SeaMajor7
Diamond Member
Their desperation is VERY telling....
Top Democrats demand censorship again
- Thread starter TroglocratsRdumb
- Start date
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Liberal Democraps like Schumer shouldn’t make any such comments about any news outlet.WASHINGTON — The two top Democrats in Congress are asking Fox News executives not to spread “grave propaganda” about the 2020 election and are demanding that commentators who have falsely suggested that the election was stolen acknowledge on the air that they were wrong.
The letter to Fox Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., comes a day after an unsealed deposition revealed that Murdoch had acknowledged that some network commentators endorsed former President Donald Trump’s false claims.
Referencing the Jan. 6, 202ing 1, Capitol insurrection by Trump’s supporters, Schumer and Jeffries said “spreading this false propaganda could not only embolden supporters of the Big Lie to engage in further acts of political violence, but also deeply and broadly weakens faith in our democracy and hurts our country in countless other ways.”
Democrats ask Fox News not to push 2020 election ‘propaganda’
The two top Democrats in Congress are asking Fox News executives not to spread “grave propaganda” about the 2020 election and are demanding that commentators who have falsely suggested that the election was stolen acknowledge on the air that they were wrong.www.washingtontimes.com
Memorandum: How the 2020 Election Could Have Been Stolen
A political scientist examines the evidence and concludes that widespread fraud took place.www.theamericanconservative.com
Comment:
Senator Schumer is a habitual liar.
The real false claims are the corrupt Democrats/Media claiming that there was "no evidence" of election rigging in the 2020 election.
The real false claims are the corrupt Democrats leaders such as Schumer, Pelosi and Hakeem Jefferies claiming that there was an "insurrection" on Jan 6th 2021.
The anti-voting rights far left extremist Zuckerberg spent $400 million to "influence" election officials across America in 2020.
Biden barely won 500 counties. Trump won over 2,500 counties.
Pennsylvania illegally changed voting laws in 2020.
Democrats counted ballots behind locked doors in 2020.
Democrats broke ballot chain of custody laws in 2020.
Biden was able to magically and statistically improbable run the table in the middle of the night in key swing states.
View attachment 762140
Of course they want only their side of the story (almost any story) reported.
Schumer is a camera whore scumbag asshole.
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
themirrorthief
Diamond Member
I like biden he is destorying the democrat party which is great for democracy
themirrorthief
Diamond Member
you are being to nice to that pile of shit
Independent thinker
Diamond Member
- Oct 15, 2015
- 31,899
- 27,718
- 2,788
I actually think it is hilarious that Democrats say they won the election and continually try to prove it as Biden has been in the White House for two years now. It's like wanting the media to admit that the sun rises in the morning. It is actually Democrats who question the 2020 election results. They need to get over it already.WASHINGTON — The two top Democrats in Congress are asking Fox News executives not to spread “grave propaganda” about the 2020 election and are demanding that commentators who have falsely suggested that the election was stolen acknowledge on the air that they were wrong.
The letter to Fox Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., comes a day after an unsealed deposition revealed that Murdoch had acknowledged that some network commentators endorsed former President Donald Trump’s false claims.
Referencing the Jan. 6, 202ing 1, Capitol insurrection by Trump’s supporters, Schumer and Jeffries said “spreading this false propaganda could not only embolden supporters of the Big Lie to engage in further acts of political violence, but also deeply and broadly weakens faith in our democracy and hurts our country in countless other ways.”
Democrats ask Fox News not to push 2020 election ‘propaganda’
The two top Democrats in Congress are asking Fox News executives not to spread “grave propaganda” about the 2020 election and are demanding that commentators who have falsely suggested that the election was stolen acknowledge on the air that they were wrong.Memorandum: How the 2020 Election Could Have Been Stolen
A political scientist examines the evidence and concludes that widespread fraud took place.
Comment:
Senator Schumer is a habitual liar.
The real false claims are the corrupt Democrats/Media claiming that there was "no evidence" of election rigging in the 2020 election.
The real false claims are the corrupt Democrats leaders such as Schumer, Pelosi and Hakeem Jefferies claiming that there was an "insurrection" on Jan 6th 2021.
The anti-voting rights far left extremist Zuckerberg spent $400 million to "influence" election officials across America in 2020.
Biden barely won 500 counties. Trump won over 2,500 counties.
Pennsylvania illegally changed voting laws in 2020.
Democrats counted ballots behind locked doors in 2020.
Democrats broke ballot chain of custody laws in 2020.
Biden was able to magically and statistically improbable run the table in the middle of the night in key swing states.
View attachment 762140
Marener
Diamond Member
- Jul 26, 2022
- 46,820
- 20,371
- 2,173
Not at all. Conservative media has a bunch of their followers convinced they proved the Capitol riot was instigated by the FBI.You lie, have a batch of these.
