The News Is Unwatchable

[LoneLaugher]

It was all organized by Trump, you know, to deflect the attention from RUSSIA

That will be liberals theory.

Why would you say something so stupid? It must come naturally.

liberals blame Trump for everything because they are insane.

Retards say that liberals blame trump for everything because they blamed Obama for everything and they are retards.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The news is right and you're wrong. Being wrong and not having the sense to admit it makes you feel like shit within your soul...So you need to lash out on the news for dearing to make you feel bad.

You're just idiots.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[MisterBeale]

I was just thinking about this yesterday. I realized that, outside of tuning in to the live coverage from Las Vegas, I've pretty much stopped watching teevee "news" unless I'm just surfing by and watch for a moment.

The constant use of pundits and panels has just wrecked it. Advocacy journalism isn't "news". It's advocacy journalism.
.

I came to that conclusion back in 2007. Since I don't watch sports, I got rid of my TV.

Why should I pay for commercials?

All I needed then was videos and YouTube. Then Netflix and other streaming services came along, I've been set since. Being a free thinker has never been easier.

Yeah. You're a free thinker who doesn't believe any fucking thing that's ever in the news. Brilliant.

Ineffective and inane sarcasm noted.

They have been caught and proven lying and decieving multiple times, why should anyone take them at face value? If I can corroborate what they are saying, sure I'll believe them. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

These are examples of media lies that have since become history, a history that is now warped and confused, even in schools.

History Lessons Your Teacher Lied to You About | Reader's Digest

The 5 Ballsiest Lies the Mainstream Media Passed Off as Fact

I'm gonna say this once. Read carefully.

I'm a person who demands evidence before I offer a judgement. I know that "the gubmint" hasn't always been straight with the populace. But you fuckers need help. This shit is 100 PERCENT HAPPENNING UNDER PUBLIC SCRUTINY.

You fucking gullible idiot. There is no lie being told in the course of this reporting that will withstand this level of public scrutiny. Alex fucking Jones will not uncover a god damned conspiracy when it comes to a fucking event like this.

There is NO WAY IN HELL that YOU have a more critical mind than I do. No way. What you have is a demented mind which, having bought lies for decades, has no idea what is truth and what is bullshit.

Trusted news sources print or make retractions when they discover that they have reported inaccurate info. They don't work feverishly to spin their bullshit ( Jones, Brietbart, Fox ). They admit their error.

The NYT, WashPo, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS. These sources have standards. They can be trusted because they admit their mistakes.

Now. You have been taught. Take it or leave it.

You are beyond lost. Someone that has been brainwashed has nothing to teach.

You don't know how to think critically. I just posted for you all the times that the mainstream has been outed as wrong. They are wrong all the time. They have no standards.

10 Honest News Sites Way Better Than Anything in the Mainstream Media
10 Honest News Sites Way Better Than Anything in the Mainstream Media - Eluxe Magazine

For example, it was recently reported that the Pentagon paid a PR firm $540 million to make – and fake – ‘terror’ videos in Iraq. Yep, that’s right: the American government, not ISIS, was behind those nauseating scenes – and they made them to scare you into supporting even further military spending in the Middle East.


Moreover, it’s recently been shown that Project Mockingbird, the CIA’s project to embed their agents within news outlets, wasn’t killed off by George Bush Sr, as was previously reported. In fact, the Department of Justice in America has recently given the green light to FBI agents conducting undercover investigations to impersonate journalists — effectively legalizing Operation Mockingbird. CNN’s Anderson Cooper is just one of several high profile journalists who have recently been pointed to as being a CIA agent, responsible for planting (dis)information from the intelligence agency. No wonder his ABC show was called ‘The Mole’!


In 2009, it was reported that the Pentagon had hired controversial PR firm, The Rendon Group, to monitor the reporting of journalists embedded with the US military, to assess whether they were providing coverage that was “positive” enough to America’s missions. Hmmm…


Thirdly, the concentration of media ownership means that less diversity of opinion is being heard. According to Business Insider, 90% of the American mainstream media is owned by only 6 corporations, meaning your news is filtered by highly powerful interests who are often closely connected to large corporations and politicians – and won’t report anything negative about them, even if it’s in the public’s interests.


