He is going after 60 minutes AGAIN for reporting what he has said and done
the maga FELLON doesn't respect the constitution namely the 1st amendment
DICTATOR WANNA BE
this is not Russia
reporting news is NOT "unlawful and illegal behavior"

"Most, UL, FDS, DFI, WOKE Socialists, "NEWS' places have NO Ethics.
So they Say what they want,
And Call it 'NEWS'.

THEN CRY, when they are called on it."


 Pretty much any for-profit "News" is like this.  News means, typically, newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events.  Not facts.  News.

 This of course is an opinion.  This post is an opinion.

Eegore wrote on Yesterday at 08:03:00:


Today, 'news' is not "FACTS", it's just the, 'Opinion' of that station.

Yesterday, (40+ Years ago, 'news' was what was happening, not a SPIN)

A education needs to take place, on what the, 'NEWS', is today.

(Of course that won't happen, cause it's not on a cell phone !)

Today, 'news' is not "FACTS", it's just the, 'Opinion' of that station.

Yesterday, (40+ Years ago, 'news' was what was happening, not a SPIN)

A education needs to take place, on what the, 'NEWS', is today.

(Of course that won't happen, cause it's not on a cell phone !)


 I'm not sure that's true.  I recall reading this article, and researching the Reagan appropriations back in the mid 2000's.  The article from 1995 was accurate.  My opinion based on how math works, is that it is accurate.

https://hbr.org/1995/05/why-the-news-is-not-the-truth

   It appears to me that "news" has essentially been propaganda since the printing press.  

https://www.binghamton.edu/news/story/388/founding-fathers-used-fake-news-rac...


 What is happening more and more today is, and this forum is an example of that, the blind acceptance of anything as "news" and as such being accurate, when literally any human could have just made it up.  This is much more common among humans age 40 and higher as they grew up in a culture where "the news" was somewhat accurate, but very limited in who and how it could be dispersed when compared to today.

 In my opinion, youth today are more aware of internet lies as they are completely capable themselves of creating them.  In 1980 the average human could not broadcast lies to millions of humans in less than a minute.  

 Also education to how one can decipher truth from lies is on a cell phone.  Saying humans should not be educated on a cellphone is like saying you should be educated using books and not a computer screen back in 1995.  Content is not equal to method in my opinion.

Examining this, I believe it would be 60 (+/-) years old. Simply because someone at 17/22 years old. Would not be as, 'in to', what the 'news' is doing, or how it affects people.

 While I agree, I do see plenty of 17/22 year old's consuming "news" media.  This is my opinion based off the meta data available in regard to consumer stats.  The difference is a 17 year old today can fabricate a fake "news" story that gets spread worldwide in minutes.  This was much less likely in the 1980's.

 To me the primary difference is humans that grew up in an age where "news" took work and was limited to a much smaller group than today, (which is literally the entire planet now) are more likely to believe social media posts than youth.  This is because younger kids grew up with it.  

 Kind of how kids my age could use the TV/VCR remote without issue while parents had problems grasping the method at first and grandpa/grandma complained about how lazy people were that they couldn't get up and walk to the TV.  

Yep, kids that were 17/22, 40+/- years, ago. Are the people who are more inclined to believe, because it was harder to spread UL Socialist lies.

 Or any lies.  I don't see any reason why non-UL Socialist lies would be exempt from modern methods of lie dispersal.  



As to meta data, it's just the count/recording of a, 'click on'.

It is not a indication of their intelligence/understanding/interest, on how things work. Especially political.


 It is also not an indicator of how "in to" the news they are.  It is just an indicator as to how many look at information, for how long, how far in each article or video, how much was re-viewed, associated link usage, duration of link usage, and sharing of each - to who, when and how, and also how much all of them interacted with the information.