FormerlyLostArtist
Ex Member
|
raydawg wrote on 04/03/18 at 09:40:27:Here, just in case you ignored this: Been reading up on Chappaquiddick, wow, 1969 seem seems like another life time ago.....HECK, IT WAS Grin Well, I am hearing the movie gets down to the facts, only been a few decades, haha. Reading some of the old reports, mercy, the Kennedy's were the ultimate White privileged family. Anybody else would have been in jail.
Anyway, looking back at history, and then today, it sure is funny to see how journalism has changed, talk about a leaf blowing in the wind. I guess it all depends on who is blowing WHAT, up your azz, that predicates which direction you blow.....
Look at this story, this just a few years ago.
My, my, my..... how quickly we rewrite history.
http://fortune.com/2016/03/29/obama-media/
Check out this quote from the story:
The “free media” comment seemed to be a direct reference to a recent estimate by the New York Times that suggested Donald Trump has gotten the equivalent of almost $2 billion in media coverage since his campaign began. So perhaps the President agrees with those who argue that the news media has helped create the phenomenon that is Donald Trump.
You think that came at the cost of hoping he gets elected, or in hoping he knocks any REAL republican candidate(s) out of the running and insuring a Clinton victory?????
Or here:
As investigative reporter John Russell pointed out in a response to the President’s criticisms on Twitter, the Obama administration holds the record for denying or withholding the largest amount of Freedom of Information requests. How is that helping the news media to “dig deeper” or “demand more” accountability? Former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson has said the Obama government is “the most secretive White House I have ever been involved in covering.”
Say it ain't so CNN, my gawd, NOOoooooooooooooo.......Obama on Twitter, er I mean, Tweeter, er....he was so cool tho, even in if he was not being honest.
Go have fun, you might learn something, but again, to learn means to question your beliefs, not too many open minded liberals can do that. okay, looked into it a bit, and ...
what does this story, which is about the elusive Obama transparency - meaning that the Obama administration wasn't very open with the media, how does that relate to a media conglomerate forcing their "local" reporters and tv personalities to read an EXACT script to push their message out? I'm not seeing the connection, one is about a media conglomerate trying to curry favor with the current administration, (who is already a fan) to get favors, while the other is about the difficulty of access to a previous administration. Neither are good, but they are different.
This isn't about the use of social media by presidents to shut out traditional media either.
Yes, they are two wrongs, but not even close to being the same thing, like saying the grass is brown here then you saying the grass is black here --- okay, but what does one have to do with the other? Don't answer that because you can't, trust me, you're wrong on this, I agree, both are bad things, but they aren't related.
|