The Media Industry

Just 11 years ago

DZZdRMkWsAAnvbk.jpg
 
Wall-to-wall coverage by CNN of the Stormy Daniels story, continuously lambasting the president for his sexual behavior and pushing the narrative story for no apparent reason other than the tawdry details - particularly considering that there appears to have been no effort to investigate the one claim that she made which would have a bearing on Trump's presidency.

And today, there's this:


How do they not see the problem? How do they not understand why their trust from so many in this country has disappeared?
 
ProdigalHorn said:
How do they not see the problem? How do they not understand why their trust from so many in this country has disappeared?
Click to expand...
Maybe they are just pulling a Fox News and only putting out stuff its audience likes to hear. If you don't like the bullcrap (and I don't) kinda have to ignore FOX, MSNBC, CNN and the rest of them. Fortunately, reading is a much more efficient method of news intake.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
Wall-to-wall coverage by CNN of the Stormy Daniels story, continuously lambasting the president for his sexual behavior and pushing the narrative story for no apparent reason other than the tawdry details - particularly considering that there appears to have been no effort to investigate the one claim that she made which would have a bearing on Trump's presidency.

And today, there's this:


How do they not see the problem? How do they not understand why their trust from so many in this country has disappeared?
Click to expand...

I'm tired of the glorification and references to this day of "Camelot". A bunch of criminals and womanizers.
 
Seattle Husker said:
John Oliver's take:
Click to expand...


LOL! Like that poor woman has never had to do her job before. This was nothing more than a corporate entity telling their employees what to do/say. *gasp* If Oliver wants to be shocked maybe he should look at the MSM propaganda that inundates our networks. Kinda like how in unison they tried to make McCabe look like he was a victim of Trump the Tyrant.
 
Last edited:
Crockett said:
Maybe they are just pulling a Fox News and only putting out stuff its audience likes to hear. If you don't like the bullcrap (and I don't) kinda have to ignore FOX, MSNBC, CNN and the rest of them. Fortunately, reading is a much more efficient method of news intake.
Click to expand...

To be fair, when it comes to politics most of the written media isn't dramatically less biased than the video media. Is the New York Times fairer than MSNBC? Maybe, but it's not a blowout. Are there New York Post and Washington Times fairer than Fox News? I guess, but again, it's not a blowout.
 
So now I've actually heard the message (and not the officially approved outrage points), and my question would be what about the message was objectionable? Or is the issue that various news casters were all reading the same script from the same source? Because that's pretty much what happens every day in broadcast news rooms - the only difference being that the wire service is the entity that writes the script.

If CNN had read this script, I suspect the response would have been very different.
 
Mr. Deez said:
To be fair, when it comes to politics most of the written media isn't dramatically less biased than the video media. Is the New York Times fairer than MSNBC? Maybe, but it's not a blowout.
Click to expand...
I think there are plenty of context clues in written media to identify opinion and attribution is more direct and abundant.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
So now I've actually heard the message (and not the officially approved outrage points), and my question would be what about the message was objectionable? Or is the issue that various news casters were all reading the same script from the same source? Because that's pretty much what happens every day in broadcast news rooms - the only difference being that the wire service is the entity that writes the script.

If CNN had read this script, I suspect the response would have been very different.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to criticize the Sinclair media people. They're obviously trying to cater to the old people who watch the local afternoon news. The problem is that the people who are ripping Sinclair don't have any credibility. This is like Charlie Manson complaining about all the crazy people surrounding him in prison.
 
And having heard more of the track record from Sinclair, I can definitely see issues with how they've handled things in the past. So I'm definitely not saying that they're faultless in any of this.
 
The WAPO's motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness"

Should this paper, sometimes called "The Jeff Bezos Blog," be forced to register as a foreign lobbyist?

DZ36oxbVQAADcbq.jpg
 
ProdigalHorn said:
And having heard more of the track record from Sinclair, I can definitely see issues with how they've handled things in the past. So I'm definitely not saying that they're faultless in any of this.
Click to expand...

What things in the past have they done have been controversial?
 
Anyone remember Bill O'Reilly? A judge just denied his attempt to keep his sexual harassment settlements sealed. Evidently one plaintiff's lawyer switched from working for her to Bill O'Reilly in one case. At least one settlement...

required her to “lie — even in legal proceedings or under oath — if any evidence becomes public, by calling evidence ‘counterfeit’ or ‘forgeries.’”
Click to expand...

There are sleazes on all sides of the political spectrum but this guy may be KING of the sleazes.
 
Kudos to Foxnews for this interview of Scott Pruitt. They asked some tough questions. Pruitt's responses were flimsy but credit is due to the interviewer. Pruitt was in the pocket of the energy industry as AG and this latest fracas is merely a another demonstration of how far he's intertwined with big energy, unless the EPA has changed their mission statement to match the Energy department (this is possible under Pruitt's leadership).
 
Seattle Husker said:
Kudos to Foxnews for this interview of Scott Pruitt. They asked some tough questions. Pruitt's responses were flimsy but credit is due to the interviewer. Pruitt was in the pocket of the energy industry as AG and this latest fracas is merely a another demonstration of how far he's intertwined with big energy, unless the EPA has changed their mission statement to match the Energy department (this is possible under Pruitt's leadership).
Click to expand...
We could call him a nice counter balance to the libs that ran wild with unnecessary regulation when they held that office.
 
Among the standards he's rolling back is the requirement that auto makers get their fleet average MPG up to around 50 - which is literally impossible - but then giving them an out if they will sell electric cars at heavily discounted rates. Nothing but a pure shakedown of the industry. Glad it's going away.
 
EPA has gone way beyond what is needed. I think the pendulum can swing the opposite way a while before we have to worry about clean air and water
 
Seattle Husker said:
Counterbalance akin to the Patriots signing Johny Manziel to be a counterbalance to Tom Brady in every way.
Click to expand...

That's a semi-accurate analogy based on your perspective. You have gone from an overzealous government bureaucrat willing to do the bidding of the looney environmentalists to a business supporting, anti-government EPA chief that won't dance to your tune.
 
I was sitting in the cafeteria at work yesterday. CNN was on the big screen TV. The banner news at the bottom of the screen, for the entire time I was there, was "Trump sending troops to the border". The CNN news folks and their guests were discussing it too.

To them, it was roughly equivalent to Hitler invading Poland. I didn't hear mention that Obama and Bush 44 had also sent troops to the border during their regimes. Not exactly unbiased reporting, I'd say.
 
During testimony, Ted Cruz forced Zuckerberg to tacitly admit that Facebook is not a politically-neutral platform. Today, Cruz wrote a short article about this
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...uppressing-conservative-speech-for-years.html


Facebook Has Been Censoring or Suppressing Conservative Speech for Years
" ....... Zuckerberg told the Senate hearing that his goal is “not to engage in political speech.” But if a company allows a politically biased corporate culture to persist – and deliberately avoids diversity of thought in its hires – its actions can very quickly escalate into the political realm and endanger its status as a true “platform for all ideas.”

According to Zuckerberg, Facebook employs over 15,000 people in security and content review. If all or virtually all are left-wing Democrats – and if they are empowered to secretly silence the voices of all with whom they disagree – that poses profound threats to our democratic discourse....."​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top