Finally, and perhaps most shockingly, in the USA, it is actually legal to lie in the news. The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects freedom of speech, and courts in the US have ruled on many occasions that freedom of speech also includes the freedom to lie. The rationale is that such rulings give space for unpopular statements of fact. For example, in 2012, the US Supreme Court voted 6-3 to affirm a lower court decision to overturn a conviction for lying about one’s credentials.


Washington State Supreme Court even ruled that lying to get votes, distinguishing between fact and opinion, was not something that the state should negotiate. It wrote that people and not the government should be the final arbiter of truth in a political debate.


Some kinds of lying are not covered by the First Amendment. For example, lying while under oath, lying to a government official, or lying to sell a product. But the Supreme Court has emphatically ruled that media outlets have a right to lie, as this video below illustrates perfectly.


Need I say more? Can I get a . . . . .

From ya?




America’s faith in media at all-time low
America’s faith in media at all-time low

 

[MisterBeale]

The news is right and you're wrong. Being wrong and not having the sense to admit it makes you feel like shit within your soul...So you need to lash out on the news for dearing to make you feel bad.

You're just idiots.

News doesn't made me feel bad, since I'm never paying attention to it.

 

[MisterBeale]

The news is right and you're wrong. Being wrong and not having the sense to admit it makes you feel like shit within your soul...So you need to lash out on the news for dearing to make you feel bad.

You're just idiots.

News doesn't made me feel bad, since I'm never paying attention to it.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

If you take guns away fro good citizens, only the criminals will have guns. That could be problematic.

 

[frigidweirdo]

One can expect several days of coverage in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting from our bloodthirsty media.
They totally dropped Puerto Rico and now they're giving us wall-to-wall coverage of every angle, every facet, every single detail of the sick act of a crazed individual.
I wonder if this will give copycats ideas.
I have no intention of watching this shit.

Somebody let me know when it's over.

You watch the TV news? There are much better sources of news out there.

 

[Pete7469]

You mean lame stream TV "news" was even tolerable in the last 2 decades?

Not sure how they could have gotten worse after the 2000 election.

 

[Political Junky]

One can expect several days of coverage in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting from our bloodthirsty media.
They totally dropped Puerto Rico and now they're giving us wall-to-wall coverage of every angle, every facet, every single detail of the sick act of a crazed individual.
I wonder if this will give copycats ideas.
I have no intention of watching this shit.

Somebody let me know when it's over.

Wiggling shiny things in front of the baby is the nature of modern news.

Like Alex Jones?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You mean lame stream TV "news" was even tolerable in the last 2 decades?

Not sure how they could have gotten worse after the 2000 election.

News is entertainment. It has to be popular to enough people for it to make money. That's what it is.

 

[mudwhistle]

You mean lame stream TV "news" was even tolerable in the last 2 decades?

Not sure how they could have gotten worse after the 2000 election.

News is entertainment. It has to be popular to enough people for it to make money. That's what it is.

So the media essentially has become a rumor mill......

Blog: Media strategy, 2017: 'When did you stop beating your wife?'
October 5, 2017
Media strategy, 2017: 'When did you stop beating your wife?'
By Bob Weir
In the ongoing war between the Trump administration and the left-wing media, the American people are witnessing an unprecedented power struggle between someone they voted for because they want to make America great again and a cartel committed to keeping that from happening.

We need an independent press that has no ties to a political party. That was what the Founding Fathers intended, but it's not what we have today. Instead, we have a news syndicate infecting our country with an odious doctrine the way a prostitute infects her "customers."


Ever creative in their malevolent pursuit of dirt, these muckrakers make productive use of rumors. Like gossip-mongers, leaning against the backyard fence and trashing their neighbors, they'll conjure up a scenario and foist it upon a susceptible audience. Using "confidential sources" as their cover, they'll ask, "Is it true what some inside the administration are saying the president has not disavowed support from former KKK member David Duke?" What you have to understand is that it doesn't matter how many times the Klan member has been denounced by Trump. What matters is that the fake news media get another chance to make the assertion, thereby implanting the suggestion over and over until it is perceived as true.