No such proof exists.
Consider this: "Evidence" and "facts" come to you from where? A media outlet, correct? Therefore, what forms the narrative you believe? Unless you personally witnessed an event, you HAVE to rely on someone ELSE to tell you about it.
We are at the point now where people actively believe and refuse to believe media outlets because "journalists" are no longer trustworthy (how can they be when such extremely high percentages donate money only to one political party and to candidates of that party?), which leads to automatic rejection of anything that counters an already established narrative. We see this most blatantly displayed, I believe, on college campuses, where young adults with very little exposure to the real world craft fantasy worlds and react violently to opposing viewpoints. They, and so many on here, don't want to even consider that one of their beliefs could be wrong or based on a falsehood, so simply scream, "Fake News", or totally reject the content because of the source.
So, when you whine and complain that "conservatives believe their media", remember that liberals do the very same thing. A devotee of MSNBC is no better informed and has been fed as much propaganda as a devotee of FOX News.
Marener
Diamond Member
- Jul 26, 2022
- 46,820
- 20,371
- 2,173
The right has spent ages destroying the faith in journalism for their own purposes.
It’s far easier to lie to people when you’ve convinced them that they shouldn’t believe anyone else.
Journalism has probably gotten more reliable as transparency has increased, but that’s not really the point.
The right has destroyed faith in journalism and has replaced it, not with journalists of their own, but with pundits. This shows the lack of commitment to truth among the right. They want easy answers, easy narratives. They don’t want to be challenged. They don’t want to be told they’re wrong.
See, this is what I'm talking about. Instead of acknowledging that a person's truth is shaped by the media outlets they accept, you want to blame "Republicans" for destroying faith in "journalism", when what they've done is point out blatant bias in news coverage that has been going on for decades. It cannot be denied, for example, that the majority people working in journalism (and thus having impact on the stories published) donate to the democrat party and candidates. When the coverage is then slanted to favor democrats in many ways, it is legitimate to question the veracity of the stories presented. Are they complete or did the writers, editors, and headline writers leave out inconvenient information that counter the narrative? Do they condemn the actions of one candidate while ignoring the actions of another? Does the headline make claims that are countered in the story? Did the editors spike a story that was inconvenient to a candidate? After all, when the reporter, the editor and the publisher all give political donations solely to democrats, you have to ask those questions. To claim that is "destroying faith in journalism" is false. And I do believe you are claiming the right has pundits while the left has journalists. Not so. The left has pundits all over the place (and apparently believe them).
All reporters, editors and headline writers have biases. The problem comes in when they try to deny that they do and insist that their version of a story is the unquestioned truth. What reason do we have to believe the majority of media outlets anymore when two outlets report on the same event with wildly different stories? The joke is true:
TRUMP! walks on water.
Some right-wing pundits - wow, he's a miracle worker
Left-wing pundits - TRUMP! can't swim
Ultimately, are the journalists telling us what happened or are they trying to craft a narrative and are shaping the news to further it? This is where Orange Man Bad comes from.
Marener
Diamond Member
- Jul 26, 2022
- 46,820
- 20,371
- 2,173
I would love to see this data, because I can already predict there’s going to be a fatal flaw.
The data will not show that the majority of journalists do any such thing. It will show that the majority of those who donate, will donate to democrats. But, those who donate are a small fraction of overall journalists. Most journalists don’t donate at all.
The problem is that conservatives demand their media be biased. So if there is a neutral objective media, conservatives will call it biased merely because it doesn’t conform to their own bias.
Doug1943
Platinum Member
- Jan 3, 2016
- 1,243
- 617
- 928
Actually, it was people on the Left who believed that the media were biassed. (And in general, it's wonderful to see the Left do a 180-degree turn, and fall in love with the FBI, the CIA, the giant corporations ... capitalism is indeed truly powerful!)
On the trustworthiness of the mass media, a book was published some 35 years ago on that subject by two leftwing professors, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. (The latter is pretty well known ... he's probably the most prominent Leftwing thinker in the US.)
Here's a snippen from the Wikipedia entry:
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a 1988 book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. It argues that the mass communication media of the U.S. "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda model of communication. The title refers to consent of the governed, and derives from the phrase "the manufacture of consent" used by Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion (1922). The book was honored with the Orwell Award.
A 2002 revision takes account of developments such as the fall of the Soviet Union. A 2009 interview with the authors notes the effects of the internet on the propaganda model.
Chomsky credits the origin of the book to the impetus of Alex Carey, the Australian social psychologist, to whom Herman and Chomsky dedicated the book. The book was greatly inspired by Herman's earlier financial research. ...
