New York Times Blows Another One

[protectionist]

Does anybody out there still bother to read the laughingstock, fake-news New York Times ? Sheeesh! This silly, ultra-liberal rag has been polluting newsstands for as long as I can remember. With mountains of fake news, and sourceless “reports”, gullible liberals continue to waste their money.

I first came to realize what a joke the Times was (and still is) back in 1979, during the infamous (and quite funny) Times-National Enquirer feud. Some Times writers had been ridiculing the National Enquirer, berating it as nothing but sensationalist trash. But after the Times printed this >> “The oil shortage is a hoax”, and stated it was according to an unknown soured, the Enquirer made the Times eat their words.

The Enquirer also reported the quote, but stated it as >> according to Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), head of the Senate Energy Committee.

Egg on Times’ face then. Egg on their face now. The Times is now reporting that Vice President Pence is seeking a 2020 run for the presidency. Only 1 problem. Pence isn’t and he emphatically denounced the Times fake-news declaration as “absurd” and “offensive” (ABC News). Pence further called the Times “report”, categorically FALSE, and disgraceful”. Compounding the criticism, White House aide, Kelly Anne Conway called the Times “story” >> “fiction” and “a fabrication.”

Looks like the Times takes their readership for granted. Will they believe anything the Times prints ? I suggest an experiment. Have the Times print that it has been determined that the earth is actually flat. Then check to see how many Times readers go along.

 

[toobfreak]

Does anybody out there still bother to read the laughingstock, fake-news New York Times ? Sheeesh! This silly, ultra-liberal rag has been polluting newsstands for as long as I can remember. With mountains of fake news, and sourceless “reports”, gullible liberals continue to waste their money.

I first came to realize what a joke the Times was (and still is) back in 1979, during the infamous (and quite funny) Times-National Enquirer feud. Some Times writers had been ridiculing the National Enquirer, berating it as nothing but sensationalist trash. But after the Times printed this >> “The oil shortage is a hoax”, and stated it was according to an unknown soured, the Enquirer made the Times eat their words.

The Enquirer also reported the quote, but stated it as >> according to Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), head of the Senate Energy Committee.

Egg on Times’ face then. Egg on their face now. The Times is now reporting that Vice President Pence is seeking a 2020 run for the presidency. Only 1 problem. Pence isn’t and he emphatically denounced the Times fake-news declaration as “absurd” and “offensive” (ABC News). Pence further called the Times “report”, categorically FALSE, and disgraceful”. Compounding the criticism, White House aide, Kelly Anne Conway called the Times “story” >> “fiction” and “a fabrication.”

Looks like the Times takes their readership for granted. Will they believe anything the Times prints ? I suggest an experiment. Have the Times print that it has been determined that the earth is actually flat. Then check to see how many Times readers go along.

There is a glaring mistake here. There is this long-confused idea that the 'Freedom of the Press' means a total "hands off," but the intention of the First Amendment was that the government have no say in stopping the Press from overseeing and reporting on government. The Founders aspparently never considered outright defamation, libel.

WHY IS IT that the government is OK to have oversight on the background checks on guns (2nd Amendment)? Isn't that a sort of "Quality Check?" That you are good to carry a gun concealed?

WHY THEN is it such a bad idea to have a little oversight on the Press (1st Amendment)? That the Press is held accountable for the veracity of what they report? Isn't television a form of freedom of speech? Yet TV has all kinds of rules and regulations. Witness the FCC! Even when your show starts, it has a big, annoying "television rating" in the corner, as mandated by the government.

1). "Sourceless or Anonymous" reports need to be required to be put on a back page clearly labeled as Unsubstantiated Rumors in the Media. Without a verifiable source that can be checked, you could claim the Moon is made of green cheese and simply claim an anonymous source! Maybe such stories should be outlawed? Maybe you ought to have a verifiable source so that it can be checked as accurate.

2). Published stories which are found to contain false accusations need to carry a fine. That would immediately make the press ACCOUNTABLE TO TELL THE TRUTH.

3). Published stories which contain grave accusations found to be factually untrue need to carry heavy fines and limits on them before serious consequences. That would make the Press honest.

There are regulations and oversight on practically every other freedom we have except the Press! Is it any wonder that it has been weaponized as a political machine? Oddly enough, the very people who benefit from all of this are mainly the same people who decide to keep it regulation free.

 

[protectionist]

There is a glaring mistake here. There is this long-confused idea that the 'Freedom of the Press' means a total "hands off," but the intention of the First Amendment was that the government have no say in stopping the Press from overseeing and reporting on government. The Founders aspparently never considered outright defamation, libel.

