Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We need the press to do its original job, its noble calling, instead of just making money. That, and human decency, are the only ways to keep the branches in check, the people in check, capitalism in check, the MIC in check, and the religions in check. When they aren't being properly policed you get what we have now, a goddamned fucking mess.Do we not need the freedom of press like we did in 1776?
Has the country changed so that we do not need to press to keep the 3 branches of government in check, or has the press changed their goals?
It has changed dramatically. The problem as I see it, is that the press is used now as a tool of the political system. You basically have 2 separate press cores. One for the left and one for the right, most people get their information exclusively from one or the other, creating a highly partisan environment. This has created an environment that allows the multinationals controlling said press outlets, to control the message and make the normal people to concerned about the perceived difference between left and right, to notice that at the top, both the Democrat and the Republican party is in the pocket of those same multinationals. It's the old Roman "bread and games " in a modern reincarnation.Why is there "FREEDOM OF THE PRESS" in the first amendment?
What is their role today, and has it changed since the ratification of the Constitution?
We need the press to do its original job, its noble calling, instead of just making money. That, and human decency, are the only ways to keep the branches in check, the people in check, capitalism in check, the MIC in check, and the religions in check. When they aren't being properly policed you get what we have now, a goddamned fucking mess.Do we not need the freedom of press like we did in 1776?
Has the country changed so that we do not need to press to keep the 3 branches of government in check, or has the press changed their goals?
When no one is watching people will try to get away with whatever they can. America today in a nutshell.We need the press to do its original job, its noble calling, instead of just making money. That, and human decency, are the only ways to keep the branches in check, the people in check, capitalism in check, the MIC in check, and the religions in check. When they aren't being properly policed you get what we have now, a goddamned fucking mess.Do we not need the freedom of press like we did in 1776?
Has the country changed so that we do not need to press to keep the 3 branches of government in check, or has the press changed their goals?
So what you are saying is that it's the press that has changed it's goals, not America that no longer needs the press to make sure government is not corrupt?
Sell the Sizzle, Not the SteakWhy is there "FREEDOM OF THE PRESS" in the first amendment?
What is their role today, and has it changed since the ratification of the Constitution?
Selecting what news to report is a process that in itself can push an agenda. For example Huffington spends most of it's time on Trump's recent problems and doesn't do more then spend a few lines on wikileaks, while on Breitbard it would be the opposite. Both things are newsworthy but the political affiliation drives it message.The press should report what is happening on their hard news sections...and interpret those events on the OPINION and EDITORIAL page.
PERIOD.
The hard news articles should include, "WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, and WHY".
For example:
"A Florida man raped a dolphin in SeaWorld Orlando last Saturday because he finds them attractive." That is NEWS.
Then on the editorial page, "TOO MANY MEN ARE RAPING DOLPHINS" that is an OP-ED piece.
Now, if the press is changing its goals and purpose, then maybe the Constitution should change.
Selecting what news to report is a process that in itself can push an agenda. For example Huffington spends most of it's time on Trump's recent problems and doesn't do more then spend a few lines on wikileaks, while on Breitbard it would be the opposite. Both things are newsworthy but the political affiliation drives it message.The press should report what is happening on their hard news sections...and interpret those events on the OPINION and EDITORIAL page.
PERIOD.
The hard news articles should include, "WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, and WHY".
For example:
"A Florida man raped a dolphin in SeaWorld Orlando last Saturday because he finds them attractive." That is NEWS.
Then on the editorial page, "TOO MANY MEN ARE RAPING DOLPHINS" that is an OP-ED piece.
Now, if the press is changing its goals and purpose, then maybe the Constitution should change.
That would spell death for the Democrats if the media actually did their jobs.We need the press to do its original job, its noble calling, instead of just making money. That, and human decency, are the only ways to keep the branches in check, the people in check, capitalism in check, the MIC in check, and the religions in check. When they aren't being properly policed you get what we have now, a goddamned fucking mess.Do we not need the freedom of press like we did in 1776?
Has the country changed so that we do not need to press to keep the 3 branches of government in check, or has the press changed their goals?
Not at all. They'd just have to throw out the creeps and all the easy money. It can be done.That would spell death for the Democrats if the media actually did their jobs.We need the press to do its original job, its noble calling, instead of just making money. That, and human decency, are the only ways to keep the branches in check, the people in check, capitalism in check, the MIC in check, and the religions in check. When they aren't being properly policed you get what we have now, a goddamned fucking mess.Do we not need the freedom of press like we did in 1776?
Has the country changed so that we do not need to press to keep the 3 branches of government in check, or has the press changed their goals?
Breitbart is far more professional than the Huffington Post.Selecting what news to report is a process that in itself can push an agenda. For example Huffington spends most of it's time on Trump's recent problems and doesn't do more then spend a few lines on wikileaks, while on Breitbard it would be the opposite. Both things are newsworthy but the political affiliation drives it message.The press should report what is happening on their hard news sections...and interpret those events on the OPINION and EDITORIAL page.
PERIOD.
The hard news articles should include, "WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, and WHY".
For example:
"A Florida man raped a dolphin in SeaWorld Orlando last Saturday because he finds them attractive." That is NEWS.
Then on the editorial page, "TOO MANY MEN ARE RAPING DOLPHINS" that is an OP-ED piece.
Now, if the press is changing its goals and purpose, then maybe the Constitution should change.
Democrats can't win without the creeps.Not at all. They'd just have to throw out the creeps and all the easy money. It can be done.That would spell death for the Democrats if the media actually did their jobs.We need the press to do its original job, its noble calling, instead of just making money. That, and human decency, are the only ways to keep the branches in check, the people in check, capitalism in check, the MIC in check, and the religions in check. When they aren't being properly policed you get what we have now, a goddamned fucking mess.Do we not need the freedom of press like we did in 1776?
Has the country changed so that we do not need to press to keep the 3 branches of government in check, or has the press changed their goals?
WikiLeaks — Team Hillary Celebrates: ‘She Didn't Seem Like a Bitch in the Interview’ - BreitbartBreitbart is far more professional than the Huffington Post.Selecting what news to report is a process that in itself can push an agenda. For example Huffington spends most of it's time on Trump's recent problems and doesn't do more then spend a few lines on wikileaks, while on Breitbard it would be the opposite. Both things are newsworthy but the political affiliation drives it message.The press should report what is happening on their hard news sections...and interpret those events on the OPINION and EDITORIAL page.
PERIOD.
The hard news articles should include, "WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, and WHY".
For example:
"A Florida man raped a dolphin in SeaWorld Orlando last Saturday because he finds them attractive." That is NEWS.
Then on the editorial page, "TOO MANY MEN ARE RAPING DOLPHINS" that is an OP-ED piece.
Now, if the press is changing its goals and purpose, then maybe the Constitution should change.
The Huffington Post is nothing but a hub for all the lunatic sites to filter into the mainstream.
