|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Here Jog...... /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1470741490 Message started by raydawg on 08/09/16 at 04:18:10 |
|
Title: Here Jog...... Post by raydawg on 08/09/16 at 04:18:10 An article by Kurtz...... This is NEWS? Why? The media has staked out the largest piece of the pie for themselves. Even have a constitutional right of free speech to protect their lies. Sure, they discounted Trump, and revealed their inability to hold themselves on the throne of Grand Wizards, BUT, you think most of who they preach to care? FOX, NBC, etc..... Makes no diff, its all about self. I bring this article to you attention to show how conspiracy is just a natural fault of morality, and nothing more sinister.... It is like a ship that has lost its rudder. Sure, it could now be a weapon, if it rammed you, but chances are the very fact they have not the ability to steer, means they are not in control of their own direction(s). All the running about on the deck is a show, and has no real capacity to threaten those who sail under their own power ;D Have a good day bro! N.Y. Times admits press is against Trump The media’s legions of Trump-bashers are finally acknowledging the obvious. And trying their best to justify it. But there’s one problem: Tilting against one candidate in a presidential election can’t be justified. This is not a defense of Donald Trump, who has been at war with much of the press since he got in the race. Too many people think if you criticize the way the billionaire is being covered, you are somehow backing Trump. And it’s not about the commentators, on the right as well as the left, who are savaging Trump, since they are paid for their opinions. This is about the mainstream media’s reporters, editors and producers, whose credo is supposed to be fairness. And now some of them are flat-out making the case for unfairness—an unprecedented approach for an unprecedented campaign. Put aside, for the moment, the longstanding complaints about journalists being unfair to Republicans. They never treated Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush or Bob Dole like this. Keep in mind that the media utterly misjudged Trump from the start, covering him as a joke or a sideshow or a streaking comet that would burn itself out. Many of them later confessed how wrong they had been, and that they had missed the magnitude of the anger and frustration that fueled Trump’s unlikely rise. But since the conventions, and fueled by his own missteps, Trump has been hit by a tsunami of negative coverage, all but swamping the reporting on Hillary Clinton. Liberal investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald recently told Slate that “the U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president”—and, given his views, he has no problem with that. Now comes Jim Rutenberg, in his first season as media columnist for the New York Times. He’s a good reporter and I give him credit for trying to openly grapple with this bizarre situation. But Rutenberg is, in my view, trying to defend the indefensible: “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.” Yet normal standards, says Rutenberg, may not apply. By “closer to being oppositional,” he means openly siding against Trump and thereby helping Clinton. And that’s precisely the kind of thing that erodes our already damaged credibility. If a reporter believes Trump is a threat to America, he or she should go into the opinion business, or quit the media world and work against him. You can’t maintain the fig leaf of neutral reporting and favor one side. Rutenberg acknowledges that “balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy. For the primaries and caucuses, the imbalance played to his advantage, captured by the killer statistic of the season: His nearly $2 billion in free media was more than six times as much as that of his closest Republican rival.” I have to push back on this $2-billion argument. Trump got more coverage not just because he was good for clicks and ratings, but because he did many, many times more interviews than anyone else running. Much of this “free” media, rather than being a gift, was harshly negative. But that too helped Trump, because he drove the campaign dialogue and openly campaigned against the press. Next Rutenberg argues that Trump is just too over the top in his rhetoric: “And while coded appeals to racism or nationalism aren’t new — two words: Southern strategy — overt calls to temporarily bar Muslims from entry to the United States or questioning a federal judge’s impartiality based on his Mexican heritage are new.” What’s disappointing is that Rutenberg doesn’t cite a single example of biased coverage from his paper, or any other paper or news outlet. (He does point to criticism from MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, who is, as the columnist acknowledges, a commentator.) Instead he quotes Carolyn Ryan, the Times’ senior editor for politics, as saying Trump’s candidacy is “extraordinary and precedent-shattering” and “to pretend otherwise is to be disingenuous with readers.” And Rutenberg agrees, saying it would “be an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world.” No one wants to abdicate that duty. No one is pretending Trump’s candidacy isn’t extraordinary. No one is saying