America Doesn't Have A Free Press Anymore

[mudwhistle]

The media cannot be trusted.

Why?

Because the left controls them completely.

The United States of America no longer has a free press as of December 2019.

Press freedom was already in danger, as Mark Levin noted, as journalists became political activists in the Obama era, and feuded with the president in the Trump era. But press freedom could have thrived in a more openly partisan marketplace of ideas. In the end, press freedom was killed by the press itself, in the decision not to report the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in the impeachment crisis.

His name — which Breitbart News published after it was first revealed by RealClearInvestigations — is no mystery. Apparently, his identity was the worst-kept secret in Washington, D.C. The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) concluded in September that the “whistleblower,” a CIA employee, had shown “political bias,” and favored “a rival political candidate,” most likely former Vice President Joe Biden, for whom he reportedly worked.

Too long--edited

Any media outlet that wanted to share its content online — in other words, any media company that wanted to stay in business — had to suppress the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in impeachment coverage.

Pollak: Media, Tech Self-Censorship over 'Whistleblower' Marks Death of Free Press in United States | Breitbart​

 

[BluesLegend]

American doesn't have a press period. It has a Dem controlled propaganda ministry.

 

[gipper]

It’s not the left controlling the media. It’s the billionaires.

 

[jc456]

Oh fk no. Our press was infiltrated. Islam’s have taken over

 

[anynameyouwish]

The media cannot be trusted.

Why?

Because the left controls them completely.

The United States of America no longer has a free press as of December 2019.

Press freedom was already in danger, as Mark Levin noted, as journalists became political activists in the Obama era, and feuded with the president in the Trump era. But press freedom could have thrived in a more openly partisan marketplace of ideas. In the end, press freedom was killed by the press itself, in the decision not to report the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in the impeachment crisis.

His name — which Breitbart News published after it was first revealed by RealClearInvestigations — is no mystery. Apparently, his identity was the worst-kept secret in Washington, D.C. The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) concluded in September that the “whistleblower,” a CIA employee, had shown “political bias,” and favored “a rival political candidate,” most likely former Vice President Joe Biden, for whom he reportedly worked.

The “whistleblower” triggered a process that could still lead to the ouster of the president. (His own lawyer, Mark S. Zaid, called for a “coup,” via impeachment, in January 2017, shortly after Trump had taken office.)

It would seem extraordinary for the world’s leading democracy to allow an election to be overturned based on the actions of a rogue CIA employee working with the opposition — and even stranger not to be told his name.

Moreover, the “whistleblower” himself admitted that he did not have first-hand information of the events he had described. It would seem an urgent matter of national security, and public interest, to know who was feeing him information — whether it was an enemy, foreign or domestic.

If the hysteria over Russian influence in the 2016 election had any useful lesson, it was that we ought to be curious about where information comes from, and why.

Yet the media have not only ignored the “whistleblower’s” name, but they have also actively suppressed it. That includes the conservative media.

Earlier this year, I appeared on a morning show in Los Angeles to discuss the impeachment inquiry. The moment I mentioned the name of the “whistleblower,” the hosts ended the interview.

The reason is twofold. First, most media outlets share the Democrats’ desire to be rid of Trump, and so joined them in pretending the “whistleblower” was protected by law. Federal law protects whistleblowers from retaliation, but they can often expect to be identified. The relevant law, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, only prevents the ICIG from identifying the whistleblower. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-CA) invented a statutory right to whistleblower anonymity that he later tacitly admitted did not exist.

After insisting that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify, Schiff and the Democrats reversed themselves — once they were revealed to have lied to the public about their prior contact with him.

That ought to have made the media more curious, not less curious, about who the “whistleblower” was, and what his motivations and methods had been. Schiff then made up the idea that making the “whistleblower’s” name known would expose him to mortal danger. The media, who routinely ruin lives by publishing the names of both the guilty and the innocent, bought that line.

Second, the tech companies punished news outlets that dared to publish the name of the so-called “whistleblower.” Though tech giants like Facebook enjoy immunity from libel lawsuits under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, they behaved as if publishing the “whistleblower’s” name would expose them to serious legal risk.

Any media outlet that wanted to share its content online — in other words, any media company that wanted to stay in business — had to suppress the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in impeachment coverage.

Pollak: Media, Tech Self-Censorship over 'Whistleblower' Marks Death of Free Press in United States | Breitbart​

do lib-dems control FOX and breitbart? pjmedia and the blaze?

