Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This thread is bullshit
There are hundreds of reporters looking into Trump
fuck Trump, like I said he opened the door to be investigated when he started calling the entire media names .He's just lucky it's only one that's after his ass.
fuck Trump, like I said he opened the door to be investigated when he started calling the entire media names .He's just lucky it's only one that's after his ass.
LOL!
This started long before Trump.
The media is the enemy of a large segment of the population. And has been for a long time, now.
You do realize that, right?
Papers are only interested in circulation.......Trump sellsThis thread is bullshit
There are hundreds of reporters looking into Trump
The context of the OP is "20 reporters assigned by one major paper."
It shows the complete partisanship and thus betrayal of their professional responsibility of that one paper AS AN EXAMPLE of the complete bias and failure of responsibility of the media in general.
I can see why you would want to distract/derail from that topic. It is not one that can work for your side.
fuck Trump, like I said he opened the door to be investigated when he started calling the entire media names .He's just lucky it's only one that's after his ass.
LOL!
This started long before Trump.
The media is the enemy of a large segment of the population. And has been for a long time, now.
You do realize that, right?
WaPo assigned 20 reporters to Trump long before Trump verbally attacked the media...
how does that work?
Papers are only interested in circulation.......Trump sellsThis thread is bullshit
There are hundreds of reporters looking into Trump
The context of the OP is "20 reporters assigned by one major paper."
It shows the complete partisanship and thus betrayal of their professional responsibility of that one paper AS AN EXAMPLE of the complete bias and failure of responsibility of the media in general.
I can see why you would want to distract/derail from that topic. It is not one that can work for your side.
Hillary is boring
Stories on Trump being a sweet guy do not sellPapers are only interested in circulation.......Trump sellsThis thread is bullshit
There are hundreds of reporters looking into Trump
The context of the OP is "20 reporters assigned by one major paper."
It shows the complete partisanship and thus betrayal of their professional responsibility of that one paper AS AN EXAMPLE of the complete bias and failure of responsibility of the media in general.
I can see why you would want to distract/derail from that topic. It is not one that can work for your side.
Hillary is boring
Bullshit.
Positive or even neutral coverage of Trump would get the same interest, it that was their motivation.
Seriously you don't believe the media is impartial?
I thought Foxnews was the most watched cable news network.
I thought conservatives dominated talk radio.
I thought the Right had several thousand anti-liberal anti-Democrat anti-Obama sites on the internet.
Foxnews is the most watched because it is the only network serving it's niche market, ie a half of America, while the rest fight over the other half.
COnservatives dominate talk radio, because the rest of media and pop culture is saturated with Leftist Propaganda.
Now I'm literally laughing out loud at your demented opinion that rightwing talk radio is NOT propaganda.
You are too stupid for words. We need to commission a word inventer to come with words extreme enough to accurately describe your level of stupidity.
I actually made no comment on the content of rightwing talk radio.
The irony of you calling me stupid in a post where the only point of "mine" you address is one that was created by your inability to communicate, is wonderfully hilarious, and I am sure, beyond your comprehension.
Papers are only interested in circulation.......Trump sellsThis thread is bullshit
There are hundreds of reporters looking into Trump
The context of the OP is "20 reporters assigned by one major paper."
It shows the complete partisanship and thus betrayal of their professional responsibility of that one paper AS AN EXAMPLE of the complete bias and failure of responsibility of the media in general.
I can see why you would want to distract/derail from that topic. It is not one that can work for your side.
Hillary is boring
Bullshit.
Positive or even neutral coverage of Trump would get the same interest, it that was their motivation.
Seriously you don't believe the media is impartial?
Stories on Trump being a sweet guy do not sellPapers are only interested in circulation.......Trump sellsThis thread is bullshit
There are hundreds of reporters looking into Trump
The context of the OP is "20 reporters assigned by one major paper."
It shows the complete partisanship and thus betrayal of their professional responsibility of that one paper AS AN EXAMPLE of the complete bias and failure of responsibility of the media in general.
I can see why you would want to distract/derail from that topic. It is not one that can work for your side.
Hillary is boring
Bullshit.
