The Media Industry

I35 said:
MSNBC would have to be much more honest to be the same version on the left as Fox is on the right. Plus they would have to move closer to the middle. Fox at least had representatives from both sides to debate issues on their programs where as MSNBC is just had people that agreed with their views. I'm not saying always but most of the time. The good news for MSNBC is they are no longer the least trusted news agency anymore as CNN lost their friggin mind in their reporting for the past year. Does Al Sharpton still have a spot on MSNBC?
Click to expand...
Honest like FoxNews? :smile1:
 
ProdigalHorn said:
... But if they were adding Greta, maybe they're actually trying to add some more conservative voices?
Click to expand...

I have not read anything on their plans with her. It's hard for me to see her completely selling out and just read out loud whatever nonsense talking-point-of-the-day the Dem establishment wants her to read (like their other hosts and the other networks do).

I dont really see Greta as ideological (like, for example, Hannity or Bolling). She is more story- and fact-driven (went to law school). So, perhaps they can find a space for her along these lines?
 
Joe Fan said:
Worse than pMSNBC even
Click to expand...
I can understand why. If you cannot be honest with your audience about your bias then you lose credibility. Both Fox News and MSNBC do not pretend to be unbiased while CNN continues to be in denial that they have essentially become a political advocacy group for left wing causes.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Did CNN do that or is this more fake news from an Infowars editor?
Click to expand...

CNN showed their true colors the past year. They've lost their minds. I'd believe the National Enquirer before CNN. Why do you continue to give them the benefit of doubt but nobody else that reports on them?
 
Seattle Husker said:
This is 100% dishonest.
Click to expand...


They did mention RT stuff throughout the report (I posted one pulled quote on the other thread). Much of which was 4 years old, from back during Obama's scond run (is this supposed to make sense?)
Reading social media too
And Hillary was a dreadful candidate
Which of these do you deny?

example
1049343886.png
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
They did mention RT stuff (I posted the pulled quote saying so on the other thread)....
Click to expand...

"Some of our judgments about Kremlin preferences and intent are drawn from ..... state media and pro-Kremlin social media actors ...."

Think about that for just a moment, The CIA has publicly admitted that they based their conclusions, at least in part, on what they saw on RT and twitter.

C1hXz8vWQAAKqSr.jpg
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
Did CNN do that or is this more fake news from an Infowars editor?
Click to expand...


CNN did it
First they took the pic from the source I listed on the Ft Lauderdale thread without any attribution
Then they converted the image from color to B&W, which gave his face a different look
 
Not sure if it was this thread or another but someone stated they now trust the National Enquirer more than MSM (CNN specifically). Their current cover. :yikes:

15965545_10154907093754921_7253084945652108234_n.jpg
 
Seattle Husker said:
Not sure if it was this thread or another but someone stated they now trust the National Enquirer more than MSM (CNN specifically). Their current cover. :yikes:

15965545_10154907093754921_7253084945652108234_n.jpg
Click to expand...

I said it. I don't think we're going to war with Russia, but Obama is doing everything he can to cause tension and leave things stirred up between our two countries as he leaves office. If it makes you feel any better I don't trust the National Enquire more than I do CNN. But I do trust them about the same (which is zilch)
 
I35 said:
I said it. I don't think we're going to war with Russia, but Obama is doing everything he can to cause tension and leave things stirred up between our two countries as he leaves office. If it makes you feel any better I don't trust the National Enquire more than I do CNN. But I do trust them about the same (which is zilch)
Click to expand...

I think Russia had a pretty significant role based on our intelligence agencies said on Friday. I agree with Paul Ryan that Obama didn't react quickly or significantly enough.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
I think Russia had a pretty significant role based on our intelligence agencies. I agree with Paul Ryan that Obama didn't react quickly or significantly enough.
Click to expand...

If only he took this hard approach with Iran instead of funding them.

I agree that he should have done something a long time ago. But it gets to a point that it's too late for him to react when it's this close for his departure. Any decisions he makes right now are going to be the problem for Trump to fix.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
I think Russia had a pretty significant role based on our intelligence agencies said on Friday. I agree with Paul Ryan that Obama didn't react quickly or significantly enough.
Click to expand...