24 hours 7 days a week of conservative hate radio?

don't you remember that thread where all you conservatives were BOASTING about FOX being the NUMBER1 watched network?

how can lib-dems control the media if most people watch fox news?

I won't even bother discussing or debating "MSM liberal bias" because it is OBVIOUS that RIGHT WING MEDIA bias is even worse!


basically.....you want right wing media DOMINATING the media and airwaves AND you want to SILENCE everyone else......and at the same time YOU want to whine about "liberal media censorship"

fuk you!

YOU are the one who wants CENSORSHIP!

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

The media cannot be trusted.

Why?

Because the left controls them completely.

The United States of America no longer has a free press as of December 2019.

Press freedom was already in danger, as Mark Levin noted, as journalists became political activists in the Obama era, and feuded with the president in the Trump era. But press freedom could have thrived in a more openly partisan marketplace of ideas. In the end, press freedom was killed by the press itself, in the decision not to report the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in the impeachment crisis.

His name — which Breitbart News published after it was first revealed by RealClearInvestigations — is no mystery. Apparently, his identity was the worst-kept secret in Washington, D.C. The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) concluded in September that the “whistleblower,” a CIA employee, had shown “political bias,” and favored “a rival political candidate,” most likely former Vice President Joe Biden, for whom he reportedly worked.

The “whistleblower” triggered a process that could still lead to the ouster of the president. (His own lawyer, Mark S. Zaid, called for a “coup,” via impeachment, in January 2017, shortly after Trump had taken office.)

It would seem extraordinary for the world’s leading democracy to allow an election to be overturned based on the actions of a rogue CIA employee working with the opposition — and even stranger not to be told his name.

Moreover, the “whistleblower” himself admitted that he did not have first-hand information of the events he had described. It would seem an urgent matter of national security, and public interest, to know who was feeing him information — whether it was an enemy, foreign or domestic.

If the hysteria over Russian influence in the 2016 election had any useful lesson, it was that we ought to be curious about where information comes from, and why.

Yet the media have not only ignored the “whistleblower’s” name, but they have also actively suppressed it. That includes the conservative media.

Earlier this year, I appeared on a morning show in Los Angeles to discuss the impeachment inquiry. The moment I mentioned the name of the “whistleblower,” the hosts ended the interview.

The reason is twofold. First, most media outlets share the Democrats’ desire to be rid of Trump, and so joined them in pretending the “whistleblower” was protected by law. Federal law protects whistleblowers from retaliation, but they can often expect to be identified. The relevant law, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, only prevents the ICIG from identifying the whistleblower. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-CA) invented a statutory right to whistleblower anonymity that he later tacitly admitted did not exist.

After insisting that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify, Schiff and the Democrats reversed themselves — once they were revealed to have lied to the public about their prior contact with him.

That ought to have made the media more curious, not less curious, about who the “whistleblower” was, and what his motivations and methods had been. Schiff then made up the idea that making the “whistleblower’s” name known would expose him to mortal danger. The media, who routinely ruin lives by publishing the names of both the guilty and the innocent, bought that line.

Second, the tech companies punished news outlets that dared to publish the name of the so-called “whistleblower.” Though tech giants like Facebook enjoy immunity from libel lawsuits under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, they behaved as if publishing the “whistleblower’s” name would expose them to serious legal risk.

Any media outlet that wanted to share its content online — in other words, any media company that wanted to stay in business — had to suppress the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in impeachment coverage.

Pollak: Media, Tech Self-Censorship over 'Whistleblower' Marks Death of Free Press in United States | Breitbart​

Bullshit. More Breitbart propaganda.

FYI

Sep 26, 2019
US Whistleblowers First Got Government Protection in 1777
https://www.history.com/news/whistleblowers-law-founding-fathers
The Founding Fathers passed the country’s first whistleblower protection law just seven months after signing the Declaration of Independence. The government even footed the legal bills.

"""The U.S. government has long made protecting whistleblowers a priority. In fact, just seven months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress passed what Allison Stanger, author of Whistleblowers: Honesty in America from Washington to Trump, called the “world’s first whistleblower protection law.”

The Whistleblowers of 1777 - The Origins of National Whistleblower Day - National Whistleblower Center

https://www.whistleblowers.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/1777whistle-blowers.pdf



And another FYI:
Fox Noise, more Trump propaganda, enjoys freedom to spew whatever lies you idiots lap up like the starving animals.

 

[mudwhistle]

American doesn't have a press period. It has a Dem controlled propaganda ministry.

