OK...lets start afresh

[clintonhater]

Are the archives not full of examples of yellow (and yellowed) journalism? Slanted polemics intended to arise the ire of the masses? A free press has always had a mix of voices, some more objective than others, some less.

There's a PROFOUND difference between then & now. THEN (before TV & radio) every paper proclaimed proudly its party affiliation, often calling itself the "such & such Democrat or Republican," & even when they didn't, all readers knew which was backing whom; for ex., everyone knew all the Hearst papers were solidly Democratic.

NOW, all the media hide behind the lying, hypocritical, corrupt, pretense of neutrality & objectivity, despite the brazenness of their partisanship; Goebbels's Big Lie brought back to life for the 21st C.

[togor]

There's a PROFOUND difference between then & now. THEN (before TV & radio) every paper proclaimed proudly its party affiliation, often calling itself the "such & such Democrat or Republican," & even when they didn't, all readers knew which was backing whom; for ex., everyone knew all the Hearst papers were solidly Democratic.

NOW, all the media hide behind the lying, hypocritical, corrupt, pretense of neutrality & objectivity, despite the brazenness of their partisanship; Goebbels's Big Lie brought back to life for the 21st C.

Do your broad brush strokes also include covert Russian disinformation campaigns in Western social media (particularly when elections are on) as a negative? Because if they don't then you're just wasting everyone's time. But if they do then I will agree with you that we live in a chaotic new age where screens are omnipresent with whole industries exist purely to monetize taps and clicks, and I wonder if under such circumstances voters will ever again be able to see the forest for the trees.

[clintonhater]

Do your broad brush strokes also include covert Russian disinformation campaigns in Western social media (particularly when elections are on) as a negative?

It's idiotic to compare the influence on public opinion of web sites that have to be picked out of the thousands on the internet, and the daily drumbeat of major TV & radio news broadcasts, inc. some like MSN & CNN that do their dirty work 24/7.

[togor]

It's idiotic to compare the influence on public opinion of web sites that have to be picked out of the thousands on the internet, and the daily drumbeat of major TV & radio news broadcasts, inc. some like MSN & CNN that do their dirty work 24/7.

Your position boils down, as always, to...the stuff I like is good, the stuff I don't like is bad. And Trump drew an inside straight to become President, and in such a situation every card matters. So it's not idiotic and all to cite the influence of Russian disinformation on the campaign, and if in 2020 the meddling is against Trump from the state intel services of countries from that he has pissed off (not a short list) then maybe you'll sing a different tune.

[clintonhater]

Your position boils down, as always, to...the stuff I like is good, the stuff I don't like is bad.

And your position boils down as always, to...an outrageously slanted press & media is good if it hurts conservatives.

[lyman]

re the press

and keep in mind, those of us here on this website tend to know where to look for info (betting you came to this or any other gun forum to discuss firearms, correct?)

so, taking that blinder off, what does the avg person do for news,

NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN/FOX,
or if net based, MSNBC , Yahoo, Comcast, Google etc web pages,

how many of those are 'fair and balanced'?

the Wife watches NBC most nights,

poor Lester Dolt and crew are about to stroke out if Trump does not get impeached, fired, hanged or something,

ditto on the rest,

Fox was supposedly created to counter the other media sources,


I'm willing to bet the avg joe/josephine does not dig deep into stories, just listens to the headlines and forms an opinion,

[togor]

And your position boils down as always, to...an outrageously slanted press & media is good if it hurts conservatives.

Not so. You don't hear me complaining about Fox and I admit that CNN has turned itself into an anti-Trump tabloid. I accept there will be competition in media. Do you?

[lyman]

Not so. You don't hear me complaining about Fox and I admit that CNN has turned itself into an anti-Trump tabloid. I accept there will be competition in media. Do you?

there always has been,

and always will be,

[clintonhater]

there always has been,

and always will be,

So you think that Fox, the one, single, lonely, conservative voice on TV news, provides equal "competition" to ABC CBS NBC CNN MSN...? The "evening news" broadcast by the Big Three, the news programs watched by the largest numbers of viewers, is an American institution that none of the cable networks, even CNN, comes close to matching in ratings & influence. Hope you haven't forgotten that Walter Cronkite (that liberal bastard!) on the CBS evening news, is credited with turning the general public against the Vietnam War, when he declared it was "unwinnable."

[lyman]

So you think that Fox, the one, single, lonely, conservative voice on TV news, provides equal "competition" to ABC CBS NBC CNN MSN...? The "evening news" broadcast by the Big Three, the news programs watched by the largest numbers of viewers, is an American institution that none of the cable networks, even CNN, comes close to matching in ratings & influence. Hope you haven't forgotten that Walter Cronkite (that liberal bastard!) on the CBS evening news, is credited with turning the general public against the Vietnam War, when he declared it was "unwinnable."

nope, I think that the big 3 have competition amongst themselves,

fox will always be second (third or fourth ) to them, since Fox is a cable channel,

[RED]

What the haters will never admit is their guys (Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, and the rest of the crooked insiders including the FBI, the CIA, And other intelligence agencies knew who were corrupt, being investigated and could be charged and who were corrupt but would never be charged by the establishment. They had plants and moles inside the Trump campaign that could steer and sometimes hire corrupt personalities.

Meanwhile Trump was not only the new kid on the block blindly looking for people with track records of success in Washington, he was also being spied on illegally by the FBI. Trump was totally out of his water and in enemy territory.

So how could he possibly have won the election? Simple, the real Americans were (and still are) sick of the absolutel criminals that run Washington DC and have free reign to destroy America for personal and political gain.

[JohnPeeff]

Countries do what they think is in their best interest. A disinformation campaign to influence an election, I'm shocked !

[togor]

Countries do what they think is in their best interest. A disinformation campaign to influence an election, I'm shocked !

The question that follows is should it be legal for US campaigns to coordinate with foreign states for advantage in US elections. When assembling a national campaign, as many are doing now, in addition to trying to hire the best campaign manager, should they also be trying to hire the best foreign spooks in a quid pro quo? The foreigners will have something else in mind as payment than invoicing the campaign.

[lyman]

The question that follows is should it be legal for US campaigns to coordinate with foreign states for advantage in US elections. When assembling a national campaign, as many are doing now, in addition to trying to hire the best campaign manager, should they also be trying to hire the best foreign spooks in a quid pro quo? The foreigners will have something else in mind as payment than invoicing the campaign.

have we not already done that?, and not talking about trump

[togor]

have we not already done that?, and not talking about trump

Clinton foundation? Exposition would be needed. Not aware of Saudi cutouts generating fake social media accounts that are pro-Hillary. What Russia does is not IMO in our interest to go unchallenged.