Herman was a professor of finance at Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and Chomsky is a linguist and activist scholar, who has written many other books, such as Towards a New Cold War. Before Manufacturing Consent was published in 1988, the two authors had collaborated on the same subject before. Their book Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda, a book about American foreign policy and the media, was published in 1973. The publisher for the book, a subsidiary of Warner Communications Incorporated, was deliberately put out of business after printing 20,000 copies of the book, most of which were destroyed, so the book was not widely known. "
[ Manufacturing Consent - Wikipedia ]
When Lefties say the mass media are objective, they mean that it agrees with them. If it agreed with the Right, we would say it was objective.
The partisanship of the media does not consist in conscious lies. It is shown by what journalists choose to focus on and magnify, and what they choose to downplay or ignore altogether. This is so obvious that we just take it for granted.
The journalists in question do not think, "How can I dupe the American people today, in pursuit of the goal of bringing in communism and the rule of Satan to America?" ... to them, it's just natural to focus on Donald Trump's difficulties with the law, while downplaying Hunter Biden's. The summer 2020 events were "mostly peaceful protests" (true, in the sense that peaceful protestors outnumbered the violent rioters), the 6 January events were not (although the peaceful protestors/violent rioter proportion was roughly the same).
It's just how the game is played. We'll be told by the mainstream media, and 'fact-checkers' like Snopes, that "overwhelming evidence" points to the origins of the virus in bats ... until the establishment needs a different story, and suddenly, it's the fault of the careless Chinese.
But until then, the FBI will pull the strings at Twitter and people who were "premature lab escape" theorists will find their accounts cancelled.
I don't think the liberals here who earnestly proclaim the neutrality and honesty and objectivity of the media are being cynical. They're probably suffering from one of the deformations professionelle of nice people, gullibility.
Since we conservatives are not nice people, we're more cynical.
On the trustworthiness of the mass media, a book was published some 35 years ago on that subject by two leftwing professors, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. (The latter is pretty well known ... he's probably the most prominent Leftwing thinker in the US.)
Here's a snippen from the Wikipedia entry:
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a 1988 book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. It argues that the mass communication media of the U.S. "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda model of communication. The title refers to consent of the governed, and derives from the phrase "the manufacture of consent" used by Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion (1922). The book was honored with the Orwell Award.
A 2002 revision takes account of developments such as the fall of the Soviet Union. A 2009 interview with the authors notes the effects of the internet on the propaganda model.
Chomsky credits the origin of the book to the impetus of Alex Carey, the Australian social psychologist, to whom Herman and Chomsky dedicated the book. The book was greatly inspired by Herman's earlier financial research. ...
Herman was a professor of finance at Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and Chomsky is a linguist and activist scholar, who has written many other books, such as Towards a New Cold War. Before Manufacturing Consent was published in 1988, the two authors had collaborated on the same subject before. Their book Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda, a book about American foreign policy and the media, was published in 1973. The publisher for the book, a subsidiary of Warner Communications Incorporated, was deliberately put out of business after printing 20,000 copies of the book, most of which were destroyed, so the book was not widely known. "
[ Manufacturing Consent - Wikipedia ]
When Lefties say the mass media are objective, they mean that it agrees with them. If it agreed with the Right, we would say it was objective.
The partisanship of the media does not consist in conscious lies. It is shown by what journalists choose to focus on and magnify, and what they choose to downplay or ignore altogether. This is so obvious that we just take it for granted.
The journalists in question do not think, "How can I dupe the American people today, in pursuit of the goal of bringing in communism and the rule of Satan to America?" ... to them, it's just natural to focus on Donald Trump's difficulties with the law, while downplaying Hunter Biden's. The summer 2020 events were "mostly peaceful protests" (true, in the sense that peaceful protestors outnumbered the violent rioters), the 6 January events were not (although the peaceful protestors/violent rioter proportion was roughly the same).
It's just how the game is played. We'll be told by the mainstream media, and 'fact-checkers' like Snopes, that "overwhelming evidence" points to the origins of the virus in bats ... until the establishment needs a different story, and suddenly, it's the fault of the careless Chinese.
But until then, the FBI will pull the strings at Twitter and people who were "premature lab escape" theorists will find their accounts cancelled.
I don't think the liberals here who earnestly proclaim the neutrality and honesty and objectivity of the media are being cynical. They're probably suffering from one of the deformations professionelle of nice people, gullibility.
Since we conservatives are not nice people, we're more cynical.
The5thHorseman
Platinum Member
- Nov 22, 2022
- 12,136
- 6,577
- 918
- Banned
- #33
Well articulated....particularly given that you never watch FOX.
New York
CNN —
A Fox News producer on Monday filed a pair of explosive lawsuits against the right-wing talk channel, alleging that the network’s lawyers coerced her into providing misleading testimony in Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation case against the company.
