So the media

[iceberg]

socially assassinated trump for not specifically calling out CERTAIN racist groups during the protests but they wont specifically call out islamic terrorism?
They certainly didnt hold obama to those same standards. Or maybe they are just biased assholes and they support riots and murder, depending on who does it?
Our media sucks a big one. It amazes me how people defend those bastards.

He equivocated between a group who wants the segregation of races (at their best) and a group who doesn't.

yea, there isnt much difference. We can cherry pick certain details and we could make the KKK sound better as well.
Basically, trump didnt meet certain standards while denouncing it all. Its pathetic. He must cherry pick like everyone else. OR ELSE!!!!!

i think he did just fine calling it how he saw it. there was no way the media or his haters would give him credit for saying the right thing so he may as well just say how he feels.

 

[ricechickie]

Be cool if the corporate media were held to the same standards as other corporations.

Such as?

Like not putting out lies. A corporation can be held liable if their product doesnt do what they say it would do. Or if it causes problems that werent known. The media can do whatever they want

That's bullshit. There are libel laws.

Unless they stipulate that they are "entertainment" and then they can tell lies with impunity. Didn't Fox News do that?

 

[TNHarley]

Be cool if the corporate media were held to the same standards as other corporations.

Such as?

Like not putting out lies. A corporation can be held liable if their product doesnt do what they say it would do. Or if it causes problems that werent known. The media can do whatever they want

That's bullshit. There are libel laws.

Unless they stipulate that they are "entertainment" and then they can tell lies with impunity. Didn't Fox News do that?

Look up how it is to go after the media. The thing with the media is, you have to prove they didnt know any better. Other corporations, you dont.

 

[TNHarley]

socially assassinated trump for not specifically calling out CERTAIN racist groups during the protests but they wont specifically call out islamic terrorism?
They certainly didnt hold obama to those same standards. Or maybe they are just biased assholes and they support riots and murder, depending on who does it?
Our media sucks a big one. It amazes me how people defend those bastards.

He equivocated between a group who wants the segregation of races (at their best) and a group who doesn't.

yea, there isnt much difference. We can cherry pick certain details and we could make the KKK sound better as well.
Basically, trump didnt meet certain standards while denouncing it all. Its pathetic. He must cherry pick like everyone else. OR ELSE!!!!!

i think he did just fine calling it how he saw it. there was no way the media or his haters would give him credit for saying the right thing so he may as well just say how he feels.

I do too. Nothing wrong with calling out all violence and hate.

 

[BrokeLoser]

socially assassinated trump for not specifically calling out CERTAIN racist groups during the protests but they wont specifically call out islamic terrorism?
They certainly didnt hold obama to those same standards. Or maybe they are just biased assholes and they support riots and murder, depending on who does it?
Our media sucks a big one. It amazes me how people defend those bastards.

Trump is a moron who gets what he deserves

Any other president would thrive in the spotlight. Trump was told the proper response and chose to listen to Bannon

See?

A perfect example of a DNC Bolshevik media DUPE. ^^^

Most Presidents intuitively know how to respond to tragedy. Trump uses it as a political event.

Even his chief of staff was cringing in the background

"Most Presidents"
There you go forgetting again....Donny T was elected for two reasons...
1.). The crooked, drunk, filthy whore was his opponent
2.). He would NOT be "Presidential" or act like a politician

Politicians spend their careers "toeing the line" everything they say and do is methodical, calculated and often loaded with disingenuous motive. Everything is about reelection and how "The Party" will look.
Donny T can't give two shits about soothing you through orchestrated dialogue. Forget what you know about that sackless, soft spoken, cautious negro with the oversized ears and un-American name....learn to appreciate transparency and a "no bullshit" approach from your President.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Be cool if the corporate media were held to the same standards as other corporations.

And what standard would that be?

You want the government to dictate to the media what their editorial content can and cannot be?

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, another backhanded attempt to defend the neo-Nazis.

 

[ricechickie]

Be cool if the corporate media were held to the same standards as other corporations.

Such as?

Like not putting out lies. A corporation can be held liable if their product doesnt do what they say it would do. Or if it causes problems that werent known. The media can do whatever they want

That's bullshit. There are libel laws.

Unless they stipulate that they are "entertainment" and then they can tell lies with impunity. Didn't Fox News do that?

Look up how it is to go after the media. The thing with the media is, you have to prove they didnt know any better. Other corporations, you dont.

Really?

Citation?

 

[TNHarley]

lol, another backhanded attempt to defend the neo-Nazis.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gee, maybe something could be done by the government to require the media to be 'fair'.

You know, like a doctrine,

about fairness.

What could we call it? lol

 

[rightwinger]

Obama also refused to disavow Al Queda in Libya, which is the Group he and Clinton paid to assassinate Quaddafi and start a Coup in Libya, and when Hillary sent classified emails to Blumenthal, and Al Queda was able to acquire them and found out Clinton was using Benghazi as an illegal weapons dump, they attacked Benghazi.

