The press

[Votto]

In the First Amendment, we are given freedom of the press.

But what is the "press"? Is it not merely freedom of speech for those with money to buy a means of reaching mass numbers of people? And if so, shouldn't the Left hate are suppose to hate the rich fat cats who try to push their various agendas? In fact, the early press in the US was begun by political activists with money in both major political parties at that time. The notion that the press can ever be "objective" and "for the people only", is a ludicrous notion. I find many on the Left have romanticized the days of Walter Cronkite saying, "And that's the way it is", as a time when the press only told us the truth and had no ulterior motives in giving us such information apart from just informing people about things they really should know.

 

[Votto]

Most of the press we see today is bought and paid for by one man

Over 30 Major News Organizations Linked to George Soros

First of Four Parts

www.mrc.org

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

In the First Amendment, we are given freedom of the press.

But what is the "press"? Is it not merely freedom of speech for those with money to buy a means of reaching mass numbers of people? And if so, shouldn't the Left hate are suppose to hate the rich fat cats who try to push their various agendas? In fact, the early press in the US was begun by political activists with money in both major political parties at that time. The notion that the press can ever be "objective" and "for the people only", is a ludicrous notion. I find many on the Left have romanticized the days of Walter Cronkite saying, "And that's the way it is", as a time when the press only told us the truth and had no ulterior motives in giving us such information apart from just informing people about things they really should know.

They didn't tell you the truth then either.

 

[Votto]

In the First Amendment, we are given freedom of the press.

But what is the "press"? Is it not merely freedom of speech for those with money to buy a means of reaching mass numbers of people? And if so, shouldn't the Left hate are suppose to hate the rich fat cats who try to push their various agendas? In fact, the early press in the US was begun by political activists with money in both major political parties at that time. The notion that the press can ever be "objective" and "for the people only", is a ludicrous notion. I find many on the Left have romanticized the days of Walter Cronkite saying, "And that's the way it is", as a time when the press only told us the truth and had no ulterior motives in giving us such information apart from just informing people about things they really should know.

They didn't tell you the truth then either.

I guess the best example of what I'm talking about is this clip



Here we have a clip of Jon Stewart, who is a comedian, exposing the media bias all across the spectrum against Ron Paul. He shows that even though he was doing very well early on, Ron Paul was purposely ignored on all media fronts. But why? It is because Ron Paul was a true believer in limited government and not someone who would continue to grease the wheels of those with money and power with never ending, exponentially increasing debt.

In fact, I theorize that the only reason Trump won was because he had planned on spending more than Hillary. But today with Covid, he has blown the amount he had planned to spend all to hell and back.

But why then did Jon do such a story? It was essentially to mock the GOP, which he did an excellent job with because he leans heavily DNC.

For the record, I don't think it even viable to vote for someone like Ron Paul into political office because who would fund his nomination if he is for reducing overall spending?

In other words, what is uncle Ron going to buy me for my support with my dollars?

But with the DNC wanting to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars for fighting the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide, that may be just enough spending to beat Trump.

 

[Camp]

The free press in the 1rst Amendment allows every cirizen to be a citizen journalist. It also allows cirizen to choose their press and media sources. No matter how much CNN or FOX is called "fake news", those sources of news and opinion are protected and people have a right to select each one or both of them for sources, whether it is news or opinion.

 

[Votto]

The free press in the 1rst Amendment allows every cirizen to be a citizen journalist. It also allows cirizen to choose their press and media sources. No matter how much CNN or FOX is called "fake news", those sources of news and opinion are protected and people have a right to select each one or both of them for sources, whether it is news or opinion.

Well sure, you can post on here to your hearts desire and more than likely not influence on person in your entire life.

But the simple fact of the matter is, to reach more people, something that moves poll numbers, you need access to a major media outlet that would cost you thousands of dollars.

Granted, less and less people give credence to such media today thanks to their continued lying and stupidity.

In fact, with the coverage of Ron Paul back in the day, they refused to even utter his name. And in Presidential debates Ron was ALWAYS off to the side of the debate panel and never called upon. When he won a primary, they would still ignore him. Conversely, Trump was ALWAYS front and center at the Presidential debates and the media talked about him 24/7, granted most of it negative. But as they say in show business, any media coverage is good coverage no matter how "bad" it is. What is lethal is to ignore them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

MarkTwain: If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.

 

[Votto]

MarkTwain: If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.

Agreed.

But reading misinformation is also good in that you want to see where the press is trying to steer us.

Case in point is when Obama drew his imaginary red lines in the sand as Syria then used WMD's to defy his red lines. The entire media played video of all of the death and destruction 24/7 trying to drum up support for yet another war in the Middle East. But something interesting happened, it did not move the opinions polls as people had had enough of wars abroad, so Obama backed down as he refused to do what he had promised.

 

[PoliticalChic]

MarkTwain: If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.

Agreed.

But reading misinformation is also good in that you want to see where the press is trying to steer us.

Case in point is when Obama drew his imaginary red lines in the sand as Syria then used WMD's to defy his red lines. The entire media played video of all of the death and destruction 24/7 trying to drum up support for yet another war in the Middle East. But something interesting happened, it did not move the opinions polls as people had had enough of wars abroad, so Obama backed down as he refused to do what he had promised.

If what you are saying is that it is imperative to read all sides.....I agree.

 

[miketx]

MarkTwain: If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.

Agreed.

But reading misinformation is also good in that you want to see where the press is trying to steer us.

Case in point is when Obama drew his imaginary red lines in the sand as Syria then used WMD's to defy his red lines. The entire media played video of all of the death and destruction 24/7 trying to drum up support for yet another war in the Middle East. But something interesting happened, it did not move the opinions polls as people had had enough of wars abroad, so Obama backed down as he refused to do what he had promised.

Did the press tell you that?

 

[Votto]

MarkTwain: If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.

Agreed.

But reading misinformation is also good in that you want to see where the press is trying to steer us.

Case in point is when Obama drew his imaginary red lines in the sand as Syria then used WMD's to defy his red lines. The entire media played video of all of the death and destruction 24/7 trying to drum up support for yet another war in the Middle East. But something interesting happened, it did not move the opinions polls as people had had enough of wars abroad, so Obama backed down as he refused to do what he had promised.

If what you are saying is that it is imperative to read all sides.....I agree.

I am just saying that trusting any one news source is absurd, just as absurd as refusing to listen to a news source that is known for untruths.

You will find that with every untruth there resides some truth. The best lies have truth in them.

 

[DustyInfinity]

The media pushed that illegal immigration and men in women's athletics is normal. They are pushing drug use and not punishing crimes as well. More than a bit messed up, and unfortunately, many are now marching lockstep to those ideas.

 

[harmonica]

..they are jackasses
..I remember when Laura Logan was raped/etc....she/they asked that her privacy be respected!!!...MOFOS!!! but they break doors in for everyone else that is raped/etc!!!
..they need to be shot like vermin
BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sartre play]

The plan would be that you are open to new ideas, plans & information. That any one with out the credentials (experience + education, is just giving their opinion, what they say should be taken with a huge grain of salt. if their opinion ALLWAYS leans in on direction, take a huge extra helping of salt.

 

[my2¢]

But what is the "press"? Is it not merely freedom of speech for those with money to buy a means of reaching mass numbers of people?

I see that definition of "press" as extremely narrow. I find it similar to saying that only the rich can benefit from capitalism.