The lawsuits filed by Abby Grossberg, who worked as a senior booking producer for Maria Bartiromo and most recently head of booking for Tucker Carlson, accused Fox’s legal team of having engaged in wrongful conduct as it prepared her for a pre-trial deposition in the election technology company’s case.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/21/media/fox-news-producer-lawsuit/index.html
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
By any chance, other than your usual fluff, did you have a point to make?
The5thHorseman
Platinum Member
- Nov 22, 2022
- 12,136
- 6,577
- 918
- Banned
- #35
I can believe it eludes you.
You're full of shit.
Credulous; utterly bereft of a critical faculty.
Informed by little more than your pique.
Can you hear me now.
WASHINGTON — The two top Democrats in Congress are asking Fox News executives not to spread “grave propaganda” about the 2020 election and are demanding that commentators who have falsely suggested that the election was stolen acknowledge on the air that they were wrong.
The letter to Fox Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., comes a day after an unsealed deposition revealed that Murdoch had acknowledged that some network commentators endorsed former President Donald Trump’s false claims.
Referencing the Jan. 6, 202ing 1, Capitol insurrection by Trump’s supporters, Schumer and Jeffries said “spreading this false propaganda could not only embolden supporters of the Big Lie to engage in further acts of political violence, but also deeply and broadly weakens faith in our democracy and hurts our country in countless other ways.”
Democrats ask Fox News not to push 2020 election ‘propaganda’
The two top Democrats in Congress are asking Fox News executives not to spread “grave propaganda” about the 2020 election and are demanding that commentators who have falsely suggested that the election was stolen acknowledge on the air that they were wrong.Memorandum: How the 2020 Election Could Have Been Stolen
A political scientist examines the evidence and concludes that widespread fraud took place.
Comment:
Senator Schumer is a habitual liar.
The real false claims are the corrupt Democrats/Media claiming that there was "no evidence" of election rigging in the 2020 election.
The real false claims are the corrupt Democrats leaders such as Schumer, Pelosi and Hakeem Jefferies claiming that there was an "insurrection" on Jan 6th 2021.
The anti-voting rights far left extremist Zuckerberg spent $400 million to "influence" election officials across America in 2020.
Biden barely won 500 counties. Trump won over 2,500 counties.
Pennsylvania illegally changed voting laws in 2020.
Democrats counted ballots behind locked doors in 2020.
Democrats broke ballot chain of custody laws in 2020.
Biden was able to magically and statistically improbable run the table in the middle of the night in key swing states.
View attachment 762140
You are the habitual liar. Even Fox admits there was no election fraud and asking them to report news is not censorship. You are among the most ignorant bitches on this board.
There was nothing improbable about what happened. You are the liar.
Zuckerberg gave money to local election officials to help them run their elections more efficiently. You are the liar.
Biden won the right counties. You are the liar.
Pennsylvania did not do anything illegal. You are the liar.
Election workers counted the ballots. You are the liar.
No chain of custody laws were broken. You are the liar.
You have proven you are the habitual liar.
"Most of a Florida law that sought to stop social media companies from restricting users' political speech violates the companies' free speech rights and cannot be enforced, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday, agreeing with a lower court."
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/JHDFRX5DYJKEJIVUSCHR3FLVU4.jpg)
U.S. appeals court rejects most of Florida social media law
Most of a Florida law that sought to stop social media companies from restricting users' political speech violates the companies' free speech rights and cannot be enforced, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday, agreeing with a lower court.
www.reuters.com
"A Florida judge on Thursday declared a Florida law championed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis that restricts race-based conversation and analysis in business and education unconstitutional."
U.S. appeals court rejects most of Florida social media law
Most of a Florida law that sought to stop social media companies from restricting users' political speech violates the companies' free speech rights and cannot be enforced, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday, agreeing with a lower court.
www.reuters.com
Lastamender
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2011
- 65,087
- 59,277
- 3,600
You are uninformed and ignorant to the 10th power.
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Yes. I hear you. You’re still wrong. As always. And you don’t know shit about how to make an actual point.
Calypso Jones
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2020
- 21,692
- 26,090
- 2,288
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Wait, the "Tax Cuts" in the Big Beautiful Bill are just the 2017 tax cuts Made Permanent?- Started by Seymour Flops
- Replies: 2
-
Zone1 Is it possible to follow Christ and, at the same time, have mass appeal?- Started by Votto
- Replies: 2
-
Person shot outside CIA headquarters by security guards- Started by EvilEyeFleegle
- Replies: 2
-
Trump uses photos from wrong country as evidence of ‘white genocide’ in South Africa
- Started by EvilEyeFleegle
- Replies: 7