So why has Obama never disavowed Al Queda in Libya? Why hasn't Clinton?
Because they were funding them, same as they funded Mexican Drug Cartels, Al Nusra, Hamas, and The PLO.
Some "Lefty Messiah"
Huh?

Let Osama bin Laden explain how Obama feels about Al Qaeda

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you don't like the media who don't hate liberals,

patronize the ones that do.

 

[rightwinger]

Gee, maybe something could be done by the government to require the media to be 'fair'.

You know, like a doctrine,

about fairness.

What could we call it? lol[/QUOTE

We need a Trump Doctrine for the media. They are only allowed to say nice things

Then he will stop calling them fake news

We need a Trump Doctrine for the media. They are only allowed to say nice things

Then he will stop calling them fake news

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama also refused to disavow Al Queda in Libya, which is the Group he and Clinton paid to assassinate Quaddafi and start a Coup in Libya, and when Hillary sent classified emails to Blumenthal, and Al Queda was able to acquire them and found out Clinton was using Benghazi as an illegal weapons dump, they attacked Benghazi.

So why has Obama never disavowed Al Queda in Libya? Why hasn't Clinton?
Because they were funding them, same as they funded Mexican Drug Cartels, Al Nusra, Hamas, and The PLO.
Some "Lefty Messiah"
Huh?

The above post is irrefutable evidence that there is more than enough whacky rightwing media that the whacky rightwingers can get their whacky 'information' from.

 

[NightFox]

Be cool if the corporate media were held to the same standards as other corporations.

Such as?

Like not putting out lies. A corporation can be held liable if their product doesnt do what they say it would do. Or if it causes problems that werent known. The media can do whatever they want

That's bullshit. There are libel laws.

Libel/Slander (defamation) laws only apply if there is demonstrable defamation, it doesn't apply in cases where no injury to reputation or subjugation to public contempt of an individuals(s) can be demonstrated and in cases of public figures it only applies if the outlet knows that the information is wholly false.

So yeah the media can and do lie about all sorts of things, of course the preferred method is to mix some truth in with a whole lot of opinion and conjecture and then package it in a way that looks legitimate, still a lie but far more palatable to the sheeple.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gee, maybe something could be done by the government to require the media to be 'fair'.

You know, like a doctrine,

about fairness.

What could we call it? lol[/QUOTE

We need a Trump Doctrine for the media. They are only allowed to say nice things

Then he will stop calling them fake news

We need a Trump Doctrine for the media. They are only allowed to say nice things

Then he will stop calling them fake news

He's already implemented that within his administration with his order to the staff to bring him 2 reports a day of media material favorable to him.

 

[TNHarley]

Be cool if the corporate media were held to the same standards as other corporations.

Such as?

Like not putting out lies. A corporation can be held liable if their product doesnt do what they say it would do. Or if it causes problems that werent known. The media can do whatever they want

That's bullshit. There are libel laws.

Unless they stipulate that they are "entertainment" and then they can tell lies with impunity. Didn't Fox News do that?

Look up how it is to go after the media. The thing with the media is, you have to prove they didnt know any better. Other corporations, you dont.

Really?

Citation?

Do you know what libel laws are? I mean, the most basic interpretation of the law says just that.

Libel - Defamation | Laws.com

 

[Freewill]

AND, when one wack-job Nazi commits a terrorist act, HE REPRESENTS ALL AMERICAN NAZI'S, THE KKK, ALL CONSERVATIVES, AND THE REPUBLICAN ******* PARTY

And when a mainstream left winger goes to a ball field to kill, well that man that holds mainstream democrat views is just a poor mentally challenged person. Which could be said about most democrats.

 

[ricechickie]

Such as?

Like not putting out lies. A corporation can be held liable if their product doesnt do what they say it would do. Or if it causes problems that werent known. The media can do whatever they want

That's bullshit. There are libel laws.

Unless they stipulate that they are "entertainment" and then they can tell lies with impunity. Didn't Fox News do that?

Look up how it is to go after the media. The thing with the media is, you have to prove they didnt know any better. Other corporations, you dont.

Really?

Citation?

Do you know what libel laws are? I mean, the most basic interpretation of the law says just that.

Libel - Defamation | Laws.com

That's not what I wanted the citation for. I want a source that says that other corporations aren't held to the same standard. By the way, I think you have it backward. With media, you have to prove that they DID know better.

 

[NightFox]

AND, when one wack-job Nazi commits a terrorist act, HE REPRESENTS ALL AMERICAN NAZI'S, THE KKK, ALL CONSERVATIVES, AND THE REPUBLICAN ******* PARTY

And when a mainstream left winger goes to a ball field to kill, well that man that holds mainstream democrat views is just a poor mentally challenged person. Which could be said about most democrats.

Define "mainstream left winger", last time I checked the American Left was generally a confused, disingenuous gaggle of gub'mint worshiping lemmings but I must have missed the part where it was the generally accepted view of the left that going on mass shooting sprees was an acceptable form of protest.