he shouldn’t be fully vetted. But there is an assumption among many journalists and pundits that of course Hillary Clinton is qualified, she’s been around forever, she just doesn’t need the relentless reporting that Trump requires. And so critical stories about Clinton—even when she said she “short-circuited” in that Chris Wallace interview on the email mess—are overshadowed by the endless piling on Trump. Many of the reporters who feel compelled to stop Trump are undoubtedly comfortable because all their friends feel the same way. But they are deluding themselves if they think that going after one candidate in a two-candidate race is what journalism is about. |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/09/16 at 22:08:38 And that somehow makes the intentional destruction of schools and trade deals so simple as to NOT be criminal. |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by raydawg on 08/10/16 at 03:57:22 I didn't say it didn't have consequences.... If, by our actions, someone is damaged, our system allows for repair. Intent, now that is a different action all of its own, I'll use wrongful death, as an example. It has degrees, from manslaughter to M1, YET, now of them can "restore" life to the deceased. I still don't think you grasp what I am trying to say, maybe its best to extend that same thinking/consideration to those who don't see what it is, that you see, in some matters :D |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/12/16 at 03:32:26 I bring this article to you attention to show how conspiracy is just a natural fault of morality, and nothing more sinister.... I read that and I know a lot. Apparently some people need to look up some words. |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by thumperclone on 08/12/16 at 11:21:02 look to the owners of "the media" using it to spread their views |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by raydawg on 08/12/16 at 12:21:24 504C514954415647484B4A41240 wrote:
Can you expand on this, and give us references and example? |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by Serowbot on 08/12/16 at 14:28:23 M e d i a .... :-? Turner CNN Murdoch FOX, Weekly Standard Bloomberg NYT, Wash Post, etc.. Hearst Buttloads Bain Capital (Romney) owns IHeart/ Clear Channel radio... |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by pg on 08/12/16 at 17:17:04 http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4fd9ee1e6bb3f7af5700000a/media-infographic.jpg Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by thumperclone on 08/13/16 at 00:36:45 4D5E465B5E48583F0 wrote:
Can you expand on this, and give us references and example?[/quote] just got home from work ray does pg's post clear it up? |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by raydawg on 08/13/16 at 07:39:08 5C405D45584D5A4B4447464D280 wrote:
Can you expand on this, and give us references and example?[/quote] just got home from work ray does pg's post clear it up? [/quote] Yes, I appreciate the visual display, and it is rather staggering to think that these corporation do have the wherewithal to control NEWS feeds. I think it would be unfair, as well as a leading cause to such dissension between folks, to say this alone, this almost monopoly, is cause enough to find them guilty of collusion. I know it appears suspect, but maybe they just gobble up this industry to control cost, access, and profits, which of course is part of why we have laws against such monopolistic practices. But lets be objective, look at education. Again, I think it holds many (people) economically, socially, and intellectually down, by the shear cost of attaining it. Why do we allow profits to justify their actions...... Kinda like Trump's whole campaign slogan as to why he is worthy, ain't it? Finally, are their "views" wrong? Don't we all spread our views? And REALLY finally 8-) This being so, its no excuse for people to feed at their trough, then complain that it gives them the runs........ :-[ Too much information is now readily available to us via the INTERNET. Do your homework. My dog ate mine ;D PS: I would, when you get a chance TC, give a few examples, and why you think its deliberate, as opposed to being just wrong, like Saddam had weapons, kinda wrong ::) |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by thumperclone on 08/13/16 at 10:49:03 I think its in our nature lets say I owned a newspaper, I'd use it to cultivate my views maybe not report some facts to aggrandize my position maybe extol others' opinions to dignify mine for example it happens on the TT all the time |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by Serowbot on 08/13/16 at 11:40:05 Trump played the media with outrageous statements and lies, knowing they would get coverage. The media didn't throw any muck that wasn't from Trump's own mouth. The article mentions the "southern strategy"... Repub's have played out that hand. The cultural balance of America can no longer support it. Those southern Red states are turning Blue. Pub's need a new platform,... a new strategy... ...or they will be gone, and new Party will take their place. The southern strategy was to feed off the racist tendencies of southern white men. For 50 years, the Republican Party was the party of hate, fear, resentment, prejudice, and racism... ... I'm glad it's dead... |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by pg on 08/13/16 at 18:41:08 2E382F322A3F32295D0 wrote:
