Let's Talk About Media
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
Runnin
Well-known member
57Brave
Well-known member
If over the weekend you saw a rambling madman give a frighteningly incoherent, sweaty, two-hour shoutfest of a speech at a right-wing summit, then you viewed a president coming unglued on national television in a way that has probably never been seen before in United States history. And that is extraordinary cause for alarm.
But if, instead, you saw nothing more than a "fiery" Donald Trump give a "zigzagging," "wide-ranging," "campaign-like" address where the Republican really "let loose," then you likely work for the D.C. press, which once again swung and missed when it came to detailing the escalating threat that Trump represents to the country.
Specifically, newsrooms today nearly uniformly refuse to address the mounting, obvious signs that Trump is a deeply unstable man, as the CPAC meltdown so obviously demonstrated. Most reporters simply do not want to mention it. "In most ways, it was just another campaign rally for the president, in flavor, content, and punchlines," the Daily Beast reported, summing up Trump's CPAC calamity. In other words: Nothing to see here, folks.
That was typical of CPAC coverage. "Trump derides Mueller probe, mocks Democrats and his former attorney general," the Washington Post headline announced. The accompanying article didn't include even the slightest hint that Trump's speech was a flashing neon-red sign of a man teetering on the edge. That is a bionic-level attempt to normalize Trump and his CPAC disaster, where he referred to 2020 Democratic candidates as “maniacs," suggested they "hate their country," and accused the Democratic Party of supporting “extreme late-term abortion.”
That wasn't just some “long-winded” or “rambling” speech. That was pure insanity, and the fact that a sitting president unleashed such a bizarre performance, punctuated by so many incomprehensible non sequiturs, means his stability and capacity ought to be questioned—and it ought to be a pressing news story
But if, instead, you saw nothing more than a "fiery" Donald Trump give a "zigzagging," "wide-ranging," "campaign-like" address where the Republican really "let loose," then you likely work for the D.C. press, which once again swung and missed when it came to detailing the escalating threat that Trump represents to the country.
Specifically, newsrooms today nearly uniformly refuse to address the mounting, obvious signs that Trump is a deeply unstable man, as the CPAC meltdown so obviously demonstrated. Most reporters simply do not want to mention it. "In most ways, it was just another campaign rally for the president, in flavor, content, and punchlines," the Daily Beast reported, summing up Trump's CPAC calamity. In other words: Nothing to see here, folks.
That was typical of CPAC coverage. "Trump derides Mueller probe, mocks Democrats and his former attorney general," the Washington Post headline announced. The accompanying article didn't include even the slightest hint that Trump's speech was a flashing neon-red sign of a man teetering on the edge. That is a bionic-level attempt to normalize Trump and his CPAC disaster, where he referred to 2020 Democratic candidates as “maniacs," suggested they "hate their country," and accused the Democratic Party of supporting “extreme late-term abortion.”
That wasn't just some “long-winded” or “rambling” speech. That was pure insanity, and the fact that a sitting president unleashed such a bizarre performance, punctuated by so many incomprehensible non sequiturs, means his stability and capacity ought to be questioned—and it ought to be a pressing news story
sturg33
I
57Brave
Well-known member
57Brave
Well-known member
Matthew Gertz
Verified account @MattGertz
2h2 hours ago
Fox's "news" side:
1) Killed their Stormy Daniels story.
2) Published their Seth Rich story.
After the Rich story fell apart, Fox retracted it, said they were investigating what went wrong, never explained what happened, and held no one accountable.
Verified account @MattGertz
2h2 hours ago
Fox's "news" side:
1) Killed their Stormy Daniels story.
2) Published their Seth Rich story.
After the Rich story fell apart, Fox retracted it, said they were investigating what went wrong, never explained what happened, and held no one accountable.
sturg33
I
Do you think this is specific to Fox News?
Do you just block out the enormous amount of examples that we've shown on multiple forms of media?
He had no problem that a talking head on CNN passed the debate questions to Hillary before the debate, which is far worse than a news organization killing stories (which they all
Do)
57Brave
Well-known member
I think Fox has taken it to a whole other level. So to a degree yes.
When NYTimes, for example, is mistaken they do publish retractions --- perhaps on page 42 but a retraction all the same
...............................................................................................
To play on an equal field perhaps we should decide/define "media"
Is it traditional print
Television / radio
Blogesphere
Social media
57Brave
Well-known member
Also reported ( had you read the information we are discussing ) Roger Ailes fed Trump the Megyn Kelly question
Had you read the story you would too know - the in real time reason the story was blocked.
There are quotes and corroboration
sturg33
I
Retractions are meaningless in the era of social media.
Remember the buzzfeed new report?
Remember Jussie Smollet?
Remember Covington?
Remember Kavanaugh?
Media should not run a story if there is no proof.
But they do all the time in order to "influence an election" to borrow a phrase
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
Dude, freedom lover doesn’t count what they do as a problem
It’s more convenient that way for him
sturg33
I
Highly recommend joe Rogans podcast from a few days ago when he had Jack Dorsey (ceo of Twitter) and twitters legal
Counsel as guests. They were discussing bias on twitter and why twitter bans certain people and not others. The reasons behind the Milo banning are a joke.
Counsel as guests. They were discussing bias on twitter and why twitter bans certain people and not others. The reasons behind the Milo banning are a joke.
57Brave
Well-known member
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/11/facebook-removes-elizabeth-warren-ads-1216757
“Three companies have vast power over our economy and our democracy. Facebook, Amazon, and Google," read the ads, which Warren's campaign had placed Friday. "We all use them. But in their rise to power, they’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field in their favor.”
“Three companies have vast power over our economy and our democracy. Facebook, Amazon, and Google," read the ads, which Warren's campaign had placed Friday. "We all use them. But in their rise to power, they’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field in their favor.”
sturg33
I
Of course you are. You are only "troubled" by the blatant antisemitism