Politicizing the media to further an agenda

[bripat9643]

There was some point in my life when journalism went from telling the story to telling our story. I am not sure when that was. The press hated Nixon but I dont remember him being demonized in prime time. Reagan had his fair share of negative stories, but not the overwhelming run that came later. The press covered for Clinton and Ted Kennedy, even as they excoriated Republicans like Bob Packwood. But it really hit the fan with Bush.

The press covered for Clinton and Ted Kennedy?




next

It obviously did.

 

[hoosier88]

interesting take on gun control

The Long, Racist History of Gun Control in America

..The Long, Racist History of Gun Control in America
By Niger Innis | The Blaze – 1 hr 18 mins ago....Email0Share110


The purposeful restriction of knowledge has been at the heart of untold misery and hardship in this world. Serfs were kept illiterate so as to not jeopardize the feudal system. Slaves were kept in the dark on a variety of subjects so as to not provide them the possibility of escape.

Today, knowledge remains elusive to so many because the media does not allow for facts that run contrary to the narratives they favor. Nowhere is this more evident than in the narratives concerning gun control. Though our supposed betters in the media see no reason to share this with the American public, gun control, a sanitized term for the systemic restriction of rights, has its earliest origins in racism. The concept is simple enough: enable the selected group to remain armed while working to disarm the unselected group. In America, this has been mainly black, Hispanic and immigrant populations.

(My bold)

Sorry, missed this one @ first. Immigrant populations would properly be everybody after the Native Peoples walked over in misty pre-history. But I assume you're exempting the European explorers/colonists - the Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, Brits? Do you want to define the immigrants as only those who came to the US only post-1848 or so? & if so, Why?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There was some point in my life when journalism went from telling the story to telling our story. I am not sure when that was. The press hated Nixon but I dont remember him being demonized in prime time. Reagan had his fair share of negative stories, but not the overwhelming run that came later. The press covered for Clinton and Ted Kennedy, even as they excoriated Republicans like Bob Packwood. But it really hit the fan with Bush.

The press covered for Clinton and Ted Kennedy?



next

It obviously did.

Who sank Ted Kennedy's Presidential aspirations in 1979? Your liberal media

With Clinton, who pick up the story from fringe sources and ran with it? Your liberal media

Without the msm Ted Kennedy would have become President in 1980 (Reagan beat Carter with a small minority in 1980) and Clinton would not have had so many bullshit fights on his hands that involved his wife, his aide's suicide, his personal life, .....and on and on and on...

 

[francoHFW]

Corporate cowards ABC, CBS, and NBC News programs have many times as many viewers as Fox, dupes. Their fault is giving both sides arguments as if the Pub ones have any truth to them, and don't say what is factual (coming end of journalism?).

They're scared of losing the 40% idiot loudmouth dupe viewers, sponsors afraid of Sean Rushbeck led boycotts and character assassination attacks- a disgraceful chase after controversy and ratings....

 

[hoosier88]

FOX News Big Wig Chris Wallace admitted FOX is there to balance out a perceived liberal bias. That is an admission FOX is a conservatively biased news org.



gawd, people are stupid

(My bold)

Admitted? I always assumed that C. Wallace was proud that FOX was out there to entertain the masses. Is there anything that Sir Rupert Murdoch wouldn't do to get one leg over on the public? In the UK, his organs hacked the cell phones & messaging systems & v-mails & e-mails of the famous, near-famous, politicos, & the dead & missing. That shows an enterprising spirit, to be sure.

MO, Murdoch simply wants to be the loudest voice in the braying choir. I don't think ideology - other than worshipping Mammon, perhaps - has anything to do with it. Murdoch saw a public that needed pandering, & that was willing to believe the unlikeliest swill, so long as their collective egos were stroked. Et voila!

But does the US Constitution really enshrine the media so that we can all gasp @ the heart-rending pleas of a mother to her (unknown to her) dead child to please come home or @ least call? Stay tuned, Volk, degenerate minds want to know ...

 

[francoHFW]

The press covered for Clinton and Ted Kennedy?



next

It obviously did.