Here's another example of the contemptible tactics of the liberal media: during a recent press briefing, secretary of state Rex Tillerson was asked if he had called President Trump a moron. He said he refuses to answer petty questions like that because they serves only to divide the country. Minutes later, the headlines in the left-wing media proclaimed: Tillerson refuses to deny that he called Trump a moron. By putting it this way, the media have achieved another bite of their rotten apple, because people have heard the statement again. This is why Trump refers to them as fake news!

First, they start a rumor by saying it was "overheard" by someone on the president's staff. When asked who said it, they claim it's a confidential source, which allows them to make up any story with impunity. Once the rumor gets aired, they know that it will be absorbed by the public, causing concern and doubt about the stability of the administration. When a dignified man like Tillerson rejects the question as too petty to warrant a response, they can say he "refused" to deny the charge. But Tillerson is smart enough to know that he's being baited into a controversy that doesn't exist.

It's a tactic so old, it has hair on it! You ask a question that assumes a fact, as you put the person on the defensive trying to answer it. "When did you stop beating your wife?" Anything you say after that is merely perpetuating an image of something that never occurred in the first place.

What I'd like to see is a new way of dealing with these false stories. To wit: reporter: "It's been overheard among the president's staff that so-and-so said blah, blah, blah." Response: "Overheard by whom? Unless you can tell me who said what you're alleging, I view it as nothing but a rumor designed to divide the country. Next question!"

If the public were a bit better informed and a bit less self-absorbed, they'd be capable of separating the chaff from the wheat. What the hate-Trump media count on is a public that feeds on sound bites, which, if heard often enough, become facts they can impress their friends with at social gatherings. "Did you hear that President Trump is planning to end the food stamp program and let millions of poor people starve?" "Really? Where did you hear that?" "It was on CNN a few minutes ago. A reporter said it was overheard by a guy who knows a guy who works with a guy who has a cousin who works in the White House cafeteria." Hmmm...how can you question such a clearly defined fact?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You mean lame stream TV "news" was even tolerable in the last 2 decades?

Not sure how they could have gotten worse after the 2000 election.

News is entertainment. It has to be popular to enough people for it to make money. That's what it is.

So the media essentially has become a rumor mill......

Blog: Media strategy, 2017: 'When did you stop beating your wife?'
October 5, 2017
Media strategy, 2017: 'When did you stop beating your wife?'
By Bob Weir
In the ongoing war between the Trump administration and the left-wing media, the American people are witnessing an unprecedented power struggle between someone they voted for because they want to make America great again and a cartel committed to keeping that from happening.

We need an independent press that has no ties to a political party. That was what the Founding Fathers intended, but it's not what we have today. Instead, we have a news syndicate infecting our country with an odious doctrine the way a prostitute infects her "customers."


Ever creative in their malevolent pursuit of dirt, these muckrakers make productive use of rumors. Like gossip-mongers, leaning against the backyard fence and trashing their neighbors, they'll conjure up a scenario and foist it upon a susceptible audience. Using "confidential sources" as their cover, they'll ask, "Is it true what some inside the administration are saying the president has not disavowed support from former KKK member David Duke?" What you have to understand is that it doesn't matter how many times the Klan member has been denounced by Trump. What matters is that the fake news media get another chance to make the assertion, thereby implanting the suggestion over and over until it is perceived as true.

Here's another example of the contemptible tactics of the liberal media: during a recent press briefing, secretary of state Rex Tillerson was asked if he had called President Trump a moron. He said he refuses to answer petty questions like that because they serves only to divide the country. Minutes later, the headlines in the left-wing media proclaimed: Tillerson refuses to deny that he called Trump a moron. By putting it this way, the media have achieved another bite of their rotten apple, because people have heard the statement again. This is why Trump refers to them as fake news!

First, they start a rumor by saying it was "overheard" by someone on the president's staff. When asked who said it, they claim it's a confidential source, which allows them to make up any story with impunity. Once the rumor gets aired, they know that it will be absorbed by the public, causing concern and doubt about the stability of the administration. When a dignified man like Tillerson rejects the question as too petty to warrant a response, they can say he "refused" to deny the charge. But Tillerson is smart enough to know that he's being baited into a controversy that doesn't exist.