Billions of dollars of free advertisement for Democrats.
Should be against the law.

 

[jc456]

It’s not the left controlling the media. It’s the billionaires.

Yep, the Illuminati

 

[gipper]

...the billionaires and...

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

The media cannot be trusted.

Why?

Because the left controls them completely.

The United States of America no longer has a free press as of December 2019.

Press freedom was already in danger, as Mark Levin noted, as journalists became political activists in the Obama era, and feuded with the president in the Trump era. But press freedom could have thrived in a more openly partisan marketplace of ideas. In the end, press freedom was killed by the press itself, in the decision not to report the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in the impeachment crisis.

His name — which Breitbart News published after it was first revealed by RealClearInvestigations — is no mystery. Apparently, his identity was the worst-kept secret in Washington, D.C. The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) concluded in September that the “whistleblower,” a CIA employee, had shown “political bias,” and favored “a rival political candidate,” most likely former Vice President Joe Biden, for whom he reportedly worked.

The “whistleblower” triggered a process that could still lead to the ouster of the president. (His own lawyer, Mark S. Zaid, called for a “coup,” via impeachment, in January 2017, shortly after Trump had taken office.)

It would seem extraordinary for the world’s leading democracy to allow an election to be overturned based on the actions of a rogue CIA employee working with the opposition — and even stranger not to be told his name.

Moreover, the “whistleblower” himself admitted that he did not have first-hand information of the events he had described. It would seem an urgent matter of national security, and public interest, to know who was feeing him information — whether it was an enemy, foreign or domestic.

If the hysteria over Russian influence in the 2016 election had any useful lesson, it was that we ought to be curious about where information comes from, and why.

Yet the media have not only ignored the “whistleblower’s” name, but they have also actively suppressed it. That includes the conservative media.

Earlier this year, I appeared on a morning show in Los Angeles to discuss the impeachment inquiry. The moment I mentioned the name of the “whistleblower,” the hosts ended the interview.

The reason is twofold. First, most media outlets share the Democrats’ desire to be rid of Trump, and so joined them in pretending the “whistleblower” was protected by law. Federal law protects whistleblowers from retaliation, but they can often expect to be identified. The relevant law, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, only prevents the ICIG from identifying the whistleblower. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-CA) invented a statutory right to whistleblower anonymity that he later tacitly admitted did not exist.

After insisting that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify, Schiff and the Democrats reversed themselves — once they were revealed to have lied to the public about their prior contact with him.

That ought to have made the media more curious, not less curious, about who the “whistleblower” was, and what his motivations and methods had been. Schiff then made up the idea that making the “whistleblower’s” name known would expose him to mortal danger. The media, who routinely ruin lives by publishing the names of both the guilty and the innocent, bought that line.

Second, the tech companies punished news outlets that dared to publish the name of the so-called “whistleblower.” Though tech giants like Facebook enjoy immunity from libel lawsuits under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, they behaved as if publishing the “whistleblower’s” name would expose them to serious legal risk.

Any media outlet that wanted to share its content online — in other words, any media company that wanted to stay in business — had to suppress the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in impeachment coverage.

Pollak: Media, Tech Self-Censorship over 'Whistleblower' Marks Death of Free Press in United States | Breitbart​

do lib-dems control FOX and breitbart? pjmedia and the blaze?

24 hours 7 days a week of conservative hate radio?

don't you remember that thread where all you conservatives were BOASTING about FOX being the NUMBER1 watched network?

how can lib-dems control the media if most people watch fox news?

I won't even bother discussing or debating "MSM liberal bias" because it is OBVIOUS that RIGHT WING MEDIA bias is even worse!


basically.....you want right wing media DOMINATING the media and airwaves AND you want to SILENCE everyone else......and at the same time YOU want to whine about "liberal media censorship"

fuk you!

YOU are the one who wants CENSORSHIP!

Spot on, I agree with you 100%
These fuckers want to have it both ways.
Roger Ailes created Fox News with the very intention of putting a radical right wing spin to EVERYTHING. And started talking to Duh Donald about running for POTUS years ago.

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

The media cannot be trusted.

Why?

Because the left controls them completely.

The United States of America no longer has a free press as of December 2019.

Press freedom was already in danger, as Mark Levin noted, as journalists became political activists in the Obama era, and feuded with the president in the Trump era. But press freedom could have thrived in a more openly partisan marketplace of ideas. In the end, press freedom was killed by the press itself, in the decision not to report the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in the impeachment crisis.