I heard Reince Priebus (Trump's Chief of Staff) on Fox News Sunday, and even he agrees that Russia was responsible for the hacks.
 
I35 said:
If only he took this hard approach with Iran instead of funding them.

I agree that he should have done something a long time ago. But it gets to a point that it's too late for him to react when it's this close for his departure. Any decisions he makes right now are going to be the problem for Trump to fix.
Click to expand...

Russian hacking and attempts to influence our elections shouldn't be a partisan issue. Most of the Republicans in Congress recognize this. Only our POTUS-elect is making it a partisan issue.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I heard Reince Priebus (Trump's Chief of Staff) on Fox News Sunday, and even he agrees that Russia was responsible for the hacks.
Click to expand...

I don't think there are many who reject the idea of the Russian hacks. The surprise is that the political opponents of Trump/Et Al seem to think this has never happened before (counter intelligence against our nation) ... I mean ... they are our adversary? What's surprising about the effort regardless of the success?

Is it inconceivable the DNC's candidate lost because she was actually a worse candidate than Trump? I suppose that's the problem with the left ... their ideas are not to be criticized, let alone rejected, so THAT doesn't even cross the ethersphere of a conscious (or sub-conscious for that matter) thought.
 
ShAArk92 said:
I don't think there are many who reject the idea of the Russian hacks. The surprise is that the political opponents of Trump/Et Al seem to think this has never happened before (counter intelligence against our nation) ... I mean ... they are our adversary? What's surprising about the effort regardless of the success?

Is it inconceivable the DNC's candidate lost because she was actually a worse candidate than Trump? I suppose that's the problem with the left ... their ideas are not to be criticized, let alone rejected, so THAT doesn't even cross the ethersphere of a conscious (or sub-conscious for that matter) thought.
Click to expand...

The US government and political parties have been hacked many times. China reportedly hacked both the RNC and DNC in 2008. In the past these hacks have been used for reconnaissance work. Our adversaries wanted to know what our leaders were thinking in order to form better strategies. Heck, we did the same thing to Merkel. The key difference the Pro-Trump crowd is missing is something that hasn't been done before. This information was used to actively influence an election to our adversaries advantage. That's a significant step up from using the info internally or in some proxy/propaganda war in Ukraine. The difference is analogous to hacking our power grid to map out a strategy to take it down in the event of some future war and actually taking down a portion of the grid today. I think we can agree that the latter would cause cries of "war"!

I recognize there are some that can't accept that HRC was a poor candidate. There a few women on my facebook feed that can't accept that fact. Conflating HRC as a candidate with this Russian hacking is a disservice to counterbalancing this espionage. It simply explains it away...which may work until Putin decides that Trump isn't an asset in the next election.
 
Last edited:
CNN truly has lost it. They are so desperate for anything negative about Trump that they report anything. Just call them and make up something bad about President Trump and they will report it. Then the disrespect they did at Trump's news conference is an outrage. I didn't like it when someone did that to Obama in the rose garden and I don't like it now. Seriously is CNN still a news agency or a gossip channel from things they hear from public blogs? They should have their Press creditials yanked. They are trying to poison the public with wrong information. Just really unbelievable.
 
No fan of CNN, but Trump basically playing the "I'll pretend you don't exist" game was pretty childish. Calling them out on bias is one thing, but he went too far.
 
ShAArk92 said:
I don't think there are many who reject the idea of the Russian hacks.
Click to expand...

Few reject it now, but plenty have blown it off or tried to muddy the waters about it, including Trump himself, who retweeted Assange's denials as if his word was to be taken seriously and who has been crapping on the intelligence community's involvement since the beginning. He brought some of this on himself.

ShAArk92 said:
The surprise is that the political opponents of Trump/Et Al seem to think this has never happened before (counter intelligence against our nation) ... I mean ... they are our adversary? What's surprising about the effort regardless of the success?
Click to expand...

Like SH has said before, the hacking isn't unprecedented, but the leaking and use of the hacking as a political weapon is. It's a big deal, and I think many conservative activists would be much more bothered by it if it had happened to the GOP. Hell, what if China, Iran, or Venezuela had done this to the GOP to try to help HRC? Wouldn't that concern you? Would you shrug it off with a "everybody does this?"