Positive or even neutral coverage of Trump would get the same interest, it that was their motivation.
Seriously you don't believe the media is impartial?
Telling the truth about Trump sells big time
I thought Foxnews was the most watched cable news network.
I thought conservatives dominated talk radio.
I thought the Right had several thousand anti-liberal anti-Democrat anti-Obama sites on the internet.
Foxnews is the most watched because it is the only network serving it's niche market, ie a half of America, while the rest fight over the other half.
COnservatives dominate talk radio, because the rest of media and pop culture is saturated with Leftist Propaganda.
Now I'm literally laughing out loud at your demented opinion that rightwing talk radio is NOT propaganda.
You are too stupid for words. We need to commission a word inventer to come with words extreme enough to accurately describe your level of stupidity.
I actually made no comment on the content of rightwing talk radio.
The irony of you calling me stupid in a post where the only point of "mine" you address is one that was created by your inability to communicate, is wonderfully hilarious, and I am sure, beyond your comprehension.
Yes you did. You said its popularity was because of its contrast to leftist propaganda.
Go ahead and admit that rightwing talk radio is nothing more than rightwing propaganda, and I'll stand corrected.
Or, my point stands.
Papers are only interested in circulation.......Trump sellsThis thread is bullshit
There are hundreds of reporters looking into Trump
The context of the OP is "20 reporters assigned by one major paper."
It shows the complete partisanship and thus betrayal of their professional responsibility of that one paper AS AN EXAMPLE of the complete bias and failure of responsibility of the media in general.
I can see why you would want to distract/derail from that topic. It is not one that can work for your side.
Hillary is boring
Bullshit.
Positive or even neutral coverage of Trump would get the same interest, it that was their motivation.
Seriously you don't believe the media is impartial?
Why would Trump get positive coverage? He's an asshole. What's positive about that?
Papers are only interested in circulation.......Trump sellsThis thread is bullshit
There are hundreds of reporters looking into Trump
The context of the OP is "20 reporters assigned by one major paper."
It shows the complete partisanship and thus betrayal of their professional responsibility of that one paper AS AN EXAMPLE of the complete bias and failure of responsibility of the media in general.
I can see why you would want to distract/derail from that topic. It is not one that can work for your side.
Hillary is boring
Bullshit.
Positive or even neutral coverage of Trump would get the same interest, it that was their motivation.
Seriously you don't believe the media is impartial?
Why would Trump get positive coverage? He's an asshole. What's positive about that?
Stories on Trump being a sweet guy do not sellPapers are only interested in circulation.......Trump sellsThis thread is bullshit
There are hundreds of reporters looking into Trump
The context of the OP is "20 reporters assigned by one major paper."
It shows the complete partisanship and thus betrayal of their professional responsibility of that one paper AS AN EXAMPLE of the complete bias and failure of responsibility of the media in general.
I can see why you would want to distract/derail from that topic. It is not one that can work for your side.
Hillary is boring
Bullshit.
Positive or even neutral coverage of Trump would get the same interest, it that was their motivation.
Seriously you don't believe the media is impartial?
Telling the truth about Trump sells big time
And you know that how?
Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward revealed Wednesday that the Post has assigned 20 staffers to Trump. In addition the paper plans a book.
"There's a lot we don't know," he told the National Association of Realtors convention in Washington. "We have 20 people working on Trump, we're going to do a book, we're doing articles about every phase of his life," he added.
The Washington Post Has Assembled An Army Of Reporters To Investigate Everything Trump
Here we have one of the MOST public figures in the last 30 years seen by over 1 billion people over 185 episodes of the "Apprentice" The Apprentice (U.S. TV series) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and yet this single paper is dedicating 20 people to unearth dirt?
Where was the same scrutiny for Obama? John Kerry?
Why didn't these papers perform the same investigation effort to uncover whatever on Obama?
A nation-wide network of researchers has sprung up to attempt to fill in the blanks, but at every opportunity Obama’s high-priced lawyers have built walls around various records or simply made them disappear. It is estimated that Obama’s legal team has now spent well over $1.4 million dollars blocking access to documents every American should have access to.
The question is why would he spend so much money to do this?
