybe you should start by setting an example.

Otherwise, you know what they say about free advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Tweety said:

Just like the site you post above whose today's top 17 stories are anti-media, anti-democrat, anti-liberal stories doesn't spend their time from a neutral stance.  

Even CNN, WaPo, and NYT and other sources people tend to use here aren't that bad.   

But that's not even the point, the point is that the story was indeed news and the story wasn't made up by the media.   Like it or not, it was a news story.  

I've said many times before that I agree that news organizations get on a story and hype it up.  

It seems to me, that people complaining about mainstream press coverage, really don't understand press coverage.

In order for a story to be unbiased, it needs to contain voices from both sides.

And some people on this thread don't understand that concept.

For instance, years ago, as I graduate student in journalism, I wrote a public radio story that was critical of a local politican. 

To be unbiased, I simply called that politican, and got his quote on the issue.

Read stories from mainstream press, and that is what you will find.

Unbiased, doesn't mean not reporting the ugly truth.

It simply means, when Trump says something, it doesn't go unchallenged.

I know that is hard for some posters to accept, and because they know, no better, they think the press is unfair.

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You are mistaken.  The entire Mueller investigation was NOT about collusion. That is Trump's spin. It was about how Russia interfered in our election and who aided them either wittingly or unwittingly. You are also mistaking reporting on facts as propaganda, somehow believing that every news agency which reports in ways that are unflattering to Trump as FAKE NEWS and propaganda. I would challenge you to make a credible argument for that in another post. 

 It remains interesting that multiple members of Trump's campaign had meetings, conversations or contact with Russians which they lied about at every turn. Every person lied multiple times.  Trump himself lied about having a potential business deal in Moscow, multiple times. Trump's campaign manager shared polling data with Russians for some reason. It looks pretty suspicious. So none of them are prosecuted for conspiracy, there are still many unanswered questions. 

Most posters here do not mock or ridicule anyone while simultaneously not tolerating posting of incorrect or spun information. As well, it is not mocking to question why people would be interested enough to participate in an online discussion but would prefer to ignore factual reporting or evidence, presumably to maintain a belief. I'm certain that you have experienced this and it has made you uncomfortable. It is never comfortable to be confronted with contradictions to our beliefs. More than one of us have admitted error in these threads.

As it to this thread, it might be prudent to seek a less pompous and condescending tone when you don't know what the Mueller report contains beyond Barr's summary. Trump is nit exonerated. It really is not necessary to be habitually combative and aggressive with other posters because you disagree.

I wish I could "like" this more than once, baloney.

I was wondering how long it would take a Trump supporter, to post Trump's propaganda, albeit, regurgitated, on these threads.

The answer was less than 24 hours.

What you wrote about William Barr, is true.

And remember, he was handpicked, by Trump, after Trump fired Jeff Sessions.

Again, I am waiting for what the Southern District of NY has on Trump.

I think Trumpsters are going to be very sorry, if they pin all their hopes on a four-page summary from Barr.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

 

Edit....I realize that the above is from the interview, not your quote.  When I used the quote button, it posted funny.

Now...

What a load of self-righteous, cocky, over-confident garbage.

Particulary laughable now that we know (actually many of us already knew) that the anti-Trumpers have been overdosing on and regurgitating on a daily basis the propaganda coming from the WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc. for the last two years.

Ah, and Trumpsters have spent the last two years overdosing on Fox, the Daily Caller and Breitbart.

Do you have a point, or do you simply want to agitate, like usual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tweety said:

Wasn't it you that said just because it comes from a source you don't like doesn't mean it isn't true.  

Those sources the last two years were reporting what was happening...an investigation into possible Russian interference into our election and did the Trump campaign know about it.  That might be "propaganda" to you, but it was what was news at the time.   Even Fox News reported it.  Despite what the right would like to believe these charges weren't dreamt up by the media to take down Trump.  Maybe some stations over reported and over reacted more than others, just like some downplayed.  But it's too juicy a story to ignore.  Like I said in another thread, it's investigation lead to several arrests and jail time, so it's time well spent.

Absolutely time well spent!

How many people in the Trump orbit have admitted lying to Congress?

How many are either in jail, or will be going soon?

I am still very curious, as to why all these people felt the need to lie.

And why did Paul Manafort want to share polling data with the Russians?

We need to see the entire Mueller report, not simply a four-page summary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

Absolutely time well spent!

I'm very frustrated that a group of people that spent countless hours demanding justice for Benghazi, her emails, Uranium...etc.  balk at the same treatment for Trump.  I have zero respect for the victim and witch hunt stance from them.  They are owed no apology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×