WHY IS IT that the government is OK to have oversight on the background checks on guns (2nd Amendment)? Isn't that a sort of "Quality Check?" That you are good to carry a gun concealed?

WHY THEN is it such a bad idea to have a little oversight on the Press (1st Amendment)? That the Press is held accountable for the veracity of what they report? Isn't television a form of freedom of speech? Yet TV has all kinds of rules and regulations. Witness the FCC! Even when your show starts, it has a big, annoying "television rating" in the corner, as mandated by the government.

1). "Sourceless or Anonymous" reports need to be required to be put on a back page clearly labeled as Unsubstantiated Rumors in the Media. Without a verifiable source that can be checked, you could claim the Moon is made of green cheese and simply claim an anonymous source! Maybe such stories should be outlawed? Maybe you ought to have a verifiable source so that it can be checked as accurate.

2). Published stories which are found to contain false accusations need to carry a fine. That would immediately make the press ACCOUNTABLE TO TELL THE TRUTH.

3). Published stories which contain grave accusations found to be factually untrue need to carry heavy fines and limits on them before serious consequences. That would make the Press honest.

There are regulations and oversight on practically every other freedom we have except the Press! Is it any wonder that it has been weaponized as a political machine? Oddly enough, the very people who benefit from all of this are mainly the same people who decide to keep it regulation free.

Good post. It is definitely time to pull the reins on the outrageous misuse of the TV airwaves, newsprint, radio, etc by liberal lairs with no sense of responsibility or accountability.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Does anybody out there still bother to read the laughingstock, fake-news New York Times ? Sheeesh! This silly, ultra-liberal rag has been polluting newsstands for as long as I can remember. With mountains of fake news, and sourceless “reports”, gullible liberals continue to waste their money.

I first came to realize what a joke the Times was (and still is) back in 1979, during the infamous (and quite funny) Times-National Enquirer feud. Some Times writers had been ridiculing the National Enquirer, berating it as nothing but sensationalist trash. But after the Times printed this >> “The oil shortage is a hoax”, and stated it was according to an unknown soured, the Enquirer made the Times eat their words.

The Enquirer also reported the quote, but stated it as >> according to Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), head of the Senate Energy Committee.

Egg on Times’ face then. Egg on their face now. The Times is now reporting that Vice President Pence is seeking a 2020 run for the presidency. Only 1 problem. Pence isn’t and he emphatically denounced the Times fake-news declaration as “absurd” and “offensive” (ABC News). Pence further called the Times “report”, categorically FALSE, and disgraceful”. Compounding the criticism, White House aide, Kelly Anne Conway called the Times “story” >> “fiction” and “a fabrication.”

Looks like the Times takes their readership for granted. Will they believe anything the Times prints ? I suggest an experiment. Have the Times print that it has been determined that the earth is actually flat. Then check to see how many Times readers go along.

There is a glaring mistake here. There is this long-confused idea that the 'Freedom of the Press' means a total "hands off," but the intention of the First Amendment was that the government have no say in stopping the Press from overseeing and reporting on government. The Founders aspparently never considered outright defamation, libel.

WHY IS IT that the government is OK to have oversight on the background checks on guns (2nd Amendment)? Isn't that a sort of "Quality Check?" That you are good to carry a gun concealed?

WHY THEN is it such a bad idea to have a little oversight on the Press (1st Amendment)? That the Press is held accountable for the veracity of what they report? Isn't television a form of freedom of speech? Yet TV has all kinds of rules and regulations. Witness the FCC! Even when your show starts, it has a big, annoying "television rating" in the corner, as mandated by the government.

1). "Sourceless or Anonymous" reports need to be required to be put on a back page clearly labeled as Unsubstantiated Rumors in the Media. Without a verifiable source that can be checked, you could claim the Moon is made of green cheese and simply claim an anonymous source! Maybe such stories should be outlawed? Maybe you ought to have a verifiable source so that it can be checked as accurate.

2). Published stories which are found to contain false accusations need to carry a fine. That would immediately make the press ACCOUNTABLE TO TELL THE TRUTH.

3). Published stories which contain grave accusations found to be factually untrue need to carry heavy fines and limits on them before serious consequences. That would make the Press honest.

There are regulations and oversight on practically every other freedom we have except the Press! Is it any wonder that it has been weaponized as a political machine? Oddly enough, the very people who benefit from all of this are mainly the same people who decide to keep it regulation free.

well put

 

[BlackFlag]

You guys can just watch Trump TV "news" now. There's no longer any need for you to be so encumbered by reality.

 

[protectionist]

You guys can just watch Trump TV "news" now. There's no longer any need for you to be so encumbered by reality.

You calling MSM "reality", is enough to qualify you for a nuthouse.