His name — which Breitbart News published after it was first revealed by RealClearInvestigations — is no mystery. Apparently, his identity was the worst-kept secret in Washington, D.C. The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) concluded in September that the “whistleblower,” a CIA employee, had shown “political bias,” and favored “a rival political candidate,” most likely former Vice President Joe Biden, for whom he reportedly worked.

The “whistleblower” triggered a process that could still lead to the ouster of the president. (His own lawyer, Mark S. Zaid, called for a “coup,” via impeachment, in January 2017, shortly after Trump had taken office.)

It would seem extraordinary for the world’s leading democracy to allow an election to be overturned based on the actions of a rogue CIA employee working with the opposition — and even stranger not to be told his name.

Moreover, the “whistleblower” himself admitted that he did not have first-hand information of the events he had described. It would seem an urgent matter of national security, and public interest, to know who was feeing him information — whether it was an enemy, foreign or domestic.

If the hysteria over Russian influence in the 2016 election had any useful lesson, it was that we ought to be curious about where information comes from, and why.

Yet the media have not only ignored the “whistleblower’s” name, but they have also actively suppressed it. That includes the conservative media.

Earlier this year, I appeared on a morning show in Los Angeles to discuss the impeachment inquiry. The moment I mentioned the name of the “whistleblower,” the hosts ended the interview.

The reason is twofold. First, most media outlets share the Democrats’ desire to be rid of Trump, and so joined them in pretending the “whistleblower” was protected by law. Federal law protects whistleblowers from retaliation, but they can often expect to be identified. The relevant law, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, only prevents the ICIG from identifying the whistleblower. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-CA) invented a statutory right to whistleblower anonymity that he later tacitly admitted did not exist.

After insisting that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify, Schiff and the Democrats reversed themselves — once they were revealed to have lied to the public about their prior contact with him.

That ought to have made the media more curious, not less curious, about who the “whistleblower” was, and what his motivations and methods had been. Schiff then made up the idea that making the “whistleblower’s” name known would expose him to mortal danger. The media, who routinely ruin lives by publishing the names of both the guilty and the innocent, bought that line.

Second, the tech companies punished news outlets that dared to publish the name of the so-called “whistleblower.” Though tech giants like Facebook enjoy immunity from libel lawsuits under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, they behaved as if publishing the “whistleblower’s” name would expose them to serious legal risk.

Any media outlet that wanted to share its content online — in other words, any media company that wanted to stay in business — had to suppress the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in impeachment coverage.

Pollak: Media, Tech Self-Censorship over 'Whistleblower' Marks Death of Free Press in United States | Breitbart​

do lib-dems control FOX and breitbart? pjmedia and the blaze?

24 hours 7 days a week of conservative hate radio?

don't you remember that thread where all you conservatives were BOASTING about FOX being the NUMBER1 watched network?

how can lib-dems control the media if most people watch fox news?

I won't even bother discussing or debating "MSM liberal bias" because it is OBVIOUS that RIGHT WING MEDIA bias is even worse!


basically.....you want right wing media DOMINATING the media and airwaves AND you want to SILENCE everyone else......and at the same time YOU want to whine about "liberal media censorship"

fuk you!

YOU are the one who wants CENSORSHIP!

Oh, and you left out Gateway Pundit, another fake news site these dumbshits cherish.

 

[White 6]

The media cannot be trusted.

Why?

Because the left controls them completely.

The United States of America no longer has a free press as of December 2019.

Press freedom was already in danger, as Mark Levin noted, as journalists became political activists in the Obama era, and feuded with the president in the Trump era. But press freedom could have thrived in a more openly partisan marketplace of ideas. In the end, press freedom was killed by the press itself, in the decision not to report the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in the impeachment crisis.

His name — which Breitbart News published after it was first revealed by RealClearInvestigations — is no mystery. Apparently, his identity was the worst-kept secret in Washington, D.C. The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) concluded in September that the “whistleblower,” a CIA employee, had shown “political bias,” and favored “a rival political candidate,” most likely former Vice President Joe Biden, for whom he reportedly worked.

Too long--edited

Any media outlet that wanted to share its content online — in other words, any media company that wanted to stay in business — had to suppress the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in impeachment coverage.

Pollak: Media, Tech Self-Censorship over 'Whistleblower' Marks Death of Free Press in United States | Breitbart​

The "press" as Horace Greeley imagined it has changed. You are now part of it. Knock yourself out.

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

American doesn't have a press period. It has a Dem controlled propaganda ministry.