Who sank Ted Kennedy's Presidential aspirations in 1979? Your liberal media

With Clinton, who pick up the story from fringe sources and ran with it? Your liberal media

Without the msm Ted Kennedy would have become President in 1980 (Reagan beat Carter with a small minority in 1980) and Clinton would not have had so many bullshit fights on his hands that involved his wife, his aide's suicide, his personal life, .....and on and on and on...

Without Kennedy, Carter could have gotten some Reaganesque things done and been reelected, and we could have missed the hate and pandering to the rich disaster that was and is Reaganism.

Liberal Media my butt, just cowardly and controversy and ratings mad more and more....amoral marketing majors and loudmouth morons,, not liberals running things for years now. That's the problem.

 

[Spoonman]

FOX News Big Wig Chris Wallace admitted FOX is there to balance out a perceived liberal bias. That is an admission FOX is a conservatively biased news org.





gawd, people are stupid

and fox news has the highest ratings because people are sick of the liberal bias

Fox news and Here Comes Honey Boo Boo has the highest ratings for the same reason...ppl love stupid

no wonder your posts come so highly recommended

 

[Spoonman]

Corporate cowards ABC, CBS, and NBC News programs have many times as many viewers as Fox, dupes. Their fault is giving both sides arguments as if the Pub ones have any truth to them, and don't say what is factual (coming end of journalism?).

They're scared of losing the 40% idiot loudmouth dupe viewers, sponsors afraid of Sean Rushbeck led boycotts and character assassination attacks- a disgraceful chase after controversy and ratings....

uhm, they are also prime time network. that may have something to do with it

 

[buckeye45_73]

It obviously did.

Who sank Ted Kennedy's Presidential aspirations in 1979? Your liberal media

With Clinton, who pick up the story from fringe sources and ran with it? Your liberal media

Without the msm Ted Kennedy would have become President in 1980 (Reagan beat Carter with a small minority in 1980) and Clinton would not have had so many bullshit fights on his hands that involved his wife, his aide's suicide, his personal life, .....and on and on and on...

Without Kennedy, Carter could have gotten some Reaganesque things done and been reelected, and we could have missed the hate and pandering to the rich disaster that was and is Reaganism.

Liberal Media my butt, just cowardly and controversy and ratings mad more and more....amoral marketing majors and loudmouth morons,, not liberals running things for years now. That's the problem.

Oh my God, you blamed Carter's loss on Kenedy

and then say Reagan's accomplishments would have been done by Carter


Jesus you're an idiot....no wonder you usually just say "pub crap"

 

[bripat9643]

The press covered for Clinton and Ted Kennedy?



next

It obviously did.

Who sank Ted Kennedy's Presidential aspirations in 1979? Your liberal media

They did? I thought is was the fact that he's guilty of manslaughter.

With Clinton, who pick up the story from fringe sources and ran with it? Your liberal media

Nope. The media ignored the story until right-wing media published the irrefutable evidence that Clinton was getting hummers in the Oval Office.

Without the msm Ted Kennedy would have become President in 1980 (Reagan beat Carter with a small minority in 1980) and Clinton would not have had so many bullshit fights on his hands that involved his wife, his aide's suicide, his personal life, .....and on and on and on...

51% - 41% is a "small minority?" Turds like you are calling Obama's 51%-48 % victory a landslide.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh my God, you blamed Carter's loss on Kenedy

and then say Reagan's accomplishments would have been done by Carter


Jesus you're an idiot....no wonder you usually just say "pub crap"

Libs will never admit the media is biased. If they did, the propaganda wouldn't work any longer. Who is going to believe something when the source tells you it's bullshit?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Oh my God, you blamed Carter's loss on Kenedy

and then say Reagan's accomplishments would have been done by Carter


Jesus you're an idiot....no wonder you usually just say "pub crap"

Libs will never admit the media is biased.

​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh my God, you blamed Carter's loss on Kenedy

and then say Reagan's accomplishments would have been done by Carter


Jesus you're an idiot....no wonder you usually just say "pub crap"

Libs will never admit the media is biased. If they did, the propaganda wouldn't work any longer. Who is going to believe something when the source tells you it's bullshit?