It's a tactic so old, it has hair on it! You ask a question that assumes a fact, as you put the person on the defensive trying to answer it. "When did you stop beating your wife?" Anything you say after that is merely perpetuating an image of something that never occurred in the first place.

What I'd like to see is a new way of dealing with these false stories. To wit: reporter: "It's been overheard among the president's staff that so-and-so said blah, blah, blah." Response: "Overheard by whom? Unless you can tell me who said what you're alleging, I view it as nothing but a rumor designed to divide the country. Next question!"

If the public were a bit better informed and a bit less self-absorbed, they'd be capable of separating the chaff from the wheat. What the hate-Trump media count on is a public that feeds on sound bites, which, if heard often enough, become facts they can impress their friends with at social gatherings. "Did you hear that President Trump is planning to end the food stamp program and let millions of poor people starve?" "Really? Where did you hear that?" "It was on CNN a few minutes ago. A reporter said it was overheard by a guy who knows a guy who works with a guy who has a cousin who works in the White House cafeteria." Hmmm...how can you question such a clearly defined fact?

In the ongoing war between the Trump administration and the left-wing media, the American people are witnessing an unprecedented power struggle between someone they voted for because they want to make America great again and a cartel committed to keeping that from happening.

We need an independent press that has no ties to a political party. That was what the Founding Fathers intended, but it's not what we have today. Instead, we have a news syndicate infecting our country with an odious doctrine the way a prostitute infects her "customers."

Ever creative in their malevolent pursuit of dirt, these muckrakers make productive use of rumors. Like gossip-mongers, leaning against the backyard fence and trashing their neighbors, they'll conjure up a scenario and foist it upon a susceptible audience. Using "confidential sources" as their cover, they'll ask, "Is it true what some inside the administration are saying the president has not disavowed support from former KKK member David Duke?" What you have to understand is that it doesn't matter how many times the Klan member has been denounced by Trump. What matters is that the fake news media get another chance to make the assertion, thereby implanting the suggestion over and over until it is perceived as true.

Here's another example of the contemptible tactics of the liberal media: during a recent press briefing, secretary of state Rex Tillerson was asked if he had called President Trump a moron. He said he refuses to answer petty questions like that because they serves only to divide the country. Minutes later, the headlines in the left-wing media proclaimed: Tillerson refuses to deny that he called Trump a moron. By putting it this way, the media have achieved another bite of their rotten apple, because people have heard the statement again. This is why Trump refers to them as fake news!

First, they start a rumor by saying it was "overheard" by someone on the president's staff. When asked who said it, they claim it's a confidential source, which allows them to make up any story with impunity. Once the rumor gets aired, they know that it will be absorbed by the public, causing concern and doubt about the stability of the administration. When a dignified man like Tillerson rejects the question as too petty to warrant a response, they can say he "refused" to deny the charge. But Tillerson is smart enough to know that he's being baited into a controversy that doesn't exist.

It's a tactic so old, it has hair on it! You ask a question that assumes a fact, as you put the person on the defensive trying to answer it. "When did you stop beating your wife?" Anything you say after that is merely perpetuating an image of something that never occurred in the first place.

What I'd like to see is a new way of dealing with these false stories. To wit: reporter: "It's been overheard among the president's staff that so-and-so said blah, blah, blah." Response: "Overheard by whom? Unless you can tell me who said what you're alleging, I view it as nothing but a rumor designed to divide the country. Next question!"

If the public were a bit better informed and a bit less self-absorbed, they'd be capable of separating the chaff from the wheat. What the hate-Trump media count on is a public that feeds on sound bites, which, if heard often enough, become facts they can impress their friends with at social gatherings. "Did you hear that President Trump is planning to end the food stamp program and let millions of poor people starve?" "Really? Where did you hear that?" "It was on CNN a few minutes ago. A reporter said it was overheard by a guy who knows a guy who works with a guy who has a cousin who works in the White House cafeteria." Hmmm...how can you question such a clearly defined fact?

Well of course. You have to fill how many hours of news time, with what?

 

[Pete7469]

You mean lame stream TV "news" was even tolerable in the last 2 decades?

Not sure how they could have gotten worse after the 2000 election.

News is entertainment. It has to be popular to enough people for it to make money. That's what it is.

So profiting by selling lies that can be destructive to civil society is OK, but making a profit selling health insurance is a practice that must be ended?

 

[mudwhistle]

I disagree as there is no need to beat y=up on your favorite foe and Mud and I rarely agree anyway. LOL




Australia did something.

Dear America. Gun Control Works. Please, Please Do It. Love, Australia.
Dear America: Gun Control Works. Please, Please Do It. Love, Australia.

"The current Australian gun laws were passed after 35 were killed and 23 wounded in a 1996 mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania. The shooter was able to buy his assault rifle, even though later he was later determined by authorities to have an IQ of 11. There hasn't been a mass shooting in Australia since then." Article not found - WOW.com

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."


Guns kill 1,300 US children every year, study finds

Guns kill 1,300 US children every year

A day in America

"3 adults, 1 child found shot to death inside Alaska hotel room
Police: Man shot dead while trying to stop man from beating woman
3 shot while hanging Christmas lights amid fight with driver
Good Samaritan fatally shot outside Northwest Side Walmart
Accused Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof competent to stand trial"

You are not going to win any argument about guns etc with facts and reason for beliefs are not based on facts and reason they are based on emotion.

Guns make Americans look like crack users.

.

 

[WheelieAddict]

You mean lame stream TV "news" was even tolerable in the last 2 decades?

Not sure how they could have gotten worse after the 2000 election.

News is entertainment. It has to be popular to enough people for it to make money. That's what it is.

So the media essentially has become a rumor mill......

Blog: Media strategy, 2017: 'When did you stop beating your wife?'
October 5, 2017
Media strategy, 2017: 'When did you stop beating your wife?'
By Bob Weir
In the ongoing war between the Trump administration and the left-wing media, the American people are witnessing an unprecedented power struggle between someone they voted for because they want to make America great again and a cartel committed to keeping that from happening.

We need an independent press that has no ties to a political party. That was what the Founding Fathers intended, but it's not what we have today. Instead, we have a news syndicate infecting our country with an odious doctrine the way a prostitute infects her "customers."


Ever creative in their malevolent pursuit of dirt, these muckrakers make productive use of rumors. Like gossip-mongers, leaning against the backyard fence and trashing their neighbors, they'll conjure up a scenario and foist it upon a susceptible audience. Using "confidential sources" as their cover, they'll ask, "Is it true what some inside the administration are saying the president has not disavowed support from former KKK member David Duke?" What you have to understand is that it doesn't matter how many times the Klan member has been denounced by Trump. What matters is that the fake news media get another chance to make the assertion, thereby implanting the suggestion over and over until it is perceived as true.

Here's another example of the contemptible tactics of the liberal media: during a recent press briefing, secretary of state Rex Tillerson was asked if he had called President Trump a moron. He said he refuses to answer petty questions like that because they serves only to divide the country. Minutes later, the headlines in the left-wing media proclaimed: Tillerson refuses to deny that he called Trump a moron. By putting it this way, the media have achieved another bite of their rotten apple, because people have heard the statement again. This is why Trump refers to them as fake news!

First, they start a rumor by saying it was "overheard" by someone on the president's staff. When asked who said it, they claim it's a confidential source, which allows them to make up any story with impunity. Once the rumor gets aired, they know that it will be absorbed by the public, causing concern and doubt about the stability of the administration. When a dignified man like Tillerson rejects the question as too petty to warrant a response, they can say he "refused" to deny the charge. But Tillerson is smart enough to know that he's being baited into a controversy that doesn't exist.

It's a tactic so old, it has hair on it! You ask a question that assumes a fact, as you put the person on the defensive trying to answer it. "When did you stop beating your wife?" Anything you say after that is merely perpetuating an image of something that never occurred in the first place.

What I'd like to see is a new way of dealing with these false stories. To wit: reporter: "It's been overheard among the president's staff that so-and-so said blah, blah, blah." Response: "Overheard by whom? Unless you can tell me who said what you're alleging, I view it as nothing but a rumor designed to divide the country. Next question!"