The president who campaigned for a more “open government” and “full disclosure”
will not unseal his medical records, his school records, his birth records or his passport records.
He will not release his Harvard records,
his Columbia College records,
or his Occidental College records—
he will not even release his Columbia College thesis.
All his legislative records from the Illinois State Senate are missing and
he claims his scheduling records during those State Senate years are lost as well.
In addition, no one can find his school records for the elite K-12 college prep school, Punahou School, he attended in Hawaii.
What is he hiding? Well, for starters, some of these records will shed light on his citizenship and birth.
For example, Obama’s application to Punahou School – now mysteriously missing –
would likely contain a birth certificate. And, according to attorney Gary Kreep, “his Occidental College records are important as they may show he attended there as a foreign exchange student.” Indeed, Obama used his Indonesian name “Barry Soetoro” while attending Occidental. Kreep has filed lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president and as part of his lawsuit he requested Obama’s records from Occidental. However, Obama’s lawyers quickly moved to stop Occidental from honoring this request.
The Mystery of Barack Obama Continues | Obama Social Security Numbers
WHERE ARE OBAMA's RECORDS?
OR is this another example of Main Stream Media BIAS?
The same MSM that studies have shown:
That in 2008 , 1,160 or 85% of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters
So in reality why would these "journalists" write negative stories about Obama and positive about his opponent?
They wouldn't. They gave money to Obama for his election!
And here is a personal anecdote about one of those editors...
The Editor of NewsWeek, Evan Thomas was once asked about George Bush and this is his response.
"our job is to bash the president[Bush], that's what we do." Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.He-Could-Go-All-The-Way: 'Today' Cheers Obama's Football Play
RIGHT HIS job was to BASH Bush.
He is a journalist. Unbiased. Objective. Professional. RIGHT??
But when it came to Obama?
This same hard-nosed "bashing journalist"- Editor of NewsWeek gushed about Obama.....
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’
A professional NEWS editor calling a mortal man "sort of God"??? That's not reporting, that's gushing!
So why would NewsWeek or any of the other MSM be objective and produce "objective" information on which people base opinions.
But the proof is here:
This study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans. Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
Finally here is this article describing HOW POLLING is affected by the media:
Partisanship and race probably influence the MSM’s “slobbering love affair” with Obama.
MSM denizens are overwhelmingly left-wing Democrats, which this site’s readers know very well.
Left-wing Democrats in the MSM likely accept the belief that racism motivates any criticism of Obama.
Since they are loath to express any sentiment that could be so construed, they sing his praises and refuse to report anything that could be considered critical of him. (Expect the MSM to laud Obama’s deal with Iran.)
Given the MSM’s infatuation with Obama and the fact that many Americans still rely on the MSM for the news, is there any wonder that polls show public approval of his job performance, and especially that perceptions of him as a person, remain higher than they might otherwise be?
Articles: Why So Many People Regard Obama Positively
So let me get this straight….Drumpf…the private individual who launched an investigation on his own sending people into Hawaii to look for a birth certificate….
Is upset that the legitimate press is poking into his past and reporting the truth?
I do know that you are delusionalStories on Trump being a sweet guy do not sellPapers are only interested in circulation.......Trump sellsThe context of the OP is "20 reporters assigned by one major paper."
It shows the complete partisanship and thus betrayal of their professional responsibility of that one paper AS AN EXAMPLE of the complete bias and failure of responsibility of the media in general.
I can see why you would want to distract/derail from that topic. It is not one that can work for your side.
Hillary is boring
Bullshit.
Positive or even neutral coverage of Trump would get the same interest, it that was their motivation.
Seriously you don't believe the media is impartial?
Telling the truth about Trump sells big time
And you know that how?
Trump said that Amazon was violating anti-trust laws.
This demonstrates why the thin-skinned demagogue birfer Trump doesn't have the temperament to be President. He'd use the power of the government to go after his enemies. He's make Nixon look like Gandhi.
Trump said that Amazon was violating anti-trust laws.
This demonstrates why the thin-skinned demagogue birfer Trump doesn't have the temperament to be President. He'd use the power of the government to go after his enemies. He's make Nixon look like Gandhi.
