How come its always the "liberal" journalists breaking these stories about Epstein and others?? Why didn't Breitbart or Infowars break this story?? Instead of making up shit about a Pizza parlor
The Propagandists didn't break it, they spiked it.
Pay attention.
You do understand that "JOURNALISTS" took their reporting to their editors and their editors spiked it because their editors are CORPORATE OWNED right??
But that doesn't change the fact that this journalist is the MAIN REASON Epstein went to prison....and this journalist is not a conservative....
View attachment 288487
And the only reason Judy Brown's face isn't a household name among conservatives is because they don't give a **** about the victims of Epstein, they just care about if they can use him to attack Democrats....which makes you full of shit....
Not because they are corporate owned
Because they are proven progressive activists.
So yes you are claiming that, in your ignorance, because I can tell you right here and now, NOBODY makes a damn dime from "activism", whether "Progressive" or anything else. They make their money from selling you shit you don't need like dick drugs, stupid phones and pickemup trucks big enough to tow a meteorite. And to sell you that shit they will present whatever pap keeps you planted there until the sponsor gets the floor.
THAT is how it works, and that's what ratings are for.
And that leads us directly back to the network pushback of "nobody knows who he (Epstein) is". That means the network has to first EXPLAIN who he is, and that costs viewership, and ratings go down, and they can't charge as much for commercials, as they can when the feature the latest missing white girl or naked people stranded on an island forced to eat bugs.
Your ridiculous paranoia fantasies of "they're all out to get me" are ironically true --- they ARE out to get your money. They don't give a flying shit about what's left of your mind.
TSDR
If ratings were the goal -
News networks would all adopt the FoxNews Playbook.
They would rather be activists than have ratings.
All you need to do is look.
Other than airports - no one is watching CNN
No one is watching MSNBC
No idea what "TSDR" is supposed to mean but yes, so-called "news" networks HAVE adopted the Fox Noise model. That's a perfect illustration. Before Roger What-Ailes-Ya bubbled up Fox Noise, CNN was holding the position of news source with its idea of 24 hour coverage so we didn't have to wait for the 6pm network news.
But doing news -- REAL news -- is expensive. You need to hire reporters, fly them around with production crews, trucks, satellite phones, you need to open and maintain foreign bureaus, all that shit. That's why the old traditional Huntley-Brinkley-Cronkite network news shows were all subsidized by the mindless Gilligan's Islands and Beverly Hillbillies, because that's where the money was. The newscasts were
loss leaders. Just there for PR so that a given station, come license renewal time, could tell the FCC, "See? We're serving the public interest as the license requires, look at all these news shows".
And of course being on cable, the Foxes and CNNs don't need broadcast licenses anyway so they're relieved of the mandate to operate "in the public interest, convenience and necessity" as licensees are.
Rupert Murdoch, who made his fortune selling sleazy tabloid rags, bubbled up the idea of, instead of spending all that money on actual news, plopping some talking heads down in a studio to talk ABOUT the news, rather than actually report it. MUCH cheaper. He came up with a gossip channel which, instead of gossiping about celebrities, gossips about politicians. It's always about
people, not policy. That's a direct Appeal to Emotion.
Roger Ailes candidly put it this way: "If two guys are on a stage and one guy says 'I know how to bring peace to the Middle East' and the other guy falls into the orchestra pit, which one do you think is going to be on the evening news?"
That's why all those garish Romper Room colors festoon the set. That's why the women are all facing the camera in short skirts. That's why all those suggestive chyrons are dancing across the screen. That's why the talking heads are pounding their fists on the desk and speaking in three octaves. All that shit SELLS. Emotion sells. Sex sells. Suggestive shit plants seeds and the colors keep you awake. And then ---- BAM, buy this dick drug. That's the game, Gumball. It's all manipulative psychology.
Commentary --- which is where Fox Noise makes all its money --- is cheap, because as the old maxim says, TALK IS CHEAP.
And that's why ratings exist.
CNN, to its discredit, saw what Fox Noise was doing and adopted some of the same shit. MSNBC came along and switched from its far-right position that Fox already had, to the other side to milk a different audience. ALL of them are in it for the goal of maximizing viewership,
simply because the more hypnotized drones you have, the more you can charge the advertiser for time. Ratings measure
attention. If my network can deliver more eyeballs than yours, then I can charge more for a commercial. Simple as that. How I get those eyeballs could be bimbos in short skirts in a garishly colored studio with suggestive chyrons running amok, it could be naked people on an island forced to eat bugs, it could be here's the results of the paternity tests, it could be dancing with the who-cares. Doesn't matter,
they're all there for the same goal.
THAT, Virginia, is how they work and what they work for. Not ******* "activisim", which makes ZERO money.