If the public were a bit better informed and a bit less self-absorbed, they'd be capable of separating the chaff from the wheat. What the hate-Trump media count on is a public that feeds on sound bites, which, if heard often enough, become facts they can impress their friends with at social gatherings. "Did you hear that President Trump is planning to end the food stamp program and let millions of poor people starve?" "Really? Where did you hear that?" "It was on CNN a few minutes ago. A reporter said it was overheard by a guy who knows a guy who works with a guy who has a cousin who works in the White House cafeteria." Hmmm...how can you question such a clearly defined fact?

So the Fox News model

 

[mudwhistle]

You mean lame stream TV "news" was even tolerable in the last 2 decades?

Not sure how they could have gotten worse after the 2000 election.

News is entertainment. It has to be popular to enough people for it to make money. That's what it is.

So the media essentially has become a rumor mill......

Blog: Media strategy, 2017: 'When did you stop beating your wife?'
October 5, 2017
Media strategy, 2017: 'When did you stop beating your wife?'
By Bob Weir
In the ongoing war between the Trump administration and the left-wing media, the American people are witnessing an unprecedented power struggle between someone they voted for because they want to make America great again and a cartel committed to keeping that from happening.

We need an independent press that has no ties to a political party. That was what the Founding Fathers intended, but it's not what we have today. Instead, we have a news syndicate infecting our country with an odious doctrine the way a prostitute infects her "customers."


Ever creative in their malevolent pursuit of dirt, these muckrakers make productive use of rumors. Like gossip-mongers, leaning against the backyard fence and trashing their neighbors, they'll conjure up a scenario and foist it upon a susceptible audience. Using "confidential sources" as their cover, they'll ask, "Is it true what some inside the administration are saying the president has not disavowed support from former KKK member David Duke?" What you have to understand is that it doesn't matter how many times the Klan member has been denounced by Trump. What matters is that the fake news media get another chance to make the assertion, thereby implanting the suggestion over and over until it is perceived as true.

Here's another example of the contemptible tactics of the liberal media: during a recent press briefing, secretary of state Rex Tillerson was asked if he had called President Trump a moron. He said he refuses to answer petty questions like that because they serves only to divide the country. Minutes later, the headlines in the left-wing media proclaimed: Tillerson refuses to deny that he called Trump a moron. By putting it this way, the media have achieved another bite of their rotten apple, because people have heard the statement again. This is why Trump refers to them as fake news!

First, they start a rumor by saying it was "overheard" by someone on the president's staff. When asked who said it, they claim it's a confidential source, which allows them to make up any story with impunity. Once the rumor gets aired, they know that it will be absorbed by the public, causing concern and doubt about the stability of the administration. When a dignified man like Tillerson rejects the question as too petty to warrant a response, they can say he "refused" to deny the charge. But Tillerson is smart enough to know that he's being baited into a controversy that doesn't exist.

It's a tactic so old, it has hair on it! You ask a question that assumes a fact, as you put the person on the defensive trying to answer it. "When did you stop beating your wife?" Anything you say after that is merely perpetuating an image of something that never occurred in the first place.

What I'd like to see is a new way of dealing with these false stories. To wit: reporter: "It's been overheard among the president's staff that so-and-so said blah, blah, blah." Response: "Overheard by whom? Unless you can tell me who said what you're alleging, I view it as nothing but a rumor designed to divide the country. Next question!"

If the public were a bit better informed and a bit less self-absorbed, they'd be capable of separating the chaff from the wheat. What the hate-Trump media count on is a public that feeds on sound bites, which, if heard often enough, become facts they can impress their friends with at social gatherings. "Did you hear that President Trump is planning to end the food stamp program and let millions of poor people starve?" "Really? Where did you hear that?" "It was on CNN a few minutes ago. A reporter said it was overheard by a guy who knows a guy who works with a guy who has a cousin who works in the White House cafeteria." Hmmm...how can you question such a clearly defined fact?

So the Fox News model

I saw examples of it on Fox.
But then again every latenight talkshow repeated the lie as if it was fact.

 

[WheelieAddict]

You mean lame stream TV "news" was even tolerable in the last 2 decades?

Not sure how they could have gotten worse after the 2000 election.

News is entertainment. It has to be popular to enough people for it to make money. That's what it is.

So the media essentially has become a rumor mill......