ShAArk92 said:
Is it inconceivable the DNC's candidate lost because she was actually a worse candidate than Trump? I suppose that's the problem with the left ... their ideas are not to be criticized, let alone rejected, so THAT doesn't even cross the ethersphere of a conscious (or sub-conscious for that matter) thought.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. The Democrats and the media obviously want to use this to delegitimize the Trump Presidency and to explain away Hillary's defeat or give the impression that she got cheated. That's very clear. Furthermore, the rank double standards and lack of integrity both are displaying is disgusting and blows all of their credibility and moral standing. They're willing to run with unsubstantiated crap and innuendo that makes Trump look bad, but they were unwilling to discuss the contents of the leaked e-mails, because they supposedly couldn't verify whether the leaked e-mails were real - even when they had the author of the alleged e-mails (and therefore the only person who could substantiate the e-mails) on the air. Hell, why not just ask John Podesta, "did you write these e-mails?" It's the worst journalistic hypocrisy I've seen in the 26 years I've been following politics.

However, the point that seems to get lost when discussing this issue with the Right is that none of this is of any relevance to the importance or seriousness of what happened. The media and the Democrats can be a bunch of hypocritical and immoral jackasses, and we should call them on it. However, we can also be concerned about the hacking and do what we can to ensure that the Russian government doesn't have any special influence on US policy that is detrimental to our interests.
 
Seattle Husker said:
The key difference the Pro-Trump crowd is missing is something that hasn't been done before. This information was used to actively influence an election to our adversaries advantage.
Click to expand...

That's not true, SH. Kruschev's KGB engaged these sorts of ops in the 60s ... they didn't have youtube and facebook, but they engaged, trust me. They didn't like JFK, remember! Didn't want a redoux of that. It was actually easier back then because buying the officials in the RNC and DNC was all that was required to influence the election. With the Ross Perot effect in '92 ... the election "canvas" changed.

I'm not dismissing the effort and I certainly don't appreciate it which is why I fully support all efforts to secure our nation. The reaction, on it's face, is stunning. However, when one realizes the reaction is based in the fact the left deny's their candidate ... and even their philosophy ... is a big loser overall for the interest of our nation and it's values, the reaction is actually predictable --- and ultimately inconsequential. This is just the latest in the like-minded media's firestorm ... and it has the bonus of ratings boost.

Mr. Deez said:
Wouldn't that concern you? Would you shrug it off with a "everybody does this?"
Click to expand...

Shrug it off? No! But I wouldn't act like the effort to be hacked isn't "supposed" to happen. Don't misunderstand, I didn't say the success of the effort, but even that's been demonstrated to be "expected" under this Administration, too, with the OPM's being hacked by China and millions of (former) govt officials' information being released.

I would and DO support efforts to restore/augment efforts to secure our interests, which include cyberspace AND the physical construct of our border. (on the latter issue, Trump IS right though probably for a reason which isn't based in national sovereignty)

.....

I would be interested to know just how effective this hacking campaign was. Did ANYONE change their vote as a result of hacking the DNC and Podesta email? I wasn't voting for #HisSilentinBengHazi for all the tea in China! Don't know anyone who was voting for her, but then didn't because of the information made available ...

And never mind the Russians wouldn't have had that information if the information wasn't there ... IE ... .it weren't TRUE! I think this is why there's so much outrage ... obscure the fact she, in particular, was just AWFUL and yet she was the nominee. WTG, democrats. The GOP dropped the ball in it's nomination process, but Democrats just simply mailed-it-in.
 
Last edited:
Statalyzer said:
No fan of CNN, but Trump basically playing the "I'll pretend you don't exist" game was pretty childish. Calling them out on bias is one thing, but he went too far.
Click to expand...
I put most of the blame on the CNN reporter. I am not sure why he thought he had the right to interrupt a Presidential news conference. He was not called upon and continually ignored Trumps request for him to be quiet. Imagine if the situation was a Fox News reporter harassing Obama. I suspect the story by MSM would have presented much differently than it is now. IMO the CNN reporter should be barred from future Presidential news conferences and CNN should be warned to instruct their reporters to behave respectfully in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top