What news sources do you use? Fox? Breitbart? Do you ever read a newspaper or just rely on the bullshit you see here?

 

[gipper]

American doesn't have a press period. It has a Dem controlled propaganda ministry.

What news sources do you use? Fox? Breitbart? Do you ever read a newspaper or just rely on the bullshit you see here?

Fox, Brietbart, Gateway Pundit are no different from NBC ABC CBS PBS NPR MSNBC CNN NYT WAPO ETC...they are all run by a select group of billionaires with considerable control imposed by US government intelligence agencies.

 

[jc456]

American doesn't have a press period. It has a Dem controlled propaganda ministry.

What news sources do you use? Fox? Breitbart? Do you ever read a newspaper or just rely on the bullshit you see here?

Fox, Brietbart, Gateway Pundit are no different from NBC ABC CBS PBS NPR MSNBC CNN NYT WAPO ETC...they are all run by a select group of billionaires with considerable control imposed by US government intelligence agencies.

Dude, the left in here are fking clueless

 

[DOTR]

The media cannot be trusted.

Why?

Because the left controls them completely.

The United States of America no longer has a free press as of December 2019.

Press freedom was already in danger, as Mark Levin noted, as journalists became political activists in the Obama era, and feuded with the president in the Trump era. But press freedom could have thrived in a more openly partisan marketplace of ideas. In the end, press freedom was killed by the press itself, in the decision not to report the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in the impeachment crisis.

His name — which Breitbart News published after it was first revealed by RealClearInvestigations — is no mystery. Apparently, his identity was the worst-kept secret in Washington, D.C. The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) concluded in September that the “whistleblower,” a CIA employee, had shown “political bias,” and favored “a rival political candidate,” most likely former Vice President Joe Biden, for whom he reportedly worked.

Too long--edited

Any media outlet that wanted to share its content online — in other words, any media company that wanted to stay in business — had to suppress the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in impeachment coverage.

Pollak: Media, Tech Self-Censorship over 'Whistleblower' Marks Death of Free Press in United States | Breitbart​

They are the antitheses of free speech. Their work to suppress...not reveal. As in the whistle blower. As in the gangs of marauding "youths". As in kids making memes CNN doesnt like. As in expelling voices that oppose them from the online world.

 

[Disir]

It’s not the left controlling the media. It’s the billionaires.

Media conglomerates. They have never worked for the people or their right to know.

 

[mudwhistle]

The media cannot be trusted.

Why?

Because the left controls them completely.

The United States of America no longer has a free press as of December 2019.

Press freedom was already in danger, as Mark Levin noted, as journalists became political activists in the Obama era, and feuded with the president in the Trump era. But press freedom could have thrived in a more openly partisan marketplace of ideas. In the end, press freedom was killed by the press itself, in the decision not to report the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in the impeachment crisis.

His name — which Breitbart News published after it was first revealed by RealClearInvestigations — is no mystery. Apparently, his identity was the worst-kept secret in Washington, D.C. The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) concluded in September that the “whistleblower,” a CIA employee, had shown “political bias,” and favored “a rival political candidate,” most likely former Vice President Joe Biden, for whom he reportedly worked.

Too long--edited

Any media outlet that wanted to share its content online — in other words, any media company that wanted to stay in business — had to suppress the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in impeachment coverage.

Pollak: Media, Tech Self-Censorship over 'Whistleblower' Marks Death of Free Press in United States | Breitbart​

too long.....meaning censored....

 

[gipper]

American doesn't have a press period. It has a Dem controlled propaganda ministry.

What news sources do you use? Fox? Breitbart? Do you ever read a newspaper or just rely on the bullshit you see here?

Fox, Brietbart, Gateway Pundit are no different from NBC ABC CBS PBS NPR MSNBC CNN NYT WAPO ETC...they are all run by a select group of billionaires with considerable control imposed by US government intelligence agencies.

Dude, the left in here are fking clueless

They say exactly the same thing about the right.

 

[jc456]

American doesn't have a press period. It has a Dem controlled propaganda ministry.

What news sources do you use? Fox? Breitbart? Do you ever read a newspaper or just rely on the bullshit you see here?

Fox, Brietbart, Gateway Pundit are no different from NBC ABC CBS PBS NPR MSNBC CNN NYT WAPO ETC...they are all run by a select group of billionaires with considerable control imposed by US government intelligence agencies.

Dude, the left in here are fking clueless

They say exactly the same thing about the right.

But we have facts