Blog: Media strategy, 2017: 'When did you stop beating your wife?'
October 5, 2017
Media strategy, 2017: 'When did you stop beating your wife?'
By Bob Weir
In the ongoing war between the Trump administration and the left-wing media, the American people are witnessing an unprecedented power struggle between someone they voted for because they want to make America great again and a cartel committed to keeping that from happening.

We need an independent press that has no ties to a political party. That was what the Founding Fathers intended, but it's not what we have today. Instead, we have a news syndicate infecting our country with an odious doctrine the way a prostitute infects her "customers."


Ever creative in their malevolent pursuit of dirt, these muckrakers make productive use of rumors. Like gossip-mongers, leaning against the backyard fence and trashing their neighbors, they'll conjure up a scenario and foist it upon a susceptible audience. Using "confidential sources" as their cover, they'll ask, "Is it true what some inside the administration are saying the president has not disavowed support from former KKK member David Duke?" What you have to understand is that it doesn't matter how many times the Klan member has been denounced by Trump. What matters is that the fake news media get another chance to make the assertion, thereby implanting the suggestion over and over until it is perceived as true.

Here's another example of the contemptible tactics of the liberal media: during a recent press briefing, secretary of state Rex Tillerson was asked if he had called President Trump a moron. He said he refuses to answer petty questions like that because they serves only to divide the country. Minutes later, the headlines in the left-wing media proclaimed: Tillerson refuses to deny that he called Trump a moron. By putting it this way, the media have achieved another bite of their rotten apple, because people have heard the statement again. This is why Trump refers to them as fake news!

First, they start a rumor by saying it was "overheard" by someone on the president's staff. When asked who said it, they claim it's a confidential source, which allows them to make up any story with impunity. Once the rumor gets aired, they know that it will be absorbed by the public, causing concern and doubt about the stability of the administration. When a dignified man like Tillerson rejects the question as too petty to warrant a response, they can say he "refused" to deny the charge. But Tillerson is smart enough to know that he's being baited into a controversy that doesn't exist.

It's a tactic so old, it has hair on it! You ask a question that assumes a fact, as you put the person on the defensive trying to answer it. "When did you stop beating your wife?" Anything you say after that is merely perpetuating an image of something that never occurred in the first place.

What I'd like to see is a new way of dealing with these false stories. To wit: reporter: "It's been overheard among the president's staff that so-and-so said blah, blah, blah." Response: "Overheard by whom? Unless you can tell me who said what you're alleging, I view it as nothing but a rumor designed to divide the country. Next question!"

If the public were a bit better informed and a bit less self-absorbed, they'd be capable of separating the chaff from the wheat. What the hate-Trump media count on is a public that feeds on sound bites, which, if heard often enough, become facts they can impress their friends with at social gatherings. "Did you hear that President Trump is planning to end the food stamp program and let millions of poor people starve?" "Really? Where did you hear that?" "It was on CNN a few minutes ago. A reporter said it was overheard by a guy who knows a guy who works with a guy who has a cousin who works in the White House cafeteria." Hmmm...how can you question such a clearly defined fact?

So the Fox News model

I saw examples of it on Fox.
But then again every latenight talkshow repeated the lie as if it was fact.

So Fox is propaganda. Almost everyone knows that now.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

One can expect several days of coverage in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting from our bloodthirsty media.
They totally dropped Puerto Rico and now they're giving us wall-to-wall coverage of every angle, every facet, every single detail of the sick act of a crazed individual.
I wonder if this will give copycats ideas.
I have no intention of watching this shit.

Somebody let me know when it's over.

Wiggling shiny things in front of the baby is the nature of modern news.

Like Alex Jones?

And Wolf Blitzer and Rachel Maddow and Laurence O'Donnell etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You mean lame stream TV "news" was even tolerable in the last 2 decades?

Not sure how they could have gotten worse after the 2000 election.

News is entertainment. It has to be popular to enough people for it to make money. That's what it is.

So profiting by selling lies that can be destructive to civil society is OK, but making a profit selling health insurance is a practice that must be ended?

It doesn't have to be lies to be entertaining.

It's a matter of what is being shown, what is being spoken about. Internal affairs of DRC is not entertaining for most Americans, what Trump says is entertaining most of the time. It's not a lie to talk about what Trump is saying.