It is rare to find an accurate story in the political arena that is truthful from ANY media source. Everyone has an agenda and that rarely has anything to do with fairness. To single out any media company as an example is not very useful. Both sides....strike that...all sides are not trustworthy recorders of the facts and full truth of any particular item or situation. Some of that is by omission. Some by commission. Some from ignorance/inexperience. Some from outright ethical breaches.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
It's official, Trump has been Acquitted
- Thread starter churchmouse
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
It is rare to find an accurate story in the political arena that is truthful from ANY media source. Everyone has an agenda and that rarely has anything to do with fairness. To single out any media company as an example is not very useful. Both sides....strike that...all sides are not trustworthy recorders of the facts and full truth of any particular item or situation. Some of that is by omission. Some by commission. Some from ignorance/inexperience. Some from outright ethical breaches.
Rep sent. Do you likewise agree that it has always been this way or this is something new? I believe this has always been the way and it was a false front put forth for years that journalism was a neutral party, a falsehood that some media still foist on the public.
I was merely responding to your assertion (which I believe I quoted in order to make that plain) that you had never known Bolton to lie. Now you have, and your response is to attempt to (predictably) turn the new information you have been provided into further character assassination on Trump.
I would point out that you also continue to overlook the sketchy character of members of the Obama administration, even now when their perfidy is well known, in what I can only infer is an homage to the 'there is no proven wrongdoing' defense that you just cannot see the irony of. With respect to the Lerner, Holder, Yates and Clinton types, to name a few, doesn't your argument that "Nevertheless, the reporting may be true. If it is true, is that a problem for you, or is it still "meh"?" relate equally well?
So we can assume that you shall never again cite any media source, since they are all compromised in some way?
I know this wasn’t directed at me but I think this is mostly true and I would add that a lot of the media with their political activist agendas are just as much of a danger to this country than whatever accusations they attempt to hoist upon Trump.
I don't know how to answer this question directly. I think it has always been this way for a certain segment of the press. Also, there was much that went unreported to protect the parties as far back as FDR...and that's as far back as I have some confidence in my knowledge base. Certainly there were significant events that went unreported or were under-reported to protect the public's sensibilities.
With the advent of the 24/7 news cycle, the internet, the failure of many local/regional papers, and the number of individuals who subsequently fashioned themselves as reporters or news agencies through blogs or other online platforms, I think the problem got much worse. We learned in the 60's that our government was lying to us and they certainly never stopped. What has changed is that reporters have no scruples in being dishonest. Half-truths and opinions reported as fact drive advertising revenue. The truth loses out as some ephemeral standard which has diminished in relevance.
I believe all that we can do is filter everything we hear or read and not to be complicit in spreading what we know to be half-truths or fall victim to our own confirmation bias.
Untrue. However, I also expect pushback and alternate citations from others.
I won't argue with how you feel about something, but I may object to your own set of facts.
That is my thinking, I get the business when I post Gateway Pundit, but I have found them to be every bit as accurate as NYT, maybe more so, but because they are new conservative media their news is maligned as somehow inferior...
The most destructive force in media is the whole pay for clicks scheme. Can't even come close to counting the times I click only to find the headline is just flat wrong and it actually proves that in the article. The power of media is too concentrated, the Internet was supposed to give many voices rise but it just aided consolidation...
We certainly have plenty of Beale wannabes already:
From the Left: Moron Joe, Donny the Lemon, Fredo Cuomo, Retching MadCow . . .
From the Right: El Rushbo, The Hannitizer (who has begun to repeat himself nearly as much as Schiff does) . . .
ps: I must spread some reputation around before giving it to Leadeye again
In the 1964 Presidential election, the three major networks put color footage of Viet Nam war casualties either directly before or directly after reporting on the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater.
They discovered they could affect the election by visually associating Goldwater with war deaths.
They have been doing similar things ever since.
They discovered they could affect the election by visually associating Goldwater with war deaths.
They have been doing similar things ever since.
Media keep telling us this is a trial. So what happens when a witness sells their story in the middle of a trial?
In a real trial? He would be be skewered on cross examination on that very fact...then the jury gets to decide how much weight to give his testimony.
...but if the jury heard any news coverage about his "story", there is likely a mistrial, but that would go for all the goofiness that is reported.
Media keep telling us this is a trial. So what happens when a witness sells their story in the middle of a trial?
Bolton doesn’t want to testify. He was just CYA-ing, hoping the WH or Senate Republicans will block his offer to testify; that way when he releases a book that spills the beans he can say “I offered to testify, but was blocked.”
