CNN timed Trump's story for maximum effect

[bodecea]

Has anyone noticed that this story of Trump not giving money to veteran groups only seem to become popular on the memorial day weekend? It can't be a coincidence that they just found out a few days ago and decided to launch this story all over the place. They held onto this story and decided to release it on memorial day in order to create the most damage possible. That only shows how bias the 'liberal' media is in this country.

Someone should sue CNN and force them to release their internal documents so that America can see what a fraud they are.

Just think...if the money had been paid out in a timely manner, this would not have been a story at all.

How do we know it wasn't going to be paid. I'm assuming that when a charity makes a promise to pay such and such group that they don't get the money right away especially if it is in the millions. Have you ever sold a house? Does money get paid immediately or do you have to wait a while before things get moving.

You seem to have a problem with the press making sure that vets get what was promised to them.......

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump should deport CNN

What's that expression we use for leaders who shut down opposition media outlets?

Oh, yeah. "Tinpot Dictator".

What's that expression we use to shut down opposition media outlets?

Fairness Doctrine?

 

[Pogo]

Trump should deport CNN

What's that expression we use for leaders who shut down opposition media outlets?

Oh, yeah. "Tinpot Dictator".

What's that expression we use to shut down opposition media outlets?

Fairness Doctrine?

What's that link to that ever happening, ever in history, anywhere?




Didn't think so.
Mythologists. God love 'em.

 

[g5000]

Trump should deport CNN

What's that expression we use for leaders who shut down opposition media outlets?

Oh, yeah. "Tinpot Dictator".

What's that expression we use to shut down opposition media outlets?

Fairness Doctrine?

The Fairness Doctrine did not shut down opposition media outlets. As a matter of fact, its purpose was the opposite.

Nice try. Learn your history.

 

[g5000]

Trump should deport CNN

What's that expression we use for leaders who shut down opposition media outlets?

Oh, yeah. "Tinpot Dictator".

What's that expression we use to shut down opposition media outlets?

Fairness Doctrine?

What's that link to that ever happening, ever in history, anywhere?




Didn't think so.
Mythologists. God love 'em.

The Fairness Doctrine is not a myth. It was very real.

Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[g5000]

The Fairness Doctrine forced media outlets to present both sides of an argument in the mistaken belief this would lead us to the objective truth.

It was a total violation of free speech.

It's death was a boon to partisan hacks and brought us MSNBC and Fox News. Which is actually what our Founders intended. They never intended free speech to be objective truth.

 

[HenryBHough]

Would be fun to see The Fairness Doctrine come back - especially when it's applied to all print media and the internet!

 

[Pogo]

Would be fun to see The Fairness Doctrine come back - especially when it's applied to all print media and the internet!

Why would it be?

YOU of all people know better Henry. That is ----- if you are who you say you are and have a shred of honesty.

Oh yes, there's a hall monitor here. Watching.

 

[Pogo]

The Fairness Doctrine is not a myth. It was very real.

Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No shit.

I worked in broadcasting both before and after it. And was in the position of now only knowing its operation but overseeing others in it. I had to know it inside and out. So did Henry.

"Mythologists" above refers to Frank and his mythology of "shutting down media outlets". Which has never happened, and I already know that, which is why I call it out as the myth it is.

The Fairness Doctrine forced media outlets to present both sides of an argument in the mistaken belief this would lead us to the objective truth.

It was a total violation of free speech.

No it absolutely did not, and no it was not.
First of all the part you left out is that it applied to broadcast licenses, which were at the time a very finite space --- not to anything else. What it actually did was provide that, if I went on my radio station and slammed you as a hack who doesn't know what he's talking about ---- then you have the right to come onto my airwaves and defend your case. In other words exactly what we have here --- you can read this, and you get to click "reply"..... as opposed to me making a post and you can't respond.

For one example, after Edward R. Murrow's exposé of Joe McCarthy (who was already going down by then), McCarthy requested, under the FD, time to respond. CBS gave him the whole program segment.

It's death was a boon to partisan hacks and brought us MSNBC and Fox News. Which is actually what our Founders intended. They never intended free speech to be objective truth.

Wouldn't presume to comment on "what our Founders intended" but yes it gave rise to .... something like that. Actually you skipped ahead considerably in time, since the first partisan hack it gave rise to was Rust Limjob, chronologically speaking.

But no, it never "forced media outlets to present both sides of an argument". If that had been the case, then sixty years before Limblob, Father Charles Coughlin could not have been railing on the airwaves with a YUUGE audience. He just wasn't targeting people personally. He would rail against "Jews" rather than a specific name as in the case of McCarthy.

Bottom line --- I put this challenge up on other message boards way before I came to this one and have yet to get a single challenge --- the Fairness Doctrine never shut down any broadcast outlet ----- and that's the myth that Frank was trying to sell there.