No Libs acknowledge bias exist. They just don't get into the conspiracies. We usually leave that up to the left wing nut jobs who will battle you guys til hell freezes over .. from global warming

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It obviously did.

Who sank Ted Kennedy's Presidential aspirations in 1979? Your liberal media

They did? I thought is was the fact that he's guilty of manslaughter.

With Clinton, who pick up the story from fringe sources and ran with it? Your liberal media

Nope. The media ignored the story until right-wing media published the irrefutable evidence that Clinton was getting hummers in the Oval Office.

Without the msm Ted Kennedy would have become President in 1980 (Reagan beat Carter with a small minority in 1980) and Clinton would not have had so many bullshit fights on his hands that involved his wife, his aide's suicide, his personal life, .....and on and on and on...

51% - 41% is a "small minority?" Turds like you are calling Obama's 51%-48 % victory a landslide.

shit post


good bye

 

[Misty]

FOX News Big Wig Chris Wallace admitted FOX is there to balance out a perceived liberal bias. That is an admission FOX is a conservatively biased news org.





gawd, people are stupid

Balance is not a conservative bias. Balance is equal time sent on issues concerning all sides. Fox reports word for word things off the AP just as the MSM does, but they also include broader information and opinions of the left, the right, and the middle.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

FOX News Big Wig Chris Wallace admitted FOX is there to balance out a perceived liberal bias. That is an admission FOX is a conservatively biased news org.



gawd, people are stupid

Balance is not a conservative bias. Balance is equal time sent on issues concerning all sides. Fox reports word for word things off the AP just as the MSM does, but they also include broader information and opinions of the left, the right, and the middle.

read the memo dopey!

Next you'll be claiming FOX is Fair and Balanced just because they claim it is so.

The fact that FOX uses a news feed is not a case against their being biased, it is a screen to hide behind. Listen to what Wallace actually admitted to

[youtube]kN-W2_VQba4&NR=1[/youtube]

4 minutes into it....

What is the other side of the liberal agenda? A balanced agenda?

 

[bripat9643]

Oh my God, you blamed Carter's loss on Kenedy

and then say Reagan's accomplishments would have been done by Carter


Jesus you're an idiot....no wonder you usually just say "pub crap"

Libs will never admit the media is biased. If they did, the propaganda wouldn't work any longer. Who is going to believe something when the source tells you it's bullshit?

No Libs acknowledge bias exist. They just don't get into the conspiracies. We usually leave that up to the left wing nut jobs who will battle you guys til hell freezes over .. from global warming

No one ever complained it was a conspiracy, numb nuts. It's the natural result of government brainwashing of the people who go into the media.

 

[bripat9643]

Who sank Ted Kennedy's Presidential aspirations in 1979? Your liberal media

They did? I thought is was the fact that he's guilty of manslaughter.



Nope. The media ignored the story until right-wing media published the irrefutable evidence that Clinton was getting hummers in the Oval Office.

Without the msm Ted Kennedy would have become President in 1980 (Reagan beat Carter with a small minority in 1980) and Clinton would not have had so many bullshit fights on his hands that involved his wife, his aide's suicide, his personal life, .....and on and on and on...

51% - 41% is a "small minority?" Turds like you are calling Obama's 51%-48 % victory a landslide.

shit post


good bye

In other words, you have nothing to contradict it with.

Thanks for playing!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

bripat, please take a break from the keyboard and console

 

[OriginalShroom]

Oh my God, you blamed Carter's loss on Kenedy

and then say Reagan's accomplishments would have been done by Carter


Jesus you're an idiot....no wonder you usually just say "pub crap"

Libs will never admit the media is biased. If they did, the propaganda wouldn't work any longer. Who is going to believe something when the source tells you it's bullshit?

No Libs acknowledge bias exist. They just don't get into the conspiracies. We usually leave that up to the left wing nut jobs who will battle you guys til hell freezes over .. from global warming

I can understand why you would want to forget all about the "Journolist" scandal.

Left wing media hacks plotting how they would be presenting the news in their various publications and media outlets really looked ugly.