And so are core principles that made America something truly special. Your Politburo is near completion and I'm sure you are happy to see the formation of your Marxist utopia you have yearned for for so long. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by HovisPresley on 08/13/16 at 20:39:43 'Marxist utopia' lol Anyone here been to ex-Soviet states? |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by pg on 08/13/16 at 21:17:15 14332A352F0C2E392F3039255C0 wrote:
One of the biggest differences between marxism and communism is that communism is a real political system that has been put into effect in places such as China and the Soviet Union, while marxism is a political theory upon which many communist systems are developed. Marxism more so refers to the social, economic and political theory. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by raydawg on 08/14/16 at 08:44:17 607C617964716677787B7A71140 wrote:
Yes, I believe its true on our level of sharing information, but the original intent of reporting was to be factual, as wouldn't you agree that personal opinion was what gave birth to the OP-ED page. I think FOX was founded on strictly a business venture, filling a void ( pandering) that the other outlets created by their selective sharing on their beliefs, as gospel, the other end of the spectrum. One would think that alternative candidates, in this presidential cycle would get more coverage, if you stop and consider the unfavorable ratings of the two party candidates, as it would be historical if an independent won....... Yet, they abstain for the most part. To me that is suspect. I also find their practice of burring a retraction of a front page headline as telling. They either did it for a personal reason, the original front page story, or their egos are HUGE and FRAIL, and can't stand the SCRUTINY they level against those they write about. I think folks use to snicker at the Enquirer, but mostly I think they have become that of what they fault in others...... You see that a lot around here, at the TT too ;D |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by thumperclone on 08/14/16 at 10:18:24 did it for a personal reason $$$, carp sells |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by raydawg on 08/14/16 at 10:48:19 465A475F425740515E5D5C57320 wrote:
Yes, Kool-Aid comes in many flavors, and its cheap compared to a micro brew ;D |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by MnSpring on 08/14/16 at 18:23:26 I am also, on a, ‘GUN’ Forum. *(Gee who wouda thought)* Anyway, in a discussion, about a load, for a, firearm. " Thanks for the offer but really can't get them due to the law. I live in brazil. In fact like in every socialist place YOU CAN do certain things, like having a 45 Colt, 454 Casull or even a 500 S&W. You just need to be filthy rich and have specific friends, because the paperwork is as expensive as an entry level motorcycle for example, after it's done you must request a permit to purchase the gun (in such caliber or any of those considered restricted), it will be analyzed and the officer may have woken with a foul mood and stamp NO... then you have to wait and try again. Among other stuff. I believe it's easier to deal with BATF so you can figure how things go here. A piece of brass in the pocket have put a bunch of guys behind the bars here. Yes, just the brass, no load no gun. That’s the law. … Things are so stupid here, if I had say a 357 (with Army permit) and shot it in self defense, I'd lose said license and would be sued.. So I'd need a 38/380 for self defense and a 357/45/500/308 to hunt (boars only) and to show my friends at the gun club… " Well, Their, is a First Hand Account, of, Socialism. Where only the, ‘Bad’ people, can have a firearm. So, Brazil, Has a 18.1 per 100,000 people And the USA has 2.9, per 100,000 people. But Never mind the Facts. The, ‘Media’, will TELL YOU, what to think ! |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by Paraquat on 08/15/16 at 09:17:02 2E3D25383D2B3B5C0 wrote:
Can you expand on this, and give us references and example?[/quote] Everyone else already posted much better citation. General Electric purchased NBC in 1986. How many negative stories about GE have you heard? --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by pg on 08/15/16 at 18:30:38 Westinghouse bought CBS in 1995, 20 years later Westinghouse no longer exists. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/17/16 at 00:00:05 485F59555A4A380 wrote:
Best I can see, that's a non sequitar. |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by pg on 08/17/16 at 03:55:52 What people don't recognize is Westinghouse employed 150K high paying salaries for decades. It no longer exists. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Here Jog...... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/17/16 at 17:11:56 eneral Electric purchased NBC in 1986. How many negative stories about GE have you heard? A point made about the media being controlled. How Westinghouse was killed is something I don't know about. That it was a big loss, I do know about. Was it's being involved with a media company somehow related to its demise ? |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |